Israel/Palestine: "One-state solution" on the table again?

[BrainGlutton]

I heard on NPR recently that a lot of Palestinians nowadays, despairing of the possibility/viability of an independent Palestinian state, have started talking once again about an idea that used to be anathema to them, a one-state solution.

Not just them, either; pols are talking about it, too.

Two of the architects of the Oslo accords, which were intended as the basis of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost 20 years ago, have radically changed their position following the long-term impasse between the two sides.

Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister who worked in secret on the accords before the historic signing ceremony at the White House in September 1993, has called on the Palestinians to dismantle their governing body, which was set up under Oslo, saying it had become a fig leaf and a farce.

Ahmed Qurei, the former Palestinian prime minister who was one of the key negotiators in the Oslo process, said the two-state solution was defunct, and the option of one single democratic state for both Israelis and Palestinians must now be considered.

Both men reflect a view held by many observers of the stalled peace process, that the window of opportunity to create a Palestinian state has closed or is about to close. The alternatives to two states, they say, are a continuation and entrenchment of the status quo, or one state which denies equality to a large and rapidly growing minority, or one binational state of equals which would no longer be Jewish in character.

<snip>

Despite pressure from Barack Obama, Abbas included a veiled threat to dissolve the PA in the final version of a letter delivered last week to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. If there was no breakthrough in peace talks, the letter said, the Palestinians would "seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to the powers and responsibilities of Israel as the occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory".

In other words, according to Beilin, they would "end the farce" and deny Netanyahu a "fig leaf" for the occupation. "It is implicit, but it is very clear," he said.

Despite Beilin's dismay at the long-term outcome of Oslo, he insisted the two-state solution was "in trouble but not dead". A one-state outcome "is not an option because it means a Jewish minority dominating a Palestinian majority in a few years from now, and this is something that neither Israelis and for sure not the world will accept". He added: "Or is it possible to have one state in which a Palestinian will be the prime minister or president? No, Israelis will not accept that."

In contrast, Qurei said a two-state solution had been killed by Israel's policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that a "one-state solution, despite the endless problems it embraces, is one of the solutions that we should be contemplating".

I have always contended a one-state solution is the best, as being the only solution that requires nobody to move. Of course, a united state of Israel/Palestine probably would have a non-Jewish majority within two generations, so much for a "Jewish state." But so what? It'll still be the Jews' state as much as the Pals'.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I have always contended a one-state solution is the best...

Best for whom?

[Bryan Ekers]

At this point, three-state it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

At this point, three-state it.

Who's the third state for, the Samaritans?!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Best for whom?

Best for all in the sense of least-worst for anybody. E.g., all those hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers -- they would have to leave an independent WB, but they need not leave the WB that is a province of Israel/Palestine, and they need not live in daily fear of their neighbors like they do now.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It'll still be the Jews' state as much as the Pals'.

Cite?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by septimus

Cite?

South Africa. The whites don't rule it (alone) any more, but they still own it. And, for now, most blacks appear more or less satisfied with that arrangement (and shudder to look at Zimbabwe, where things went differently). And their numerical/electoral superiority over the whites is much more overwhelming than any such advantage Israeli Palestinians ever will have over Jews, they could do anything with it.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I heard on NPR recently that a lot of Palestinians nowadays, despairing of the possibility/viability of an independent Palestinian state, have started talking once again about an idea that used to be anathema to them, a one-state solution.

Not just them, either; pols are talking about it, too.



I have always contended a one-state solution is the best, as being the only solution that requires nobody to move. Of course, a united state of Israel/Palestine probably would have a non-Jewish majority within two generations, so much for a "Jewish state." But so what? It'll still be the Jews' state as much as the Pals'.

Yossi Beilin, "Peres's poodle", is about as influential as an average dog catcher in Israel.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Best for all in the sense of least-worst for anybody. E.g., all those hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers -- they would have to leave an independent WB, but they need not leave the WB that is a province of Israel/Palestine, and they need not live in daily fear of their neighbors like they do now.

I guess it's "best" in the sense that it completely negates the original purpose of establishing the State of Israel. I think the subsequent war that would ensue would make it not so "best" for the rest of us, either.

