Escalation in Violence in Southern Israel/Gaza

The escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza is of great concern to the LSESU Israel Society. The citizens of southern Israel have been subject to a barrage of rocket fire from militants within the Gaza strip. Over 200,000 school children have spent their last few days in bomb shelters instead of attending school. The strategy of indiscriminate rocket fire puts over 1,000,000 of Israel's citizens at risk, whom Israel has a right to defend.  The Israeli Air Force has carried out airstrikes in Gaza, killing 25 Palestinians, some of whom were responsible for these attacks, but invariably there is a grave risk that an increasing number will be civilian casualties. The false claim that only civilians have died in Gaza, and that Israel’s security is not really threatened is a worrying and harmful claim perpetuated by some members of the LSESU community. This is especially true in the knowledge that 15 of those killed were militants in the advanced stage of actualising further rocket launches. The LSESU Israel Society mourns the effect that the escalation in conflict has on ALL civilians involved. This escalation in violence again highlights the high price that people on both sides pay for the absence of diplomatic resolution to the conflict in the region. Israeli and Palestinian leaders, along with international counterparts should do everything in their power implement a meaningful diplomatic process to bring a lasting peace.

Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Dr.Ahmad Tibi, Speaks at LSE

                                                                                             Jay Stoll

The Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, MK Dr Ahmad Tibi, spoke at an LSESU Palestine Society event this evening In Clement House, to an LSE students only event. He was accompanied by the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK.

Dr Tibi is an Arab-Israeli politician and leader of Ta'al, an Arab party in Israel.  He describes himself as Arab-Palestinian in nationality, and Israeli in citizenship. His main focus of his talk was advertised to be on how the Arab Spring had affected discourse and the realities inside of Israel, yet he instead focussed on the political status and discrimination against Arabs living in the country.

The framework of his speech was to describe the Palestinian people as a triangular structure. The base of the triangle are the occupied, the second level is the diaspora and the third is the 48 arabs inside the Green Line. He stated that without the latter, the Palestinian people would cease to be nothing like a political movement. It makes sense, considering his personal experience, that he chose to divulge on this demographic.

First he spoke of their character, stating that "In the personality of every Arab in israel there are two main components - national (part of the Arab nation) and civic component (citizens of Israel). Struggling to strengthen both elements by pushing forwards identity and character to be equal citizens."

Tibi then talked rather more empirically, citing the legislative realities behind his rhetoric on his own citizenship. "At any feat we are not equal - Apart from voting, there is a huge gap between Jewish citizens and Arab citizens"  Mentioning specifically the remits of education, infrastructure, health and agriculture as examples of "pure discrimination",  he noted that despite accounting for 20% of population, Arab-Israelis equate to only 7.5% employees in public sector. 

The next element of Dr. Tibi's speech revolved around the contradictions of the notion of a "Jewish State", a view of which he firmly believed relegated Arab citizens of Israel to a third-class status, "According to basic law, Israel is defined as Jewish and Democratic. Saying there is a pure contradiction between two values. If you are democratic you believe equal rights for all without consideration for ethnicity. But if you are defining state as ethnically jewish, you are directly saying Jews are superior. I cannot accept that. They are demanding us to accept 3rd degree citizenship."

The focus for his anger for the propagation of the 'Jewish State' undoubtedly lay with the "fascists" currently governing the most "racist Knesset of all time". Tibi emphasised the hypocrisy of those guiding citizenship legislation having only lived in the region for 30/40 years. A particular individual focus was placed upon the "chutzpah" of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. "He's talking about Arab citizens to recognise a 'Jewish Israel' to be deemed as loyal. We are indigenous. We did not immigrate. We were born there.He is the immigrant, talking about population transfer.. this is Israeli chutzpah."

The remainder of his talk focussed on Israel as what he perceived to be a democracy by name, but little else. He stated that the "weekly flash of racist laws against Arab minorities" meant that Israel is abiding by three kinds of rules. 

The first rule its preferential democracy for its Jewish population, which works to target Arab citizens through discriminatory laws on land purchase, amongst other things, Tibi labelled it as "an ethnocracy, Judocracy". The second 'rule': Racial Discrimination policy against the 20% Arab population contained in the same policies.The third 'rule'  he described as 'occupation and apartheid since 1967'.

He subsequently shifted his scrutiny to the international community who focus on the only the first 'rule', ergo its treatment of the 80%. The problems with this, he states, is the ignorance of a "massive violation of human rights" that should be punished. However, with a subsequent resignation, he cited the low cost, high profit nature of the Occupation as the reason for "nobody saying nothing". The control of the Jordan Valley, he said, provides almost $1bn in revenue for the Israeli government. 

On closing his address, Tibi focussed on two particular laws that he believed expressed a degree of lunacy in the oppression. One law was "against family unification - an Arab citizen of Israel who is willing to marry a Palestinian woman from the WB is totally forbidden from having her inside his house unless he is willing to leave the country." 

He stated in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, there had been consecutive appeals against the law to no avail. "The law is being renewed year after year. Only Israel is dealing with love as a conspiracy. This kind of marriage is a real intimidation to security and threat of Israel (sic)" His next example was the 'banning of Palestinian communities from commemorating Nakba'

He then finished on a defiant, personal note. "To say they can stop us commemorating our history - we will not agree. You can bring me to court, law can not change narrative."

Dr Tibi, in full flow, in the Knesset.

We are Students, Not Governments.

                                                  Aimee Riese, LSESU Israel Society President

                                                         This is a cross-post from The Beaver

To be clear from the outset, events seen on campus on Monday were horrific. The Palestine Society protest

was disgusting. So were the water balloons thrown as a result. So was the violence towards those throwing

them. None of this should have happened. None of it should be acceptable on our campus.

It is a sad state of affairs when relations on our campus have deteriorated to this point.

It is for this reason, again, that I now openly and publicly call for members of the Palestine and Israel 

societies to dialogue.Dialogue allows activists for peace on both sides to engage and educate themselves

and others. In doing so, they become more effective in working towards their goals of peace. 

Dialogue creates understanding and it facilitates change. We are students, not governments. 

We have no restrictions on talking to one another. In fact, we have a unique opportunity 

in an academic environment to engage.

It is not unrealistic to expect graduates of the LSE to be facilitating change on an international level in the

future.Wouldn’t it be great if students had met before, not representing any government, but as students,

learning from each other?This is not the first time that dialogue has been offered.  

During Michaelmas Term, I offered to co-host an event between the Israel and Palestine Societies 

with both a Palestinian and an Israeli mother who lost their sons in the conflict. Those who were there 

witnessed the voices behind headlines, the reality of the suffering and the need for reconciliation. Those 

who were there will have also witnessed the Palestinian mother cry out, “Where are my representatives?“

I have appealed to our current Community and Welfare Officer to facilitate some sort of dialogue for our 

societies. I have met with the President of the Palestine Society and another member of their committee

to suggest ANY sort of dialogue, in ANY format, that we could jointly arrange. The Palestine Committee

again refused but suggested that a few individuals would like to participate, not under the banner of the

society. The Palestine Society has not replied to any of my messages to get in contact with those individuals.

The refusal of the Palestine Society to engage so far at any level is thoroughly depressing. 

Instead, they built a “wall” and a mock check-point, playing dress-up as Israeli soldiers.If your intention

is to raise people’s awareness of the Palestinian cause and be activists for peace, this alienated most 

students and offended many others who may otherwise join you.

I have no reason to justify engagement by presenting my own politics. As I explained, I believe

 engagement is valuable in itself. However, I feel that by revealing a little more about my own views, this 

may challenge the assumptions of members of the Palestine Society and the general reader. 

I have interned for Peace Now, the largest Israeli peace movement, continually critical of the 

government, and also for B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation

monitoring Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories.

I want to emphasise again that it is not because of my views that you should talk to me (indeed, many in the

Israel Society would not support the work of these organisations) but I hope this challenges the perceptions

that may (or may not) have been formed by not talking. It is precisely because of our differing views, 

both between the Israel and 

Palestine Societies and within them, that will challenge and educate all of us involved.

