Solving the problem of Israel/Palestine isn’t rocket science: thesolution is obvious.

We just have to get serious about it.

A brief history

  Due to recent events, things are coming to a head in the Middle East. As Israel becomes more belligerent andaggressive, more committed than ever to using overwhelming force as its only answerto a rapidly deteriorating situation, feeling itself even further victimizedand becoming ever more paranoid, two issues come to the fore: the question oflegitimacy and the question of long-term viability. More and more people, evenwithin Israelitself, are becoming aware that what we are looking at is a severe societal caseof paranoid schizophrenia, a split personality featuring the Jewish Uebermensch and the poor innocent yiddische victim, in light ofwhich the search for a solution becomes even more pressing. 

It is becoming clear even to very slow learners that aEuropean settler-colonialist society based on ethnocentric identity,established in the middle of the 20^th Century no less, in the midst of peoplewith whom they have little or nothing in common, aggressively alienating theirnew neighbors through the establishment of an Apartheid state based on blatantracism, and carving out ever more territory for itself through ethnic cleansingand remorseless genocide, never really had much of a future.

The only reason that this bizarre "State" has lasted solong, six decades and counting, has been the financial, military and politicalsupport that Israelhas been receiving from the West. This support, in turn, has been the result ofintense pressure brought to bear by a relatively small number of wealthy andpowerful Zionist Jews, the Israel Lobby, particularly in the English speakingdemocracies. This support seems to be on the verge of weakening, while thepolitical elites are finally beginning to comprehend the insupportable costs totheir countries, in lives, wealth, international support and moral standing, ofsuccumbing to such blackmail.

Equally relentless have been a small but determined numberof liberal Jews who have fought Zionism from day one, and whose numbers are nowincreasing exponentially. These people have come to realize not only the moralhypocrisy and irrationality of supporting liberal, humanitarian and universalistcauses everywhere except Israel,but the age old danger to themselves of antagonizing their host populations andultimately incurring their inevitable wrath.One would think that we Jews, supposedly so smart, would learn from history, not mindlessly repeat it.

So is there a way out of this increasingly intolerable anddangerous situation? Of course there is; it’s been there from the beginning,and in fact it was the mainstream Zionist policy for nearly eighty years priorto the rise of Nazi Germany. Various configurations were envisioned, but whatit boiled down to was sharing the land with its existing inhabitants, thePalestinians, on the basis of justice and equality. These were the conditions,in fact, articulated in the United Nations resolution in favor of the establishmentof a Jewish state, which, like all subsequent UN resolutions, Israel hastreated with the utmost contempt.

That brings us up to 1948. A great deal has happened since then, but I mustreduce it to a few sentences. The inexorable logic of political Zionism, drivenby fear of the "demographic problem," requires the maintenance of apredominantly Jewish population - the traditional ratio being no less than80:20. As the current Palestinian population within the ever shiftingboundaries of “Israel” is about 20% and growing faster than the Jewishpopulation, the politically convenient notion of the Jewish State being a"democracy" is threatened by the greater fertility of its(second-class, feared, hated and barely tolerated) non-Jewish citizens. In addition,since 1967, Israel hasoccupied the West Bank and Gaza,areas previously in a political limbo, but now representing an"existential" threat within the borders of what the politicalZionists have always claimed as "Greater Israel." (See TheZionist Plan for the Middle East) Even not counting the Palestiniandiaspora, those within Israeltogether with the populations of the Occupied Territories would soonconstitute a majority.

Although Israel forciblyevacuated its settlers from Gaza,hoping thereby to consign the inmates of what then became an open airconcentration camp to oblivion or, they hoped, rule by the Egyptiandictatorship (who declined the offer), the residents, mostly refugees since the Nakba, refused to accept their fate.In response, the government has chosen to lay a medieval siege to the area, employingthe ancient strategy of literally starving the besieged into submission.

