Ahmed Moor’s post on the right of return a few days ago was a brave attempt to move the one-state solution from myth to reality. Articulating the practical contours for the one-state solution is not easy. Below are a few points in response to Moor’s article, and which I put forth in an effort to continue the conversation in search for a reasonable one-state solution.
1) Thinking through the issue of the refugees in Lebanon (since they are amongst the worst off) Moor is rightfully afraid of the expulsion of Palestinians by Lebanese under the guise of enabling the right of return. One possible way to avert any such scenario is to think of giving Palestinians passports in the new one-state and resident rights in a country like Lebanon – this will allay the fears of the demographic threat for Lebanese since Palestinians would become legal laborers and become like Kuwaitis or Egyptians. They can choose to live in Lebanon but not become citizens with voting rights. At some point in the future things could change once the one-state develops momentum and it is no longer a threat to have dual citizenship with Lebanon (should anyone care to have it). These joint citizen-resident rights would make further sense within the framework of open borders that I will mention briefly in point 6.
2) Salman Abu Sitta’s work is a good place to start thinking of Palestinian return. Part of his argument is that many Palestinians could actually go back to their homes because the villages are unoccupied or are uninhabited military zones. While Abu Sitta does not deal with the racism that would prevent people from returning or that would make peaceful coexistence difficult, he does show that return may not be as impossible as detractors make it out to be. Combined with the monetary approach that Moor is thinking of there could be a practical way forward.
3) This brings me to the third point, which is that any solution would have to be accompanied by a strong education (or re-education) campaign if it is to succeed. People often assume that current beliefs will hold forever, and on that basis they see no possibility for an end to conflict let alone for a one-state solution. However, the one-state would have to be accompanied by a sustained education campaign in and out of school on what it means to be one people, and not to deny the crimes committed. Thus, something akin to the following would have to be advanced: "Israelis stole the land and forced people out. Palestinians, in trying to get this land back resorted to often immoral means, etc." In the process new myths and symbols will have to come about. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), to the extent that it brings people together in the coming years, might very well be one such symbol of pride for the new state. For one, BDS offers an alternative to the Zionist Israeli government, to Hamas, and to Fateh. In the absence of these symbols, and from our current vantage point, it is hard for many to see how any solution can be sustained. This is where visions are important and why Moor’s effort is welcomed.
4) I found that Moor overemphasized our responsibility to the present and future. While this is important, we must continue to think of our responsibility to the dead and the past. Trying to deal with the past of the dead is important in reconciliation and if we don’t account for that then we may not be able to appease a lot of people’s grievances. It’s not just about myths, but in any case, myths are important for the development of communities and any solution cannot just easily brush that off. We have to be careful that the current conflict does not turn into a future civil war, and not accounting for a continuity with the past might prove unsustainable. Moreover, we have to be sensitive to a rich cultural context where people in the region tend to live their histories spontaneously in the present rather than as history turned memory. I think it would be quite useful for myth re/constructing to dwell on the perhaps philosophical topic of memory and history, and our responsibilities to the dead. After all, it is on their remains, as Walter Benjamin duly noted, that we build our history and our successive civilizations.
5) I think it is important that we insist on holding Israel accountable and, as much as possible, not shift the burden elsewhere in an effort to get the blessing of Israeli society. Meaning, the entire burden should not be shifted to the international community because that might make Palestinians feel like the Israelis have gotten off with murder. The beauty of the one-state solution is in the idea that part of the accountability would be shifted to the new state. Rather than seeing this as the Israelis or Israeli government paying for Palestinians, we might want to think of it as the new state supporting its disenfranchised and victimized citizens. Moor was onto something in his iteration of monetary compensation and I think he should take this further.
6) Finally, I have always thought of a one-state as one that would include a kind of open-border solution with Lebanon and Syria. For me, this always seemed to solve, in my mind, the issue of labor, citizen, and resident rights in a geographically, culturally, economically, and socially linked area. Of course, we could think of this open-border as even more extended, but I see Lebanon, Syria and the new state as a starting place. The new state with open borders will have repercussions on Lebanese sectarianism as people will be allowed to move more freely, the so-called Palestinian threat of naturalization (tawteen) would be no more, and many minorities might likely return seeking opportunity in a potentially larger market. The effect of these could resolve Lebanese-Palestinian tensions in Lebanon but also Lebanese-Israeli enmity. After all, should Palestinians rule the land originally Mandate Palestine in a closed-border way, we would still not resolve water and even some land issues between neighbors. Open borders would also mean Lebanese and Syrian Jews will be free to resettle in homes and areas that they left in the years after the creation of the Zionist state. It seems romantic from our perspective in 2010, but as Moor said, the new state is becoming more possible to imagine, it is just a matter of outlining its practical framework.
Sami Hermez is a doctoral candidate of anthropology at Princeton University working on questions of violence and nonviolence.
