(Author: David Saks, Vol. 65, No. 3, Chanukah 2010)
At the beginning of 2010, the author was interviewed by a graduate student at Wits University for a thesis on possible long-term solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Questions posed probed the notion that Jewish settlement in the West Bank has ineffect created a ‘One State’reality that it is too late to undo, thereby making the ‘Two States for Two Peoples’formula for peace unworkable and necessitating a change of focus aimed at the creation of a single, bi-national, unitary state. The interviewwas followed by a written exchange, in question and answer format, an edited version of which follows.
Which solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict do you believe has the best chance of succeeding and bringing about a sustained peace and why is this?
Ideally, the two Palestinian territories –the West Bank and Gaza –should (by common consent, obviously) be reincorporated into the previous occupying powers, namely Jordan and Egypt. It makes far more sense since those countries are likewise Arab-speaking and Muslim by religion, hence the prospects of a successful merger are much greater. Realistically, this is not on the table. Jordan has expressed no desire to take over the West Bank again and Egypt, not least because of its own concerns of Muslim fundamentalism within its own borders, is positively hostile to the idea.
It goes without saying that if the territories cannot even be incorporated within other Arab-Muslim societies, then amalgamating them with Hebrew speaking, Jewish Israel, especially in light of the bitterly hostile relationship of the past seventy years, is a non-starter.
This leaves achieving Palestinian sovereignty in the above territories as the only realistic option open. The “Two State Solution”envisions the West Bank and Gaza in terms of this becoming one independent state co-existing peacefully alongside Israel. Now that Gaza and the West Bank have effectively split into two mutually antagonistic entities, a de facto ‘Three State Solution’scenario is emerging.
Do you believe that a democratic one-state solution is beginning to be viewed as preferable to a two-state solution or a winner-take-all single polity?
It’s a school of thought within left-leaning academia, where there is an entrenched hostility towards the very ideaof a sovereign, Jewish majority State. However, as practical politics it has gained little if any traction. Even the South African government, where there is a profound traditional of hostility towards Israel, accepts the “Two State Solution”as being theonly viable one.
It has been more plausibly suggested that some kind of confederal arrangement linking Israel and the territories should be looked at.
Could one go as far as to say that a bi-national and power-sharing state is the only viable alternative to the continuing conflict?
No, on the contrary. If it has not even proved possible up until now to achieve the peaceful co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians living alongside one another in their own separate states, how much more so would pitching them together within a single state prove. Actually, given its self evident illogicality, it’s very odd to see the theory even being discussed. No-one proposed the reunifying of Yugoslavia as a solution to all the ethnic violence of a decade ago, nor is ‘One Statism’being proposed as a solution to the (from a global peace perspective, far more dangerous) India-Pakistan conflict. The reason why the Two State solution hasn’t been implemented essentially comes down to the intensity of Arab-Muslim oppositionto a sovereign Jewish presence on ‘their’land. Peaceful co-existence cannot be achieved, whether in two states and self-evidently not within one, so long as Jews are considered to be an illegitimate, usurping presence that must be fought against without respite until their State is eradicated.
Why has there been a lack of genuine progress towards the two-state solution as proposed under Oslo? What has prevented its plans from becoming a reality?
Both parties were to blame for Oslo’s failure. On the Israeli side, it took the form of escalating Jewish settlement across the Green Line, which understandably undermined whatever trust they were trying to build with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian’s part, anti-Jewish incitement throughout their societyand regular acts of terrorism that were either secretly planned or at least tolerated by the Palestinian Authority, only caused the rift to widen. Finally, the Palestinians themselves torpedoed the whole process, first by rejecting Israel’s far-reaching peace proposals at Camp David in mid-2000 and then launching, without provocation, the disastrous ‘2nd Intifada’.
Is a South Africa-type solution possible in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely. Firstly, the two situations are not analogous. In South Africa, there was an intermingled, multi-racial population de facto existing within a single geographic territory, with the ruling white caste constituting a small minority. Physical separation of the races was impossible. It was realized that South Africans had to learn to swim together otherwise they would sink together, and common sense fortunately prevailed. Israel, on the other hand, has a substantial Jewish majority within its official borders. Why would it wish to sacrifice this by amalgamating with a territory mainly comprising non-Jews? If the majority of South Africans had been white, they certainly would not have agreed to their country joining up with, say, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, no matter how much they were assured of equal and fair treatment.
Another crucial difference is in the differing nature of the political visions of black South Africans and Palestinians. The black majority here was committed to a non-racial society that would “belong to all who live in it”and produced leaders who foughtfor equality and democracy, not racial vengeance and the replacing of one group’s dominance with that of another. The Palestinian vision, whether in its Arabist ethnic form as encapsulated by the Palestinian National Covenant or its religious Islamist manifestation, as shown by the Hamas Charter, is rejectionist and victory directed, the ultimate aim being to establish a dominant Arab-Islamic entity in place of Jewish Israel. Had the liberation movements in this country adopted a similarly zero-sum approach to the ‘Struggle’, no peaceful transition to democracy would, or could, have taken place.
Are there certain segments of the population that support a forced transfer of Palestinians out of Israel and the occupied territories? Could this be a viable alternative?
Yes, one hears rumbles of this from time to time from the fringes of the Israeli far right, but I doubt whether even they seriously envisage such a policy being carried out in practical terms. Apart from the moral implications of what would essentially be a cold-blooded policy of mass ethnic cleansing, the logistical difficulties of physically uprooting millions of people are insurmountable.
Referring to Arabs within Israel as ‘Palestinians’ is incorrect, however. They are Israelis no less than Jews (and Christians etc.) are.
If we remain in the current deadlock, what is likely to happen? Is a third intifada a threat?
I don’t think so. Muammar Abbas is a pragmatist, as are the other members of his government. The 2nd Intifada brought much suffering and destruction to the Palestinian population, with very little if anything to show for it, and he has said so. In the last couple of years, the trend with regard to the West Bank has been encouraging. Israeli and Palestinian security personnel, with important input from the US, cooperate on security matters, which is reflected in the dramatic dropping off to almost nothing in terrorist violence and counter-violence. Because of this, a process of normalization is taking place, most visible in the dismantling of checkpoints and opening of roads to all. The Palestinian economy is also growing dramatically, with much input from the Israeli side. That much remains to be done –many restrictive laws remain in place, mainly for the benefit and protection of the Jewish settlers, and this has to remain a focus when pushing for changes on the ground –is undeniable. It is further of concern that while direct violence is no longer being incited and planned, the demonisation of Jews and Israel and refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy throughout Palestinian society continues apace.
The Gaza situation is another story. However, since the population there is no longer under Israeli rule, there can be no popular uprising against it. It remains to be seen if the harsh lessons learned during last year’s Operation Cast Lead prove enduring in dissuading the Hamas leadership from relaunching its missile attacks.
How would a one-state solution operate? What would its implications be? How would such a state function?
It would not be dissimilar to the SA situation post-1994. At the very least, there would have to be an entrenched Bill of Rights, complete judicial independence and the upholding of all basic democratic freedoms, including academic, media and NGO independence and complete non-discrimination when it comes to religious practice. Palestinian society is frankly not ready for this. It is religiously very conservative (e.g. it criminalizesing homosexuality, converting to a faith other than Islam, any discourse considered to be ‘blasphemous’ etc) and is authoritarian, persecuting political dissidents and executing suspected traitors. Israel is the mirror image of all this, having much more in common with the secular Western democracies.
What are the positive aspects of a one-state solution?
Assuming a South African ‘miracle’ somehow emerged, it would mean an end to conflict and all the tragedy that entails, the lifting of all current restrictions on the Palestinian population, the corresponding freedom of Jews to travel and live in any part of ‘Eretz Yisrael’that they choose to, without being reviled and threatened as ‘illegal settlers’, the extension of Israel’s impressive economic success to the Palestinian territories and from there throughout the Middle East region –theoretically, all this is possible.
What are the negative aspects of a one-state solution?
It is a reality that ethnic, and especially deeply-held religious antagonisms lead either to balkanization, that is the breaking up of countries into distinct new sovereign entities where one or another religio-national grouping is dominant, or persistent civil war (e.g. the Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey, the war in Chechnya etc). Sometimes, unfortunately, the only realistic alternative is to keep warring factions apart from one another. This was in part the thinking that led to the UN partition of Palestine in 1947 as well as the break-up of India that same year. Given the recent history of intense antagonism between Israel Jews and Arab Muslims, not to mention the profound political and cultural differences noted above, any attempt to coexist within a single binational state would violently unravel almost immediately. (If two dogs are fighting, who in his right mind shoves them both into the same cage to force them to get along? One will simply kill the other, or both will be ripped to shreds).
Is there a way in which the Israeli Jewish population opposition to a one state solution could be diminished? What would their likely demands be?
