Richard Falk writes, “Peace through bilateral negotiations presided over by the United States has long seemed moribund to many close observers, but after the recent collapse of the talks this top down diplomatic approach seems discredited even among governments and at the UN, at least for now. Yet it is impossible for most of the world to accept the finality of such a stalemate that favors Israel, in effect, ratifying land grabs and apartheid structures, while consigning the Palestinians to regimes of misery of for the indefinite future, which translates into the rigors of permanent denial of rights, oppression, refugee camps, and involuntary exile. This bleak assessment raises the question ‘What Now?’” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Category Archives: What Comes Next
The struggle for a just peace in Palestine/Israel, we find ourselves at a precarious crossroads. It is clear that the two-state solution is dead and gone, the victim of deliberate Israeli policies of settlement, territorial confiscation and Israel’s refusal to relinquish control over Palestinians’ lives. Yet the Palestinians, whose lead we must follow, have only just begun formulating alternatives, mainly around the notion of a single democratic state. Finding ourselves locked in a political struggle with no end-game for which to advocate is dangerous and self-defeating; it only invites other forces to step into the breach and impose their own agendas. This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Frank Barat talks with Leila Farsakh and Noura Erakat in a wide-ranging interview that took place during a conference in Brussels called “New paradigms for Israel/Palestine.” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Noam Sheizaf writes, “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 post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Mazin Qumsiyeh: “I am 100% sure that peace will come to this troubled land. I am equally sure that this will involve Palestinian refugees being finally allowed to implement their inalienable right to choose to return to their homes and lands. My certainty is based on the lessons of history in Palestine and lessons from similar struggles like South Africa, Vietnam, and Algeria.” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
The debate about one state or two states masks something basic: the diplomatic dance around the two-state solution has been one long performance, a means to manage the zero-sum conflict between Israeli settler-capitalism and the Palestinian right to self-determination. The talk around a solution is Western circles is irrelevant, if not actively damaging. For it presumes, and thereby reinforces, the myth that either are on the table. They are not. What is on the table for the foreseeable future, especially in the absence of massive revolt in the region and especially amongst Palestinians, is sustained occupation, settlement expansion, and further Bantustanization.
Emily Schaeffer writes, “There is a wide gulf between what I envision as a just future for Israel/Palestine and what I view as the best possible outcome given the current reality – and the latter becomes increasingly bleak with every day’s new facts on the ground.” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Scholars have tended to ignore the importance of religion in modern conflicts. The Israel Palestine conflict demonstrates its persistence, Michael Desch argues, and has the two-state solution obsolete. Or not.
More of the same in Israel/Palestine, is Ahmed Moor’s forecast: more ethnic cleansing and isolation, and growing int’l calls for equal rights
Horrified by the prospect of another 10, or 50, years of the 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– the author, a longtime human rights lawyer, sees the establishment of two states with dignity for both sides as a necessary step toward a future that does not entail ethnic compartmentalization.
Dinna Omar: “before approving a state – a nation-state – one must also build an internal structure, must create a state of being built on equal footing. This means we need to build institutions, implement policies, and disseminate work that reverses the roles of oppressed and oppressor, the roles of those who are chosen and privileged over those who are un-chosen, beneath, and subjugated.” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Avraham Burg writes, “So enough of the illusions. There are no longer two states between the Jordan River and the sea. We must consider how we can enter into the new Israeli discourse. It has intriguing potential. The next diplomatic formula that will replace the “two states for two peoples” will be a civilian formula.” This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Mouin Rabbani writes an entry for our series “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.” Rabbani says it is insufficient for advocates of a one state solution to simply argue that one state is right and just and better than the alternatives. Rather, they need to present a credible strategy for achieving what would amount to the unconditional surrender of the Israeli state. Rabbani says, “the question in 2013 is therefore not whether a one or two state outcome is more just or right or fair. Rather it is what strategy Palestinians should pursue to achieve their inalienable rights, first and foremost the right to national self-determination.”
We are excited to share Noam Chomsky’s addition to our series “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.” Chomsky argues the one state/two state debate is crucially flawed because it ignores a third option that Israel is pursuing with constant US support – the consolidation of Greater Israel. This reality not only means Palestinians will continue to live under an ongoing occupation, but also that any hopes for a regional peace settlement with Iran is highly unlikely.
Abir Kopty writes: Those who oppose the farce of negotiations or the two state solution are often faced with the question: “what is your alternative?” The answer: Liberation. This may be the best time to envision liberation, the decolonization of Palestine. This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”
Norman Finkelstein says it is hard to conceive how the struggle to change U.S. foreign policy can be won in the face of determined Jewish opposition, and thus American Jewish opinion on a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be taken into account. This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.”