At this time, when initiatives towards peace negotiations over Palestine/Israel  are again underway, it strikes me as imperative that those of us who truly support a just and comprehensive peace settlement in the region recommit themselves to a simple principle: solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Our best guideline for action is the Palestinian NGO Network of almost 100 associations, which keeps the two-state solution alive by promoting three fundamental principles for resolving the conflict:

1. Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the wall

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194

All this makes perfect sense in terms of a two-state solution, so I feel compelled to challenge the arguments Blake Alcott sets forth in his recent essay “Two-state ‘solution’ cements unjust, ethnocentric state.” In the opening of his essay, Blake Alcott states that his simple point, “is that all two-state solutions are Zionist solutions and should therefore be rejected: if one of the states is Palestine, the other is the existing, ethnocratic Jewish state in Palestine. A Zionist state with everything that entails.” (my italics)

Early on Alcott lists the sins of the Zionist state: “its racist definition of itself, its apartheid, its continuing ethnic cleansing, and its rejection of the Right of Return.” All very true, but nowhere does he really explain how these problems go away under any credible one-state solution. Because the rest of his argument revolves around his incredible assertion that “a recognized Zionist state would be even harder to bring to the negotiating table than the unrecognized, increasingly shunned one we now have to work on.”

Now we have entered a land of make-believe. Sadly, Israel has gained enough “recognition” to garner almost unconditional support from the US, a seat at the UN, full diplomatic recognition by 154 states, a huge nuclear stockpile, and one of the strongest military forces on the planet (13^th in the world in spite of its tiny population). It is really hard to see how finally giving Palestine recognition as a state, will actually weaken the Palestinian position further as Alcott rather amazingly argues.

In fact, formal recognition of a Palestinian state would only improve their bargaining position—even if they eventually used that new bargaining power to try to win a truly fair one-state solution later on. But Alcott rules that even as a transition stage a two-state solution, is “a Zionist solution.” His argument turns truth on its head just as shamelessly as Netanyahu did when he cried that UN recognition of Palestine as a “non-member observer state” would “derail the peace process.” That’s kind of like Bibi saying, “It’s bad for Palestine; that’s why we’re against it.” Right… and if you believe that, I have some lakeside property in the Sahara desert that might interest you… Overall, Alcott’s basic argument seems to be that by denying the Palestinians their rightful state, the state of Israel and all the injustices it imposes will magically disappear. His argument is unsustainable.

I distrust magical thinking. The crux of the matter is that any “solution” that leaves the power of hard-line Zionists like the Likud party and its settler allies intact is no solution at all. On the other hand, if Palestine and its allies really have the power to check the Zionist forces, then the time to do it is now. If this is just too hard to do, I can’t see how we can promise Palestinians that they will get ANY justice in a single state anywhere down a long mythical road.

The realities are plain. If Zionist power remains unchecked,  real justice for Palestinians in a one-state solution is just a chimera. Remember Alcott’s list of Israeli injustices? At present, given the vague, undefined details that would define a one-state solution, Israel’s “racist definition of itself” would probably change in name only. Its “apartheid” would change in name only—the military checkpoints of the occupation would simply become the police checkpoints of “internal security.” Israel’s “continuing ethnic cleansing” would proceed as they continue to make life for native Palestinians too miserable to endure. Finally, Israel’s “rejection of the Right of Return” would essentially remain in place. External refugees, if refugees were allowed to return at all after the miles of red tape that the still Zionist government of the new single state would certainly impose, would simply become “internal refugees.” Does giving a Palestinian family which formerly owned a beachfront property with vineyards and farmland near Haifa a trailer and a Porta-Potty somewhere in the Negev desert really constitute a “100% right of return”? I don’t think so.

It isn’t realistic or fair to the Palestinians for us to ignore that central fact.

Simply put, if there is no power to enforce the creation of a realistic non-Zionist structure for a one state solution—a structure that guarantees Palestinians full rights and total equality and a real right of return to their original properties— then we shouldn’t tell the Palestinians to fall on their swords and give up the idea of their own state just yet.

