Reading the NY Times online the other day, I was drawn toward a tailored “Recommended for You” item listed to the side of the screen (apparently a benefit of my subscription) about a Palestinian political activist being held in administrative detention, who is on a hunger strike which may lead to his death. This “Lede” blog story makes reference to a historic parallel in Northern Ireland, with the fatal hunger strike of Bobby Sands and other IRA prisoners in 1981, and the fact that a current leader of the IRA’s political arm, Sinn Fein, has called for the Palestinian’s release.
I’m troubled by the practice of administrative detention, but the fact that this individual, Khader Adnan, is evidently a political activist for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an extreme terrorist organization with much civilian Jewish blood on its hands, gives me pause from the other direction. So I’m not arguing strongly for either side in this matter, but I do hope that his life is spared and that administrative detention rules are relaxed enough to allow attorneys for detainees to effectively represent their clients in court.
What moves me to write is that this first post links to a 2010 Lede blog post by the same NY Times blogger, Robert Mackey, “Thinking Outside the Two-State Box,” (Sept. 7, 2010), which mentions right-wing elements within Israel calling for a one-state solution involving a single political entity for Israel, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, but excluding the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip would be excluded in order to insure either a Jewish majority or a more equal ethnic balance between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, and presumably to isolate Hamas. This provision alone would probably make it a non-starter from the Palestinian point of view, but the unrealistic excision of Gaza is curiously not considered by the blogger.
One aches for a solution to a long-standing conflict that continues to bedevil Arabs and Jews on both sides of the divide, and in which neither side seems capable of making adequate concessions or accommodations to the other. Although recent Israeli governments have made territorial concessions and offers, they have still been too broadly ensconced in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to satisfy minimal Palestinian needs and aspirations; and settlements expand in spurts but inexorably, on territory claimed by the Palestinians.
My general belief has been that a repartition of Palestine into two states is the only solution, and that one state–given the history of violence and the ethnic, religious and cultural differences between Israelis and Palestinians–is no solution at all. Yet the intractable nature of the conflict to-date leaves me open to the possibility of “outside the box” ideas. Still, it’s up to the one-state advocates to convince the majority of Israelis and Palestinians how one state would work.
Mackey concludes with several paragraphs quoting the late Tony Judt’s controversial NY Review of Books article in 2003 where he suggests the “unthinkable”; but Judt is highly abstract and meta-historical in this article. He overdraws a conclusion that Israel, as an “ethno-religious state” is “an anachronism,” referring to the European trend toward unification—a project which has recently stalled to the point where it may even reverse itself in the face of the current financial crisis. Curiously, Judt did not consider the reverse trend toward new-old ethnic states with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the 1990s, nor was he yet aware of the sharpened ethnic divide developing between Walloons and Flemish within the very administrative seat of a “united Europe,” Belgium.
Would a single Israeli-Palestinian state be a unitary formation, with one parliament and cabinet (as suggested in the Lede blog post), or would it be more realistic to have a confederation? And if it’s a confederation, how would it deal administratively and politically with the Israeli-Jewish settlers within East Jerusalem and the West Bank? If it is recognized as a bi-national arrangement–which it must be–would both Israel’s Law of Return and a Palestinian Right of Return operate? I would think they would have to, if the interests of both peoples are to be dealt with in a single country—but how?
In the end, if this is the way to overcome decades of mutual violence, distrust and hatred, I’m all for it. But the very fact of this protracted and bitter conflict argues against it. Again, the burden is upon advocates of one state to convince everybody, especially most Israelis and Palestinians, how it could work.
