One of my first elucidations of my support for the one-state solution. Originally published August 18, 2009.
The current policy space includes two major options being seriously debated: the single-nation-state solution, and the Two-State solution. The latter is the one supported by most of those identified with the peace camp: two states, Israel and Palestine, living peacefully one next to the other. The other solution is actually two solutions, each supported by nationalists on one of the sides of the dispute. For the Jewish nationalists, a single Jewish nation state solution is promoted (usually leaving the occupied territories in a perpetual limbo to avoid giving citizenship to its Palestinian inhabitants, although the extremists will have no qualms with annexing these territories while at the same time revoking the citizenship of all Arab-Israelis, leaving them as mere denizens); for the Palestinian extremists, a “solution” is suggested that includes the annihilation of the State of Israel, to be replaced by a Palestinian nation-state from the Jordan river to the sea.
That a two-state solution lies squarely in between these two extreme “solutions” seems quite obvious, and it is exactly this obviousness that leads us to believe that this is, somehow, the ideal solution. But the two-state solution is not only a compromise by the nationalists on either side – it is also, maybe even primarily, a compromise by non-nationalist liberals who are forced to play under the rules of the game set by the nationalists themselves. But because the two-state solution is a liberal compromise in a nationalist world, it necessarily runs some important risks that make it highly unstable, and cast a doubt over its sustainability. It is therefore important to remember always that the two-state solution is far from the best solution, and to continuously question whether it is, as we often seem to believe, the only solution.
The two-state solution takes as its starting point that outdated notion of a right of self-determined nations to sovereign nation-states. It assumes that both sides are somewhat right in demanding a nation-state of their own, and therefore proposes the solution is two nation-states. The criticism raised by Jewish nationalists, however, is very apt here: in the commonly promulgated settlement, there will be a judenrein Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, and a binational state within the Green Line. After all, while we have no problem succumbing to the will of the Palestinian nationalists, we still wish to keep Israel as close as possible to a liberal democracy – i.e., a state that affords full, equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of their (ethnic) nationality. To make the solution truly fair and equally nationalist, the demands of either transfer of Israel’s Arabs to the Palestinian territories, or Lieberman’s idea of land-exchange between the two entities – either way Israel’s Arab citizens will suddenly find themselves the citizens of the Palestinian state – must be met. The alternative is maintaining Israel as the Jewish nation-state, with a fifth of the population that is by definition second-class citizens, since they can never become nationals of their own state.
It seems that at least some of the proposals for a two-state solution see that solution as temporary – that after a long period of peaceful coexistence, the two states will see the benefits of closer cooperation, and some sort of federal arrangement can be attained. A bi-national federal arrangement was supported by non-nationalists1 such as Hannah Arendt since before the creation of the State of Israel. Any liberal-minded individual should strive to achieve some binational arrangement – federal or otherwise – in Israel and Palestine. No other solution would be sustainable in the long run. But such a bi-national solution is not politically feasible currently. There isn’t nearly enough trust between the sides to allow such a solution to work.
There are two ways that could possibly allow this trust to build: through separating the two peoples for a while (the two-state solution), or through forcing them to cooperate in some small scale, and enlarging that pilot project in time. Initiatives such as the Jerusalem Old City Initiative seem to plot the way for this latter option (although, curiously, JOCI suggests that the cooperation would be a temporary situation, to be later replaced by a fuller separation of the Israeli and Palestinian entity). We need to stop and ask whether the former alternative – separation to achieve trust – is a viable one. Are we not, actually, setting ourselves up for two nationalist states with a vested interest in maintaining this separation and preventing any real cooperation between the two peoples, leading, in the long run, to continued animosity between us.
Notes:- Non-nationalists are not those who deny the existence of a nation, but rather those who object to the notion that a nation must be its own sovereign in its own nation-state. [↩]
a. All that ‘judenrein’ concept is, pardon my french, crap. The reason no jews would remain in the Palestinian state-to-be is that all jews sitting in its future territory are opressing the local population, violating the international law and, in most cases, also violate Israely law. The fact that there will be no jews in the future Palestinian state is an outcome of the fact that no jews where residing there at the time of the israeli occupation*. How can you compare a Jew living in a settelment, built on Palestinian land (either privatly owned or not – it doesn’t matter), to a palestinian with an israeli citizenship, whos residing in the same village as his great grandfather? why does the just removal of the former requires the removal of the latter, under some sacred principle of ‘balance’? Do you also suggest throwing a jew to jail for every palestinian thief sitting there?
b. Having said that, and not being overly coherent, you can’t talk about the validity of the two-state solution without a bit of geography. Once you look at a map of the occupied territories, you see that there would be no palestinian state withot the eviction of Maal’e Edumim bloc and Arial bloc – more than 80,000 settelers. If anyone thinks that such an eviction is possible – after the ‘hitnatkut’ and partly because of the traumatic play produced there by Sharon and co, I must say he’s daydreaming. The two-state solution is unrealistic, and we must think of ways to advance a bi-national state in a just manner (including the big question – what to do with the settlements).
* Which is in turn an outcome of the fact that
Nadav – hear hear. I wholeheartedly agree. As I see it – in a bi-national (federalized) state the settlements will remain in place, but under the jurisdiction of the local canton. In addition, there will be no limitations on where a person can purchase a house. Most of the settlements, as simple collections of houses, can serve as well as settlements (ha-ha) for upper-class Palestinians. The injustice of the settlements, which is largely derived from segregated roads, inequality in land and water allocation will be solved in a bi-national state automatically.
