Sept, 2006
By Ronnie Kasrils, MP; Minister for Intelligence, Govt. of So. Africa
The already grave Israeli-Palestinian conflict has worsened immeasurably. Any faint hope for a resumption of the stalled negotiations, and therefore a chance for peace, appear to have been dashed owing to Israel's overwhelming and disproportionate military onslaught against both Gaza and Lebanon. As a consequence most observers have been writing the obituaries of the two-state option. Is there a way forward?
This has been discussed by Middle East specialists at a recent conference in Pretoria, jointly hosted by the Friederich Ebert Foundation and the Institute for Global Dialogue.
Dr As'ad Ghanem, a Palestinian academic from Haifa, argues for the bi-national model. Dr Virginia Tilley, well known in South Africa, argues for the single-state solution which she further holds already exists, given the hopeless dismemberment of the West Bank. Both agree this makes the two-state option meaningless.
The differences between the single state option is that a bi-national state enshrines rights and protection for the Jewish and Palestinian people as two distinct national groups. The one-state option provides all groups in society with equal rights in a common democracy.
Even without the Lebanon "turning point" - for nothing can be the same again - who could accept that the dismembered West Bank, ghettoized behind the monstrous "separation barrier" and squeezed within the settlement grid - could pass as a viable state.
The same logic that infuses the Zionist mindset informed the Apartheid doctrine which sought to avert the demographic threat posed by the black majority by consigning them to Bantustan citizenship!
After consistently rejecting the two-state option between 1948 and 1990, Israel began accepting the prospect - if it could control the process. This gave rise to the Oslo Accords; the difficult negotiations around West Bank contiguity and sovereignty; rejection and unilateral disengagement by the Sharon government. The Sharonist approach is a debate over Israel simply managing the status quo; or " transferring" Palestinians into Jordan (expulsion); or absorbing all land and people into a Greater Israel. However, there is a growing fear in Israel that a one-state alternative might come to pass if nothing is done. Given the demographics this would see Jews in a minority.
Ehud Olmert put it succinctly:
"More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated two-state solution because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation' in their parlance, to a struggle for 'one man one vote'. That is of course a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle and ultimately, a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."
Such a scenario would surely see the growth of a civil rights struggle of all those inhabiting Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Such a struggle for equal rights in a democratic unitary or bi-national state would conceivably see the breaking of the stale-mate.
Advocates of the single or bi-national state need to focus on how such a state would be structured, how it would govern, how it would meet its citizens needs, guarantee their rights, and allay their fears.
They should also examine the ideas of the previous advocates of the bi-national state: the communist parties and the anti-Zionist School of Martin Buber, Erich Fromm, Israel Shahak and Albert Einstein.
The Syrian President, Basheral-Assad, has stated that every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the previous one - a consequence of the brutal manifestations of a colonial settler project. A veteran Israeli peace activist, Uri Avnery, agrees with the Syrian President and says to fellow Israelis : "Is this the legacy we wish to leave for 50, for 500 years?"
Is the one-state thesis a mere academic exercise? History shows that ideas that break the mould start small - with a few advocates. If conditions allow and if the situation ripens, theory can seize the minds of many and inspire action. The idea becomes a concrete force when it is seized by the masses. Then the old system, outmoded and anachronistic, gets swept aside. We are talking about structures, not people.
In South Africa this came about through the protracted mass struggle of our people reinforced by arms and a powerful international solidarity movement using the weapons of boycott and sanctions. It climaxed in the liberation of blacks and whites.
Clearly, for the one-state thesis to succeed a monumental mind-shift affecting Israelis and Palestinians would be required.
Would the two-state option have a better chance? For all the obstacles, disappointments and setbacks it appears to be the more implementable. It would also break the impasse. But if it is not based on the 1967 Green Line, the 22% West Bank as contiguous territory, with genuine independence and sovereignty, it stands no chance. If it is based on such sovereignty, it becomes a viable option for the Palestinians and the international community of nations, including the Arab States, to buy-in to. This has been suggested in the Palestinian Prisoners' Manifesto of June 2006, and the Beirut Declaration of Arab States in 2002, which agreed to the recognition of Israel if such terms were met.
If it is impossible to jump to a unitary state, then the two-state solution may be the only option. It could form the basis, through mutual economic progress, to evolve by steps into a common state.
States change throughout history. The Zionist project displays all the signs of corruption and decay; a confused ruling political-military elite that has hopelessly lost its way; a state that manifestly fails to handle its inner contradictions. The first Intifada manifested remarkable popular creativity; developed as a mass struggle; generated a courageous peace movement, that began uniting Israelis and Palestinians.
Give such a movement a programme of action; clear objectives; international support and it will break the mould. South Africa has been there!
Uri Avnery has asked Israelis: "What is our historic objective in this confrontation? A fool will say: to rely on America and world Jewry. The greatest fools will add: There is no solution. This situation will last forever. There is nothing to be done but defend ourselves in war, after war, after war."
Avnery has consistently argued that Zionism has planted a foreign body in Palestine which promised, in the words of Theodore Herzl, to constitute for Europe in Palestine "a part of the wall against Asia, and serve as the vanguard of civilization against barbarism." Avery points out that without knowing "Olmert almost repeated the formula in his justification of his war [against Lebanon] …to please Bush."
"The wise," Avery says, "want to live here in 500 years" and he adds: "our most basic national interests demand that we extend our hands to the Arab nations and act together with them for the rehabilitation of the region." The one or the two-state option could well provide the historic breakthrough. One does not have to uphold Zionism or the state of Israel in its present form to support the existence of the Jewish people, their religion and culture. Democracy, rather than exclusivism, is the best antidote to anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia.
Ronnie Kasrils is Minister for Intelligence, and writes in his personal capacity.
Source: Ministry of Intelligence, Govt. of So. Africa