This situation arose because the Israeli intelligenceservices, comparable in power and ruthlessness to the Soviet KGB, hadinstigated the creation of an Islamic fundamentalist party called Hamas tocounter the previously dominant Fatah party of Yasir Arafat. When Hamas surprisinglywon the elections sponsored by Israeland its patron, the U.S.,and was able to consolidate its power in Gaza ifnot in the West Bank, Israelpromptly instituted a siege of Gaza,hoping thereby to undermine Hamas. It wasn’t a very bright idea and has lead tobarely imaginable terror and further suffering of people most of whom werealready refugees from the Nakba.

There is a third segment of the Palestinian population, the Diaspora, the mostnumerous of the three groups, living in refugee camps in Lebanon, in Syria, aswell as constituting nearly half the population of Jordan, and spread outacross the globe, with many of them in the U.S. and the U.K. They havesteadfastly refused to give up their right of return, a right that is not basedon an ancient story, like the one that forms the core of the Jewish narrative,but is clearly historical, quite recent, and deeply enshrined in internationallaw.

This is the real "existential threat" to Israel, not the seemingly endless and arbitraryseries of enemy nations "out to get them," the latest target being Iran. The realexistential threat to us, the rest of the world, is the Israeli proclivity toact on its paranoia regardless of consequences, to rely on its overwhelmingmilitary superiority (built from the largesse of U.S. taxpayers) to its perceivedenemies.

Israel is a nuclear power(again, thanks to its fifth column within the U.S.) and there is no reason tobelieve that if they imagine themselves sufficiently threatened they won't usethose nukes. The bottom line, the reason that the story herein described is sovital to understand, is the likelihood that Israel, if allowed to continue onits path unchecked, will inevitably provoke a nuclear war, a catastrophe thatlife on this planet might very well not survive.

The Solution
  There are various proposals forresolving this state of affairs, but they really boil down to two: the onestate solution vs. the two state solution. The latter has been endorsed by mostof the world's elites, including significant minorities within theIsraeli government and civil society; in the West, led by the U.S.; most ofthe Arab countries and the PLO since Yasir Arafat himself endorsed the idea.Well, that pretty much settles it, one might say, at least if you don't looktoo closely. The two state solution proposes that an independent Palestinianstate be created in the West Bank and Gazawithin the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war. Such a state would haveterritorial integrity, a protected land corridor between the two sections, therights and privileges of any member of the United Nations, provide a home forall Palestinian refugees and have its capitol in East Jerusalem. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Actually no - it's pure fantasy. For one thing, it would mean defeat not onlyfor the basic Zionist project of building EretzYisroel (Greater Israel), to which the Israeli government is more and morecommitted, but it runs directly counter to the dynamic that drives theJewish state, as in all forms of ethnocentric or nationalist fascism. As Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt succinctlyput it on May 23rd, "Israelcan't survive without expansion and war." Assuming for the sake ofargument that we’re talking about a truly viable, sovereign Palestinian nation,consider Israel’sdread of a contiguous state populated by its recent victims – well, I needn’tbelabor the point.

And just exactly how is the Israeli government going to pull off the forced evacuationof half a million of its citizens? They were faced with a violent struggle toremove the 8,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza.And those settlers have now become nearly dominant in the government and themilitary, so exactly who is going to do this? What the Israelis mean when they talk about the two state solution is the legitimization of the Matrix of Control that they have designed and mostly already constructed. It consists of about a dozen isolated bantustans, surrounded by barbed wire, checkpoints and guards. These "self-governing" labor camps would not only supply very cheap labor for the Israeli economy, but would have to support their entire infrastructure and administrative budget from such meager revenues through internal taxation. Collectively they would have the status of being a "Palestinian State." What a deal!

It would also erase the bottom line of the Palestinianstruggle, which is the Right of Return to the land from which they were and arebeing expelled. Neither side, when push came to shove, could or would acceptsuch an arrangement. Any Israeli government that seriously endorsed the ideawould immediately fall, as would the collaborationist Palestine Authority inRamallah if the prospect became imminent. An even more convincing reason,though, is that it could not even remotely be called a "solution"- quite the contrary. Such a configuration could theoretically be imposed byforce by the U.S.,acting in concert with its allies and the U.N., but it would be like placing amassive nuclear bomb between the river and the sea, just waiting for the sparkthat would give it critical mass.

