The supporters of the two-state solution are often told that this vision is unrealistic and has become unachievable. Young, idealistic seekers of justice and equality are increasingly offering what they claim is a more "realistic" solution: a single state for all Israelis and Palestinians, including refugees.
Because I am deeply aware of the difficulties of achieving a lasting solution through two states living side-by-side in peace, I am always eager to examine other options. In sincerely evaluating the one state idea, I first reviewed how the two-state concept emerged, assessed the fundamental realities of the status quo, and posited the series of questions about how a single state could be achieved.
Beginning with its inception in 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization pursued a single state solution. It only accepted Israel and the two-state solution in 1988 after armed resistance not only failed to achieve a state, but precipitated a series of calamities for Palestinians.
The two-state solution also became the official policy of the United States -- and the world as represented by the Middle East Quartet -- under the George W. Bush administration in 2002. It was buttressed by the Arab Peace Initiative and, in 2009, was even accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is the consensus of international policy, but is also stymied and forestalled by international politics, and is losing support and confidence because of the failure of the negotiating process and expanding settlement construction.
Whether pursuing two states or a single state, everyone needs to begin by honestly assessing the status quo as defined by the following salient facts:
- Israel occupies the Palestinians and their land conquered in 1967.
- Soon the number of Jews and Arabs in territories of mandatory Palestine, between the sea and the river, will be equal.
- The de facto state of Israel already constitutes a one-state reality, but the conflict is not ended.
- Jordan is already another unified, single state that is organically tied to the conflict.
- Both negotiations and "armed resistance" have failed to produce a solution.
- Demographics, and land occupancy, are inexorably changing, according to their own logic and pace.
Among Palestinians, the one-state idea is embraced mainly by those most opposed to Israel, Zionism, normalization, negotiations, cultural exchange and trade, and who support boycott, divesture and sanctions.
To take the one-state option seriously, due diligence regarding its feasibility is required. This simply means asking how it can be achieved through the following questions:
1) What is the mechanism for negotiating, implementing or imposing such a solution? A UN Security Council or General Assembly resolution dissolving the State of Israel? The voluntary dissolution of the State of Israel? Negotiations without negotiators? A military solution imposed by the international community or by the armed forces of Palestine and neighboring Arab countries?
2) Remembering that it is advocated by those Palestinians most opposed to Israel, what are the realistic prospects of gaining significant support for this idea among Jewish Israelis?
3) Would the Palestinian Authority disappear altogether? Would it be replaced by the Israeli bureaucracy? Would they somehow merge, or be forced together by outside powers, and if so, how and by whom?
4) Would all citizens of this state become instantly equal before the law, with all rights and responsibilities of the citizen, without discrimination? Who will define these terms and implement them, and who will oversee the process?
5) Would the current educational systems be merged after the establishment of the single state? Would there be an official, hybrid, historical narrative? Or would the two narratives be taught simultaneously?
6) Would the armed forces of this state result from a merger of the existing forces? Would all citizens be eligible to join? Would the leaderships of the existing armed forces continue to be the same, or would they be replaced by some other leadership, and if so, whom?
7) Would there be an affirmative action program to integrate the disadvantaged into various systems, public and private? Would it be phased in over years, decades or centuries?
8) Would land ownership revert to the status quo in 1948 and 1967? How would competing property claims be managed and by whom?
9) Who would head and form the government? Or who would at least lead a transitional government until a unified one is formed, and how long would the transition last?
10) What would happen regarding the occupation and settlements while these questions remain unaddressed?
Finally, would it not be fair to ask one-state advocates if their talents, energies and time have been diverted from the fight to achieve freedom for Palestine, only to fashion yet another tool that that will preserve the status quo and prolong the occupation?
Ziad Asali is the President of American Task Force on Palestine
A version of this article has been previously published in the Daily Beast's Open Zion section.
Rabbi Rachel Barenblat: We Are Responsible for One Another: Outrage Over Crimes By My Own Community
Charles D. Smith: Israel's Fateful Hour
Ian Lucas: Israel and Palestine
It seems you are willing to destabilize Israel and put our future in danger, but let's not bother Jordan. That argument just doesn't work.
