The Semitic civil war: Why one-state is the only answer for Israel-Palestine
The only lasting option for peace, I feel, is one state for two peoples. Two states for two peoples, the current mantra, won’t work. It puts an impossible burden on Israel and won’t leave the Palestinians with anything approaching what we consider sovereignty. The only lasting solution, I feel, is a single state. Indeed, under occupation, Israel and the West Bank and The Gaza Strip have already been a single state since 1967, when Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory began. It is much easier to go forward on the path both peoples are on today
By Wilson Dizard on Thursday, August 6th, 2009 - 1,140 words.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians can be a difficult one to understand from afar. Indeed, I think the only way to grasp the nature of the war is to travel there and see it firsthand.
I was lucky enough to have an opportunity to see Israel and Palestine myself this spring, when I went to study the effect of climate change on water conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. In addition to this issue, I also became familiar with some of the engines that drive the ongoing conflict.
The main engine is fear. Whenever I would go into the West Bank to conduct research, Israelis would tell me to be cautious. In fact, one Israeli said that I would be in “constant danger” when I was in the West Bank. However, when I went there I found myself surrounded by some of the friendliest people I’ve ever met. Of course, they expressed their displeasure with U.S. policies but they never held it against me personally. Indeed, the word I heard most often in the West Bank was “ahlan,” which means “welcome.”
But here’s the funny thing. I heard Israelis, who I found just as welcoming and friendly as I found the Palestinians, say the word “ahlan” as well. And I heard them say “khalas” (“it’s finished”) and “nana” (“mint”) and other words that share the same sound and same meaning in Arabic. After a while, I realized that what I was seeing in the region was not so much a war between two civilizations, one Western and one Islamic, but rather a civil war between two Semitic peoples. For all the things Israelis and Palestinians have in common, including words, food, and revered prophets and places, both put up huge obstacles to working together and resolving their on-going dispute. Perhaps, I feel, it’s because the two sides are so similar that they refuse to make peace.
When I look to history, I see how wars between dissimilar societies seem to end and enjoy a lasting peace more easily than wars between societies with similarities. The United States, for its part, dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians after years of firebombing Japanese cities, but just a few decades later, even after occupying Japan, the United States and Japan came to an understanding not just between armies and governments but between two cultures as well despite the brutal war we fought. I believe it has something to do with the fact that we never had much in common in the first place and, hence, less to fight over.
But Israelis and Palestinians do share much in common so they have plenty to fight over. Today, there is a new diplomatic push by President Obama to bring both sides back to the negotiating table. However, the negotiations will take the form of deciding the shape, literally and figuratively, of a new Palestinian state in the West Bank and, theoretically, in the Gaza Strip, still suffering under an Israeli blockade so stringent it determines the daily calorie intake of Palestinians there.
I do not believe these negotiations will ultimately find success, but it is not for lack of good intentions on the part of the Obama administration. Unlike Bush and Clinton before him, President Obama has brought a new emphasis to the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a fact that deeply disturbs both settlers but also the current Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Today, about 300,000 Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank. According to current sentiment in Israel, “final status” peace agreement will have to accommodate these settlers somehow, many of whom live in established cities; one, Ariel, with its own university and hospital. The accommodation of the settlers might come in the form of redrawing the map of the West Bank, giving Palestinians land in Israel in exchange for keeping large settlements around Jerusalem and near the annexation wall, which is also known as the separation fence or, by some, as the apartheid wall.
Leaving the issue of the wall aside (from what I’ve seen with my own eyes the wall encourages support of Hamas, which does not accept the existence of Israel, in the cities and towns through which it cuts) and the placement of settlements, I don’t see a viable Palestinian state emerging from the West Bank. Already, Prime Minister Netanyahu, even as he accepted the concept of a Palestinian state, demanded that it exist without an army and be content to accept that Jerusalem will never be its capital.
This isn’t a deal the Palestinians should have to swallow. It will surely not represent a “final status” agreement. There will be continuing disagreements, disputes, and conflict will restart anew. Moreover, the Israeli settlements that remain will deform the contours of the Palestinian state in the West Bank which, in theory, should conform to the 1949 Armistice Line. The only other option is to grant all the remaining settlers lifetime residency permits in the newly created Palestinian state. And, finally, another reason the Palestinian state will fail to emerge stems from the billions of dollars Israel has poured into the concrete and asphalt infrastructure in the West Bank, from the wall itself to the settler access roads.
The only lasting option for peace, I feel, is one state for two peoples. Two states for two peoples, the current mantra, won’t work. It puts an impossible burden on Israel and won’t leave the Palestinians with anything approaching what we consider sovereignty. The only lasting solution, I feel, is a single state. Indeed, under occupation, Israel and the West Bank and The Gaza Strip have already been a single state since 1967, when Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory began. It is much easier to go forward on the path both peoples are on today.
