by A few years ago I attended a presentation in Philadelphia of two speakers from Israel/Palestine. One was a member of Anarchists Against the Wall, and the other was a leader in the popular committee for a village protesting the construction of the separation barrier. The two had done some amazing work side by side, both were riveting speakers, and I admire them very much.
During the question and answer period, I asked both of the speakers for an answer reflecting thier personal views: What is your preferred solution to the conflict? The Israeli from the Anarchist group went first, and spoke for about ten minutes about how Zionism is really a form of racism, that Israel doesn't really have a right to exist, and that a one state solution is best. His answer included an analysis of how an ethnically based state can't really be a democracy, and that a Palestinian state wouldn't really be viable in any case.
After he was done, the Palestinian leader spoke. He knew English, but not nearly as well, so the words came out slower, and one could feel that there was more that could be said. This man projected humility; he was a farmer protecting his land, not a political activist who had to travel a few hours to make a stand. He said that he wasn't sure that the two sides are quite ready to live in peace with each other, as evidenced by all the bloodshed. It would be better to let the Palestinians run their own affairs for a while, without Israelis having to be involved. Turning to his co-presenter, he added: of course, maybe in the future it would be different. Who knows?
The two speakers, side by side, stand out in my memory as highly representative of a certain kind of reality. The young Israeli Jew of the far left, sharp as a tack, well read, and familiar with many countries in the world, felt entirely in his element to lecture the assembled Palestinian solidarity activists about the necessity of the one state solution. The Palestinian villager's humility, as a man not yet comfortable with public speaking, was in stark contrast. This man wanted to save his lands and live in dignity. His point of departure was very personal, as opposed to political.
The conversation around one state vs. two is often a varient of this exchange. Highly educated, immersed in activism, boasting of Phd's, professors and authors, the supporters of a single state seem to occupy a privileged niche within the Western left and the Palestinian expatriate elite. They know they are right on historical, moral, and legal grounds, and seek to expand the zones within which they can set the tone. Those zones are usually university campuses and gatherings of the activist faithful far from Palestine.
Supporters of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel include the current Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, who represents what some say is the weak and ineffectual face of Fatah. His main rival within Fatah is the imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, who also supports the two state solution. Hamas, who won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament (though not a majority of the votes) is de-facto in support of a two state solution, in the guise of a long term cease-fire between an independent Palestinian state, and its neighbor, Israel. In Israel - home to more than a million Palestinians, there are three main Palestinian political parties with seats in the Knesset. None of them call for a one state solution.
Just to be clear - I'm not arguing in this post for or against a particular solution. This is a reflection on the nature of the forces arrayed on both sides of the aisle, as can be observed by someone familiar with the Palestinian solidarity movement in the West, as well as with activists in Israel and Palestine. Doesn't it seem odd that a relatively small group of highly educated activists would clamor so forcefully for a political solution that has so little popular support in Palestine?
This disconnect has not been addressed to my satisfaction. Perhaps there are arguments claiming that the political systems in Israel and Palestine serve to mask a popular movement. Or that many Palestinians are imprisoned by the walls of low expectations, and if only the tide would turn, then they would rise up with this old/new demand. Maybe there are many leaders within Fatah and Hamas who grumble off the record about actually rejecting a two state solution, while the leadership has its say in public.
In trying to come up with my own analysis, my heart is saying: lay off the analysis a bit. What do the people living their seem to want? How can the aspirations of both peoples be met at the same time? How can we transform the conflict from a zero sum game into a win-win situation? The dreams of the one staters have every right to compete in the solution sweepstakes, without being dismissed out of hand. And yet, they also have to answer this question: why don't you follow the people? How can you be so sure they are wrong?
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment