Israel/Palestine: A True One-State Solution
fuck
Posts: 4,069
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04665.html
Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution
By George Bisharat
Friday, September 3, 2010
"Where is the Palestinian Mandela?" pundits occasionally ask. But after these latest Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington fail -- as they inevitably will -- the more pressing question may be: "Where is the Israeli de Klerk?" Will an Israeli leader emerge with the former South African president's moral courage and foresight to dismantle a discriminatory regime and foster democracy based on equal rights?
For decades, the international community has assumed that historic Palestine must be divided between Jews and Palestinians. Yet no satisfactory division of the land has been reached. Israel has aggravated the problem by settling roughly 500,000 Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, eliminating the land base for a viable Palestinian state.
A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Palestinian refugees have lived in exile for 62 years, their right to return to their homes denied, while Jews from anywhere can freely immigrate to Israel.
Israeli leaders Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have admitted that permanent Israeli rule over disenfranchised Palestinians would be tantamount to apartheid. Other observers, including former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have said that apartheid has already taken root in the region.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.
Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.
The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.
Israeli perspectives are already beginning to shift, most intriguingly among right-wing leaders. Former defense minister Moshe Arens recently proposed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel annex the West Bank and offer its residents citizenship. Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and Likud parliamentarian Tzipi Hotovely have also supported citizenship for West Bank Palestinians, according to the Haaretz. In July, Hotovely said of the Israeli government's policies of separation: "The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly."
Is one of these politicians the Israeli de Klerk? That remains to be seen. Gaza is pointedly excluded from the Israeli right's annexation debate. They still envision a Jewish state, simply one with a larger Palestinian minority. But their challenge to the two-state orthodoxy, which empirical experience has proven unrealistic, is healthy.
If Americans aspire to more than managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via perpetual and inconclusive negotiations, we should applaud this emerging discussion. Having overcome our own institutionalized racial discrimination, we can model the virtues of a vibrant, multicultural society based on equal rights. President Obama, moreover, would be a fitting emissary for this vital message.
The writer is a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestinian Studies.
Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution
By George Bisharat
Friday, September 3, 2010
"Where is the Palestinian Mandela?" pundits occasionally ask. But after these latest Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington fail -- as they inevitably will -- the more pressing question may be: "Where is the Israeli de Klerk?" Will an Israeli leader emerge with the former South African president's moral courage and foresight to dismantle a discriminatory regime and foster democracy based on equal rights?
For decades, the international community has assumed that historic Palestine must be divided between Jews and Palestinians. Yet no satisfactory division of the land has been reached. Israel has aggravated the problem by settling roughly 500,000 Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, eliminating the land base for a viable Palestinian state.
A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Palestinian refugees have lived in exile for 62 years, their right to return to their homes denied, while Jews from anywhere can freely immigrate to Israel.
Israeli leaders Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have admitted that permanent Israeli rule over disenfranchised Palestinians would be tantamount to apartheid. Other observers, including former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have said that apartheid has already taken root in the region.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.
Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.
The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.
Israeli perspectives are already beginning to shift, most intriguingly among right-wing leaders. Former defense minister Moshe Arens recently proposed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel annex the West Bank and offer its residents citizenship. Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and Likud parliamentarian Tzipi Hotovely have also supported citizenship for West Bank Palestinians, according to the Haaretz. In July, Hotovely said of the Israeli government's policies of separation: "The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly."
Is one of these politicians the Israeli de Klerk? That remains to be seen. Gaza is pointedly excluded from the Israeli right's annexation debate. They still envision a Jewish state, simply one with a larger Palestinian minority. But their challenge to the two-state orthodoxy, which empirical experience has proven unrealistic, is healthy.
If Americans aspire to more than managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via perpetual and inconclusive negotiations, we should applaud this emerging discussion. Having overcome our own institutionalized racial discrimination, we can model the virtues of a vibrant, multicultural society based on equal rights. President Obama, moreover, would be a fitting emissary for this vital message.
The writer is a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestinian Studies.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
very true.
yes please.
At the end of the article, it clearly says that the author lives in San Fransisco. As for the quotation marks around "the perfect solution", my point was that it is easy to preach about something and say that you have the solution that will work if people just listened to you while not living the complicated day to day life in the region. Even if he is of Palestinian origin, fact is, he does not live there now.
No need to get all bitchy about it...
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
As I have posted here repeatedly, I believe this to be a complicated situation which will only be solved by both sides making compromises on their positions through negotiations that are acceptable on both sides. You can not achieve a true and lasting peace when only one side gets what it wants. Look at Germany after WW 1 for example...
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
For me personally, I do not think a one state solution will ever work, because that would pretty much erase Israels existence as a Jewish state. Very few Israelis would accept this as a solution. You have to be Jewish/Israeli to understand the deep feelings on this subject.
I think the only solution that would work is a 2 state solution separating the Israelis from the Palestinians and granting the Palestinians control of their destiny with no interference from Israel. The problem with this (and for this I have no solution) is the division of land. Any future Palestinian state would need to include the Gaza strip and parts (not all) of the west bank. These 2 areas are separated geographically and therefore would make running/controlling such a state near impossible. Trying to connect the 2 areas would effectively divide Israel in half and that is obviously not an acceptable solution for Israel. The only thing they could probably do is a kind of land swap giving the Palestinians Israeli land adjacent to the Gaza strip in exchange for land in the west bank and therefore create a continual land mass for the Palestinian state. The problem with this idea is that it would lead to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in the west bank.
Like I said, complicated...
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Greece does not say it needs to be a greek orthodox state. Turkey does not say it needs to be a muslim state. You are mixing citizenship with religion.
