 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2008, page 68 Waging Peace One State or Two?
THE PALESTINE Center held its first annual Edward Said Memorial Lecture on Sept. 18 in Washington, DC, five years after the beloved Palestinian American’s professor’s death. A large audience, including Dr. Said’s widow, Miriam Said, and his sister, Grace Said, listened to a lecture entitled “Palestinians and Israelis: Two States or One State?” The program began with the playing of an audio recording of the late poet Mahmoud Darwish reading, in Arabic, his moving poem written in loving memory of Edward Said. Sept. 18 was the 40th day after Darwish’s death. Journalist and political analyst Dr. Mounzer Sleiman, who moderated the debate, began by describing Dr. Said’s support and skepticism concerning the Palestinian national movement by quoting the late scholar’s own words: “I refuse all inducements to join one of the groups or to work in the PLO largely because I felt it was important to preserve my distance. I was a partisan, yes, but a joiner and member, no.” Said at first was in favor of the two-state solution, Sleiman noted, but grew to view this approach as “unworkable.” Toward the end of his life Said was a proponent of a one-state solution. Dr. Sleiman introduced author, journalist and Palestine Center fellow Ali Abuminah, who presented his case for a single, binational state, arguing against the view that the two-state solution was “the easiest, most natural, most obvious outcome.” Since 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly approved the partition of Palestine, the two-state solution has been seen by most as imperfect, Abunimah said, but at least one that would separate for good the two national groups who have laid claim to the same area of the world. This separation, however, will not bring about “ethnically homogenous or harmonious states,” Abunimah warned, “but instead will just continue the conflict between the parties at a slower rate.” Partition can mean acts of ethnic cleansing, forcible transfer and assimilation of populations—all in the name of creating a workable state. Since the 1990s, support of separation has come back into fashion, bolstered by the conflict in Yugoslavia and America’s invasion of Iraq, Abunimah continued. America now sees partition as the right plan of action for the troublesome parts of the world, including Iraq, with ethnic cleansing as an unfortunate result of the process. “In other words,” he said, “ethnic cleansing is inevitable, so let’s provide the trucks and help with the resettlement and make it humane.” As people debate how to resolve conflicts in Northern Ireland and Cyprus, one hears terms like integration and consociationalism, a political arrangement in which various groups, such as ethnic or racial populations within a country or region, share power according to an agreed-upon formula. For some reason, however, Abunimah observed, when it comes to Palestine partition is seen as the only practical answer. Dr. Avi Shlaim, professor of international relations at Oxford University, presented the case for a two-state solution. His objection to a binational state was not ideological, he said, but one of practicality. The one-state solution is a noble idea, Dr. Shlaim acknowledged, but has no chance of becoming reality: “In short, it’s pie in the sky.” A binational state is impossible to achieve for several reasons, he argued. First of all, Israelis and Palestinians have very different national narratives and dreams for the future. Secondly, the Palestinians have prepared little in the way of grassroots support for the idea, and most Israelis are dead set against living together peacefully with Palestinians. Citing the liberal Israeli writer Amos Oz, Shlaim said, “Basically, what he would like is for the Palestinians to have their own little state and to get out of his face so that he can get on with his life.” Finally Shalim pointed to ethnic nationalism within the proposed state: “If Kurds, Sunnis and Shi’i cannot live peacefully together in Iraq,” he pointed out, “it’s inconceivable that Israelis and Palestinians will be able to achieve this feat.” The implementation of a two-state plan will not be easy, Shlaim cautioned. Israelis have done everything they could to ensure that a viable Palestinian state cannot come into being. “The aim has been to create weak, isolated enclaves under Palestinian strongmen who would be dependent on Israel,” he stated, “and with Israel having control of everything that matters.” As precious time slips away, the Israeli government continues to destroy the foundation of a two-state solution. However, Shlaim argued that a one-state solution would mean institutionalized apartheid, much worse than what was known in South Africa. The Palestinians would be true second-class citizens within this state. “They’ll become the hewers of wood and drawers of water, to use a biblical expression for the Israelis,” he said. Israel is the main stumbling block to any solution for peace, Shlaim stated, and one day the Israeli public will realize the damage the occupation is doing to their well being. Karl Marx, he said, understood that “the people that oppress another cannot itself remain free.” “I remain optimistic,” Shlaim concluded, “because I believe that nations, like individuals, are capable of acting rationally after they’ve exhausted all the other alternatives.” For complete transcripts visit <www.thejerusalemfund.org>. —Jamal Najjab |
|||||
