Customer Reviews

The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The great advantage of Virginia Tilley's new book, in this commentator's eyes, is that it should reintroduce an issue that, for reasons much too complex to go into here, has long been "off the table": the hypothesis that the only viable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem is to find a way for the disputing and warring sides to live together. In the early parts of her book, Tilley argues that the policy of "in-fill" of Jewish settlements into areas that might have, once, been part of a possible (if resource-poor, surrounded-by hostile others) Palestinian homeland, have made such a homeland utterly unfeasible. Given this, the only solution is to create a single state wherein, in the creation of that state, the two sides have worked long and hard to find ways to accommodate their differences. Tilley is of course powerfully aware that the practical obstacles--and arguments against--such a solution are enormous, but no more so, she contends, than the practical obstacles and arguments facing any serious two state solution. In the latter part of the book, Tilley attempts to wend her way through the rock and a hard place she has "created," as she tries to meet objections and "pave the way" for serious discussion of the issue. The only reason I give this book a "four" instead of a "five" is that, by book's end, it isn't clear, to me at least, that the "one-state solution" is going to work either--even if (and it's a big "if") those involved in the conflict get down to brass tacks concerning her thesis. However, that's a minor quibble: for generations, the problem has proved intractable and she should hardly be held responsible for not "solving absolutely" a conundrum that has perplexed luminaries and people of good will--on both sides--for a half century and more. But this much she has done--and it is much: a serious student of the region and its issues, a scholar empathetic with the problems faced by each side--particularly with the problems faced by Palestinians--she has given us a clear, sophisticated, well-argued "new idea" to consider about a major world problem. Her book's great contribution is its ability to put before us, seriously, an alternative way to continue intelligent debate about the central issues and enormous suffering going on in that small, incredibly important, seemingly God-forsaken, part of the world she takes as her subject. Very much worth reading and debating, in other words.

I first heard about this book from friends who are angry about it, so I figured I wouldn't bother with it. After all, only some seriously ignorant ideologue would think a one-state solution for this conflict could ever work, right? But then one of my uncles, who happens to be a Holocaust survivor, told me to read it and not have preconceptions, and that it had given him hope for the first time in years.

So partly out of curiosity and partly to be nice to him I picked up a copy. I couldn't put it down, read it in five days, stayed up after midnight... it wrecked several nights' sleep. First, Tilley writes plain brilliantly. Each chapter flows like a page-turner, which isn't easy to do with this kind of material. Mainly, though, she has so many facts at hand, and works through the arguments so carefully, that her argument hit me as air-tight. After each chapter I felt my whole understanding of this conflict spinning around on its axis. But just when I was ready to despair, Tilley offered a way forward that is truly inspirational to me, and that's not easy for a middle-aged Jewish cynic to say about any book these days, let alone one on the Middle East. By the last page, I had tears in my eyes... and nothing to do with them except write this review.

Anyone who trashes this book hasn't read it. Tilley covers so much ground, from history to sociology and geography... it makes a complete picture. She is also very careful, and balanced in her way, but not in that false meaning of "balance" that really means not dealing with Israel's policies and what is really going on, even if those facts are terribly painful to face. I felt her compassion in every line even while she was trashing some of my most closely held beliefs. I wanted to attack her argument several times but never could... rest assured, the book has full references for those who care about such things. Yet it escapes the academic trap (I see from the cover that she's a political science professor) and flows so well that most of us non-academics can float right through it.

But this book isn't just gripping. It's important. I've talked to my friends about putting together a reading group just on this book. Some great classroom debates could come out of it, I imagine. My only advice to anyone picking up this book is to really READ it... read all of it, maybe a chapter at a time, because you have to get the entire picture to realize how much ground it covers and how powerful it is, and how much it matters that we all start dealing with a one-state solution. Before I read this book, I thought the idea was nuts. After reading it, I think we can do it... but more, we have to do it.

For anyone who is curious about the conflict in Israel-Palestine, for anyone
who would like to know the the whys and wherefores of this dispute that has
lasted for over a century, for anyone who doesn't have a lot of time on
their hands to read all the available literature on the subject (and no one
has that much time), just spend a couple of evenings with this book and you
will have a good handle on what is really happening over there and what
needs to be done to find peace between these Semitic peoples.

