It has been over 25 years since the signing of the Oslo accords and the formal adoption of the two-state solution by both parties, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel. After all this time, it cannot be claimed that Palestinians and Israelis are closer to a solution today than they were on the eve of signing the Interim Agreement in 1993.
A Palestinian state has yet to materialize and living conditions continue to deteriorate. One does not need to be a historian to realize that the circumstances discussed in the original 1993 declaration have seen significant changes. The two-state solution, which was cemented internationally after Oslo as the solution, is facing growing skepticism.
Yet despite this, the holy mantra of “two states for two peoples” remains ever present.
But what is exactly meant by partition, and why is it put forward as the only way forward?
When partition is brought up in the historical sense, it is not surprising that most tend to think of the 1947 UNGA resolution. However, this was not the first partition scheme to be presented. In 1919, for example, the World Zionist Organization put forward a ‘partition’ plan, which included all of historical Palestine, parts of Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan. At the time, the Jewish population of this proposed state would not have even reached 2-3% of the total population.
Naturally, such a proposal did not see the light of day, but it is an indication of the entitlement of the Zionist movement in wanting to establish an ethnic state in an area where they were so utterly outnumbered. To put this into context, even after waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, and a much smaller area allocated to the Jewish state in the 1947 partition plan, the proposed Jewish state would not have had a Jewish majority without additional immigration and settlement. As even on the eve of the Nakba, the Jewish population in mandatory Palestine was roughly a third.
If we consider that most of this population arrived during the 4th and 5th Aliyot (Between 1924-1939), then the majority of those demanding partition of the land had barely been living there for 20 years at the most. To make matters worse, the UN partition plan allotted approximately 56% of the land of mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state. It is worth mentioning that the partition plans were rejected by both parties, publicly by the higher Arab command, and in private by the Yishuv, which also planned to take over the Palestinian partition after the creation of an “elite army” [You can read more about this here]. In any case, these were proposals that never came to fruition.
Today the Two State Solution refers to the diplomatic process finding its roots in the 1970s which called for establishing a sovereign Palestinian state next to Israel. The first bilateral breakthrough in this process materialized in the -at the time- secret Oslo Accords where Palestinians, represented by the PLO, and Israelis agreed upon a declaration of principles that would lead to creating the Palestinian Authority as an interim government that would supposedly pave the way for a final settlement. These accords were mostly a declaration of principles which did not contain any parameters for how such a state would even look. As a matter of fact, the word “state” with regards to Palestinians was never mentioned once. It was two years later, in what is referred to as Oslo II, taking place in the Egyptian city of Taba, that negotiations earnestly began. In these negotiations more concrete parameters were discussed, and the logistics as well as method for instating the Palestinian Authority on the ground.
Needless to say, that state has failed to materialize, and the so-called peace process has been used as a cover to accelerate Israeli colonization in the West Bank, as well as to subsidize the occupation of Palestinians through the international community under the guise of state-building.
What this approach to a solution neglects, is that Israel is not a normal state. It is a settler colony [You can read more about this here]. We are not talking about two naturally occurring populations which have a land dispute. Israelis are descended from settlers that arrived from abroad with the goal of erecting an ethnocratic settler state in an area that was already home to the Palestinians.
This approach is also inadequate to right historical wrongs, as it focuses on the pre-1967 borders as a starting point, which are in themselves a product of this colonization, and not the root cause of it. It is thus preoccupied with finding solutions to symptoms, rather than dare address the root cause, which is Zionist settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
This automatically means that Palestinians must relinquish any rights or hopes for their millions of refugees, and it also means that Palestinians must relinquish their rights to live in over 80% of the land they were ethnically cleansed from. It also means that resource distribution, from water to fertile land, will be heavily stacked in Israel’s favor.
All of these shortcomings are often countered with the assertion that Palestinians must compromise to reach peace. Israeli control is treated as a fait accompli and that Palestinians must deal with it, rather than ask for justice. This is the whole premise of the two-state solution, that Palestinians must compromise on their rights to be granted a small, powerless sham of a state in part of their homeland. Israel, of course was not asked to compromise on anything substantial. The only compromise asked of Israelis is to stop its violation of international law, which it should cease regardless of any negotiation with the Palestinians. This attitude basically boils down to “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.”.
Yet despite all of this, Palestinians were willing to agree to these terms. The PLO was willing to give up on the Palestinian people’s historical rights in order to find peace and have a state. But even that was not sufficient for Israelis. Even Rabin, who is considered a holy martyr for peace among the Israeli peace camp, was not prepared to give the Palestinians a state. He spoke of a sham “state-minus” with no sovereignty, and the offers did not get better than that throughout the history of negotiation.
Has it never once sounded suspicious to you how Israelis focus on the number of “peace offers” that were refused by the Palestinians, but never once discussed the actual parameters or substance in detail?
Because when these parameters are discussed, it becomes clear that these are terms nobody could accept. So even when Palestinians accepted the 1967 borders, a very limited return of refugees, and other compromises, this was still not good enough for Israel that sought to shrink the Palestinian Bantustan even further. These arrangements seek to formalize the status quo with cosmetic changes. Netanyahu promised that no Palestinian state will emerge, and in the case of any limited self-rule arrangement for the Palestinians, he spoke about a permanent IDF presence in the West Bank, as well as Israeli control of the borders and airspace. These are the amazing “opportunities” that Palestinians have been declining, and as a result are being painted as warmongering rejectionists for doing so.
As it stands, Palestinian aspirations cannot exceed the ceiling of Israeli table scraps.
It should be mentioned that such arrangements were also concocted for the various Bantustans in Apartheid South Africa. What all of these arrangements have in common, is that they are designed specifically to dance around settler colonialism, and to try and find a “solution” comfortable for the settlers which do not harm any expansionist ambitions. In this way Palestinians are pushed to compromise until there is nothing left to compromise on, they are now even being pushed to compromise on having actual borders.
Naturally, there are other ways to answer the question of Palestine outside the dominant paradigm of the two state solution. Some scholars and activists are calling for a decolonized state for all of those between the river and the sea. However, this would necessitate that Zionists relinquish their ideology of ethnic supremacy.
This is hardly a new or radical position, such an entity was suggested by the Arab states as a counter-proposal to the 1947 partition plan. Naturally, this was rejected by the Zionists. That we barely ever hear about the offers that the Yishuv/Israel rejected should be an indicator of the nature of mainstream discussions on Palestine and the silencing of Palestinian voices. The Palestinian Liberation Organization also called for establishing a secular, democratic unitary state for all its citizens. Naturally, none of these proposals included genocide, ethnic cleansing or mass murder.
These anxieties are not unique to Jewish Israelis, settlers in many different colonies throughout history have echoed these same sentiments. If we were to take a look at the narrative surrounding anti-Apartheid South Africa activism and boycotts, we would find eerily similar projections and arguments.
For example, In an article for the Globe and Mail under the title “The good side of white South Africa” Kenneth Walker argued that ending the Apartheid system and giving everyone an equal vote would be a “a recipe for slaughter in South Africa”. Others, such as Shingler, echoed similar claims, saying that anti-racist activists were actually not interested in ending Apartheid as a policy, but in South Africa as a society. Others came out to claim these activists were actually motivated by “anti-white racism”, fueled by “Black imperialism”. Political comics displayed a giant soviet bear, bearing down on South Africa declaring “We shall drive South Africa into the Sea!”
Sound familiar?
Yet even when it is rarely acknowledged that Palestinian refugees were wronged, and deserve to return home, the refrain is that while it is tragic, it is the only way to keep the Jewish people safe. Once again, this pretense is hardly unique to Jewish Israelis, as a matter of fact, similar arguments were used against the abolition of slavery in the United States. For example, Thomas Jefferson likened slavery to a wolf:
“we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
How utterly ridiculous this all sounds now.
While the first approach is crude and vile propaganda, designed to instigate fear and panic, it is par for the course for settler societies. Perhaps the second approach stands out a little bit more for its brazen attempt at manipulation. In a final endeavor to center their experiences and erase their victims, settlers frame themselves as the stars of their own tragedy, in the end they were the tragic victims of fate, forced to wield injustice for the sake of self-preservation.
Underlying the logic of both of these approaches are racist assumptions that the colonized are barbaric, bloodthirsty and ruthless. It is a deeply dehumanizing logic, steeped in every colonial and Orientalist trope. The idea that a decolonized, free Palestine would inevitably lead to genocide comes from this same logic. As a matter of fact, for all the claims of the Palestinians wanting to push Israelis into the sea, only the opposite has occurred in reality.
Palestinians flee from Gaza’s beaches onto boats during the Palestinian Nakba, 1949. (Photo: UNRWA)
Regardless of your ideological leanings, the reality is that we are already living under a de facto one-state reality. Israeli politicians proudly boast about never allowing a Palestinian state to materialize. Israeli school books already erase the green line. Israel already rules the lives of everyone there. Palestinians calling for the dissolution of this naked colonialism is legitimate and just. The fact that Palestinians are even asked to guarantee the well-being and welfare of their oppressors as they are killed, imprisoned and brutally repressed daily is a testament to their utter dehumanization.
- Abunimah, Ali. One country: A bold proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Macmillan, 2006.
- Tilley, Virginia. The one-state solution: A breakthrough for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock. University of Michigan Press, 2010.
- Farsakh, Leila. “The one-state solution and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Palestinian challenges and prospects.” The Middle East Journal 65.1, 2011: 55-71.
- Hussein, Cherine. The re-emergence of the single state solution in Palestine/Israel: Countering an illusion. Routledge, 2015.
- Lustick, Ian S. Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019.
- Bashir, Bashir, and Azar Dakwar. “Rethinking the Politics of Israel/Palestine: Partition and Its Alternatives.” S&D Group in the European Parliamet/Bruno Kreisky Forum for international Dialogue, Vienna. 2014.