The dominant question surrounding the Israel-Palestine problem is which solution, two-state or bi-national, is the most conducive to peace. As a result of this debate, there have been a plethora of articles and speeches trying to outline the most equitable borders. Yet this procedural focus has often come at the expense of a substantive one, which tries to deal with the tensions between both communities. Its results have shown themselves in the constant failures of all peace talks. The conflict has left ethical problems for Israelis and Palestinians that need to be resolved for a lasting peace. Otherwise, extremists will exploit the chaos surrounding the creation of a bi-national or a Palestinian state to foment sectarian violence. The 1947 Partition (which created India and Pakistan) and Yugoslavia are examples of the failures of the two-state and bi-national solution, respectively, as each ended up with bloody massacres. If, however, policymaking discourse expands to try and produce inter-community harmony, then a lasting peace becomes possible.

The two-state solution, undoubtedly the more popular of the two, would only calcify the false belief in singular identities, which, historically, have underwritten violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Such animosity has become structural in both groups’ politics and has ended up being an intractable barrier to peace. It is not a mistake that, during each attempt at a “peace process,” settlements have expanded to accompany frustrated acts of violence by Palestinians. In Israel, the predominant state narrative views its citizens only as Jews in a Jewish state and nothing else. As a result of this narrow vision, not only have Palestinian human rights been violated, but Israeli Arabs are also made into second-class citizens (and even Arab Jews). Israeli chauvinism has seen itself throughout its leadership. In the beginning, many of the founding members of Zionism  adopted the slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land,” and thus relegated Palestinians to the level of flora and fauna. Decades later, Golda Meir famously stated that the Palestinians are not a people. Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel, made famous the idea that Palestinians are Jordanians. Recently, Defense Minister Ehud Barak criticized soldiers who refused to participate in a recent evacuation of Hebron settlers for “threatening the unity of the army.” While the evacuation of the settlers who illegally occupied a building was necessary, the kind of solidarity bred by insisting on the “obligation to carry out the tasks assigned” is built upon an ethics of indifference toward Palestinian suffering. The Israeli mind has been colonized by the state of Israel to inculcate disregard for anyone other than themselves.
Its mirror image in Palestine is the narrow nationalist and/or religious line that presents the Palestinian identity, defined antagonistically with Israel, as the only possible identification available. The violence such a view causes can be seen in the Hamas Charter. Its doctrine officially endorses the end of Israel and celebrates the “martyrdom” of suicide bombers. Its views short-circuit any progression toward peace. On the other hand, Fatah, the self-proclaimed true representative of the Palestinian people, has demolished the democratic process by starting a civil war in the wake of Hamas’s electoral victory in 2006. Fatah has exploited its political power to alienate not only Israelis but Palestinians, as well. In viewing itself as the only political entity that represents the Palestinian people, they attacked all other political views that threatened their self-delusion. In light of these tensions, a border would only solidify the belligerent sectarian thought within each peoples’ collective imaginations.
History has proven that violent “thought” often actualizes itself. The 1947 Partition that created India and Pakistan produced a political climate exploited by Hindu and Muslim leaders to persuade individuals that “Hindu” and “Muslim” stood in opposition to each other and thus mobilized populations for slaughter. Suddenly, broad-minded individuals became ruthless Hindus and Muslims. In the wake of the British Raj, a two-state solution did not grant self-determination but instead made possible massacres that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
Such a fate seems inevitable for Israelis and Palestinians. The opinion of those who want peace will, sadly, not determine political reality. It will be, rather, the extremist settler and the Palestinian suicide bomber who, dissatisfied with anything less than complete “victory,” will use the chaotic birth pains of a Palestinian state to commit massacres. As in India and Pakistan, what will start as the zealotry of a few thugs will proliferate into the mass consciousness. The logic of revenge becomes hardwired even within otherwise peaceful individuals because the perception of an “enemy who kills us” makes us support even those extremists that we would normally oppose. The seeds of this potential nightmare exist within the status quo. The brutal nature of the Occupation causes Palestinian backlash, which, in turn, is met with even greater Israeli repression. In the current political climate, two states would rigidify the dichotomized identities that have caused a cycle of violence.
However, a bi-national solution hardly seems the more preferable option. The destruction of a Jewish demographic majority would be catastrophic, as the newly empowered Arab majority would retaliate over past grievances. While the international community would prevent over violence by the government, there is the risk of an ideological pogrom to systematically exclude Jews from a meaningful political voice. Yugoslavia exemplifies why artificially conjoining ethnic groups is a recipe for disaster. What started as an experiment in multiculturalism soon disintegrated into multiple, ethnically defined states locked in violence. It is inevitable, then, that Israelis and Palestinians would carry over to the new state animosities borne out of history of violence and make it impossible for the new state to function.
