Let me state for the record that I am neither a two-stater nor a one-stater nor a no-stater.
The only long-term resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I favor is that both peoples – Israelis and Palestinians – ultimately live in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River in peace, and with full democratic rights. I don’t much care how that is achieved so long as it is through negotiations and not violence.
However, in the real world and right now, I think the two-state solution is the only possible one and that it is the one that needs to be pursued.
I don’t believe that it is likely that it will be, with any seriousness anyway. And that is because the Israeli government, backed by the United States, won’t even consider (1) dismantling the settlements, (2) withdrawing from the West Bank, (3) ending the blockade of Gaza, and (4) sharing Jerusalem — and those are the prerequisites for a Palestinian state.
Given all that, even if Hamas which is, along with Netanyahu’s government the other obstacle to two states, announced tomorrow that it fully supports Israel’s right to security within the pre-’67 lines, nothing would happen.
So, while I support the two-state solution, I don’t believe it can be implemented unless and until the United States conditions our support for Israel – both aid and diplomatic support such as we provide both at the United Nations and on such matters as Iran — on Israel agreeing to negotiate toward fully ending the occupation.
So why don’t I favor pursuing the one-state option instead?
That is an easy one. Given that the Netanyahu government refuses to even consider withdrawing from the West Bank (or even freezing settlements there) in order to achieve the two-state solution, it is ridiculous to even contemplate that it would consider allowing all of Israel itself to be folded into one Israeli/Palestinian state.
The logic of those who say that Israel has destroyed the two-state option and that now only one state makes sense is analogous to this: a child asks his parents for a cookie before dinner. They say “no.” He responds: “Then how about three cookies.”
It makes no sense.
Some one-state supporters argue that one-state could be established if Palestinians simply sought Israeli citizenship rather than an end to the occupation. Soon there would be a Palestinian majority that would use its democratic rights to change the nature of Israel from a Jewish state to a state for all the people who live there. The United Nations would guarantee those rights.
Except it would never happen.
Israel might agree to annex all the territories but it would never agree to grant Palestinian citizens full rights. The Palestinians of Ramallah, Nablus and Jenin would simply revert to the position they were in before the Palestinian Authority was created in 1993.
They would be living under occupation without democratic rights. And, of course, the United Nations would not be able to do anything because the United States would use its veto. I already can hear the argument from the United States ambassador to the United Nation: “The United States has to veto the resolution granting Palestinians democratic rights inside Israel because ‘one size fits all’ democracy does not apply to Israel which is surrounded by enemies….” Etc. Etc.
In short, talking about one state is simply a formula for maintaining the status quo.
The only hope for now is working to achieve the two-state solution. The process would need to start with the United States demanding an Israeli settlement freeze and not backing down as in the past. Once the freeze is in effect, the Palestinians would return to negotiations. Hamas would have the option of joining once an agreement is reached.
Yes, it sounds far-fetched. But negotiations along these lines have actually made progress in the past, most recently under the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert.
The only progress toward one state (if that is what anyone wants to call it) is when Israel expands settlements which will lead inevitably to one state called Israel with stateless and rights-less Palestinians living inside it.
The United States should insist on negotiations toward a two-state solution now and that means applying pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to start talking. Once two states are achieved, and they actually have been living side by side in peace for a decade or two, one-state might look like a serious option. For now, it barely qualifies as a dream.
I seriously doubt Israel could go back to pre-Oslo and get away with it. Too much light has been shined on the conflict, and the world’s patience with Israel is just about up. It would face BDS on a massive scale. Even the U.S., assuming a nutty Republican is not in the white house, would not stand in the way of UN resolutions, as long as they’re not too “extreme.” Plus, the consciousness of many Jews in the U.S. has been raised to a point nowhere seen 20-25 years ago. That would give the administration political cover.
Israel would either have to end the occupation or grant all Palestinians voting rights or else become a total pariah. With that facing them, enough Israel voters would support a government that would make a viable two state deal.
There is a difference between the rationale for expecting a one state solution and the rationale for advocating such a solution. A viable Palestinian state within the parameters set by Israel — is not possible. To get a somewhat better deal fo Palerstine, world opinion and Us policy might do well to focus upon the apartheid circumstances which could be addressed in a one state resolution,
It’s like we could have had a smaller bonanza for the health industry giants than what we have under Obama care, if we had been noisier about single payer.
Hey Jeff, What do the Palestinians have to do to achieve peace. I mean,it’s a 2 way street. I think the world is quietly fed up with 75 years of whining by the Palestinians.
What do Palestinians have to do? I presume you don’t mean options like emigrating or committing suicide. They have to recognize Israel as a state, not a Jewish State because there are many Arabs living in Israel, but as a sovereign entity with the right to borders and peace with its neighbors. What else? The PLO was ready and willing in this regard which is why the second Lebanon War was instigated by Israel precisely because it looked as though Israel would indeed have a “partner” and would HAVE TO negotiate the WB and Gaza after all, which Israel certainly didn’t want to do. Better to slaughter some thousands of civilians in Lebanon than negotiate away occupied land destined for annexation. Zionists are liars. They have lied from day one of the enterprise and continue to do so to this day.
The one state solution is best from the Zionist point of view because — and this is the reality of the situation — while incorporating non-Jews without political rights (Bennet), Zionists will simply continue to make life unlivable for WB occupants AND for Arab Israeli citizens. In the fullness of time, the oppressed minority will whither away. That is the one state “plan.” These people are cowards, cheats, liars, thieves and bullies and that is their plan.
1. Israel is a Jewish state with an Arab minority she has full rights. It was crafted as a Jewish homeland. The Egypyt is know as the Unite ARAB Republic. Jordan is the HASHIMITE kingdom. Israel has a sovereign right to define what it is and demand its recognition.
