Mosaic Magazine

Response to: "Israel’s Big Mistake"March 2014

Two-State-Minus

The two-state solution won’t work, the one-state solution won’t work. Where does that leave us?

Two-State-Minus
  

I agree with Yoav Sorek that we should look forward to the day when there are no signs in the Land of Israel forbidding Jews to travel in parts of their historic homeland. But we should also look forward to there being no walls, fences, and roadblocks preventing and encumbering Palestinians from traveling in far more extensive parts of their historic homeland. However justified these may be at the present moment by considerations of security, they are surely more of an inconvenience and humiliation to Palestinians than the ban on travel in Area A is to Israeli Jews.

I point this out not because I wish to engage in the who’s right/who’s wrong debate that has characterized most discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and that characterizes much of Yoav Sorek’s essay. Although I’m an Israeli and happen to think, if not in terms as black-and-white as Sorek’s, that my side has been more right than wrong, that’s not something I expect to convince the other side of. I point it out because any discussion of the problem that does not take into account the legitimate needs of both sides will just keep going around in circles.

Sorek is one of a growing number of people in Israel and elsewhere to argue that the conventional two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be implemented because it does not satisfy these legitimate needs and it must therefore be abandoned in favor of its one-state alternative. With the first half of that proposition, I once again agree. Dividing the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan into an Israel and Palestine that will, like Israel and Egypt, live with little contact on either side of a sealed border requiring passports and visas to cross is not possible. Israelis and Palestinians are not separable like Israelis and Egyptians. They are irreversibly scrambled together, with over a million Palestinians now living in Israel and over a half-million Israeli Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Moreover, a majority of each people thinks it has a right—if not necessarily an exclusive one—to the entirety of this territory. No approach to the problem that fails to take these facts and feelings into account can work.

 

But the one-state advocates do not form a single group. Rather, they come from two diametrically opposed camps. One, on the international and Israeli far Left, calls for a de-Zionized bi-national state in which Jews and Arabs will be fully equal. The other, on the Israeli Right (international support for its position is non-existent), advocates a single Jewish state with a large Arab minority whose civil and human rights will be respected.

As a political concept, the bi-national Arab-Jewish state goes back to the 1930s. It was absurd then and it is even more absurd now. The idea of taking two bitterly warring peoples with different cultures, languages, religions, histories, and national aspirations and getting them amicably to share all of their institutions on an equal basis is either pitifully naïve or nastily Machiavellian. It is naïve in those who believe it can succeed. It is Machiavellian in those who know it cannot but support it because it will spell Israel’s doom. The naïve and the Machiavellian alike point to South Africa as a model, but conditions in South Africa in the early 1990s did not remotely resemble those prevailing between Israel and the Palestinians today.

Yoav Sorek belongs to the second camp, the advocates of a single, Jewish state west of the Jordan with a fairly accommodated Arab minority. Unfortunately, this, too, is a fantasy.

To begin with, who can believe that the world’s nations, including the United States, would agree to Israel’s annexing the West Bank in defiance of a long-standing international consensus in favor of an independent Palestinian state? As it is, Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria have drawn repeated international condemnation that has been slowly but steadily inching toward the imposition of economic and diplomatic sanctions. The annexation Sorek calls for would immediately bring on sanctions far more severe than any threatened to date. There is no way that Israel, a country totally dependent on international trade, could withstand them for more than a short time—which is to say that there is no way it can seriously contemplate annexation in the first place. Inasmuch as Yoav Sorek must be aware of this objection, the only explanation I can think of for his ignoring it in his essay is his knowing that it can’t be answered.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s imagine the unimaginable: Israel annexes the West Bank, the international community looks the other way, and annexation becomes a fait accompli. Now, all Israel has to do is figure out how it can politically absorb some two million hostile West Bank Arabs, thereby increasing its Arab minority from the roughly 20 percent that exists within its 1967 borders to over 40 percent.

Does it grant them full citizenship and voting rights, so that its Arab population is now in a position to elect 50 members to a 120-member Knesset? Does it deny them such rights and officially become the apartheid society that its enemies already accuse it of being? Does it resort to tricks and evasions, such as granting full rights on paper while making them conditional on Hebrew literacy tests, loyalty oaths, and bureaucratic review boards that will find reasons to turn down nine applicants out of ten? Does it make Palestinians the citizens of a West Bank Bantustan, empowered to elect their own school boards and dog catchers? Does it, without bothering to consult the Jordanians (who would of course refuse to cooperate), declare them citizens of Jordan?

“Obviously,” writes Sorek, “none of these options is simple or uncontroversial.” But not to worry. “At only a fraction of the effort invested in the ‘two-state solution’ over the last two decades, it would be possible to craft a model of governance that would benefit all parties.”

