A one-state solution for Israel?

For over a decade there has been a wide consensus on how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, known as the two-state solution. One state would be Israel, of course, as defined primarily (but not entirely) by its pre-1967 borders. The other would be a Palestinian homeland consisting of the territory on the Jordan River’s West Bank, the narrow but densely populated Gaza strip along the Mediterranean coast, and possibly East Jerusalem.

Achieving the two-state solution was the whole point of numerous brokered peace proposals, including the Oslo accords in the early 1990s and the more recent Roadmap to Peace put forth by the Bush administration. The sticking points in negotiations over a two-state solution have always involved how much territory the Palestinian state would encompass, exactly where the borders would be drawn, the status of Jerusalem, and of course what to do about Israeli settlements and Palestinian suicide bombers. But the validity of the two-state solution is now being questioned.

A so-called “one-state solution” is gaining currency among Palestinians, within some sectors of Israeli society, and in the worldwide diasporas of both Palestinians and Jews. Many now assert that a two-state solution is no longer possible, and that the only viable way for Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews to live in peace is to forge a single, inclusive state. This envisions Palestinians living as full citizens inside a democratic Israeli state, probably expanded to include the West Bank and Gaza, with all the rights and legal status that Jewish Israelis now enjoy. It is sometimes cast as the one-man, one-vote, one-state model.

It is not a new concept, but has resurfaced now due to the deadly wave of suicide bombings launched by Palestinian extremist groups, and the Israeli government’s reaction to those deadly attacks on innocent civilians. Beginning last year, Ariel Sharon’s government has been steadily constructing a highly controversial “security fence” to stop suicide bombers from entering Israel proper.

This barrier--also known as “the wall”--is nominally intended only to protect Israeli citizens from being murdered as they go about their daily lives. However, as any Palestinian will tell you, it is not being built along the 1967 border but actually makes significant inroads into the would-be Palestinian state. As it is being built, Israel’s wall, loops, folds, and doubles back on itself so that it enfolds large swaths of Palestinian lands, and even cuts some towns and villages off from the rest of Palestine. In part this is because of geography, but it is also being built to provide protection for Jewish settlements within the occupied territories.

Moreover, the wall is more than a simple barrier line. It is actually part of an interlocking web of fences, secure roads, and checkpoints that carves much of Palestine into smaller pockets and cul-de-sacs. Palestinians have realized that the slowly-unfolding result will not be a viable country called Palestine, but a series of pocket-sized cantons unable to function as a real state. This is what the case brought to the International Court of Justice this week is all about. Israelis see the wall as a last-ditch stand against suicide bombers. Palestinians see it as a way to permanently subjugate them.

But some Palestinians have also begun to see that if suicide bombings continue, the wall expands, and prospects for a Palestinian state further diminish, that the only way for them to gain some semblance of a decent life will be to petition to join Israel as full-fledged citizens. Already some polls show that up to 30% of Palestinians support this option. On its face, Palestinians wanting to live within a new Israel with full legal rights may seem like a great development. What could be more reasonable?

Israelis are wary of the one-state solution, however. With present demographic trends, the Arab-Muslim inhabitants of Israel-Palestine will outnumber Jews by the year 2010--just six years from now. If Palestinians were to have full voting rights, the very nature of Israel as a homeland for the world’s Jews would be at risk. Many Israelis ask, “What would Israel be if not a Jewish state?” Others ask, “How can Israel claim to be a democracy if it denies over half its people a stake in the political process?” Still others ask, “How will we survive if some solution is not found?”

The challenges of unraveling the intricately tangled tapestry surrounding this age-old conflict have baffled the world’s best minds and intentions and I’m still deciding whether or not the one-state-solution has merit. The concept could be a genuine effort by war-weary Palestinians and idealistic Israelis to find some way out of their present morass. Parts of the logic hold up well. Certainly, as Americans, how can we argue against a one-man-one-vote approach? On the other hand, is this just a cynical move to recast the old Palestinian war-cry to destroy Israel--this time from within--and push the Jews out--but with ballots instead of bullets?

T.T.

©2004, WestRim Digital Arts