Israel-Palestine: The One State Solution

For as long as I can remember I've supported the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It has always seemed reasonable to agree with the United Nations General Assembly that the solution must involve the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, withdrawal of Israel to its 1967 borders, and the formation of Jewish and Arab states.Recently I have started to reconsider this view.First, it does not seem in line with my view of a democratic state that it should be based on ethnic or religious segregation (i.e. Jewish versus Arab). It doesn't seem healthy at all.Second, I am not sure that the 1967 borders are particularly valid. I really don't see how the 1948 invasion was justifiable so I suppose I don't really see how Israel has the right to exist (other than by making facts on the ground, that it DOES exist, so its citizens have the right to continue living in the land which I view to have been occupied illegitimately in 1948, but upon which they happen to have been born).Third, with the building of the "security wall" and the fact that a future Palestine appears to occupy non-contiguous space, I do not feel very hopeful that that a two state solution is even logistically possible.My current thinking is that a two-state solution might have been possible in 1967-1987, but Israel has essentially ruined its own hopes by its continued expansion into and destruction of Palestine in the intervening time. This expansionism has made a the prospect of a viable independent Palestinian state recede drastically. Palestine is so screwed up, now, that the two-state solution is no longer going to be a realistic outcome.This has led me to reconsider the one-state solution. Sadly, the one state solution is basically what existed before the second world war, where jews and arabs lived (relatively) happily together. It doesn't seem very politically practical, since Israel is bent on a curiously ethnocentric definition of the Nation and fear demographic "swamping" by the Palestinians. However the one state solution might better live up to the dreams of the Zionists that they find a safe and happy homeland. It is an interesting fact that, as a Jew, the most dangerous place to live in the world right now is Israel. What a failure of the Zionist project.I was just wondering if anybody else has any ideas about the viability of the one state solution. I know that it is an idealistic dream but doesn't it seem in principle the "best" outcome?CheersMickPossibly for the coffee house, or social issues forum. Not strictly evo-creo related but presumably involves debate between the religious and the rational () communityEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Hi Joseph,Thanks for your reply. I must admit I found it difficult to understand but I will make what I can of it. If I may start in reverse order:You make much of the Balfour declaration, though you fail to make a political or ethical case why we should concern ourselves with the internal political decisions of an imperial European country regarding the fate of an occupied territory in the Middle East. One claim I must take issue with is the following - The Balfour declaration makes no comment on the quantity of land to be allocated to a future Israeli national home (it doesn't even mention a state). Here is the declaration itself: The 12% value you cited must have been plucked from the air, or your citation is incorrect. Note that the promise is also conditional on protection of the civil and religious rights of non-Jews, a condition that has not been met.Furthermore: I don't know what "pretend pals" are. If that is what you call the indigenous Palestinians then it is hard to understand what you mean when you say that they have more options and facilities than any other group of refugees, since it is well-known that the Palestinians were betrayed by all of the Arab states who have provided them with lots of belicose propaganda but little economic or political aid in the years since the foundation of the Israeli state. I am ready to admit a great deal of anti-Israeli and indeed anti-semitic feeling amongst these refugees, which is bolstered by a sense of national humiliation as well as the appalling behaviour of the Israeli state in contemporary times. It may be the case that the Arabs do no "need" land, though the conditions of the Gaza strip are notoriously overcrowded. I think it is very important if this problem is to be solved that all sides are treated with a modicum of respect, and it is tasteless of you to joke that the Palestinians want a golf course - as far as I can see they want exactly what the Israelis want, access to their homeland. The Palestinian case is only the stronger since it was their golf course a few decades ago, rather than a few millenia. In any case, any right-thinking person would find the accusation that the Palestinian desire to return is as decadent as the desire for a golf course in the desert, unpalatable to say the least.I skip over your comments regarding the betrayals and other activities of the British government, whose unpleasantness we can probably agree on, doubtless for different reasons. I'm glad that you address my main point. If the loss of an exclusively Jewish state is a death demand, it is a demand that is being made by the Israeli state by their continued efforts to render impossible the two-state solution. Virtually all of the contested territory is now directly occupied or economically controlled by Israel. My understanding is that the leading Arab protagonists including Hamas are in agreement, in principal, with some kind of two-state