I have been living in Haifa for almost six months now, working at a Palestinian NGO and more or less immersing myself in the life, culture, and politics of both Haifa’s Palestinian and Jewish citizens. In that time, I have learned several things. I have learned important, useful, practical things, like where to find the best hummus, pita bread, and shawarma, or that you can change money at the post office for no commission, or that you can select “pensioner” on the Carmelit (Haifa’s pseudo-subway) and pay half-price, as long as the guard isn’t looking.
I’ve also learned some other things, things that are harder to pinpoint, harder to describe. I’ve learned there are things you talk about and things you don’t. When Adam asked me to write about Palestinian sentiment in Israel towards one-state versus two-state solutions, I realized my bafflement was due not to the fact that I live in an oblivious bubble (though I was worried for a minute that that was the case), but due to the fact that this is one of those things that isn’t talked about. I realize I’ve absorbed the mentality here, and I’ll try my best to explain it.
The easy answer is that overwhelmingly, Palestinians in Israel seem to oppose a two-state solution. It’s not because of Jerusalem, or settlements, or resource distribution, even though these are all issues. It’s not about the borders at all; it’s about what happens inside them. From this perspective, two states means they run the risk of being forcibly expelled and sent to the West Bank. In two states, the Palestinian community in Israel is still a minority, still discriminated against, and possibly under greater physical threat than before.
Take, for example, the EU Partnership for Peace Grant.
This grant called for projects that demonstrated cooperative support for a peaceful and functional two-state solution. The entire time we were compiling our proposal, I could not help but feel it was all a farce, a big game of bullshit, because I know no one in the community can support a two-state solution. So we created a project which gauges Palestinian support for the “two-state solution” even when we know there is none, since it is really just a “solution” that perpetuates the status quo. The predicted outcome? That the barriers facing Palestinians in Israel in a two-state solution are the same as, if not worse than, the barriers facing this community today. In short, there is unspoken and tacit consent that two states is unsustainable.
If someone gave a ballot to the Palestinian community in Israel with two choices – a single secular democratic state or two states – the choice is easy. If these are the available options, one state is by far preferable. There is more or less collective recognition that one state, though the road is long and hard and probably very very bloody, is the only way to truly achieve justice between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. But it’s not as if there are overwhelming movements in support of a “one-state solution.” Partly due to Israel’s strict and discriminatory political activism laws (see Amendment 9), there are few political movements that explicitly supports a single state in Greater Palestine, such as Abnaa el-Balad, but they’re perpetually boycotting the Knesset. Then there is the Future Vision document, the Constitution for All, and the Haifa Declaration, but these still cater more towards officialdom and don’t necessarily accurately or comprehensively reflect the communal zeitgeist.
But this is all my imposed interpretation of what I don’t hear people talking about, my reading between the lines. After all, the language of the street is not the language of diplomacy. On the street we talk about discrimination and racism. In civil society NGOs, we talk about equality and democracy. If there’s a problem, you talk about ways to change or fix it, or more likely in this scenario, the futility of trying to do so. But we don’t talk about “conflict,” we don’t talk about “solutions,” we don’t talk about “peace.” These are mythical concepts, fabrications of politics that don’t reflect this reality.
Solutions are the language of diplomats and officials, people whose time and interest will expire. They can speak grandly about their efforts in the “peace process” and their brilliant solutions to some conception of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they don’t have to live with the repercussions of what they’re promoting. If they pretend they can mop up Israel’s problems like spilled milk, and effectively sweep the thorny Palestinian community under the rug, they’ll be re-appointed and re-elected. But they have no real interest in actually changing anything.
The Palestinian community is ignored in diplomacy – George Mitchell, for example, has never to my knowledge met with a Palestinian citizen of Israel – so likewise the projects of diplomacy are ignored by this community. Asking about solutions is the wrong question, as it is ignorant of the real issue. The real issue is the inequality and racism facing this community from within Israeli society as well as from the Israeli government. They are being squeezed from all sides, and the only thing the powers-that-be want to talk about is a chunk of arid land near Jerusalem and forced expulsion on all sides. You can imagine how quickly even the hardiest and most opinionated of political activists tires of this irrelevant banter after three, four, five decades (if, of course, they’re not in jail yet).
On the other hand, change, and not solution, is the language of permanence, of never giving up, of struggles that transcend time and politics. Addressing questions of civil rights, human rights, democracy, equality, citizenship, justice – all questions that will matter long after this and future generations of politicians are gone – is the conversation that is happening on the ground. We talk about which communities and universities are most racist, we talk the most recent village demolition, we talk about the absurdities of the Carmel fire, and we talk (or rather, wax poetic) about what needs to happen inside the Israeli system for these misdeeds to be rectified.
At the end of the day, it’s not about one state or two. It’s about equality and democracy, and it’s about not having to leave your home. It’s about national identity, but more about humanity. Solutions aren’t talked about, but changes are. Perhaps once the international community deigns to address the rights of Palestinians in Israel and stops obsessing over the kitschy grandeur and political posturing of the diplomatic approach – or even better, steps out of the picture entirely – this community will be able to contribute to the discussion. But it’s impossible to participate in the conversation if you weren’t invited to the party.