And if a solution in a single state is what Palestinians decide they really want, then we must have a way to help them actually get there. Even a truncated state of their own would give Palestinians something real to bargain with. Their last 22% of the land and recognition as a full member by the UN would be something real. Without those, they have no chips to play with—nothing except an assurance by a westerner (Mr. Alcott) that all we incredibly pure and clever human rights activists will somehow clean up the mess later. If I am skeptical, imagine how Palestinians must feel. Alcott is promising to pay for his end of a huge gamble with a pretty questionable IOU.

Mr. Alcott rests his argument on the incredibly flimsy notion that denying Palestinians a state of their own will make it harder to change Israel as it is today. He claims that a “Zionist state, on 85 or 90% of historic Palestine, could transform itself in the direction of citizenship and equality for all residents – with a lot of encouragement from boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS). It would give up its ‘Jewish’ adjective and become a standard-issue democracy.” He simply ignores the obvious question: why would dedicated Zionists, having won almost everything, suddenly reconsider their strategy and voluntarily change the rules of the game?

If Israel had ever had any intention of transforming themselves into a peace loving, secular democracy, they could have done so unilaterally a long time ago. If they had been willing to do that, the brutal ethnic cleansing of 47-48 that Ilan Pappe details so vividly would never have happened. Tragically, Israel took another course—a course Ben-Gurion laid out quite plainly when he basically said of the original UN partition agreement that Zionists ‘should take the 56% then on offer first… and then take the rest later.’

Alcott next says of a possible Palestinian state that, “if the first, smaller, non-Jewish state were also secular and democratic, what would speak against merging them forthwith, ending Partition? We might as well have gone straight for one good state in the first place, one that moreover would finally bring security to Jewish Palestinians.” What a lot of questionable assumptions are packed into those lines. How soon is Israel going to become truly secular and democratic? What force will encourage them to do so? Can they get there without a state of their own as at least an interim phase?

The Palestinian state Alcott envisages only leaves 10-15 % of the land to Palestinians . That’s quite a switch from the 22% that would result in what we should be pursuing, which is a total Israeli withdrawal to the 67 ceasefire lines. That is the state I am arguing for—the same one Palestinians have long fought for. We should always remain aware that most Palestinians still want that state, as unfair as it may be—a fact that Alcott dismisses out of hand.

Would a Palestinian state really be the disaster that Alcott claims it would be? Well, an actual democracy under purely Palestinian auspices (even on somewhat less than 22% of their original land) might be the best possible thing for Palestinians everywhere. First, such a state, by living in peace with its Israeli neighbor, would give lie to the much believed claim in the west that the Israelis ‘never had a partner for peace.’ It could also demonstrate very clearly just how little democracy Palestinians still in Israel actually have . By practicing real religious tolerance and offering the (I suspect very few) remaining Israeli settlers full rights, it could show the world how truly theocratic and undemocratic Israel has become. In short, by sheer example, it would do more to strengthen the claims of the Palestinian people everywhere than anything else ever has. That might help provide the real force that the Israelis actually need to transform their state into something more worthy of the term “democracy.” And, in fact, that would be a good thing for all Israelis (whom Alcott curiously tries to disguise under the term “Jewish Palestinians”). Since Alcott’s whole argument revolves around the “transformation” of Israel as it is today, it is hard to see how a Palestinian state would really slow that transformation down.

Since Mr. Alcott is so transfigured by his desire to reach maximum goodness for all, it is worth mentioning a group that receives short shrift in all these discussions. Palestinians living in Gaza or under occupation in the West Bank are admittedly the usual focus of “two-staters.” “One-staters,” on the other hand, tend to emphasize the plight of Palestinians still in Israel and to pretend that a one-state solution will magically solve all of their problems. Mr. Alcott has totally forgotten the third group—all those Palestinians in exile in the rest of the world. He also ignores a  key point in struggles for independence:  real freedom and autonomy really do matter to people who have been deprived of them. They may actually matter a great deal more than mere territory. Freedom and autonomy—even on a small patch of land, can be of enormous  value in rebuilding a sense of belonging, recreating a sense of nationhood, and in rebuilding national morale in general.