Since so little effort is required, one would have appreciated Sorek’s investing some and giving us the benefit of his conclusions. And yet what could these have been? There is no conceivable “model of governance” for an annexed West Bank that could avoid either, on the one hand, the full enfranchisement of its inhabitants with all the consequences for Israel that this would entail, or else, on the other hand, their permanent disenfranchisement in one form or another, with all its consequences. Although it’s by now a tired cliché to say that an Israel that absorbs the West Bank cannot continue to be both Jewish and democratic, this doesn’t make that statement any less true. (I won’t comment on the almost comical paternalism, let alone the practical unfeasibility, of Jewish planners creating a “biospheric sanctuary” in the West Bank for its Arab natives, who would no doubt be eternally grateful to be spared all the ills of modern economic development.)

 

The two-state solution won’t work, the one-state solution won’t work. Where, then, if not paralyzed by despair, does this leave us?

It leaves us, I believe, with what a smaller number of people than the one-staters have been advocating for years, namely, two states in one country—or, to put it more concretely, a Palestinian-Israeli federation in which two sovereign governments, each with its own institutions, one in the West Bank and one in pre-1967 Israel, collaborate in administering a territory that is the homeland of both Arabs and Jews. Each people would, subject to restrictions designed to safeguard the majority status of the other in its sovereign area, have the right to live and work in every part of this territory and to travel freely in all of it. Jews living in the Palestinian state would be free to choose Israeli or Palestinian citizenship (or perhaps both); Arabs now living in the Jewish state would have the same right.

One might call this the “two-state-minus” solution—one in many ways similar, in a bilateral form, to the multilateral structure of the European Union. Although France and Germany are still sovereign nations, their sovereignty is now constrained in various ways by the mutual obligations and commitments conferred on them by their EU status. One can imagine a similar arrangement between Israel and a Palestinian state. Benjamin Netanyahu was imagining it last month when he suggested, as Sorek mentions, the possibility of Israeli settlers living in such a Palestinian state—and then, with a characteristic lack of political courage, declined to stand behind what he had said. No matter. He said it, and in doing so he was the first Israeli leader to put on the table—on a little corner of the table, it must be said—an idea whose time, I believe, will come.

Wouldn’t such an arrangement involve enormous problems, too? Of course it would. Unlike Yoav Sorek, I do not think that only a little effort is called for in conceptually squaring the circle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I do think, though, that there are better ways of doing it than the one he sketches in his essay.

______________________

Hillel Halkin’s books include Yehuda HaleviAcross the Sabbath RiverA Strange DeathMelisande: What are Dreams? (a novel), and a forthcoming biography of Vladimir Jabotinsky (Yale).  He has translated Yiddish and Hebrew works by Sholem Aleichem, Mendele Mokher Seforim, Moyshe Kulbak, S.Y. Agnon, Shmuel Hanagid, Y.H. Brenner, and many more. His essays and columns have appeared in Commentary, the New Republic, the Forward, the Jewish Review of Books, and elsewhere.

Comments

  • Norman Berdichevsky

    Hillel Halkin’s proposal is the most realistic and feasible. Like all other proposals starting with partition it is something that would ultimately appeal to most Jews and once again be rejected by most Arabs who continue to have the disastrous leadership that preaches all or nothing.

  • Ethan Cohen

    One of the most problematic aspects of the one state solution is actually made worse by this solution: Who has control of immigration law? Will Israel be able to maintain its law of return without Palestine adopting a similar law? If not, which will be compromised, the Zionist idea or secure borders?

  • judith76

    Mr. Halkin, what about security?

  • Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman

    I don’t know where we who support Israel derive the notion that is upon us and upon us solely to solve the Israeli-Palestinian matzav. Hillel Halkin’s proposed “two-state-minus” raises some very serious security issues with which the French and Germans, whom he uses as examples, don’t have to contend. The French aren’t encouraging the teaching the hatred of Germans in their schools. The Germans, in turn, aren’t seeking to regain power over a France they once ruled.
    I offer my own hackneyed cliche when I assert that Israel cannot impose a one-sided solution. They tried that with Gaza. All good intentions aside, no one can afford to repeat this with the West Bank. It will take both parties to bring about anything that might be workable, Playing one sided chess, spinning out scenarios, may be an enjoyable and stimulating exercise, but thinking that this constitutes a legitimate game is both delusional and dangerous.
    Meanwhile we await a demonstrated desire for peace that matches our own coming from the Palestinians. To date, what we see would dismantle Israel. How does one move forward this way? The best we can do at the moment is to maintain the status quo and wait for the Palestinian perspective to mature to the point that there can be a mutuality in moving forward.

