Could
a 'one-state' solution end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
July 2007
Uri
to Khaled
The
so-called two-state solution is the only practical solution in the
realm of reality. The parameters are well known, and they now enjoy worldwide
agreement:
1) A
Palestinian state will come into being next to Israel.
2) The
border between them will be based on the Green Line, perhaps with an
agreed-upon and equal swap of territories.
3)
Jerusalem will be the capital of the two states.
4) There
will be an agreed-upon solution of the refugee problem. In practice, this means
that an agreed number of Palestinians will return to Israel, and the rest will
be resettled in the state of Palestine or in their present places of domicile,
with the payment of generous compensation that will turn them into welcome
guests. When there is an agreed plan that tells every refugee family what their
choices are, it must be submitted to the refugees wherever they are. They must
be partners in the final decision.
5) There
will be an economic partnership, in which the Palestinian government will be
able to defend Palestinian interests, unlike the present situation. The very
existence of two states will mitigate, at least to some extent, the huge
difference of power between the two sides.
6) In the
more distant future – a Middle Eastern union, on the model of the EU, that may
also include Turkey and Iran – will emerge.
The
obstacles are well known, and they are big. There are no cure-alls or panaceas.
They must be faced and overcome. Here, in Israel, we must weaken the fears and
anxieties, and point out the benefits and profit that we will gain from the
creation of a Palestinian state at our side.
We must
bring about a change of consciousness. But we have already come a long way,
from the days when the entire public denied the very existence of the
Palestinian people, rejected the idea of a Palestinian state, rejected the
partition of Jerusalem, rejected any dialogue with the PLO, rejected an
agreement with Arafat. In all these areas our stand as pioneering peace
activists trickled down and has been accepted in various degrees.
It is
clear that this is still far from what is necessary. But that is the direction
things are moving - and there are hundreds of opinion polls to show it.
Khaled
to Uri
The
two-state solution is a good idea in principle – and I respect your role in putting
it on the political map. And if both sides can achieve a viable settlement
based on this model, then all the power to them. But I'm not sure I agree with
your assessment that it is the only "practical solution in the realm of
reality".
If it were
so practicable, then why does it seem so much further from the realm of reality
than it did 15 years ago? No one dares speak even of a defunct peace process
any more and whoever has run off with the road map seems to have buried it somewhere over the rainbow.
The
barriers that currently stand in the way of the two-state dream seem
insurmountable. What do you do with the 300,000 or more settlers living in the
future Palestinian state when evacuating some 8,000 settlers from Gaza was
already such a traumatic experience? How about the 1.4 million Palestinian
citizens of Israel? Even if you manage to negotiate a territory swap, that will
only serve to entangle the fate of the two peoples even further.
Neither
state is likely to have integral and entirely congruous territory, especially
Palestine. To overcome this, they will either have to function effectively as a
single geographical entity or come up with convoluted, impractical and
expensive technical fixes, such as bypass roads, tunnels, bridges, walls that
will turn the land into a series of Palestinian and Israeli ghettoes.
And the
two-state model does not improve with time, as emerging "realities on the
ground" make it even more implausible.
The notion
of a single state can instil fear into the hearts of Israelis and Palestinians
because it evokes images of extremists on the other side driving them off their
land or making them live under subjugation. So, it is better to call what I and
people like me have in mind a "bi-national federal state", ie the
"single geographical entity" I alluded to above, with a functioning,
fair and democratic political apparatus.
Building
towards such a confederated state would break the current impasse and inject a
dose of much-needed lateral thinking into the quest for peace. Handled
correctly, it can bring prosperity and stability, enabling Israelis and
Palestinians to share the land equitably, while maintaining their right to
self-determination.
Uri
to Khaled
When my
friends and I started to advocate the two-state solution, right after the 1948
war, we emphasised that the border between the two states must be open to
the free movement of people and goods, and that the country must be united
economically.
Right
after the 1967 war, my friends and I established a movement
called Federation Israel-Palestine. It envisioned a federation or confederation
between two sovereign states – Israel and Palestine.
In my
first meeting with Yasser Arafat, he spoke about a “Benelux solution” -
a structure encompassing the three states of Israel, Palestine and Jordan, “and
perhaps Lebanon, too,” he added. He repeated this in our last meeting, just
before his murder.
Anyone
looking at the map knows that the two states – Israel and Palestine – must
maintain a very close relationship, economically, militarily and politically.
The shape and definition of this relationship must be worked out between the
two future governments.
What is
essential at this moment is to create peace based on the existence of two
national states. That is a phase that cannot be evaded, certainly not by
utopian dreams that can be realised only after the coming of the Messiah.
Israelis
will not give up their state – not today, not tomorrow, not in 50 years. That
is an absolute certainty. Also, the Palestinians need a state of their own, to
defend their interests, to restore their dignity and to assume their rightful
place among the nations.
The idea
of dismantling Israel, euphemistically called “the one-state solution” is a
pipe-dream. It could once again divert the Palestinians from a practical
solution.
The
proposal of a federation, which I support, can and will be realised when the
two states are there and when a modicum of trust between the two peoples is
established. That is what happened in Europe after the second world war.
Khaled
to Uri
Your reply
heartens me because it would seem that we agree on what constitutes an optimal
outcome. But achieving that desirable end cannot be left to the randomness and
chaos that has characterised this conflict right from the start.
Visionaries,
like yourself, who believe in a confederated state should already begin to
advocate it today while it is still possible to chart a course towards it. We
cannot wait two or three decades, by which time Israelis and Palestinians could
be leading even more severed, paranoid, hateful and terrified existences in two
dysfunctional and fragmented so-called states, paralysed and tied down by
physical and mental walls.
You are
right that a federalised state can only be built on trust. But it strikes me
that, short of a miracle, the current focus on putting the defunct peace
process back on track only breeds frustration and despair, because reality will
never match up to expectations. The leaders on both sides lack the political
capital or readiness to persuade their people of the massive compromises and
lowering of expectations required to achieve a feasible two-state settlement.
In addition, trust is so fragile, that a small group of extremists on either
side can easily shatter it.
And that
is why a paradigm shift is in order – an approach based on an incremental
forward-looking approach. With the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza,
Israelis and Palestinians are effectively living in a single state – albeit a
state of distrust and hatred.
The first
small steps in this incremental approach would be to focus on bread and butter
issues: economic well-being, security, ending violence, healthcare, mobility, social
equality, good governance, intercultural dialogue etc.
As trust
builds up between the two sides, they can move on, armed with cross-cultural
alliances, to more ambitious questions, such as integrating settlements,
autonomy for the Palestinians and the devolution of power over the Palestinian
territories to the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Once
Palestinians have enough self-rule and there is more mutual trust, the two
sides can tackle the really tough issues, such as Jerusalem and refugees. By
this stage, they can also choose, perhaps through a referendum, on where to
take their relationship. By this stage, I think they'll choose a federation.
But that's for future generations to decide.
Uri
to Khaled
I don't
think your approach is practical. Nothing good will happen before a
comprehensive peace agreement is achieved.
Khaled
to Uri
Speaking
pragmatically, I don't think a comprehensive peace agreement will come about
before good things start happening.