Moreover, this has moved beyond solely education. It has now entered the realms of good 

campus relations. It is worth emphasizing again how offensive the protest on Monday was. It presented

 the conflict in black and white, right and wrong. At a basic level, the depiction of a “wall” for the sole 

purpose of separation fails to recognise the reality.The purpose of this security structure is to directly 

prevent terrorism in Israel and the statistical evidence shows it has done so. Terror has affected members

of the Israel Society. 

It is hard to express how offensive the laughter and attitudes of the protestors in carrying out their 

protest was to these members. 

The Israel Society still believes that dialogue is the best way forward. It is the only way to handle 

tensions on campus. These tensions are real and grounded in experiences. I am sincerely appealing to 

members of the Palestine Society, both as supporters of the Palestinian cause and as students of the LSE, 

to talk to members of the Israel Society.

This Thursday: Tal Becker Speaks for LSESU Israel Society

 

 

LSESU Israel Society hosts Dr Tal Becker:

Dr. Tal Becker is a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, an International Associate at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a member of the Hartman Institute's Engaging Israel Project.

From 2006-2009 he served as... senior policy advisor to Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs and was a lead negotiator in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations during the Annapolis peace process.

He has represented Israel in a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and served as director of the International Law Department at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, as counsel to Israel's UN Mission in New York, and as an international law expert in the Military Advocate General's Corps of the Israel Defense Forces.

Dr. Becker holds a doctorate from Columbia University, lectures widely throughout Israel and overseas, and is the recipient of numerous scholarly awards.

His book, Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility, is the recipient of the 2007 Guggenheim Prize for Best International Law Book. He is co-author of a forthcoming textbook on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

LSE, Old Building, 3.28

18:00

The Israeli Institute of Technology comes to The LSE

LSESU Israel Society are delighted to host Professor Boaz Golany, the Vice President for External Relations and Resource Development and the incumbent of the Samuel Gorney Chair in Engineering at Technion - Israel Institute of Technology. This is a unique chance to hear about the Technion and Israeli Technology. In light of recent SU meetings, we invite all students to come and listen and discuss. Register for tickets here: https://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/internal/20120227_InternalEvent.aspx LSE students and staff can request one ticket via the online ticket request form which will be live on this listing from shortly after 10pm on Tuesday 21 February till at least 12noon on Wednesday 22 February. Professor Boaz Golany is the Vice President for External Relations and Resource Development and the incumbent of the Samuel Gorney Chair in Engineering at Technion - Israel Institute of Technology. Since 1986, he has been a faculty member at the William Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, serving as Associate Dean for Teaching (1994-1999) and as Dean (2006-2011). He holds a BSc (Summa Cum Laude) in Industrial Engineering and Management from the Technion (1982), and a PhD from the School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin (1985). Professor Golany has served as an Area Editor and member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Productivity Analysis, IIE Transactions, Omega, and Operations Research. Professor Golany has published over 80 papers in refereed journals and over 15 book chapters. His publications are in the areas of Industrial Engineering, Operations Research, and Management Science. In recent years he has also addressed issues of homeland security and counterterrorism. He has supervised over 40 graduate students, some of whom now serve as faculty in Israeli universities and colleges. Professor Golany has served as a consultant to numerous companies and agencies in Israel and the USA. These include government agencies, energy companies, and companies in the financial sector, manufacturing, services, and information technologies.

LSESU Israel Society Statement on "Apartheid" Week events.

LSESU Israel Society Statement
20th February 2012

LSESU Israel Society condemns all violence that was seen today. Jewish students were attacked by Palestine Society protestors in response to water balloons thrown at their mock "wall".

This “wall” was erected on Houghton Street during an 'Israel Apartheid Week' demonstration, which was the LSESU Palestine Society’s interpretation of an Israeli checkpoint. The situation was intimidating for Jewish students as they held oversized guns, called Jewish students 'Israelis' as they walked through and the protests further angered students who have been directly affected by the conflict.

As a counter protest, some Jewish students threw water balloons at the wall. They did not intend for these to hit any students and apologise on their own behalf if they did.


The students who threw water balloons were not part of an official LSESU Israel Society protest Their actions were not sanctioned by the society. 


In response to this, Jewish students were rushed at and attacked by Palestine Society demonstrators, leaving one Jewish student injured. 