For anyone who is curious enough to look up the maps of the proposed
division of what was once called Palestine into two states, Israel and
Palestine, it is quite obvious: the 2-state solution cannot possibly happen.
In fact, as Tilley makes abundantly clear, the 2-state solution really never
existed as a factual possibility - it was a propagandistic diversion from the
real issue - how the Arabs and Jews in this tiny land could live together
without killing each other. It isn't as complicated as many would like you
to believe. Both Israelis and Palestinians want and need the same thing -
a place where they can raise their children in safety and enjoy God's
blessings - by the way, its the same God for both of them - but both want
the same land.

Why one group, the Israelis, should claim that their God gave them title to
the land that was once called Palestine and has been inhabited by people,
now called Palestinians, for centuries is beyond me. They claim it is decreed
in the Bible but one can read many interpretations into biblical texts - such
as, white immigrants to North America are manifestly destined by God
to remove, subjugate or destroy all indigenous people, because they had
suntans, and of course because they happened to be in the way.

What Virginia Tilley does is cut through all this crap and bring us to where
we are now. Israel-Palestine, in particular the West Bank (since they have
recently removed the settlements from Gaza), is so divided by immense
settlements (some are actually small cities) and roads to service these
settlements - much as Ariel Sharon predicted long ago with his
cut-them-up-like-a-pastrami-sandwich, facts-on-the-ground strategy - that
the possible establishment of two states is finished, dead, fuggedaboutit.

There is no way in hell that any Israeli politician can advocate the
dismantlement of these settlements which would entail moving hundreds of
thousands of Israelis to some other place in Israel. Therefore there is simply
no room or resources remaining for any second state to be established.

Another solution that is frequently mentioned, particularly by Zionist
fanatics, is that all the Arabs now living either in the occupied territories or
Israel proper be forcibly "transferred" to Jordan or other Arab countries
and be done with. After all, they say, there is so much Arab land and so
little for Israel. Tilley dismisses this possibility, a brutal ethnic cleansing
the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Holocaust, as unlikely due to
international outrage. I am not so confident.

But what about the idea that these two peoples can live together in the
same place? For that I suggest reading this book. If there is one book that
I could recommend on the Israel-Palestine issue, this book is it. I call it
The One-Book Solution.

Few people are as qualified to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the author of this book. She is a professor of political science with a PhD from the university of Wisconsin with special emphasis on ethnic conflict. Further, Dr. Tilley has had twenty years direct experience with this conflict, including living there for two years. The book, is scholarly, well-documented, and illustrated with maps. It can serve as an excellent background for this conflict, and includes a discussion of the important international actors: the Zionist movement, the Arab States, the United States of America, Europe, and the United Nations.

Conflicts can be resolved by three ways: prevalence, compromise, and transcendence. The first alternative of prevalence, that is, of one party totally defeating the other has failed. Cleansing that land of historic Palestine of one ethnicity or the other has not been possible and is unthinkable, though some continue to advocate such a solution.

The second alternative is compromise: the two-state solution, one Jewish, the other Palestinian. This book convincingly argues that this is not a viable solution that will bring peace to the area and the world at large. Some of the reasons are:

1. The identity and mytho-history of both peoples are based on the total area of historic Palestine. Their collective consciousness will not rest with a fraction of the land.
2. Demographic mixture: Jews live in large numbers in the West Bank occupying 60% of the lad, and it has become unthinkable that they will vacate the area. Palestinians constitute 20% of the population of Israel. Any separation is tantamount to apartheid.
3. Natural resources, especially water, are impossible to divide, and will continue to be a source of tension. About two-thirds of the water Israel consumes comes from the aquifer under the West Bank.
4. Economic: the two economies and potentially the labor force are inextricably linked and interdependent.
5. Politico-legal legitimacy: basing a State on one ethnicity necessarily results with discrimination. Israel cannot be Jewish and also democratic.

A meta-conflict, such as this one, cannot be resolved with compromise and needs to be transcended by forming one democratic secular State for all concerned. After reading this book, I am left convinced of the statement at the end of Chapter 3: "Hence, the one-state solution is not an option to be argued. It is an inevitability to be faced."

This is not to say that this will be an easy solution. Dr. Tilley discusses the potential difficulties and offers proposals for their resolution. Rather than endlessly arguing how to divide this small piece of land, as has been done over the past fifteen years, the energy should be directed towards forming one-State.