There are clear and obvious reasons why the various elites are promoting theidea of the two state solution. For Israel, the "peaceprocess" provides public relations cover for its ongoing ethnic cleansingof the Palestinians. It should also be clear to people who understand thedynamics of the Jewish state that one thing can't be allowed to happen - asuccessful conclusion, peace. Peace is anathema. The primary reason for this isembedded in the nature of Zionism itself. One has to understand thatfear, ancient and deep-seated paranoia, is at the heart of  Zionism. 

"For three years I have beenimploring you, Jews of Poland, the crown of world Jewry, appealing to you,warning you unceasingly that the catastrophe is nigh. My hair has turned whiteand I have grown old over these years, for my heart is bleeding that you, dearbrothers and sisters, do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spewforth its fires of destruction. I see a horrible vision. Time is growing shortfor you to be spared. I know you cannot see it, for you are troubled andconfused by everyday concerns... Listen to my words at this... for time isrunning short."

 - VladimirJabotinsky to the Jews of Warsawon Tisha b'Av 1938

Moreover, Zionism is a textbook example of ethnocentricfascism, almost identicalto Nazism, merely having a different tribal identity. A salientcharacteristic of such ideologies, as Jumblatt pointed out, is that they haveno brakes - if they stop picking fights with their neighbors, if they stoptrying to expand further and further, they lose their cohesion, their raisond'etre, and die.

This is particularly true in the case of Israel for a number of reasons. Oneof the main ones is that the Jewish population of Israel is a hodgepodge of differentpeoples, a true melting pot of cultures that have little in common with oneanother except for the notion that they are "Jewish." But, as Sandhas convincingly demonstrated, there is no such thing as “the Jewish people,”any more than there was such a thing as the “Aryan race.”  It's just a story, the kind one would tell tochildren, which was then massaged into powerful propaganda. Without the glue of anexternal enemy and serial wars, Israelwould implode. Its people, by and large, distrust and even detest one another.As long as their fear and hatred can be directed at the "other," theexternal enemy, then the house of cards can maintain itself.

Until recently, Israel resembled India, a caste system with the Brahmins (theAshkenazim) on top and those from the third world at the bottom, with theSephardim somewhere in between, and the Ethiopians and other exotic “Jews”being the Untouchables. However, several new wrinkles have emerged in recentyears, particularly with the massive intake of Russian opportunists (many ofwhom are about as "Jewish" as Mao Tse-Tung), and more ominously, therise of a virulently fascist religious element. And lastly, the Gush Emunim, the settler movement, agroup of way over the top fanatics who largely overlap with the religiouszealots. They are becoming increasingly powerful and are challenging the oldAshkenazi elite in both the political establishment and the military. Thesefactors create an opportunity for reaching out to the small but stillpotent segment of Israeli society that retains some vestiges of sanity with theidea of one democratic state.

The motivation of the Vichygovernment in Ramallah is clear enough. This is the small Fatah elite that inheritedthe Palestine Authority from Yasir Arafat. It is widely recognized as corruptand wholly self-interested. A Palestinian state would solidify its grip onpower and the spoils that would go with it. In any case, they take their orders from Israel and the US.

One State, ThreeVariations on a Theme
  The current situation is already asingle state, consisting of Israeland the OPT. Israel has de facto control of the entire country, although Gaza is in a state ofresistance, its people desperately trying to survive. Israel controlsthe all the borders, the transportation infrastructure, the electricity supply,the water supply and has an overwhelming monopoly on military force, in facteverything but the air that people breathe. But those pesky Palestinians refuseto give up and die, which must be extremely irritating to the leadership in TelAviv. The strategy is, and always has been, to rid the land of non-Jews, usingwhatever means are available, but limited by the constraint that Israelvitally needs the support of the West, at the very least American support. Thepossibility of losing this support - without which Israel would be in the sameposition as the apartheid state of So. Africawhen they could no longer ignore the writing on the wall - is the only thingthat has so far prevented the total expulsion or extermination of thePalestinians within the country.

This view, the goal of which is the establishment of Eretz Yisroel, is the Zionist version of a single state. There usedto be a largish contingent who imagined that the borders of this state would bethe Tigris/Euphrates to the east and the Nile to the west, but there is now aconsensus that would be satisfied with the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

There are two other possible versions of a single state, at least in theory.The first is a mirror image of the Zionist one, as articulated by a fewPalestinians and their more strident supporters. This vision entails, atleast metaphorically, driving the Jews into the sea. For an eloquent andpassionate expression of this vision, read 'Astrategy of liberation requires emancipation', by Nahida Izzat, someone Iadmire and respect. It is, at bottom, a simple but unconditional demandfor justice. In her view the only solution that would satisfy this condition wouldbe to return the land to its rightful owners - end of story. She leaves upin the air the question of what would happen to the current Jewish population -that is not her concern. This  view, which really entails returning to the status quo ante of more than 60 years ago is difficultto fault. However, it ain't gonna happen. As Thomas Wolfe put it, "youcan't go home again." The fact is that most of the now resident JewishIsraelis were born there. However, as an initial negotiating demand, theversion of a single state articulated by Nahida has more validity than theZionist one, at the very least.

The government of Israel,The Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab dictatorships and the US Empire andits vassal states are all primarily concerned with short term political andeconomic advantage rather than an actual solution to the problem.  Notonly that, but the Western democracies are hamstrung by the nearly absolutepower wielded in those countries by the Israel Lobby, a situation that, inthe U.S., reaches back at least as far as the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson.Those who have an actual stake in solving the conflict, and thereby achievingthe universal goals of human rights, peace and justice, are ordinary Israelis,Jews everywhere, the Palestinians and the population of the West, not to mentionthe Umma, the Islamic world – actually, all of us.

All of which brings us to the third alternative, the only one that is not onlyactually possible in the long term, but is the only proposal that actuallysolves the problem - the replacement of the existing political configuration bya single democratic, pluralistic state. What is seldom mentioned in discussingthis possibility is that it would be, to use a kitsch expression, a win-win foreverybody, even the extremists on both sides. Let's see how it would affect thevarious protagonists, which actually includes all of us, since whether we likeit or not we are all connected. I don't think it's necessary to go into anydetail about the basic idea - it is simple, obvious and is already accepted bymost of the world as the gold standard for modern nation-states.

Indeed, it is the entire world that is at risk. Consideringthe high probability of Israelsetting off a nuclear war if it feels irremediably backed into a corner, it isin everyone's most fundamental interest to bring about a peaceful resolution,which can only be achieved through the establishment of one democratic state.

HowIsraelis would benefit
  One of the most often heard objections to the One State Solution (OSS)is that the Israelis would never accept it. This argument is false onseveral counts. For one thing, never say never. The Nationalists of apartheid South Africaloudly proclaimed "over my dead body," as did the ProtestantUnionists of Ulster. There are many examples. In the heat of battle, the enemyis always seen as barbaric, the embodiment of evil, people with whom one couldnever be reconciled. But what actually happens after an armed conflict has beenconcluded? The hated "Huns," the dreaded "Boches," becomeone's friends and allies. The "Yellow Peril," the "Japs"and so forth, not to mention the dreaded Russians, become one's principaltrading partners and fellow upholders of the peace.

No matter how deeply embedded the Israeli dread of annihilationat the hands of their victims may seem, such attitudes, like all politicalattitudes, are only skin deep and as temporary as the fevers of love and hate.As Gideon Levy put it last year in one his pieces for Haaretz, "the onlyrecognition that is needed now is Israel's recognition of thePalestinians as human beings. If this is obtained, all the rest will berelatively easy."

We should also recall that Zionism, prior to the ascendance of Jabotinskianfanaticism and terrorism in Palestineabout 80 years ago, envisioned a cooperative, binational state. It was not thatlong ago. The ridiculous notion that "they've always hated and fought oneanother," another objection that one often hears, is just one of many facileinventions of Zionist propaganda. Barring relatively brief eruptions of tribaland religious strife, like the Crusades, the siblings of the Abrahamictradition (outside of Europe at least) havegotten along rather swimmingly for the last 1,500 years, i.e., since the birthof Islam, which has traditionally respected and been hospitable to both Christians and Jews.

The Zionists wanted to have a place where Jews would be safefrom their implacable enemies, a place where they could be just ordinarypeople, going about their business - a place where Jews would no longer beexposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Unwilling or unable torecognize that the Western democracies already offered such a haven, theysettled on Palestine as the location of the putative Jewish state (a number ofother places were considered), they convinced themselves that they couldunobtrusively insinuate themselves among the natives, who wouldn't really mind.After all, the Zionists were enlightened Europeans and the natives werebenighted, albeit inoffensive, orientals. No doubt they would feel honored andgrateful. Land would be purchased, deals would be made, and knowledge andwisdom would be transferred. Bear in mind that all this was promulgated at theheight of European colonialism and the idea of the White Man’s Burden.

Well, what can one say? Good luck, sir, as my teacher putit. We Jews have a reputation for being "smart" people, but adumber idea has never been formulated. It arose out of a sense of utterdesperation and the delusion that Jews would be safe only if they had a State of their own, a sort of super ghetto. So we set about constructing the Golem, but in our usual RubeGoldberg fashion. Even so, the Golem was fed and cared for, and as predicted,it became a monster.

What is it that most Israelis actually want? Notsurprisingly, we find that they want what people everywhere want, security andstability, peace, to be respected if not loved, to be free of constant fear andanxiety, to have the sense that their children will have the opportunity tolive normal, productive and happy lives. All surveys have been consistentin this respect. None of these things are possible as long as the Israelisstick with political Zionism, and the Israelis, deep down, know this. They maybe temporarily deluded, even collectively insane, driven by the howling windsof paranoia, arrogance and bloody minded defiance that always accompanyfull-blown fascism, but they aren't actually stupid, and the madness cannotlast.

So let's consider what would likely happen if wiser headsprevailed and the Israelis were to agree to share the land, no matter howreluctantly, with the Palestinians in a genuine, rather than faux, democracy. Jerusalem would becomethe capitol. Jews, like anyone else, could live wherever they liked in thewhole country. Given that they would initially be in the numericalmajority, they could insist on whatever safeguards they thought necessary toprotect their interests, a negotiating position that the Palestinians wouldhave to give due consideration to. They would most likely have to accept thenecessity of a truth and reconciliation commission, but that's a far cry betterthan the possible consequences of a solution imposed by a world no longerwilling to tolerate a totally out of control rogue state - orthe final war, the one that the Jews lose, quite possibly on terms of unconditionalsurrender, quite possibly after blowing up half the world. Fortunately for theIsraelis, the Palestinians have proven themselves to be an extremely decent,tolerant and amazingly patient people. In general, they show remarkably littleanimosity towards Jewish people, and the remaining hotheads, on both sides,could be dealt with.

Realistically, the Jews, after eventually becoming aminority of the population, but a very substantial minority, would largelyretain economic control, as well as dominance in many other ways. South Africastands as just such an example of "the more things change, the morethey remain the same." And a Jewish culture, with its multifariousinstitutions, customs and traditions would coexist with its Palestiniancounterpart, enriching both but threatening neither.

It should be noted that among all the Islamic peoples thePalestinians are the most secular and the most highly educated. Together, thesynergy of the two would almost certainly result in a dynamic society thatwould instantly become the flagship of the Middle East,in which Jews could play a respected and admired part instead of being universallyreviled and hated. Sound too good to be true? Not really - it's a reasonableprojection of what would likely happen if just a little sanity were to prevail.

HowPalestinians would benefit

  In a survey taken acouple of years ago 72% said they would accept a two state solution. Respondingto a different question, 72% said they would accept a one state solution. Ina word, the Palestinians would just like the nightmare to stop - they want asolution and they're not picky about what form it takes. However, as we havepointed out, a two state solution is anything but a solution - it would be arecipe for an even greater disaster. Not that the Israelis, while under thesway of political Zionist leadership, would ever actually consider aviable, sovereign Palestinian state. So it's not something that we even have toseriously consider, unless the USled West, in its predictably imperious, blundering, short-sighted manner,were to try to impose such a thing. 

