|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2009-10-13
© 2009 Peter Belmont
| |
Without outside coercion, there will never be a change from the status quo (Israel’s preferred One-State Solution, an Israel-dominated-and-controlled non-democratic apartheid-style dictatorship-state).
Assuming sufficient outside coercion, many possibilities exist.
The One State and Two States Solutions are familiar.
I propose a Three State Solution including a Jewish/Palestinian cooperative state. I do so for two reasons: [1] not everyone wants to live in a tribal enclave, and those who do not should have a choice to see if the non-tribal option can work and can become attractive enough to compete with the Jewish-tribal and Palestinian-tribal states; but [2] many people would really prefer the tribal (single-people) choices, and they too should have that choice.
|
|
There are only two widely supported formulations (or slogans) for “final status” (or “peace treaty terms”). I propose another which, in a way, combines the other two.
Those who are concerned with where the Israeli settlers would end up should read my Essay # 24. The settlers should be removed immediately and kept out of occupied territories for as long as they are occupied. That is that law and it is clearly necessary to ameliorate the human rights situation for the Palestinians living under occupation.
[1] One-State “Solution”.
The “status quo” is “de facto” a single state (even though, “de jure”, it is a state plus occupied territories). it is an Israel-dominated-and-controlled non-democratic apartheid-style dictatorship-state where Jews of European ancestry are 1st class citizens, (non-Jewish) Arabs are third-class citizens at best (and only inside pre-1967 Israel), Jewish Arabs (e.g., Jews from Yemen and Morocco) are 2nd class. The non-Jews in the occupied territories are prisoners without rights and Gaza has recently become like a death camp (an unpleasant progression from its previous long-time status as a mere “concentration camp”). Check it out.
Israel evidently prefers THIS ONE-STATE SOLUTION (the present apartheid-style one-state solution) to any alternative—and prefers it A LOT.
Some people propose a Democratic one-state solution. Israel would have to be forced to accept such a thing, wherein Jews would not be even a majority. Nothing new here—Israel will have to be forced to do ANYTHING to alter “status quo” which could be at all acceptable to the Palestinians.
[2] Two-State “Solution”.
People who seriously propose this mean a withdrawal by Israel to its pre-1967 territory (with at most minor and reciprocal territorial exchanges). This is what UNSC Res 242 meant, even despite the artfully omitted “the” in its characterization of the consequence of the UN principle of the non-acceptability of the acquisition of territory by threat or use of force, that is, when it said that Israel would have to return (only) “territories” captured in 1967 rather than “the territories” captured in 1967 . (In French, also an official language of the UN, the “the” is present.).
Israel will never accept a return to its territories of May 1967 unless forced to agree. Indeed, 500,000 Jews live in the settlements, and all of them live there illegally at international law (see 9 July 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion which declared the settlements illegal whilst dealing with its principal business—determining the legal consequences of Israel’s “separation wall” (“apartheid wall”) in the West Bank. (It found the wall illegal.)
[3] Three-State “Solution”.
So, neither the (democratic) One State nor the Two States solutions is going to happen unless and until the USA supplies Israel with a powerful reason to move away from status quo. That reason could be a carrot or stick. One rather imagines it will be a stick—if it eventuate at all—because USA policy since 1967 has been all carrots, and all to no avail (in the sense of making peace) assuming against much evidence that making peace was ever an effective goal of the US).
This being so, as an thought-experiment and to encourage discussion, I propose a Three-State “Solution”. The powers that bring this about would divide Israel/Palestine into three parts (details and maps TBD) initially divided with 45% of territory for a “Jewish” state; 45% for a “Palestinian” state; and 10% for a cooperative Palestinian-Jewish state. Every 10 years, for 50 years, a census would determine how many people wanted to live in each of these three states and the territorial size (and map) of the three states would be re-determined based on this census. The Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 could move into any state which would accept them, presumably the two “Palestinian” states. Jews could move into whichever state would accept them, presumably the two “Jewish” states.
People like me would hope that many “progressive” Jews and Palestinians would elect to live in the I/P statelet and that it would prosper (and in part for that reason) draw more people to it. One would imagine a New York City-like mixture of diverse peoples living well together, multi-ethnic, non-confessional governance.
Like the One and Two-State “Solutions”, the Three-State “Solution” would not have a chance unless Israel (and probably Palestine as well) were coerced.
No peace without coercion, and Obama not at all ready to coerce anyone. Sigh. Nobel, Nobel, you were soooooooo premature.
|
