Two States or One?

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 21 November 2002

When the PLO formally recognized Israel within its internationally
recognized borders and agreed to a two-state solution in 1993, like
most Palestinians, I swallowed hard but accepted it. We believed that
this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary
to bring about peace. Those who completely rejected the creation of a
state limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a mere twenty two
percent of the country in which Palestinians were an overwhelming
majority just fifty years ago -- were relegated to the margins of the
Palestinian movement, both on the left and the Islamist right.

Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian
state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical
formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized
the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of
such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to
make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to
furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East
Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than
doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.

Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and
has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually
impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some
representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once
again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state
for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.

This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy
Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon
make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean,
just as they were until 1948.

None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace
camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because
of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal
apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do
Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish
privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same
time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown
themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically,
and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of
their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory
but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to
present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a
greater Israel.

I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I
opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to
that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and
Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the
European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes
of war and hatred. Moreover, an international legal framework already
exists for the transition from the current situation to Palestinian
statehood, at least in theory making the path easier than to any other
solution.

For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that
became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is
gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For
millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or
grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and
factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in
exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and
demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I
was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.

Although I recognize that the two-state solution will soon become
impracticable, if it is not already, due Israel's relentless settlement
construction, I believe it may still have a last chance if Israel is willing to
embrace the following principles:

1) Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have already made an
historic compromise by accepting a state in only twenty-two percent of
their homeland, and that no further concessions can justly be asked of
them. Israel must declare that by conquering seventy eight percent of
Palestine in 1948, far more than was allotted to it in the 1947 UN
partition plan, it has completely fulfilled its territorial ambitions and will
not seek any more expansion.

2) Israel must immediately cease all construction in the occupied
territories, including "natural growth" and all the other devices that are
used to disguise ongoing settlement building. Israel must immediately
stop confiscating Palestinian land either for building settlements or
settler roads.

3) Israel must agree that the goal of any further negotiations is a
complete end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East
Jerusalem within a fixed, early period, and agree to withdraw under
neutral international supervision and guarantees.

4) Israel must recognize an independent, sovereign Palestinian state
whose borders are those of June 4, 1967, with minor, agreed-upon
modifications to rectify anomalies, such as divided villages and bisected
roads. Any land ceded on one side of the line must be compensated
with land of equal size, value and utility on the other side, as close as
possible to the exchanged land.

5) Israel must agree to evacuate all settlements in the occupied
territories, without exception, including settlements in and around
occupied East Jerusalem.

6) Jerusalem, as an open city, would be the capital of two states. A
formula for sharing power fairly between Palestinians and Israelis, with
guaranteed access to holy places for peoples of all faiths, would replace
the illegal Israeli occupation "municipality" imposed on the city since
1967. This could be accomplished by various formulas. If the
Palestinians agree to allow any settlements to remain in and around
Jerusalem, Israel must compensate both the State of Palestine and the
private land owners for the land, and the settlers must agree to live
either as Palestinian citizens or permanent residents under Palestinian
laws. If Palestinians agree that some Israeli settlers can remain in East
Jerusalem then Israel must agree to allow Palestinians to return to the
homes from which they were expelled in West Jerusalem in 1947-48.

7) The most difficult issue is the right of return of Palestinian refugees
and compensation and restitution for their property and suffering. The
right to return is an individual legal right and is not negated by the
two-state solution. At the same time, recognition of Israel as a
sovereign state means acknowledging a political reality and interest that
will have to be factored into any formula to implement the right of return.
It is not difficult to imagine solutions which fall between the maximalist
positions of both sides and which simultaneously take into account
Israel's concerns, and provide Palestinian refugees with real choices,
including return to their original homes, as mandated by UN Resolution
194. Palestinians could, for example, agree among themselves to a
system of priority where those with the greatest need to return get to
choose first (among the choices Palestinian refugees whose original
homes no longer exist might be offered is a home in an evacuated
Israeli settlement). Israel will not be able to get away with a merely
symbolic recognition of Palestinian refugee rights, but nor would
millions of refugees suddenly flood back as in the Israeli "nightmare"
scenario. There is ground in between that can be reached through
negotiations and international mediation.

Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by
Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its
owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest.
Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set
out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from
European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted
here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to
leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They
call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the
territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two
percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and
recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of
Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects
refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.

From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians,
Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations
feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That
would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live
with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe
that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions
of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as
president of the Palestinian Authority.

The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is
willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish"
want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of
the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject
categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made
for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and
more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is
already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories
cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any
Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong
and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment
to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they
are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.

The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held
out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously
reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.

Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone
who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will
likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think
about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more
importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists.
For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living
with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do
not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time
bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door
neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I
embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my
parents were born, than I do here in the United States.

I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict
and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere
trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and
passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would
just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the
flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem
represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose
genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give
its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his
homeland? These are the questions that matter.

Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that
may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France
and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one
country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one
path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and
Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at
each other's expense.

True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The
powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or
conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a
single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their
monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered
thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this
and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and
still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means
discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while
conflict and bloodshed rage on.