As Abba Eban once said, “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” He’s again right, this time about the Palestinians. At a time when Israel is taking a hard right turn, becoming evermore resolute to withhold from the Palestinian people their basic right to statehood and freedom, rather than unite to pose a formidable resistance and opposition, the West Bank and Gaza are growing further apart. And rather than putting a halt to any dialogue with the same Israel that refuses to recognize the first free and democratic election results in the Arab world, Mahmoud Abbas continues to court even the new Lieberman government in Jerusalem. But, it is not all too late.
Following the Oslo Accords in the early 90’s, it seemed that most Israelis were ready to end their 3-decade long occupation and subjugation of millions of Palestinians, and to begin a new chapter in the history of our two people, a history that has known more bloodshed than joy. It seemed, back then, that Israelis were ready to give up on grander dreams of an Israel “from the river to the sea”. But today, things look very different. As each government, from Left, to Center-Left, to Right, continues to disobey Supreme Court rulings to dismantle illegal settlements, and indeed authorizes the continued expansion and buildup of new settlements in the West Bank, Israel is de facto destroying any possibility for a two-state solution.
It is quite incomprehensible that the same Israelis who fear a non-Jewish majority in Israel would ever elect to power precisely those who are leading us down that road, but that’s reality. Perhaps there’s some bizarre fantasy amongst most, that if only we make the Arabs’ lives more miserable, eventually they’ll get up, pack up their bags, and board the first KLM flight out of here. That goes for the 20% Arab population in Israel, and of course for the 4 million Palestinians under Israeli rule. Who said Apartheid can’t end in massive “voluntary” transfer?
But with the assumption that no one in his right mind would ever allow Israel to ethnically cleanse the entire West Bank and Gaza of millions of people, what we’re left with is still 4 million-and-growing population, without a nation. And these people are under Israeli rule, for bad and for worse. One day, when enough Jewish settlements surround Arab towns and villages, even a Bantustan-solution will no longer be viable, and the world will have to decide whether it accepts a one-state Apartheid rule, or not. So far, the world has been lulled to sleep by various Israeli governments pretending to opt for a two-state solution. Europe, especially, has been extra-numb when it comes to Israel, perhaps out of last-remaining feelings of guilt going back some 70 years.
But the day will come, when the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, and other significant world powers will wake up. And when they do, they will ask Israel to make its choice – continue to rule as an Apartheid and pariah state, and suffer the consequences, or incorporate all the Palestinians in free and democratic fashion into the U.N.-recognized State of Israel. De facto and de jure, that would mean 4 million new Israeli citizens, and the end to Jewish majority in Israel.
So now the question is, why are the Palestinians still putting up a fight? Why is Hamas still trying to “liberate” all of Palestine? Or even lands occupied after 1967? Why is Abu Mazen still intent on achieving a two-state solution? Can’t Hamas and Fatah see that neither is possible? Why not change both the tactics and, more importantly, the strategy?
What if tomorrow evening, right at prime-time, Abu Mazen made a televised appearance that could go down in history as “The beginning of the non-violent end to the Jewish State”? What if Abu Mazen would shock the world, by informing his viewers that the Palestinian Authority, on behalf of the Palestinian people, has decided to part with its separate national aspirations and, instead, is hereby declaring its loyalty to the Jewish State of Israel? Furthermore, Abbas will announce the dismantling of all Palestinian governing bodies effective immediately, including the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. For all practical purposes, Abbas will “hand the keys over” to Israel.
What will Israel do? Could it ignore this shutdown of all command and control mechanisms in the West Bank? Could the Israeli army remain outside of Palestinian towns, if no Palestinian police is there to provide minimal security both to its own citizens, as well as to the Jewish settlers? Chances are, Israel would have to re-conquer the entire territory once more. It would have to establish its own governing bodies, as it did for nearly 3 decades. It would once more become solely responsible for the Palestinian people.
And to top it all off, Mahmoud Abbas will present a new motion to the U.N. General Assembly, asking it to recognize the current Palestinian territories as part-and-parcel of the State of Israel. Recognizing that two viable states could no longer be formed, Abbas would say, the Palestinian people have chosen to accept their “ruler” as their own.
Could the world now demand of Israel to annex the entire territory under its control, and to fully incorporate the entire Palestinian people into this newly-formed State of Israel? What choice would the world have? What choice would Israel have? We would have no choice. We would have to either provide 4 million Palestinians with new Israeli citizenship (with all its freedoms and rights), or officially become a full-fledged Apartheid state.
I’m beginning to believe that for the Palestinians, this somewhat-crazy idea is actually not so crazy at all. Even at the risk of allowing the Israeli army to again control all Palestinian towns and villages, and to further embed its corresponding Apartheid rule, the likelihood for the world to soon demand a one-state solution is far greater than attempting to achieve it any other way.