In my view, there is a simple enough solution to get past Israeli objections, though the cultural matter — convincing folks that it’s in their best interest — is the hard part. Israel lacks a formal constitution, and in its absence has built state institutions and legal rulings on Zionist principles. The result has been an ethnocracy that does indeed make Israel an anachronism. If we learnt anything from the shoah it ought to have been that ethnic nationalism is a bad idea. So why not a constitution which locks in the Jewish character of the state, as reflected in its official holidays, language, etc. Place the right of return there, and include language that enshrines the special connexion the Jewish people have with the land. Then, eliminate all legal discrimination. Enshrine also a recognition of Palestinian national rights, include a right of return for them as well, and try to develop both communities equally. By ensuring the survival of a distinctly Jewish polity which can serve as a safe haven and champion the interests of Jews around the world, yet also becoming a nation like any other, the Zionist dream can at last be put to rest. For Zionism did indeed create a Jewish state, but it has been a dismal failure in its goal of normalizing a Jewish nation amongst the others. The basic reason for a single state is similarly clear to me: The conflict has shifted from the political to the cultural realm, with the increasing presence of ideological & specifically religious settlers in the West Bank. This is the Biblical heartland — giving it up means abandoning hope that their actions will bring the messiah. Does anyone believe that they will? And that if they won’t, that any Israeli coalition could pass a peace plan? Peace is presently impossible, and with each passing year Israel grows closer to an ultimate choice between abandoning democracy and living as an apartheid state or ceasing to exist as a Jewish state. I would argue that the way out of this mess is to -redefine- what it means for the state to be Jewish, and to lock in the essential elements in law, while simultaneously fulfilling the founders hopes for a vibrant democratic state — only this time for all its peoples, not just for one of them.
Liam, From the very moment Israel was established, it was not accepted. You mention the right f return, I can think of scenarios around the world where refugees have fled during confict, not being abel to return 2 come in mind, the part ion of India and Pakistan and the war between Armenia and Azerbijan over Negorno Karabach. I do not hear demand of the right of returna s a result of those conflicts.
Liam, the Shoah has not an example of ethnic nationalism. The Shoah was a example of the to and out desire for the Nazis t extermianst Jews all over Europe. Ethnic nationalism is expressed al over the world and it seem here that you embrace Palestinians nationalism while dismissing Jewish nationalism.
I agree with the above—there is similarity of concepts between Jewish law and Islamic law. The Jews would become a minority but perhaps their interests could be safeguarded the way minority Muslim interests is safeguarded in India which has a majority Hindu population and yet is a democracy……….
However, I would also include an agenda of reconcilliation in which the Jewish people are actually shown the real conditions of the Palestinians so that they can begin a process of understanding and tolerance……..
Jews and Muslims worship the ONE God who is Most Compassionate and Most Merciful. If we can only keep this in mind………..
There’s a large dose of wishful thinking in the one-state position. What divides Jews and Arabs is much more than religion.
Liam’s statement here is ironic: “By ensuring the survival of a distinctly Jewish polity which can serve as a safe haven and champion the interests of Jews around the world, yet also becoming a nation like any other, the Zionist dream can at last be put to rest.” This actually defines a fulfillment of the Zionist dream, but perhaps this is what Liam was really saying.
But, despite my doubts (and those of most Israelis and Palestinians, who still want their own nation-states), I think it’s useful for all of us to think hard about how one-state might work, or how two states could work more equitably for both peoples. So I welcome your comments.
The best solution the Palestinians can hope for is the West Bank and Gaza becoming part of a confederated state wit Jordan. Jordan’s population is almost 50% Palestinian. I see no reason why this should not be considered
I’d be all in favor of a Palestinian state confederated with Jordan; I agree with Don that this makes the most sense. But the government of Jordan doesn’t want this, and we don’t know how most Palestinians see this. And even if this is back on the table (it was considered an option until the late ’80s or early ’90s), it still leaves open where to draw the exact borders with Israel, and how to deal with the difficult issues of Jerusalem, Israeli settlers and Palestinian refugees. In other words, it’s not quite the easy cure-all that Don thinks.
The refugees is the real problem and it could have been resolved long ago. The problem is that the Arab League did want ti to be resolved. They wanted it to remain the throne in the side of the conflict ti keep it fresh. I cannot figure out any refugee conflict kept so hot. There are Tibetan refugees silting in India and Nepal and we hear nothing about them, There are Azeri refugees left over for the Armenia -Azerbijan war that we hear nothing of. The refugee issue resolved itself after WW 2, Jews from Arab countries were tossed out of their home and found their new home. Millions of refugees fled east and west when India was portioned and we hear nothing about it I just cannot understand why the Palestinian refugee issue remains alive if not for a plan by the Arab League. It is not realistic for hem to return to what was their home. They fled as a result of war not concerted ethnic cleansing.
Of course the Jordanian gov’t does not want a confederated state, but that might change with demographic. What about settlers, juts like Arabs remained in Israel after independence, settlers should have that same option.I doubt they would take it but it could be n the table.
