FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Kind of State?

Arab and Israeli commentators have pretty much outlined the speech Barack Obama will deliver in Egypt during his June visit, even though he is still meeting with the region’s leaders in Washington. While some are optimistic, many are fearful.

Israelis fear that Obama will make them recognize Palestinian rights and force them to give up the Palestinian and Syrian territory they have been busy colonizing since 1967.

Arabs fear Obama will announce that their leaders plan further concessions in the form of expanded normalization with Israel in the Arab and Islamic worlds before a full withdrawal and comprehensive peace. They also fear his speech will nix the Palestinian right of return, which is both an individual and a collective right under international law, and support Israel as a “Jewish state” instead of the state of all its citizens.

There is agreement on one thing: The Obama administration wants to see a comprehensive peace centered on a two-state solution in its lifetime. If this is indeed the case, Palestinians and Israelis face an existential question: What kind of state will each have?

It appears that the “Palestine” taking shape will have an under-sized territory with an over-sized internal security force. The size of the territory will depend on how successfully the Palestinian leadership narrows Israel’s definition of the major (illegal) settlement blocs it wants to keep, whose boundaries extend far beyond the actual buildings.

The size of the population will depend on whether Palestinian leaders uphold the Palestinian right of return to what is now Israel and how many refugees and exiles they can bring to the nascent Palestinian state.

A crucial issue is how sovereign this Palestinian state would be. Would it exercise full control over its borders? Recently, for example, Israel stopped Mahmoud Abbas’ envoy from traveling to South Africa to attend the inauguration of its new president. It has also introduced a rule that makes it even harder for West Bank Palestinians to enter Jerusalem.

And if the new Palestinian state does control its own borders, would it be forced to accept Israeli behind-the-scenes monitoring of all travelers, an approach initiated in Gaza before Israel sealed its borders?

Other issues regarding sovereignty include control of the population registry, water resources, and the economy, all of which Israel currently controls.

In fact, the achievement of a sovereign Palestine would require breaking with the Oslo accords in which Palestinian negotiators signed away most aspects of sovereignty during what was supposed to be a short interim period. Since many of the same leaders that negotiated those Oslo accords are still in power, the prospects are not promising — unless either Hamas or Palestinian civil society block a minimalist state and push for full independence.

However, while Hamas is in favor of a two-state solution and may be willing to accept pragmatic compromise, many civil society leaders — particularly in the increasingly powerful boycott and right of return movements — now believe in a one-state solution and appear unwilling to invest energy in the two-state project. Unless there is a shift in strategy, truncated statehood may be in the cards.

As for Israel, its territory would cover over three-quarters of mandate Palestine, much larger than envisaged by the United Nations partition plan of 1947. Israel would have defined borders for the first time in its existence — which would spell the end of the Zionist project to gather world Jews into what was once Palestine.

Israel’s insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state aims to keep the Zionist dream alive in the event of a two-state solution. A Jewish state would continue to give primacy to its Jewish citizens plus any Jews anywhere that want Israeli citizenship under its law of return.

This project is of course resisted by the 1.45 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are still second-class citizens. And they have the support of a growing number of Israeli Jews who believe in equal rights for all Israelis.

Several issues would challenge an Israel at peace. There are divergences among Jews themselves regarding the claim that Israeli nationality equals Jewish nationality. Many Jews continue to view Judaism as a faith not a national identity. And many Jews that maintain family or cultural ties to Israel do not see themselves as potential Israelis but rather as citizens of the country in which they live. Meanwhile, the debate over “Who is a Jew?” resurfaces repeatedly in Israel and elsewhere.

So long as Israel could point to external threats, it was possible to put such issues on the back burner. However, if and when the peace process now led by the Obama administration nears a final status agreement, these will become increasingly sharp and divisive questions for Israel.

If Obama achieves two states, he may find he is at the beginning rather than the end of the road.

NADIA HIJAB is a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

More articles by:

November 14, 2018
Sam Bahour
Israel’s Mockery of Security: 101 Actions Israel Could Take
Cesar Chelala
How a Bad Environment Impacts Children’s Health
George Ochenski
What Tester’s Win Means
Louisa Willcox
Saving Romania’s Brown Bears, Sharing Lessons About Coxistence, Conservation
George Wuerthner
Alternatives to Wilderness?
Robert Fisk
Izzeldin Abuelaish’s Three Daughters were Killed in Gaza, But He Still Clings to Hope for the Middle East
Dennis Morgan
For What?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Government is Our Teacher
Bill Martin
The Trump Experiment: Liberals and Leftists Unhinged and Around the Bend
Rivera Sun
After the Vote: An Essay of the Man from the North
Jamie McConnell
Allowing Asbestos to Continue Killing
Thomas Knapp
Talkin’ Jim Acosta Hard Pass Blues: Is White House Press Access a Constitutional Right?
Bill Glahn
Snow Day
November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
Ron Jacobs
Impeach!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail