Introduction
I think that the two-state solution is no longer viable. Perhaps, it has never been. Nobody believes in it. The territory left for the Palestinians has been reduced. Large segments of the population, both Israelis and Palestinians, seem skeptical of any political settlement. (i) In my view, to asses the situation, three fundamental issues must be examined:
- What is the prevailing situation inside Israel?
- What is the situation in the occupied territories?
- What are the options?
The situation inside Israel
In many respects, Israel is an advanced state. Its GNP per capita is almost as high as those of southern European countries. (ii) It enjoys great achievements in technology and science. It has a universal healthcare system (iii) and its population has access to European-style social security systems. (iv) But progress has not reached everybody, especially Palestinian-Israeli citizens. This presents potential challenges for the future. The Palestinian minority constitutes 21% of the Israeli population. That number is relatively higher than the Black or Hispanic population in the USA. Palestinian-Israeli citizens, called Arab-Israelis officially, account for over 50% of the poor in the country. They enjoy less rights than the Jewish majority, and have less access to resources. They do not, for example, have access to public lands. These are under the Israel Land Administration and account for over 90% of the country’s land. Immigration rights for Palestinians, including family members of Israeli citizens, are practically non-existent while Jews from any country can settle in Israel. A Palestinian from the occupied territories cannot “immigrate” into Israel even if he or she marries an Israeli. (v)
Israel is defined as a Jewish state. Its symbols are Jewish. Its national anthem is Jewish. Palestinian-Israelis happen to live there and do enjoy higher living standards than average citizens of neighboring Arab states. The widespread feeling, however, is that the State does not include or represent them. All Palestinian-Israelis are born in Israel. On the other hand, 30% of the Jewish population was born abroad. The definition of Israel as a Jewish state is not a symbolic one. It has important implications in establishing rights for its citizens and prospective citizens. Religion is crucial in defining the Jewish character of the state since Jews around the globe do not share the same language, traditions, and cultures. In many cases, people define themselves as Jews based on a self-awareness of their origin. But self-awareness alone could not be used by the State to identify who is a Jew in order to provide individuals with special rights, or to limit them.
The political system is formally democratic, and in many respects, quite advanced. Israel, however, cannot be considered a fully democratic state as it grants more rights to some individuals based on origin and/or religion. The ethno-demographic obsession is a reflection of the character of the state and is inconsistent with modern democratic states. In fact, laws, regulations and even customs reflect the clear, overt objective of keeping one group as the dominant one.
How does an Israeli-Palestinian citizen feels in this context? He or she feels like an alien in his/her own country. (vi) The sense of dignity is obviously diminished and this feeling is crucial in determining socio-political behaviors. It must be recognized, however, that some authorities made efforts to reach its Palestinian citizens. The President of Israel, for example, condemned the killing of innocent Arab-Israelis civilians in 1956 by the Army. (vii) Films and official cultural initiatives have also given attention to the Palestinian narrative of the history of the region which is otherwise ignored. Nevertheless, the word terrorism has been long associated with Palestinians, as if all Palestinians were terrorists.
The situation in the occupied territories
Military rules and military justice are applied in occupied areas. Israel expropriates land, sometimes private, in those areas. It builds highways which can be used only by Jews. (viii) Walls are built to isolate settlers from local populations. In many cases, the walls that block Palestinians from accessing their own land obligate them to walk several kilometers to do so. Israel controls tax collections at the borders on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and charges fees. All imports and exports to/from the occupied territories must be done through Israel via military check points. (ix) Contrary to what the Israeli government states repeatedly, land expropriation should not be a matter of negotiation under any circumstances. The sovereignty over an area may be negotiated or disputed, but the property rights of private individuals should not. Israel does not formally annex occupied territories but expropriates land which is then taken by Jewish settlers who remain under Israeli jurisdiction. As of 2013, there were between 500,000 and 600,000 settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. (x)
The Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel since the Oslo Agreement. But Israel is now demanding that Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state. Countries are recognized as such; their character is an internal matter. Besides, Israel insists that the security in any prospective Palestinian state should be under the total control of Israel. There are indications that Palestinians seem more concerned about their individual and property rights than about the statehood of Palestine. A sense of defeat and despair seems prevalent among them.
In some cases, Israel has legitimate concerns about Iranian rhetoric and behavior, but this cannot be used as an excuse to postpone or avoid discussions around the occupation, nor to continue the expansion of settlements. The government of Israel has been very militant in opposing the agreement with Iran reached by the Obama administration and five other countries (Germany, UK, France, Russia and China). The strong opposition of Netanyahu was contrary to the view of several military and intelligence officers of Israel. (xi) Iran is a stable country, probably one of the most stable in the area. Accusations of terrorism against Iran refer to allegations of Iran’s behavior in the region’s conflicts but these have their own separate dynamics. Claims of Iran’s direct participation in terrorist activities in the last 15 years have been weak. The normalization of Europe’s relations with Iran and Israel would not be favored by an unstable or military-defeated Iran.
If the two-state solution is dead, what are the options?
- First: Continue with the occupation and expansion of settlements. This would mean a continuation of the unofficial state of apartheid existing in those areas. (xii) Gaza would continue as it is now, under blockade, and in danger of collapse due to the lack of basic resources. (xiii) The situation would potentially become explosive in both the occupied territories and to some extent in Palestinian-Israeli areas. Such point has not been reached as of yet.
- Second: Officially annex the occupied territories while keeping the Palestinians as residents confined to the West Bank, outside settlement areas. Gaza would probably continue under blockade and drift into a humanitarian catastrophe. There would be one “grand” Israel and apartheid would be the official policy. Widespread international repudiation would be likely. If the situation is not so different from the prevailing one, why would Israel choose this politically costly option?
- Third: Transform Israel into a democratic, secular and multinational state. In order to provide a sense of security to all minorities, the framework for such state would be very complex. The transition period for the “new” state would likely be long-lasting and painful. Membership of a larger multinational organization such as the European Union would facilitate the transition and consolidate the newly defined state. But at this moment, the conditions for such an option do not at all exist. The option is met with skepticism as many multinational states have failed.
Israel enjoys stability. The region, however, is very much in turmoil and the Trump administration will likely avoid any clash with Israel. The prevailing status quo is therefore, likely to continue. The transformation of Israel into a democratic, secular, and multinational state might impose itself as a response to an explosive situation in the occupied territories and agitation in the Palestinian-Israeli areas inside Israel. Although there is an excess of arguments for such a change, the conditions for it do not exist today.
(i) A Divide Among Palestinians on a Two-State Solution, The New York Times, By Jody Rudoren, MARCH 18, 2014
(ii) List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, IMF 2016, Wikipedia
(iii) Learning from Israel about healthcare, Israel 21C, February 2017
(iv) Israel Social Security and Welfare, Expat Focus, 2016
(v) Israel Extends Integration Ban On Arabs Married To Israelis, June 19, 2015
(viii) See “Apartheid Roads”, Ma’an Development Center, 2008
President Carter refers to it as “.. this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.”
(ix) Wikipedia, information as of 2016.
(x) Information provided by the Institute for Middle East Understanding as of 2013.
(xi) Israeli Military Brass Support Iran Deal, Haaretz, August 5, 2015 WashingtonsBlog, Haaretz
(xii) Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, J. Carter, Simon & Schuster, 2006
(xiii) “Gaza on Verge of Collapse”, IMEM News, February 10, 2015