Palestinians in line for a Qalandiya checkpoint during Ramadan, 2011. (Photo: Reuters)
I attended the One State Conference at Harvard University on March 3-4, 2012, and was encouraged to continue working to bring peace and prosperity to all the people who live between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. Nevertheless, I left the conference unsettled by several issues.
Regime Change
Lets face it, any resolution of the present conflict will require regime change in Israel and the Palestinian administration in the West Bank. The reason that negotiations for a Palestinian state alongside Israel (the two-state solution — TSS) have failed is that the Israeli government does not want a just, political resolution of the conflict. This was demonstrated at the conference by Diana Buttu who worked six years with the Palestinian negotiating team. She described Israeli tactics to undercut any progress in the TSS talks: (1) all proposals put forth by the Israelis were designed to expand Israeli control over the West Bank, (2) the Israeli negotiators never mentioned Jerusalem, and (3) the Israeli team would walk out of meetings when the Palestinians attempted to discuss the right of return. And Buttu’s comments are not news – they confirm what we learned from the Palestine Papers released by Al Jazeera in January 2011.
Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, all Israeli governments talks have been opposed to allowing any meaningful Palestinian self-determination to emerge through Israeli-Palestinian talks. The result is that for the almost 20 years of negotiations, not only has there been no success, but Israeli government actions have actively and passively expanded settlements and deepened Palestinian dispossession.
This situation means that there must be regime change in Israel for any hope of ending the present reality, and establishing either a two-state solution (TSS) or a non-apartheid one-state solution (OSS). Simply changing the Israeli government will probably not be enough, some sort of more profound change is required; for shorthand I use the term “regime change”.
There are several ways to effect this regime change: impose it militarily, a military coup, force or allow the existing government to collapse, or agree to a new regime through negotiations. Defeating Israel militarily, considering that Israel has one of the ten most powerful militaries in the world with bio-chemical and nuclear weapons, is not even worth considering. Any of the other options may be triggered by serious disruption in the existing political, economic, social order. In theory this could be possible if the United States were to make its ongoing military, financial, and diplomatic support conditional on Israel and the Palestinians reaching a just agreement. A movement among some American foreign policy elites as well as among small politics groups to make that happen is growing, but it is ineffective small and easily countered by the Israel lobby. The lobby, consisting of establishment Jewish American groups, Christian Zionists, Israeli government operatives, and the American military-technology complex, works to assure the status quo in American – Israeli relations. Progress on this front seems distant unless the U.S. government suffers serious setbacks domestically or in the Middle East that trigger unanticipated desperate acts.
Ali Abunimah, in his keynote address, suggested that an enlightened Israeli leader might emerge, someone like F. W. de Klerk who led South Africa to negotiate the end to apartheid. In recent years we have seen Israeli leaders like Ehud Olmert who recognized the unsustainability of the present situation, but they lacked a desperate situation and leadership skills needed to effect a change.
It is important to recognize that de Klerk worked in a South Africa that had become ungovernable, not by the world-wide boycott and sanctions movement, but by rebellion of the 90% of the population that was black. Strikes were crippling the economy; whites were in fear of physical violence, and the economic elite worried that major industries would be nationalized. Palestinians, who are 50% of the population in Israel-Palestine, even supported by the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, are a long way from making Israel ungovernable or threatening the viability of the Israeli economy which is still expanding.
The best chance Palestinians have of making Israel-Palestine ungovernable is to stage massive, continuous, non-violent protests on the model of the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt that brought down Mubarak. Imagine 100,000 Palestinians from Ramallah showing up every Friday morning at the Qalandia checkpoint and demanding access to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque.
It should be recognized that if Israel produced an enlightened leader, (s)he will likely push for a Palestinian state alongside Israel – the TSS, rather than a single democratic state – the OSS. After all, the TSS is the international consensus and may be easier to “sell” to the Israeli people. Furthermore, even if a Palestinian state is sovereign, and not a “bantustan,” it would be economically subordinate to Israel with its economic elite still cavorting with their Israeli counterparts.
A major problem with the TSS is that it does not account for the Palestinian Diaspora and the right of return. But that problem can be transcended if the right or return is allowed to the Palestinians state, combined with a suggestion of Jeff Halper that an Israel-Palestine confederation is established as part of the TSS. This confederation must be similar to the EU in allowing any citizen to remain a citizen of his state, but to live and work anywhere within the confederation boundaries.