Provocative acts instigated by the Palestine Society today only serve to fuel tensions on campus. Dragging women kicking and screaming along the floor, as the Palestine Society simulated, is not an accurate description of reality; rather it is a disgusting simplification of a complex situation for both sides.

Events such as these only leave Jewish and Israeli students feeling targeted and intimidated on campus. Campus should be a safe space for all students and thus no physical force of any kind should not be tolerated.

The LSESU Israel Society is hosting three events this week, we encourage students to come and engage in constructive dialogue instead of symbolic gesturing that harms students' welfare.

We also call on the School and the LSESU to restore calm to campus and encourage dialogue. We look forward to a full apology for the provocative nature of today's event and the physical actions which followed from certain members of the Palestine society.

NUS Support the Boycott of Veolia and Eden.

It is hugely disappointing that NUS has decided to endorse of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign. The LSE Israel Society strongly believes that BDS is not only counterproductive, but a hindrance to the Union's recent support of a two state solution. 

Furthermore, we believe it is a complete betrayal of NUS President Liam Burns' claim at the UJS National Conference that NUS works to facilitate dialogue on the conflict, with BDS being the polar opposite.

Below are 6 plainly put reasons, presented by Professor Naomi Chazan of the New Israel Fund at a speech in Sydney. As someone on the left, she can hardly be described as a "hawk". Quite glaringly obvious wisdom is to be found in her logic. We hope this provides a pause for thought for the hierarchy of NUS 

"The aim of the BDS is to purportedly bring Israel to end its occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and bring it to the negotiating table.

But I will give you six arguments why it probably does precisely the opposite:

·     First, it is ineffective. BDS is not affecting the Israeli economy. Israel’s economy is burgeoning, and many envy us for how we got through the GFC [Great Financial Crisis] without experiencing the GFC. If at all the BDS is adversely affecting working-class people. The last people in Israel who should be victims of BDS – the workers – are the first to be affected.

·     Second, the global BDS, because it is directed against Israel and all Israelis, indirectly or directly undermines the very existence of the state of Israel. To question the existence of Israel is akin to calling for the elimination of Israel. Sometimes it’s a codeword for a one-state solution, which denies the right of Israel and Jews to self-determination. I have no suicidal tendencies whatsoever. I will not be party to my own self-destruction. I have one passport – an Israeli passport – and I intend to keep it and am perfectly happy for our borders to shrink substantially to do so.

·     Third, BDS has become counterproductive. It strengthens those Israelis who really believe that the entire world is against us. I come from a country that is very strong but is guided by a victim mentality. Every day that the BDS movement exists, it is strengthening the right wing and extremist forces in Israel. In Israel we call it a boomerang!

·     Fourth, if anybody suffers today from BDS, it is the already-weakened left in Israel – precisely the progressive forces we want to fortify. The BDS movement has been used as an excuse to carry out a series of witch-hunts against progressive forces in Israel, and against me personally, and it is tremendously damaging for those Israelis who have been carrying out the struggle for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

·     Fifth, the most offensive part of the BDS movement is that it has been directed against academics. Israeli academics have been singled out, not invited to conferences, their articles rejected in major journals, because they are Israeli, not because of the content. The vast majority of academics are peaceniks and progressive. You are doing the work of the Israeli far right. As an academic, there is one haven of real debate and that’s in academic circles; supporting BDS goes against the grain of academic freedom.

·     Finally, the most important point, though I don’t know if it’s the most significant. Look how much energy we are expending, even in Australia. I understand there were pitched battles on the subject in Sydney! If someone wanted to invent a diversion, BDS is it.

If you care about a just peace in the Middle East, expend all your energy bringing it about and not arguing about the method. The time has come to realise a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel for the benefit of both peoples.
"

Typical Left, Or simply right?

A True Friend of Israel Is No Friend of Netanyahu.

By Jonathan Leader, Senior Leader of the Habonim Dror UK Youth Movement

In recent times, our movements on the left, like the Habonim Dror youth movement, have suffered the same criticism, from many different people. This criticism usually can be summed up in the following simple phrase “Habonim, aren’t you guys the anti-Zionists?” That question, albeit asked in various forms is a question I hear all too often! Be it from religious Zionists, who believe the modern state of Israel should follow the halachic doctrine of the Torah to the strictest of levels, or even  those within the disengaged, secular mainstream in our community.

