Israel-Hamas conflict: Three, two, one … zero states?

The most commonly-repeated mantra from external supporters of Israel: the two-state solution is the only way. What do you have today? De facto, something closer to three states: Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Once the fanatics on both sides are done, you could be down to zero states, just a smoking ruin with no one left alive. Perhaps it is time to consider the one other alternative too few are talking about — a single state with rights for all.

This may seem impossible but consider South Africa today. We have many problems but we pulled off what seemed impossible before 1994: a unitary state with a strong rights-based constitution.

This needs to be considered because the alternatives are increasingly untenable.

If the two-state solution does not accommodate the return of all Palestinian refugees, it will never be accepted by any Palestinian negotiator who hopes to keep their job. Continued divide-and-rule tactics will only lead to more of the same. Even if the implausible goal of total eradication of Hamas is achieved, the current conflict digs a deep well of bitterness.

We need to step back and take a good hard look at what led to 7 October and why it happened.

The Palestinian Authority has attempted to work with Israel and the consequence has been illegal settlements and pogroms against Palestinians. The present government includes fascists who quite openly regarded Palestinians as Untermenschen. That empowers radicals: being reasonable with Israel buys you nothing but ethnic cleansing and dehumanising abuse.

The next question is why Hamas did what they did. We cannot assume that they are fools and did not anticipate the Israeli response. So why provoke that?

There is one word that should send chills down the spine of every Israeli and every Palestinian: Algeria.

When the FLN took on France in 1954, the conflict was every bit as unequal as the Hamas-Israel conflict. France was a major military power, with one of the world’s most sophisticated armaments industries. Yet the FLN won and France granted Algeria independence in 1962, after hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly Algerians.

Why did FLN win?

France could not indefinitely stomach being in a conflict with massive civilian casualties. Furthermore, each civilian death brought an entire bereaved family into the opposition. In the end, France could not win.

Is this the thinking of the Hamas leadership?

If so, we can expound on the morality of using their own people as cannon fodder but the sorry reality is that this kind of strategy is extremely effective against an occupying power that claims to uphold civilised values. The only open question is whether Israel is truly committed to such values. There certainly are some who are not,­ even in high positions.

 If the other side is fascists hell-bent on ethnic cleansing, it’s not going to work. Not unless the US drops its iron-clad support of Israel. But if Israel can only continue to exist by becoming its own worst enemy, does it deserve to survive?  

The real hard question for both Israelis and Palestinians is: do you want to see this through to its logical conclusion, or do you want to open yourselves to new possibilities?

It is for this reason that I raise the single-state alternative.

Can this work?

When anti-Semitism was rife in pre-industrial Europe, Jews were generally well treated in Dar al-Islam. The establishment of Israel has reversed that; it has seen a form of anti-Semitism centred on Islam that has no precedent in history. Worse still, we see bizarre situations where anti-Palestine protests include fascists who on another day would be raving anti-Semites. Is this really where Israelis want to be?

Judaism and Islam, of course, have important differences but they also have many commonalities.

Solving a hard problem like this is not achieved by erasing your similarities, but by erasing your differences.

Clearly a radical change in constitutional order carries risks. In South Africa, had the black majority been bent on revenge, the transition to democracy could have gone badly wrong. But it did not. A key component of such a transition is for both sides to accept their common humanity. In the present Israel-Palestine conflict (not just in Gaza), that is a missing element.

Whether a single-state proposal is accepted or not, dehumanising the other is a terrible starting point for a political settlement. And ultimately, this is a problem that must be settled politically.

Ironically, the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has turned into a version where some backing the Jewish state see their freedom in taking over all lands from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean).

The problem will really only be comprehensively solved when everyone living or having a legitimate claim to live in all of the territory “from the river to the sea” have their rights and humanity fully respected.

So my appeal to both sides is: find each other. If you persist with a conflict where your opponent is dehumanised, you end up dehumanising yourself. We already have a partial picture of where that leads. What no one should want is to see the endgame arising from both sides dehumanising not only their opponents but themselves.

The author is an emeritus associate professor at Rhodes University in South Africa and is a long-term civil activist.

The post Israel-Hamas conflict: Three, two, one … zero states? appeared first on The Mail & Guardian.