reason to give their support to the Arab Initiative, regardless of whether they
personally favor the two-state or one-state paradigm.
|
By Roger H. Lieberman
PalestineChronicle.com
Perhaps the most telling indicator of how
historically, geographically, and morally impoverished “mainstream” American discourse on the Middle East remains is the
fact that the most crucial question for the future of Israel-Palestine is
rarely even mentioned. This question is not whether Israel's
conduct in the Occupied Territories resembles South African Apartheid – if
anything, it is considerably worse – or whether Israel can talk to a Palestinian
Authority that includes the Hamas movement – it obviously can and should.
The real decisive issue
facing Palestinians and Israelis today is whether the most logical and
constructive remedy to the conflict between them is the partition of historical
Palestine into two states, or the reorganization of the aforementioned
territory as a single, democratic state for all citizens.
While attracting only the most cursory
attention, as yet, from the public at large, the two-state vs. one-state debate
has become vigorous – and often quite acrimonious – among peace activists. Such
open debate on the merits and shortcomings of these respective models for
Israeli-Palestinian coexistence is essential for clear-headed understanding of
the issues at stake, and is the essence of a democratic society. Nevertheless,
there is an urgent need for supporters of justice in the Holy
Land to speak with unity. Tangible progress is desperately needed
to alleviate the pervasive sense of hopelessness that is fueling the factional
bloodshed in the Occupied
Territories, which
imperils the prospects for peace along either the two-state or one-state
framework.
Before terms for consensus among advocates of
the respective peace formulas can be worked out, it is necessary to review the
most valid arguments of each side.
Advocates of the one-state solution have
correctly pointed out that the scale of Israel's
settlement activity in the West Bank – especially within the unilaterally
enlarged municipal limits of Jerusalem
– severely compromises the territorial and economic viability of a Palestinian
state. These large settlement blocs – often coyly referred to by Israeli
propagandists as “neighborhoods” - have remained a persistent stumbling block
in peace negotiations. Furthermore, assuming no imminent shifts in the regional
balance of power, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will inevitably be
forced to cope with severe constraints vis a vis Israel over control of natural
resources – especially water – as well as freedom of movement between the two
disconnected parts of their country. Most importantly, a two-state arrangement
will, by definition, put severe limitations on the ability of Palestinian
refugees to return to their homeland and reestablish themselves in areas from
which they were driven when the conflict began in 1948.
On the other hand, two-state supporters
highlight the unfortunate reality that Israeli Jews and Palestinians have
become so alienated from one another by government policies, and the prolonged
experience of conflict, that the majority on both sides find it exceedingly
difficult at present to conceive of sharing the same democratic state. Dialog
and political coordination between Jews in Israel
and Palestinians in the Occupied territories on the basis of equality and
reconciliation has been very limited - though it has developed to a more
respectable level among Jews and Palestinians inside Israel. Furthermore, the
preponderance of international efforts to resolve the conflict have been based
on UN resolutions that call for a two-state settlement, and Palestinian efforts
since the Oslo Agreement have focused on building the civic and political
institutions necessary for a viable independent state. Would it be wise to
abandon years of effort to achieve this end, notwithstanding their ignominious
failure thus far?
The task of bridging the gap between these two
positions becomes much more manageable if we are willing to discard the “final
status” paradigm of one, all-encompassing peace settlement intended to define
relations between Israelis and Palestinians for decades to come. To seek such
an agreement is perfectly natural for anyone who passionately seeks justice in
the region. But it is important to keep in mind that Israel has been exploiting the
drive toward a once-and-for-all settlement in order to reach an inequitable
“peace” that demands minimal compromise on its part and puts as low a ceiling
as possible on internationally-supported Palestinian aspirations. Therefore,
since there is already a visceral consensus among supporters of Palestinian
rights that any legitimate peace process should strive toward a future in which
both peoples share the same rights and opportunities, the immediate focus
should be on what immediate reformation is required to provide the first stage
for what will inevitably be a long process of restitution and normalization.
In this context, it becomes particularly
important to make the distinction between a good two-state arrangement and a
bad one. Any “peace plan” that seeks to legitimize Israel's settlement
blocs, accedes to the annexation of East Jerusalem, absolves Israel of material
and moral responsibility for the Palestinian refugee crisis, and hinders the
ability of Israel's current Palestinian citizens to improve their condition, is
obviously not a solution to anything, and isn't worth a farthing of support
from any intelligent person. These criteria obviously invalidate Ehud Barak's
much-acclaimed “generous offer” at Camp David
in the summer of 2000, as well as the schemes presently being entertained by
Ehud Olmert and tacitly – if not explicitly - endorsed by the Bush
Administration.
On the other hand, the Arab Initiative,
originally put forward in 2002 and now being revived, merits much more serious
consideration. Unlike the “peace processes” championed by Israel's American
apologists, the Arab Initiative requires Israel
to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, recognize East
Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and work toward decent and
practical restitution for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution
194. In exchange for acting on these essential and urgent prerogatives, the
plan offers Israel
peace and normal diplomatic relations with all 22 member states of the Arab
League.
By affirming the Palestinian claim to East
Jerusalem, as well as the moral necessity of addressing the refugee problem,
the Arab Initiative offers a worthwhile starting point from which to commence
the peaceful integration of Israel
into the Middle East and reconciliation
between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. In these respects, it is in
perfect accord with a longer-term goal of regional unification. Once this
process has been initiated, it will become far more feasible for Palestinians
to return to lands inside Israel
from which they were expelled six decades ago, and for both Palestinians and
Israeli Jews to conceive of themselves as neighbors with common political and
economic interests. Given the limited common ground between Israeli and
Palestinian politicians and intellectuals at present, this may prove the most
expedient and realistic path toward achieving a one-state solution.
Those who long for a just peace in
Israel-Palestine have every reason to give their support to the Arab
Initiative, regardless of whether they personally favor the two-state or
one-state paradigm. If the current diplomatic efforts fail to bear fruit,
Palestinians will have little choice but to shift toward a “one-man, one-vote”
solution on the model of post-Apartheid South Africa – and the
international community will have little choice but to follow suit. But
there is no inconsistency in supporting both paths toward peace under the
present circumstances – because no matter which produces decisive results, the
process of healing and reconstruction, once begun, will be long and challenging
for everyone. This has been the case in Northern
Ireland and South Africa,
and it will surely be the case in the Holy Land.
-Roger H. Lieberman is a graduate of Rutgers University, with a Master's Degree in
Environmental Science.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment