The heated debate between supporters of a two-state solution and the defenders of one state begs the question: Does either of these solutions seem ideal or pragmatic? If otherwise, what is the solution? In the 1980s and 1990s, the answers to these questions were clear. The two-state solution was able to receive international support, and its support, both by the majority of Israelis and Palestinians alike, was increasing. The direct negotiations on the borders of June 4, 1967 , With reciprocal border adjustments. Today, the so-called "Deal of the Century," adopted by US President Donald Trump, ignores the international consensus and aims to impose different conditions on the Palestinians, designed specifically for the benefit of the Israeli right.
The failure of negotiations based on the Oslo Accords and the settlement expansion that continued during the talks were the two factors that increased support for a one-state solution by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Meanwhile, the Israeli government seems to have abandoned the search for a solution.
Although the debate on the objective is important, that debate still ignores how that goal is achieved. I do not refer here to whether the only means is the "diplomatic process", or that the international community imposes a solution. Nor am I referring to the question of whether the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is an effective means of finding a solution. The issue is that if the two sides are unable to bridge the gap between their negotiating positions, the international community will force them to do so.
Accept the solution
However, we still have to ask whether the two peoples will accept any solution reached by their leaders, either at the initiative of that leadership or as a result of intense international pressure on them. Even if there is no agreement through international pressure on the horizon, it is useful to give some thought to this issue, such thinking may be useful someday. I would like to refer here to the premise that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to lead to armed rebellion against the legitimate government, or even civil war in one way or another. While I do not believe in historical inevitability, it is likely that such a dangerous insurgency will not erupt if each side finds a suitable way to overcome its extremists and suppress the insurgency before it turns into civil war.
In order to achieve this, it is necessary to make such a hypothesis and explore ways to avoid it in order to minimize potential harm if such possibilities occur.
I will focus on the Israeli side, because the circumstances that could lead to a civil war or revolution in Israel are different from those that may develop on the Palestinian side. The Palestinian opposition to a permanent agreement in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative will be based on national religious and symbolic arguments, Israel's opposition to the full return of the 1948 refugees, the legitimization of Zionism and Israel, and total abandonment of the land of Palestine on which Israel is based. On the other hand, opposition in Israel will not only be for symbolic reasons, but also because of material interests. In addition, ending the Israeli occupation and achieving full independence would be a historic Palestinian achievement that would reduce the pain of ongoing concessions.
Stiff positions
The possibility of a civil war or insurgency is not hypothetical, it is in the air and in the consciousness of decision-makers. This "elephant in the room", which means that there is a problem people do not want to talk about, may lead to hardening of positions. For various reasons, and not wanting to avoid internal confrontation, the Israeli side prefers to claim that there is no partner, or to offer an unstable negotiating position. At the same time, there is great pessimism on both sides about the willingness of the other party to agree on the arrangements. There are more and more voices standing by the one-state solution, based on the argument that there is no possibility of evacuating the settlers.
The question is: Why is the evacuation of settlers a serious obstacle? First, because Israel's territorial expansion and control over the Palestinian population is the largest ever undertaken by Israel, as its scope, in terms of time, land and project cost, is unprecedented in Israel's history. I can say that the establishment of the State was less costly than its expansion after 1967.
This is not only ideological investment and the transfer of settlers to the Palestinian territories, but also the creation of jobs for hundreds of thousands or millions of Israelis, as well as profits from the export of technical knowledge and security products that provide Israel with control over the Palestinian population and land . The establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip requires more than a political decision or the evacuation of some 100,000 settlers, but a complete change in the direction of the State of Israel.
Israeli investment in controlling the Palestinian population increased as Israeli expansion increased. In 2002, Israel occupied the West Bank and transformed the Palestinian Authority into a subcontractor through security cooperation. Since then, a single regime has been established between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Under this system, the Jewish ethnic group retains control over the Palestinian group. Despite the deep gaps between the two competing ethnic groups in terms of the balance of power, human rights and access to resources, there is demographic parity.
However, this demographic balance is not in the interest of the Jews, and that is why they control their control over the Palestinians. The annexation of settlements is not only an effective annexation of the land, but also an instrument of control over the Palestinians. As investment grows, it becomes difficult for the Israeli Jewish side to lose all of this, and to relinquish such privileges as it has control over the Palestinian side.
The Jewish majority is mobilizing a series of arguments to justify such foolish behavior, with security at the forefront of these allegations. The Jewish side feels that its superiority and ability to control the situation are being threatened. While the security threat is essentially grounded, many mistakenly interpret it as an existential threat, making it more difficult to change direction.
