by Daniel Yawitz
The “one-state solution” is something I never really thought about until I read this opinion piece on the electronic intifada. It’s by Ben White, who, according to his website (www.benwhite.org.uk) is a “freelance journalist specializing in Palestine/Israel.” He’s certainly very well informed and makes some insightful comments into the reality of the “one-state solution” (which itself should be fairly self explanatory: instead of establishing two states, one for Israel and one for Palestine, why not reconcile them into one?)
White points out that many consider such an establishment to be a recipe for bloodshed: peace and conjoining with Israel would enrage a number of more radical Palestinians and other anti-Israel groups, not to mention that the Israelis themselves might not be to crazy about sharing their Zion with Arabs. But, given that Israel occupies Palestinian-inhabited land in the West Bank and (until recently) Gaza, White points out that it is less of a question of proposing the founding of one all-inclusive state as it is accepting the one-state reality. Are not Israelis and Palestinians already living in the same territory anyway? The difference is that Israeli government and military holds complete control. It’s interesting to think about. In a broad hypothetical, if the Palestinian authority and the Israeli government could merge into a bi-partisan government in power in a new Palestine-Israel, neither side could receive support from an outside power. Political parties don’t make separate allies with different countries.
It may be impossible. The underlying differences and groups of extremists on each side may be too great to be reconciled, but a pacifist can dream, can’t he?
