One State/Two State/No State rules
2009 March 4
My essay on the future of the two-state solution can be read here, in the Spring-Summer edition of Democratiya.
14 Comments
leave one →
2009 March 4
Alex:
Niece piece of fluff, just like they like’m over at Democratya. Not to mention some plain old nonsense:
“When you consider that every piece of land Israel has withdrawn from has been transformed into the latest staging-post from which to launch attacks on it, these depressing poll results come as no surprise.”
What land has Israel withdrawn from exactly, apart from Gaza? Where, it should be noted, it had no business being in the first place. The ‘depressing poll results come as no surprise’, no they don’t, partly because the Israeli general public (like any other general public of course) refuses to see beyond the length of its own nose.
“The obstacles to a one-state solution, however, are even greater. The hearts of humans are harder to mould than the bricks of a house. Those who propose a one-state solution would do well to apply the test of desirability to two populations increasingly characterised by mutual hate and loathing.”
Lovely worded cliché and true at first sight. Yet there is no reason whatsoever why reconciliation cannot be achieved. What man has separated, man can put together again. Perhaps that is in fact the only “radical rethink” possible that you mention at the end (yet carefully avoiding offering anything reader could even ponder about).
“Hamas are surely the only ‘national liberation’ movement in history (apart from Hizbollah in 2006) to succeed in liberating territory, only to proceed to try and goad the occupier back in. This is because they remain ideologically opposed to the very existence of the State of Israel, notwithstanding occasional comments to the contrary, picked up and parroted enthusiastically by useful idiots around the world.”
Ridiculously reductionist nonsense that ignores the complex series of events that lead from blockade to truce-breaking, various prior IDF interventions, more rockets etc. Its okay for you to whitewash Lieberman but those critical of Israel are ‘useful idiots’ when we mention more constructive comments made by Hamas? What a double standard!
And it ignores a simple question: what do you expect the Palestinians to do? Take it lying down and hope for the generosity Zionism is so renowned for?
Here’s an interesting taster from a senior Likudnik of what that generosity looks like.
2009 March 4
It is becoming something of a fashion to dismiss the 2 state solution as ‘dead and buried’. There may be some justification for fearing that its days may be numbers, but a closer look at one of the key arguments against 2-states – Israeli settlements in the West Bank – shows that it’s less intractable than at first seems.
So the settlers say they won’t budge. Really? I’ve been speaking to many who are itching for the opportunity to move back to Israel proper – they just can’t afford to because they’ve lost so much value on their houses since the intifada and the construction of the separation barrier. The proposed evacuation-compensation bill can settle that particular account. When cheques are waved under their noses, we’ll see a flood of settlers ‘coming home’.
This will leave a minority, say 10,000 settler families who will have to be evacuated against their will.
2009 March 4
Hi, Alex.
I actually liked the piece, even though I have about the same reservations that Gert voiced, especially regarding the point about Hamas motivations, which I don’t see in the same light as you do (though I admit being not too well equipped to judge the issue more assertively, and thus remain somewhat agnostic).
Your piece is timely as I’ve been thinking along more or less the same lines myself for some time. I used to believe that if only the Israeli public could be re-educated with a more objective history of the conflict, it will realize the moral imperative for greater concessions on its part, such as would be demanded in whatever framework – one-state or two-state – for it to have a chance of peaceful outcome. I am not so sure anymore. I now tend to think of the conflict more in the terms of human rights and try to imagine whether emphasizing those may be a better way of changing heart and minds.
One more point. While a “two-state” paradigm can be termed a “solution”, the “bi-national” or “one-state” paradigm is different in that it actually is the current reality, crippled by the lack of equal rights for the Palestinians. Here is a worthy quote from Meron Benvenisti, as appeared in Haaretz more than 5 years ago:
In fact, even today we are living in a binational reality, and it is a permanent given. It cannot be ignored and it cannot be denied. What we have to do is adapt our thinking and our concepts to this reality. We have to look for a new model that will fit this reality. [...]