Ralph: That is what I was saying. As a way to normalize the Jewish people, Zionism has been a failure. It can only fulfill its promise at this point if it is let go; clinging to it only deepens the isolation of Israel and threatens to make it a permanent pariah.
Don: Israel was accepted right from the start. It gained international recognition the same day. It had behind-the-scenes acceptance from two Arab states, and offers of peace negotiations from the beginning of the 1950s, which were consistently rebuffed.
As far as a right of return being the norm, of course it isn’t. But if we’re to accept a 2000-year-old claim by the Jewish poeople, it seems only fair to accept the contemporary claims of the dispossessed. Mutual recognition of each others’ nationalism seems the only sensible way to ease distrust and build a common future.
Regarding the Jordanian option, this was taken off the table in the 1970s in the Rabat declaration. No-one in the region would accept it, least of all the Palestinians. It would have been a nice idea and could have been the solution — Jordan suggested it as a basis of peace many times. The settlement enterprise made this untenable and aggravated Palestinian nationalism beyond the point where it could work. Besides, did you miss the conflict between that nationalism and Jordan in the ‘black September’ civil war? The tension between Jordan and the Palestinians has long roots now.
Finally, of course the shoah is an example of ethnic nationalism, simply taken to extremes. All one needs do is read the statements of the Nazi ideologues! Massacres in the name of nationalism are not unheard of, you know…
Liam
1. Seeing how Zionism created a successful and thriving Jewish state, Where is the failure?. I cannot understand for the life of me why Zionism is such a dirty word. It is not unlike any national movement since the Age of Enlightenment, the period it emerged.
2, Israel was not accepted by its neighbors. IN the even of independence, it was invaded on all
side. International recognition means little if the neighbors its neighbor rejected its existence
3. Mutual recognition does not mean a flood of so called refugees coming over the borders with millions that would never be resolved. If return is not the “norm” why alloy it to the one and only Jewish state
4. Jordan, once part of the Palestine Mandate, is now 50% Palestinian. What I find amazing is that you seem to think Palestinians would get along better with Jews than with fellow Arabs.
5. You are intact comparing Zionism to Nazism. Otherwise why would you even enter them into you narrative. Massacred in the name of nationalism are not unheard of, but Nazism was not juts bout nationalism. it was about being the superior race, exterminating their main nemesis, Jews and subjugating the rest. Nazis was a Fascist movement, not a national movement. I suggest you research that a bot further. I find it strange that you used Nazism as an example. It’s a trice that many of those who dispose israel seem to use
Zionism is not the problem here. Jews, like multitudes of ethic groups have had the own movements that resulted in a sovereign nation. I am almost assuming that you are not Jewish and for some reason are directing for wrath at one national movement to a point that you compare it too Nazis. Nice use of the term “shoah”. It almost make you feel that you are mispacha ( family).
European and Russian Jews started arriving in the region from 1882 but large influx happening after ww1 (1914) leading to clashes between the new population and the original inhabitants due to a lack of resources. (1929 Hebron massacre) Which led to the formation of the Haganah a Jewish self defence group later split into the Irgun and stern gang—terrorist organizations.(1931&1939). These groups , aling with British soldiers, terrorize Palestinan villagers.
This whole mess began because the U.S./British decided arbitrarily to take land from one set of people and give it to another without consulting with the people already living there. (In fact—the British broke the promise made to the Ottomans)
As for success of Isreal—that is debatable since it gets 1 billion in U.S. Aid — not counting military grants (3 billion), loan guarentees (9 billion) and gifts or charity from Jewish and Christian organizations.(–estimated at 1 billiion in 1997)…..etc…..etc…..
(some numbers taken from an article in the washington post)
Anon, you seem to be throwing a whole lot of disconnected information in to the mix. The US was hardly involved in the Middle East until the 1950’s. I M not quite sure what kind of promises the UK made to the Ottomans, considering they were on opposite sides in WW 1. They fought some nasty battles leading to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I don’r think the Britis were in a giving mood with regard to the Turks. Oh Anon, WW 1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918.
As for the 1929 Hebron massacre, you do know that it was Arab kiling Jews who had resided there for centuries. Call it the ethnic cleansing of Hebron.The same thing was replicated i Gush Etzion.
Israeli’s success i measured in its remarkable development and absorption of Jews for all over the world. It is a high tech magnet into Middle East while its neighbors only survive for the oil extracted from their sand.