solution. But continued territorial expansion of Israel in the form of settlement activity and the building of the "security fence" has inevitably shrunk the potential future Palestinian state to a point where it is logistically impossible. Can you think of any other stable state that is divided into two pieces, separated by a foreign country who controls their water and oil imports? Of course not. If things continue as they are going there will be a de facto single state - Israel, controlling all of the territory. The resultant demographic problem, if it is a problem, will not go away by wishful thinking. The Palestinians of Israel, being poorer, are reproducing at a higher rate and will inevitably outnumber the Jewish community at some point over the next century. There is no getting away from that (other than ethnic cleansing), no matter how unpleasant it may seem. I suspect that the eventual outcome would be more in line with Zionist aspirations, and more in line with the desire of the global commumunity for Middle East stability and peace, if the Jewish community made efforts to mend relations with the Arab community before that demographic timebomb strikes, rather than after.Thanks for your comments,MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Hi Joseph,Thanks again for your interesting comments. I will have to start by dealing with some of your comments that are completely irrelevant to my argument, but to which I must respond.I think it best to start again with the Balfour declaration. There are two questions, I think. First, what does it actually say? Second, what political legitimacy does it have?Let's take a look at the declaration again: It is easy for any reader to look at your interpretation, compare it with the actual declaration, and decide where they stand. First, the Balfour declaration has absolutely nothing to say about the historic rights of Israel nor of any other country. Israel is not mentioned, nor is the idea of historic right, nor is the idea of statehood, nor is the idea of "recognition" of new states.Second, the Balfour declaration does not promise the whole of the Middle East to a future Israeli state, it supports the notion of the establishment of a future Israeli homeland in Palestine. It doesn't say where in Palestine, it doesn't say how much of Palestine.Third, the Balfour declaration is not transcendent over anything, becuase it is an internal strategic document of the British government and not part of domestic British or international law. The declaration essentially has no legal standing whatsoever. The document is merely a declaration of support from the cabinet to a Zionist banker that he can rely upon their support in his efforts to obtain a Jewish homeland.Finally, there is an obvious question about the ethical validity of Britain promising imperial territory to a third party. Britain abandoned most of its imperial territories throughout the twentieth century, so Brits as a whole have accepted quite happily that their claims on land in the Middle East were politically unwarranted. I would make the claim that the acceptance by the British people of the illegitimacy of their imperial possessions renders historical deals regarding the borders of these possessions invalid.Thankfully, the Balfour declaration has nothing to say about borders, so it's utterly irrelevant to our discussion. I agree with you, though I would say that the Brits took the mandate role rather than were given it. All of the states you list are fictional, and the Israeli state is fictional too. Israel was a hair's breadth away from being established in Africa, where it would have been an equally fictional state. So we can agree that the borders of the Middle East are purely fictional. Okay by me. Are we supposed to judge Israel's treatment of Arabs by the yardstick of international human rights norms, or by the yardstick of petty local dictatorships? I am no friend of Mid-East Arab dictatorships, and I think it is an insult to the Israeli state to use them as the yardstick of acceptable behaviour. I put it to you that they can. Jews and Arabs have lived together on "Palestinian" territory for thousands of years. Historically, it was a territory shared by ethnic and religious groups, not exclusive to either of them.The idea of ethnically or religiously exclusive states is a purely modern one.You next go onto a strange and embarassing rant which includes: The first part of this sentence is a tautology, since it is clear that refugees must "go and life elsewhere". I would appreciate proof of the latter part of the sentence, since you say it is provable. It is you, not I, who is in favour of establishing Jewish states left right and centre. Good for you. I have already accepted the existence of antisemiticism amongst local Arabs. I would appreciate no more comparison with the Nazis though, since I am not proposing that anybody kill anybody else, am I?Edited by mick, : grammatical errorEdited by mick, : No reason given.

Now that is the kind of talk that has ruined the middle east. The authors of the Balfour declaration specifically did not use the word "state". Yet for some reason you think you can insert "a state" in square brackets. You might like to think that the Balfour declaration mentions a state, but it does not. There is no mention of "a state" You can put whatever you wish in square brackets but that doesn't make it part of the Balfour declaration! The declaration speaks of a "national homeland", not a "state". Anybody who disagrees, just look up-thread and see the scans.Mere babble follows this claim. It is difficult to argue if the facts are completely abandoned...