 Now for a while, I asked myself the following question, “Why do these people believe something which I know for a fact to be untrue?” In fairness the answer came to me quite quickly, and forgive me if the answer I’ve came to seems too simplistic, but here it is. These people don’t truly understand what the Zionist vision and ethos is really about. They mistake an ideology, which in its modern inception was a socialist and liberal one, with an ideology of “supporting the Israeli government”. This is, to my mind a farcical mutation of the original Zionist dream. A dream which aimed to recreate and revolutionise the way Jews all over the world related to themselves and their identities. This is the key aspect of Zionism which our critics seem unable to grasp. Zionism is a revolutionary force. At a time when religious Orthodox Judaism was offering less and less answers to less and less people, secular Zionism aimed to unite the Jewish people around the idea of nationhood. The idea that as Jews we are responsible for our own collective wellbeing and consciousness! That in fact we are not simply individuals but part of a larger and more meaningful collective.

            Now I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that the current state Israel finds itself is not the state in which we, as a movement wish to see it. For a long time now, I believe that for the most part the revolutionary view of Zionism, which we as a movement hold dear and what was intended by its creators is slowly dying out. The values of Jewish collective responsibility and social justice have been eroded by the values of individualism and the need to make a fast shekel. The Declaration of Independence’s pledge that the state will “foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex” has been replaced by the exclusion of Arabs, of Ethiopians of the poor and even, in some places of women. 

The Israel we long for, an Israel based upon that pledge is quickly slipping from our finger tips. A state which at one time aimed to take responsibility over each and every Jewish person who wished to be a part of the revolution has relinquished that wish. So much can be seen from the neighbourhood of boxes in South Tel-Aviv. The genesis of this neighbourhood began with the government deciding to relieve itself of having responsibility for the inhabitant’s lives and selling the land to a private contractor, who in turn allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point it’s gotten to today.

Those who criticise us for criticising the government forget why we do so. We don’t criticise Netanyahu out of hate for Israel, or out of a wish to delegitimise the state. We do so out of a love for OUR nation. We will no longer stand by whilst its people are being exploited or neglected, its democracy being eroded or its society being divided. We criticise because of the direction the Zionist revolution has been taken. It’s gone from one aimed at improving the collective well-being of the Jewish people, to one aimed at securing the most land in the West Bank. 

I for one am not happy that the modern Israel today has the second highest social gap in the world. I am not happy that so many Israelis can’t even afford to live in a country built for them! By their own ancestors! And most of all I am not happy about the fact that the government simply do not seem to care about their own people. Netanyahu, and his partner in crime (or partner in the systematic deterioration of Israeli democracy…however you want to view it) Lieberman are failing not only Palestinians, which seems to take up most of our energies. But Israelis also, both Jewish and Arab.

In conclusion I will leave this demand of the leftist movement, let us not stand idly by while our country is being torn apart by inequality and injustice. Let us stand up When those who wish to transform Israel into something we can be proud of are marginalised and even criminalised, and at the same time those who wish to ensure Israel stays on the same path to its own destruction prosper. And most importantly, let us educate ourselves, our membership and our communities about what real Zionism about, and the unfortunate but poignant truth. A true friend of Israel, is no friend of Netanyahu. 

Aaleh Ve’Haghem.

Normalisation? No. These are issues that reflect our common humanity.

This is a cross-post from www.globaljewishvoice.com

BLOODRELATIONS

By Caylee Talpert.

When people hear I am studying at the London School if Economics, they often ask me if I am involved in the Israeli society. I guess it’s a fair question, given LSE’s reputation as such a hotbed of anti-Israel activities. I spent my undergraduate years in South Africa defending Israel against allegations of being an Apartheid State and even went on to do a Masters in Israeli Politics in Jerusalem. So its not surprising that people assume I am involved in such activities here in London.

LSE Blood Drive

And yet, I made an active decision not to engage in the Israel-Palestinian debate.

