Two State Solution Death Watch part 367

It seems we are approaching a tipping point. The One State Solution has, this year, made a serious breakthrough to mainstream political discourse.

Until recently support for a OSS has been seen as a fringe activity, even within Palestinian circles. It was seen as an empty negotiating threat, or a code word used by rejectionists - either way it was easily dismissed.

But then Ali Abuminah crystallized the idea with his seminal work "One Country - A Bold Proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It was telling that the book emerged from the diaspora - immune to the lure of VIP passes and favourable treatment that are bestowed on the Ramallah Oslo industry.

Concrete foundations were laid by a large two day conference held in May 2008 at SOAS, London. I attended this gathering and was struck by two things :
1) the broad swathe of Palestinian political thought that was represented, and
2) the seriousness of the discussion, and detailed proposals

It was clear that this was not empty chatter from the "usual suspects" or river-to-the-sea dreamers, but a series of deadly serious proposals from influential people. This is reflected in the Palestinian Strategy Group. What's telling is the list of contributors - you couldn't find a more mainstream, well connected group of Palestinians.

What has surprised me is how quickly the One State Solution has broken out.
Olmert certainly de-stigmatised the discussion, by pointing out the obvious :

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished,"

But the breakout is surely the 60 minutes report of January 2009, openly questioning the continued viability of the two state concept. An avalanche has been unleashed.

The Daily Kos devoted a page to the discussion. It's worth quoting :

Bob Simon's tone and approach to discussing the issue struck me as dour and depressing. Simon very matter-of-factly presented the case that history has passed by the two state solution mainly because of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Note the past tense, and the fact that the blame is placed squarely on the settlements.

Andrew Sullivan picked up the topic.

And on Feb 10 2009 Stephen Walt, of Walt/Mearsheimer fame, asked the question "What do we do if a Two State Solution Collapses" :

There are two trends at play that threaten to undermine the two-state option. The first is the continued expansion of Israel settlements in the land that is supposed to be reserved for the Palestinians.

Again - the settlements are prime culprit. The key point is here :

Which brings me to the third option. The Israeli government could maintain its physical control over "greater Israel" and grant the Palestinians full democratic rights within this territory. This option has been proposed by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians....if a two-state option is no longer feasible, it seems likely that the United States would come to favor this third choice.

This is no longer a taboo - in fact in his opinion the US would come to support it. The sky has yet to fall on his head.

And the Middle East Policy Council has held an entire forum on the topic.

Here is an interesting blog reaction, by Matt Eckel :

Foreign Policy Watch: If the Two State Solution Collapses...

I have a hunch that the Bush Administration's serial indulgence of Israel's worst instincts has seeded the ground for a more balanced and serious discussion of American regional interests. Absent some noticeable changes in Israeli policy, I don't see that discussion turning out well for Tel Aviv....It has always struck me that elite consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to come ten years too late.

A very good point. The Bush administration reminded me of a delinquent parent, cutting too much slack to a problem teenager and refusing to see the upcoming trainwreck. And it is ironic that everyone supports a two state solution now that it is practicably unobtainable - where were you in 1988?

But I fundamentally disagree with this part :

On a practical level, as Walt notes, consociational multi-ethnic states have a terrible track record, particularly those that emerge from serious inter-ethnic conflict. I've also argued that the notion of a "bi-national state" is something of a misnomer, as it implies a level of social cohesion between national groups that almost certainly wouldn't exist in the Levant.

Canada, Belgium and democratic South Africa emerged from inter-ethnic conflict, as did, arguably, the United Kingdom. People forget that for centuries Scotland was England's Gaza, closely allied to their greatest enemy - France.

The other point, and this is often missed American Jews who've never visited, is the extent to which the tribes are already intermingled.

Israel's citizenship today is only 76% Jewish - not counting East Jerusalem. Every street sign is in two languages - Arabic and Hebrew. Most Palestinians speak Hebrew, and Israelis learn Arabic as part of their military service. In fact the languages are so similar they're merging - there is a Hebrew / Arabic mishmash street lingo that has become fashionable among young people. It's a completely different situation from Xhosa and Afrikaans.

And the majority of Israelis are (whisper it quietly...) Mizrahi. That means their ancestors have lived in Arab countries for a thousand years, and if you go back 2 generations Arabic was their first language. They eat the same food, listen to the same music and watch the same TV. These people are so similar to Levant Arabs in terms of looks, culture and temperament that it makes the two state solution patently absurd. The only obstacle is the 1930's Central European ethnically based nationalism that the Azkenazi elite has imposed on them.

I advise Americans not to worry so much - a One State solution will work just fine. It won't be Greenwich Village-sur-med but then, neither is the status quo...