Bernard Spiegal

On the other hand, it is difficult to sustain an impression of normality and calm given the seething cauldron that now is Israel, both in terms of the antagonistic relationship the self-proclaimed Jewish state has with itself – that is, Jews railing against other Jews about what’s best for Israeli Jews – alongside its unceasing, brutal oppression of Palestinians, the purpose of which is to depopulate Palestine/Israel of as many Palestinians as possible. This comes under the rubric ‘too difficult to handle’. Hence the two-state solution.

Not really believed

It’s surely inconceivable that proponents of two-states do, actually, continue to believe in the possibility of its realisation. Even if once, say at the time of Oslo (1993/4), they had deluded themselves that a two-state outcome was in fact a ‘solution’ to the Palestinian/Israel impasse. That moment has passed, and must now be beyond the possibility of rational belief. This is reflected in the assessment of the authoritative Foreign Affairs journal that:

All territory west of the Jordan River has long constituted a single state under Israeli rule…Policymakers and analysts who ignore this one-state reality will be condemned to failure and irrelevance, doing little beyond providing a smokescreen for the entrenchment of the status quo.

It is likely that State Departments and foreign offices have in fact considered alternative scenarios, though this would constitute a state secret, not for wider dissemination.  In so doing, they would have seen there are not really any alternative scenarios available: some sort of one-state outcome presents as the only possible, rational way forward, but it could not be allowed to be an apartheid-based state.

One state reality being created by Israel

Israel, in its incarnation as a racist, Jewish supremacist endeavour, is in fact busy creating a one-state outcome, seeking to extend this ideological underpinning to all the land between the river and the sea (with perhaps an utterly dependent Palestinian enclave carved out somewhere in the extended new-Israel territory). Foreign Affairs journal points out that:

Members of his [Netanyahu] new government have not been shy about stating their views on what Israel is and what it should be in all the territories it controls: a Greater Israel defined not just as a Jewish state but one in which the law enshrines Jewish supremacy over all Palestinians who remain there…

This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from its continuing, perpetual, colonising activity: theft of Palestinian land; destruction of Palestinian livelihoods; home demolitions; murder of Palestinians, children and adults; genocidal attacks on Palestinians villages and habitats, and so the list goes on. All this is known, but not acknowledged.

 However, when two-state advocates look at the practical aspects of countering Israel’s malign project to create a Jewish supremacist state between the river and the sea, they shrink from taking counter-actions. The disruptions and political consequences of doing so have been, thus far, assessed as uniformly negative. For example, they fear that:

• there would be wide-spread state and international civil society pressure to ‘out’ Israel as an apartheid state, potentially creating a rift between Israel-supporting countries and those more critical in Africa, South and Latin America and parts of Asia (India’s position is interesting here. Prime Minister Modi has expressed support for the ‘Palestinian cause’ but India also has close ties with Israel[2].);
• any move to support a specifically democratic one-state would prompt strident, well-resourced pro-Israel lobbying with Zionist supporting voters potentially putting in jeopardy politicians’ electoral support;
• the broad commonality of Western states’ current position on Palestine/Israel – i.e., two-state – would no longer hold. But it does not follow that a common one-state Western position would emerge, thus putting in jeopardy current alliances;
• already alluded to above, Israel is so thoroughly woven into Western security frameworks, and such a major player in weapons development and advanced electronic surveillance (spying), that untangling this would cause significant difficulties.

The need for fiction

For all these reasons, and doubtless more, Israel-supporting states must maintain the fiction that a two-state outcome remains viable; indeed, that it is the only viable approach to the Palestine/Israel conundrum.  In so doing, fundamental questions and inconsistencies can be avoided: how, for example, can a state be democratic whilst at the same time enshrining a privileged position to one section of the population, one based on religious and (spurious) race grounds. 

Prompt for change?

One can envisage a situation in which Israel spirals out of control as it fails, on the one hand, to resolve the deep divisions within Jewish secular and religious Israeli society, whilst at the same time it escalates still further its blood-soaked attempt to quell Palestinian protest and resistance, armed and peaceful, with no success.

In such circumstances, proponents of a two-state approach – for example USA, EU, UK – may come to fear the chaos that will ensue if their response continues to comprise nothing more than the ritualistic recitation of familiar two-state bromides, utterances devoid of force or meaning.  

At some point, they may feel impelled to discard previous positions and move to support what would amount to the only option left: a democratic one-state based on social, economic and political equality for all. 

In the meantime, Israel is advancing the creation of one-state, but an apartheid one. The ‘international community’, so called, may at some point find this intolerable and act accordingly.

The world ultimately spat out an apartheid South Africa, it is unlikely to be willing to digest an apartheid Israel over the long term.

But for the present, the two-state illusion holds sway.

Pages: 1 2