|
Changing
the Boundaries
A
growing number of people are coming to the realization that a
two state solution can never bring justice. Isabelle Humphries
argues that a democratic one state is the only way to reach
lasting peace and equality for Jews and Palestinians in the
Middle East
.
|
|
|
At
the entrance to the
West Bank
town of
Qalqilya
, the town mostly affected by
Israel
’s separation wall.
|
In the last few weeks, the “Geneva Understandings” have
become the latest project of the “revive the peace process”
brigade. “What we have done today will determine the
future,” Israeli novelist Amos Oz boasted at the launch of the
accords. This latest plan, cooked up by “moderates” such as
Israeli Yossi Beilin and the Palestinian Yasser Abd Rabbo, will
sign away the Palestinian Right of Return. And that alone is
enough to doom the plan to failure.
Despite over a decade of discussion of a variety of peace plans,
on the ground life has got considerably worse. In direct
contravention of “peace” agreements already signed, in this
year alone
Israel
has given tender to 1627 new homes in the
West Bank
and
Gaza
(
London
Independent,
24/10/03
). The last month has seen another round of the usual bloodshed
and suffering; massive Israeli housing demolitions, (in Rafah
UNWRA estimates that up to 2000 have been made homeless);
assassinations; a suicide attack in a Haifa restaurant;
widespread closure preventing Palestinians from reaching the
olive harvest, for many their only remaining source of income;
and further developments of a wall creating a series of prisons
across the West Bank.
Any
just settlement must address the following five crucial issues;
access to water resources, control of
Jerusalem
, the status of the rapidly expanding settlements, control of
international borders, and rights of refugees. These central
issues, brushed aside to be dealt with at the never
materializing “final status negotiations,” led to the
breakdown of
Oslo
. Discussing another plan that is fundamentally flawed from the
roots is a waste of time.
Moving
Beyond the Two-State Solution
We
should start to think differently, talk differently. Not to
seize on this ridiculous belief in a Palestinian state or in the
fence. Because in the end we are going to be a Jewish minority
here. And the problems that your children and my grandchildren
are going to have to cope with are the same ones that de Klerk
faced in
South Africa
. The paradigm, therefore is the binational one. That’s the
direction. That’s the conceptual universe we have to get used
to. – Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of
Jerusalem
, in Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz,
August 8, 2003
Even
a whole Gaza Strip and a West Bank with half of
Jerusalem
is no “viable” state. |
|
Thinking
beyond a two-state solution is not limited to Arab intellectuals
as Israeli Benvenisti shows. As the situation gets visibly worse
on the ground, voices questioning the “two-state solution”
as the ultimate goal are getting louder. From a broad spectrum
of ideological backgrounds, more and more people are joining
those who have always advocated a democratic, one-state
solution.
The
various proponents of a one-state solution have radically
differing views over the actual vision and implementation of one
state, (will the state be bi-national? federal? etc). What
broadly unites them is that they seek to a) eradicate the Green
Line, the false barrier imposed by the 1967 occupation, and b)
that domestic and immigration law would make no distinction
between Jew and Palestinian whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
This school of thought incorporates a broad spectrum of
opinions, but is totally distinct from the other kind of
one-state view, one which demands that the whole of British
Mandate Palestine belong to one particular group, whether
Jewish, Islamic or Arab.
Even
those for whom the two-state solution is still the ideal are
admitting the power of the one-state argument. “Rather than
create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill
that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand
instead a one-state solution – where they and the Jews would
have equal rights in one state,” writes the pro-Israeli Thomas
Friedman in the New York Times,
September 14, 2003
. “If American Jews think it’s hard to defend
Israel
today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when
their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one
vote.”
It
is understandable that many seeking a just solution are wary of
the concept of one-state, knowing full well that it is one
state, Eretz Israel, that the settlers and the right wing want;
one Jewish Israel from the Jordan to the sea. But take a look at
the map and you realize that even a whole Gaza Strip and a
West Bank
with half of
Jerusalem
is no “viable” state. One state seems to be the only logical
alternative, but naturally along radically different lines from
the settlers’ dream.
It
is my view that the peace process has in fact put off the real
reconciliation that must occur if the hundred-year war between
Zionism and the Palestinian people is to end.
Oslo
set the stage for separation, but real peace can come only with
a binational Israeli-Palestinian state.
- Edward Said - New
York Times,
January 10, 1999
Paradigm
Shift
A
two-state accord fudging central issues is a waste of
time. |
|
Some
say that to seek justice is utopian. But on the contrary, the
pragmatist should also recognize that a two-state accord fudging
central issues is a waste of time. Persuading Palestinian armed
resistance to end when a “shared”
Jerusalem
still included 200,000 Israeli settlers living in
East Jerusalem
? An
Israel
allowing Palestinians to return to their homes and lands, or to
be fully compensated? An Israeli government permitting a
Palestinian state to control their own economy by opening a free
border with
Jordan
and
Egypt
? Not a realistic possibility.
There
are alternatives to the one-state/two-state paradigm; a slide
towards apartheid for example, or a drift towards
ever-escalating resistance and violence. – Ahmad Samih
Khalidi, The Guardian,
September 29, 2003
Despite
differing views as to what the concept of one-state would
actually mean, the basic idea of a one-state solution is
undoubtedly gaining support. From the New York Review of
Books to The Guardian, mainstream press is giving
space to discussion. As land confiscation and settlement
building continues, the current framework of a two-state
solution is unworkable even in the short term, let alone
sustainable in the long term. Those who first dismissed the idea
of one state should think again.
One
democratic state in which Jews, Palestinians and any number of
minority groups are allowed to live would address the issues
raised above and more. If politicians make some sort of
agreement to impose on Palestinians and Israelis in the short
term, (an unlikely prospect at the moment), the Palestinian
state that would be created is unlikely to be seen as any more
than a “Bantustan” state by the majority of Palestinians, or
a just and viable state by standards of international law. And
Israel
after such an agreement would still be defined as a Jewish state
which excludes its large Palestinian minority. What happens in
the next half century when this currently 20% minority becomes
the majority? A one-state solution may seem utopian, but in the
long term future, the conditions are already there for the
two-state solution to collapse into greater conflict than has so
far been seen. Solving the situation in
Palestine
is far harder than simply getting two leaders to sign and
implement the conditions for a two-state solution.
To
read a variety of perspectives on the issue, try www.one-state.org
and www.one-democratic-state.org
Post
your comments! Click
here to participate in our ongoing discussion.
Isabelle
Humphries, is conducting Ph.D. research at St. Mary's
College, University of Surrey, on the situation for
Palestinian refugees living inside the 1948 borders. She has
worked for three years with Palestinian NGOs, and as a freelance
writer, on both sides of the 1967 border. You can reach her at innazareth@yahoo.co.uk
|