The situation is so complex and in my experience, the issues brought up on campus are often so disconnected with the problems on the ground. I love Israel but am also at times highly critical and I feel the university campus is not necessarily a place where such nuances can be accurately understood – at least not in brief sound bites, an intimate conversation is a different story.

I am also somewhat skeptical of the effect of student politics in countries on the other side of the world. (I don’t deny there is power in “the student voice” and know it played a role in the fight against Apartheid, however I would argue that the eventual change came from within, but that’s the topic of a whole other discussion.)

Last week though, a uprising event caught my eye: a blood drive for pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters. This initiative, BLOODRELATIONS, was launched this year as part of The International Peace Day by the Parents Circle Family Forum and the Peres Centre for Peace. In London, the project was run by Saatchi and Saatchi and when I saw it advertised by the LSE Israel society, I decided to participate.

Why did I take a part in this event? Do I think it will make a difference to the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

Not really. However I support any event that supports positive interaction between different groups that see each other as simply that: “the other.” It’s easy to stereotype and distrust someone who you simply do not know. Over the last month I have been meeting people from Arab countries that I know are hostile to Israel, I sometimes find myself cautious and wary at first, I wonder what they think about me as a semi-Israeli (I made Aliyah a few years ago).

I consider myself a multi-cultural, open person and have friends from various backgrounds, so if I feel this way- even if only momentarily – I am sure there are others that feel the same. The only way to counter these feelings is to get to know each other as people and individuals.

I think this sort of initiative is the ideal way to promote such interaction, by coming together not just to celebrate a common love of falafel but rather to unite around issues that reflect our common humanity. A blood-drive certainly fulfills that role. In South Africa it was at exactly this type of event where I met people who, while different to myself in terms of religion or ethnicity, shared a common set of beliefs. I was able to make friends and build personal connections that were sometimes even stronger than my connections with my Jewish school friends who had grown up in my same community.

For all these reasons, I feel really proud to have taken part in this initiative and hope to have future opportunities to meet and interact with people different from myself, not with the explicit aim of multiculturalism or dialogue, but out of a common concern for the shared world we live in. The rest will come in the process. We may not be able to bring peace to the Middle East, but we can bring a little more tolerance, understanding and even friendship to a world where these simple qualities are sometimes lacking.

Israel debate can 'set the tone' for year

This is a Cross-Post from the Jewish Chronicle

By Marcus Dysch

The Israel Society at the London School of Economics hosted a panel debate on the future of the two-state solution. It is hoped the successful event might pave the way for a more positive approach to Middle East issues on the campus.

By Marcus Dysch

Speakers including Michael Brodsky, director of public affairs at the Israeli Embassy in London, and the Oxford Research Group's Middle East special adviser Tony Klug, discussed attempts to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict at last week's session.

Israel Society president Aimee Riese explained: "We were delighted to host a panel of such distinguished speakers. The aim of the event was to present LSE students with a range of Israeli and British Zionist views on the two-state solution and its future.

"We presented a panel with a wide political spectrum, from speakers representing the Israeli government, to those representing the dissenting voices of elements of Israeli civil society, as well as from Bicom and Chatham House.

"The quality of the audience engagement with the panel in the question and answer session hopefully demonstrated a successful forum for discussion.

"It is events such as these which show how discussions at LSE, a campus often portrayed negatively in the news, can instead be productive, mature and engaging. Hopefully it will set the tone for the debate on Israel-Palestine on our campus this year."

More than 120 people attended the session.

LSE has been mired in controversy during the past year, with questions raised over its links to the Gadaffi regime, a senior professor apologising for threatening to slap a Board of Deputies vice-president and students calling for a third intifada against Israel.

The Two State Solution - Where Next?

These were Tony Klug's opening remarks as a panellist at a meeting of the LSE Israel Society held on October 25, 2011. Dr. Tony Klug is a special adviser on the Middle East to the Oxford Research Group and a long-time writer on Israeli-Palestinian issues. This is a cross-post from www.opendemocracy.net.


Among the key questions here, as I see it, are: is a two-state framework still feasible and, if not, is the so-called 'one-state solution' the default alternative? Is that what’s next? 
Proponents of a unitary state would certainly claim that it is. However, in my view, there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of their proposal, for it is predicated on the notion that what, at root, is a historical clash of two national movements can, hey presto, be turned into a struggle for civil rights. 

