In the United States and Europe, the Israeli right, epitomized by the Likud Coalition, has always been the “opponent of peace,” while the Labor Party and, later, Kadima were the “pursuers of peace.” This was always a false dichotomy. It would have been somewhat truer to say that supporters of Likud were usually, but far from always, opposed to the two-state solution that Oslo envisioned, while Labor and Kadima supported it. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘One-State Solution’
Posted in Israel, tagged 1956, Anti-Arab racism, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Kadima, Kafr Kassem, Labor Party, Likud, Meretz, One-State Solution, Oslo Process, Reuven Rivlin, Two-state solution on October 27, 2014 | 1 Comment »
Posted in Peace Plans, tagged Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, Emile Nakhleh, Geneva Conventions, international law, Iraq, Israel, J Street, John Kerry, One-State Solution, Palestine, Two-state solution, Ukraine, Wye River Agreement, Yugoslavia on May 22, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged AIPAC, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Israel Lobby, Jewish State, John Kerry, Leon Hadar, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle east, Occupation, One-State Solution, Palestine, Palestinians, Settlements, Shibley Telhami, Stephen Walt, Two-state solution, United States, West Bank on March 4, 2014 | 2 Comments »
In the American Prospect today, Gershom Gorenberg raises the key argument against a one-state solution: that nationalism is too strong
on both the Jewish and Palestinian side for them to reasonably exist in a single state.
I agree with much of Gershom’s argument. But it is worth pointing something out, something I have been arguing forcefully about in my series of three articles this week (see them here, here and here). It is summed up in Gershom’s closing paragraph:
“The challenge to one-staters is to explain how two national groups, Jews and Palestinians, will peacefully put together a single state, live together in that state, and prevent it from ripping apart. Expecting that their nationalism will disappear is even less realistic than expecting the gold, red and blue flag to vanish from Catalonia.”
Yes, that is the challenge to one-staters. But where is the challenge to two-staters to explain how a Palestinian state with full sovereignty (meaning the right to self-defense and a total absence of Israeli forces in its territory), viability (where the area is not broken up by settlement blocs like Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim), connection between the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem, and an acceptable resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue (which is both a human rights issue and a central issue in the very Palestinian nationalism Gershom discusses) is to be achieved under the two-state formula.
Oslo fails on all of those points. Yet somehow, for Gershom and many other sincere two-staters who recognize the need for Palestinian freedom and are not only concerned about Israeli security, this challenge does not have the same force as the one they bring up for one-staters. In my series, I explained why this is—because two-states has an international consensus behind it, arrived at by circumstance, happenstance and a 40-year old Palestinian decision, but not because it was necessarily the best path, while one state solutions have no political backing.
But the message for Gershom, Jeremy Ben-Ami and other purportedly pragmatic two-staters is how we get to a truly workable resolution if we begin from a point where we discount some possibilities because they have serious problems while ignoring problems of at least equal magnitude in other solutions simply because the latter is the path preferred by those enforcing an unhelpful and no longer viable consensus.
Posted in Peace Plans, tagged American Task Force on Palestine, Camp David, Hussein Ibish, Israel, Israel-Palestine Talks, Israeli Settlements, J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, John Kerry, Noura Erakat, One-State Solution, Oslo Peace Process, Palestine, Palestinian Refugees, Right of Return, Two-state solution, Yousef Munayyer on October 8, 2013 | 1 Comment »
This article originally appeared at LobeLog.
In a debate recorded by the Institute for Palestine Studies, human rights lawyer Noura Erakat squares off with Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, about the current peace talks and the prospects of a two-state solution. There was a lot in the exchange that was interesting, and it’s worth your viewing. But one point in particular caught my attention. (more…)