For Israel Jews (and a great many Israeli Arabs, particularly Christians, are also unlikely to necessarily wish to amalgamate with a still economically backward, anti-democratic Palestine) there would have at the very least to be a virtual revolution in Palestinian attitudes towards Jews, Zionism and Israel. The demonisation of Jews, denigration of Judaism, brazen denial of Jewish history and glorification of ‘martyrs’ who sacrificed themselves in killing Israeli civilians that right now dominates the way Palestinians are taught to see the world has to be completely overturned. Next, the relatively peaceful conditions between Israel and the West Bank need to be maintained and firmed up over a period of several years. Facts on the ground are also important, such as increased economic cooperation. Finally, instead of demanding that all the settlements be dismantled and their Jewish inhabitants sent back across the border, the Palestinians should accept them as fellow citizens. All this would help assuage understandable Jewish fears and foster an environment where Jews and Arabs can indeed co-exist, notwithstanding their differences.
Is there a chance that a one state solution could lead to the Palestinians becoming a permanent underclass given the far stronger institutional, educational and economic development of the Israeli-Jewish sector?
No. Obviously, the Israeli-Jewish sector would have a head start, but under conditions of equality that would prevail in a theoretical democratic single state, the gaps would decrease naturally over time.
Could the Palestinian diaspora play a vital role in the nation-building process?
Right now, aside from those in Jordan, the 1948 refugees and their descendants are being kept in a state of limbo by their host countries, denied citizenship rights and all that entails.
Were a binational Israeli-Palestinian state to come into being, there would be no reason for the host Arab countries to continue maintaining this underclass as human title deeds to ‘stolen’ Arab land. The Palestinians abroad would in most cases then simply be absorbed into their host countries, in which the great majority was in any case born.
Would such a one state solution win support of the international community?
It has not up until now and most likely will not since it is so impractical and is at present rejected not just by most Israelis but by a substantial majority of Palestinians. Anyway, it’s not for the international community to make the decision. Its up to Israelis and Palestinians themselves to determine whether or not to cast in their lots with one another.
What would Palestinian demands most likely be if a one-state solution was put forward and what would their reservations be?
I’d imagine non-negotiable equality and the extension of the ‘Right of Return’ to the 1948 refugees and their descendants would be part of the mix. Palestinians, too, have reservations about losing their identity and compromising their particular values by amalgamating with a foreign population. For them, near-nudity on a Tel Aviv beach, parliamentarians who opine that David and Jonathan were homosexuals, academics who teach that all the prophets, including Mohammed, were unbalanced fabricators, gay liberation marches in Jerusalem and all other manifestations of the ‘freedom of expression’ principle that operates in Israel are anathema.
Do you believe that the one-state solution is now the only viable situation under democratic international law?
By no means. I see no necessity for the whole of Israel and the whole of the territories to meld into one because the two-state solution hasn’t worked, for the reasons outlined above. I do see the necessity of the Jewish presence in the West Bank being regularized, either through the incorporation of the Jewish population into the general population or through their return to Israel. What is unsustainable is the continuation of a situation where extraordinary security measures are needed to protect the Jewish WB minority, to the detriment of the majority population.
Settlements
Are the settlement policies that are being followed by the Israeli government making a two-state solution unviable by eroding the basis of a future Palestinian state?
Not necessarily in the long term. Currently, the problem with settlements is that Israel is compelled to implement extraordinary security measures to protect them (separation fences, checkpoints, separate roads etc) since their presence is so very unwelcome to the Palestinian majority. These measures do indeed put severe limits on Palestinian sovereignty. The solution is for the Palestinians to accept the presence of a small Jewish minority within its borders, whose status would be no less (and no more, as is currently the case) than that of the rest of the population. The settlers, for their part, would have to accept that they are now Palestinian, not Israeli citizens, and that they would not enjoy any special privileges.
I like to use the South West Africa/Namibia example when making this point. In demanding its independence from South Africa, Namibians did not insist that whites who had settled their under South African rule be kicked out. On the contrary, it was never a question that these would be regarded as full, equal citizens of the newly independent Namibia.
The problem with the West Bank is that the antagonism between the two groups is so intense – lethally so – that such a scenario looks utopian at present.
Do you think that anyone is capable ofdismantling the settlements? Is there a chance that this may trigger a civil war within Israel?
Some 300 000 Israeli Jews now live across the Green Line. There is no way they will ever be uprooted, nor, in my view, should they be. Those settlements close to Israel’s borders should be absorbed into Israel (appropriate land swaps could come into the equation here) while where this is not feasible, they must be incorporated into the Palestinian state.
If settlement expansion continues and the construction of the security barrier continues, would this lead to a single, undemocratic entity where Israel rules over a Palestinian majority?
