Background on the unitary solution
Those who think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is intractable have failed to read history. Britain and France fought many wars, including the 100-year war (it actually lasted over 120 years). The Berlin wall tumbled, Europe is being unified, and apartheid South Africa is no more. Palestine is actually one of the few places left where military occupation has persisted, extending into the 21st century.
Many seem to take for granted that the only solution is a two-state solution: a Jewish state on 78 per cent of historic Palestine and a new state of Palestine created in the West Bank and Gaza (WBG, occupied in 1967, making up 22 per cent). However, a partition into two sovereign and viable states is rendered impossible by limited resources, Israel's security demands, and population and economic realities. Israeli Jews, after a number of immigration waves, number 4.5 million. Palestinians within the Green Line number 1 million. In the proposed Palestinian "state" in the WBG live over 3.5 million Palestinians. Thus, without refugees allowed to return, the number of non-Jews is roughly at parity with Jews in an area of 84,000 square kilometres.
Add to that the fate of over 400,000 Jewish settlers placed by Israeli governments intentionally and illegally in the WBG area, and the issue of Palestinian refugees, and you will see why a two-state solution has been rendered obsolete.
Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere make up an additional 3-4 million people. Palestinian refugees are refused return to Israel because this might alter the "Jewish character" of the state. Polls show a vast majority of refugees insist on their right to return to their homes and lands. Polls also show a majority of Jews refusing such return in the context of a two-state solution.
With the WBG already crowded with refugees (population density is four times that of Israel), will it be possible to bring more refugees into this 22 per cent of historic Palestine? And what does the "Jewish character" of the state mean? Does that include maintaining laws that Amnesty International labelled as highly discriminatory against non-Jewish citizens? Would the fundamental security needs of Israeli Jews be served by the envisioned two-state solution (unequal, unbalanced, with what Dr Jeff Halper called a "matrix of control")?
Israel would never agree to a fully sovereign Palestinian state west of the River Jordan due to security and nationalist considerations. As proven at Camp David in July 2000, Palestinians would reject anything less than full sovereignty on the areas occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem) and a just resolution to the refugee question. Israel rejected this even before the Intifada and the new wave of suicide bombings.
Palestinians, in turn, cannot accept Israel's offers, whether 80 per cent or 95 per cent of the WBG (95 per cent of 22 per cent) because of lack of independence/freedom. Israel insists on limits to Palestinian sovereignty (borders, airspace, water resources, etc.) which the Palestinians correctly interpret as continuing colonisation. Israel's insistence on not giving up sovereignty of the Haram Al Sharif area, while emotional more than practical, is still also a stumbling block. The two-state scenario is untenable against this wall of contradictions bidding Israel's security, Zionism, and emotional needs versus Palestinian freedom and self-determination.
It is thus understandable that recent polls among Israelis and Palestinians reveal a growing disillusionment vis-?-vis the two-state solution as a viable means of stabilising the situation let alone achieving a long lasting peace. The incredible economic possibilities in multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural societies with basic human rights protected are now internationally recognised.
Histories of this and similar struggles prove the futility of: 1) acquisition of territory by force, 2) separation and bantustanisation for the native populations by colonial powers, 3) solutions based on perceived religious rights, 4) violence, destruction and abrogation of basic human rights to maintain domination. By thinking outside the boxes of tribalism and ideological nationalism, we start to consider the incredible opportunity offered by coexistence. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, only justice and equality are guarantees of safety and security.
Inhabitants would do well to divert resources from war and fences to peaceful coexistence and development in a pluralistic democracy, with equality and human rights for all. Considering the ingenuity and high level of education of Israelis and Palestinians, the country could become a technology and service mecca of the Middle East. It can become a bridge between the West and the Orient. It can truly become a "light unto the nations". All other alternatives have already proven to be dismal failures.
These issues are explored in detail in my book Sharing the Land of Canaan {link}
See also One State Solution
New Book just out: “The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Middle East” A new book by Virginia Tilley (Assoc Prof, Political Science, Hobart and William Smith Colleges). Received excellent reviews and endorsements. “Tilley focuses on the daunting obstacles to a one-state solution--including major revision of the Zionist dream but also Palestinian and other regional resistance--and offers some ideas about how those obstacles might be addressed.”
Available from University of Michigan Press: http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=94535
or, in the UK and Europe, through Manchester University Press:
http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/ or http://catalogue.mup.man.ac.uk/acatalog/New_Approaches_to_Conflicy_Analyis.html
|