An idea floating around, or maybe it's just a thought experiment, is the idea of a one-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. I came across an interesting article this morning:
A One-State Solution Could Transform the World - CounterPunch.org
"Probably fewer ideas are treated with more contempt in today’s world than . . . a one-state solution for Palestine and Israel, with,.... every resident equally valued, equally free. My reply to the cynics is this: We will not enter the future with closed minds. We will not find security — we will not evolve — if we choose to remain subservient to linear, us-vs.-them thinking."
"...I acknowledge from the start: This is not a simple process, any more than America’s reluctant embrace of the civil rights movement was, or is, simple. But armed dehumanization — which is to say war, hatred, ethnic cleansing, cultural erasure, endless slaughter, the murder of children, genocide — is neither “simple” nor the least bit effective in creating a world that is safe for anyone. War and hatred perpetuate nothing but themselves. You know that, right?"
"But what about a two-state solution? Neither side actually wants this and, with the West Bank overrun with Israeli settlers, it’s hardly possible anyway. The concept of a two-state solution, Samer Elchahabi writes at the Arab Center website. “has been used to delegitimize Palestinians’ aspirations for equality and freedom, has allowed for relentless settlement expansion on Palestinian land, and has offered a fig leaf for perpetuating occupation with Western support.”
"I also note the insightful words of management consultant and social philosopher Mary Parker-Follett, who pointed out, in her groundbreaking 1925 essay “Constructive Conflict,” that there are three basic ways of dealing with conflict: domination, compromise and what I would call transcendence."
"Domination is simplistic. I win, you lose. This is the essence of every war and obviously the essence of Israel’s ongoing devastation of Gaza. Attempted domination never touches the heart of the conflict but, rather, attempts to kill it. This never works. Compromise is usually seen, with scathing reluctance, as the only other choice, a la some sort of two-state solution. Both sides give something up; neither side gets what it wants. “Compromise,” Parker-Follett pointed out, “does not create, it deals with what already exists.” And the conflict doesn’t really go away. It just takes a different form."
"But the third option, which she referred to in her essay as “integration,” addresses the needs and wishes of all parties to the conflict and creates something — a solution — that hadn’t previously existed. In short, it creates a better world."
"...Elchahabi writes: “A departure from the two-state solution to another model based on equality and democratic rights for all is imperative. The one-state solution entails a single democratic state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, with equal rights for all inhabitants, irrespective of ethnicity or religion. This paradigm shift addresses core issues: the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194; the status of Jerusalem; and the question of settlements.”
"And then he makes a key point: “The one-state solution reimagines these as internal challenges of a unified polity rather than as zero-sum elements of a bilateral conflict.”
"He goes on: “Israelis and Palestinians alike should imagine a unified state that upholds the rights and dignity of all its citizens, forging a shared identity from the rich tapestry of its diverse peoples. This vision, while challenging, holds the promise of a lasting peace built not on separation and segregation but on the foundations of justice and mutual respect.”
It's probably wishful thinking. But reality is that if neither side wants a two state solution, and that does seem to be the case, it isn't going to happen. And as the article pointed out, with settlements interspersed as they are, how is a two state situation even possible?
South Africa managed a one state solution. And while things aren't perfect there, and they still have problems to work out, it hasn't been the bloodbath or disaster that some predicted.
Great vision. But if the whole point of Israel, as it's right-wing believes, is to maintain a Jewish state that will take in Jews during the next holocaust, not much hope of that. The Palestinian birthrate outstrips that of Israeli Jews and threatens Jewish ascendancy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, many Palestinians don't want to live under a system that favors Jews.
So I don't see a peaceful melting pot coming in the wake of this latest horror.
I agree it is a beautiful vision.
ReplyDeleteI think the rapidity with which Germany, Japan and Italy were re-integrated into the world order in the wake of WWII shows that transcendence is possible. But perhaps that worked in part because those nations learned first-hand the futility of war? It may be that the war must march to its terrible conclusion before alternative solutions/approaches can be seriously considered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't want to go down a rabbit hole here of charges and counter-charges of Palestinian Arabs toward Israelis and vice-versa. Let us agree that the history, since the inception of Zionism, has not been conducive to peace. If the situation (and not just the current war, but the overall situation regarding Israel, Gazans, the West Bank, Israel other neighbors, Iran et al) continues to flow down its current path without anyone seeking to make a fundamental change, then there is no reason to expect that peace will come about.
DeleteOkie dokie. Rabbit hole gone!
DeleteHere's another idea, this from Bret Stephens in the NY Times. I suppose it is behind a paywall, but here is the kernel of his proposal:
ReplyDelete"I would propose an Arab Mandate for Palestine. The (very) long-term ambition would be to turn Gaza into a Mediterranean version of Dubai, offering a proof of concept that, in 10 or 15 years, would allow a Palestinian state to emerge on the model of the United Arab Emirates — future-oriented, federated, allergic to extremism, open to the world and committed to lasting peace.
I first suggested a version of this idea in my column on Oct. 7, by transforming Gaza from a locus of conflict to a “zone of shared interests” between Israel and friendly Arab states. More recently, a long and useful report by the Vandenberg Coalition and the Jewish Institute for National Security for America makes the case for an International Trust for Gaza Relief and Reconstruction, with a “realistic pathway to an eventual two-state solution.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/opinion/gaza-war-palestine-arab-mandate.html
I remember reading Leon Uris' novel Exodus, and James Michener's "The Source" when I was young. I thought they were interesting. One thing different since those days is the rise of radical Islamism.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" helped in understanding the diaspora.
In Herod's rebuilding of the Temple, it was surrounded by the Court of the Gentiles where non-Jews were encouraged to come and pray. It would have been the area where Jesus taught. They were forbidden under pain of death from entering the inner courts (reserved for Jewish women, Jewish men, and priests). Since Herod was a convert to Judaism, it is thought that warning did not apply to converts. There were many converts to Judaism although circumcision and the dietary laws provided large barriers to conversion. Christianity, of course, removed these.
ReplyDeleteSo, the vision of the Bible and the practice of the Second Temple saw a large role for Gentiles in Jerusalem worship.