The security barrier really strengthens the reality of two states since it creates a de facto border. Jewish cross-border settlement does on the face of it cause a blurring of the distinction through intermingling the two populations. However, this admixture only takes place in a fairly limited geographical area. It therefore does not necessitate the whole of Israel and the whole of the West Bank to amalgamate since their populations are not, in fact, already inextricably intermingled as was the case in South Africa. Only that area along the border where the population is mixed should be incorporated into the West Bank (theoretically, it could also be incorporated into Israel, with the Palestinian element becoming Israeli citizens).
To show that it is serious about wanting the West Bank to achieve independence, Israel needs to stop any more of its citizens moving across the border. It must further continue working constantly with the Palestinian side to further conditions whereby the relationship can be normalized. This is working quite well at present, with most checkpoints having been dismantled, roads being opened and the route of the security barrier moved on a number of occasions. Much more needs to be done, of course, but so long as current peaceful conditions prevail, incremental normalization can and will happen.
Can it be said that the settlements have in fact created an irreversible situation and have caused people to already be living in a bi-national situation?
Again, this is true only for the West Bank itself. It does not follow that the whole of Israel must be regarded as inextricably joined with the West Bank simply because a number of Israeli citizens have settled across the border. Instead, it means that the population of the Palestinian state will not be homogenously Arab and Muslim but will have a small Jewish minority as well (just as Israel, while being predominantly Jewish, consists of a fairly sizable non-Jewish minority).
What is irreversible is the settler presence, which cannot be uprooted at this stage.
How has the separation barrier further led to the demise of a possible two state solution and can it be viewed as confirmation of the borders Israel has in mind for a future Palestinian state?
As noted above, the presence of a physical barrier roughly following the 1967 borders concretizes and strengthens the reality of two distinct states rather than the reverse. Where the fence cuts into lands beyond the 1967 border, disrupting normal day to day Palestinian life is the heart of the problem. There is no way this section of the fence can be accepted as a permanent border. With the re-establishment of a lasting peace situation, those sections of the fence must be moved or dismantled altogether. It is always important to remember that the fence did not exist prior to the launch of the sustained terrorism campaign from September 2000, in which Jewish settlers were ruthlessly targeted.
What do you think of the comments made by John Dugard that since the declaration of the state of Israel over 60 years ago it has been in violation of international law?
When international law is applied in a selective and discriminatory manner, with the most rights-delinquent countries hijacking it to target its designated enemies, then what you have is not international law but international lynch law. Dugard himself is a hard-line anti-Israel activist who has taken part in UN initiatives aimed at targeting Israel for exclusive condemnation. His views must be seen in this context.
Given Israel’s identification as the state of the Jewish people, would Jewish ethnocentrism bea major deterrent to a one-state solution? Could this be overcome?
Most Middle Eastern and North African countries defines themselves in ethnic (Arab) or religious (Muslim) terms, or both. The two main Palestinian factions themselves define themselves as either Arab (Fatah) or Islamist (Hamas). Israel similarly defines itself in ethno-religious terms. This is not a problem, so long as a) the majority of the population buy into that definition and b) minority groups are not discriminated against. In Israel’s case, there is majority support for the concept, and while a degree of discrimination against the non-Jewish minority (within Israel proper) does unfortunately exist and must be addressed, it is much milder than discrimination against religious, and sometimes ethnic (e.g. Kurds in Syria) minorities that is prevalent elsewhere in the region. In short, I would say that Palestinian ethnic and religious exclusivity is far more of an obstacle to any putative ‘one state’ scenario than its Jewish counterpart.
Can the de facto Israel state even be classified as a Jewish state as it stands now? It can be said that it is neither Jewish nor democratic because of the nature of the occupation and the status of the millions of Palestinians who live under it.
Were the West Bank to be formally annexed, without its citizens being accorded full democratic rights, that would certainly be true. To repeat, so long as the majority of Israel’s citizens wish to define their country as a ‘Jewish State’ (what that actually means would be subject to a range of opinions), then there is no problem.
If Israel were to choose a state that was either non-Jewish or undemocratic, what do you believe it would choose?
It would be a disaster if it came down to there being only those two choices. Theoretically, a South Africa-style compromise in which a mixed population coexists equally within a single territory would not be the end of the world. The problem is that the Arab-Islamic attitude towards the re-established Jewish presence in what is regarded as exclusively their domain is characterized by so implacable a degree of antagonism that Israeli Jews could never risk surrendering their sovereignty and trusting that everything will work out for the best. On the other hand, ending up as a country in which half the population are disenfranchised would also be a disaster. There would be a situation of permanent conflict, as happened in South Africa. That is why even the Israeli right has largely accepted the reality that the West Bank will have to be surrendered in the end.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