I am not happy about what I am proposing. I know that what I am stammering to you here is not truly a solution. Because even if some sort of federal structure is established here it won’t bring peace. There won’t be peace here. Even if there is some sort of binational arrangement, it will do no more than manage the crisis. The violence will always occur on its fringes.
2009 March 4
Mike,
settlements are not the only obstacle to the two-state solution, I am afraid. It is a common misconception. I agree with you that most settlers would leave as soon that the economics of the evacuation are finalized – this is also the impression I have from talking to most settlers I used to know, including religious ones. The question is whether there will be a viable Palestinian state even if Israel withdraws from all the occupied territory (as well as allows in a few hundreds of thousands of refugees, divides Jerusalem, blah-blah-blah.) First, the land is indeed hardly dividable, read all Benvenisti’s remarks in the article I linked above. Second, while on a moral level Palestinians absolutely deserve a state, there is a real possibility that they will fail on their own. Even with the best case scenario of Israeli (because of the moral imperative) and world’s money flowing into Palestine, what kind of economy would such a state have? How will they build educational and other infrastructure that would allow them to create some value? I am not a political scientist by no means, but the task seems very daunting to me. Not to mention the internecine Palestinians struggles, (exacerbated and abetted by Israel for decades.) We could really wind up with a case of a failed state (and I don’t mean this to be in no way anti-Palestinian.) If the ultimate goal is peace and human rights, then it may not be the case that a Palestinians state is the best way to get there…
2009 March 4
Alex Stein permalink
Gert – they also withdrew from South Lebanon; another place they had no business occupying in the first place, but that hardly alters the fact that once they had left, there were more constructive things to do than use the areas as places to fire rockets from. Secondly, the Israeli public has not always been so pessimistic vis-a-vis the prospects of reconciliation. While the public instinctively leans rightwards, there’s always been a clear connection between terror attacks and rightward shifts in opinion. Which is of course obvious to Hamas strategists; this is the scenario they’ve been looking for.
If you think a one-state solution is feasible, then you have to acknowledge that a two-state solution is feasible. Because that’s more practical than getting everyone to live together in one big happy state. At least in the short term.
I don’t know what the Palestinians should do (although I have been arguing for years that they should disband the PA and ask Israel to make a decision); that was the point of the agnosticism behind the peace.
More later; am tired.
2009 March 5
Alex:
“[...] they also withdrew from South Lebanon; [...]“ Fair point, might as well include the Sinai as a token of Israeli goodwill as well though.
“If you think a one-state solution is feasible, then you have to acknowledge that a two-state solution is feasible.”
I do, I’m just not optimistic about it. You want to share the blame. I believe, looking at the totality of the “conflict”, Zionism’s intentions never were to share the land (with the exception perhaps of Zionist attitudes about a hundred years ago). It remains hard to argue with that, considering the sort of noises we hear from all kinds of Tel Aviv sources regarding further expansion. Hey, they’re not all that secretive about it anymore! Wasn’t the whole settler enterprise designed to create facts on the ground with ever greater irreversibility (referring actually to your piece)?
On the other hand it would appear that many settlers would indeed be prepared to evacuate, from my reading…
2009 March 5
Hi Peter D,
“Mike, settlements are not the only obstacle to the two-state solution, I am afraid. It is a common misconception.”
I wrote: “one of the key arguments against 2-states.”
Add other variables if you like (hamas, the israeli right, kassams, the acrobatic route of the separation barrier etc etc) but they are certainly one of the biggies when it comes to stopping us achieving a more harmonious way of life in this part of the world…
2009 March 5
Mike, fair enough.
I tend to think, though, was that while settlements might have the aura of being one of the bigger obstacles, they really aren’t. It is quite conceivable that Israel and Palestinians would be able to achieve an agreement that leave those settlers that refuse to evacuate in Palestine with some guarantees of protection (I would even claim that there is a moral justification for such move.) The wall can be torn down faster that it was (is being) built. Kassams will be eliminated by the mutual agreement, as they were during the tahadiye (the exceptions to the rule proving the rule). Hamas will become a pragmatic force. Etc. Etc. I am describing the best case scenario, naturally.