Nature of one-state
Most speakers at the conference supported an OSS remedy to the current dispossession of Palestinians by the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. But hardly any speaker fleshed out what one democratic state would look like or addressed economic issues, which are the major failure of the one-state solution to South African apartheid. In the South Africa case, government transformation allowed the existing class structure and government bureaucracy to stand. Although many blacks were able to significantly improve their economic situation and become solidly middle class, corruption and inequality increased under African National Party political control,
Obviously no one at the conference supported the type of one state that some on the Israeli-right favor where Palestinians would hold second-class status and might even be expelled. But on the liberal left there are a range of possible democratic states. They can be grouped into two types: civic egalitarian and civic bi-national. A civic egalitarian one-state is characterized by one-person, one-vote and a bi-national state is also characterized one-person, one-vote and in addition, certain regions or groups, have defined rights and/or autonomy. Examples of bi-national democratic states include Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, China, and even the United States.
Most speakers at the conference tactility seemed to assume a civic egalitarian one democratic state, although Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, proposed a non-territorial, civic bi-national state, but did not flesh out his idea. And again, no speaker spoke to building economic equality between Israelis and Palestinians and among Palestinians.
I would love to see a civic and economically egalitarian democratic state in Israel-Palestine, but I find it hard to have confidence such a state would be stable after 45 or 64 years of Jewish – Arab conflict and taught hatred. It is not the pent-up anger and fear of the other – that can be overcome as it was in South Africa. Rather I worry that the economic and infrastructure differences between and among the Jewish and Arab communities are so extreme that special arrangement would be required to undo those inequalities, and those arrangements would weaken the egalitarian nature of the state such as affirmative action programs do in the United States.
A bi-national state would take into account difference among the population, and set-up political structures to account for these differences. The idea is to turn differences into positive aspects of the state, rather than leaving them unaddressed as bombs that might explode at a later date. A bi-national state might have a better chance of long-term stability than an egalitarian state with equal civil rights because it will directly and constitutionally address inequality in human rights.
A path from here to there
Many speakers emphasized that change to a OSS must come from the bottom-up, and that change from the top-down is an empty dream. To that end, a movement for an OSS must attract massive popular support from ordinary people. It was the active participation of masses of people that propelled the American civil rights struggle in the 1960s. That will be hard to garner for an OSS unless the people see achievable goals. And that means a realistic path from here to there. Unfortunately, the only mention of a path to a OSS at the conference were questions to two speakers, and neither got a substantial response.
There is a path that has been proposed by Palestinian as well as Americans in several forms. Among its proponents are Dr. Sari Nuseibeh, President, Al-Quds University in Jerusalem. It was predicted as inevitable future by John Mearsheimer in a 2010 lecture at the Palestine center, and was hinted at by Stephen Walt during his talk at the One State Conference. The idea is that the West Bank will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state. But the apartheid state will not be politically viable over the long term. Palestinians would initially have second-class citizenship. They would initiate a civil rights struggle for full voting rights, a struggle they surely will win because it will be supported by most Americans, including Jewish Americans, Europeans, and most of the world. In the end the Greater Israel will become a democratic state whose policies will be dominated by a Palestinian majority – that is, it will be the OSS.
The problem with this path is that it does not include either Gazans or the Palestinian Diaspora, at least initially. But that will be remedied after the Palestinians win their civil rights struggle. A bigger problem is that it means Palestinians will have to accept an interval of second-class citizenship for their civil rights struggle to have meaning. Another problem is that this path will likely not remedy the existing economic inequality.
I see another possibility for regime change – a complete takeover by the fanatic settler faction.
/In the end the Greater Israel will become a democratic state whose policies will be dominated by a Palestinian majority/
Basically it will become another Arab state with a large Jewish minority,
seems so attractive to the Jews.
Yes i think i am convinced.
Thanks for this piece about the conference. I have known folks who have been involved with this issue for literally decades. Most of these folks in their early to late 70’s. All of them non Jews. Almost all of them shifting towards a one state solution as the only solution. Interesting to hear individuals who have lobbied, petitioned met with Reps privately for decades shifting over to the OSS perspective.
Wondering if this relatively new involvement and push by many young and older Jews over the last five or so years for a two state solution is just too little too late
I’ve posted this article before, but I’ll toot a dear old school friends’ horn again. Aref Dajani, a good guy who works hard for peace and reconcilliaition. Ahead of their time – and article by Dajani and Walter Ruby written over 10 years ago:
http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=176
Two States, One Common Land
by Walter Ruby and Aref Dajani
Where do we go from here?
The tragic eruption of large-scale violence between Palestinians and Israelis in recent months makes manifestly clear that the approach to peace symbolized by the Oslo Accords is dead. Yet it is also evident that when this latest sustained eruption of rock-throwing, shooting and killing finally subsides and the political fallout from these events is absorbed, our two long-suffering peoples will find themselves confronting exactly the same dilemma they faced a year ago and a decade ago and a generation ago, namely, how to coexist in the tiny land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River without giving way to murderous violence neither side can long sustain.