Nadav — you’ll forgive me if I don’t buy into the concept of a bi-national state. I don’t have anything against the Palestinians and I’m sure they’re nice people, but I think their ability to form a liberal democracy is dubious. A bi-national state would be a travesty, a complete selling-out of all of the concepts that liberal Israelis believe in (I know it sounds somewhat paradoxical). It’s nothing against the Palestinians in particular — I would similarly object to a union of Israel with any non-democratic country (China, for example). A bi-national country would be even worse than what the Apartheid state that Israel is now. Do you really believe that a bi-national state would be able to be a reasonably-liberal democracy?
I don’t understand the maps well enough to be able to tell, but your claim that “there would be no Palestinian state without the eviction of Maal’e Edumim bloc and Arial bloc” sounds extreme to me. Can’t Israel evacuate most of the sprawling parts and be left with the cores of both parts, which, territorially, will be quite small?
Saying “we can’t evict 80,000 settlers so we must set up a binational state” seems like a glorious case of tossing the baby out with the bathwater. My severe criticism of Israeli policy is exactly because the people and the government are forcing Israel into such a conundrum, but even I don’t think that the solution will be a binational state. This is not out of hate of the Palestinians — I’m sure I’d like the Palestinians if I knew them better, as I like Chinese people or Greek people. Nonetheless, I have no desire to be a Chinese national, or a Greek national, or a Palestinian national, and I don’t think that Israel has commited such a grave crime as to be forced to unite with Palestine.
@Yuval: The solution your offering for the settelments is problematic. The settelments will remain jewish, as jews will be the upper economic class in that bi-national state (unless we’re planning a marxist revolution along the way). I’m not sure the palestinians would accept this idea so easily.
@elad-vav: no one said the bi-national solution is an easy one; It’s tremendously complicated, but that dosen’t prevent it fropm being the easiest solution (yeh, that means we’re fucked up. guess you’ve realised that by now
. Obtaining a liberal bi-national state is a complicated and long process, but I believe it is possible, certainly more than the bi-state solution.
as for maps: I’ve tried to draw a map and explain it’s consequences here (hebrew, sorry). Maa’le edumim sits on the brink of the Yehuda Desert cliffs; any sensible path from Hebron and Beit-Lehem to the rest of the western bank is going betweem Maa’le Edumim and Jerusalem. If the city won’t be evacutaed, you have to options: either it would be an enclave in palestinian territories, it’s inhabitants using a passport to go to work in Jerusalem, or the trip from Beit Lehem to Rammalah would take 3 hours instead of 30 minutes. both won’t be acceptable to one of the sides.
@Nadav Perez: Thanks for the map and for the reference.
In the long run I believe that the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and all will hammer their swords into plowshares. But in the short run, what are we walking about? Because if you’re talking about the option of a bi-national state in 20 years’ time or so, I would personally rather see half of Israel, including Tel Aviv, completely demolished, than have a bi-national state. A bi-national state would be not only the end of the Zionist dream but also a travesty against what was built in Israel.
That’s why I’m so mad at the settlers and the right wing — because this is the conundrum they got us into. But no, I don’t see any sense in a bi-national state in the next 100 years. It’s just that we’re slowly getting to the point of no return, exactly because of the settlements. The day a bi-national state is unavoidable (in the short run) is the day I will say kadish on Israel. I do not believe for one minute that it is possible for the Palestinians and Israelis to share one functioning state anywhere within the next 100 years.
@Nadav Perez: What’s stopping us from building a bridge/tunnel to connect either Ariel to Israel or Hebron and the rest of the West Bank (whichever we prefer)? If we can imagine a “safe road” from Gaza to the West Bank, this should be a breeze.
@elad-vav: Could you briefly explain WHY you think this will be the end of the world?
@Dubi Kanengisser: I’ll explain. Consider the Israeli society now, all full of patchwork and full of conflicting identities, religious beliefs, racial tensions, etcetera. Think how hard it is for these people to live together, and what a barrier that is to a reasonable liberal way of life (I’m mainly talking about religious coercion, but not just). Also think how many people there are in Israeli society that think it’s just dandy to beat you up because you “looked at their woman” or “took their parking spot”. Now think of the situation after throwing 4 million Palestinians into the mix. I remind you how these Palestinians behave in their own land right now: the common standards seem to be worse than those of SHAS.
By the way, who said that such a country won’t annihilate itself shortly after its formation? Who will serve in the army of such a hypothetical country? And what if Iraq, say, suddenly really wants to conquer this country, and the Arab citizens are all for it (they complain they still feel like 2nd class citizens)?
I feel silly that I even have to explain why uniting Israel and Palestine is a hugely stupid idea before an extensive many-decades-long process of normalization is done. And maybe even then.
[...] A Too State Solution – דובי קננגיסר (אוגוסט 2009) [...]
Maybe Israeli yordim in Canada think that Israel has too many problems. They forget that Canada only looks like Gan Edan….. because the British & the French genocided the native First Nations.
In most countries of the world, Israel looks like such a nice place that people are trying to do “Aliyah Bet” to get there. Maybe you’ve never been to the Takhanat Merkazit HaYashana in Tel Aviv?