However small, a truly autonomous Palestinian state would have huge symbolic meaning and practical significance for all Palestinians living in exile. This is the group I have had the most contact with. Their stories are heart-breaking. As guest workers, often with only provisional papers from Egypt or Jordan or Syria, they are easily victimized. Often, simply because they have no country to return to even temporarily, they incur great stress and financial losses. In terms of being able to visit their families as emergencies dictate, or simply in terms of morale, a state of their own would actually mean a great deal. They may well continue to live and work abroad. Even then their remittances will be a big boon to a new Palestinian state. Right now, even moving funds earned abroad in order to help their families in the occupied territories is highly problematic. A state of their own would give Palestinians a chance to establish self-government and would provide a striking foil to Zionist claims that “Israel is the only democracy” in the Middle East. It would also give Palestinians a place where they could reestablish their national identity. I don’t think any non-Palestinian could possibly be in a position to judge how highly Palestinians would value these benefits.

Alcott is either ignorant of these facts or chooses to ignore them. He tries to boil it all down to simplistic choices that don’t add up. He writes, “If you answer ‘Yes’ to two questions, you have embraced one state rather than two.” First, “Should Israel-the-existing-state be transformed into a real democracy?” Second, “Should Palestinian refugees’ right to return be honored 100%?” Of course we would all like to say yes to these simplistic questions, but alas, it wouldn’t really help the Palestinians a bit if we did. And then, to rush you into a false conclusion, he claims, “If this is your stance, partition on ethnic lines makes no sense.”

The proper answer would be, “your conclusions don’t follow from the misleading premises you have presented.”

Take his first assertion. Is transforming Israel into a democracy really the question? Is that really what this whole struggle is about? I don’t think so. As an American, I can say that the West’s record of transforming Middle Eastern countries into what westerners view as “real democracies” is pretty shabby. The very goal has become suspect. It’s usually a cover for some other kind of much more sinister project. I am more concerned with simply getting Israel to act according to its legal obligations as a member of the UN (and even just as a supposedly civilized member of the human community). Since we have never been able to do even that, Alcott’s whole question is completely off-base. Just as an example, Israel is now a recognized member of the UN in spite of the fact that it has never honored the “right of return” which is not only required under UN guidelines and the Geneva conventions, but was a specific requirement for Israel’s  admission into the UN in the first place. So, contrary to his earlier absurd claim that Israel isn’t “recognized,” it is actually more than recognized—it is apparently specially privileged. The real question is, “Do we have the power to make Israel behave in accordance with international law?” If we don’t, why would we believe we would have the power needed to change their internal policies if they were to annex all of the occupied territories? International law is obviously weak, but it does mean something more concrete than what Alcott is offering in exchange.

Alcott’s next question was:”Should Palestinian refugees’ right to return be honored 100%? If this is your stance, partition on ethnic lines makes no sense.”

Let’s take the first part of that statement first. I am almost as distrustful of 100% solutions as I am of magical thinking. The 100% solution is the refuge of extremists. From the Israeli side, claims that there must be “100% security” have been used to derail the peace process again and again. A single instance of violence has sometimes been taken by them as evidence that the Palestinian people as a whole don’t want peace. On the Palestinian side, persistent claims that Israel must ‘disappear completely and forever’ have usually played directly into the hands of Israeli hard-liners.

By and large, the Palestinians have muted their maximalist claims over time. As they did so, their cause began to attract more attention and sympathy. They still haven’t gotten much credit for that, but now, just as the tide may be beginning to turn in their favor, here come westerners like Mr. Alcott, happily reiterating the kind of 100% positions that got Palestinians nowhere in the past. I think we already know that the right of return will never be honored “100%, but most of his argument rests on that singular claim.

Let’s look at the second part of his claim, “If this is your stance, partition on ethnic lines makes no sense.” That’s just nonsense. The reality is, that the entire Palestinian strategy is based on winning a state of their own. If you undercut that central goal, all the tactics currently in place become nonsensical. If the goal is “one-state” then what does ‘ending the occupation mean?’ Why would you stop settlements? Who do you boycott and divest from?   If Israel is granted legal access to ALL of Palestine, this issue will cease to be a matter of international concern. It will simply be an internal Israeli matter.