Belonging and Sharing
So if the Oslo process, based upon mutual recognition and trading land for peace, has proven not to be the answer, what conceivable formula can we find to finally break the impasse? While both sides do indeed need to make painful concessions in order to reach a just peace settlement, it will also be necessary for each people to make profound psychological adjustments that render more inclusive the manner in which both connect to the common land over which we have been struggling for so long.
As agonizingly complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often appears, at heart it is quite simple. For over a century, our two peoples have been fighting with stones, bullets, bombs and missiles over the same small piece of land, all the while trying to out-shout each other with expressions of undying love and devotion for the place. In recent years, more and more Palestinians and Israelis have understood that they cannot militarily vanquish or permanently disperse the other side, and therefore will have to cede a portion of the land to the sovereignty of the other. Yet it is surprising how few have followed up that realization with another critically important one, namely, that while our two peoples are indeed fated to live side by side forever, it is not preordained that we must do so in a mutually resentful fashion, as though forced to put up with a free-loading relative in one’s own home. As long as we are condemned by fate to share the land both so revere, might we not learn to enjoy doing so?
Indeed, why cannot the mutual enthusiasm of Israelis and Palestinians for the same hills, valleys and ancient cities and for the same sights, sounds and smells become a positive force for drawing closer together? No immutable law of nature dictates that we cannot enthusiastically share with each other the abiding love each people feels for the common land one side calls Palestine and the other Israel. Why cannot we not celebrate together our common feeling of connectedness and belonging to the place? Why not embrace a doctrine of “Two States, One Common Land”?
Against Separation, for Reconciliation
The two of us have joined together to espouse this new consciousness as a Palestinian-American whose father was driven from his ancestral village of Beit Dajan near Jaffa in February 1948 by Jewish forces and who himself aspires to return to live there one day, and as an American Jew who has spent five years of his life living in Israel and passionately loves the country. We do not agree on every issue, but we rejoice in celebrating together our mutual love for the tiny, jewel-like land that is at the heart of our respective identities.
We strongly oppose the doctrine of “separation” between our two peoples. True reconciliation can only come about through an ongoing program of intensive personal interaction between grass-roots Palestinians and Israelis. Imagine people from twinned Israeli and Palestinian villages and cities or from professional associations in both states talking to each other on a sustained basis via telephone, the Internet and regular face-to-face meetings on both sides of the new border. Imagine Israeli scouts, both Jewish and Arab, hiking together with Palestinian scouts along the old Green Line, comparing historical, religious or folkloric associations each side attaches to the same hidden spring, ancient village or crumbling ruin.
The ethic of “Two States, One Land” is also about taking urgently needed steps to protect the fragile environment of the land, which is under great strain due to over-population and runaway development. It is necessary for Israel and Palestine to work together to institute sensible environmental and land-use policies, while equitably sharing water and other scarce resources.
A Common Vocabulary
At first glance, our vision of “Two States, One Common Land” may sound romantic, even utopian. Actually, it is eminently pragmatic and practical, since the realization of this new ethic could finally overcome the entrenched opposition to a peace agreement by large constituencies on both sides.
Many Palestinians oppose the Oslo Accords because of a fear that by signing a peace deal with Israel they would be cutting abiding communal and personal ties to the cities and villages from which they fled or were driven in 1948. Israelis and Jews often see that as evidence of revanchism, but, in reality, it is simply asking too much of Palestinians to relate to only the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Palestine. By the same token, many Israelis and Jews fear that once a peace deal is consummated, they would have to sever ties to West Bank sites, including some that have been attacked by Palestinians in recent months, with which they have deep spiritual and historical connections. Palestinians and Arabs often see expressions of this connection as evidence of expansionism, yet, in reality, it is asking too much of Israelis to embrace only the politically defined State of Israel and sever all emotional connections to the remainder of the biblical homeland.
Rejectionists on both sides happen to be correct that Israel-Palestine is organically one land. Yet they are profoundly wrong in insisting that the whole of the land can be united only under their own dominion. A century of conflict has proven that neither side has the power to force the other to accept such a solution. Therefore, the most sensible strategy for achieving reconciliation is to divide the land into two states while promoting love of a common land that transcends the borders of those states.
“Two States, One Common Land” cannot be a substitute for a just peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, but must instead go hand in hand with one. Yet the latest spasm of violence has made graphically clear that it will likely prove impossible to find a formula for a peace settlement acceptable to both sides, unless we find a common vocabulary allowing both peoples not only to feel secure, but also to have a sense of belonging they can share. The notion of “Two States, One Common Land” is the missing link needed to bring about genuine and lasting reconciliation.
RE: “In the end the Greater Israel will become a democratic state whose policies will be dominated by a Palestinian majority – that is, it will be the OSS.” ~ Jeff Warner
FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, 04/08/09:
SOURCE – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703379.html
P.S. Ergo, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River)! “Let Right Be Done.”