Such a State will open the Arab and Muslim worlds for cultural and economic exchange. It will also serve as a bridge between the Middle East on one side and Europe and North American on the other side; contributing to the peace and stability of the entire world.

With this solution the concept of the "Promised Land" will be transformed from the physical to the moral. Rather than warring over a piece real estate, the struggle will be for human rights, justice, and the well-being of the individual. Could it be this is what the God of Abraham really meant by the "Promised Land"?

Professor Mahmoud N. Musa

The One State Solution is superbly written, well researched with arguments well supported by facts and analysis.The choice of vocabulary is wonderful. The author presents a point of view on the Israeli-Palestinan conflict that is worth considering and pursuing. The current policies of the United States and Israel have not resulted in any progress that would lead to peace and have the potential for dissater for the people who occupy the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea.

The specter of forced relocation of the population in the territories or the horrid conditions of their lives and hopelessness is compelling.

The history of the conflict and the different positions are presented with astute analysis and are presented in a light not seen in the United States. The discussion and comparison between the situation in Israel-Palestine with the history of South Africa and Northern Ireland is very informative.

The comments on the politcial situation in the United States that may limit America's flexibility in helping facilitate a solution are very accurate.

One hopes that the EU will pay attention to this outstanding contribution to the debate and take a more active role.

I urge every thoughtful person to read this work.

As many Palestinian and even some Israeli scholars have already known for years (since Oslo), thw two state solution is no longer a reasonable option for a viable Palestinian state. The Israeli government with its illegal wall that cuts into West Bank, settlement blocks, and access roads have made it impossible for any state to emerge from the occupied territories. Based on what is known now, any new Palestinian state that would arise would be essentially within Israel.

Virginia Tilley's book shows the problems with the two state solution and shows an alternative argued by both sides of the conflict: the one state solution. She also presents the obvious political implications to this proposal (dismantling of the Zionist regime in Israel, etc).

This book is an excellent work to include amongst the vast scholarly literature on the conflict as well as its possible rational solution based on the facts on the ground today.

In an age of global multi-ethnic communities, one ethnic state is an obsolete concept and no longer applies to Israel (20% of their population is Arab). One multi ethnic and religious Palestine is the more realistic solution

This book presents a powerful critique of Zionism which as someone who had a Jewish and Zionist upbringing I found quite painful at times but which I had to acknowledge to be correct. For instance, I queried at the time the author's assertion at the beginning of the book that the ethnic nation state model has been abandoned everywhere else except Israel; but she goes on to explain that though there are many other states based on religious domination, no other state is based officially on the domination of one national group over all other national groups in the state.

At the same time, unlike so many anti-Zionists, Virginia Tilley is never doctrinaire, sectarian or aggressive. She shows great empathy for both peoples (the book is evidence of the advantage in dealing with this subject of being neither Jewish nor Palestinian). She is sympathetic to the positive aspects of early Zionism which were destroyed by nationalism; and her one state solution involves an evolutionary and reconciliatory approach towards Zionism. Indeed, despite her trenchant critique of state Zionism, her vision actually comes over as the ultimate realisation of true Zionism: the creation in the Holy Land of a society based on justice, equality, peace, reconciliation and cooperation between peoples. Utopian though this sounds, this solution also comes over as the only feasible and practical one left. Virginia Tilley's argument that the two state solution is finished is convincing; and this book is an important opening to the necessary debate on a one state solution.

Virginia Tilley offers a refreshing and, I suspect for most, a fairly novel perspective on viewing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as well as offering some very substantive solutions to a seemingly insoluble dilemma. At times, she does paint the situation with some overly broad strokes, but her analysis is generally thorough and well documented. Her historical analysis tends to exaggerate Jewish/Israeli "complicity" in aggravating the conflict, and tends to overly downplay the role and impact of extremist elements in the Arab/Palestinian camp, which after all, led to early Palestinian Arab rejection of the very solution, based on the "bi-national" model, which she now offers. She does very correctly depict the conflict as more of a "civil war", rather than a general Arab vs. Jewish dispute; while at the same time she does allude to the very significant peripheral role that these larger communities play in fueling the conflict.

Overall, her proposal for a "one-state" solution, though somewhat simplistic in that it fails to depict the depth and intensity of opposing passions on both sides of the fence, is both reasonable and sound, and as she consistently points out, it's ultimately the ONLY solution. Much to her credit, she does recognize the role that passions, both rational and irrational play in this conflict, but fails to penetrate the role that historical circumstances play in generating and fueling them. Like almost all academics, she reflexively draws the parallel with South Africa, but in reality, the social situation in the "Jewish" state is more akin to the pre-civil rights era in this country, since the highly institutionalized structure of "apartheid" that existed in South Africa is far from present in Israel, though certain similarities in the apartheid mindset clearly inspire some Israeli laws.

In conclusion, I would applaud Virginia on her creativity and boldness in addressing this most volatile of issues from a refreshing perspective; after all, the "one-state" solution is what I've been advocating for over 30 years, long before it started to become trendy. However, I've always advocated the "one-state" to be establish under Israeli, not Palestinian, auspices, as you don't dismantle an existing, and certainly a very viable, apparatus to recreate one of dubious legitimacy. Obviously, Arab Palestinian would be given the opportunity for citizenship in this "new" Israel, and that citizenship would grant absolute equality for all; however, as Virginia well states, there would still be a role for cultural/ethnic (though not necessarily geographic) autonomy in this restructured state, along with essential guarantees that the nature of the state could never be changed without the majority consent of all concerned; i.e., both Jews and Arabs. While anathema to most Israeli Jews, and Jews worldwide, this does, in fact, represent the very solution that many Jews had previously embraced during the British Mandate period; albeit vehemently rejected by the Mufti of Jerusalem and apparently the bulk of the most vocal representatives of the Palestinian Arab community.

A must read for anyone involved in resolving this never-ending debacle; and one I believe is destined to set the bar on future publications regarding this conflict.

Virginia Tilley thinks she has it all worked out. She thinks the reason there is violence in the Levant is that Jews, using a "rapidly eroding" argument, feel they have to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. She notes that some Jews are passionate about this.

Well, I am a liberal. And a polytheist. I am for human rights. I am for peace. I would like nothing better than for the people of the Levant to live together in peace. Not only that, I think it would not be peace to ban Arabs from Israel or to ban Jews from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Gaza, the Golan, or the West Bank. I think it would be a mistake (and again, not peace) to "ethnically cleanse" regions by expelling Arabs from Israel or expelling Jews from the West Bank. Matter of fact, I would like it if both sides let Pagans live in the region as well, and granted us human rights. Furthermore, I agree with Tilley that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank might be tough to remove. Maale Adumim and Ariel in particular are big towns.

Some folks say that a two-state solution is needed. Um, which two states? Two Arab states? Two Jewish states? One of each? There really isn't much land there. Israel, even including the West Bank and Gaza, is less than 11,000 square miles. The remaining Arab states have millions of square miles of land. 11,000 square miles is in fact not enough for either a Jewish state or an Arab state. While that land has plenty of coastline, it doesn't have oil. A few million people would, in time, buy up much more than 11,000 square miles. If we want two states, we'll need to find much more land for them. That fits right in with Tilley's argument: one state on 11,000 square miles is plenty. Dividing it up would render it less valuable to everyone and be a threat to peace as well.

However, Tilley fails to realize that Israel itself is land-poor. To her, the over 5 million Jews in Israel are inherently insufficient to be a majority in 11,000 square miles of Israel, while the millions of square miles of Arab lands are not really enough for the Arabs! That is preposterous. In peacetime, Jews would dominate that most or all of that 11,000 square miles, and probably buy up another ten or twenty thousand square miles as well. An actual Arab majority in Israel would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Israelis, just as an Arab majority in Italy would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Italians.

So I can't agree that we all need to realize that there is something wrong with Jews being a majority in Israel! As for the passion that Tilley says some people show on this matter, well, I think it is proper for people to be passionate about having rights to life, liberty, and property.

That gets us to the second big thing that is wrong with Tilley's entire concept. She seems to regard a binational state as a great new idea. It isn't. It was the original idea. It did not work. And the reasons why it didn't work are just as valid today as ever. Back in the 1920s and early 1930s, most Levantine Jews wanted the British Mandate to become just such a state. Jews would have rights of life, liberty, and property. They would be allowed unlimited immigration to the new state. Hebrew language and culture would be officially recognized (Hebrew and Arabic could be dual national languages). Jewish religious rights would be protected. Holy sites of all people would be protected and be open to all. And the Jews would have their own schools, universities, and hospitals.

