Israel and Palestine: The One-State Solution

[ag]

Not yet, but getting there.

The one-state solution will become inevitable once it starts dominating the Palestinian thinking. I give it another, say, 20-25 years or so. The current generation of Palestinian leaders will have to die off for that - they are Zionism's last chance. Once they are dead, the next generation will demand citizenship.

[ag]

Given the fact that Israel (and the Palestinian Authority) have effectively abandoned the two-state solution peace process, I'd say so. 

Wrong.  Israel hasn't abandoned the two-state peace process.  They just don't have a partner that wants peace to negotiate with. 

I guess, you have already bought the Brooklyn Bridge from Netanyahu.

[ag]

Not yet, but getting there.

The one-state solution will become inevitable once it starts dominating the Palestinian thinking. I give it another, say, 20-25 years or so. The current generation of Palestinian leaders will have to die off for that - they are Zionism's last chance. Once they are dead, the next generation will demand citizenship.

The current generation of Palestinian leaders is Hamas and they already favor a one state solution.

Well, they are there as well, but they are not the only ones out there. The next generation of Fatah (or whatever it will be called than - probably, something else), however, will be a lot more dangerous for Israel's existence as a Jewish state than Hamas has ever been or will ever be.

[ag]

Cautious nazism on exhibit. I am going to be reported again, of course.

[ag]

Israel + West Bank (but no Gaza) would still be a Jewish majority, I believe. 

It would. But it would be very difficult to get a "Jewish government".  Basically, even if the non-Zionist parties only get, say 40-45 seats in the Knesset (quite reasonable if only WB is included), any government that excludes them would have to take in very strange coalition partners. Even if some consolidation happens (as it is bound to, given the environment), it is hard to see how such coalitions could form. So, almost necessarily, a joint state, even if majority Jewish, would not be able to stay a Jewish and democratic state at the same time. It will become, at the very least, a binational state along Belgian lines (yes, I see the humor in that sentence ).

I do not believe a one-state solution would lead to a civil war. But, obviously, as of today the one-state solution is unacceptable to an overwhelming majority in both communities. I can see it becoming the Palestinian demand within a generation or so, though. I can hardly imagine it being acceptable to anybody on the Zionist side.

In fact, frankly, if such a state were to emerge after the West Bank annexation, I would not be surprized if a substantial chunk of the Zionist center and left would be willing to go into a coalition with at least part of the "Arab bloc" precisely in order to negotiate a separation. They care about the Jewishness of their state a lot more than they care about its exact territorial dimension. They would be very willing to sacrifice land, but they will never sacrifice the spirit.

Personally, of course, I see nothing wrong with a one-state solution. In fact, if I were an Israeli, I would firmly advocate it. But one has to be realistic: it is anathema to most Jewish origin Israelis. I may not share the Zionist religion, but I have long learned not to fight sincerely held religious beliefs of others.

[ag]

Ultimately, I think a one-state solution is the answer; Gaza will be cut loose to be an independent city-state whereas most or all of the West Bank will simply become part of the Israeli state (probably all, since the border with Jordan is actually one of the Jewish areas while the majority-Palestinian ones are all inland), with the Palestinians being at least offered citizenship. Such a state can quite plausibly remain democratic and majority-Jewish (though nowhere near as monolithically as current Israel, of course). Offering a national homeland for both Jews (who would form a majority) and the native peoples of the area would be more consistent in any case with the vision of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

You realize that such a state would, nearly necessarily, have governing coalitions including "Arab" (non-Zionist) parties. And these parties would, at the very least, demand recognition of their community's equality in the joint state. Also, in such a state non-Haredi Jews will be in minority pretty soon, if not from the beginning. Both absolutely fine by me, of course, but would most Zionist Israelis be equally happy about it?

[ag]

Ultimately, I think a one-state solution is the answer; Gaza will be cut loose to be an independent city-state whereas most or all of the West Bank will simply become part of the Israeli state (probably all, since the border with Jordan is actually one of the Jewish areas while the majority-Palestinian ones are all inland), with the Palestinians being at least offered citizenship. Such a state can quite plausibly remain democratic and majority-Jewish (though nowhere near as monolithically as current Israel, of course). Offering a national homeland for both Jews (who would form a majority) and the native peoples of the area would be more consistent in any case with the vision of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

You realize that such a state would, nearly necessarily, have governing coalitions including "Arab" (non-Zionist) parties. And these parties would, at the very least, demand recognition of their community's equality in the joint state. Also, in such a state non-Haredi Jews will be in minority pretty soon, if not from the beginning. Both absolutely fine by me, of course, but would most Zionist Israelis be equally happy about it?

Doubt it, especially since from a socioeconomic point of view Arabs will probably have significantly worse turnout than Israelis. Most likely, the Israeli left and right will be tied together in a permanent coalition -- perhaps even a single party -- that would hopefully adopt the best characteristics of both. Arabs who join parties within this coalition (the way, historically, up until the 1990s they pretty solidly supported Avoda) would be part of the government, along the lines of whites in the ANC. After a few decades of receiving the benefits from living in a First World state, they will hopefully stop supporting non-Zionist parties (or, more likely, the non-Zionist parties will simply be paying lip service to the idea of being non-Zionist). Happy ending for all.

They would have around 40 seats even on substantially lower turnout and with some Arab vote going to Zionist parties (I did the calculation recently, too lazy to search for it immediately). That leaves 80 seats to the Zionists and the Haredi together. Enough to form a government, but not enough to have alternation ever: you can drop, may be, a Zionist faction or two before it gets unstable. The Shas+UTJ+other Haredi vote will be worth at least 10 seats (remember: this time some of it failed to get in because of the threshold - they will be forced to amalgamate in the larger electorate), and will grow pretty rapidly with time - hard to see them getting under 15 seats before long, possibly more.  So, this pretty much guarantees that every government will have to have the Haredi, possibly all of them together. Of course, that, in turn, would imply that a chunk of the hard-left vote (say, 5 seats) would actually ideologically prefer to ally with the Arabs (among whom the hard-left block would be bigger).

So, unless inviting Arab parties would become acceptable, you would have a permanent, unchangeable pretty much communal government, heavily dependent on bribing the Haredi. This, of course, would imply permanent lack of resources for the Arab sector, which would be viewed as anti-government in any case. Discrimination would only be strengthened. And, of course, the Arabs, on average, would be even poorer and less integrated to begin with than the current Israeli citizens, making them ideal members of the new underclass. The ethnic/religious divide will be reinforced with the class and discrimination divide.  Under your scenario (no Arab parties need to worry about being in the government), communal tensions will be permanently intensified, not weakened. And, of course, the Arabs would get few, if any, advantages of "living in a first world country": but they will have a much clearer view of how those, who enjoy these advantages, live.