This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.” This series was initiated by Jewish Voice for Peace as an investigation into the current state of thinking about one state and two state solutions, and the collection has been further expanded by Mondoweiss to mark 20 years since the Oslo process. The entire series can be found here.
Just so you know, I spent part of the summer of 1950 picking plums at Ein Hashofet, the first American kibbutz in Israel. On a side trip to Tel Aviv, Martin Buber, the famous philosopher, graciously agreed to be interviewed if I agreed to accompany him on a shopping trip to a local market. We had, not surprisingly, a fascinating conversation; much of it was devoted to our shared vision of Israel as a binational state.
But that was then and this is now. As a human rights lawyer nothing is more alien to me than ethnic compartmentalization. But as a diligent observer of the political scene, I can see no possibility of a binational state, comprising the present Israel and the occupied territories, coming into being in the foreseeable future. It is not a matter of right and wrong; it is, rather, a matter of Israel being so wedded to the notion of a predominantly Jewish state and, for that matter, Palestine being equally unwilling to accept a state with a Jewish majority, that makes the one state solution unworkable for the time being.
I have emphasized the last four words because I am not wedded to the idea of a Jewish state forever and a day. But I am horrified by the prospect of another ten, twenty or fifty years of status quo, with Israeli jails filled with Palestinians separated from their families, periodic intifadas and never ending humiliations at checkpoints and Israel becoming even more of an international outcast, if such a thing is imaginable. And yet, that is the prospect which “one state now” conjures up.
I am tempted to say that what is desperately needed now is “a decent interval,” except that Henry Kissinger has given that expression a bad name. Let us call it a pause, a respite, a truce. I can think of only one way to bring that about with dignity for both sides. It is called “two states,” with peace and justice for each.
If it lasts, as well it may, a time may come to think of a new structure; a federation, perhaps, or even a single state with enforceable constitutional guarantees of fundamental human rights for all of its citizens.
Some years ago, I got into a conversation with a taxi driver on the way from Jerusalem to Ben Gurion airport. I asked him if he had a thought about how to bring peace to the region. “Yes,” he said, to my surprise. “We should have one state with three kings, a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian. They should take turns every year.”
Not a bad idea. A bit premature, though.
Peter Weiss is a member of the Executive Committee of Americans for Peace Now and a Vice President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He is speaking here only for himself.
Lovely thoughts here. Not sure “We Three Kings Of Orient Are” is the right song — didn’t work so well, I believe, in Lebanon. But anyhow.
Yes, We all desperately need a PAUSE. For that we need Israeli/USA consent. For that we need a seismic change, a “sea change”, something like “global warming” to change the hearts and minds of Israeli and American Establishments.
It would help if Israel had become a “pariah” among the governments of the world rather than only among (some of) their people. This “pariah” thing is wishful thinking so long as it is not connected to action.
The strategy of world-imperialism (global capitalism if you will) is “divide and conquer” and what is divided is governments and large business, on the one hand, from their people, on the other. And what is conquered is the world. And global capitalism has yet to express dissatisfaction with most dictators including today’s Israel (seen, at a minimum, as dictator over the West Bank and Gaza and Golan). And seen as flouter and maybe also as destroyer of international law.
Something, that last, that one would wish were of concern and consequence to “the nations”.
Sigh.
Either outcome is acceptable as long as it is done with justice. If you don’t let refugees return to their homes it is not justice. You can gerrymander the borders along where the Jewish population would be larger than the nonJewish one even after their return.
Also, if our goal is to help the oppressed, then we must value the desires of the oppressed themselves. How do they see the best strategy and outcome?
Both the 2SS and the 1SS have real problems.
The problems with the 2SS are: Israel rejects it, backed by the US. And Israel rejects the right of return for Palestinians (while supporting the Right of Return for Jews). And Israeli governments have worked very hard to make 2SS impossible. By now 500,000 Jews (10% of the Jewish population) live in Jews-only settlements in the Occupied Palestinians Territories, and the Jewish settlers believe they have every right to be there.
The problems with the 1SS is that there is almost no support for a nonracist 1SS among Israeli Jews. (The current situation is a racist 1SS, with many of the Palestinians being stateless) And there is no international (i.e., European) support for the 1SS.
Either the 2SS or the 1SS would have be forced on Israel by outside forces. The US acts to support Israel, and Europe objects verbally but does nothing to help the Palestinians resist Israel’s land grab.
Supporters of the 2SS have not faced up to the possibility that Israel, after decades of hard work, may have made the 2SS impossible.
The BDS and similar movements are hurting Israel’s image around the world. That’s about the only hopeful sign.
Ah the old “decent interval” strategy of destroying the Jewish state in stages. Nope. Try again.
Is Peter Weiss related to Phil? By the way, one of my grandmother’s cats is called Peter Weiss.
I can see no possibility of a binational state coming into being in the foreseeable future. It is a matter of Israel being so wedded to the notion of a predominantly Jewish state and, for that matter, Palestine being equally unwilling to accept a state with a Jewish majority, that makes the one state solution unworkable for the time being.
In a one-state solution, there would be a Palestinian majority. I read this on the Haaretz website some months ago.
I can think of only one way to bring that about with dignity for both sides. It is called “two states,” with peace and justice for each.
A just two-state solution is as unlikely as a just one-state solution. That’s simply because Israel rejects any kind of just solution. Besides, a two-state solution requires separating the OPT from Israel. I think that would be much more effort than a one-state solution.