One state or two state solution? Justice for all-above anything else.

An MPACUK solution for the Middle East

The three monotheistic faiths all abhor racism and racial supremacy. Zionism is not Judaism and Judaism is not Zionism. Judaism - A religion of the one true God and Zionism - an ideology based on racial superiority. The difference is chalk and cheese.

The Holy Land is sacred to all three faiths and should not be monopolised by a single ideology. The Wailing Wall, the Church of the Nativity and Masjid Al-Aqsa all share this land, a one state solution with followers of all three Abrahamic religions, other religions and those of none sharing the Holy Land would be a massive step forward.

Palestine is one state where Jews historically lived in harmony with their neighbours (In 1868, there were 13, 000 Jews living peacefully in Palestine), I heard many a story recounted to me by Palestinian Muslims and Christians of Jewish neighbours they used to have and with whom they shared good times, the memories they recount are fond ones, but their expressions turn strangely puzzled. For them, this Jewish state has taken their land, their homes, their life and Justice would have it returned to them. Insha’Allah.

Israelis often talk about Israel as the land they had always dreamt of and a safe haven for their persecuted community. With memories of the holocaust and Jewish persecution fresh in their minds, Israel IS their right - their right from God, their right due to their persecutions, their right, in fact, from that mandate…

“A land without people, for a people without land”, is the Zionist mantra which referred to the first description of the land of Palestine by Zionist Jews prior to 1948.

Although many Israelis now acknowledge that there were former residents, the native people of Palestine , in that land before them, the myth of it being an undefined space ready to be occupied by the Jews of the world remains.

In fact, many, despite the secular majority in Israel (15% religious, 85% secular), actually believe that, as Begin stated in Oslo (‘Davar, 12/12/78)

“This land has been promised to us and we have a right to it.”

Zionist logic rests on a very simple postulate: It is written in the Genesis. (XV, 18-21)

“The lord made an alliance with Abraham in these terms: It is to your descendants that I give this country, from the river of Egypt to the big river, the river Euphrates.”

The discussion of any legitimate right to it, ends there.

“This country exists as the fulfilment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy. This is the basic axiom formulated by Mrs Golda Meir.”

Le Monde, 15^th of October 1971

How could we ever reconcile these two polarized populations, so that the Zionist “Jews” of Israel and the Palestinians (Muslims, Christians, Seculars) could ever live together?

Everything from their language, to their government, to their behaviour seemed to indicate a complete and utter rejection, if not hatred, of each other. Palestinian flags are illegal in Israel ! The names of villages and towns have been changed to Hebrew names, sadistically inscribing them in Arabic on road signs, as a cruel reminder of their power to re-write history, even down to hermeneutics. Everything in Israel indicates hostility towards non-Jews. So how could such an inevitable cohabitation actually manifest itself?

For most Palestinians, within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and without, there should be, and only ever has been, one state: The state of Palestine , currently occupied.

For Justice to be served, it must be returned to its indigenous inhabitants, who should be compensated for the decades of injustices perpetrated against them, including the loss of their land, homes, livelihood and often lives too.

This belief in their right to their historical land and homes is so strong that, many Palestinians who live in the Refugee camps still carry a large key to their front door, now appropriated by Israeli inhabitants. They genuinely believe that one day been they will be allowed back to THEIR home. This conviction is transmitted to each new generation, as the key holder may never have seen the house themselves, but simply have been told about it, perhaps seen a picture and been reminded that their current condition is but temporary, that he or she, young Palestinian child, will one day open the door to their ancestors house-their true home.

These people are often talking from run down cement shacks in Refugee camps, where they believe they are only placed temporarily. Initially, they were supposed to be temporary. And if you saw the camps, you would also hope that such a measure was temporary. The streets are unpaved and dirty, often young children play in streams of dirty water due to the lack of existence of any sewage arrangement. The streets are narrow and crooked; the houses built rustically and in a rush- in such stark contrast with the lovely stone houses, built by hand by the ancestors of the now displaced owners. They would typically have built everything in and out of that house, the gate, the door, planted the trees, crafted the shutters. The houses are noble and large often indicating the wealth and stature of the now evicted residents, condemned to live in squalor and accept that the legacy of their family, their land, their home is to be forgotten and given, without any form of compensation, to someone else. For these people, they should, in a just world, be allowed to return to their home- what would happen to the people now living in their house? It’s not really their concern, just as they were not theirs when they were made to leave, whether it was in 1948, 1967, or now.

On my first day in occupied Palestine, (by which I refer to the whole of historical Palestine), I was struck as I entered Il Qutz ( Jerusalem is the Hebrew name) by the mass of Israeli flags hung all around. I had arrived just shortly after the national celebration day and the sheer amount of flags was mind-blowing. Every sign post, light, car, house and even the poor trees and been made into innocent brandishers of this oppressive symbol.

