After the Trump “Peace Plan”: One-State Solution is the Only Way Forward

A Palestinian boy attends a protest against US President Trump's so-called Deal of the Century aimed at solving the conflict between Palestinians and Israel, Gaza Strip, February 2020. © EPA-EFE/MOHAMMED SABER A Palestinian boy attends a protest against US President Trump's so-called Deal of the Century aimed at solving the conflict between Palestinians and Israel, Gaza Strip, February 2020. © EPA-EFE/MOHAMMED SABER

After the Trump “Peace Plan”: One-State Solution is the Only Way Forward

By : Diana Buttu

[Read Mouin Rabbani's response contesting the viability of the one-state solution here.]

Last month, a Palestinian think tank, the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, revealed its survey results following the release of the Trump/Netanyahu plan. In announcing the results, Dr Khalil Shikaki, the head of the polling centre, noted that ninety-four percent of Palestinian respondents opposed the plan: “I do not think we have ever seen such a level of consensus among the Palestinian public,” he said. These results are unsurprising, of course, as the Trump/Netanyahu plan effectively seeks Palestinian approval for Israeli land theft, ethnic cleansing, and continued subjugation.

But alongside the results of the question pertaining to the Trump/Netanyahu plan was a more important question: “Do you support the two-state solution?” A mere thirty-nine percent of surveyed respondents answered affirmatively, while thirty-seven percent indicated that they support a one-state solution. These results should be placed in their proper light: for more than two decades, as the Palestinian leadership and the international community have repeatedly called for the implementation of the two-state solution, increasing numbers of Palestinians have moved away from this view and increasingly supported one state, even though there is not a single Palestinian party–whether inside 1948 borders or in the occupied territories–advocating for it. In fact, Palestinian leaders and the international community both espouse the common view of decrying the concept of one state and adamantly holding that “there is no plan B.”

The reason for this steadily increasing Palestinian support for one state has both everything and nothing to do with the Trump/Netanyahu plan. This plan makes clear that it aims to ensure that Palestinians will never have a state and instead remain forever under Israel’s boot. But it is not just the Trump plan. Over time, Palestinians increasingly have seen that the version of “two states” that the international community will support–and indeed press for–is not the version of two states that Palestinians demand. To the contrary, while the world spoke of a two-state settlement, Palestinians witnessed a tripling of the number of Israeli settlers living on their land. The international community appears content with allowing Israel to build and expand settlements, while at the same time allowing it to demolish Palestinian homes and schools and imprison Palestinians into cantons.

This approach condones Israel holding our economy hostage and mercilessly besieging the Gaza Strip, with only the mildest, mealy-mouthed international condemnations. The world community has blocked attempts to press for a condemnation of Israeli settlements in the International Criminal Court and has, in some cases, criminalized support for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS). Even the European Union has been loath to uphold its trade agreement with Israel, under which Israeli settlement products should be labelled separately and should not benefit from free trade status. It has become clear that while the international community speaks of wanting a two-state settlement, it has shown itself wholly unwilling to do anything to make that happen. As someone who participated in the peace negotiations, I observed that a state for Palestinians was the furthest thing from the Israeli public and political leadership’s thinking. Instead, they were concerned with how to forever contain and control Palestinians, and how to maintain longstanding international community support in this endeavour. In short, the concept of two states has become devoid of all meaning, with the focus instead on form–whether labelled as a “state” and however dysfunctional and lacking any of the powers that actually define a state.

This increasing realization has led many Palestinians to abandon the statehood project. This may sound like a defeatist position or the expression of frustration. Indeed, over the years, we have heard PLO leaders threaten to abandon the two-state project and, separately, threaten to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Some support for one state is undoubtedly borne of that feeling. But not all.

To be clear, my support for one state grew not from the futility of negotiations–even though they were indeed futile–but from a sense that the approach was incorrect. The attempt to divide land simply modelled the power structures I was attempting to fight–economic and political structures that aim to maintain Israeli power and control over Palestinians lives. Therefore, rather than focus on land–where Israel always has an advantage–the focus should be on people and how we, as people, should live. The time has come to look to a model that focuses on equal rights for all, irrespective of religion; a model which seeks reconciliation and not separation and where people are protected and not viewed as subjects of control or, in the case of refugees, of wholesale and heartless exclusion.