It may surprise many here, but it has VERY little to do with the holocaust. The idea of Israel as a Jewish state was born as a result of the nationalist movements of the mid 1800's. Jews started to immigrate to Israel because of nationalistic reasons as early as 1878. Zionism has been around since the end of the 19th century. When Israel was established in 1948, there were around 600,000 Jews living here. The minority of them arrived to Israel after the holocaust.
The thing people here do not seem to understand is that Judaism is more of a culture/nationality these days than a religion. Most Israelis lead entirely secular lifestyles (not to mention Jews worldwide too). With that being said, it is still very important for most Israelis to live around Jews due to a lingering connection to Judaism as a religion. Maybe in 50 or 100 years from now, attitudes will change, but I think that as long as there is Antisemitism in the world (it even exists on this forum with certain members) Israel needs to stay a state that has a majority of Jewish citizens (Israels population today is roughly 80% Jewish).
Jews around the world feel a connection to Israel not necessarily because of religion, but because of nationality. I have worked with groups of north american youth in the past visiting Israel for extended lengths of time, and very few of them came because of religion. I think that what Yosi meant in his post above is that it is similar to an African American feeling a connection to Africa or an Italian American wanting to visit Italy and see "where he came from".
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But being serious, the are plenty of Muslim states (Iran for example), so why not a Jewish one?
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
if this conflict is to end peacefully, Israel has to restore Palestinians their equal rights and this includes the Right of Return. If giving people back their rights means the end of a so-called Jewish state, so be it. I'd choose equality over bullshit ethnic supremacy any day. As long as everyone's rights are guaranteed, and the fact that international law now exists and that we're in the 21st century and a new age means another holocaust won't happen (since that is used as justification for a Jewish state quite often), what's the threat here? Jews can still call the land their home if they want, but it's also other people's home and that should be recognized. And this includes ALL of Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza. There are millions of Palestinians who are not from the West Bank or Gaza, a state there is useless to them. But I guess all this makes me a "hardliner" right? I mean I'm calling for the death of Israel, is that what I'm doing? Am I one of those antisemitic posters you were referring to?
But why does there have to be?
Nothing against jews and so forth, but there are plenty of small religions and sects that don't have states, and largely for the same reasons that jews haven't had one for a while. They're relatively few (and often scattered), or else a minority within a large country with a different public religion.
The fallacy of putting it like this, is that it kinda assumes that someone just gives away land and decides who live on it. And further that all "deserving" religions should (or indeed must) have their own land.
But one thing. You outlined the founding of Israel by pretty secular jews. Which is fine, but would I be wrong to point out that it seems that more ultra-orthodox judaism is on the rise, both by radicalized youth and immigration of jews from not-so-secular places?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
the thing you do not realise is that some people here do understand that judaism is very much a cultural thing as opposed just a religion. i do understand, and im sure im not the only one here, who absolutely gets how difficult it it to sepaarte ones jewishness from ones everyday life. i understand that throughout history that the jewish people were persecuted no matter where they went. and i do understand this persecution was the catalyst for the forging of a jewish homeland. but what i also understand is that the shoah is the cause of great shame for the western powers. .. that they knew what the nazis were doing and didnt think it was important enough to put a stop to it until it was too late.. and i believe that is why israel is allowed to get away with what they do.
it has never ceased to amaze me that that the oppressed has become the oppressor.
i dont deny the jewish people a homeland but what i do very strongly object to is the way theyre going about it. why are gaza and the west bank even in existence??? why arent the palestinian people embraced as the jews brother?? why are the palestinians denied the right to exist in their own right as the jews have for so long fought for for themselves??
i abhor all religion so my argument will never come from the point of who has the ''biblical' right to live in what has become the state of israel. my argument will always be grounded in human rights. the palestinian people have the same right to exist as the jewish people do. it is unjust that they are segregated the way they are. it is unjust that a mighty wall is built to separate them from not only the jews but from each other. it is unjust that jewish settlers continue to be encouraged by the israeli govt, that they are convinced that it is ok to settle on land that is/was already occupied by palestinian families. it is unjust that palestinian villages have cease to exist . and it is unjust that the world seems to be castrated when it comes to pulling the israelis into gear at the expense of the palestinians.
but mostly it is unjust that after all theyve been through in their history that the jews seem to be ok with the way the palestinians are treated. it is as if the shoah never happened or that the persecution that happened for so long before it, never existed and that lessons werent learnt.
and what i also understand is that when the jews were looking for a homeland, the kimberley region of western australia was considered.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
I guess my remark to your original post is distracting people from the comment before where I explained in depth that it is not a matter of religion, rather nationality.
As for the part in your post here that I put in bold, the opposite is quite true. If anything, the majority of Israeli citizens are distancing themselves from what you call here ultra - orthodox and becoming more secular.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
I've never heard of that. As a history teacher, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite some sources for this. I will be covering the subject with my 9th graders in a month or two.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
It was the Kimberley Plan (I think), dreamt up by the Freeland League - can't remember the name of the guy leading it. The Prime Minister of Australia said such a settlement was not acceptable. I learned this at school (many moons ago) and my daughter, who is 15, was also made aware of this. I'm surprised that a history teacher in Israel would not have any knowledge of this, even if it was a bit of a non event. Part of the various places that were looked at (eg Uganda, Argentina, etc.) and where some settlements were established. This Kimberley thing is actually quite interesting - the guy had quite grand ideas.
Sounds interesting. I am of course familiar with the Uganda plan and also the south american options. Never heard of an Australian plan. Once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cite a source for this.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
If you google Kimberley plan (or such), I'm sure you will find reference.
i can't fathom why a history teacher in Israel would not be aware of this.