+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Republican party appears to officially back one-state solution

A brilliant piece of reporting from Mitchell Plitnick, former director of the US office of B’Tselem. According to Plitnick, the Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution supporting one state in Israel-Palestine. The text of the resolution can be found here.

As Plitnick points out, the key passage that suggests that the Republican party is going one state reads as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

Writing on his website, mitchellplitnick.com, says: “This news came to me via a very trusted source, but both I and my source were puzzled by the fact that we could find nothing in the media confirming this. I called the RNC, but they would neither confirm nor deny.”

So Plitnick got in touch with Cindy Costa, the RNC’s National Committeewoman and the sponsor of the resolution. He sent her the resolution in its entirety and asked if it was, indeed, “an officially adopted RNC resolution.”

Costa, who hails from South Carolina where an identical resolution was passed in the state House of Representatives in June 2011, responded, “Yes it was adopted unanimously by the RNC last Friday at our winter meeting in New Orleans.  Cindy”

As Plitnick points out, denying that Israel is an occupying power and denying that the land belongs to others means that the Republicans support, in theory, an Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. N

      Editors of +972 – can you please, please, please post the text of the entire resolution – either under humor, or foreign relations or whatever – but please post the whole thing by itself – I know it is in Mitch’s post – but it should stand on its own.

      Reply to Comment
    2. louis

      The republicans again prove their distance from rational capabilities of clear thought and prudent public policy. they advocate a militant messianism that should frighten us no less than that of other radical Theo-fascists!!

      Reply to Comment
    3. aristeides

      “Under one law for one people” certainly seems to echo Santorum’s remark that all residents of the WB are Israelis.

      I’m surprised that apparently the RNC didn’t clear this language with their masters. Given that Republicans are as dumb as a sack full of rocks, it’s not so surprising, though.

      Reply to Comment
    4. ToivoS

      Why is this bad news? Support for the one-state solution is growing. When an issue has major support from both the left and the right it will make it that much easier to achieve.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Carl

      Toivos I suspect that this is a one state solution, but for only one ‘people’. Well when I say suspect, I’m presuming the Republicans weren’t passing the glass pipes round as they made this resolution, so I can’t envisage that any other external force will have brought the Palestinian population to their notice.
      Instinctively, I want the Republicans to keep going more and more extreme and crazy as I think it might lead them into irrelevance: irrelevance at home and abroad.
      Secretly though, I’m scared to death that they’ll get voted in in spite of it all. I’ve said it before: if turkeys ever formed a political party, it’d have the primacy of Christmas at the top of their bill of constitutional rights.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Piotr Berman

      Santorum clearly strayed from his core areas of expertise, like foretelling that same sex marriage may pave the way to human entering matrimony with dogs and turtles. In the latter case he referred to box turtle which is an actual species that lives in his native state of Pennsylvania.

      In the case we discuss Santorum referred to West Bank which is usually a shiboleth of opponents of annexation, proponents preferring Judea and Samaria. Then he mentioned that all people there are “Israelis”. How many Israelis live in Israel? There is Yoram Kaniuk and perhaps several others.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Republicanese “one law for all people” = the prevention of terrorism = Jim Crow.

      Reply to Comment
    8. mya guarnieri

      TovioS: I’m a one-stater as in a binational, democratic state, and I have been for a long time, so I’m with you as far as the “why is this bad news?” And I made certain not to frame this as bad news. It was just news.

      However, I’m with Carl and Greg in their suspicion that one state, in this context, will just deepen the already deep discrimination that the state of Israel imposes upon Palestinians.

      As “one staters” will the Republican party speak out against what’s happening in Area C right now, where Israel is working on “quiet transfer” of Palestinians so it can expand settlements? Heck, the Republican party has been mute on the Prawer Plan and that’s inside of Israel. So I doubt they’re going to stand up for Palestinians in the West Bank if/when Israel annexes it.

      Reply to Comment
    9. aristeides

      Mya – this has always been the problem with the 1SS. It assumes, naively in my opinion, that equal rights for the Palestinians will result.

      But given that the stupidity of Republicans has no limit, I’m expecting that any day now they’ll pass a resolution condemning the 1SS as “attempted genocide of the Jews.”

      Reply to Comment
    10. Hostage

      Its pretty doubtful that the proposal could be construed as applying to territory beyond the Green Line, certainly not the West Bank or Gaza. The Government of Israel itself has routinely denied that they are subject to its sovereign jurisdiction for the purposes of fulfilling it’s own human rights treaty obligations and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that Judea and Samaria are being held under belligerent occupation.

      On the other hand, the jurisdiction over the territory inside the Green Line is more settled. Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.” see “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, psge 1149 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1149

      During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, Eban stated that the armistices were “a provisional settlement under Article 40 of the Charter (Chapter VII) which can only be replaced by a peace agreement”:
      The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement. They are also stabilized by the mutual undertakings of the parties and by the fullest international sanction for as long as the Armistice Agreements are valid.
      . …
      The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.
      It’s nonsensical to assume that Republicans have given a moment’s thought to the rights of the Palestinians. After all the Congress has adopted statutes requiring Hamas to recognize “the Jewish State of Israel” and dictating that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.
      Under the terms of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter the rights of the Organization to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or to require the Members to submit matters to settlement are extremely limited. The UN is never going to accept Israel’s credentials to represent Palestinians who are not its citizens or to govern the territory that they inhabit as anything other than an occupying power. That is in line with international, UN resolutions, the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion, and the Declaration of the Reconvened Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions.

      Reply to Comment
    11. aristeides

      Hostage – you assume that the Republican Party makes sense. They definitely mean the territory beyond the Green Line. They’re going to stick it down Israel’s throat, whether Israel wants it or not.

      If you’re a fan of absurdity, this stuff is just gold.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Piotr Berman

      “natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands”

      I think that Hostage’s legalism is off the mark. Invocation of mundane powers like Israeli Supreme Court or UN Charter address neither natural nor divine laws. But it would be nice to know how RNC determined how those laws apply in this situation. It is one thing to claim that natural law is against sexual congress of turtles and primates, then we can go into more controversial territory of sexual mores of penguins (there exists Republican penguins and liberal penguins, nature is very confusing) but owning the land does not strike me as “natural”. But perhaps “natural” is there because of sloppy editing and we should focus on “God-given”.

      Quick research suggests that the resolution was copied from an earlier resolution by South Carolina Republicans, and what theological help they got is not easy to determine. A visit to the website of RNC allows to check what are the positions of RNC on “Issues”. Position number one: DONATE. Number two: “wait, loading images” (OK, this is my slow internet connection, but the bandwith is indeed taken by high quality images and rather scant text”. Issue 1: National Defence (follow what Ronald Reagan started, if one is inclined to be snarky, the paragraph promises robust defense measures against new emerging nuclear states, so it tacitly assumes Iran will have nukes and we just need to keep our technological edge, no worry there as Ronald Reagan showed us). Issue 2: Courts (they believe that judges should interpret laws). Issue 3: Economy (we believe in power of free markets). Issue 4: Education (parents should be able to choose schools). Issue 5: Energy — we support all sources of energy. Issue 6: Health care. We support common sense reforms. THIS IS ALL! Did I remind you to donate?

      It is not like decisions made by the Winter Meeting of RNC lack any importance. Florida Republican party received increased penalties for moving their primaries. But resolutions like Support Taiwan’s Independence and American Moral Leadership remain hidden, non-binding and very much in “who cares” category.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Hostage

      Of course I realize that the resolution is deliberately ambiguous and provocative, but you have to read all of the “Whereas” clauses that condition and limit the scope of meaning of the term “land”:

      WHEREAS, the Nation of Israel declared its independent control and governance of said lands on May 14, 1948, with the goal of re-establishing their God-given lands as a homeland for the Jewish people;


      Eliahu Epstein, head of the Jewish Agency’s Washington Office, officially informed President Truman that the State of Israel had been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of 29 November 1947. http://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/pdf/12.pdf

      The United States and the other members of the Security Council subsequently adopted UN SC Resolutions 62 and 73 accepting the armistice agreements as Chapter VII provisional measures and directing the parties concerned to observe them pending a final negotiated settlement.

      Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer said the Republican Party still stands by its two state platform. http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/rnc-distances-from-israel-resolution

      Reply to Comment
    14. ginger

      The One State Solution is like an Aikido martial arts solution for the Likudniks and Israeli Lobby-Republicans – just letting the momentum of these oafs flow into the solution to their oafishness

      Either that or just good old premium irony

      Reply to Comment
    15. aristeides

      The WHEREAS clauses of AIPAC-generated resolutions in the US Congress are worth reading for the absurdity value, since most of the statements are demonstrably false.

      And nothing in the Republican mind prevents the party from advocating contradictory policies at the same time.

      What we have here is the work of Christian Zionism. These people don’t care what the Israeli government might want and certainly not what the Palestinians might want, all they care about is restoring the “Holy Land” to the Jews, complete with Temple and sacrifices. And what they want, the Republican Party will give them.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Steve

      There is zero chance that the world’s only Jewish state is going to suicide itself. It’s going to remain a Jewish state just like all the Muslim states are going to remain Muslim states.

      No peace activists want Israel to merge with millions of people who don’t want Israel to exist. The only people who want this are… people who just want to attack the Jews and remove the only Jewish state from existence.

      Reply to Comment