Of the settler
It is wrong to believe that the problem I have raised stems mainly from the number of settlers. It is true that there are an increasing number of them, more than half a million, but not all of them are extremists such as the murderers of the Duabshah family in the village of Duma in the West Bank in 2015. Some believe sincerely in coexistence with their Palestinian neighbors, or the need to accept the decision of the democratic majority.
But we must remember that the settlers as a political, religious and social group are not limited to the West Bank. In other words, it is not the place where extremists live, which determines the "extremist settler." In this regard, there are also "extremist settlers" within the State of Israel, and this means those whose religious-political security and their universal national vision match extremist settlers. Some of them may carry arms in an attempt to oppose a democratic decision that would extend full Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.
And then Israeli democracy will clash with its legitimacy, and this confrontation is not with an external enemy, but with some citizens of Israel and its soldiers. In the name of the sanctity of the land of Israel and the deep mistrust of the Palestinians, the group will be responsible for using the weapons at its disposal and its military knowledge against the army and the security services that will implement the decision of most of the country's citizens. This will be followed by a bitter internal debate and a legitimate democratic struggle by opponents of the agreement.
In the mid-1960s France was forced to confront the revolt of the settlers and its military units when, in a referendum, it decided to evacuate Algeria. When Algeria was annexed to France, it had one million settlers and half a million French troops. It should be noted that France decided to evacuate in the context of global colonialism, a context that does not exist today. This would make it more difficult to carry out an Israeli evacuation.
The close coexistence between the settlers and the military and security establishment that protects them in the West Bank can create a situation in Israel similar to the situation in France. The settlers of the type described here can be found not only in the settlements, but also in Israeli combat units (some of these units are homogenous), in the civil administration and the security services.
The number of underground Jews in the 1980s was about 20, yet evidence suggests that a group of activists with military experience and the ability to organize underground can succeed in their quest with the support of the ideological authorities and make a strategic change. Since then, the likelihood of such a situation has increased. Since the evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005, the group that supports extremist settlers has not shrunk, but expanded. Contrary to the impression generated by reports of settler violence against the Palestinians, the main threat to a permanent status agreement comes not from a small group of violent outlaws and adolescents, but from an underground organization group with broad support from a social and political institution.
In order to persuade the Jewish community deeply invested in the expansion project, to give up its privileges, there must be a severe crisis or intense external pressure, because no colonial power has abandoned a colony for reasons of morality or recognition of human rights. But if pressure increases and the crisis escalates, whether from the Palestinian side, the international community or both, it will be difficult for Israel to surrender. Members of the Israeli peace camp will be called traitors and agents, symbolically removed from the Israeli consensus, as was evident from the events preceding the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
In 1994-1995, the attack targeted one person, and in the future weapons could target a full slice of the population.
Discuss the taboo
A one-state solution does not eliminate the possibility of civil war. Instead of a conflict between the State of Israel and a Jewish rebel group, the conflict within one state will be between ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the Jewish ethnic group will not agree to relinquish its privileges in order to establish a system of equality between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
Israel's GDP per capita for 2017 was $ 36,000 and $ 250, compared to $ 3,000 in the Palestinian territories. Even if this huge gap is reduced, many of them will separate rich and powerful Jews from Palestinian Arabs, not because they are the least qualified, but because of the Jews' attachment to supreme control.
Given Jewish superiority in all domains, with the exception of demography, there is no chance that Jews will get high positions in the status of a single state and will not be able to manage their resources further to maintain their status. On the reality of demographic equality between the two ethnic groups, the Palestinians will not agree to be in a lower position. In short, a one-state solution is a guaranteed recipe for ongoing civil war, as in the Balkans with the break-up of Yugoslavia or in Lebanon.
The debate over the civil war is taboo in Israeli society. The dominant slogan is "Jew does not evict a Jew."
There is no doubt that the events that will accompany the liberation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and full Palestinian sovereignty with East Jerusalem, and with the return of the refugees, will be a shock to Israeli society.
The settlement is not only an ideological investment and the transfer of settlers to the Palestinian territories, but also the creation of jobs for hundreds of thousands or millions of Israelis, as well as profits from the export of technical knowledge and security products that ensure Israel's control over the Palestinian population and land.
• No colonial power has abandoned a colony for reasons of morality or recognition of human rights.
Menachem Klein - Professor Menachem Klein teaches political science at Bar-Ilan University and is the author of "Shared Life - Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron" (2014). His latest book, "Arafat and Abbas, Photographs of Leadership in a Deferred State" was published in October.