The Single-state Solution Is Already Here

Now, of all times, out of the fire and despair, we must start talking about the last way out: one Israeli state with equal rights for both Jews and Arabs.

Here is irrefutable proof that the one-state solution should not even be considered: the bloodshed, hatred and fear currently washing over the country. Advocates of the two-state solution and, especially, those who seek no solution, those Israelis who saw the one-state solution as treason and heresy, are now proclaiming victory. “There, that’s what the binational state will look like,” they are saying. “It will be a bloody, endless civil war.”
The same intimidatory arguments that were used for years against the two-state solution (the “Auschwitz borders”) are now being enlisted against the one-state solution. Now, as then, everything is judged according to the contours of the current, depressing reality, and it doesn’t occur to anyone that another reality is possible.
The nationalists say, “An agreement will never be possible with those bloodthirsty people.” The center-left says, “There’s no way to live together.” The common denominator is racism, and the assumption that the hatred will last forever. To this we must add the arguments over the Jewish state’s sanctity and the end of the Zionist project. In short, one state means the end of the world.

And now to the facts. One state already exists here, and has done so for 48 years. The Green Line faded long ago; the settlements are in Israel, and Israel is also the settlers’ land. The fate of the two million Palestinians who live in the West Bank is decided by the government in Jerusalem and the defense establishment in Tel Aviv, not by Ramallah. Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, the coordinator of government activities in the territories, is their ruler far more than Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is. They are clearly part of the binational state and have been its subjects, forcibly, for some three generations. This state has three regimes: democracy for the Jews; discrimination for the Israeli Arabs; and apartheid for the Palestinians. But everyone lives in one inseparable state.
The binational state that was born in 1967 is not democratic. In fact, it’s one of the worst states in the world, because of the military dictatorship it upholds in part of its territory – one of the most brutal, totalitarian regimes in existence today. It is also one of the most racist states, since it determines its residents’ rights based solely on their nationality. This is the one state that is washed in blood right now, and will continue to be washed in blood as long as it remains in its malicious, nondemocratic format.
Those who say the current bloodbath is proof that Arabs and Jews can’t live together base this on the current state of injustice. And they’re right. If Israel continues to be a state of iniquity, Jews and Arabs will never be able to live together in peace. But the growing few advocating the one-state solution are not thinking of this state – quite the opposite. They wish to undermine it and establish a different, more just and egalitarian regime. When that is established, the hatred and despair will most likely be forgotten.

One may not want to believe this, of course, but one must not deceive. You cannot deny the possibility of life together with arguments based on the existing conditions. Blood is being spilt because of the injustice, and stems from it. How can you rule out in advance the possibility that in a democratic, egalitarian state, different relations will be formed? There are quite a few historic precedents of hatred and horror that dissipated when the injustice dissipated.
We could go back to the two-state solution, of course. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but one that has been missed. Those who wanted a Jewish state should have implemented it while it was still possible. Those who set it on fire, deliberately or by doing nothing, must now look directly and honestly at the new reality: 600,000 settlers will not be evacuated. Without evacuation, there will not be two states. And without two states, only the one-state solution remains.
Now, of all times, out of the fire and despair, we must start talking about the last way out: equal rights for all. For Jews and Arabs. One state is already here, and has been for a long time. All it needs is to be just and do the right thing. Who’s against it? Why? And, most important, what’s the alternative?

Gideon Levy
Haaretz Correspondent
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.680882?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook?date=1445341175040

Thanks TMOW.

That article is a pretty sad view of the future.

Thanks, I don't know, it has a possible one-state bi-national solution. It has hope for the future, just not sure how to get there.

I think the important thing is to realise that a two-state solution is a fiction. There is only one state currently, and one regional authority with no actual governing power (PA). There is no viable path to a Palestinian state and anybody suggesting otherwise is usually disingenuous. Promoting a two-state solution is perpetuating the status quo.

Instead, why not take that one single state and make it better?

Still pretty unlikely, but seems like the only reasonable path. And frankly, I have yet to hear a good counterargument *against* a single state that respects all ethnic groups. There are so many good examples in the world, it's stange that somehow we think that this couldn't work in Israel.

@TMOW, Bask can correct me if i'm wrong, but you're missing out on Gaza, which has no Israeli control inside it's birders, and which is ruled by Hamas not the PA? (Or am i mistaking my terms...)

*borders, not birders...

Also a single state solution is hard; it means ending the segregation, which opens up a lot of potential for violence. It also violates resolution 181, which established Israel as a state and which was rejects by all Arab states.