What I am worried about is that for the Palestinians state to really succeed a further leap of optimism is needed, a best case scenario even less likely than the one I describe as a prerequisite to the establishment of this state. I am not claiming that, I am just voicing the possibility.
2009 March 5
Mike, you are right, you did say “one of”.
What I am trying to say, though, is that while the settlements have the aura of being one of the major obstacles for peace, they really are not. It is conceivable that a deal can be worked out that those settlers that refuse to evacuate will remain under the Palestinian authority with adequate protection provisions (and I would even claim that there is a moral justification for such move). Furthermore, the wall can be torn down more quickly than it was (is being?) built. The Kassams can be eliminated by mutual agreement as they were during the tahadiye (exceptions to the rule proving the rule.) Hamas will become a pragmatic force. Etc. Etc. I am describing the best case scenario, naturally.
What am afraid of is that for the Palestinian state to succeed an even greater “suspension of disbelief” is needed, beyond even the best case scenario described above. I don’t claim that, I am just voicing the possibility.
2009 March 7
ok, so why didn’t olmert and barak evacuate the outposts as they promised? because they’re scared of the settler protests that will erupt at the sight of a soldier laying
if i was a settler, i wouldn’t want to live under PA rule. if they can’t put their trust in the israeli government, they why on earth should they put their lives in the hands of arabs who have been at war with jews for 60+ years…
2009 March 8
Avram permalink
“they why on earth should they put their lives in the hands of arabs who have been at war with jews for 60+ years…”
If only it was 60 years, we could blame this on Zionism and ’shalom al Yisrael’ … Alas, this has been going on since the 600s (ie, issues between Arab and Jew) but people tend to ignore that (or just not be aware of it) … Two states is the only way to go, for the sake of both people’s future. A one state solution would just lead to some much much worse …
2009 March 10
Whatever. Evacuate most/all settlers or leave most/all settlers. The question comes down to: will Israel allow fair sharing of water and other resources? Will it allow free movement between Gaza and the West Bank? Will it allow Palestinians to have military? Without these and others the Palestinians “state” will be a Bantustan, totally dependent on Israel. Which will still be some sort of a one-state solution, I guess. Maybe the Palestinians will agree to that, at least in the short term, but I somehow doubt it.
2009 March 13
There is a piece by Johann Hari on the importance of coeducation for prospects of peace in the Northern Ireland:
There is a policy that has been shown to erode these hatreds. They are called integrated schools – and the parents of Northern Ireland are calling for them. Today, only five per cent of children in Northern Ireland go to a mixed school. The other 95 per cent are segregated in sectarian enclaves where they project feverish fantasies on to the other side. Violence is an inevitable bedsore where two uncomprehending tribes rub past each other in a small space.
But that 5 per cent hold the key. A six-year study by Queen’s University, Belfast has looked at the long-term consequences of being schooled alongside The Enemy. They interviewed adults who attended these schools – and found that whatever their parents’ attitudes, they were “significantly more likely” to oppose sectarianism. They had “far” more friends across the divide, and they identified as “Northern Irish”, rather than British or Irish. Their politics were much more amenable to peace. Some 80 per cent of Protestants favour the union with Britain, but only 65 per cent of those at integrated schools do. Some 51 per cent of Catholics who went to a segregated school want unification with Ireland, but only 35 per cent of those from integrated schools do. The middle ground – for a devolved Northern Ireland with links to both countries – was both broader and happier.
I think it is fair to say that Northern Ireland, for all its problems, has not a tenth of those of Israel-Palestine. Whatever the final outcome, we’ll have Arabs and Jews living side by side. Israeli Arabs and maybe Jewish Palestinians (in a two state solution framework) or just Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel-Palestine (or whatever it will be called). Integrated schools are a must, I think.
