The one-state approach between idealism and realism

Foreign Affairs magazine published a study of four prominent political science professors, Michael Barnett, Nathan Brown, Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami. One state in Israel it is time to abandon the two state solution.

To begin with, and before analyzing the components of this article, its importance, repercussions, and approaches, it was written by four eminent professors of political science, and this gives their opinion and analysis great credibility. The second thing is that the article is directed at the American administration to abandon its rhetoric of a two-state solution, which has proven to be a failure and delusion and is directed at Israel and the Palestinians, the two main parties to the conflict.

The Palestinians may have more so as not to live in the illusion of the two-state solution and the illusion of American policy. The third matter raises the subject for discussion, although it is not the first time that the subject has been raised, as we will see in another article by Dr. Marwan Muasher in his article in the same magazine. This means why research and thinking organizations do not take the initiative to provide solutions and mechanisms to turn the issue into a peace initiative. This proposition is not as easy as it seems, but it may face challenges and obstacles, whether from the Israeli side, the Jewish national law, and adhering to the concept of Israel as a state for the Jewish people only. Even the Palestinian side still clings to the two-state solution, given that the state achieves the national and independent identity of the Palestinian people. Here are the most prominent facts and facts that confirm this approach: First, that the one state is established under Israeli rule on all Palestinian lands, even Gaza, and not, as the Israelis suggest, that it constitutes the nucleus of one state outside Israeli rule. The same applies to the Palestinian Authority. The truth is that Israel imposes a de facto state by force. Secondly, the population of the one de facto state, which is balanced in terms of population, is approximately 6-8 million for Jews and Palestinians between the river and the sea. And that the Palestinians are subject to an apartheid regime in the end that will impose one solution, and this policy contradicts what Israel says about its democracy and liberalism, and it is the basis of the West's support for it. The Jews enjoy full citizenship rights that are limited to them, while the Palestinians are subject to laws and policies based on discrimination and depriving them of their citizenship political rights. Third: Exhaustion of all chances of a settlement, failure of all negotiations, and failure to establish the Palestinian state, which was supposed to be established by the end of 1999. Fourth: Today, Israel is ruled by an extremist and extremist right-wing coalition based on rejecting the idea of ​​a Palestinian state, and calling for the forced emigration of Palestinians. Fifth: The occurrence of developments and changes in public opinion at the American and European levels, especially among the younger generations, towards the issue of rights, criticism of Israel's racism, the growing interest of Jewish youth in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and their growing fears of the repercussions of hostile policies. Sixth, the conflict turned into an issue related to American domestic politics and a state of partisan polarization. Seventh: It was impossible to integrate Israel into the Arab world without resolving the issue and reaching peace with the Palestinians. There is no independent Arab-Israeli peace without completing peace on the Palestinian side. In addition, Israel is viewed as the best investment, as President Biden said, with its $3 billion, and that this investment depends on Israel preserving democracy and liberal values. And that this investment is subject to a decline in the changes and transformations that occur in Israeli politics, the most prominent of which, as we see, is the so-called judicial reforms.

In conclusion, Israel today is not a democratic state, and Palestine is not a state in the making. It remains that this option, which Israel pushes with what it practices, imposes on the facts on the ground and depends on the Palestinian vision and the approach that is adopted. . This approach requires a peaceful and comprehensive Palestinian struggle that highlights the racist side that Israel practices against an entire people. Adhering to international legitimacy and activating the role of internal factors in Israel that reject extreme right-wing tendencies and make the Palestinian issue an issue of interest and internal elections in the United States and the West.

Here we recall the South African model and how Nelson Mandela succeeded in transforming the issue into one of rights and racial discrimination, and this contradicts the prevailing liberal values. Perhaps the most important obstacles and challenges in front of this Jewish national approach, whose features are highlighted by many laws and policies, most notably the Jewish national law, and this nationalism rejects any form of integration. The second obstacle is the Palestinians and adherence to the national identity, which expresses itself through the approach of the state. In light of these obstacles, the proposal becomes closer to idealism, and it does not appear on the horizon as the two-state solution. Hence the search for alternative solutions, most notably the rights approach, and the economic approach that is proposed as in President Trump's previous initiative. We are facing a complex model that exceeds the capabilities of its parties. Just as the issue arose with international action, it also needs action and a strong international will.