Let every Palestinian mother and child wave the blue-and-white flag of Israel, up high and proud. Let all resistance movements hand-in their weapons. Let the Palestinian dream of a Palestine end. And let it be replaced by the acceptance of Israel as the only state possible “from the river to the sea”.
What could we honestly do about it?
One Region, One Future 
March 22, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Shai,
Knowing Israel in the last 35 years , I think Israel will declare Jordon as the new Palestinian state and gives the Palestinians free travel arrangement .
March 23, 2009 at 5:21 am
Norman,
Welcome to our blog! If I understand you correctly, there are two options regarding the West Bank and Jordan:
a. Israel declares it is no longer responsible for the West Bank, and “expects” Jordan to assume this responsibility (as it had prior to 1967).
b. Israel “expects” Jordan to take 2.5 million Palestinians into its own territory.
The first option has been recommended by a number of people in Israel, including recently ex-General Giora Eiland. But I never quite understood why either the Palestinian people or Jordan would agree to this request (or “expectation”). And how would it work exactly – we’d say something like “We’re removing all our forces, and most settlements, as soon as Jordanian forces enter…”? And then Jordan responds “Well, then you might be waiting a while, because we have no intention of doing that.” So then what?
The second option is essentially forced transfer. Putting aside the international ramifications (and, therefore, the impossibility of such transfer), just from a “technical” point of view, how would it work? Israel declares that Jordan is the only place for the Palestinian people? And then what? We give 2.5 million people 30 days to comfortably pack up, make shipment arrangements for their belongings, and then we bring “the buses”? How do you force 2.5 million people into buses? What if they don’t want to go? We start shooting them? We bring German shepherds or dobermans?
I’m afraid neither possibility is plausible. The Palestinian people want and have a right to remain exactly where they are, whether it is under Israel Occupation, or under their own rule. I believe they should now consider “giving up” on their dream of Palestine, and demand to be incorporated into the State of Israel.
March 23, 2009 at 6:06 am
“What if Abu Mazen would shock the world, by informing his viewers that the Palestinian Authority, on behalf of the Palestinian people, has decided to part with its separate national aspirations and, instead, is hereby declaring its loyalty to the Jewish State of Israel?”
I think Abu Mazen is the wrong character in your story. They need their own Lieberman for that.
March 23, 2009 at 6:19 am
Netsp,
I agree with you. I’ve been hoping for a long time that Marouan Barghouti would be released, and that he would become the next “Arafat”. There are quite a few MK’s in favor of this, including ex-Likud ones (current Kadima ones).
But for his own survival, if he’s even interested in running for President again, he had better come up with something soon.
March 24, 2009 at 1:20 am
I think that if you are pinning hopes on Barghouti, you may be hanging on to false hope. You are talking about a political Jiu-Jitsu and I don’t think he has it in him. The reason he’s in jail now is because he could not envision a path to power alternative to political violence. That’s not a good sign for a paradigm shaper.
BTW, this concept is not really new. Turning the ‘conflict’ from an independence struggle to a civil rights struggle has been on the cards for a long time. This would make the apartheid analogy more accurate but also give Palestinians a range of precedents to draw on. It’s a wild card.
For the moment, personalities and banners rather then ideas are the driving force in most Palestinian politics. If ideas were the driving force, then I beleive that this idea could gain traction. Rock-star leader or no rock star leader. Sari Nusseibeh for example, is perfectly capable of leading a party in an Isreali like political system but he is unlikely to be a banner around which support can be mustered in the Palestinian one. But ideas are not the driving force.
Which brings us to the practicality of such a ‘struggle’ if it ever comes to exist. This would be a struggle to create a pretty ugly entity. The world is actually tending towards national fractioning. The theoretical precedents are not necessarily sound analogies. Take the African movements (Rhodesia/South Africa make good examples). The regimes were basically freelance colonialists. While some Arabs & the international left like explaining everything in the context of colonialism, this is not really the case here. More importantly, Jews will not be a minority in the short term. Even in Jewish minority scenarios they are a large minority. Why is this important? Because the African blueprint is a blueprint for independence from colonialism. Not applicable in this context.
US civil rights movements & the like are really assimilation movements. Not that applicable. Indigenous people’s civil rights movements are also not really applicable. They tend to be based around the symbolic.
All that aside, it would probably need to be a non-violent movement to succeed. It would also require solidarity. This is related to the previous point. Such a movement is extremely susceptible to internal spoilers. Hamas could kill the moevement if they choose.
Basically what I’m saying is that a Palestinian one-state civil rights movement is not something likely to achieve anything. But, being a wild card it might be part of breaking a deadlock.
March 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm
The Palestinian leader (not this Abbas collaborator) should declare his people’s loyalty to a democratic, but not Jewish, Israel (or to ‘the Israeli democracy in which Jews are a key community’). Apart from that quibble, I agree entirely with your post, and have agreed with this idea for the last fifteen years.