During my time in the area, the extent to which nationalism is used as a form of control struck me. It reminded me, in a twist of irony, of a quote by Nazi officer, Herman Goering during the Nuremberg trials; 18.04.1946 –

"People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The Israeli constitution does not delimitate the state of Israel, which poses the difficulty of understanding where the state of Israel they are ‘entitled’ to either begins or ends. For surely, to contemplate co-existence, borders might first be necessary…

Yet general Moshe Dayan quoted in the Jerusalem Post in 1967 stated:

“Take the American declaration of independence. It contains no mention of territorial limits. We are not obliged to fix the limits of the state.”

The problem becomes even more complex when one realises that Israel is actually based on expansionism, which may extend as far as ‘Greater Zion’ or further, as the actual borders of Greater Zion are inexistent:

“The basic borders of Eretz Yisrael are those of ‘Eretz Canaan’ (..) These borders form a natural geographic area: Eretz Canaan is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea on the West, the Negev desert on the south, the Syrian-African rift (Jordan River) to the East, and the Lebanon Mountain Range to the North. Once this ‘kernel’ area is conquered, its borders can potentially (but do not have to) be extended. (…) After conquering Eretz Canaan, Am Yisrael can, when such is warranted, expand its borders through continuous settlement outward, until (but not including) the two ancient centres of civilization, Egypt and Mesopotamia”

OHR TORAH colleges and Graduate programs, Parashat Matot-masei; Rev Menachem Leibtag

How could two states survive when one has no borders and considers it will not be satisfied until it ‘conquers’ the area controlled by the other state..?

This tension in actually conceiving of borders which might be respected by Israel is highlighted in innumerable speeches by religious representatives of the state, the people who grant it its supposed legitimacy, such as Rabbi Avrom Shmulvic quoted in the newspaper ‘Novosty nedely’ 6/9/2001

“We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Country of Israel will not return under Jewish control (…) A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel. The state will find its geostrategic completeness. WE must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land.”

Despite this within Israeli society, you will find a range of opinions from the leftists who advocate an Israeli state, confined to its current borders or even to those of 1967, to the extreme right for whom nothing less than ‘Greater Zion’ will do.

However all of them, maintain their right to the Israeli state, even when the very premise of the existence of the state of Israel , Zionism, disappears. A majority of Israelis are secular but want a state of Israel -but you cannot have your cake and eat it. As Nathan Wienstock explains beautifully in his book ‘Zionism against Israel ’, ‘take away the concept of “chosen people” and a “promised land” and the foundation for Zionism crumbles.’ (Pub. Maspero, 1969, p. 315)

If you don’t actually believe in the religious foundation of your right to this land, then why exactly are you occupying it? Perhaps if any of you get to visit the beautiful shoreline of Akkou, also known as Haifa, or the beaches of Tal El Rabbeein / ‘Tel Aviv,’ the answer will appear clearer to you.

Similarly, within Palestinian society, you will find a range of perspectives on what could be accepted in terms of a settlement, but an understandable unanimity on what constitutes occupied territory (historical Palestine .)

Indeed, the greatest symbol of Palestinian resistance, the late Abu Amar (Yasser Arafat) himself had been ready to concede through the Oslo agreements large chunks of Historical Palestine in hope of simply achieving the dream of a Palestinian state. Hamas, described in the West as ‘extremists’ have made clear that they would cease armed resistance in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders. (‘Dealing with Hamas, ICG report, 26 Jan 2004).

Palestinians have been forced through their humiliations to contemplate giving up their rights to live freely and without prejudice or discrimination in their homeland because the supporters of Israel have refused to acknowledge that a state based on race is necessarily a racist state and cannot and should not be given any form of legitimacy: “Israel is a racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race. In this respect, it resembles the American South prior to the passage of Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Ireland under the Protestant Ascendancy, and yes, Hitlerite Germany . But in its most basic structures it most closely resembles the old South Africa.” Noel Ignatiev, Toward a one state solution.

However, the problem necessarily complexifies due to the fact that second and even third generation Israelis have now been born in those very houses we mentioned before. Their history and memories are also intertwined with the shoreline of Haifa and the old city of Jerusalem , and that, unlike their forefathers, they cannot ‘go back’, this is the land of their birth, and sometimes even that of their parents. We cannot blame the new generation of Israelis for their attachment to this land-it is the land of their birth, their life and their, albeit short, heritage. We cannot deny them this. Amongst them are also a growing number of dissidents who reject the official version of events, acknowledge Palestinian suffering and their right to a secure state. However, they usually do not equate that right to giving up on ‘Israel’-Perhaps it is too hard to imagine, if you have always lived there, as they have, like a sort of self-destructive mechanism we expect them to have.

Their conclusion is often that a non-Zionist Israel should co-habit with a Palestinian state.

As far as two state solutions go, this one is the most plausible one in my view.

However, what is Israel without Zionism? A mistake? An oxymoron? Without answering this question ourselves, we will simply draw your attention to a generation of Arabs within ‘ Israel ’ who identify themselves as ‘Arab-Israeli’- not Palestinian. They are often supporters of this solution due to their identification with Israel and not Palestine .