Yet, there have been instances wherein both solutions have been successful. In the former, the secession of East Timor from Indonesia has allowed East Timorese self-determination in face of the mid-70s genocide perpetrated by the latter. Despite that horrific history, each state has refused to use ethnicity as a tool for violence. In the second case, South Africa is the model for a successful bi-national solution. Apartheid was not alleviated by a turn to Black or White nationalism but through cooperative governance.
Why are there, then, great successes and equally great failures in examples of both solutions? The difference is the willingness for reconciliation. In both East Timor and South Africa, truth and reconciliation commissions, which aim at documenting rights violations and providing a forum for individuals to narrate their emotional experiences, are tools to understand how and why the conflicts emerged in the first place. In East Timor, testimony has begun to understand the horror of genocide in order to come to terms with its trauma and ensure that, in future, even the potential for it is impossible. South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission approaches Apartheid head-on and its work has been instrumental in ensuring the stability of peace. In each case, the truth-telling functions afforded to both victims and perpetrators have helped to prevent past violence from infecting the present.
For Israelis and Palestinians, grief and anger stretching back to 1948 can be confronted with such a commission. Fundamentally, there is, however, a disconnect between the ways Israelis and Palestinians view the conflict. For Israelis, 1948 marked their liberation and, for Palestinians, their dispossession. Since then, each side has lionized themselves in the writing of history at the expense of the other. It is essential, then, to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable and transcend the us-versus-them mentality which pervades current political discourse. Hope exists as long as there is a will to work toward restoring some measure of agreement on truth and justice. The history of the region, wherein a multiethnic and multicultural society once existed, can serve as a guidepost. For example, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides found refuge from the Inquisition in Saladin’s Egypt and proceeded to become an influential advisor for the latter’s court. Jews and Arabs have gotten along for many more years in history than they have fought. Remembering history can launch dialogue to create active cross-cultural connections that enrich the experiences of both peoples.
There are, however, prerequisites for success. For Israel, there must be an end to the Occupation and anything short of full withdrawal precludes good-faith gestures of peace. Its security fears are a mental impasse phobic to change. In light of the psychic trauma that Israelis feel, such an impasse is understandable. Security claims have, however, become outrageous. Its assertion has become an excuse for continued domination. The recent announcement by Barak that substantial withdrawals would only occur if a missile defense system were in place prevents any change to the Occupation for at least another three to five years. Demands such as these are tantamount to procrastination and unnecessarily prolong the political situation that produced the violence in the first place. For Palestinians, the predominance of Shoah denial must stop. It is not only depraved in its own right but also makes reconciliation with the Jewish community impossible. The symmetrical mental impasse within the Palestinian imagination is the fundamental non-recognition of the Israeli claim and the centrality of Israel for Jewry to overcome centuries of anti-Semitism. Finally, the international community must leave Israelis and Palestinians alone. The marriage of geopolitical calculations and degenerate standpoint epistemology has led to banal attempts by the Americans, the British, and Arab states to tell Israelis and Palestinians how to think. The lack of lived experiences by outsiders has led them to advocate extremist measures that only serve to satisfy romantic fantasies of Israel and Palestine that do not actually exist. Changing the mindset of Israelis and Palestinians is a difficult task. There is hope, however, that Israelis and Palestinians outside of official leadership will begin to create a new and more pacific approach to Israeli-Palestinian politics.
Emanuel Levinas insisted that the beginning of philosophy is the face-to-face encounter with the Other. In viewing and listening to it, the Self can transcend its narrow vision of reality to understand the Other’s viewpoint. The vulnerability and pain noticeable on the faces of those who testify indelibly changes everyone who witnesses it. It renders nearly impossible the cold-hearted dehumanization that grounds violence. An ethical encounter can happen in Israel and Palestine. Disillusioned by the leadership, younger generations of Israelis and Palestinians are increasingly making connections with each other through common interests such as music and art. Within Israel, there is an increasing movement to end the Occupation, an example of which is the Courage to Refuse movement. The latter, consisting of 550 reservists who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories, encapsulates the ethical principle needed. By simultaneously recognizing the brutality of occupation and their own Israeli patriotism, they disintegrate the vision of reality seen in terms of “Israeli” and “Palestinian.” In its place, they view reality in terms of “human beings” who deserve respect and care regardless of ethnicity. In the end, it is irrelevant whether the solution is bi-national or two-state. Without ethical reflection, both will fail. With it, however, both will work and it will, then, be only a matter of which one people vote for.

 

 

* By "Zionism" I mean the version of Jewish nationalism that became hegemonic within the nascent Israeli State. The entire movement is not, in itself, unified.