As for specifics, Jerusalemwould be the capitol. The right of return of the Palestinian diaspora,enshrined in international law, would be acknowledged and the negotiatingparties would have to work out the details. Needless to say, the obscene wall would come down. The West and the Arab countrieswould have to pony up a lot of money to deal with the costs ofrepatriation, compensation on both sides and reparations, but in the long runit would be far cheaper than any conceivable alternative. Again, the detailswould have to be worked out between the two parties directly concerned, inconsultation with all other interested parties.

Presented with such a possibility I think we can say withsome certainty that the vast majority of Palestinians would be in favor of sucharrangements. After all, like the Israelis, they aren't stupid. So the othermajor objection one hears far too often - that the Palestinians have todecide among themselves what they want and then we will support that - can bedismissed as the nonsense it is. The Palestinians, with the boot firmly plantedin their necks, are in no position to decide much of anything. And justhow would they get together to come up with some expression of their collectivedesires? In Gaza they are cut off, unable to come and go; in the West Bank theyare under an oppressive regime consisting of self-interested Quislings underthe military command of an American General, and otherwise they are scatteredaround the world, many in refugee camps, in no position to even begin toformulate their collective will, if there is such a thing.

How the rest of the world would benefit

  This should be tooobvious to even mention, but a couple of things need to be said. With theJewish state dissolved and the problem solved, Zionism, a combination ofethnocentric, religious and nationalist fascism dedicated to thecontinued existence of Israel, would no longer have a raison d’être andwould consequently die a quiet, unlamented demise, to the greatrelief of billions of people. In one stroke, its iron grip on the politicallife of the West would relax and perhaps the ideals and hopes that gaverise to the great democracies could somehow be salvaged. The U.S., foremostamong these, might once again be viewed with respect instead of with a mixtureof fear and contempt. Perhaps we could begin to deal with the real problemsthat face humanity, without being distracted by the wars, hypocrisy, treason,crimes, terrorism, distortions, double standards, lies, confusion andscheming that Zionism has until now plagued us with.

If one agrees that One Democratic State is the onlyconceivable solution, then, you, dear reader, must act. As is frequently said,silence is complicity. And as mentioned earlier, we cannot look to the powersthat be to accomplish this. They mostly have other agendas, utterly inimical toworking for the actual benefit of their constituencies, let alone humanityas a whole. That leaves us, ordinary people, to bring this about. We will haveto work within our communities, our towns, cities and states, our owncountries. Most people, in the West particularly, have been subjected toincessant propaganda that has left them confused and almost totally ignorant.If you talk to people and just point out a few simple facts you'd be surprisedhow people will respond. It starts with "Oh, I didn't know that. Keeptalking." One by one people will become more aware and start pitching in,like a snowball rolling downhill.

If you're interested, please get in touch with me (we’re justcollecting email addresses at this point) - some of us have developed aworkable strategy for moving forward, but we need a bunch of people to helpout. We envision a three-pronged campaign, in Israel itself, within thePalestinian communities and, most vitally, among the population in the West. Itwas worldwide moral outrage that undid South African apartheid, along with theresistance of the oppressed, working together with their white South African allies,and, eventually, the recognition by key members of the ruling elite that thejig was up. This will be more difficult, because the power elites in the Westweren’t part of the problem then as they are now. The craven, hypocriticalpoliticians have been bought and are terrified of the Israel Lobby. TheZionists own the mainstream media and are in firm control of the Universities. Thiswill be more of a challenge than Apartheid in So. Africa or overcoming Jim Crow and segregation in the US was, but we the people can do it, and it has to bedone.

It's high time that One Stateadvocacy went from being a few voices crying in the wilderness to a worldwidemovement that will solve the central international political crisis of ourtime and, potentially, transform our world.

Roger Tucker

One DemocraticState

Many articles andessays advocating One State can be found here.

Source