Alcott talks glibly of BDS as a tool to make the single (Israeli dominated) state “transform” itself.’ How do you rationalize a boycott on “one-state?” Isn’t it obvious that even if we make Israel suffer economically, the real suffering will actually fall hardest on the people we are trying to help. The rich and established will protect themselves—the new (third class) Palestinian citizens will bear the brunt of any truly effective boycott.

Isn’t it also obvious that in a one-state solution, all international pronouncements will become void and meaningless? Most of our already limited leverage in terms of international law between states (i.e. all previous UN resolutions) will simply disappear. In a single state, all matters pertaining to the treatment of Palestinians will become an “internal matter” something the UN and many of its member states are simply unwilling or unable to challenge. If you embrace the notion that we are working to support Palestinians, and you recognize that Palestinians still are working for a state of their own, Alcott’s position throws the entire Palestinian strategy completely out of whack and gives away every card they have in exchange for nothing but platitudes about how Israel should behave more ethically. Where has that stance gotten us so far?

The overall weakness of Mr. Alcott’s analysis actually bothers me far less than the unpleasant nature of his attacks on those who differ with him. Alcott’s essay is an insult to all who have struggled over the years to help bring a viable Palestinian state into being. It implies that those who don’t feel a single-state solution is viable are really Zionists—whether we know it or not. Clearly, that includes most Palestinians, because the vast majority of their institutions and leadership are still seeking independent statehood (over 80% according to polls cited by Ghada Karmi). I rather think Palestinians may be rightly tired of being preached to by westerners. After all, the situation in Palestine today is the result of a collective failure of western institutions, beginning with the anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia that led to the creation of Zionism, through the British Mandate under the League of Nations that empowered it, through the UN partition that entitled it, up until today where US vetoes and aid insulate Israel from international criticism. Mr. Alcott has no prescription at all for fixing these problems. So it is interesting to look at who supporters of a one-state solution today really are.

First, there are Palestinians who have despaired of ever getting the much preferred two-state solution. I really can’t blame them for feeling this way. I truly respect writers like Ali Abunimah and Ghada Karmi, but their works, which are a lot more honest than Mr. Alcott’s essay, haven’t persuaded me that they have the answers. Both are brutally honest in noting that the mass of Palestinians or Israelis simply aren’t ready to endorse a one-state strategy yet.

Then there are westerners who don’t really understand the situation very well, or simply don’t really care that most Palestinians still want a state of their own. Mr. Alcott is seems to be in this camp. What I find most troubling about them is, first, the glibness with which they dismiss both the feelings and insights of the Palestinians they claim to care about, and second, their willingness to dismiss and even rather viciously attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them by calling them Zionists—even if they are Palestinians. How seriously can one take people who claim to have the interests of Palestinians at heart—and yet who ignore them and vilify all those they disagree with even though those people are acting in solidarity with the majority of Palestinians? It’s all too illogical for words.

That brings us to the very few supporters of a one-state solution in Israel: they are almost all hard-line Zionists.  The western advocates of a one-state solution (however well intentioned they imagine themselves to be) have created the perfect opportunity for these most extreme Zionists to finally enforce what they have always wanted—a final grab for ALL OF PALESTINE! Really hard-line Zionists are coming to see the so called one-state solution as the perfect cover for taking the rest of Palestine. First, they can simply follow people like Alcott in ignoring the wishes of some 80% of Palestinians and their leadership. That has always been a favorite ploy of Zionists. Then, they can use the rhetoric of the one-staters to discredit the two-staters. After all the one-staters claim to be 100% pure in terms of fighting racism and injustice  and since they also claim that proponents of a two-state solution are “racist,”  Zionists can claim that they are even more moral and ethical than their (two state) opposition. (Kind of like what certain conservatives in the US do when they talk about reverse discrimination and fight against affirmative action and protection for civil rights laws by claiming they are really “racist.”)

It seems pretty obvious to me that if Israel is ever given even the shadow of a legal right to continue occupying the West Bank that it will never leave AND never give Palestinians under their power anything approaching equal rights (let alone a “full right of right of return” to those beyond its borders). With Zionists left unchecked (and able to score a huge propaganda victory by arguing that they have finally accomplished their original goal of taking all of historic Palestine) Zionists will again take what they like and ignore the rest just as they did with every previous climb down in the face of their pressure.