2, The 2nd Lebanon war was triggered by a brash Hezbollah over the border operation where Israelis soldiers were kidnapped and killed. The PLO has nothing t do with it. Hezbollah then showered Israel with Ketushas. Israel has EVERY right to defend its borders.
3. No one wants a one state solution except you.Jews fought and died for their homeland and no outsider will deny that right. It is people like you how seem to make the need all the more important. I would never truts the likes of you to preserve my rights seeing as you base your assessments on on lies.
Do a better job next time.
It takes two sides to have peace. The only way to have peace is if the Arabs want peace. They don’t. They say so. Read the Palestinian Charter, which says openly that any peace treaty will be utilized to prepare for the final war of annihilation of Israel to start. Then the Hamas Charter, and the Hizbulla, etc. After the Palestinian Charter was adopted, I asked Feisal Husseini in a meeting in London, how can we be expected to believe any peace treaty will be kept. He didn’t answer. So I asked Abba Eban, who also lectured at this meeting. He also didn’t answer. In the 1930’s, Jews ignored what Hitler was saying. The result: the mass murder of 6 million Jews. NEVER ignore people who say they want to kill you.
However, there IS a way to peace, but it is NOT the common division of the land. See, for instance, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3548/jerusalem-israel-capital-islamic-prophecy
Arabs know this. They ignore it, because their wish to conquer overcomes their ideal of submission to Allah. It is only when Arabs return to true Islam, submitting to the will of Allah, only then will peace be possible.
Arabs don’t want peace? Israel CONTROLS the entire game on the ground: If there is no peace it is because Israel doesn’t want peace, never really did. Israel has expanded through war not peace, aggressive war, not defensive war (remember it “expanded” not “defended”). War has been opportunity to steal land and that is why there is no peace. Arabs want justice, not war. They want reparations for the theft of Palestine by foreigners. Any mention of Hitler is ridiculous. Are you fast asleep or just stupid.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261990/Aging-Palestinian-radicals-offer-defiance-regrets.html?pg=all
“Would you believe me if I tell you that if I had to do it all over, I would?” said Mohammed Oudeh, architect of Black September’s 1972 Olympics attack that left 11 Israeli athletes dead.
“But maybe, just maybe, we should have shown some flexibility. Back in our days, it was ‘the whole of Palestine or nothing,’ but we should have accepted a Palestinian state next to Israel.”
It never matters what is SAID. For example, Israel SAYS it wants peace but what it means is that it wants absolute surrender of the whole of Palestine. Israel SAYS it wants peace and yet instigates all the wars except ’73. Israel SAYS it wants peace, but it continues to steal other people’s property and rights. Israel SAYS it is a democracy but millions of Arabs under its control are disenfranchised. Israel SAYS that the ’67 borders are “not defensible” but it defended them very well in 1967. Israel SAYS that Palestinians abandoned their homes of their own volition in 48: Who can believe that people would willingly give up their property knowing full well that Zionists wanted that property? Then, Israel won’t let them return which is identical to pushing them out in the first place. Israel and Zionism is a lie from top to bottom, a loathsome lie. And so are you.
I don’t see how a single state results in equal rights for all. It results in in equally PROMISED rights, but not equally ACHIEVED rights or equally PROTECTED rights. Muslims and Christians would continue to enjoy rights protected by self-interest on behalf of the government. They already have this as a result of the fact that the global population is 45% Muslim and Christian – it would be further augmented with a joint government 50% Muslim and Christian. Rights of Jews would change from being protected as a matter of self-interest to being protected as a matter of inconsequential promise – promises that there are no consequences for breaking. The global population is less than 1/4 of 1% Jewish – not much consequence from that (literal) quarter. Nothing could be done to prevent Muslims and Christians from surrounding countries from extorting the Jews in the area, or suppressing their free expression.
Rights of reparation and repatriation would be similarly lopsided. Christians and Muslims would get full repatriation. Jews would get the right to beg for reparations from countries over whom they would have no leverage whatsoever. Or they could return to countries of previous opression as vestigial minorities available for any violence anyone chose to render them. I don’t see any equality there either.
Currently, we have equality in the matter of wartime reparations. Jewish refugees get nothing, and Muslim and Christian refugees get nothing, also We could maintain equality, with far greater social justice, if all the refugees got reparations. As a minority myself, I would be amazed and delighted to see some actual equality that was actually equal. Like THAT’s gonna happen. Observation on human nature: Notice that equality is a wonderful thing, the sole of all that is good, when it entitles you to share in your neighbor’s good fortune, and a monstrous, ridiculous absurdity when it means that you might have to share in your neighbor’s privations.
I can see where somebody would defend the inequities as natural, and consistent with any of several theories of social justice. I’m just saying that when one group gets reparations and well-founded security, and the other gets to beg on bended knee for both, it’s not equal. It should be called the privilege that it is , and not the equality that it’s not.
Just to clarify – I was windy about it, but I whole-heartedly agree with MJ’s approach to this. Humanism and universalism demand that everyone gets rights that are achieved and protected, not merely promised. That seems possible under a two-state solution, IF the United States pushes both sides to do what they’ve promised for the last decade or so. It seems impossible under the one-state proposal.
Talk is so different from action. Anyone can do the talk, but let us look at the action itself and we can see the result. When we try to establish peace, what we do is more important than what we say. Negotiation between two opposing groups must recognize each other as it is them, recognize the legitimacy of the demands, in this case, the Palestinians. If one stands up and claim, “Oh, I am a friends of Europeans and Americans, I am powerful, I can do anything I want, therefore, my demands and my rights are more important than yours, then there will not be any peace and it is better one does not even try.