News

One State: A view from Gaza

There are those who believe that Israel’s recently-passed Nation-State Law represents a failure of the one-state option, as it formalizes the exclusively Jewish nature of the dominant state in Palestine and with it, the disenfranchisement of the non-Jewish population.

The new law could also be viewed, however, as betraying a fear on the part of the occupying power that the de facto imposition of one state on the ground holds within it the seeds of the dismantling of the colonial project from the inside. Seen in this way, all of the decisions, laws and actions taken by the occupying power to insist upon the specifically Jewish character of the state are but desperate attempts to go against history and legitimize an order that is both unfair and unsustainable.

There are many reasons why the One State idea may never be realized: the tremendous imbalance of power, the rising racism in Israeli society, that Palestinian society itself may not not yet be fully ripe for embracing such an inclusive idea. These challenges, however, should not lead us to underestimate the intrinsic power of the idea itself. History shows that a prophetic vision can begin with few followers and still be carried forward by the intrinsic power of its message.

There are many arguments for One State. First, it is the most realistic option, as it is takes into account both sides of the human equation: on the one hand, the fundamental right of all Palestinians to return to their homes in freedom from occupation, oppression and second-class citizenship, and on the other, the reality of the existence of millions of Jews that live in Palestine.

Concerns about the fate of the Israeli Jews in a liberated Palestine have until now been a major reason for the weakness of international support for our cause. This dilemma is solved by a One State solution that clearly calls, not for “throwing them into the sea” (an idea that is as unfair as it is unrealistic), but for the recognition of full rights and equality for all.

It is true that there are people who came to Palestine with the intention of expelling Palestinians from their homes and taking their place, but guilt can only be ascribed to individuals, not entire nations; and children cannot be held responsible for the crimes of their parents. There are generations of Israelis who know only this land as their home, and they are not responsible for the fact that they were born here.

If my primary goal as a Palestinian is to return to my land, it is of less concern to me who else stays or goes. The most important thing for me is to regain my rights and see the era of displacement and oppression brought to an end.

The idea of One State is aligned with the spirit of our time. The global consciousness has evolved away from the idea of nationalism toward one of citizenship. Millions of Arabs today are citizens in Europe and America who enjoy the same rights as all other citizens of those countries. Why can’t Jews live in Palestine in exactly the same way – on the basis of citizenship and not of Occupation?

There are many Palestinians who have emigrated to the West whose interests have become linked to their new homeland. They – and still less their children and grandchildren – would not necessarily return to a liberated Palestine, because their new countries have become an integral part of their lives. It is also possible for new generations of Israeli Jews, who are similarly connected to Palestine, to have a way to live in this land without remaining in the unacceptable position as occupiers.

There are some who reject the idea of coexistence with Israeli Jews in a shared land out of a subconscious fear that sharing the same society with people of other ethnicities and religions means we will all become alike. Yet Palestinians in the West already live together with many other groups, including Jews and even Zionists, in one state and under one law. In a single multi-ethnic Palestinian state each group will still be able to maintain its shared bonds of religion and culture without having to live in walled ghettoes like the people in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem today.

We Palestinians can have our full rights in a single state. We may still have to struggle for them using the tools of peaceful civil struggle, as Palestinian Member of the Knesset Haneen Zoabi and activist Raed Salah do today, but it will be far less costly and bloody than the struggle we face today in West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora.

The truth is that we already live in a single state, governed by Netanyahu in coordination with the Palestinian Authority (as former PLO chief Saeb Erekat has publicly admitted), and we are left imploring the Israeli government to open its checkpoints to let patients out for treatment and medical supplies in for our hospitals. The Gaza Strip is a prison inside this one state, whose people are struggling to break down their prison walls. 1948 (“Arab Israeli”) and West Bank Palestinians also live in ethnic enclaves within this single state as second-class citizens and non-citizens in the land of their birth.

Thus, the One-State thesis does not call for the establishment of a new reality, but for a struggle based on the existing reality: a struggle to bring down the walls, end ethnic discrimination, and build in their place a state that insures equality, dignity and freedom for all people. This is more realistic than seeking the end of Israel or even the creation of a separate Palestinian state – and also more just.

Implementing a One-State solution will not be easy, and the Occupation will fight hard against it, but since when has a ruling elite’s refusal of change been a reason to give up the struggle for fairness and basic human equality? The power of the One State idea is not its amenability to the Occupier, but its intrinsic nature as both the least costly and the morally superior solution. That should make it worth our while to reimagine our struggle in the light of this vision.

Our problem is with the racism and the occupation of Israel, not with the existence of Jewish people in Palestine. Our goal is to topple the project of Occupation while allowing anyone born in Palestine to remain here based on equal human rights as citizens of a single state.