Arab fanatics made sure that none of this could ever happen. The final blow came when Arabs convinced the British government to issue the infamous 1939 White Paper. That took away the right of Jews to immigrate, condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews (or more) to death in Europe, and made it clear that for Jews to have rights in the Levant, a Jewish state was a necessity. Tilley, by wanting to remove the elements of this state that allow Jews to have these rights, is being an outright opponent of human rights, not just for Jews, but for everyone.

There are some other problems with the book. Tilley complains about Jews ravaging the land and threatening the water table. I think that is misleading. The Jews have worked wonders with Levantine land in the past century or more, draining swamps, irrigating the deserts, using water efficiently, and making desalinization so inexpensive that it may permanently answer any long-term threat of catastrophic Israeli water shortages. If any group has traditionally ravaged Levantine land, it has been the Arabs. A single state might help fix that problem, not by reducing poor Jewish practices as much as by reducing poor Arab practices.

I think Tilley may be right that one state in the Levant is enough. But I think that state ought to guarantee human rights for Jews, including rights of immigration, not preclude them.

I do not recommend this book.

Virginia Tilley distorts history, demonizes the Jewish people, and skips over fact.

Tilley ((a Hamas supporter) denies Israel's right to exist and calls for a 'unitary' Arab dominated 'Palestine' to replace Israel, in which Jews would be a helpless minority at the mercy and whim of HAMAS , as the Jews in Europe and the Arab countries (from which 800 000 Jews where expelled in 1948.) were at the mercy of their persecutors. If Tilley's demmand became a reality, Jews would wait, huddled in their ghettos, to be massacred by the Arabs.
YTilley and others who call for Israel's replacement by a 'unitary Palestine' know full well that this would lead to a second Holocaust of Israel's five million Jews.

How well did the 'unitary state ' work in Lebanon where hundreds of thousands of Christian Lebanese were massacred by the PLO and Syrians and went from being a majority in 1975 to a minority today? How well did the Animist and Christian Nilotic Blacks in Darfur and Southern Sudan fare in Sudan where millions have been massacred, or the Kurds in Iraq where 800 000 were butchered by Saddam Hussein?We all know how minorities fare in Arab countries and what makes anyone think the Jews in your suggested 'unitary Palestine' would fare any better, given the amount of hate in Palestinian society for Israel's Jews.

Why out of a massive landmass under Arab control , and a number of Arab states (today they number 22) it is regarded as such an injustice that a number of Arabs should be a minority in a Jewish State, where they enjoy full civil and political rights.
Jewish statelessness had led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews during the holocaust.

Tilley falsely refers to the nation-state as an anachronism, conveniently ignoring currents events around the world and recent history.
Those insulated academics who refer to the nation-state as an anachronism are ignoring the message of recent history, which has seen the birth (or rebirth) of a plethora of nation-sates, from the ruins of enforced multi-national artificial entities : Hence in the last 18 years we have seen the independence of nation-states including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Eritrea and East Timor.

The meaning of Israel is clear. The Jew has experienced too much death, and a portion of the Jewish people decided that they would die quietly no more (especially after Hitler's Holocaust). So it is: and no argument, no clever political talk, no logic and no parading of right and wrong can change this fact.The Jews returned to Israel because it was their ancient land. From 1810 onwards, Jews in the Land of Israel have been murdered by Arabs. The pious Jews of Safed, who would raise no hand in their defense, were robbed and murdered and burned out again and again by Arabs - as where the Jews in Jerusalem and Tiberias. Bedouin Arabs passed through Land of Israel at will-and robbed and killed Jews for profit. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Arab feudal lords in the Land of Israel organized pogroms precisely as the Tsar had organized pogroms.

In 1920 Jews where massacred by Arabs in Jerusalem, in 1921 in Jaffa and in 1929 in Hebron. Thousands of Jews where murdered in 1936 to 1939 in the Nazi inspired Arab Revolt. Since 1948 Arabs have launched wars against Israel to try to drive Jews into the sea and since Arafat launched the latest war in 2000, after rejecting a peace deal, thousands of Jewish men women and children have died in Israel by bomb, bullet and knife. Jews will never again be put into a position where they can be subjected to another Holocaust (particularly in the ancient Jewish homeland).


p.s Virginia Tilley now lives in South africa where she leads a campaign to demonize Israel and bully the Jewish community that supports Israel.
Her rhetoric is vicious and fanatical, and racist against the Jews of Israel.