Weel I wil give you credit with one thing, You did not compare Israel to Nazi Germany like Liam did
Going around and around and around the same arguments, historical or otherwise, over and over again is just more of the same, and it’s been going on a long time. In my 2011 book No More Enemies (just Google it), I try to present a far-reaching new paradigm that on many levels the world is now moving toward: a recognition, as a design concept for the planet, that “enemies” is not an idea that serves us well any more, as a species. Once an evolutionary tool, now it’s an albatross. Between the Internet (a proto nervous system for all humanity) and various medical imaging technologies (that allow us, in laboratory conditions, in real time, to compare the effect on our minds and bodies of exposure to cultural memes featuring hate vs. those featuring cooperation, as in different video clips, e.g.), combined with modern theories of participatory decision-making (showing that involvement of all stakeholders leads to sustainable solutions while excluding some leads to failure) — we are on the cusp of a major paradigm shift. The enemy we are trying to exclude, exterminate, or warehouse out of sight is precisely the player-partner we need to get to the next level together. The path out of perennial bloodbath and failed “peace” processes begins with this paradigm shift. Check out the book online…
I’ve been over this issue again and again in my mind, originally starting from the premise that the Jewish state was a good thing in the light of the Shoah and the long-standing anti-Semitism of Christian Europe, then looking at it from one perspective or another.
I’ve come to the conclusion that desirable or not, a one-state Israel + Palestine is inevitable. The only question is, what state? If we permit the continual slow-motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians – and of course the lightning-fast ethnic cleansing during the war that Israel wants with the Iranians – Israel loses its legitimacy to a degree not seen previously, and the (future) ethnic cleansing of the Jewish Israelis becomes frighteningly likely.
I don’t want either.
So we need to work out possibilities to get both sides working together. And that is going to be the biggest challenge. We need to unhinge the well-oiled machinery of repression and oppression and disentangle personal loyalties to Israelis and Palestinians identification with the existing structures.
So far the major source of hope I’ve seen has been the way a lot of Israelis have been willing to work together with Palestinians to combat and defeat the Apartheid Wall. I’m hoping that the loyalties built up during that will last no matter what. In a way – if you know of and understand the late seventies and early eighties Maori protests in New Zealand – you can see a new nation being built.
I read this op-ed and the related comments on the day after Baroness Tonge (Liberal Democrat, UK Coalitiont) was reported to have resigned from her party after being criticised for stating “Beware Israel. One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving £70 billion a year to Israel to support what I call America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East – that is Israel. One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA, ‘Enough is enough.’ It will not go on forever; it will not go on forever. Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown.” There is now a clearly recognisable strand of opinion that has sympathy with her view.
Israel is undoubtedly a very powerful adversary for its neighbours -at the moment- but the truth is that it does not have secure internationally-recognised borders. Its borders are armistice lines, recognised ‘de facto’ not ‘de jure.’ However much goodwill exists for a peace settlement, there are implacable divisions in the opposing ideologies which characterise the Zionist character of Israeli society and the constitutional objectives of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran etc.
A two-state solution implies that Israel cedes control of much, if not all, of the West Bank and does not guarantee long-term peace. A confederation seems attractive but Israel would still seek to ensure that its partner was demilitarised. I’m not sure that this would be a sufficiently ‘equal’ relationship to stand for long.
My instinct, therefore is that Israel should annexe the West Bank and Gaza and give full citizenship to all of the inhabitants of the unified territory. The right of return would have to be managed for both Palestinians and Jews to ensure that the demographic profile of the country was not unfairly distorted. The transition to a unified State would be a difficult process and would have to be managed in stages. It would ‘alter’ the character of Israel as a uniquely Jewish state but without a solution like this, the existential threat will always remain.
The plain fact is that force of arms cannot be a long-term guarantee of the security of Israel. A fair and just peace settlement has that potential.
Reg, Why is Zionism, A Jewish national movement a dirty word to you? I am not quite sure what you nationality is, but I am sure it had a national movement as well. Was that dirty word for you as well?
Can I ask a practical question? Putting to one side the respective merits of a one-state vs two state ‘solution’……… is anyone prepared to delineate the transitional process of attaining a one-state solution in detail plus a comprehensive policy of handling the vast number of roadblocks en route. In other words, we are all at point A…..how do we get to point B.