This is a rare and sobering book on how a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be reached. Long-time activist, now academic and Senior Fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine (ATFP), Hussein Ibish skillfully debunks justifications by advocates of a bi-national Palestinian-Israeli state.
Ibish argues that supporters of the one-state solution "invariably proceed from two assumptions." The first is based on the idea that Israel has built enough settlements to make impossible the establishment of one contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the second on the concept that "a (Palestinian) state is not desirable or sufficient, even if it could be established."
Ibish writes: "There is something of a dissonance between the two arguments when they are bundled together: if a Palestinian state is not desirable, there is no need to insist upon the impossibility of its creation, whereas if it is impossible then its desirability becomes moot."
He adds: "There is a lack of logical coherence to the argument that while Israel cannot and will not be compelled or persuaded to relinquish its control of 22 percent of the territory, it can somehow be compelled or persuaded to relinquish or share its control of 100 percent of it."
Ibish carefully tackles one of the most sensitive issues that has, for long, broken potential peace deals between the Palestinians and Israel: Refugees. According to Ibish, many of those, especially the ones in Lebanon - estimated at around 400,000 - live in dire conditions. Instead of insisting they return to Israel proper, a to-be-created Palestinian state should welcome them.
The author recognizes that while the return of Lebanon's refugees will not be to their original home villages, yet "an imperfect solution is far preferable to no solution at all."
Ibish highlights the importance of pragmatism for Palestinians, rather than insisting on dogmatic and unachievable solutions that would only extend Palestinian misery and delay the creation of their state, put off peace, and keep the Palestinians and Israelis in a state of conflict.
Such conflict, as preached by advocates of one-state open-ended war, undermines the human value of a single state solution. Ibish writes: "The one state agenda in fact corresponds to many well-established human values, but with rather striking exception: peace."
He adds: "Because the majority of Jewish Israelis will not, in the foreseeable future, plausibly agree to such an arrangement, it cannot in practice be realized, and insisting on it means preferring continued conflict to peace."
Ibish also warns against the Palestinian usage of a one-state scenario as a "diplomatic threat" in their peace negotiations with Israel. "One state should not be used as a threat. `Constructive Ambiguity' is always a tricky diplomatic and political tool, and runs the risk of creating self fulfilling prophecies in the place of are originally intended to be open options, trial balloons and empty threats," according to the Palestinian-American professor.
He concluded: "Palestinians themselves might find themselves torn between sympathy for maximalist projects that are emotionally satisfying but fundamentally unattainable such as the Islamist and post-national one-state agendas, and more prosaic and painful but fundamentally achievable strategies aimed at ending occupation."
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
