Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

National independence and sharing the land

It’s time to acknowledge that the paradigm based on the notion that ‘we are here and they are there,’ is no longer feasible. What’s needed is a shift from a separation paradigm to one of sharing.

By Riman Barakat and Dan Goldenblatt

Palestinian and Israeil flags (Activestills)

As President Obama’s arrives for a visit to Israel and Palestine, many Palestinians and Israelis do not anticipate any euphoric moments or breakthroughs with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beyond the list of actions and words that Obama will address with regards to Israel’s regional fears and the Palestinian concern that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should have something to offer to a right-wing hawkish Israeli government, which is not likely to promote a two-state solution, and to a Palestinian Authority that is very close to collapse as its economic situation worsens. What is needed is for the United States to offer a slight but fundamental shift in the paradigm.

Almost 20 years ago, Yitzak Rabin, who shook hands with President Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, called for a paradigm based on the notion that “we are here and they are there,” not a sharing approach. We argue for a shift from a separation paradigm to one of sharing. But there are several logical steps to go through before we switch paradigms:

1. Declaration of a Palestinian state and recognition by the US and Israel: What cannot be ignored or circumvented is that a Palestinian state must be established in order to grant Palestinians as a people their basic right to self-determination. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and it must remain such. Any solution that will threaten the Jewishness of the State of Israel is doomed to fail. Two peoples who have been caught up in a national struggle for over a century cannot be expected to give up their national aspirations and leap into post-nationalism. A one-state solution is therefore a non-starter. Any solution must ensure that Israel maintains a Jewish majority and remains a democracy, and that the Palestinians establish their self-determination and sovereignty.

2. Acknowledge the fact that the separation paradigm is bound to fail: We ought to acknowledge that “we are here, they are there,” is not only no longer feasible, but fundamentally defies the emotional and deep connection that both peoples in the Land of Israel/Palestine hold to the land. On the one hand, all religious sites connecting Jews to the holy land are located in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria/Palestine. On the other hand, all the Palestinian refugees come from over 500 villages that were destroyed in Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 (known as the Palestinian catastrophe – the Nakba) that are located in today’s Israel. Any solution that does not account for these established historical connections is doomed to fail. This is probably the primary reason why all efforts, initiatives, road maps and accords have not succeeded in finding a solution that had buy-in from the Israeli and Palestinian public. Ideological settlers continue to lobby the Israeli government to build more settlements as long as they believe that their right to reside in the West Bank is threatened. Any Palestinian leader, no matter how popular, will fail to convince the Palestinian public to support a peace agreement that deprives Palestinians of the right to visit or reside in the coastal plains from which they came.

3. Propose a solution that will respect the sovereignty of both states while strengthening the sharing paradigm. Here we propose a formula of two states in one space.

The challenge lies in squaring the circle, in answering the needs of both peoples (not allowing the marginal elements to set the agenda), in putting forward a proposal that provides an acceptable solution to the key issues. We would also suggest a different list of priorities. The most important key issue must be freedom of movement. This has been proven through the continued failure of the process to date. The second is the human element.

So, in preparation for the presidential visit, as co-directors of one of the longest standing joint organizations dedicated to resolving the conflict, we would like to put forward a new and innovative way of resolving the conflict.

Our premises, in addition to the two facts above, are:

A. Israelis and Palestinians who have been involved in a national conflict for over 100 years must each have a national sovereign state. Talk of a one-state solution is illogical. It asks Israelis and Palestinians to forgo their national aspirations and leapfrog over nationalism into a post-national era. We are seeing that this can barely be implemented in Europe. There is no chance it will hold in Israel/Palestine.

B. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and it must remain such. Any solution that will threaten the Jewishness of the State of Israel is doomed to fail.

C. The Palestinians have already agreed that their state will be on 22 percent of historical Palestine and they will not agree to one iota less.

D. One cannot negotiate over how to divide a cake while one of the parties is eating the cake. This means a complete and total freeze of all settlements that are beyond the current built-up circumference of any settlement.

E. Contrary to common belief, we think that it is actually the human element, Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers that are the key to resolving the conflict and not security and Jerusalem. Security and Jerusalem are very important, but the human aspect is the determining factor and if we can resolve it all else is relatively, easier.

Our ultimate goal is a sustainable peace based on two states living side by side providing freedom and human dignity to all the inhabitants of the land. In addition to the above observations, there are some additional factors that must, in our eyes, be considered and accepted:

The Palestinian side has little left to lose. Israel, on the other hand, has everything to lose. Israel is quickly slipping into a one-state reality that will leave it with a choice between granting Palestinians full human and political rights, and cease to be the only Jewish state in the world. The second option, which is much more likely, is that it will not give Palestinians those rights and it will become a de facto apartheid state, which will cease to be democratic.

