New Attention Given to Idea of Single State for Israelis and Palestinians

Cecily Hilleary 05 July 2010 voanews.com

Photo: AP

A Palestinian family walks next to Israeli’s separation wall in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, 03 May 2010

With little apparent progress being reported in getting Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, many observers worry the peace process may have stalled too long to be resuscitated.  Meanwhile, an old idea is getting some new attention:  A single state that would serve as home to both Israelis and Palestinians.  It worked for South Africa they say; could it work for the Middle East?

It isn’t a new concept.  The Israel of ancient times was a pluralistic, multi-ethnic society.  So-called post-Zionists of the 1930s envisioned an Arab-Jewish confederation stretching from Jordan to the Mediterranean.   Today, proponents of the idea call for a single state which would offer equal citizenship for Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze – and the more than four million Palestinian refugees currently living outside of Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Ali Abunimah is the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.  He is also the co-founder of the internet website, Electronic Intifada.   In fact, a bi-national state isn’t very much of a stretch from the reality on the ground today.

You have on the ground already in Palestine-Israel about 11 million people,” he said.  “Half of them are Israeli Jews; half of them are Palestinians.  There’s about a million people mixed in there who wouldn’t fit neatly into either category.   And effectively, there’s one government that runs the country, and that is the government of Israel.  The problem with it is it’s a government by, of and for half the people,” said Abunimah.

Abunimah says all the years of efforts to divide the country into separate states have failed, yielding only dramatic and deadly violence.  But a shared state, he says, would end the political instability that plagues both sides of the conflict.

Dr. Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the Washington DC-based American Task Force on Palestine.  He’s also the author of What’s Wrong with the One State Agenda.  He believes the idea is implausible because a majority of Jews would never support it.   And he says Palestinians have not crafted a proposal that would ease Israeli fears.

“They would hope to, by the ballot box, retake control of all of historical Palestine, reverse the losses of 1948, both material and political, and regain control of all of what they regard as their country.  It’s an ideal scenario from a Palestinian point of view.  But I think the problem is doesn’t offer anything to Jewish Israelis.,” he said.

AP

A 27 Apr 2010 view of the Israeli Arab town of Umm El Fahem, one of ten towns targeted for job growth and development. A year after graduation, resident Samer Kablawi sent out over 50 resumes and had one interview. He says his Arab classmates struggle to find work while most Jewish classmates landed high-tech jobs months ago earlier.

Most Israelis reject the idea of a single state, says Ibish, because it would not have a Jewish majority-and thus, it would be a violation of the theological premise of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people.  Ibish believes that it would be impossible for so many factions to come under one political roof without ethnic or sectarian oppression.

“Supporters of the single state, like Mr. Abunimah, say ‘I want to show the Israelis that we will treat them better, as a minority, than they have treated us, as a minority,” said Ibish.  “Those are not words that inspire a lot of confidence in the present Middle East.   You  look around the rest of the Middle East-to Iraq, to Iran, to Turkey, to Lebanon, to Jordan-and look at how ethnic and religious minorities are treated in the present Middle East, in both Arab and non-Arab states and Israel included, and I just don’t see that any sensible  society would volunteer for that status,”  he added.

But Ali Abunimah says these arguments do not stand up.   He cites the example of South Africa under white rule, which resisted ending apartheid out of fear of violence and economic ruin under a black majority.

“They were terrified.  They had grown with an absolute demonization of black South Africans-that they were bloodthirsty, that they were Communists-exactly the sorts of arguments you get from Israeli Jews today about why you couldn’t possibly have a one state solution,” he said.

He rejects theological arguments against a single state.

“I would say what Israelis are attached to is not so much the religious premise, but the sort of privileges that come along with being the dominant group in what is effectively an apartheid state,” said Abunimah.

Where Ibish argues that a bi-national state offers little to Israelis, Abunimah points to Israel’s growing international isolation, religious divisions and threats to its security as compelling reasons to consider an alternative which would offer peace, security and dignity for everyone.

Both sides agree that the status quo in the Middle East is not sustainable and that a continued impasse can only lead to escalations in violence and extremism on both sides.  Abunimah says that doesn’t mean that achieving a bi-national solution would be easy.  There’s a big difference between “very difficult” and “impossible.”  Hope, he says, lies somewhere in between.

This article appeared on the VOA news website on July 5, 2010. Then it was removed by VOA a few hours later. Censorship?? This is the location of the orginal article that was removed by VOA. VOA is a US government controlled news site. We think the real story here is also as to why the US government censored this story??

This entry was posted on Monday, July 5th, 2010 at 12:23 pm and is filed under Anti-War, Freedom, Justice, News, Occupation, Protest, War Crimes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.