dreaming with Ali Abunimah

Ali Abunimah, Palestinian-American, activist and founder of The Electronic Intifada, lays out his vision for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his 2006 book One Country. The conflict feels more like a stalemate than ever, a two-state solution the only one most people consider publicly. Most Israelis, many Palestinians, and many activists in disparate camps, bristle at the notion of a one-state solution. So even talking about this right now seems a little crazy.

But One Country is one of the most hopeful things I’ve heard about Israel-Palestine. Abunimah asserts that the issues any peace process must resolve- West Bank settlements, refugees, Arab citizens of Israel, Jerusalem- cannot be truly reconciled with the creation of two states. He then suggests that Israel proper, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem, be turned into one multi-ethnic, democratic, pluralistic state, with protections in place to ensure that the majority group cannot enforce discrimination against the minority.

It sounds idealistic, but Abunimah’s model, unlike most suggested for Israel-Palestine, is rooted in history. South Africa also created a multi-ethnic, multi-party democracy with protections for minorities, ending the injustice of apartheid and a conflict that seemed, as it does in Israel, intractable. “If peace could happen in South Africa,” Desmond Tutu says, “peace could happen anywhere.”

Abunimah does not touch on regional politics in his book. But I suggest that a one-state solution could significantly diffuse the larger regional conflict, too, for three reasons that come to mind.

1. The market for supporting Palestinian militias will dry up. Assuming that, given the choice between real democracy and fighting, most people will in fact choose real democracy, groups like Hamas will either be marginalized or drop their military efforts to become political parties. (Skeptical? Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The PLO in the 90’s. Etc.) Then, Syria, Iran, or whoever happens to be arming them will have no means- and perhaps no cause- to arm Palestinians; there will be no “proxy wars” fought in Gaza.

2. Tensions surrounding Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will ease as they are allowed to return to Israel-Palestine peacefully. Historically, Palestinian militias have formed and fought from neighboring states. Palestinians in Lebanon have not been integrated into Lebanese society; a failing of Lebanon, no doubt, but their conflicts with the Lebanese and with the Israelis will end if they’re offered full citizenship and a chance to return.

3. A multi-ethnic state will diffuse anti-Semitism regionally, undermining the potential for ethnicity or religion to play a role in conflicts. Many chaff at the idea of diluting Israel’s Jewish character. And understandably so. But one can argue- as one Jewish, anti-occupation, anti-Zionist activist I know does at his family gatherings- that Jews are actually much safer if they live in peaceful, pluralistic societies than they are in a defensive, militaristic enclave. In a multi-ethnic Israel-Palestine, one could not conflate the state’s actions with the actions of Judaism or “the Jews.” And Israelis, seen as Others in the Arab Middle East, will be far less demonized if they partner with Palestinians to form a working state. What cause will Arab nations, those who’ve claimed to support the Palestinians for the past 60 years partly out of a sense of pan-Arabism, have to consider an Israel-Palestine an enemy state?