The history here is clear. Zionists took Lord Balfour’s declaration and ran with it even though it clearly stated that, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing no-Jewish communities in Palestine.” They have taken every pronouncement since then (UN 181, UN 194, UN 242, UN 338, the Camp David accords, Oslo, and the “Roadmap”) and in each case used what was to their advantage and simply ignored their other obligations. Mr. Alcott is vague on how a further climb-down to a so-called one-state “solution” will be any different. To my mind what he proposes is not a solution at all—in practical terms it is merely total surrender. Until we defeat Zionism, there will be no solution—and if we can defeat Zionism, then let’s do it now and make them pull back from their settlements and the occupation and institute the right of return. These are all acts they could take unilaterally if they really wanted to improve the climate for real negotiations. Towards the end of his remarkable essay Alcott makes this statement:

Time might lead us to the ‘best bad’ solution of two states, but it is dumb to compromise even before coming to the table. At the moment, from my perspective of someone who would not be entitled to vote in a single, human-rights-based state, but who does his bit to influence pro-Zionist governments to change their minds, I feel the need for a vision that is both clear and inspiring. Two-state proposals are never clear and, because they are Zionist, not inspiring.

Wow. It really is “dumb to compromise even before coming to the table”—and the one state solution Alcott seems to endorse gives up the Palestinian cause without a fight. I certainly don’t know of any official table where it has ever been discussed. As a call for Palestinians to commit national suicide, I can’t recall anything this bad since the first of Ariel Sharon’s 14 amendments to “the roadmap.” There is a difference between being ‘clear and simple’ and having a real plan. In the first place, the one-state solution Alcott is proposing is “simple” only because it avoids any detail: its “morality” is based on a assertion of principles without providing any way to get there. The true measure of a strategy for peace is not its simplicity—it is whether is just and workable. Descriptions of a two-state solution are always more complex because they involve realities as well as morality. Many people found George W. Bush’s “war on terror” simple and clear and inspiring. In practice it was a debacle.

Jeff Halper (another advocate of a one-state solution) recently wrote in a letter to ICAHD that we are “between solutions.” If we are striving for justice for Palestinians, we can’t afford to be “between solutions.” At this point, anything less than a full-throated backing of Palestinian aspirations and the strategy they have formulated to advance their cause is a breaking of ranks. Halper at least recognizes that:

Through sustained internal resistance coupled with international mobilization and appeals to international courts and tribunals, Palestinians are achieving a measure of political parity with the seemingly stronger Israeli side.

The fact is, whatever progress has been made to date has been made in the name of a two-state solution—not a one-state solution. Why in the world would you change a strategy that is working for one that hasn’t even been fully formulated? Such a shift is a recipe for disaster—a real betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

As a student of military and diplomatic history, let me make a simple point. What one-staters are proposing has a military equivalent: A retreat under fire. A retreat under fire, especially while your forces are in disarray, outnumbered, outgunned, and trying to invent a new strategy, is the most difficult operation an army can ever undertake. Commonly it turns into confusion, then into a rout, and finally into a total disaster. This is what the proponents of a one-state solution are really advocating.

The notion of abandoning the established two-state solution for a one-state solution that isn’t really defined at all yet opens the door to chaos and confusion and the total demolition of any hope for justice in Palestine. I fully admit that if all else fails, those of us who believe in peace and justice will have to advocate for better treatment of Palestinians in a single state under Israeli jurisdiction—that won’t be a short or easy battle. But I see no credible reason to try to give the Palestinian cause the “bum’s rush” to their final fallback position when there is still any hope for them getting their clearly preferred resolution.  There won’t be any climbing out of that hole once it is dug.

On the other hand, a Palestinian state, however small, would provide many benefits that people like Alcott simply don’t understand or don’t discuss. I fully trust that Palestinians are well aware of these advantages and take them into full account. When they decide to change their position, I will be ready to reconsider my own beliefs and back them as far as I am able to. Until then, the call of duty lies in the direction of showing solidarity with them. That is the only clear, simple and inspiring plan that really makes sense.

• Prev
• Next