The simplicity and justness of this vision should compel us to reformulate our struggle toward its attainment.

This article was originally published in Arabic by arabi21.com. This translation was done by Denny Cormier, Rana Shubair and Peter Cohen. 

98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“…allowing anyone born in Palestine to remain here based on equal human rights as citizens of a single state.”

I’m sure that Ahmed Abu Artema feels he is being generous with this offer. Please note that the 29.7% of Israelis that are foreign born will be subject to expulsion under this formulation.

US ambassador tells Israeli MK ‘no reason to evacuate settlements’ in peace deal https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-ambassador-tells-israeli-mk-no-reason-to-evacuate-settlements-in-peace-deal/ via @timesofisrael

Trump has a team of all Zionists with hands in the illegal settlements, so how will Trump’s deal impact the theoretical one-state plan?

The State cannot accept more than one Nation as a constitutional format. The Nation-State of 1648 is the fundamental flaw of Zionism and yet there are 3 proposals to replicate the State as a format! The One State Group also refers to a Constitution without any mechanism for formulating such a Constitution which must be a Constituent Assembly. The only method to resolve the contradictions is The Federation of Palestinian and Hebrew Nations. My book with that title will be published soon in England.

“Collective Rights. Within the framework of a single democratic state, the Constitution will also protect collective rights and the freedom of association, whether national, ethnic, religious, class or gender. Constitutional guarantees will ensure that all languages, arts and cultures can flourish and develop freely. No group or collectivity will have any privileges, nor will any group or collectivity have any control or domination over others. The Constitution will deny the Parliament the authority to enact any laws that discriminate against any community, be it ethnic, national, religious, cultural or class.”

This passage is the only advance made over the years by the One-State Group. Its significance is reduced by the denial previously of the proposition for National-Cultural Autonomy at the London conference. It is furthermore reduced to an aside by the lack of a proposition for a Constituent Assembly in parallel. All in all, the proposition is grossly lacking in supporting concepts. In place of the Zionist “Jewish and Democratic State” the OSG is proposing, in effect, a “Palestinian and Democratic State”, both of which are self-contradictory.

“Why can’t Jews live in Palestine in exactly the same way…”

Zionists should get down on their knees and thank God they are dealing with people this generous. You want my answer?

Jews can’t live in Palestine “in exactly the same way” because in places where Jews live as equals Jews have no control over what other Jews do. There is no way to enforce (beyond a certain amount of social pressure) any particular version of Judaism or Jewishness. Israel can’t tolerate that.

Also, in places where Jews live “in exactly the same way” Judaism, let alone adherence to any particular sect does not entitle a Jew to anything beyond the same civil rights as other people. Israel can’t tolerate that.

Here’s another very interesting article about the “One-State”. Sadly, this article like all the articles about the “One-State” is written from the perspective of an anti-Israel activist, so the most important question of all is never addressed: Why on earth would the Jews agree to the proposal?

It shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out the mainstream opinion of Israeli society. Here it is: The State of Israel is a very big success story. The population is increasing in leaps and bounds. The economy is fantastic. The military threats are very manageable. Now, in the face of such an incredible success, anyone proposing the switching of the existing state with another political entity has to explain why that would be a preferable option.

We learn in this article that the author promises that the Israeli Jews born in the country will be able to stay. Well, he certainly hasn’t given a moment’s thought as to the meaning of his promise. The Jewish public believes that this is their country. Why would this public agree to change their situation to a new reality in which their staying in their own land is even a topic of discussion? The author’s promise (an obvious reaction to those Palestinians who wish to expel the Jews) is a very convincing argument to reject the “One-State” proposal. The present-day low-intensity conflict in which the Jews are absolutely victorious is probably a better deal than the unconditional surrender demanded by the vanquished.

Theoretically, the above “One-State” proposal might be regarded to be generous and good-hearted in the wake of Israel’s total and absolute defeat. Instead of expelling the surviving Jews, the gracious Palestinian victors propose that the Jews stay in the country as citizens. However, Israel is the victorious side of this conflict. I think that even an anti-Israel activist should be able to understand the absurdity of merely offering the Jews that which they already have (the right to live in their own country).

Perhaps, Mondoweiss could present a “One-State” proposal that takes into account the narrative of the Jewish public in Israel. I understand that it’s a very big challenge, because by definition an anti-Israel activist cannot accept the fact that there are two sides to this conflict. However, just as an intellectual exercise, let’s have an article that presents as self-evident that the Israelis are local people living in their own country. Let’s add to this intellectual exercise that these local people have legitimate interests and concerns, and they believe that their cause is just. Now, let’s hear a proposal that offers a “One-State” outcome that takes into account that there is another side to this story.