“Instead of abandoning the two-state solution, let’s modify it, make it less vague and less subject to manipulation. We can do that by shifting the goalposts back to the 1967 borders. We need to say that these borders of the future Palestinian state are a given, not a variable.”

By Yossi Rapoport

For a revolution to be successful, it needs both a common enemy and a shared alternative. In Egypt, the revolution was united in demanding the ‘isqat al-nizam’ the downfall of the regime, but also – leaderless as it was – in what it wanted: free and fair elections, and basic political freedoms.

For the occupation to end, we need to offer an alternative future. Noam Sheizaf, as many others, has peace-plans fatigue: What’s the point of more pies in the sky when the reality is that of racism and apartheid?

But we do need an alternative. There is internal Palestinian-Israeli opposition, as well as the overwhelming international consensus against the occupation. But in order to mount real pressure on Israel, it needs to galvanize around a shared common vision of the future: It should not be a detailed plan, but political movements can only succeed when they look forward.

The problem is that we cannot seem to agree on a common view of the future we want, as the recent discussion on this blog shows (Is it time to move on to the one state solution?). The deep source of the fatigue with peace plans is the frustration, even despair, with the two-state solution. Under its cover settlements have expanded, and racism towards Palestinians, both those that live inside Israel or in the occupied territories, only hardened. In light of the Palestine Papers, it has already been subject to post-mortem by Sandy Tolan.

The one-state solution has the power to galvanize the left, offering a democratic, secular utopia. But it is one that fails to take into account the implications of international law and UN resolutions, which all point in the direction of a two-state solution. Given the balance of power on the ground, the hope for justice in Palestine lies with the international community, and the international community cannot simply overturn its policies. Not to mention the majority of Israeli Jews, and many Jews worldwide, who would not forfeit the ideal of Jewish sovereignty under any condition.

Beyond despair and utopia, we need to offer hope. Instead of abandoning the two-state solution, let’s modify it, make it less vague and less subject to manipulation. We can do that by shifting the goalposts back to the 1967 borders. We need to say that these borders of the future Palestinian state are a given, not a variable. There is to be no more absurd haggling over maps, over percentage points and territory exchanges.

In the past decade, instead of sticking to the 1967 borders, the sides agreed to a re-draw the map according to the location of the largest settlement blocks in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. But, as the Palestine Papers reveal, this gives a constant incentive to the Israeli government to build more West Bank settlements, which it then expects to eventually annex; and it no incentive to reach a speedy agreement, as with time, it can build more settlements. This is a vicious cycle, which only an insistence on the 1967 borders can break.

This is not only about defending the Palestinian right to a viable state, but rather about reaching any agreement at all. It is no coincidence that, since the 1950s, all new states (such as those in Eastern Europe, or, very recently, in Sudan) were established within pre-existing administrative boundaries. Israel itself has recognized this when it unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the borders of 1967. Over the last fifty years, diplomats have repeatedly avoided drawing, or inventing, borders according to ethnic and religious lines, precisely because it encourages population transfers, and necessarily reflects the power relations at a given time and not the long term interests of the parties.

The borders of Palestine should be those of the 4th of June 1967, including all the West Bank and East Jerusalem, set in stone and non-negotiable, not even an inch. UN recognition of a Palestinian state in these borders, even without the US, would ground these borders in international law. This should not be seen as a bargaining position. These are the only borders over which any kind of long term agreement could be reached.

This would shift the focus of future negotiations and should shift to the status of the settlers and the future of the refugees. With regard to the settlers, it is likely that they will be allowed – and encouraged – to stay in their homes as permanent residents of the Palestinian state, protected by law and by international agreements.

In a future settlement, there could also be a paradoxical symmetry between the settlers and the refugees; inasmuch as the settlers should be allowed to stay in their homes, the refugees should be allowed back in theirs, enjoying the same status. Some would receive land, proportional to the land taken up by the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian state. Perhaps they could have the opportunity to re-build sites of deserted villages. All should be allowed in as permanent residents of Israel, realizing the right of return but retaining their Palestinian citizenship.

The logic is this: Once Palestine is recognized in the 1967 borders, and once such borders become a prerequisite to negotiations, not part of it, the two states would have to agree find ways to preserve the unity of the land and of Jerusalem, and to ensure the rights of the respective minorities, including settlers and refugees. And the objective should be that, while Israel and Palestine remain two sovereign states, every Jew and every Palestinian would have the right to live in peace anywhere in the shared homeland.

Yossi Rapoport is an Israeli-British lecturer in Islamic history at Queen Mary University, London.