However, while it is a de facto single state, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip count as fifth class citizens. What should happen, I feel, is that Palestinians should have the same rights Israelis do. The settlements can remain while Palestinians will be able to work and live and vote in Israel proper. Of course, this comes with its own obstacles. For one thing, Israelis fear that allowing millions of Palestinians to become voting Israeli citizens will destroy the idea of Jewish state and undermine the security of the long persecuted Jewish people and the very existence of the Jewish state. These issues are important and demand a redefinition of what it means to be Israeli. It will also demand a redefining of what it means to be Palestinians. What’s necessary is to emphasize their commonalities and forge a new national identity. I feel it is time to abandon the delusion that two states for two peoples will end their fighting forever. Only respect and recognition of all they have in common will.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...9 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
A hard bargain at Copenhagen
That said, the rich world’s motivations for backing the Fund are hardly charitable. The Pentagon has already identified climate change as “threat multiplier.” By threatening food and water supplies, a warmer world undermines the stability of cooperative regimes, like Pakistan’s, central to U.S. strategy. Retired four star Marine General Anthony Zinni puts the American position in stark words. “We will pay for this one way or another,” General Zinni says of climate change. “Either we take an economic hit of some kind, or we pay the price later in military terms. And that will cost human lives.”
-
No, You Owe Us Money!: The logic behind climate debt
A novel political narrative is emerging at the COP15 in Copenhagen. It’s the idea that the rich, industrialized countries owe the developing world a “climate debt.” Right now, according Actionaid and Oxfam, the Global North sits about $200 billion in the red, a sum it must pay out per annum. That’s right, after years of dodging the Global North’s loan sharks, debt-ridden developing world has a reason to demand money from rich countries
-
Water wars in Israel-Palestine
This isn’t the first time an international organization accusing Israel of wrongdoing over water. In the spring, the World Bank produced another study, conducted on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, that accused Israel of retarding Palestinians’ development of the water resources they share with Israel, while also admonishing the Palestinians for less than stellar water management and conservation. This report faced similar recriminations from the Israeli government, charging the World Bank with taking the Palestinians’ side
-
The Semitic civil war: Why one-state is the only answer for Israel-Palestine
The only lasting option for peace, I feel, is one state for two peoples. Two states for two peoples, the current mantra, won’t work. It puts an impossible burden on Israel and won’t leave the Palestinians with anything approaching what we consider sovereignty. The only lasting solution, I feel, is a single state. Indeed, under occupation, Israel and the West Bank and The Gaza Strip have already been a single state since 1967, when Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory began. It is much easier to go forward on the path both peoples are on today
-
Hillary Clinton's spineless toadying to the Chinese dictatorship
Hillary Clinton was feted as a human rights advocate, but she's shown this was all a lie.
-
To a Drone: A poem
Wilson Dizard's 'To a Drone'
-
Our generation will be remembered like our grandparents are
We often think of what our grandparents time must have been like, with the Kennedy's and Luther King's, but with all this history now, we can be sure that our grandchildren will think of us in the same historical light.
-
How long do we keep Obama's face on our clothes?
With all this Obama merchandize how will be ever be free of his face? Is the U.S. to become like Syria where our leader's face is in every store and home? I hope not.
-
Massive Obama win in Ohio spurred by students
The massive win in Ohio for Obama was one of the biggest shocks of election 2008. Wilson Dizard watched the events with his fellow students at Ohio State University, a vital demographic grouping that ensured Obama's victory.
-
Somalians for Obama in Ohio
Wilson Dizard reports from Ohio where the Somali community are getting out the vote for Barack Obama.
-
Clean Ohio Fund Act hangs in balance
The Clean Ohio Fund Act is a major piece of legislation to protect the environment in that state. Its funding is now up for ballot and its future uncertain. Wilson Dizard reports.
-
Midwestern values don't exist
Barack Obama is said to have "Midwestern values". But this geographical value structure is rubbish invented to manipulate us.
