Can a "One State Solution" really work?
by CBRADIOFebruary 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 AM
Filed under: History, Politics
 |
|
It is quite possible that there is no issue more crucial and controversial in international politics than the current conflict in Gaza. As an American it has become uncomfortably easy to brush off and ignore rising tensions that are not within our borders; not affecting us directly. However, the dimensions of this conflict have been changing over time and have now become more problematic than in recent history. It is now up to a new generation of leaders to resolve. From the earliest times struggle in this region of the world has been rife, both political and religious. That being said, there is a new possibility I want to focus on that, I believe, truly shines a light on how we may approach this issue and, perhaps, bring a lasting peace to this region. After World War II there was widespread agreement that due to the atrocities committed against the Jewish people they should be given something in return for their suffering. “The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.” (Qaddafi) So, in May of 1948, Israel was declared The State of Israel and some 700,000 Palestinians, half the Arab population of British-ruled Palestine, fled or were driven from their homes. Arab troops intervened but ended up losing some of the land the United Nations had assigned to the Palestinians. The analogy that I think works best in explaining this situation goes something like this: Imagine that you and your family have lived in your house all your life. In fact, your grandparents and great grandparents lived there before that and have passed it on to your parents for centuries. Now you live there and have a family of your own, hoping to one day pass this land on to your children. One day a knock comes on your door and a man tells you that The Native Americans, which had occupied the land hundreds of years before your great grandparents, want it back and you have to leave. “But this is my land! It has been in my family for generations!!!” No matter, you must leave and be forced to live in a designated area near your old home. The question then is, how would you feel and would you fight for what you believed was yours? From this perspective you can see that the Palestinians too have had a history of persecution. This is why they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago. Many bright and talented politicians have taken a stab at “fixing” this situation, yet no long term stability has been reached. Why? I believe it is because most people cannot wrap their minds around the pain associated with this conflict, the pain felt on both sides. Still, the history of Israel and Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards; a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups. This is a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions and that is precisely why it gets so complicated when members of either party assert that this land is exclusively theirs. Ancient Israeli claims to the land aside, current claims are especially tenuous when you consider that Jews have not lived on this land for centuries and are now viewed as relative latecomers. The fact also remains that in 1948 Jewish people were given land by UN decree that was not strictly the UN’s to give due to collective guilt over the WWII holocaust. However, an ancient saying applies here. Two wrongs do not make a right. In 1964 The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded with the aim of destroying Israel. The Palestinian National Charter in 1968 officially called for the liquidation of Israel. On October 6th, 1963, The Yom Kippur War (October War) was launched. In a surprise attack on the Jewish Day of Atonement, Egypt retook the Suez Canal and a narrow zone on the other side while Syria re-conquered the Golan Heights. Following massive US and Soviet resupplying of each side, Israel succeeded in pushing back the Syrians and threatening Damascus. On September 13, 1993 representatives of the State of Israel and the PLO signed the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", a document also known as the "Oslo Accords". They were signed at a Washington ceremony hosted by US President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1993, during which Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ended decades as sworn enemies, with an uneasy handshake. This agreement was the fruit of secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, following the Madrid Conference in 1991. In 1997, Israelis and Palestinians reached an agreement on Israeli redeployment in the West-Bank city of Hebron, but that too was short lived. After the attacks of September 11th, the United States policy in the Middle East generated more regional resentment towards Israel, with its unconditional support for Israel. In June of 2005, violence flared up again in Gaza. