As the possibility of a two-state solution fades into the horizon (cue the flatline), the discussion of alternatives continues to expand. Building off last month's One State conference at Harvard, NPR's Morning Edition featured a story today on the growing support for one democratic state among Palestinians.
From NPR:
In its broadest definition, the one-state solution would mean absorbing the West Bank and perhaps even the Gaza Strip and all of its Palestinian population into a greater Israel, where everyone would have equal rights.
"What, for me, the idea of one-state is about is ... breaking apart the system of privilege that exists and being able to live as an equal," says Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team. "That's the kind of state that I'm looking for."
Buttu is currently at Harvard, where she organized a conference on the one-state solution. She says equality under the law is the main aim of the one-state option.
"What we are talking about is a state which represents all of its citizens, where there isn't preferential treatment given in laws or in policies to one's religion," she says, "where in fact the issue of one's religion has practically no say in terms of what goes on in a person's life."
Also, Jimmy Carter has a curious Op-Ed in today's International Herald Tribune on a somewhat similar theme. Although ostensibly written to encourage more forceful US diplomacy towards a two-state solution, the piece actually seems to make the one state case as well.
From "Don't Give Up on Mideast Peace":
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman have been establishing more and more settlements in Palestine on confiscated land. While they profess their support for a “two-state solution,” their actions all aim to create a “Greater Israel,” from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Washington has voiced opposition to these steps, but has not made any strong efforts to prevent them. . .
There is a profound difference between “two-states” and “one-state.” The former contemplates two nations with citizens living side by side in peace under terms to be negotiated between leaders of the two principal parties. Other world leaders have almost universally acknowledged that strong help and influence of the United States will be necessary, and all the Arab nations have offered to support such an agreement.
In the case of the “one-state” outcome, if granted the full rights of citizenship, Palestinians would play a major role in the new nation with a possible majority in the future. If deprived of these rights as inferior and second-class dwellers on the land, this will be a system of apartheid that will not be accepted by the international community.
It's slightly unclear whether Carter is using "Palestinians would play a major role in the new nation" as a threat (he quotes Israeli leaders who certainly do), or is simply stating a fact. Later in the article he acknowledges:
The people are already greatly mixed. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinians, although living under severe restrictions. The number of Israeli settlers in Palestinian territories has grown from about 5,000 when I left office in 1981 to about 525,000.
This would seem to support a case for one state, albeit with equal rights.
In Carter's 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he saw two outcomes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- peace in the form of a two-state solution, or apartheid with the Greater Israel status quo. While still clearly a strong advocate for two states, Carter does now seem to allow for the possibility of a third option, one which might be building support.
Thanks Adam. Door for a two state solution closing fast
closed
Closed absent STRONG international pressure, not in evidence (not even from Turkey, which as several citizens murdered on Mavi Marmara)). India, Brazil, China, Russia are quiet. International BDS is possible, but no-one wants to be first. Why should they? Who the **** are the Palestinians anyway?
To advocate for one state is to advocate for two states at this point (both really). It’s the only meaningful change agent out there, as far as I can tell. It’s unknown what that change opportunity will yield (one or two), but this line of advocacy/reasoning is a potent reframing of the question such that the worst fears (perpetual and globally acknowledged hafrada/apartheid) of all (well, most anyway) involved are being realized in real time, perchance to cause something, anything different and positive to happen.
I think this is where Carter is coming to. Thanks AH.
To put a point on it, from Carter’s IHT article:
“As former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said in 1999, “Every attempt to keep hold of this area as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” Eight years later, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that if the two-state solution collapsed, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”
I believe Barak and Olmert were trying to make this differentiating (in their view) point, but never followed up on it. Livni, Olmert’s successor, never followed up on it either. The point remains, though seemingly politically diminished as a political differentiation in Israel and abroad. For whatever reason…
>> About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinians, although living under severe restrictions.
Severe restrictions? In the “Jewish and democratic” state?! Say it ain’t so!
>> The number of Israeli settlers in Palestinian territories has grown from about 5,000 when I left office in 1981 to about 525,000.
A little theft, a little colonization, a lot of oppression to keep it that way and – voilà! – the Jewish state is just that much greater. Well, geographically, anyway…
Garcia-Navarro is one of NPR’s better reporters in the Middle East (don’t get me started on Kelly McEvers and Linda Gradstein).
As far as this from Carter goes:
Tragically, Israel continues to bank on the international community tolerating its consolidation of a non-democratic one-state solution, as it entrenches the system of apartheid and continues ethnically cleansing Palestinian lands and Palestinians from the Holy Land. If the time comes when the international community will override the UN Security Council veto by General Assembly action, the ethnic cleansing may be so far advanced that Palestinians are a distinct minority in Greater Israel and most of the West Bank is owned by the JNF by then. A one-state solution, without dismantling Israel’s peculiar anti-democratic institutions, is not a just solution.
RE: “their actions all aim to create a ‘Greater Israel,’ from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.” ~ Carter
MY COMMENT: Their actions aim to create a ‘Greater Israel’ from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River or perhaps even beyond!
FROM WIKIPEDIA [Revisionist Zionism]:
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
O.K., the well-connected Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman is featured again today in the op-ed pages of the NYT, our ‘national newspaper-of-record’, and its sister publication, the International Herald Tribune. Entitled “Beware of Faulty Intelligence,” the article notifies the American public that war with Iran is imminent – once again.
link to nytimes.com
So nice of the Times to be so accommodating of the Israeli propaganda machine.
“Building off last month’s One State conference at Harvard,…”
I understand “building on“, but what does “building off” mean?