Though resolution 181 would massively reduce Israel in size if implemented today, not just to the 1967 (green line?). Arguably a one state solution would allow a right of return. Which would mean current people living on land owned by Arabs displaced in 1948 (the Israeli war of independence) would either lose their land or have to compensate the returnees (or both, return the land an compensate for ~60 years of use)

That would be rather fair, but require people giving up their homes - which is unlikely to be popular in Israel today. (Also, if you start talking about compensation, violence could be compensated for, which would bankrupt the IDF/Hamas+other violent Palestinian groups)

@TMOW: the problems with a single state begin with the demography.

The combined population for the area would be 6.3 millions Jews, 5.8 million Arabs and 300k "others" (Basks' figures, checked against other sources). So, Jews would only have a small minority in what they see as "their" country. Would they accept this? Then there is the land itself. Even in the West Bank much of the land, and arguably the best, is now under Jewish "ownership". Would the Palestinians accept this?

That said, I think Israel could do much to undermine the Palestinian opposition. Young people with no jobs and no education are easy to manipulate into terrorist acts. Give them hope, take away petty grievances. If Hamas won't play nice ignore them, make life better in the West Bank, show people how the PA is failing them, marginalise the PA, give them reason to start talking to Israel.

Absolutely: If Hamas doesn't want to negotiate, don't make them an offer. Make every Palestinian an offer.

A few South Korea-style propaganda towers giving exact instructions on how to do what Israel wants them to do should help, so every Palestinian knows what his choice is.

You can take all the security measures to make sure nothing lethal comes into certain areas of course..

@Steephie, 'nothing lethal'?

You think they aren't already doing this? Why do you think the current spate of attacks involves knife wielding Palestinians?

Even with a complete blockade of Gaza, Hamas managed to launch rockets into Israel in 2014. Forcing the IDF to invade and destroy those attackers.

It would be harder still without limiting movement of Palestinians (segregation) and it doesn't work at present. (Though Iron dome is able to shoot down some rockets as the are incoming, presumably it works better in urban areas, so it may only knock out 10% of rockets, while reducing casualties by 25%?? - figures pulled from ass)

Until 1948, Jewish and Arab population lived together for a lot of years. It didn't really work well - massacres, violence, etc. The UN plan from 1948 was to separate the two populations because they could not live together and each had their own national identity, deserving two countries.

Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews. A state that will make sure that a second Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were murdered, will not happen again. Letting in Palestinians, who are being taught in the official education system to kill Jews, the Palestinians that democratically elected Hamas to be their leadership, the same Hamas that has in its charter a very specific saying that all Jews must be killed, is a bit... how do I say it... counter-productive? Suicidal? Will never be accepted?

And then, you have to ask Palestinians about it. Are they willing to live peacefully with their Jewish neighbors? Are they willing to accept Jews in all parts of Israel/Palestine? Hebron? West Bank? Ramalla? Are they willing to admit the Jewish right to live here?

I don't think this is a realistic solution (and I am not even yet discussing its moral issues and problems).

P.S. Does anyone know here how many Israelis were attacked by Palestinian knives since this conversation has started? Does anyone here know how many Palestinians died in clashes between IDF and Palestinian violent protesters? Do you really think these two nations can live together peacefully, without any borders (aka one state suggestion).

@Bask: most of te violence pre-1948 was anti-British (from the reading i've done) it was only in 1947 that the Arabs were agitating for a single state which excluded the Jews and the British were withdrawing, that inter Jewish-Arab violence really flared up.

Previous to 1947, either British or Ottoman rulers were in charge and put a stop to violence.

And can you correct me, i was under the impression that Hamas' charter reads destruction of Israel, and says nothing about genocide. These are not the same things, even if they are easily confused. (I could say 'and end to british rule on the island of ireland, and it would not be seen as a call for genocide)

But for all the reasons i disagree with, our conclusion is right. Currenty Jews will not accept living beside Palestinians. It can only be accepted if it becomes less dangerous.

But this conflict has not been going on since forever, so there is hope that it will end.

As for your PS, lots of things change, do you know what happened in Rwanda, and the Hutu and Tutsi currently live side-by-side.

The current violence is an expression of anger at the injustice of the current inequality. If you can remove that underlying inequality then you can work towards ending the anger.

Israel can sit and wait for the Palestinians, enduring the status quo whereby Arabs find ways to strike back (they don't have materials for rockets so they send suicide bombers, they don't have explosives for suicide bombs so now they send kids with knives, who knows what next).