[Procrustus]

If the Jews and Palestinians would simply intermarry at high enough rates, we'd have a lot less problems working out a solution. But first we have to get them in the same neighborhoods. I have long advocated as a solution to the settlement controversy that every other residence be reserved for a Palestinian family.

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Best for all in the sense of least-worst for anybody. E.g., all those hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers -- they would have to leave an independent WB, but they need not leave the WB that is a province of Israel/Palestine, and they need not live in daily fear of their neighbors like they do now.

It's funny (or, outrageous) that the only way to “legalize” land grab is to create a one-state solution. In fact, wouldn’t that be an ultimate land grab?

It is also funny how the only way to solve this problem is to appease the worst element of it.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

South Africa.

Zimbabwe.
Gee, coming up with facile comparisons and ignoring that different situations aren't fungible is fun, and so much easier than actually addressing the issues in context.

[Ibn Warraq]

Israel would no more agree to a "one-state solution" than Pakistan would agree to a "one-state solution" regarding it's dispute with India.

For that matter, a united Ireland independent of the UK is vastly more plausible.

Anyone who claims that the one state solution is workable is either a liar, willfully blind, or completely ignorant of the realities of the situation.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

If the Jews and Palestinians would simply intermarry at high enough rates, we'd have a lot less problems working out a solution. But first we have to get them in the same neighborhoods. I have long advocated as a solution to the settlement controversy that every other residence be reserved for a Palestinian family.

Er....you do realize they're not allowed to get married in Israel don't you?

[gatorslap]

Alternate one-state solution: Give the West Bank back to Jordan and give Gaza to Egypt.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I guess it's "best" in the sense that it completely negates the original purpose of establishing the State of Israel. I think the subsequent war that would ensue would make it not so "best" for the rest of us, either.

What makes you think there would be war? How does that happen -- Israel offers the Palestinians a one-state solution and they won't take it, or what?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Er....you do realize they're not allowed to get married in Israel don't you?

What, Jews and Muslims?! Seriously?!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by newcomer

It's funny (or, outrageous) that the only way to “legalize” land grab is to create a one-state solution. In fact, wouldn’t that be an ultimate land grab?

It is also funny how the only way to solve this problem is to appease the worst element of it.

Interesting -- I read that post without gaining the least insight as to whether you sympathize with the Pals or the Jews here, or who might be the "worst element."

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gatorslap

Alternate one-state solution: Give the West Bank back to Jordan and give Gaza to Egypt.

Would they even take 'em?!

[Alessan]

It's said that there are two groups of Israeli Jews who support a two-state solution: the far left and the far right. I tend to agree. Either way, the vast majority of the population will never accept it as a solution. We know how the Palestinians feel about us, and we know that these feelings won't end so long as we Jews are still here. They don't want equality - they want us gone.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Er....you do realize they're not allowed to get married in Israel don't you?

That's not entirely true.

While marriage in Israel is covered by the religious authorities - a shameful situation, IMHO, which is why I refused to get married through them - which indeed don't provide a legal option for interfaith wedding, there are ways around that. First, there's conversion. Second, there' marriage abroad, as the Israeli government is legally bound to recognize any wedding conducted in a foreign country. Third, Israel has very progressing common-law marriage rights; many people choose to sign cohabitation agreements (which are almost indistinguishable from marriages) in lieu of actual weddings. Its very common among gay couples, for instance.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyone who claims that the one state solution is workable is either a liar, willfully blind, or completely ignorant of the realities of the situation.

What realities in particular, please? E.g., is it a reality that Palestinians and Jews hate each other too intractably ever to share a state, or is it not? Serious question.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Er....you do realize they're not allowed to get married in Israel don't you?

I had no idea. My plan's only flaw I guess

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What realities in particular, please? E.g., is it a reality that Palestinians and Jews hate each other too intractably ever to share a state, or is it not? Serious question.

The Palestinians hate and resent the Israelis too much, and the Israelis mistrust the Arabs* too much.




* Incidentally, the way most Israelis see it, the conflict isn't between Israelis and Palestinians, it's between Israelis and Arabs. As far as Israelis are concerned, their fight is with the Arab world as a whole, with the Palestinians simply being the Arabs who are closest at hand. It's a strange conflict when both sides believe they're the underdogs.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What, Jews and Muslims?! Seriously?!