  • Beatrix17

    Arabs were strangers in the territory of Palestine, formerly Israel, and both Jews and Muslims lived under the Roman, Ottoman, and European Empires. The Jews got free, and got their own nation back. The Palestinians and the West were gulled by Arafat and Abbas, two propagandist con artists and the still youthful Palestinians have gotten nothing,

    Do you think this is the best that the Palestinians can do? Do you think there are no bright, ambitious, young Palestinian leaders, dying to lead their country and countrymen to a country of their own? Do you think the goal of bright, young Palestinians is to live under the Jews or to have well meaning Jews planning their future for them?

    Have you never read Ali Salim, Daoud Assaf, Raymond Ibrahim and many? Are you unaware of the young voices in the Mideast that are far more worth listening to than some of our own American leaders?

  • Cockeyed Optimist

    How about a solution that acknowledges both Arab and Jewish claim to all the land? Allow “mutual right of return”, letting anyone Palestinian or Israeli to live wherever they please, so long as all Israelis maintain Israeli citizenship and all Palestinians retain Palestinian citizenship. That eliminates the immediate demographic problem. Also both parliaments should reside in a united Jerusalem and have as much interaction as is politically possible. with the long term objective of having a two state confederation, a model for the entire Middle East.

    • Jonathan H. Gerard

      I think one problem is that a democratic Palestine would destabilize Jordan, the real and original Palestinian state. Why would “Palestinians” in Jordan continue to live under a monarchy when their cousins across the river live more democratically? The logical confederation would be between Palestine and Jordan but that would mean a major restructuring of the Jordanian government–unlikely without violence.

  • graylens

    If there were a reason to believe that the Arab “street” was ready to accept the presence of Jews then this would be a possibility But there is no viable sign of a moderate sector in the Arab world ready to accept Jews as equals living in the area… It’s a non-starter.

  • Jonathan H. Gerard

    Steve, this is totally unfair. Mr. Halkin is observing, correctly, that, until the Palestinians come to accept the reality of Israel, the current situation can go on for a very long time. I don’t like that idea–but it certainly is a reasonable option. There have been fewer attacks and fewer deaths and less terrorism and more security lately than in the past. I’m told that Israel has such good intelligence in the West Bank that a guard at a check point will get a phone call, “Beware a blue van that will arrive in around an hour…” It seems to me that you have read your cynicism into Mr. Halkin’s realism.

Hadari Eikhah

Tisha b'Av

Jerusalem Is Not Destroyed
On the Book of Lamentations.
by Atar Hadari

KRAMER MORRIS

My Promised Land

The Meaning of "Massacre"
The debate between Benny Morris and Martin Kramer over Israel's wartime conduct enters its second round.
By Benny Morris and Martin Kramer

Fiddler

Tevye Betrayed

What’s Wrong with Fiddler on the Roof
Fifty years on, no work by or about Jews has won American hearts so thoroughly. So what's my problem?
By Ruth R. Wisse

Posen

The Death of Jewish Culture

The Death of Jewish Culture Revisited
An exchange between the foremost philanthropic supporter of secular Jewish culture and the analyst of its decline.
By Felix Posen and James Loeffler

Horn Surnames

What's In A Name

Jewish Surnames [Supposedly] Explained
“Dara, you’ll love this!” Actually, I don’t.
by Dara Horn

Golinkin

Conservative and Orthodox

The Crisis in Jewish Law Today
Orthodox rabbis need to stop worrying about 200-year-old battles with “Reformers” and allow Jewish law to develop organically, as it did in the past.
By David Golinkin

Facebook Like Box

Gurfinkiel

The Situation in Europe

You Only Live Twice
Vibrant Jewish communities were reborn in Europe after the Holocaust. Is there a future for them in the 21st century?
by Michel Gurfinkiel

Degenerate Art

The Art World

Degenerate Art and the Jewish Grandmother
The story of the family behind the Nazi-era art trove.
By Walter Laqueur

Wertheimer

The September Essay

Intermarriage: Can Anything Be Done?
A half-century after the rate of intermarriage in the US began to skyrocket, the Jewish community appears to have resigned itself to the inevitable. But to declare defeat is preposterous.
by Jack Wertheimer

Aharon L

The Rabbinic World

Who Is Aharon Lichtenstein?
Introducing the extraordinary rabbi who next week will receive Israel’s highest honor.
By Elli Fischer

Rubinstein

Yom Hashoah

Making Amends
A mysterious request leads the Canadian-born son of a Holocaust survivor back to the old country.
by Robert Eli Rubinstein

Benjamin

The Intellectual Scene

The Walter Benjamin Brigade
How an original but maddeningly opaque German Jewish intellectual became a thriving academic industry.
by Walter Laqueur

Nicholson Essay

The October Essay

Evangelicals and Israel
What do evangelicals really think about the Jewish people, what are the roots of their Christian Zionism—and what is now driving a growing number away from wholehearted support of Israel.
by Robert W. Nicholson