The One-State Solution

For the past 20 years or so, the prevailing wisdom has told us that the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is with the creation of a Palestinian nation existing alongside Israel. It has been said that only a two-state solution will solve the ongoing tension between these two peoples. I have spent many years believing this myself. In fact, up until a week ago I was also positive that a two-state solution was the only answer, and thought of solutions to the conflict within this framework. I asked myself “What will work? What kind of compromises need to be made? What can the Israelis and Palestinians both walk away with in good faith?” But I am increasingly doubtful that a two-state solution is in everyone’s interest, nor am I even sure it is a viable thing to pursue. I am now positive that we need to break free from the ‘two-state’ box. I think the only solution is to create one big ‘bi-national’ state with a secular government, respecting of all people regardless race or religion. Don’t worry, I will explain.

First of all, I think we need to break free from the two-state box. In a recent article in Jadaliyya, Lisa Hajjar writes that

            “The problem with dichotomous thinking of the “pro-Palestinian” versus “pro- Israeli” variety is that it is premised on a notion of inherent, even existential separateness between “two peoples.” But the contemporary realities of “Palestine” and “Israel”—including, for example, the borders of either—are far too complex and too contested even among the constituencies referenced by the terms to be accurately or adequately understood through a simplistic dichotomy. Of course, there are national differences and the nationalist polarity of the conflict is quite real. But in the empirical world of Israel/Palestine, as contrasted to polemical discourse about it, there is a lack of separation among actual people and a functional hierarchy (rather than dichotomy) of socio-political and economic relations and legal rights.”

She’s right. By thinking within the two-state framework, we have worked to separate two people whose lives are in fact intertwined. The reality of Israel and Palestine is that these people are much closer (if anything at least physically) than we would like to admit. It’s like asking L.A. and Long Beach to be two separate countries. The metropolitan region doesn’t end. The economies are intertwined and imbricated within each other. The two-state effort and context also frames the conflict as two equal adversaries fighting over land they believe is rightfully theirs. Needless to say this framework is incorrect. Israel holds all the cards here. Israel has a trained and powerful military, government institutions, diplomatic relations, etc… The PLO, which is recognized both by Israel and the international community as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, is an outmoded organization made of arcane factions of the Palestinian movement that can’t even represent the whole of the Palestinian people. The truth is Palestinians are of many stripes and colors. Hajjar goes on to say that

               “the dichotomy subsumes people’s interests to their national identity as “Israelis” or “Palestinians”; their activities, motivations and commitments are read as expressions or transgressions of the collective (national) good, making nationalist ideology a basis for judging the content and character of actions and interactions. Third, the dichotomy encourages “state as actor” explanations for events and processes associated with the conflict, thus promoting a (false) conceptual symmetry between the Israeli state and Palestinians’ political representatives; the latter are currently divided between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.”

Here she is also correct. Fatah or the PLO does not represent all Palestinians just as Likud does not represent all Israelis. The PLO is an imperfect and sorry substitute for an elected government or set of representatives, and for whatever reason they were chosen to be the voice of the Palestinian people. We have to remember that the relationship between the PLO and Israel is a hierarchical one. Israel has effective control over the ‘Palestinian Territories’, as well as superior resources, infrastructure, and power. How does negotiation happen when one side has all the advantages?

The answer is negotiation doesn’t work. It’s not because negotiations themselves don’t work, but because the terms that both sides are trying to hammer out aren’t viable. There are several reasons why I don’t think a two state solution will work. One is the issue of settlements. In his article “Two States or One (Arab) State” in Dissent Magazine last year, Alexander Yacobson, a professor at Hebrew University, said that the issue of partition should be relatively simple. The IDF should leave the West bank and leave the settlers to fend for themselves. They can either return to Israel, or choose to live in a Palestinian state. But as Rachel Lever points out in her response, “As an idea for ushering in long term peace, this is also pretty fanciful. In a matter of hours, a settler-related “security incident” (real or contrived) would provoke a violent incursion by the IDF and vengeful mob attacks against Palestinians all over Israel. We’d be back where we started.” I don’t see settlers peacefully integrating into a new Palestinian state, nor do I see Israel mustering up the courage or stomach to watch the IDF drag settlers out of their homes.

Second is the issue of the particulars of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian state would require an army, but Israel would never, ever, be okay with that. Do you think Israel would ever accept a militarized Palestine? They’re scared to death of Palestinians as it is. And do you think Palestinians would ever walk away with an agreement that said they couldn’t have armed forces? Would they honestly believe in Israel’s egalitarianism and respect for borders and trust them not to attack Palestine? Definitely not. From an Israeli policy standpoint, an independent Palestinian state that was free to develop an army and resources could then fight Israel on any number of issues of disagreement and (in the worst case scenario, real or contrived) could attack Palestine.