Dear Wilson,
It is great that you went to see and understand the conflict first hand. What you seemed to have learned, perhaps, is that the Jews are a semitic people who have similar language to the Arabs. However, your proposed solution "a one state" solution is unworkable. It is unworkable for many reasons. One is history. Even before 1947, even before the holocaust, when the Peel Commission tried to resolve the conflict in the 1930's they suggested a partition. That is because the violence of the majority Arabs against the Jews, who were then a minority, was rampant and barely controlled by the British. A second reason is current example. Lebanon is a de facto multi-religious state (one in which everyone is nominally "arab".) Yet, in Lebanon, a horrific civil war occurred for 15 years. The only thing that prevents civil war again is the fact that one side (Shia Muslims) have access to overwhelming arms compared to other sides. Thus, they have de facto rule. Furthermore, civil wars due to religious differences are not just a ME phenomenon. Look at the former Yugoslavia. Do you want to try a one state solution there again? Lastly, a one state solution is an externally imposed solution that ignores the desires (per public opinion polls) of both Israelis and Palestinians. Isn't it the kind of cultural imperialism that people like you (I mean well-meaning Westerners) are supposed to be shunning these days???
I would respond by saying that the secularists, Sunnis, and Christians in Lebanon also, if asked, could fund some pretty serious firepower. Actually, sometimes I say that Israel is like a dysfunctional Lebanon. Also, opinion polls don't really interest me. I'm talking about what will work in the long term. For one thing, any solution will have to be "imposed" from outside (just ask the average Israeli settler if he/she thinks that Obama's two state solution is an imposition, I'd think any opinion poll would come out positive on that question). Bottom line: forced segregation isn't a solution either. It's giving up.
Your solution might work if you look at the conflict only as Israeli/Palestinian. If you look at the conflict as Israeli/Arab the one state solution has no chance of working since no Israeli would give up their rights to be treated as citizens and especially minority citizens in arab countries are treated.
The idealist and dreamer in me loves you solution and longs for the day it would actually work. The defeatist, pragmatic in me finds it highly improbable, for reasons mentioned above and for what you yourself mentioned in your piece – fear, the fear of the "fear", the fear of "they". This has been instilled into every Israeli and Palestinian living there for generations now. This is the biggest adversary in the way of long lasting piece because you cannot negotiate with people you are afraid to trust.
It is this fear that led to the partition of India between "Muslim" Pakistan and "Hindu" India. Politicians on both sides ofcourse are to be blamed a great deal for fear mongering is the easiest tool to win votes.
Making peace a matter of achieving long term social change that succeeds in reconciling each side to respect each other's common humanity. And, of course, there's the possibility that no solution will ever be found and that no scheme will bring both sides to better terms. Who knows?
space is the great peace-maker;armies create was/police create crime;when we feed the uniforms-we dont better the System/to resolve crime andwars-we need to ensure every soul has the max opportunity to develop;ensure the system delivers education/[maybe even free]wand welfare[maybe even free;and transport systems-[,maybe even free]but not weapons/not soldiers/]we need legal reps for every citizen to ensure that no one transgresses against thee-this is the basis for good citizenship//but get crime and crude off tv-put money on space progs-notthe military.
You know, I went to France once, and everyone there was very nice and friendly (well, everyone who wasn't an asshole) – and I noticed that French people use words like "hi", "ok", "weekend", "cinema", and they also eat a lot of bread and chips.
Then when I went to England I saw a lot of people who used French words like "bon apetite", "au contraire" and "je ne sais quoi" – incidently they also drank French wine, and ate a lot of chips and bread.
So I thought to myself – why not make France and England one country? Clearly there are no differences between the two.. and imagine what a better time Napoleon would have had if he didn't have to try to invade Britain… Maybe Americans who eat French fries should also receive a French citizenship on account of cultural affiliation…
Look at the way Hamas and Fatah behave. You think Israelis are going to have a fun time being outnumbered 3 to 1 in a country run by nationalist or Islamic nationalist Arabs? Or maybe the EU would be willing to take 6 million Jewish refugees?
text comment
Well, I hate to break it to you, but France and Britain have been, along with Germany, even (against whom both fought two brutally bloody wars) trying to create, albeit haltingly and in a makeshift manner, a single country, the EU. Of course, we can debate the country-hood of the EU till we're blue in the face, but the fact is that after literally centuries of war European countries are making a stalwart effort to forge a peaceful continent by wedding its respective nations together with trade and non-zero sum relationships.
The problem with Israel and Palestine, however, is that both sides will have to make huge, but fair and necessary, concessions to become a single state. The Palestinians will have to give up aspirations of total territorial sovereignty, but will gain the right to have a voice in the government of the country that affects theirs lives the most: Israel. The Israelis will have to essentially redefine what it means to be an Israeli. Naturally, there's a lot that could go wrong and the sentences above fail to encompass anything close to a complete scope of the tradeoffs, especially in the integration of the two economies.
But if you can give me an alternative that's not the two state solution, which seems to be going nowhere, I'd really be interested in hearing it. My basic instinct is that Israel and Palestine have been a single state since 1967, just an unbelievably disfunctional one. It's much easier to go along with a 42 year trend of economic, infrastructal, and demographic development than to buck it.