A few loud and passionate voices now call for a “one state solution” to the conflict in Palestine/Israel. Those holding this position are a distinct minority. I don’t doubt their sincere desire for peace and justice, yet I believe their logic is deeply flawed and that their stance seriously threatens to derail the work of other pro-peace activists. With full respect for their concern about this issue, I see major and (and to my mind) insurmountable problems with a one-state solution.

First, at no time in my 8 years in the Middle East did any Palestinian (or any other Arab, or any Muslim) ever mention, let alone promote a one-state solution. To my knowledge, neither does any major Palestinian political party. I believe we should support Palestinians in their legitimate quest for justice, not try to dictate a particular strategy or solution to them.  To try to dictate the kind of settlement they should accept smacks of the worst kind of imperial arrogance. Haven’t the Palestinians suffered enough from solutions imposed on them by foreign sources? I don’t question the absolute right of Palestinians to promote any kind of peace agreement they like. But it is quite different for non-Palestinians (who never really have to suffer directly if their approach proves to be wrong) to ignore the mainstream Palestinianposition and to promote a solution that a majority of Palestinians don’t currently support, but would have to live with.

Second, if Palestinians are denied a viable second state we will all have to deal with the serious problems surrounding a one-state solution anyway. Why urge Palestinians to rush to their only fallback position just when the tide seems to be finally turning in favor of their getting a real two-state solution? At this point, for Americans to urge a one-state solution on Palestinians is hardly the kind of support they need.

The third point is strategic, but it touches on a very real problem: US pressure on Israel is widely accepted to be a crucial element of any peace agreement. American policy helped create the problem and has made it worse over the years. Only a real change in US policy (away from Israel and towards justice for Palestinians) has a credible chance of correcting those tragic mistakes. Yet, in the US, the Israeli propaganda machine has always had an overwhelming advantage over those who have tried to provide an accurate account of the conflict. A serious push for a one-state solution(even as Israel inevitably says, “No thanks. Too late!”), will simply hand a total victory to Israeli propagandists in the US. Their spin machine will inevitably make the following egregious points:

See! We were right all along! All the violence in resisting Israel up to this point was gratuitous and unnecessary! The Palestinian desire to live under an Israeli tent is PROOF that Arabs prefer Israeli governance to that of their own leaders. It proves the incompetence and retrograde nature of Arab leadership. Indeed, the only reasonable conclusion is that all the violence up to now simply proves that Arabs are violent, unstable, and unpredictable by nature. Their desire to become part of one state NOW is a stamp of approval on the whole Zionist project and clearly demonstrates the legitimacy of the Israeli state. (And by the way, sorry, but we don’t want to rule such people).

In the context of this kind of fallacious, ugly, stereotypical (and yet almost inevitable) line of argument, all the real sacrifices made by the Palestinian people so far will be demeaned, misrepresented, trivialized and even reviled as the folly of regressive minds. No one should doubt the ability of the Zionist PR machine to put this kind of false and self-serving message across. They have made Americans buy into much more absurd arguments before. The result will be a strengthening of the false belief among Americans that you should never trust an Arab, and that you should always let the Zionists call the shots. Haven’t we all suffered enough from these grossly misguided notions? Palestinians have always been behind in the PR battle: adopting a one-state solution would be the final nail in the coffin.

On a practical level too, arguing for a one-state solution at this time—when all the major players except Israel’s current government* have finally come out in support of a two-state solution— will likely lead to total confusion among American activists.   In particular, what do we tell people to do? Should we encourage people to write letters to the US Congress urging them to ask Israel to annex the occupied territories?  Why mention international law between states if you believe it’s all one state? Why protest the building of settlements if it is all going to be one state? All the pertinent UN resolutions up to now, and all other international law between states, become meaningless in the context of a one-state solution. And why boycott Israeli companies when Palestinian workers will suffer the most. And so on, and on, and on...

Further, a one-state solution would make the treatment of Palestinians an internal Israeli state security matter.  The brutal, totally unfair treatment of Palestinians which has been the norm for Israeli-Arabs (i.e. Palestinians within Israel), as well as Palestinians under occupation, will merely become a domestic issue in Israel. Given how little attention Americans have given to Israel’s gross violations of international law the details of Israeli domestic law will likely become a total non-issue in the US. In light of American attitudes toward security issues in a post 9/11 world, where is our already severely limited leverage as peace activists then? Israel’s construction of the separation wall will fade from being the outrageous act it really is, into being merely part of a huge Israeli investment in making itself a giant “gated community”—something that is taken for granted as “natural” in the US.

Fifth, If there is little support for a one state solution among Palestinians, there is even less among Israelis.  Israel is far less likely to accept Palestinians into Israel as true equals than it is to accept a real two-state solution. Zionism is, and always has been, about the misguided dream of an exclusively JEWISH state.  The British white paper of 1939 was a one-state solution—Zionists rejected it out of hand and responded with the terror campaign of the Stern Gang and Irgun. When Israel began its ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947, Palestinians called for reconsideration of the one state option that had been promoted by the minority report of the UN partition commission. But Israel wasn’t interested. The reason is simple: the JEWISHNESS of the state of Israel is the whole point of its existence. That is why Zionists have always treated the issue of the return of Palestinian refugees not as the simple justice enshrined in international law that it truly is, but as a sneaky way to destroy Israel.  A one-state solution (with true equality for Palestinians) will never be accepted by the Zionists who control Israel unless the whole mindset behind Zionism magically disappears. If that happened, of course, well, there wouldn’t be any problem at all anyway.

Finally, in a very real sense, we already can see what a one-state solution would look like if the Zionist mindset is left intact—it is simply the existing reality of occupation that we decry everyday: the continued theft

of Palestinian land by means of house confiscation and demolition, zoning ordinances, discriminatory laws, etc. etc. Will we have more ability to change this sickening reality if it becomes enshrined in a formal one-state solution? How long will it take to bring true equality to such a state? Is it right for American activists to promote this kind of change in Palestinian policy at this point? I don’t think so.

Advocates of a one-state solution often link their approach to the independence movement in India and to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. These comparisons are misleading. In both cases the oppressed were huge majorities. Palestinians in Israel are not a majority and will not be big majority even if the occupied territories were annexed.  In a one state solution (inevitably dominated by Israel) there is no reason to think Israel will refrain from deporting enough Palestinians to reduce them to a minority. To advocate a one-state solution at this point is almost like telling Black South Africans, on the cusp of their victory in the early 1990’s, to go back to 1950 and start suffering all over again. I, for one, can’t and won’t do that. Not unless I see a clear majority of Palestinian people vocally advocating that kind of radical shift in strategy.

Fundamentally, the one-state solution argument has the cart before the horse—it is predicated on the notion that we (or the Palestinian people) can somehow break the stranglehold of Zionism by simply ignoring its existence, or enforce the fair treatment of Palestinians in a Zionist controlled Jewish state, before creating better mutual understanding between Palestinians and Israelis and without deconstructing the basically expansionist and imperialist nature of Zionism itself. It is predicated on the existence of some mysterious outside force that will bring millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule and at the same time magically transform the quality of that rule. I can't see what that force might be.  I’m sorry to say this, but so far it certainly hasn’t been us American activists.

To my mind promoting better understanding of the Palestinian situation, of the grotesque misrepresentations that shape current attitudes towards the conflict in the US, and of the simple historical and moral realities surrounding this situation, are all parallel ways of getting Americans (and eventually Israelis) to acknowledge the rights and wrongs of this conflict. Only when those issues are squarely confronted will all parties be able to see each other as equals and to address their other problems in the light of their shared humanity. And only when that starts to happen will true equality have a chance to become established in law and behavior. At present, strong pressure on American politicians and the wide implementation of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions strategy are the most effective ways that Americans can move Israel to make the real changes in policy needed to achieve real peace.

To sum up then, promoting a one-state solution at this point in the struggle doesn't really reflect the views and aspirations of most Palestinians. It will likely lead to total confusion and paralysis in the crucial American peace camp.  It doesn’t open the way to a workable strategy that Americans activists can immediately promote; and (realistically) a single state where Palestinians (Christian, Muslim, or Druze) and Jewish Israelis are truly equal isn’t something that Zionists would ever consider. For Zionists such a state would mean repudiating their entire program. We are much more likely to get a clean two-state solution on the basis of UN 242 and 194 than a sudden abandonment of the Zionist dream or an Israeli state that sincerely embraces their much abused Palestinian cousins.

For these reasons, few things can harm the Palestine cause more deeply than for American activists to publicly advocate a one-state solution at this time.   

That said, I believe that Palestinians can promote any discussion among themselves that they like. I recently read Ali-Abunimah’s One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.  It is filled with valuable historical detail and insight that peace activists engaged in the Palestine/Israel conflict should know. The author’s good intentions and flexibility are obvious and he provides interesting accounts of how ethnic difference has been successfully addressed in various other countries. Unfortunately, he does all these things instead of effectively and realistically addressing the basic issues I have raised.

Ali Abunimah honestly notes that a one state solution is “not advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.” Until it is, I suggest that the one state solution option be discussed by Palestinians in private—not blindly promoted by Americans who don’t fully grasp what it entails. Ali Abunimah also admits that “a successful strategy for democratic transformation in Israel/Palestine will in part require Palestinians to present a vision that meets the concerns of ordinary Israeli Jews...”(p 161) This is quite true, but a few pages later, he also observes that “any serious argument for an Israeli-Palestinian democracy in a single state must confront the reality that, at present, Israeli Jews overall are deeply hostile to the idea, viewing it as an invitation to commit suicide.” These two realities just can’t be reconciled in the present circumstances. Finally, he describes changing this attitude as a “long and difficult process may not happen for years.” (171). In other words, his plan sounds like a prescription for a very long delay—and every day the seizure of land and the oppression of Palestinians goes on.

Sadly, Ali Abunimah simply fails to realistically address how these crucial gaps can be bridged. Without this kind of detailed explanation, his plan is merely wishful thinking. In fact, One Country doesn’t fundamentally address a single one of the real concerns I have detailed here. I say that with regret, for I went to his book for answers. Still, just because he is Palestinian, doesn’t mean I have to totally suspend my critical faculties to be supportive.

Let’s be realistic. It took the PLO until 1988 to formally except a two state solution. They signaled willingness to negotiate along two-state lines as early as 1974. Fourteen years were lost as Israel continued to settle in occupied territory. More were lost during Oslo.  Since then more and more people have become convinced that a two state solution is the only viable way to secure a just and comprehensive peace. The key now is to generate enough pressure to get a REAL Palestinian state—an autonomous and contiguous state on 1967 borders—without any more delays, territorial concessions, conditions or reneging on UN resolutions being inflicted on the Palestinians who have already conceded 78% of their land. Promoting a one state solution that no one involved is really ready for is a big league distraction. The kind of delay involved in trying to promote a one state solution is a gift to those who would like to have a perpetual “peace process” that never results in the concessions needed to bring real peace.

* As his policies prove this every day, Netanyahu’s stated “support” for a real two state solution is hardly sincere.

• Prev
• Next