Jewish Settlements and the One-State Solution

One-state solution

BETHLEHEM, PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES – MARCH 10 Copyright © Shutterstock; All Rights Reserved

The one-state solution is the only way forward for Palestinians and Israelis.

The metastasis of Jewish colonies in Palestine has reinforced the argument that there will never be a Palestinian state. Now, there are approximately 600,000 colonists in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the consequence of a sustained, persistent settlement growth policy. The illegal settlement growth rate stood at 130% in the nine months since John Kerry induced the Palestinians and Israelis into speaking to one another.

Ultimately, the settlement project has worked to consolidate Zionist gains made in 1948 — when Jewish militias ethnically cleansed Palestine to create Israel. The partition plan, or the “two state solution,” which is currently debated, was never just.

As a Palestinian, I believe any plan that seeks to sacrifice our inalienable human rights to ensure race-based majorities in Israel will fail. It is telling, however, that the many Israelis, including former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, appear to view a growing movement in the Holy Land for equal rights and enfranchisement as “the greatest threat to Israel’s future.”

In a sense they are right. To the extent that Israel must exist exclusively for the Jewish people, enfranchising roughly 4 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation today does pose a threat to the vision’s viability. But so do the approximately 20% of Israelis who are non-Jews — mostly Palestinian citizens of Israel — who are growing more rapidly as a population than Jewish Israelis. It is this anachronistic obsession with the racial makeup of the state that created the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place.

Putting aside the racial justification that underpins Israel’s existence for a moment, it is worth examining the reasons of why any two-state solution cannot work today.

First, Palestinians will not relinquish the right of return. Mahmoud Abbas, who cannot claim any electoral or moral legitimacy, is hardly in a position to negotiate the right away.

Second, there are approximately 600,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and no one is capable of removing them from their homes. One can talk about land swaps, but the reality is that the Israeli state has done a thorough job of colonizing large swaths of land around East Jerusalem and deep into the West Bank, effectively cutting it in two. Territorial contiguity is enormously important when engineering a state and it does not appear likely here.

Third, Mandate Palestine is relatively arid. Much of the water Israelis consume comes from the coastal and mountain aquifers, both of which lie under Palestinian land. International law and the prevailing sentiment of much of the world notwithstanding, Israel simply will not relinquish control of such strategic freshwater reserves.

The road to the one-state outcome is fraught with much difficulty. The struggle is likely to be as protracted as South Africas struggle.

Finally, there are Israeli “security” considerations. Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state with a conventional military. A state without a military option is not really a state at all, especially since Israel will likely continue to conduct raids into Palestinian territory.

The One-State Solution

Because the two-state solution is unworkable, both for practical and moral reasons, there is only one outcome that satisfies basic American liberal values of freedom of speech and equal rights. That is the one-state solution. In New York, one lives alongside people who hailed from places around the world, many of whom were American Jews and Israelis. However, the same is not true in Palestine. Reasonable people ask why Jews can live alongside Palestinians in America, but cannot fathom living alongside Palestinians in Israel.

The road to the one-state outcome is fraught with much difficulty. The struggle is likely to be as protracted as South Africa’s struggle, and contentious issues like national rights, official languages and a suitable flag will need to be hammered out.

However, many Palestinian and Jewish activists have already embarked upon this road. Many of these individuals have come to support the one-state solution after accepting that the two-state solution is never going to materialize. Considering the ongoing settlement expansion, Bantustans are all the international community can realistically offer the Palestinians — something few Palestinians will agree to.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

3 Replies to “Israeli Settlements: Violation of International Law or Rightful Return?”

  1. After some research, I think that building site is near Bet Sahour (see: http://electronicintifada.net/content/about-wall/5141). The location looks like Arab housing unit --- the flat roofs, no Sukkah terraces, no terraced floors, garage door entrances on ground floor.

  2. BTW, can you identify those empty apartment buildings by location since I think they are actually in the area administered by the Palestinian Authority?

  3. While the legal status of the Jewish residency communities in Judea and Samaria is quite complex and complicated, I think three items need be added to the material above:

    a. the original League of Nations decision on the matter, with no less authority than the United Nations, was based foremost on "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" (incidentally, the term "Arabs" never appears in the document) reads in Article 6 --- "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." In other words, settlement is an activity the Jews are supposed to enjoy by right and the territory of the Mandate in 1922 included Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" only came into the semantics of the dispute in 1950);

    b. what happened in 1950? the Hashemite Kingdomm of Jordan, having illegally occupied the area by launching a war og aggression in violation of the UN's recommendations and decisions, annexed it officially in April 1950, an act not recognized except by England. but then, no one was excited or actively campaigned against this "illegal occupation". i would think that hypocrisy counts for negative points for those who now are anti-Israel.

    c. since the local Arab population ever since 1920 had been engaged in ethnic cleansing of Jews from areas in that territory in which they lived for centuries, and currently demand that no Jews live in their area and have a law on their books (as does Jordan) that no Jew may own property in their territory, this people/regime has no moral authority to deny Jews our rights.

Leave a Reply