If Israel seeks to merge into and become part of the region, it will be welcomed here. This has been voiced (and sadly completely ignored by the Israeli government), by the Arab League in the Arab Peace Initiative. The economic potential of becoming part of the region and thereby opening it up to trade, transport and tourism is beyond question. Most, if not all the problems can be solved. It will take commitment and dedication, time and patience, but it is undoubtedly possible. However, for it to succeed, we cannot keep pushing a failing strategy. Innovation, creativity and outside-the-box thinking, so important for any business in the world today, must be applied also to this conflict.

Riman Barakat and Dan Goldenblatt are Co-Directors of IPCRI – the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Kolumn9

      “Here we propose a formula of two states in one space”

      There is no such thing as sovereignty without a territorial component – that is the ownership of space and control of territory. The most basic element of the ownership of space and control of territory is the capacity to control the presence, entry and exit of individuals and the laws that apply to its residents.

      The ‘sharing paradigm’ sounds like an attempt to empty sovereignty of all of its meat and bones and leave only the skin. It would leave a flag, an anthem and a UN seat while delegating all practical aspects of sovereignty elsewhere.

      I would gladly hear more details about what you are proposing but I can’t imagine a sovereign state of Israel existing as more than a legal fiction with the success criteria you are setting. Which laws apply? Where? Which cops patrol? What defense capacity would the state have? What control over borders? What control over residency? What control over education? What powers of entering into treaties would it have? Who does it tax and who does it not tax? and on and on and on.

      Reply to Comment
    2. gabi

      A very short BUT percutant position. Differently from other positions it comes very quick to the only possible solution which will finally put an end to all the fantasies. We are equal as human beings to leave each side in his own free country.

      Reply to Comment
    3. pshift

      @kolumn9 I think they are speaking of a confederative type of solution. If that is the case, as it would seem to be, you are wrong. Read up a bit about confedrations…They have sovereignty over territory and agreed together what powers to surrender to the confederative government and what to keep for each party.

      Actually, with such a small territory between the sea and the JOrdan river, this sounds like a breath of fresh air to those who say split it in two.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        When the sub-entities no longer have control of borders, immigration, law enforcement, education, and defense they are no longer sovereign.

        One of the points made above is that the Palestinians would have the right to live in Israel. This suggests that Israel will have lost control over borders and immigration at the very least. Presumably the new Palestinian residents of Israel would then demand some path to citizenship or influence in the communities they will reside in. How is this in practice different from the demand for the right of return whose practical implication is to flood Israel with Arabs until it can no longer exist?

        In other words, to me this solution is contradictory in that it undermines the Jewish nature of the state. No piece of paper can paper over a loss of practical sovereignty, which it seems to me is what the authors are suggesting.

        Reply to Comment
    4. The sheer hatered and animosity felt by both peers would undoubtedly cause any 1 state solution to fail miserably, down to the atrocities one sees today in Syria, which were common here during the war of independence (1947-1948).
      Separation is inevitable, and surely enough, Israel must cease and desist all settlement activity, in the understanding that they should be evicted or replaced with equal territories from inside the green line.
      The refugee problem cannot be fully addressed by a return to Israel – only a small fraction should be allowed (say, 50,000).
      Naturally, this all depends on Palestinian ability to maintain a solid goverment, unlike the Syrian/Egyptian counterparts today, or the one in Gaza.

      Reply to Comment
    5. rsgengland

      Any constructive suggestions to try to settle this ongoing conflict need to be welcomed and addressed.
      The refugee situation is the only real hurdle, as once that has been resolved, most of the other issues and bitterness can be remedied by realistic negotiation.
      Three sets of refugees need to be addressed though.
      The Arab refugees from Israel [the Jews were still the only Palestinians in 1948].
      The Palestinian Jews ‘ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria [only called the West Bank after Jordan annexed the area after 1948].
      The Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands ETHNICALLY CLEANSED from the Middle East/North Africa by the wave of Antisemitism that swept the area after Israels creation.

      Reply to Comment
    6. The settlements are incompatible with any real PA soverignty; indeed, they imply ultimate annexation of the Bank (for religious reasons). A right of retun is not viable; perhaps a right of travel within Israel could be, if economic tension was reduced to limit a terrorist threat. What is left of the PA must be allowed to develop its economy with unfettered internal movement and export/import. Without that, occupation is necessary just to prevent retaliation, in a loop.

      But all this is trumped by God. The Hebron settlers, so few, in themselves create an impossibility. As long as God is seen as exclusive–by the State of Israel as applied–there is no way out. If God tells says you must be there, nothing will stop you.

      “One State” is not solution, but outcome.

      Reply to Comment

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel