Too late for 2 states?

[cali]

As progress toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stalls, an old idea has gained increased currency in some circles: one bi-national state for both Israelis and Palestinians. There are a number of variations of this argument, but proponents essentially call for forgoing the concept of two distinct national entities. Instead, they advocate that Israelis and Palestinians share the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River in one state.

The idea of a bi-national state is not a new one. Several prominent Jewish intellectuals in mandatory Palestine between the two world wars advocated such an arrangement, though they had little political influence. Originally, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) advocated the establishment of a democratic Palestinian Arab state in all of mandatory Palestine, with Jews as citizens of this state. In 1987, the PLO and Palestinian National Council (PNC) formally embraced the two-state solution, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This continues to be the position of the PLO and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

The recent resurgence in discussion about the bi-national concept is essentially due to the lack of movement toward a negotiated two-state solution coupled with what are deemed irrevocable Israeli facts on the ground in the occupied territories, making the possibility of a viable and independent Palestinian state remote.

What makes the one-state argument seductive is that it sounds theoretically reasonable. Israeli facts on the ground, primarily settlements, control of vital resources, and the appropriation of critical parts of a future Palestinian state including East Jerusalem through the separation barrier, are serious challenges to the two-state concept. The idea of "one man, one vote" is fundamentally democratic. The land in question is small and the two societies are intertwined to some extent.

<snip>

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-dajani04_106dec04,0,4503631.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

[Violet_Crumble]

1. That's not the story the link leads to n/t

[cali]

3. Fixed. Thanks. n/t

[eyl]

2. Of course, this idea has the little snag

that neither the Israelis or the Palestinians (the majority, that is) want it.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. That was mentioned in the article...

'More important, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians continue to desire to express their national aspirations in an independent state of their own where they will be first class citizens. On the Israeli side, the bi-national idea predictably has no support. To assume that Israeli Jews would willingly give up on the idea of a Jewish state is to show lack of understanding of the existential need of Jews for a state of their own after centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust.'

Towards the end of the article he talks about 4 to 5% of the West Bank being incorporated into Israel and there being a fair and equitable land swap. If it were agreed to in negotiations with no coercion involved and 4 to 5% of Israel that was as valuable etc was incorporated into the Palestinian state, I'd see little to complain about in that...

[nicoll]

5. It is still not to late for a two state solution to the conflict

With this I mean that until Eastern Jerusalem, all of the West bank and the Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as being part of an individual country within the Middle East then there is always a chance that a Palestinian state can be formed from it, no matter how small that chance might be of occurring. Nothing has really changed since 1967. The disputed territory still does not belong to any individual country. Yes you do have 400,000 Jewish settlers residing in the West bank and Eastern Jerusalem, but they are not internationally recognized as being in Israel so legally are in the same position as the Palestinian refugees in the West bank and Gaza Strip (apart from the obvious difference that one group are Jewish citizens residing outside of Israel and the other are refugees with no state of their own). You can only close the book on the two state solution when all of the disputed territory has been dealt with and allocated to individual states within the Middle East.

I still think it is possible for a Palestinian state to be formed from all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem. This window of opportunity may be small, but it is still possible for the Palestinians to do.

Question:

Do you think that the declaration of independance of the state of Israel in the summer of 1947 was legally valid and that it followed all international laws for the establishment of a state within the Midle East?

Do you think that the UN partition plan in the winter of 1947 was legally valid and that it followed all international laws for the formation of the state of Israel and the overall partition of the land in the Middle East?

[cali]

6. I can tel by your comments that

you didn't read the story.

As to your questions, I don't think it matters whether or not the Israeli declaration of Independence was legally valid or not. Same for the UN partition plan.

I'm a great believer in the phrase "start where you are", and here is where we are: Israel exists. Palestinian aspirations for a workable, contiguous state are clearly legitimate. Everything must flow from those facts.

[nicoll]

8. You miss understand where I was coming from

Yes I agree Israel is here to stay and that is a good thing in my opinion. But what I was trying to get at is when the declaration of Independence of Israel was made in the summer of 1947 and the UN partition plan in the Winter of that year it set down the basics for that the Palestinians need to follow to be able to declare their own state in the Middle East.