No, Jews Muslims and Christians can't legally intermarry within Israel.

Israel doesn't have civil marriage. The only marriages performed within Israel, recognized by the Israeli government are ones performed by clerics recognized by the relevant religious organizations.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Would they even take 'em?!

Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank shortly after Israel kicked them out and Egypt has repeatedly said they'd refuse the Gaza Strip.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank shortly after Israel kicked them out and Egypt has repeatedly said they'd refuse the Gaza Strip.

Right. They'd refuse to take it even to grant it independence.

[Jackmannii]

The OP's desired "one-state solution" will be closer to fruition once he can point out to the Israelis all the current examples of Arab nations in which Jewish minorities live in harmony with Arab majorities, while possessing something resembling equal rights.

(crickets)

Or, to convince Israelis of the virtues of a "one-state solution", perhaps all the Arab states who kicked their Jewish populations out after 1948 and took their property would welcome them back with full repayment plus interest.

(more crickets)

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Interesting -- I read that post without gaining the least insight as to whether you sympathize with the Pals or the Jews here, or who might be the "worst element."

So, when I say there’s a “land grab” going on down there that’s not enough detail for you to figure out who’s grabbing whose land?

[rhetorically]Really?![/rhetorically]

At least, naïveté of the OP is explained.

Or, a joke of it.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by newcomer

So, when I say there’s a “land grab” going on down there that’s not enough detail for you to figure out who’s grabbing whose land?

Which conquest, exactly, do you consider to be the original "non-land-grab" conquest that you use as a metric here? Just, ya know, in case you have an actual metric.

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Alessan

The Palestinians hate and resent the Israelis too much, and the Israelis mistrust the Arabs* too much.




* Incidentally, the way most Israelis see it, the conflict isn't between Israelis and Palestinians, it's between Israelis and Arabs. As far as Israelis are concerned, their fight is with the Arab world as a whole, with the Palestinians simply being the Arabs who are closest at hand. It's a strange conflict when both sides believe they're the underdogs.

Incredible post that explains a lot.

1st - they hate us; we simply "mistrust" them – no comment!
2nd - Arabs instead of Palestinians - no comment!
3rd - "closest at hand" - shouldn’t it be more precise to say: "Arabs" whose land we want.
4th - I was under impression that the involved side from Israel are religious crazies minority hell bent on screwing everyone up because of the fantasy tale?
5th – Israelis consider themselves “underdogs”? – Would 10 billion a year in weaponry make average Israeli give a chance to the idea that maybe, just maybe you have an upper hand?

What's amazing is I'm sure you really believe this!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by newcomer

So, when I say there’s a “land grab” going on down there that’s not enough detail for you to figure out who’s grabbing whose land?

[rhetorically]Really?![/rhetorically]

Really. The most obvious interpretation would be the Pals regarding the Jews as "land-grabbers"; OTOH, the Jews (some of them) seem to think they have some prior claim to the land and the Pals "grabbed" it while they were out; and, more importantly, that any proposal for a one-state solution might look to the Jews like one massive Palestinian land-grab.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What makes you think there would be war? How does that happen -- Israel offers the Palestinians a one-state solution and they won't take it, or what?

Israel isn't going to offer a one state solution. And even if they did, and the Palestinians accepted, there would be civil war within a few years.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by newcomer

Incredible post that explains a lot.

1st - they hate us; we simply "mistrust" them – no comment!
2nd - Arabs instead of Palestinians - no comment!
3rd - "closest at hand" - shouldn’t it be more precise to say: "Arabs" whose land we want.
4th - I was under impression that the involved side from Israel are religious crazies minority hell bent on screwing everyone up because of the fantasy tale?
5th – Israelis consider themselves “underdogs”? – Would 10 billion a year in weaponry make average Israeli give a chance to the idea that maybe, just maybe you have an upper hand?

What's amazing is I'm sure you really believe this!

You must live in a state of constant amazement. I envy you.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Israel isn't going to offer a one state solution. And even if they did, and the Palestinians accepted, there would be civil war within a few years.