Another issue is water. Israel and Palestine (and Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, for that matter), argue over water rights to the Jordan River. Do you think Israel would just give up a major source of its water for and independent Palestinian state? Probably not. And since Israel is much more powerful, they would probably just take the water, as they already have. In short, a Palestinian state wouldn’t have water, resources, or very much land. It is an unacceptable compromise. The realities of a two-state solution are terms that neither side is really willing to accept. That’s why every set of negotiations has failed. The two-state process has taken every twist and turn that it can take. We are seemingly at a dead end. But it is exactly at these points that we need to be creative, to view the possibilities differently, and to re-imagine our future.

Of course some folks will say that a ‘bi-national’ is not possible. They will say that mutual hatred and a Samuel Huntington style “Clash of Civilizations” divide stands between these two people. I don’t see this to be true. We have been subsumed by the two-state mindset. As Hajjar notes, by creating two different peoples and thinking of them as two separate nations-in-waiting, we have created a context in which people are ­nothing but enemies. We have created a false dichotomy where there is ‘pro-Palestinian’ and ‘pro-Israeli’ and inversely, ‘anti-Palestinian’ and ‘anti-Israeli’. If you are one, then you are automatically also its counterpart. The problem with this dichotomous mindset is that it does not take into account the reality of the situation here. In his recent article “Israel’s Best Hope Lies in a Single State” in the New Statesman, Slavoj Zizek writes

            “What both sides exclude as an impossible dream is the simplest and most obvious solution: a binational secular state, comprising all of Israel plus the occupied territories and Gaza. Many will dismiss this as a utopian dream, disqualified by the history of hatred and violence. But far from being a utopia, the binational state is already a reality: Israel and the West Bank are one state. The entire territory is under the de facto control of one sovereign power - Israel - and divided by internal borders.”

The reality of the situation is that there is already one state, its just that part of the state is separated from the rest. The conflict is not as easy as “these two people hate each other so they have to be separated” or “these people are too different to live in one state”. It’s also not as easy as “Palestinians are crazy, murderous terrorists” or “Israelis are cold, inhumane occupiers”. If it was that easy, if one side was so obviously right, then everyone would support that side. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy.

What I have come to understand in my time here is that the conflict is not about land or territory. It’s not about “who was here first”. It is about fear and rights. Each side is deathly afraid that the other side will somehow wipe out its culture and take away their right to self-determination. The Israelis are afraid that the Palestinians will either attack and wipe out all the Jews, or, if part of a united country, will grow in numbers and instill some fundamentalist Islamic State. The Palestinians are afraid that they will be wiped out, or forced to give up their culture. Neither side actually wants these things, but this fear that has been instilled in people shapes both sides’ actions and reactions.

And two states will never be the answer anyhow. It does not solve the problem. It is a begrudging compromise that neither side is happy with at all. Two states does not create peace, it simply reifies and reinforces the problems, this time through political boundaries. Rachel Lever, in her response to Alexander Yakobson’s article, puts it much better than I can. She says

          
                 “The difference between one united state and two separate states is one of ethics and philosophy. Two states is about territory, insecurity, and separation. One state removes both the physical and the mental borders. The parameters of one state are framed around rights, not land. Universality of rights (the same rights applying to every individual) means that the state and the law do not make distinctions on the grounds of ethnicity. Each individual is seen, judged, and respected as a human being, not as a stereotype. This may seem elementary, but it really can’t be repeated often enough: everything that’s wrong with racism and anti-Semitism stems from the absence of this universal human value….Hence a well-managed one-state transition would be a process for growing and expanding tolerance, whereas two states would fix the old hostilities and let them fester and worsen.”

It can’t be repeated enough: each person will be judged as an individual, not as someone mindlessly acting in the interest of ‘Palestinian’ or ‘Israeli’. People here are like people everywhere: they just want to be happy, live in peace, pursue their vision of the good life, support their families, and have prospects for the future. I’m more than positive that it is the same in Israel. It’s not about one side exclusively having the land or owning the land. The land is just a means to and end, which is expressing one’s culture and living as one wishes. The best hope that exists to achieve this state is a secular, democratic bi-national state that has constitutional safeguards against favoring or legislating for or against one religion, race, or ethnicity. Two states, or any continuation of the status quo, will simply increase tension and decrease the chances that either of these people can ever live in peace.

