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.
The two-state solution won’t be dead as long as both societies are on the ground. The Palestinians and the Israelis are dominated by the political forces supporting them, even if the support is done more and more for rhetorical reasons, and not as part of a real political agenda. Given the option between one state and two states, most Israelis will take the latter; all major Palestinian political parties are yet to give up the desire for their own nation-state. Even if international pressure on Israelis reaches the levels it did on South Africans in the mid 1980’s, at their “moment of truth,” Israelis are more likely to prefer another partial withdrawal to annexing the West Bank and Gaza and giving equal rights to the Palestinians. One could say that as long as nationalism lives, the idea of two separate nation-states between the sea and the river will live.
Implementing a real two-state solution, on the other hand, seems more and more unlikely. Right now, every sixth person east of the Green Line is a Jew. Under the current political circumstances, a more limited Israeli withdrawal to the separation barrier–which would force the evacuation of thousands of settlers and still won’t leave the Palestinians with sufficient contiguous territory in order to form a viable state–seems just as unlikely. And sure enough, this won’t be “a solution”: even if such a withdrawal is accompanied by an agreement between Israeli and Palestinian representatives; even if Israeli leaders can implement this agreement in good faith; even if Israel survives the inevitable internal battle that will ensue–all we are likely to end up with is an enhanced Palestinian Authority. Sooner or later, hostilities would erupt again.
We are left with a one-state reality and a two-state political discourse. The Green Line is all but meaningless: the populations are totally mixed. A separation mechanism–a nationalistic debate in both societies and the Jewish de facto sovereignty over the entire land– is preventing the implementation of a just political mechanism, one which would be in sync with the geographic and demographic reality. This problem is likely to bring much more pain and sorrow on both Jews and Palestinians.
Thanks Noam. I very much agree.
The mixed populations are also a reason why the Palestinian and Israeli identities hold no weight anymore except in the diaspora. Particularly Palestinians. Although I cannot speak for Israelis in the diaspora. However, in Israel/Palestine, it holds no weight because on the ID card, every person is marked by ethnicity.
And the only Arabs inside Israel who identify as “Arab Israelis” are the patriotic assimilated Arab Israelis. However, every other Palestinian Arab citizen inside Israel identifies as a Palestinian. Now, that being said, Israeli settlers in the West Bank are not called Palestinians, and it shows, due to the amount of privilege they get from being Jewish. Them being Jewish resulting in the Israeli identity.
Therefore no one can really argue that Arabs inside the territories are Palestinians, while Arabs inside Israel are not, because 1. Arabs inside Israel identify as Palestinians and 2. it’s a mixed population anyway.
Anyhow, I went off on a tangent here, and I agree that if we do not get out of the two-state discourse mindset, we will be stuck with it. Hence the current “peace talks” with John Kerry, although Netanyahu doesn’t seem to abide.
There is no TSS. We should stop suggesting it.
Implementing a real two-state solution, on the other hand, seems more and more unlikely. Right now, every sixth person east of the Green Line is a Jew.
Well then, it was always impossible, because one out of every two persons in the Jewish state proposed by the UN in 1947 was an Arab and the “Plan for the Future Government of Palestine” was really just a “Plan of Partition with Economic Union” that was a political, rather than a real, two state solution. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
It really just proposed one country with a common market, a common currency, and common railways, interstate highways, postal, telephone, telegraphic services, and common use of the ports system with right of transit – all under the management of a “Joint Economic Board”.
Essential public services in both states were to be funded by customs revenues raised at the ports of Haifa and Jaffa and divided equally between the parties in the free trade area. There was a formal treaty creating the “Economic Union of Palestine” and establishing a system of collaboration between the two States and the City of Jerusalem, which also provided for management of any “other matters of common interest”. The Joint Economic Board was to consist of three representatives of each of the two States and three foreign members appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Equal rights of religious groups, minorities, and women in all of Palestine were to be constitutionally protected and placed under UN guarantee.
The only thing that’s really amazing is that the League of Nations and UN managed to let the parties concerned waste 90 years arguing over ways to disguise a bi-national country with equal rights and representation for all as something different, two poorly labeled “ethnic” states.
“Implementing a real two-state solution, on the other hand, seems more and more unlikely. Right now, every sixth person east of the Green Line is a Jew”. How so? approx every sixth person [probably many more] west of the green line identified themselves as Palestinian, that did not stop the realization of an Israeli state. If implementing a two state solution seems unlikely, could it be that it’s because you accept that the settlement enterprise is a fait accompli and that International law is of no account, do you propose to let bank robbers keep their gains simply because the crime committed 20 years ago has only just been discovered, of course not, let us wait and see what the ICC have to say about these ongoing war crimes, only after the court has determined [as the opinion of the ICJ did] that the settlement enterprise is illegitimate [Kerry] and contrary to International law [Geneva 49.6] and then brings the perpetrators to book,can other options be looked at, the reason the US/Israel are so fearful of this scenario is they do not want any Palestinian to have his day in a neutral court.
From this article it sounds like the West Bank’s demography would be like a bad, massive prison where one group is the guards and the others are not, with a 1 to 5 ratio of guards to prisoners. Concrete walls and buildings, surveillance, searches, armed patrols, random interrogation, mistreatment, little success with appeals to outside higher authorities, etc.