Israel-Palestine Part IV: The Two-State Solution Will Fail

Home » The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Virtually every serious proposal for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict centers on the creation of two independent and sovereign states -- an Israeli state and a Palestinian one. I have done a lot of thinking about this idea, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was neither possible nor desirable.

The first problem with the two-state solution is that the Palestinian state would be totally inviable. Gaza and the West Bank, which would become the Palestinian state, are too small, too densely populated and they aren't even contiguous. If it were possible for Palestinians to maintain a state on that territory, they would have done so by now. They have no industry, abject poverty, scarce water and almost universal unemployment. These are not conditions under which it is possible to establish a state. Poverty and unemployment create an atmosphere of civil unrest. The Palestinian Authority is powerless to correct the problems, and the resulting power vacuum makes it possible for groups like Hamas to grow in power.

Even if Israel and the Palestinians were to successfully separate from each other, they would each face a possible civil war almost immediately. Because it has always had a defined "enemy" to point to, Israel has been able to avoid dealing with the problems that undoubtedly will arise between the different religious communities as to what the Jewish state should look like. As soon as its external political problems are solved, this issue will come to a head and I believe that it could very well tear Israel apart.

The same is true for the Palestinian state. There are so many different factions in two distinct physical locations that there would doubtless be a struggle for power between those various groups. For a country with no resources, no industry and no jobs to deal with such domestic strife is unthinkable. I think that Palestine would be as likely as Israel to be torn apart from within.

Furthermore, I don't believe that everyone would stay on their side of the line. There are Jewish holy sites in the West Bank and there are Muslim holy sites in Israel. Neither side would be able to control their borders and attempting to might create even greater civil unrest. I don't believe that a compromise will ever be reached with regard to Jerusalem -- where Judaism's holiest site and one of Islam's are literally in the same exact place.

Tony Judt's article in the New York Review of Books, entitled "Israel: The Alternative" articulates more clearly than any other article that I've ever read the problems that Israel faces:

"[Israel] has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded— is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism."

I highly recommend reading Judt's article in its entirety. Perhaps you will be unsurprised that it elicited a strong negative response (which I will explain in the next segment of this series), but you will probably be surprised by who made that response and who didn't.

Judt goes on to say that if Israel wants to remain a Jewish state, it has three unattactive options:

1) Withdraw to 1967 borders which would temporarily ensure a Jewish majority although it would create a class of "constitutionally ambiguous" second-class citizens.

2) Continue the occupation indefinitely. The problem is that Palestinian Arabs will soon be a majority. Israel's choice then becomes one between a Jewish state with enforced apartheid (apartheid already exists, although it is not enforced), and democracy. As Judt says, it cannot logically be both.

3) Turn ethnic cleansing into a full-blown state policy which would ensure the Jewish majority and "formal" democracy, but which would be unspeakably immoral.

Israel will face the demographic challenge of option #2 and the issue of constitutionally ambiguous second-class citizens whether or not the Palestinians exist in a state alongside Israel. Clearly none of these choices is a desirable option for either Israel or the Palestinians. Nor can I imagine a conceivable "two-state" solution which addresses all of these problems or the ones I mentioned earlier.

It is my belief that the Israelis and the Palestinians are too intertwined culturally, economically and spiritually to exist separately, and that is why I believe that a satisfactory two-state solution is an impossibility and that attempts to create one should be abandoned in favor of a difficult but ultimately far more desirable solution: one that involves only a single state consisting of all of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The final segment I will write for this series will detail exactly what I think that solution should look like, and why I think it untimately has a much greater chance for success than any of the current efforts.

up
Analysis | Israel

Limited options
Submitted by Alex on 16 June, 2004 - 8:19am.

Several comments. First, your argument that if it were possible to have a state on the territories of the West Bank and Gaza then it would already have happened seems to totally ignore the Israeli occupation. Things can change. Second, there is the possibility for increased industry and increased jobs and proper conservation and utilization of resources in the West Bank and Gaza. Many of the problems are a result of the occupation (for example, water resources are disproportionately divided between the settlements and Palestinians, and I'll let you guess who gets more). What does Israel have in terms of natural resources that is that much better than the West Bank and Gaza? Thirdly, the argument that the two state solution would foment intra-state conflict while a one state solution would not is baffling. There may well be violent conflict between factions inside Israel or a Palestinian state, but right now the possibility of violence seems much greater were there a single state from the river to the sea. Fourthly, I think Tony Judt ignores another possibility for Israel: give up the territories AND work to increase the inclusion and rights of the Arab minority within Israel. The problem with the one state solution is the people - the Israelis want their own state, and so do the Palestinians. In a way I do believe in a one state solution, and I think it's the best solution. But I think that having two stable states that embrace democracy and equal rights, cooperating economically, with increasingly open borders, is the best way towards achieving the goals of a one state solution. Impossible? Maybe, but it seems more probable than forcing Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom want their own state, into a single state.

Re: Limited options
Submitted by thatgoodnight on 16 June, 2004 - 9:59am.

First, I think your point about the effect of occupation is a good one and I perhaps went a little too far with my simplification of the situation (which I attempt whenever possible because it is so complicated). I think what I meant when I said that the if the Palestinians "could have already had a state, they would have done it" was that I think it's not possible for the Palestinians to establish any kind of credible unified organization, authority and leadership on the land that they currently live on. Part of the reason for this is the occupation, but even were it not so, I think that the physical separation of the West Bank and Gaza would make it unlikely or impossible. Perhaps we've always been thinking of this wrong, and perhaps we should also consider a three state solution (Israel, Gaza, West Bank) or a four, five or six state solution which might make it possible for those smaller units to create a viable government, but my tendency is to think toward unification rather than division.

Second, in terms of resources, I also agree that there is potential for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. However, I see a problem in the population densities of these areas (particularly Gaza). I'm not sure that there is enough physical space to create enough industry and jobs for the huge number of people living there (which in the coming years will equal the Jewish population of Israel). My answer to your question about what Israel has in terms of resources that Gaza and the West Bank don't is not any particular resources, but a greater "resource per capita."

Your third point is absolutely correct, but it addresses something that I didn't intend to state as one of my points. This is where I sometimes get confused between "state" and "nation." Judt makes his case for a "single, binational state." This is where he and I part ways because I think such a state would be a disaster. Who would control it? Certainly there would be much infighting and I think that the a single state formed this way would have at least the same chance of tearing itself apart as an isolated Israel or an isolated Palestine.

My error was in the use of the word "state" to describe what I want to see encompass Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I don't want to write about it too extensively now because I'll end up writing everything that's going to be in the next segment, but what I'm envisioning is two states or provinces of a single nation with a unified government above the states.