Today, Israel and the occupied territories function as one territory, with rights and privileges granted to some and not to others. There are no separate border crossings for “Palestine” and no separate Palestinian currency. Yet Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, are denied the same rights and privileges as Israeli Jews.

I am under no illusion that achieving this equality will be easy. Power is never voluntarily given up by those who wield it but taken through pressing for rights. Palestinians will be better able to break down the system of ethnic-religious privilege that plagues Palestinians (a similar system ruled apartheid South Africa) by getting to the root cause–that of Zionism, a nationalist project that favours one group over another–by pushing for BDS and for accountability internationally and by challenging racist Israeli laws. In short, we can and must create a just system for all, irrespective of whether we demand one or two states.

History demonstrates that ethnic privilege ultimately fails in a multi-ethnic world. And given that Palestinians and Israelis are fated to live together, the real question is whether we will continue to allow this system of ethno-religious privilege to prevail or whether we will press for equality, irrespective of religion. Borders, flags, and currencies can wait.

[This article was originally published on the Arab Reform Initiative website.]

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Quick Thoughts: Diana Buttu on the Israel-UAE Agreement

      Quick Thoughts: Diana Buttu on the Israel-UAE Agreement

      On 13 August 2020, Israel and the United Arab Emirates jointly announced they had reached an agreement to pursue a “full normalization of [their] relations”. The announcement additionally stated that Israel would consequently “suspend” the annexation of West Bank territory. While the self-styled Abraham Accord has been widely welcomed as a “historic” step towards resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, reaction within the region has been decidedly mixed, including outright condemnation by the Palestinians and many in the Arab world. Mouin Rabbani, editor of Quick Thoughts and Jadaliyya Co-Editor, interviewed Palestinian lawyer and analyst Diana Buttu to learn more about the context and consequences of this agreement.

Setting New Precedents: Israel Boycotts Human Rights Session

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism that intends to review the behavior of states without distinction. The UN General Assembly established it in 2006 as part of the functions of the Human Rights Council. It is a state-driven process to comprehensively assess a state`s compliance with human rights law. The Human Rights Council is to hold three two-week sessions each year during which time they review the files of sixteen member states. Accordingly each state will undergo the review every three years. As of 2011, all 193 UN member states had undergone a review.

The Human Rights Council conducted Israel`s UPR in 2009.  In response to the findings, Israel`s ambassador to the UN explained that it took the Review process "very seriously" because it is "an opportunity for genuine introspection, and frank discussion within the Israeli system" 

Israel`s second UPR is scheduled to take place in 2013. A coalition of Palestinian human rights organizations submitted their concise report on Israel`s violations between 2009 and 2012.  This document will not be read, however, because Israel is boycotting the UPR, citing bias.  In May 2012, Israel described the Human Rights Council as “a political tool and convenient platform, cynically used to advance certain political aims, to bash and demonize Israel.”

Israel`s condemnation of the Human Rights Council followed the body`s initiation of a fact-finding mission to investigate the impact of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today, the Council released its report at a press conference in Geneva. It states that Isreal must cease all of its settlement activity  "without preconditions" and  "must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers", or face prosecution before the International Criminal Court. Sources in Geneva tell me that Israel`s threats of boycott aimed to derail the Council`s fact-finding mission`s report. Failing to do that, Israel unilaterally withdrew from its Universal Periodic Review all together.

This is not Israel`s first attack on the UN. It has cited bias in the past in response to the UN`s critique of its human rights violations, specifically after the World Conference Against Racism (2001); the International Court of Justice proceedings on the route of the Separation Barrier (2004); denial of entry to Special Rapporteur to the OPT, Richard Falk (2008); and its refusal to cooperate with the Human Rights Council`s fact-finding delegation to Gaza in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead (2009). 

Israel is unique for its boycott, which evidences the tenuous nature of the voluntary compliance process. In fact, human rights advocates and governement officials worry that Israel will open the door to non-cooperation by other states. The battle for accountability continues even in the UN. Despite its acceptance of international law & human rights norms, even within the multilateral human rights body, the last word on human rights matters is political.