What makes you think there would be a civil war within a few years?

And who would start it?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What makes you think there would be a civil war within a few years?

And who would start it?

1. It's pretty much SOP for all new countries.
2. It's really SOP in the M.E.
3. There is so much bad blood between the parties
4. Both sides could easily start it.

I find it hard to believe that you think unification could be done peacefully.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alessan

* Incidentally, the way most Israelis see it, the conflict isn't between Israelis and Palestinians, it's between Israelis and Arabs. As far as Israelis are concerned, their fight is with the Arab world as a whole . . .

. . . WHY?!! There's not a single Arab government left that seriously wants to be rid of Israel, and I doubt the Arab Spring will change that any.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

4. Both sides could easily start it.

Ah. Koom Valley.

I find it hard to believe that you think unification could be done peacefully.

If ever the Israelis offer it peacefully, it can be done peacefully, more or less, for certain values of "peacefully" and allowing for the inevitability, in this setting, of some entirely unofficial on-the-street mob-clashes. Which can happen without leading to war.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by newcomer

4th - I was under impression that the involved side from Israel are religious crazies minority hell bent on screwing everyone up because of the fantasy tale?

Well, certainly . . . but those religious crazies are not Jews alone.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If ever the Israelis offer it peacefully, it can be done peacefully, more or less, for certain values of "peacefully" and allowing for the inevitability, in this setting, of some entirely unofficial on-the-street mob-clashes. Which can happen without leading to war.

And your example of this having ever happened in the Middle East is...?s

I trust you don't need examples of when wars did break out in the Middle East.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

. . . WHY?!! There's not a single Arab government left that seriously wants to be rid of Israel, and I doubt the Arab Spring will change that any.

Really? Because the emerging government in Egypt is starting to look pretty hostile, and there's no sign that whoever ends up in charge in Syria will be any better. As for the rest of the Arab governments, who knows what they actually want? Most of them certainly haven't taken any steps toward recognizing Israel or initiating diplomatic relations. If there's any sign that their stated belief of the past 64 years - Judea delenda est - has changed, they certainly haven't made it known to us.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

And your example of this having ever happened in the Middle East is...?

I was thinking of South Africa . . . Why "in the Middle East"?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

South Africa

Zimbabwe.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I was thinking of South Africa . . . Why "in the Middle East"?

Do I have to show you a map?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Who's the third state for, the Samaritans?!

Isreal, the Republic of Gaza and the Republic of the West Bank.

I don't see any supercritical reason the last two should be forced into a discontiguous single state, and the Fatah/Hamas split forces a division that goes beyond mere geography. If there was a single governmental structure that I thought could speak for Gaza and the West Bank and operate under rule of law, I could imagine a two-state solution, maybe... though history doesn't give me any confidence that a Palestinian state will be anything but the shakiest of democracies, always one election from theocracy and/or dictatorship.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Alessan

It's said that there are two groups of Israeli Jews who support a two-state solution: the far left and the far right.

Wait -- is this right, or did you mean to say one-state solution here?

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

Wait -- is this right, or did you mean to say one-state solution here?

You're right - my bad.

Hey, it's late here.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

The OP's desired "one-state solution" will be closer to fruition once he can point out to the Israelis all the current examples of Arab nations in which Jewish minorities live in harmony with Arab majorities, while possessing something resembling equal rights.

Actually, you are describing a situation that covers most Islamic countries throughout most of Islamic history; Jews were always better off there, and more nearly equals to the majority, than in Christian Europe at any time before the "Jewish Emancipation" of the late 18th Century. But then Israel was founded, and the whole Muslim world went a little crazy for antisemitism . . .

As for nowadays, Egypt, AFAIK. I've heard of Christians there taking it on the ear, but never Jews.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alessan

You're right - my bad.

Hey, it's late here.

Where you live, it has not been early for millennia.

[John Mace]

Taking it in the ear? That's gotta hurt!!

But you're right. There is little trouble for Egyptian Jews. All 10 of them who remain. I only slightly exaggerate.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Zimbabwe.

What say you to that, newcomer, since you seem to be the only 100% Palestinian sympathizer in this thread? What reason have we to think that Palestinians in power would not persecute/dispossess any Jews?