CJPME ARGUES THAT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MPS) AND OTHER CANADIAN OFFICIALS SHOULD NO LONGER PRIORITIZE THE GOAL OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A. Many observers believe that a two-state solution is simply no longer possible
Decades of Israeli settlement expansion and the ongoing colonization of occupied Palestinian territory have created a situation in which it is not possible to carve out a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state. Israeli roads and settlements carve up the West Bank and leave Palestinians trapped inside small pockets of land, surrounded by militarized Israeli infrastructure. Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights organizations often describe this situation as a “one state reality” or a regime of apartheid, in which Israel upholds the domination of one group over another throughout the territory it controls.
[1]
This may be irreversible. Creating the necessary land base for a Palestinian state would require a major evacuation of Israeli settlements, including the settlement blocs, the Jordan Valley, and East Jerusalem. However, Israel’s trajectory has been the opposite; instead of disengagement, Israel continues to expand illegal settlements and has been considering measures to formally annex significant portions of the West Bank. There is no question that Israeli authorities intend to maintain permanent control over these territories. As argued by Yousef Munayyer in the
New York Times, “the two-state solution is dead. Israel has killed it.”
[2]
B. The Israeli government does not, and has never, supported a two-state solution
There is virtually no support for an actual two-state solution among Israel’s political class. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett vowed in 2013 to “do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel,”
[3]while his predecessor and Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2015 that a Palestinian state would never be established on his watch.
[4] Even former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords (which were ostensibly about transitioning into two-states), never supported full sovereignty for Palestinians, but promoted a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state.”
[5]
While some Israeli political parties might claim to support a two-state solution, what this almost always means in practice is that they support the principle of “separation,” or the creation of a semi-autonomous Palestinian entity under permanent Israeli subjugation.
[6]
C. A Bantustan is not a State
As mentioned above, the most common vision for a two-state solution as offered by Israeli politicians is one of an Israeli state surrounding a Palestinian “entity,” elsewhere referred to as a “state-minus,” or possibly a “demilitarized state.” Such an entity would hold a degree of self-autonomy, but without exercising control over many of the core functions of sovereignty. In this vision, whether of the right-wing Netanyahu or the centrist Yair Lapid, Israel would retain ultimate sovereign control and have the right to militarily invade the Palestinian entity at will.
[7]
It should be clear that any “solution” which would deny a potential Palestinian state full sovereignty over its security, borders, or airspace, is not a state. Instead, such an entity has more in common with the nominally independent “Bantustans” which Apartheid South Africa attempted to establish in the 1970s and 80s. Just as the international community refused to recognize Bantustans in South Africa, any similar arrangement for the Palestinians should be categorically rejected as offensive and unacceptable.
D. Human rights cannot be delayed pending the outcome of possible future negotiations
Waiting for negotiations that may or may not result in a two-state solution has trapped Palestinians in an unacceptable status quo characterized by violence and dispossession. The “Peace Process” has not succeeded in protecting the rights and safety of Palestinians under occupation, nor has it slowed Israel’s ability to consolidate control over territory and change the facts on the ground; since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Israel has quadrupled the number of settlers in the West Bank alone.
[8] At a more fundamental level, it is not acceptable to expect Palestinians to wait for future negotiations to have their human rights respected. Freedom is urgent and non-negotiable.
The emphasis on negotiations is itself problematic in the context of an occupation. The existing framework adopted by Canada approaches the issue as a conflict with two equal and aggrieved parties. This is completely divorced from the reality, as Israel holds deeply asymmetrical power over the Palestinians – not only is Israel an occupying power, but it has one of the world’s most advanced military forces, and it is continually seizing and settling Palestinian territory with the intent of maintaining permanent control. In the absence of an impartial third-party resolution mechanism, or sanctions which can hold a party accountable for violations of international law, a process of negotiations will fundamentally favour and embolden the side with the most power.
E. A one-state solution may be preferable to two-states, as a fairer and more just option for all peoples
In the alternative to a two-state solution, a single democratic state with equal rights which respects the individual and collective rights of Israelis and Palestinians may be a preferred solution. Such an arrangement has the potential to enhance the freedoms and aims of all parties: families would be united, movement across the territory would be free, holy sites would be shared. Rather than fragmentation, segregation, and exclusion, a greater Israeli-Palestinian society could be characterized by inclusion and partnership.
[9]
A one-state solution would also address the problems of discrimination and injustice beyond the occupied territories, extending greater rights to Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship, and facilitate the right of return for refugees (without reference to demographic majorities), a key final status issue for peace in the region.
The primary objection that critics make against proposals for a single democratic state is that the state would lose its exclusively Jewish character. In making this argument, the alleged need to maintain a Jewish demographic majority – itself a deeply discriminatory priority – is used as a justification to prolong the denial of basic human rights to Palestinians. This line of thought perpetuates the notion that it would be undesirable, or even impossible, for Israelis and Palestinians to live together in peace and security as equals. It also suggests that one group’s rights are inherently more important than the others. Democracy, not demographics, should be the goal of our foreign policy.