Of course there are obstacles to a one-state solution. The first place many people will go is demographics. What if the Palestinians become the majority? What about the Palestinian refugees living abroad? As Lever points out, these are all false and petty questions. In a new bi-national state, there would be some kind of charter, some kind of constitution, that stated each individual had a right to religious freedom, that the government would be secular, and that discrimination would not be tolerated. There would be safeguards that could only be changed by a huge majority of the population, ensuring that large swaths of the country are onboard with any changes.

And what about the ‘Jewish State’? Where will Jews go if there is no expressly ‘Jewish’ country? As Lever puts it, Israel will go from being a Jewish state to “a very Jewish state”, which is still something unique. Besides which, as she says, “…the “Jewish state” has been deeply damaging to Jewish values, especially to Judaism’s foundational value of justice. A “Jewish democracy” is no less of an oxymoron than a “white democracy”.” I have to say that she is right. I see nothing in the way Israel conducts itself as Jewish. I see nothing in Israel’s conduct towards Palestine that I would consider as being part of the Jewish character. Democracies are inclusive. If they are exclusive, then they are not democratic. Some folks will also say that Jews need a safe haven; somewhere to go if bad things happen. Seriously? I’m pretty sure that Israel is way, way, way down the list of destinations for people who are seeking safety. I’m pretty sure no one says to themselves “Wow, things are getting really dangerous here. I need a safe place to go. I’ll go to Israel.

 There’s no tension and it’s really safe there.”  People seeking safety usually will try to go to the USA or Europe. But if Israel became a peaceful bi-national state, then it could be an actual safe haven not just for Jews, but for refugees of different races and religions.

What would this new bi-national state look like? I think what is preferable is a secular, democratic state that did not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, leaving the choice of how to live to its citizens. However, this will not come about for many years. What could work as an interim agreement is an England-Scotland type of division. What I imagine is one central body elected by the West Bank, Israel, and Gaza, which would be responsible for national issues such as the drawing up of a charter, money issue, roads, a national security force which would protect borders (both internal and external), distribution of utilities, taxes, etc. Otherwise, each of these three areas would be self-governed in terms of social policy, distribution of resources, education, etc…Eventually maybe they would move to a U.S. style system of federalism. Note that this is not a solution, just a means to an end. Eventually, the walls will come down, and people will feel comfortable living under one government and one nation where all are able to worship as they want to, live as they want to, and be who they want to be.

And please don’t even start with “well democracy is not part of the Arab culture” or anything like. I think the myth of some kind of Arab aversion to democracy was broken on January 25^th. Nor do I think that arguments like “they don’t want to share the land” are acceptable either. Palestinians and Israelis have been sharing the land, at the very least, since 1967. Some people do think this way. And some people in Palestine do in fact seek to regain the whole of the land as ‘Palestine’. Just as there are folks in Israel hostile towards Palestine, there are folks in Palestine hostile towards Israel. There will always be extremists. But extremists are the minority, and we cannot give up on the best solution for peace because of a crazy minority.

I believe the two-state solution is inadequate and unviable. It is outdated and arcane. Its terms will always be unacceptable to those involved, and that’s why we haven’t gotten anywhere. It is not a solution or a route to peace, simply a way to reinforce hatred and fear with political and physical boundaries. I now believe that the best solution, in fact the only solution, is one big nation with a secular government that does not discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Remember that a state is only a means to freedom and equality, not an end in itself. For years, folks have thought that the only way to solve this conflict is to create two separate states so that Palestinians can live their lives as well. But that is no longer the answer. One state can work. These people are closer than is admitted. Religious Jews and religious Muslims live very similar lives.

I have brought the issue of one state versus two states up with several people here, including a couple of my classes. Several people are very enthusiastic about the possibility. Some are skeptical. Other think it won’t work because of mutual hatred and anger. I’m sure the split is identical in Israel as well. What is clear is this: people are disillusioned with, and have lost hope in, the negotiation process. Many view the two-state solution as a losing cause. It is. More and more, ‘one state’ is on the tips of people’s tongues. It is the only solution, and it is time to embrace it.

"A Very Jewish State" by Rachel Lever
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=457#Lever

"Israel's Best Hope Lies in a Single State" by Slavoj Zizek
http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2011/03/jewish-girls-israel-arab-state

"What Emergency?" by Lisa Hajjar
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1081/what-emergency-the-adl-academic-freedom-lawfare-an