March 25, 2009 at 12:10 am
Qunfuz, I’m pretty sure that’s what Shai was referring to. If he was clever about it, he wouldn’t even squabble about the name & leave it as Israel.
I get the feeling that the majority of those people that support this idea from afar, are very disconnected from achievable reality. The majority of actual public figures on the Israeli-Palestinian ground tend to use this idea as a tool rather then an actual goal.
While in ‘theory’ there is nothing wrong with this idea, it seems about as feasible as joining the EU (where pseudo states can be viable), creating a Middle Eastern Federation or a John Lennon world.
March 25, 2009 at 2:55 am
why, specifically, Netsp?
March 25, 2009 at 5:33 am
Qunfuz, Netsp,
Yes, when I said “recognize the Jewish State of Israel”, I was being sarcastic. Of course “Jewish” is not something a Palestinian could ever accept or recognize in this context.
But I also agree that Abu Mazen won’t be that leader. From my point of view, we can adopt Qadaffi’s “Israstine”. 🙂 (or “Israstein” as AIPAC might prefer…)
March 25, 2009 at 8:49 am
Qunfan. I meant that considering the emotional, historical, & political realities, this is not a feasible path.
If we are talking about an actual agreement along lines that one might pursue, you need to consider that at best your support map will be 33%/33%/30% opponents/convincable/proponents. That is if you manage to sell it as a viable solution. That takes time & usually needs to be fairly in line with people’s existing line of thought. This goes for both sides.
The liberal concept easiest to sell to Israelis is of a Jewish-Democratic state. This is what we were raised on. It’s a part of the Israeli identity. Changing that paradigm is not an easy one to do. So you can count on far less support from the Israeli left. Possibly far more
The second thing is that it is not a particularly nice solution. Nations can be formed, fused, invented or revived. I am fairly convinced of that. But they need a sort of radical consensus to do this. There needs to be high motivation on the street level, the kind that Zionism had 80 years ago.
The third thing is sort of back to the first. This is likely to fail & bring down the stability or economic prosperity of the state. The big bulk of any country is interested in the theory only up to a point. If unemployment starts to rise, you have opposition on your hands. In this case, probably racially motivated (think “immigrants taking our jobs!”). You have absolutely no national cohesion thread to pull on. Iraq or Belgium’s cohesion issues are nothing in comparison.
Considering the problematic state of Palestinian political world, the state of the political culture of the Arab world from which they draw & the rapidly declining state of Israel’s you have the real possibility of a failed state. People in TA live in a ‘normal’ place. They don’t care for politics & the missiles don’t reach them. They will not take the chance of being a failed state. Whatever the philosophical rhetoric underlying it.
To actually fuse a single country out of this you’d need to be forceful.
March 26, 2009 at 12:59 am
Well said Yossi. That’s a clearer version of what I was trying to say.
#2 is only achievable via military success. The possibility of Palestinian military success of that kind is incredibly far off. 2006 is being called the greatest Arab military success since…by gidy pundits left, right & centre. Think how far off they were from even thinking about invasion or forcibly taking Shebba Farms.
By wild card I meant something a little different. I meant a way of changing the paradigm. A way of restarting the game, not a way of winning the game.
You’re right about the Palestinian perspective not including any fear of a failed state.
March 26, 2009 at 5:06 am
Yossi, Netsp,
Two of the main challenges to the “wildcard” at the moment are:
a. Lack of unity amongst the Palestinians – Hamas still believing in #2, Fatah in #3.
b. Right of Return as perhaps an even-greater threat to Israelis. Imagine we buy Yesha’s claim that annexing the W. Bank and Gaza would still maintain a 60% Jewish majority. What about another 2.5-3 million refugees in the Diaspora?
March 26, 2009 at 8:54 am
a – I guess the question is how many would a leading public figure (eg bargouti) raise under this flag. But true, today noo ne wants it & noone is leading it so its nothing more then an intellectual excercise.
b – This post: http://www.judithmiller.com/4967/beiruts-fragile-peace got me thinking, What’s all this talks with Assad all about? He seems pretty keen. Attack on a secret military facility, SSSSHHH. War with their pets, that’s ok. Gaza? Still good. He’s more into these talks then ever. Even the prospect of dealing with Lieberman as the foreign minister isn’t a deterrent. I don’t think he wants the Golan that badly. What’s on the table?
Come to think of it, why would our dear leaders be so keen on giving it up? The word peace doesn’t carry as much weight as it once did. Lieberman wouldn’t be happy about giving the Golan, evacuating placed like Katzrin for just a piece of paper. Syrian direct isn’t scary. HEzballah probably can’t be turned off by Syria anyway (though they could be weakened). The Lebanon problem isn’t a point problem. Lebanon’s generally unstable & things aren’t looking up. It also has a lot of Palestinians in the worst conditions.
Anyway, I think there’s a bigger game going on in the background. I think Lebanon might be part of the offering (via the US). I am surprised by the lack of speculation on this fronth. Where’s Uri Avneri when you need him?