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]

@BrainGlutton

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

Best for whom?

[Bryan_Ekers]

At this point, three-state it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bryan_Ekers

At this point, three-state it.

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

[BrainGlutton]

@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]

@BrainGlutton

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

Cite?

[BrainGlutton]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@Ibn_Warraq

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

What, Jews and Muslims?! Seriously?!

[BrainGlutton]

@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]

@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.

@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.