I think what the issue is, is the double-standard of justice which the Jews have been subjected to--for most of recorded history. Almost like busses were invented as a way to have something to throw the proverbial Hebrews under.
Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult for Israel to negotiate with the governmental/leadership mess that defines the Hamas/Fatah rift. So why not split it up?
Negotiate with Fatah for a Palestinian state in the West bank. And if Hamas ever decides they'd rather live in peace than destroy Israel, they can have a state as well. If they decide to combine the two states at a later time, that is their decision.
The palestininas MUST unite before any negotiations resume. These factions are literally a dime a dozen in the region.
They must unite, show a united front, one leader representing ALL palestinian people in their quest for statehood and recognition.
In order to have true unification one of the two will have to give up their entire governing system and put their faith at the hand of the other group. In plain English one of the two have to give up power completely.
Anybody watching the "Arab spring"? Giving up power in the Muslim world is against the laws of gravity.
"What is the mechanism for negotiating, implementing or imposing such a solution?"
There is no viable mechanism.
"what are the realistic prospects of gaining significant support for this idea among Jewish Israelis?"
The prospects are almost zero.
I think the idea is hopelessly flawed and looking at all the challenging question asked about issues like integration of security and education, I can't help but feel that if the two sides could reach agreement on those issues, they could much more easily achieve a 2-state solution.
The author (at least to me) did not, in fact, appear to be supporting a one-state solution but actually seemed to be challenging those that do. The questions he asked do not have viable answers for a reason. That's why he ended it with:
"Finally, would it not be fair to ask one-state advocates if their talents, energies and time have been diverted from the fight to achieve freedom for Palestine, only to fashion yet another tool that that will preserve the status quo and prolong the occupation?"
"
- DIVIDE - the two groups DIVIDE the chunk of land in a way that BOTH GROUPS AGREE to (both sides need to be equally unhappy).
- SHARE - the two groups SHARE the chunk of land equally - every human has the same rights and courts treat everyone the same (both sides are equally unhappy).
- WAR to the death - WAR until one side ethnically cleanses the other side completely. One side "wins" and the other side loses.
Right now the Israelis seem to assume that they can eventually win via massive war, but they can not seem to count very well since there are less than 20 million Jews on earth and a majority of them will choose to live rather than fight for a chunk of land against up to 1.5 Billion Muslims (or 300 million Arabs).
The bottom line is the Israelis can NOT "win" in any sense of the word. Eventually Israel's protector will be unable or unwilling to protect Israel and it will be fighting a losing political/military battle. This is why if Israelis had any intelligence at all, they would be rushing to either DIVIDE the land fairly or SHARE the land fairly. The path Israel is on is NOT sustainable because eventually the IDF will lose,
How many more hints are we supposed to take?
Unwilling to lose control and unwilling to give the local population voting rights, Israel has painted itself into a very tight corner, a one-state without equal rights.
I think a two-state situation is the only way to go realistically. But not everyone in Israel is acting in that direction, or perhaps they are not aware of the implications of their own logic.
2.So called TransJordan was to be the Arab sector, as at that time, all citizens of the area including Jews were "palestinians".
3.Yasser Arafat unleashed a barage of terror, killings and mayhem against the Israeli public, which accurately failed but did not stop; Just because the "palestinians" entered into a half hearted negotiation phase means nothing (the barricade around the West Bank literally put a stop to the murderous intifada Arafat unleashed upon Israel after the Olso accords failed, and they failed by his hand.
4.The reality is that land-for-peace has been a total failure, as Israelis want peace, the PLO/Hamas want land and no peace.
Faved and fanned.
The US empire is disintegrating as we speak.
And once the US is impotent, Israel will have no choice but to commit suicide or do as the Arabs wish.
Long term Israel is on the losing side.
"The US empire is disintegrating as we speak."
I am a NY Jets fan. The team has been losing miserably for 44 years. Every year at the end of the season I sound just like you. Wait till next years, and the next year, and the next year, the only different between you and me, I didn't lose my sanity.
As an Israeli I would like to add the 11th question. If the Palestinians can't live in peace with each other how they are going to live in peace with the Jews?
As it stands now there is no land in the WB for the Palestinians to build a nation on.
But there is plenty of land in Israel, that's the land they really want.
"You can't always get what you want"
Rolling stones.