All the evidence, past and present, and all the reasoning, point, I believe, to the inescapable conclusion that it is not possible to resolve this conflict without satisfying the common, minimum, irreducible aspirations of both peoples for self-determination in at least part of the land that each has regarded as its own. This, as I see it, is axiomatic. In other words, a unitary state is not just unfeasible but implausible. 

Language in this area is often used carelessly and we need to distinguish between a unitary state and a binational confederated state that would retain the two national identities and essential zones of sovereignty. To my mind, this formulation would be a possible – I would say a desirable – future outgrowth of a two-state model, possibly incorporating other neighbouring states, notably Jordan.

A unitary state 

But, for a moment, let’s suspend reality and assume that I am wrong and that a unitary state is plausible and feasible and comes about. What would be its implications? Take the Palestinian right of return – a central plank of the one-state argument. Under an independent Palestinian state, a law to enact this right would almost certainly be among the first to be promulgated, albeit limited to the West Bank and Gaza. It is close to inconceivable, however, that a combined Israeli-Palestinian government in a unitary state would ever reach a consensus on such a massive disruption to the fragile population balance.

Further, the one-state solution would put an end to the Palestinian dream of independence and self-determination, obliging them instead to share common statehood with another people – a people with whom they have been bitter foes for the best part of a century – in a joint non-Arab and non-Muslim state, simultaneously relinquishing the struggle for the end of occupation. It just doesn’t bear scrutiny.

Moreover, any attempt to eradicate the sovereign Israeli state and its predominantly Jewish character is liable to revive the Jewish fear of genocide, or minimally of discrimination and persecution, and meet with fierce resistance. In the light of their history, it is hard to imagine Israeli Jews of almost any stripe voluntarily sacrificing their hard-won independence to become a minority again in someone else’s land. 

Two-state feasibility

So, if the one-unitary-state idea fails the plausibility test, how does the two-state idea fare with the feasibility test? I would say less-and-less well, day-by-day. The principal obstacle is that the state that already has its independence has for years been chiselling away at the territory of the putative other, bit-by-bit eroding the practicability of the only solution that has ever made sense. 

When I first advocated two states in the early 1970s in a Young Fabian pamphlet, ‘A Tale of Two Peoples’, there were fewer than 5,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today there are in excess of 500,000, spread throughout the territory. To paraphrase, this project must be one of the longest state-suicide notes in history. If any of you has any influence, please use it to advise the Israeli government to flip its current policy and be the first to support the Palestinian bid at the United Nations while securing amendments to safeguard its own legitimate interests. That would be a really astute move, something that Israeli governments were once rather good at. 

Failing this, and assuming the regrettable absence of serious international pressure, the real alternative to two states may come into play - not the fantasy of one harmonious egalitarian utopia - but, when the crunch comes, a unilateral Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank and a unilateral withdrawal from other parts. The annexed areas would, we may suppose, embrace all or most of the territory on which Israeli settlements have been built – although there may be some consolidation - together with the surrounding infrastructure and modern road system. The areas from which Israel pulls out – probably all or most of the heavily populated Palestinian cities – might then be fenced off and left to their own fate, with or without a Palestinian Authority to govern and speak for them.

Such an action, far from resolving the conflict, would deepen and entrench it and give rise to sustained international condemnation. Israel and its hapless citizens would be made to suffer the consequences of increasing isolation at every level. Jews around the world would not be immune to the effects either. For their part, the Palestinians would have suffered a heavy – maybe a mortal - blow in their quest for an independent state and may now find their other policy options to be extremely limited, apart from possibly enforced absorption back into the Jordanian state. It would turn what could still – just - be a win-win two-state situation into a possibly irretrievable lose-lose situation.  There is no win-lose or lose-win scenario in this conflict.

In sum, Israel now faces a stark choice: freeze all further settlement growth in preparation for swift and focused negotiations based on the pre-June 1967 boundaries with equitable land swaps, or prepare for permanent conflict and indefinite pariah status – not quite what its founders had in mind! I suspect their advice, at this point in time, would be to follow the biblical injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it’.