Illusions of solving the Arab Israeli conflict

East Meredith, NY, September 22, 2013

 

 In the debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict analysts are divided on whether the “one-state” or “two-state” configuration would end the 46 year Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The one-state scenario is logical but requires much social reforms, especially from the Arab side. The two-state scenario sounds equitable but demands extensive political pressure on Israeli settlers of Arab land.  

In a NY Times Sunday Review opinion piece, titled Two-State Illusion, Ian S. Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the Israeli occupation will transition to a single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Professor Lustick asserts that developments in Israel and its occupied territories will follow the pattern of developments in South Africa.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/two-state-illusion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But Lustick cautions that this transition will not happen without additional confrontation. Here is what is predicted:  Palestinians will collectively rebel again as the occupation brings new expansion of settlements. In response, Israel will retaliate. The world community will condemn Israel. Ultimately, the two sides will discover a formula of coexistence under a single state authority.

 Lustick builds his argument on three familiar assumptions: Israel’s occupation of the West bank has gone too far to be stopped by peace talks. Artificial diplomacy has delayed the resolution of conflict. Thirdly, Israel’s land-grab leadership has never been interested in territorial withdrawal from Arab land occupied in the 1967 war. 

But Lusticks’ fair analysis of flawed Mideast diplomacy fails to show how it would be practical to resolve the conflict by forming a single state for the two rival and culturally contrasting peoples. He bets that Israelis and Arabs will ultimately turn pragmatic through a sobering process of what he calls “blood and magic”.

The professor sounds too optimistic as he envisages that Israelis one day would abandon uncompromising Zionism. More optimism: Palestinian refugees would embrace “democracy” and relinquish political Islam. Mideast Jews would toss their “Eastern” identity by rediscovering their Arab roots. Pious Palestinians and anti-nationalist Orthodox Jews would bond together as people of faith.

Lustick does not identify the nature of the single state he hopes for, hinting that it will be a “confederation”: Israeli Jews committed above all to settling throughout the greater Land of Israel may find arrangements based on a confederation, or a regional formula more attractive than narrow Israeli nationalism.  

 The author does not factor in the region’s impact on the future of Palestine. The temptation is strong for Israel exploiting circumstances of the expanding war in Syria-and the associated threats to Jordan and Lebanon- to drive more Palestinians out of the West Bank into the surrounding states. A single state is not about to be born in a volatile regional environment. 

Lustick expects the ongoing, Washington-sponsored, peace process to fail. Is it not premature to dismiss this latest round of peace talks? These talks could lead to a partial settlement: a midpoint between a two-state and a single state. In this scenario Palestinians could acquire autonomy or independence over a significantly expanded West Bank territory.

 Integrating two distinct societies in one state without a lengthy period of preparation is unrealistic and quite risky. What is vital for the future of Israeli and Palestinian cooperation is the social climate in which they live.

 

With educational systems in both Palestinian and Israeli societies reinforcing inter-communal social distance, religious paradigms perpetuating intolerance, systems of governance mixing religion with politics, how could Palestinians and Israelis live harmoniously in one state?

 But even in an initial phase of two separate and sovereign states these two nations must undergo far reaching socio-political reform before they could explore steps of cooperation or eventual unity.

Before proposing a single state the professor could have considered comprehensive programs of social engineering that would prepare Palestinians and Israelis to coexist under one authority.

Here are some examples of social reform required for one-state, bi-national living. 

Jewish children would have to learn Arabic. Arab children do speak Hebrew already, but their exposure to Israeli culture is minimal.

As traditional religious socialization tends to breed fear of people of other faith, Jewish children should be exposed to fundamentals of Islam and Christianity. Likewise Muslim and Christian children ought to learn about the other two religions.

Religious authorities should not have monopoly over laws of personal status on matters of birth and death, marriage and divorce, inheritance and other issues of family relations.

The two nations must work hard to converge on basic issues of human rights, especially gender empowerment, before any societal integration is discussed. When both communities feel socially and politically ready, Palestinians and Israelis could choose to unite in a single state.

The view that Israel is about ready to integrate a culturally alien community is indefensible. Regrettably the two rival nations want peace but they do not recognize the social impediments for coexistence.

Lustick was sharp on diagnosis but simplistic on solutions.