Lesson from Oslo: A one-state solution
JVL Introduction
Hamada Jaber and Ofer Neiman look at how the Oslo Agreement which was meant to be a staging post has, thirty years on, become fixed and oppressive.
After three decades it has become a repetitively quoted basis for a two state solution which is increasingly phantasmagorical. The control it gave to the majority of the West Bank as Area C is interpreted by Israel as authority to build settlement after settlement regarded by the rest of the world as illegal and abusive.
Their One State Foundation argues the only way forward from the impasse and an end to violence is “a comprehensive framework which would grant all those residing between the river and the sea equal rights in a shared land.” Mutual acceptance of that framework would allow the necessary negotiation on arrangements and an end to Apartheid.
This article was originally published by Il Manifesto Global on Wed 13 Sep 2023. Read the original here.
Our lesson from the Oslo process: A one-state solution for Israel-Palestine
The Oslo Accord, ceremoniously signed on September 13, 1993 has brought about 30 years of misery and deepening human rights violations in Israel-Palestine. In the past three decades, thousands have died, hatred has grown and despair has deepened. We, a Palestinian and an Israeli, wish to take stock of what has happened, assess the potential for change and underline the potential for effective action we can all take. In doing so, we must question the very foundations of a ‘peace process’ that was doomed from its inception.
The Oslo accords stipulated a temporary arrangement for limited Palestinian self-rule in small enclaves of the occupied Palestinian territories, and the resolution of core issues was deferred to a later date. The late Edward Said was quick to deliver a warning against this in October 1993. He believed the agreement could facilitate the continuation of Israel’s occupation and settlements, noting that “There is little in the document to suggest that Israel will give up its violence against Palestinians”. Said highlighted the colonial aspect of the agreement, drew lessons from the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa and offered a solution based on “equality or nothing”.
Israeli Labour party leaders have been surprisingly honest about the essence of the Oslo process. Shlomo Ben-Ami, a historian and foreign minister in Ehud Barak’s government, stated that “the Oslo agreements were founded on a neocolonialist basis” with the intent of imposing on the Palestinians “almost total dependence on Israel” in a “colonial situation” that was to be “permanent”. Israeli housing minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer stated that Labor “builds quietly” in the West Bank, with the full protection of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
This bad faith mentality culminated in Israeli PM Ehud Barak’s conduct in the failed 2000 negotiations, epitomized by his statement that “there is apparently no partner for peace”. Barak was called out by the late Ron Pundak, one of the Israeli architects of the Oslo Accords. In a scathing post-mortem, Pundak wrote that “The insincere and incomplete implementation during Netanyahu’s [first] administration, and the mismanagement of permanent status negotiations under Barak, were the two main obstacles to reaching an agreement.”
The 2005 Israeli ‘Disengagement’ from Gaza, under PM Ariel Sharon, was a blatantly unilateral move intended to preempt international pressure and premised on contempt for the Palestinians. This sentiment was summed up by Sharon’s senior aide, Dov Weisglas, who said Palestinian statehood should be off the table, at least “until the Palestinians turn into Finns”. Little wonder the plan has failed to stop the cycle of violence, and has brought about a “manmade humanitarian disaster” in Gaza, according to Israel’s leading Israeli human rights group, B’tselem.
In recent years, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, with right wing allies across the world, has sought to erase the Israel-Palestine issue from the global agenda. Reality, however, asserts itself, and the crisis cannot be ignored. The public discourse increasingly recognizes the one-state reality in Israel-Palestine and applies the apartheid paradigm to it. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’tselem have done so, with the latter concluding that “A regime of Jewish supremacy [exists] from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”.
Apartheid is a crime against humanity, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is under increasing (and justifiable) pressure to take action and hold perpetrators accountable for severe violations of human rights and international law here.
