Are we up to a one-state solution, asks Samir Ghattas* He meant it when he said it. Unlike his wily predecessor, Mahmoud Abbas doesn't play with words. Emerging from a meeting with the US president on 9 June, the Palestinian president declared that the "solution of the two states is fading away." If, by any chance, these words were a cry for help, they weren't heeded. But I have little doubt that they were. Abbas, at long last, said what many have believed to be true for a long time now. Few expect the two-state solution to work out, not with the current Israeli government in power, and not even if that government manages to pull off a complete term. For the past decade or so, Israel has been plagued with governments that had to leave office prematurely. Peres stepped aside in early elections, in 1996, to be replaced by Netanyahu. The latter lost to Ehud Barak, also in early elections, in 1999. Sharon ousted Barak in 2001, before he had to endure early elections in 2004 and 2006. Olmert, his successor, lost in early elections in 2009. What is odd, in my view, is not what the Americans and Israelis are doing, but the fact that Abbas took so long to see what others have long admitted as plain fact. The Palestinian president, who masterminded the Oslo Accords in 1999, took more than a decade to realise that the two-state solution wasn't going anywhere. In 2000, Clinton tried in vain to create a Palestinian state through protracted talks in Camp David. Sharon ruined any remaining changes with an all-out incursion into the West Bank followed by the building of the separation wall. Hamas fired the mercy bullet when it took Gaza by force, and with what I believe was Israel's blessing. The decisive factor, however, was Israel's continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The settlements have obliterated the Green Line, making it impossible to split the land into two states, as the leader of Peace Now remarked in February 2009. Currently, there are more than 500,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, increasing at 5.5 per cent annually due to high birth and immigration rates. At present, the ratio of settlers to the Israeli population is 1.6 per cent, and this ratio will only rise as time goes by. The building of settlements is no longer a random activity left to Gush Emunim and other ultra-orthodox groups. It is a policy cornerstone for a country where coalitions cannot survive without building settlements and without continuing to undermine the two- state solution. Dismantling the settlements is no longer a realistic option, for Israel has no leaders left of the stature of Begin and Sharon. The latter dismantled Yamit in Sinai and Gush Katif in Gaza without much opposition. After all, he was the one who built them. Also, the Israeli army, with 30 per cent of its personnel believed to be ultra-orthodox, can't be asked to dismantle the settlements. And no one else has the power to do so. The above facts are known to all, and were known way before Abbas made his remark about the two-state solution. What shocked me was not what Abbas said about the two states, but what he said about the one state. The Palestinian president said that Israel rejects the one-state solution, and so do we! Now wait a minute. It makes sense for the president to say that the two-state solution is fading away. It makes sense, too, for him to say that Israel rejects the one-state solution. But what doesn't make sense is to dismiss the one-state solution out of hand. If Abbas is serious about the demise of the two-state solution, and I believe he is, the next step would be to think of an alternative strategic solution, one that transcends the two states. This is perhaps a good time to dismiss the strategy of armed conflict as being impractical. This strategy suffers from deep structural problems, and these problems have dissuaded even its most ardent supporters from engaging in it, rhetoric aside that is. The alternative Palestinian options are complex, and none of them can be achieved through violence or armed struggle. Those who still believe in a two-state solution as well as those who are increasingly favouring a one-state strategy mustn't waste time arguing this point any more. Now that Abbas ruled out the two-state solution, it is time to look into the remaining options. The first is the one favoured by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister who Peres once described as the "Ben Gurion of Palestine". Like Ben Gurion, Fayyad believes that nation building is a gradual process. According to him, the Palestinians should prove first to themselves and then to the world that they are have the right institutions and are capable of running an independent and democratic country. Once this is done, the Palestinians would ask the Israelis and the international community to recognise their Palestinian state. The EU supports Fayyad's ideas, as its officials have said on more than one occasion. Fayyad told Israeli reporters recently that he expects a Palestinian state to be created in August 2011. Although the Fayyad strategy is not without merits, one has to point to its obvious flaws, chief of which perhaps is that Fayyad has not solid base of supporters. Despite the growing popularity of Fayyad among the Palestinians, as public polls suggest, most Palestinian factions, including Fatah, are waiting for the first chance to take him down. Israel has voiced its opposition to Fayyad's ideas, and has not spared an effort to undermine all the institutions and infrastructure that he has tried to build in order to make the Palestinian state a feasible option. Another option is the one-state strategy. But first the Palestinians need to agree among themselves on what this means. So far, all we have is words. Some speak of a liberal state, a democratic state, a state for the citizens, a state with dual nationality, etc. What exactly does this mean? With the exception of a brief call in the early 1970s by the PLO for one democratic state for all citizens, no mature thoughts exist on the matter. Many people may have toyed with the idea, come up with fancy words even. But few have made a consistent effort to analyse and examine the various models of a single state. Perhaps the Palestinians and the Arabs need to examine the thoughts of Professor Meron Benvinisti on the matter as published in Haaretz last year. He says that Israel has undermined the two- state solution and has opted, quietly and stealthily, for a bi-national state. The problem is that this state is inequitable beyond belief, with one nationality in total control and the other crushed beyond recognition. It takes a lot of courage to admit that the Palestinians and the Arabs are not ready now or in the foreseeable future to demand a one-state solution. But it is not too late to rethink one's ways. To do so, we have to steer away from our pre-set slogans and begin reconsidering the various modes of a one-state solution. Most importantly, we'll have to take into account that a bi- national state cannot be created except through accord and mutual recognition among its two main components, the Arab Palestinians and the Israeli Jews. President Abbas is not alone in admitting the failure of the two-state solution. Moshe Arens, one of the key hawks in Israel's rightwing and a former minister of defence, stunned everyone when he published an article in Haaretz on 2 June headlined "Israeli Nationality for the Palestinians". In this article he suggested the integration of the West Bank Palestinians in the fabric of Israeli society and granting them the right to vote. He said that Israel faces an extraordinary challenge and needs to do something about it. The two-state solution is dead, and this is something that we need to face. The fading out of the two-state solution was not a turn of phrase by a frustrated leader. It was much more. We need to think of the fate of the Palestinian people. If we no longer have recourse to the two-state solution, then we have to find something else. This is the challenge that we, too, need to address. Can we? * The writer is director of the Maqdis Centre for Political Studies, Gaza.