One of the main stumbling blocks for Abbas forming a Palestinian state out of Eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank & Gaza Strip is that there are over 400,000 Jewish settlers living there now who would want to be part of Israel and not Palestine. In the summer and winter of 1947 the Arab population was spread throughout the whole of the soon to be partitioned land and this sets a bench mark in terms of the formation of any new state in the Middle East. With this I mean that the vast majority of the Arabs living there at the time did not want to be part of an Israeli state, but still it went ahead regardless. At present the population of Israel is made up of 20% Arab Israeli citizens who either choose to remain in the state of Israel instead of leaving it or came to to the state at a later date. This being the case it is only fair that if Abbas and the Palestinians met every other requirement laid down by the international community for them to be able to declare their own state out of the disputed territories they could offer the Jewish settlers the same choice. Stay and become Jewish Palestinian Citizens in the newly formed state of Palestine or leave. You could say that this was much the same choice the Palestinians had in 1947, its is just that nearly 750,000 left.

Now before you just dismiss this idea as being a non starter consider this. The declaration of the state of Israel is directly linked to how a Palestinian state could be formed within the Middle East. If you say that it should not happen because the vast majority of the Jewish settlers would not want to become part of a Palestinian state then why was this not the case 60 years ago when the vast majority of Arabs living there at the time did not want to become part of an Israeli state. The fact that there wishes were ignored and there seemed to be only two choices for them - stay and become an Arab Israeli citizen or leave the newly formed state of Israel. Yes the Palestinians would have to guarantee the safety of the Jewish settlers who wished to remain in their homes and become Jewish Palestinian Citizens. Both Jewish and Palestinian citizens in a newly formed Palestinian state would be treated completely equally with regards to ever thing. This to me is the only way the Palestinians can form their own country and encompass Eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, any form of negotiation will end up with them having less land than this. Yes it would be hard for them but if it is their only option that enables them to have 23% of the originally partitioned land then what other choice do they have. You may also say that the Palestinians whould not want to share their new country with Jewish people and that might well be the case. But in my opinion it is legally possible for them to do this and that is what really matters to me. I have got address details for the Palestinain authority and will be contascting them in the near future to outline my plan. If there is another way that the Palestinians could get control over all of the disputed teritories with over 400,000 Jewish settelrs living there then please could you tell me how?

[cali]

13. I don't think much of your plan

as I understand it. In the real world the enmity built up between Palestinians and Israelis is too dominant to enable a plan that leaves enclaves of Israelis in a Palestinian state. And many of Settlers are radical, quite a few are rabidly anti-Palestinian. Far better to dismantle the settlements. I realize that East Jerusalem is a huge problem, and I'm not sure of the solution. One thing that has to be done, is linking Gaza and the WB. There are several ways this could be achieved.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. this ideal actually harkens back to an old P.L.O. position

although with some modifications:

link:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

"In 1974, Arafat spoke to the UN. He called for a united Palestine with a secular government that treated all citizens equally and included all Israelis and Palestinians. Arafat said this was his "dream." It is commonly called "The Gun and Olive Branch" speech.
Arafat said there was "a new Palestinian individual" who was looking to the future. "For many years now, our people has been exposed to the ravages of war, destruction and dispersion. It has paid in the blood of its sons, which cannot ever be compensated. It has borne the burdens of occupation, dispersion, eviction and terror more uninterruptedly than any other people. And yet all this has made our people neither vindictive nor vengeful...." And just as Palestinians deplore attacks on Palestinians "we deplore all those crimes committed against the Jews. We also deplore all the real discrimination suffered by them because of their faith."

Arafat talked of the struggle of Palestinian soldiers then named two fighters, one Jewish, one Christian. Both fight in the cause of justice. The Jewish revolutionary "now languishes in a Zionist prison among his co-believers." And a Catholic Bishop is under arrest so that "all men may live on this land of peace in peace."

Arafat spoke of his "dream" that all lovers of justice--Jew, Muslim, Christian--could live together in the new Palestine. "Why therefore should I not dream and hope? For is not revolution the making real of dreams and hopes? So let us work together that my dream may be fulfilled, that I may return with my people out of exile, there in Palestine to live with this Jewish freedom-fighter and his partners, with this Arab priest and his brothers, in one democratic State where Christian, Jew and Moslem live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress."

"In my formal capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and leader of the Palestinian revolution I proclaim before you that when we speak of our common hopes for the Palestine of tomorrow we include in our perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination...We offer them the most generous solution, that we might live together in a framework of just peace in our democratic Palestine."

Arafat's ending gave the speech its name. Speaking to the world body, he said: "In my formal capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and leader of the Palestinian revolution I appeal to you to accompany our people in its struggle to attain its right to self-determination...to aid our people's return to its homeland from an involuntary exile...I appeal to you to enable our people to establish national independent sovereignty over its own land. Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. War flares up in Palestine, and yet it is in Palestine that peace will be born."

The speech rejected the idea of a Jewish state and did not guarantee the right of Jews living overseas (for example, in America) to go to Israel. The proposal was received with hostility by the Israeli government.

link:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada has just written a book on one country idea

Personally, although I find the idea philosophically admirable, it doesn't seem to have a whole lot of backing in the mainstream of the Palestinian movement at this time and even less backing I would suspect among Israelis.

One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Hardcover)
by Ali Abunimah

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805080341/theelectronic-20

link to some more info about the book and links to two different talks by Mr. Albunimah regarding the single state solutions:

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/store/548.shtml


.

[cali]

10. In a Panglossian world

it's an ideal solution. Of course, that's not the world we live in, so I agree that the 1 state solution doesn't look to be much of solution. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't be interested in reading Albunimah's book on the subject.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I might suggest listening to his talk -- he does have some interesting

thoughts -- its available on Mp3 download or listen on line - scroll down the page about one third the way:

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/store/548.shtml

[nicoll]

12. yes but mine is different

But with my plan there is obviously recognition of the state of Israel within the borders of the UN 1967 partition plan. The right of Jewish Palestinian citizens living in a newly formed Palestine would be able to move freely to and from Israel. Of course there would be Palestinian border controls though between the two states.

[furman]

14. Hamas Chief Promises War Even if PA State is Established

The OP fails to mention that the Palestinians elected Hamas to power.
Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, not a peaceful two-state solution.

Hamas Chief Promises War Even if PA State is Established
13:27 Dec 05, '06 / 14 Kislev 5767
by Hillel Fendel

Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based leader of the Hamas terrorist organization, makes no bones: Either Israel leaves all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and agrees to the 'right of return' - or war.

Meshaal is officially the head of the diplomatic desk of Hamas, but is recognized as the #1 man in the terrorist organization. The target of a failed Israeli assassination attempt a decade ago, Meshaal told a Lebanese newspaper this week that Hamas will not hesitate to resume its armed warfare against Israel.

Specifically, he threatened, "If within six months, the international community does not come up with a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and for the return of the refugees, the Palestinians will turn to an armed struggle against Israel."

<snip>

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=116873

[pelsar]

15. correct me if this sounds "crazy"

but since neither the palestenians nor the israelis (jewish as well as non jewish) want to live in a single state.....why would anyone think that "they know better?"

[cali]

16. Pelsar,

let me suggest you did not read the article. The author is not a proponent of one state, as you'll see if you read it.

[pelsar]

18. caught!

i didnt read it.....guess i better

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. a two-state solution was not supported by either Palestinians or

Israelis in 1974 when Mr. Arafat gave his famous or infamous gun and olive branch speech to the U.N. Assembly. But gradually it became the consensus opinion. Opinion does change over time.

But I do see your point. Unless or until the single country (some have suggested a single country with two states) actually develops a major following among the people most affected by the possibility, I personally would not feel comfortable being a vocal advocate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Democracy Now had a discussion on this just last week

Two leading Palestinian-American intellectuals discuss their new books: Rashid Khalidi's "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood" and Ali Abunimah's "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse."

listen/watch/download/or read transcript:

link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/28/1454248&mode=thread&tid=25
_________________________

Amazon link for: The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (Hardcover)
by Rashid Khalidi: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003085/sr=11-1/qid=1165348024/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901
____________

Amazon link for: One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Hardcover)
by Ali Abunimah: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805080341/theelectronic-20

_________________________

and this: EI's Ali Abunimah discusses "One Country" on Flashpoints
Audio, Flashpoints Radio, 23 October 2006 -- a one hour interview


On October 20, EI co-founder Ali Abunimah appeared on Flashpoints Radio to discuss his new book: One Country, a Bold Proposal to the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. The program also features excerpts from his recent speech in Oakland, California. Listen to Ali discuss the need to break through the current impasse of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hear his proposal for a better future for all concerned parties.

"Flashpoints" is KPFA's newsmagazine, regularly featuring voices of resistance, education and information from around the world. It airs every weekday at 5 PM PST on KPFK.

Listen now online streaming or download - link:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5877.shtml



_________________

BTW and for the record: It's not that I'm an advocate of the single state solution, as I said above I find the bi-national idea interesting and philosophically admirable, however unless and until it becomes a more mainstream opinion among those most affected by the conflict, I think it best to advocate for the two-state consensus. If this consensus changes then perhaps it would then be worth reconsidering.

.