The shifting discourse empowers those seeking a just and sustainable solution in Israel-Palestine. Rather than narrowly focusing on Gaza and the West Bank similarly to the Oslo process, our One-State Foundation supports a comprehensive framework which would grant all those residing between the river and the sea equal rights in a shared land. Numerous detailed plans for a democratic one-state solution have been published over the years. Instead of coming up with a new one, we believe there is room for legitimizing the general idea and encouraging all campaigns without choosing a specific plan.
According to recent data, a quarter of Israelis and 35% of Palestinians support a one-state solution here. This is remarkable, and quite encouraging, considering the fact that none of the major Israeli or Palestinian political parties, including most parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, have endorsed this solution. Moreover, a history of secret talks between Israeli settler leaders and Palestinians in the late 1990s is evidence that even powerful hardliners may seek dialogue when they sense that the political trajectory is no longer favorable to their cause.
The spiraling violence, especially in the West Bank, fills any vacuum left by those who throw in the towel. We must take action to bend the arc of history towards constitutional equality for all here. We hold the firm conviction that such a transformation will serve all communities. We all have much to gain from ending the current reality of occupation, oppression, apartheid and bereavement.
There is a companion article arguing for two states: Two States – One Homeland
I suggest anyone who is in any doubt read my article ‘Birthright sold for a mess of potage’ a reference to the biblical story of Jacob and Esau in the October 1993 issue of National Labour Briefing in a debate with Julia Bard of the Jewish Socialists Group.
Everything I predicted (bar the pull-out from Gaza) has come true with a vengeance. At the time I was in a distinct minority as most Palestine solidarity supporters saw Oslo as the dawning of a new era.
Why? Not because I have a crystal ball but because I understood that Zionism was founded as a settler colonial movement whose goal was establishing a state on the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), not half or 3/4 but the whole of what they considered their patrimony
https://tinyurl.com/dx6rjhk6
“none of the major Israeli or Palestinian political parties, including most parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, have endorsed this solution.”
In fact this has been the position of the PFLP since 1968 as far as I’m aware. The PFLP is the second biggest grouping in the PLO behind Fatah, so I find it bizarre that this claim is made.
I have always been a proponent of the one-state solution and supporter of the PFLP, since well before the Oslo accords, which where clearly one of the most elaborate guises that “kicking the can down the road” ever assumed.
I recommend my friend Mazin Qumseyih’s book “Sharing the Land of Canaan” on this subject.
It’s an idea whose time has come but it is by no means a new idea.
Yes that makes sense. But does not address the problem of disarming those who want to keep on killing. Read “Son of Hamas”! It’s not that Israel rejects a one-state solution more that it does not know how to protect the jews from the arabs – and vice versa.
A single democratic state appears to be the only solution to this disastrous legacy of British colonial self-interest, instituted after the First World War.
I am surprised and delighted at the level of support amongst both Israeli’s and Palestinians, even though neither yet consists of a majority. It at least shows that many of those at the sharp end of this meddling by Western powers, are willing to think beyond the limitations of their leaders.
Unfortunately, the USA and UK (and the Labour Party in particular) will be very unwilling to give up the supposed two-state solution as it provides a fig leaf which barely covers their own interests in perpetuating Israeli dominance which projects their power in the region.
Palestine’s fate now depends on how successful organisations like JVP can be in turning the ‘Jewish vote’ in the USA against supporting the existing apartheid project.
As I’ve commented before on this site, sometimes published, Jews in Israel are not going to unilaterally commit suicide which is what your concept of one-state involves. And we all have relatives there so why would be endorse that. Please list examples in the ME, apart from Israel, of a democratic states with human rights and freedom of speech etc. A two-state solution, even with all the different interpretations, is still the only game in town.
I cannot see a One State solution being successful.
In practice the numbers of votes will be in favour of Palestinians as they have the largest population and Netanyahu and past leaders have all recognised this.
Whereas a two State solution, with clear borders, will give the Palestinians full autonomy over their own Country.
PS, the Border should be as close to the original border, in my view, this is the only solution with a chance of success.