Constructing a New Box
In situations of this sort, where differences seem irreconcilable, the common call is ‘to think outside the box.’ The old box was the consensus associated with the two-state mantra, which appeared to have a solidity that never truly existed. Now appearances are more reliable. At present there is not even a box to think within. Yet silence and despair is not an option while Palestine suffering and denial of rights endures. Future alternatives need to be imagined and appraised. Five seem worth pondering, and each has some plausibility.
(1) Israeli One-State
Such an end game involves extending Israel’s border to incorporate most of the West Bank, keeping the settlements except, perhaps, relinquishing control over a few isolated outposts.
This vision of Palestine’s future takes on heightened political relevance considering that Reuven Rivlin, the newly elected Israeli President, is an open advocate of a supposedly humane version of an Israeli one-state outcome, a position that directly contradicts Netanyahu’s endorsement of an eventual Palestinian state.
This benevolent version, spelled out in some detail by an influential settler advocate, Dani Dayan, calls for a radical easing of Palestinian life in relation to day to day humiliations, ranging from the numerous checkpoints, restrictions on mobility, and anticipates and supports the dismantling of the separation wall. (See Dayan, “Peaceful Nonreconciliation Now,” New York Times, June 9, 2014)
Dayan proposes that the Israeli government take a series of steps to raise the Palestinian standard of living significantly. He admits that this type of ‘economic peace’ will never satisfy Palestinian political/legal grievances relating to territory, independence, and the right of return.
Such a proposal is essentially offering the Palestinians a Faustian Bargain in which Palestinians give up their rights of resistance in waging a political struggle for self-determination in exchange for the tangible psychological and economic advantages of living better lives materially and enjoying some measure of dignity within an Israeli structure of governance.
The obstacle here is that the authentic voices representing the Palestinian people seem united in refusing to renounce their political ambitions and their right of resistance. The acceptance of such an arrangement would be widely understood, including among the Palestinian people, as a political surrender to the de facto realities of Israeli settler colonialism carried to its maximalist endpoint.
It is relevant to note that the Dayan proposal is coupled with the expectation that the Palestinians would renounce in principle and practice any right of violent resistance, while the Israeli state would be entitled to engage in violence whenever the perceived imperatives of security so demanded.
(2) Binational One-State
The more idealistic version of the one-state solution presupposes a secular state that encompasses the whole of historic Palestine, establishes a unified government with democracy and human rights for all, and creates semi-autonomous regions where Jews and Palestinians can exercise self-administration and freely express their separate national and ethnic identities.
In effect, the two dominant peoples in Palestine would agree to live together within a single sovereign state on the basis of equality and democracy, but with agreed provisions creating separate national communities preserving culture, tradition, ethnicity, and religious affiliation.
There are several obstacles: given the realities on the ground and the attachment of an overwhelming majority of Israelis to the Zionist Project of a Jewish State with its unlimited right of return for Jews worldwide, the proposal seems utopian, lacking political traction.
Furthermore, the disparities in wealth and education would likely lead to Israeli hierarchy, if not dominance and continued exploitation, in any process that purported to unify the country on a non-Zionist basis.
(3) Israeli Withdrawal from Occupation
In this proposal, there would be no explicit shift in the structures of governance. In a manner similar to the 2005 Sharon Disengagement Plan for Gaza, this new initiative would apply to those portions of Palestine that Israel seeks to incorporate within its final international borders.
This arrangement would leave the Palestinian Authority in charge of the remnant of the West Bank, as well as Gaza. It would maintain the actuality of the occupation regime, but without the presence of Israeli security forces and keep the separation wall, imposing rigid border controls and continue repression, effectively depriving Palestinians of the enjoyment of their most basic human rights.
This approach rests on the assumption that Israeli military control is able to implement such a solution as well as to deal with external threats mounted from hostile forces in the region. The main obstacle is that Palestinians would have no incentive to accept such an outcome, it would be denounced in most international settings, including the United Nations, and it would have the likely political consequence of further isolating Israel in global settings.
(4) Palestinian Self-Determination
There is some new thinking in the Palestinian camp, most articulately formulated by Ali Abunimah in his important book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine. The emphasis is on civil society activism and nonviolent Palestinian resistance as building global support for a solution that is responsive to the Palestinian right of self-determination.
What form self-determination eventually assumes is a matter, above all, for Palestinians to decide for themselves. The realization of self-determination presupposes leadership that is accepted by authentic representatives of the whole of the Palestinian people, including those living as a minority within Israel, those living under occupation, and those in refugee camps and involuntary exile.
The contours of the territorial division or unity that emerges would be the outcome of negotiations, but its embodiment would address the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people as defined by international law and international human rights and include a formal acknowledgement by Israel of past injustices done to the Palestinian people.
The main obstacle here is one of hard power disparities and rigidities, as well as the continuing, although weakening, Jewish worldwide engagement with the Zionist Project. The way around such an obstacle is to gain worldwide support that mounts sufficient pressure on Israel, the United States, and Europe so as to induce a recalculation of interests by Israeli leaders and citizens based on a new realism associated with the increasing leverage of growing Palestinian soft power capabilities.