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Palestinian and Israeli leaders to ensure coordination of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas met in Jerusalem to discuss the withdrawal. On June 21, Sharon announced that the Palestinians had promised to cooperate, regarding a Gaza withdrawal, but Abbas postponed Palestinian legislative elections in order to change the election law. He did this amidst growing concern that Hamas would trounce Abbas's Fatah party in the elections. (Reuters) This brings us to today: Palestine is controlled by a democratically elected “terrorist organization”, Hamas. Hamas’ becoming the leading power in Palestine was a pie in the face of United States foreign policy, the premise of which was that by spreading democracy through the region it would bring peace. Following this “Realist Theory” of Democratic Peace, the US did not expect or know how to react once an organization that they refused to negotiate with came into power. Hamas was voted into power by the Palestinian people because the Fatah Party was widely considered to be corrupt. Hamas was not, in spite of its other more negative attributes. Hamas is an Arab acronym meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement" and their charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state. The latest conflict started when Hamas began lobbing rockets into Israel. Israel responded with brute force, killing many Palestinians through air strikes and use of ground troops. It is felt by many that this was done before President Obama was inaugurated because the Israeli government was not certain if the new Administration would support such an action; whereas it was known that the Bush Administration would stand aside. Most observers have come to realize that this constant back and forth will never end and that these temporary agreements of peace are just that, temporary. So what is the solution? One idea that has been coming up over and over again recently is called “The One State Solution”. It has been called everything from “the most visionary and most sensible solution to the most anti-Semitic, since it would require Israel to cease to exist as an exclusively Jewish state.” (Satin) However, Israel is in fact not an exclusively Jewish state even now. After 61 years of constant instability and war the One State Solution is worth looking at. New York University historian Tony Judt has suggested that a one-state solution is right for the 21st century, “a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law”. This would be a world of self-chosen identities where cross-cultural interaction and learning is the ideal. This may seem like a rosy outlook but there is historical precedence to back it up. Throughout the centuries both Israelis and Palestinians have faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the middle ages. The most compelling argument I have heard for the One State Solution comes from an unexpected source, Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. In an opinion piece published in the New York Times on January 21st. 2009, Qaddafi speaks of place that does not exist, a place called “Isratine”. This is the dream of the many who believe that the One State Solution can work. Just visit one-state.net and you will see the beginnings of what their idea of a new flag would look like. (Tucker) Aside from naming and branding a new state, which is extremely premature, Qaddafi brings up two very important points for this solution to work. 1.) “A key prerequisite for peace is the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes their families left behind in 1948.” (Qaddafi) Since this is the basis for the original resentment of the Palestinians this must be resolved. How? He of course does not go on to give details, knowing full well that this would be the hardest bullet to bite for the Jews. Yet his point seems to be that the longer we wait the harder it will be to bring into being. 2.) He points out that “Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged.” (Qaddafi) He is showing us that culturally they already have learned to live and work together and that by using this as an example we can visualize what “Isratine” could eventually look like. This all being said, most political scientists still believe that the bitterness and resentment that has taken over the region is beyond fixing. That may be true, but it is painfully obvious that doing nothing or repeating mistakes from the past will only continue to bring trouble to an already troubled part of the world. In a recent editorial in the New York Times entitled “How Words Could End a War”, Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges described research results involving over 4,000 Palestinians from 2004 to 2008 that indicate that key concessions on each side of the conflict could defuse emotions sufficiently to make a single state solution viable. If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence can guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then perhaps these two peoples can come together; realizing that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace. |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest FirstPhotographs
Will there ever be peace?
Map of the Area
References
Op Ed in The New York Times by Muammar Qaddafi
Visit (http://www.nytimes.com)
A site for The One State Solution
Visit (http://one-state.net)
New York Times Op Ed by Atran Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges “How Words Could End A War”
Visit (http://www.nytimes.com)
Reuters.com “Milestones in six decades of Middle East Conflict”
Visit (http://www.reuters.com)
Visit (http://www.nytimes.com)
A site for The One State Solution
Visit (http://one-state.net)
New York Times Op Ed by Atran Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges “How Words Could End A War”
Visit (http://www.nytimes.com)
Reuters.com “Milestones in six decades of Middle East Conflict”
Visit (http://www.reuters.com)
CB its nice to see your back. This was very well written. If I recall correctly your a man of faith and I think you know that the odds of peace there are same as the N.A.A.C.P. naming David Duke as a spokes person. Well anywho welcome back. :)