Third Way: The Case for a One-State Solution
Chris McGrath
The Two-State Solution has been defacto option for many who have wished for peace in Israel and Palestine. This coexistence approach would make Israel and Palestine coequal and separate sovereign states. However, it now seems more unlikely than ever that a Two-State Solution would be viable.
The Levant is the Holy Land for the Abrahamic religions and is considered the homeland for both the Palestinian and Jewish peoples. Ethnic and religious tensions have run high since the territory was assigned as a nation-state for the Jewish people. This tension erupted into war when the state of Israel was established after the end of the Second World War. The Palestinians were naturally enraged that some of their territory had been annexed for the new state of Israel. Meanwhile the Israelis were trying to defend their newly acquired nation from immediate dissolution. While the Palestinians saw the area as their homeland, many of the Israelis saw the Palestinians as Arabs who had simply occupied the region in the absence of the Jewish people during the Diaspora.
The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization have gradually supported a “ministate option”, with 71% of Palestinians originally in favor of the proposal. This course of action would reduce Palestine to 22% of the British Mandate and delineates a smaller area than expressed in the 1964 P.L.O. Charter and the Fateh Constitution. By 2018 support for the ministate option shrunk to 48% , and in 2020 it has been reduced to 31%. This drop in support has largely been attributed to the state of negotiations between Israel and Palestine.
Support for the Two-State Solution in Israel has also been complicated. Since 2001, the conservative Likud Party has been in power and starting in 2009, the party has been led by the controversial, right-wing politician, Benjamin Netenyahu. Both Netenyahu and the Likud Party reject the idea of an independent and sovereign state for the Palestinian people and have been willing to form governing coalitions with right-wing religious parties. This goes against the wishes of the majority of Israelis, 52% of whom support a Two-State Solution. Historically, left-wing and left-of-center Israeli parties have been more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, but they have been left electorally weak.
The Israeli government has also established so many settlements that Palestine may not be able to function as a contiguous territory. This would be made especially true if the Israeli government’s goal in annexing the West Bank is successful. An independent, sovereign and equal Palestine will not be able to peacefully exist alongside Israel, if it cannot maintain territorial integrity.
This has led for some to call for a One-State Solution. One of the more prominent voices has been Peter Beinart, the current editor of the Jewish Currents and a former editor of the New Republic. Beinart argues that the state of Israel has continued to absorb a huge amount of Palestinian territory and people, thereby creating a defacto dual national state. Since 1967, more and more Palestinian territories in the West Bank have been occupied by Israeli settlers that are funded by the Israeli government, and Israeli law has been applied to these regions. Many of the Palestinians and Arabs that live in the area have been effectively reduced to second class citizens in their own lands. This has led some, including the U.N., to claim that Israel operates what is essentially a modern Apartheid state.
Even Zionists who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause may find reasons to oppose the implementation of an One-State Solution. By creating a single confederation or commonwealth, Israel and Palestine would simultaneously be merged and destroyed. Israel would lose its identity as a nation state for the Jews.
This does not have to be the case though. Commonwealth and confederate states that embrace a dual identity exist. Canada and the Belgium both famously embrace their national identity as being nations that are comprised of two nations. This dual national identity is one that promotes peace and stability. It would preserve both Israel and Palestine and their respective religious and cultural identities. Quebec maintains its French heritage in Canada, while individual Swiss cantons have their own official religions and languages. Borders would exist, but the consequences of them would be largely administrative. If chaos and conflict is staved off for long enough, the new Commonwealth of the Levant would be able to decide whether it would want to amicably split into two states, like Czechoslovakia, or maintains its united identity, like Canada or the United Kingdom.
This united commonwealth or confederacy would render the problem of settlers and second-class citizens largely moot as they would now be living in the same country and share the same rights. Some may be conflicted at the prospect of losing the concept of the Jewish nation. The idea of Israel was so the Jewish people would feel the safety and security of having a state after centuries of persecution in Europe and the Middle East. The new secular state would embody either a federal or a confederate system so the regional Jewish and Israeli identity will still be sustained alongside the Arab and Palestinian identity by regional sub-national governments.
One also cannot forget that both the original Zionist movement and the original idea of the Palestinian state was based around a secular state. By forming a new secular state for both Israelis and Palestinian, both the roots of Zionism and the Palestinian state will actually be enhanced. Beinart argues that the trauma of the Jewish persecution is what drove the Zionist movement and now it must evolve to account for the Palestinian Diaspora and persecution. A new Zionist movement that embraces brotherhood and peace between Israelis and Palestinians needs to emerge if there is to be peace in the region. One also must remember that this conflict has had a third player that has suffered tremendously, the local Christians. They have been forced to flee due to the conflict and were left without a ‘side’. The prospect of open borders, peace, and an overall secular identity will allow them to come home and live alongside their neighbors in peace.