(5) Peaceful Co-Existence
In recent years, Hamas, strangely seems to be the last holdout for a version of the two-state solution, although in its maximalist form. Israel would need to withdraw to the 1967 borders, end its blockade of Gaza, and give Palestine control over East Jerusalem.
The main obstacle here is that Israel would have to abandon its expansionist goals and dismantle the settlements, although it could retain the Zionist Project in its more limited territorial applications to Israel as it existed in 1967.
The secondary obstacle is that the Hamas Charter calls for the total removal of the entire Jewish presence from historic Palestine, making the proposal seem tactical and untrustworthy, and at most intended to serve as an interim arrangement, an uneasy truce and unsustainable peace.
Hamas officials have indicated a willingness to commit to 50 years of coexistence, a period in which much could change, including even the primacy of the statist framing of political community. It is impossible to imagine Israel accepting such a blurry outcome that rolled back the factual realities of expansion that have been created by Israel over the course of several decades.
Besides, whatever its content, the very fact that Hamas was the source of such a proposal would alone be sufficient to produce an Israel rejection.
A Concluding Comment
It is obvious that none of these five approaches seems either attractive enough to challenge the status quo or politically persuasive enough to shift the balance of forces bearing on the conflict. Yet, there are signs indicating both that the Israelis are moving toward a unilaterally imposed option and the Palestinians are becoming more inclined to combine nonviolent resistance with support for militant global solidarity.
On the one side, the Israeli settler movement is on the front line, and on the other, the Palestinian BDS campaign is gathering momentum as the leading expression of the Palestine National Movement. In both instances, at this time the relevant governmental entities have been marginalized as political actors in relation to the struggle.
This is itself an extraordinary development, but where it will lead remains obscure. Two images of the near future seem most relevant. From an Israeli perspective: the consummation of the Zionist project by the incorporation of all or most of the West Bank, the further ethnic consolidation of control over the whole of Jerusalem, and the rejection of any humanitarian responsibility or political ambition with regard to the Gaza Strip.
From a Palestinian perspective: the growth of the global solidarity movement to a point where an increasing number of governments impose sanctions on Israel, reinforced societal initiatives associated with the BDS campaign, giving rise to new thinking in Israel and the United States about how best to engage in damage control.
If such a point is reached, the experience of transforming apartheid South Africa into a multi-racial constitutional democracy is almost certain to intrigue the political imagination.
The 2nd American Revolution and Judaism Revised
Bibi and AIPAC left the rotten Apartheid COMPLETELY EXPOSED by their stupid tactics – and now we get all the marbles – AIPAC’s Girl Hillary and ‘Judaism as Zionist’
The Strategy:
1- Successful 2nd American Revolution: America Free of AIPAC [and free of AIPAC’s Girl Hillary (2nd American Rev)]
2- Reformulate Judaism as Free of Zionism
3- 1P 1V 1S
The Tactics:
1- Force AIPAC to register as agent of hostile foreign power then make it ILLEGAL, after AIPAC’s Pres Rosen and VP Weissman are ONCE AGAIN successfully prosecuted
2- Shame ‘All American Jewry’ and ‘All American Zionism’ – re-dedicate Judaism to SERVING Palestinians
==
===
No More War for Andrea Mitchell and the Israeli Lobby
America free of AIPAC – it’s the 2nd American Revolution.
‘The Santa Fe Rebellion’ – America Free of the Israeli Lobby: The 2nd American Revolution.
First National Meetings – July 4th – July 6th Santa Fe Community College, Santa Fe NM
Force AIPAC to be registered as the agent of a foreign country (like all other lobbies of all other foreign nations) – then bring the FBI prosecutions against *AIPAC President Larry Rosen and Weissman forward, then make AIPAC illegal when the prosecutions (ONCE AGAIN) show Rosen and Weissman’s proven espionage against the US.
* Including federal prosecution of Rep Jane Harman, caught on FBI wiretap conspiring with an Israeli intelligence agent (Mossad) to derail the criminal prosecution of AIPAC above, for Israel, in addition to conspiring with Mossad for the House Intelligence Chairmanship. AND NEVER YET PROSECUTED
No more War for Bill Kristol and the Israeli Lobby
seek medical attention
One option not discussed is a State of Israel consisting of areas marked as Israel in terms of Balfour Declaration plus Gaza strip plus portion of VVest Bank rquired for security reasons. Population transfer and resettlement expenses met by UN vvhich vvill supervise it.
There were no “areas marked as Israel in terms of the Balfour Declaration”.
I mean the area that became knovvn as Israel (as it stood just before the Yom Kipur VVar)
Right. There was no such marked area. Perhaps you are referring not to the Balfour Declaration but the UN Partition Plan?
|Can an agreement evolve around this, subject to accepting Israel’s right to exist. An independent Palestine vvill change Arab politics forever.