The status quo suits Netanyahu and his allies, trading a few lives for political support for their position. He might not be that cynical about it, he might genuinely think that it is for the best (Israel's version of our own BOG).

However, the status quo is not a solution and will not lead to one. Something needs to change.

Tmow: so, I called you out on your statement that Israeli Jews view all non-believers as sub-human, and as your proof you come up with one guy? Ha-ha. Thanks for proving your bias, and my point.

@Trip: would you care to clarify? I believe that the only Israeli Jew in this thread is an atheist rather than an ultra orthodox believer. Jewish often refers to ethnicity in parallel with religious affiliation.

So what exactly are you saying? And is this 'belief' you claim present in that groups actions??

I believe what I wrote is succinct. I understand all that.

What I wrote is exactly what I was saying. Not belief, fact; and it's not only present, it's sanctioned by both governments and their religion.

Goverment dies not represent the people either.

Like if i criticised the US foreign policy that isn't the same as criticising US citizens.

But yes, the Israeli government guarentees a right to migrate to Israel to anyone of Jewisg descent. So it is one of the only governments in the world to offer citizens of other countries a right to migrate (that i'm aware of at least; i'm pretty sure the Irish governmnt couldn't offer citizenship to the ~40 million Irish descentants not living here..)

Wow, this is really helpful …. not.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/germany-refuses-accept-binjamin-netanyahu-claim-adolf-hitler-holocaust

"Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely"

- Record of the Conversation Between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, London, 1964, p. 881ff in Walter Lacquer and Barry Rubin, The Israel-Arab Reader, (NY: Facts on File, 1984), pp. 79-84.

I don't think Hitler needed persuading. It seems more likely that the Mufti and Hitler were just working out a plan, which still means that there was a Palestinian leader in discussions about the annihilation Jews with Hitler.

Although both are wrong, discussing the destruction of Jews living in Palestine is not the same as "inspiring the holocaust". Netanyahu's statement was extremely inflammatory.

The situation is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34602287

I wonder why the guy refused to show his identity.

@trip: if you think Lieberman is just "one guy", it's not my ignorance you're proving.

Either way, I don't think your premise of 'being perceived as sub-human' is a useful reference point. I much prefer 'people who don't use violence', and then are allowed to think whatever it is they want to think.

Any resolution of the conflict, two state or one state, would need a negotiation between parties about righting the wrongs of the past. This includes legitimate grievances on both sides. If I were an Israeli, I would much prefer the one state solution, where you have control to include those citizens that are non-violent, and exclude (or arrest) those who aren't. I'd much prefer that scenario to a two-state solution where all the Palestinians are "outside" and likely hostile. Whichever resolution you choose for, you need to address the rightful grievances on both sides before reaching a reasonable peace - or even a truce. I think those groups on both sides which do not want to address the grievances of the other side are the ones who are stalling the process. I applaud Israelis who see that rights of Palestinians need to be respected, and Palestinians who see that Israel needs existential security.

I was actually thinking about Rwanda when I wrote my last post. That was a divide older and more violent than in Israel, and look where they are today. It took a genocide and reaching out to the other side to achieve that. I'd hope Israel skips one step in that process.

Dip61: I def agree with you about Netty's statement. Completely baseless & inflammatory.

Tmow, the whole sub-human thing is sanctioned by both palestinian governments, their religious leaders and their Iranian sponsors, so to say that it's anywhere near an equally thought sentiment on both sides is plain wrong.

@Trip - thanks for the clarification

"I was actually thinking about Rwanda when I wrote my last post. That was a divide older and more violent than in Israel, and look where they are today. It took a genocide and reaching out to the other side to achieve that. I'd hope Israel skips one step in that process."

I thought the divide was artificially created very recently, am i wrong in this??

@trip Iran? I know they sponsor (and have for years) Syria and Hezbulah, and the have begun sponsoring Iraqi militants since the US created ethnic tensions between Sunni and Shia Iraqis;

But the palestinians recieve aid from all over. The EU stopping giving aid to Hamas when they came to power, and i don't know what happened also and NGO aid flotilla was boarded by Israeli special forces and prevented from delivering aid to Gaza a few years ago.

If Iran does provide support to the Palestinians, what form does it take? How much of their aid budget does it account for? Do they provide weapons? Militia training? What??

@Ora: the Hutu-Tutsi divide is quite old, and was aggravated by Belgian colonialism. The violence had a lot to do with the disenfranchisement of certain groups, and the perceived righting of old wrongs.