As progress towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stalls, an old idea has gained increased currency in some circles, that of one binational state for both Israelis and Palestinians. There are a number of variations on this argument, but proponents essentially call for foregoing the concept of two distinct national entities. Instead, they advocate that Israelis and Palestinians share the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River in one state. The idea of a binational state is not a new one. Several prominent Jewish intellectuals in mandatory Palestine between the two world wars advocated such an arrangement, though they had little political influence. Originally, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) advocated the establishment of a democratic Palestinian Arab state in all of mandatory Palestine, with Jews as citizens of this state.
In 1987, the PLO and the Palestinian National Council (PNC) formally embraced the two-state solution, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This continues to be the position of the PLO and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The recent resurgence in discussion about the binational concept is essentially due to the lack of movement toward a negotiated two-state solution, coupled with what are deemed irrevocable Israeli facts on the ground in the Occupied Territories, making the possibility of a viable and independent Palestinian state remote. What makes the one-state argument seductive is that it sounds theoretically reasonable. Israeli facts on the ground, primarily settlements, control of vital resources, and the appropriation of critical parts of a future Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, through the separation barrier, are serious challenges to the two-state concept. The idea of “one man, one vote is fundamentally democratic. The land in question is small and the two societies are intertwined to some extent. But however well intentioned proponents of a binational state are, their argument suffers from fatal flaws. The first is that international support for the idea barely exists. By and large the international community, including the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League, support a two-state solution. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians continue to desire to express their national aspirations in an independent state of their own where they will not be second-class citizens. On the Israeli side, the binational idea, predictably, has no support. To assume that Israeli Jews would willingly give up on the idea of a Jewish state is to show lack of understanding of the existential need of Jews for a state of their own after centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust. To Israelis and Jews, a binational state means a state where they will be a minority, equating in their eyes calls for their destruction. For Palestinians, the danger of talking now about a one-state solution is that it diverts critically needed energies from the still-achievable goal of two states. It also seeks to destroy decades of work toward achieving international recognition for a Palestinian state, returning Palestinians to square one.
Since it is unrealistic to assume that Israelis will willingly give up on the idea of a Jewish state, the one-state proposal condemns the two peoples to decades of conflict in the pursuit of an unachievable goal. Even if such a state were to miraculously come into being, Palestinians would very likely form an underclass in it. Worse, with such a bitter history of violence between Arabs and Jews, it is easy to foresee a degeneration of their relations into inter-communal conflict. What is required at present is a refocusing of efforts toward surmounting the challenges facing a two-state solution, the parameters of which are well known and have been accepted by all parties: a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem, and a negotiated settlement of the refugee issue. In terms of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, though these are all illegal under international law, it is also recognized that some Israeli settlement blocs, accounting for 4-5 percent of the West Bank, could be incorporated into Israel as part of a negotiated and equitable land swap.
The rest of the settlers would return to Israel proper. Negotiations and the application of political power can separate settlers from the settlements and bring down walls. This is achievable because a majority of Israelis realizes that the settlement enterprise has been an obstacle to peace. Time is running out on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s why Israelis, Palestinians and the US need to shoulder their responsibilities to create a viable and contiguous Palestinian state living alongside Israel in peace. Such a state is the only way to fulfill Palestinian national aspirations and address Israel’s security and integration into the Middle East. Achieving a two-state solution is admittedly difficult, but replacing it with something far less achievable is not the answer. The alternative to two states is continued and expanding conflict with the real danger of degeneration into a holy war between Muslims and Jews. At the end of that fight, there will be neither one nor two states. Raafat Dajani is executive director of the Washington-based American Task Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