Many scholars, intellectuals and activists on both sides have come to try and negotiate a compromise between these antithetical stances. The solution they came up with, was more often than not, a two state solution, legitimising the partitioning of Palestine and thus also the Zionist state of Israel .

In doing so they choose:

- To accept the legitimacy of a Zionist state, which by definition is a state based on racial lines and continuous expansion, the conquering of surrounding land to re-create ‘Erst Yirsrael’.

- To accept that due to the Zionist nature of the state, the indigenous people of the land have no right of return to it and must pursue their lives from the refugee camps in which they are currently displaced, often without official status (see the status of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan ).

- To believe that two states who have fought against each others very premise of existence could accept the existence of the other and live side by side.

- Imagine a tunnel somehow linking the Gaza strip to the remaining enclaves in the West Bank .

And these are just the fundamental points; many other aspects of the two state solution make it a far from tenable option.

“History has shown, in Ireland, India, and everyplace else it has been tried, that partition of a territory along lines of descent, whether called ‘racial’ or ‘religious’ is a guarantee of permanent war.” Noel Ignatiev; ‘Towards a single state solution.’

So when we think of what would be best for Historical Palestine and its native and current residents, we must decide in whose interest we are trying to come to a compromise.

If it is for the Israeli Political Right- then nothing less than Greater Zion is fair, for this land is promised to the Jews and the Jews alone, every inch of it from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river- According to their interpretation of the Torah, of course.

If we think of my Palestinian friends living in Deheesha refugee camp, than not letting them return to their homes and the houses built by their ancestors is a crime. Palestine is their homeland and every inch of it is occupied.

So how exactly should the problem be approached? As a compromise between these two opposed perspectives, as many have done so far? A dissatisfactory compromise by each side of their beliefs in what is truly right and theirs..?

As Muslims and believers in the sacredness and sanctity of life, the necessity of enjoining right and forbidding wrong and in striving for Justice - our belief is in the negotiation of a one state solution based along federal lines of governance and the complete removal of Zionism, including its symbols, namely the Israeli flag.

However, it is these very same principles which urges us to state the need for Jews to be able to live safely and without fear of persecution within that very same land, although mass immigration must halt. They must not be made to flee in a gruesome role reversal. Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their home towns and offered compensation. All traces of Zionist law must be abolished and care must be taken for discrimination to be eliminated in all aspects of the new system, starting with the institutional sphere. IL Qutz/ Jerusalem must be the city for all three monotheistic religions and each one should have free and equal access to it.

Despite our strong sense of solidarity with the Palestinian people and our selfish desire to see the state of Palestine re-emerge like the pheonix from the flames, we must control our personal wishes and think about what is best and fair for all people in that land. That may entail giving up on the name Palestine AND asking Jews to give up on ‘Israel’ to create one super state which would encompass them all.

Gadaffi, in a speech he gave in Algeirs, suggested it ought to be called Israestine in an echo of JFKs passionate advocacy for that very same idea. He was supported in this view by the British Jewish comedian ‘Maureen Clare Murphy and the singer Dan Bernstein.

Friedman reported in a poll during September 2003, that despite it never being proposed, 25 to 30% of Palestinians now support the idea of one state. (New York Times, Sept 14^th 03)

Noel Ignatiev:

“What solution do I therefore propose? A simple and moderate one: within historic Palestine, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River , live ten million people. I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote. I propose further that the special advantages given to Jews be terminated, that the Palestinians who were forced into exile after 1948, and their descendants, be granted the right to live there, and that the state undertake practical measures to make it possible for them to do so by building housing and extending to them the right to rent or buy, if necessary providing funds to help them. I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools, that all residents be granted the right to publish newspapers and maintain cultural institutions in any language they choose, that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It is a simple and, I repeat, a moderate program. It does not entail driving anybody into the sea, and it recognizes the elementary right of people to live where they choose.”

{Personal Note from MPACUK Author. As I write this I feel deep guilt, as if I was betraying my Palestinian friends and family. How can I ask them to give up on ‘ Palestine ’, the name of their country? They are the victims in all of this?! But I am trying against my own will to look beyond Nationalism, beyond pride and beyond vengeance, towards Justice. For all the inhabitants of the Holy Land , the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. I do believe in my heart of hearts that Palestine could and ought to be called Palestine . However, in the words of Shakespeare, ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....’}

What the name of that one state ought to be, is ultimately up to those directly concerned. However, if not calling it Palestine or Israel can mean the end of the bloodshed, then our view is: So be it.

Surah Luqman (31) vs 17- 19

17. "O my son! Aqim­is­Salât (perform As­Salât), enjoin (people) for Al­Ma 'rûf (Islâmic Monotheism and all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al­Munkar (i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allâh, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad), and bear with patience whatever befall you. Verily! These are some of the important commandments ordered by Allâh with no exemption.

18. "And turn not your face away from men with pride, nor walk in insolence through the earth. Verily, Allâh likes not each arrogant boaster.

19. "And be moderate (or show no insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice. Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the ass."
{moscomment}

---