Two states is an apartheid idea

MANY PALESTINIAN solidarity activists in this country put their main efforts into opposing the 1967 occupation and, more recently, Israel's siege of Gaza. But you and other Palestinians have argued that Palestinian refugees' right to return is at the core of the struggle for justice. Why is this?

ZIONIST DISPOSSESSION and oppression of Palestinians does not begin with 1967. It goes back to 1948, when more than 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from villages and towns in Palestine and were deported to neighboring countries--Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank--to make way for an apartheid "Jewish state."

Then, in 1967, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem, which represent the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine.

As a result of this systematic and ongoing ethnic cleansing, fully two-thirds of the Palestinian people are refugees entitled to their right of return to their original homeland, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194. This is the root of the Palestine issue. Solidarity supporters that only take the cause back to 1967 are ignoring the source of the problem--and reflecting the Zionist Left in Israel, which wants separation of Palestinians from Israeli Jews.

CAN THIS central right of return be realized if there is a Jewish state anywhere in historic Palestine?

NO, THAT is an impossibility. Zionism, by its nature, is an exclusionary ideology that doesn't accept the "Other." And the "Other," in Zionist ideology, is the Palestinian--the Arab in the historic land of Palestine. So a Jewish state means the denial of rights to non-Jews. I am from a refugee family, but because I am not born from a Jewish mother, I'm not entitled to citizenship in the state of Israel; I'm not entitled to my right of return.

HOW DOES this fit into your analysis of the two-state versus the one-state solution?

THE TWO-state solution is a racist solution that calls for a "pure Jewish state" and a "pure Palestinian state," both of which would be based on ethno-religious identities. It does not take into account the rights of two-thirds of the Palestinian people. Neither does it take into consideration the national and cultural rights of 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, who live as second-class if not third-class citizens of the state. This is extremely important.

Furthermore, the Palestinian struggle is not about independence--it is about liberation. Liberation is very different from independence, because our right to self-determination must lead to the right of return and full equality for all inhabitants of the state of Palestine.

The two-state solution is a racist dogma that cannot guarantee all the rights demanded by the 2005 BDS call around which we have a Palestinian consensus: withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Arab lands occupied in 1967; implementation of UN Resolution 194, which calls for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants; and an end to Israel's apartheid policies against Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel.

I'm sorry that we have solidarity activists who have fallen into the trap of supporting this so-called solution. Would supporters from the United States of America accept a state that officially discriminates against African Americans? Did South African supporters accept the "Bantustan solution?" No, they didn't! So why accept it for the Palestinians?

AND THE one-state solution?

THE ONE-state solution is the only solution through which the Palestinian rights called for by the BDS movement can be achieved. Moreover, it is a very generous compromise from the oppressed colonized to the settler colonialists, offering citizenship in a state with total equality, exactly like what happened in South Africa, where white settlers were offered the same generous compromise by the indigenous population.

This is the 21st century, after all! We are offering a humane, inclusive solution that is not based on ethno-religious identity: a secular state for all of its citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

If you're really a supporter of Palestine, you are supposed to support our right to self-determination, which ultimately leads to a secular democratic state throughout all of historic Palestine. Otherwise, you would be supporting a racist solution! I don't think that genuine support for Palestine excludes the right of return. If that is the case, then where are the Palestinian refugees supposed to return? To an apartheid state that defines itself in ethno-religious terms? A state that is not their state since it is the state of Jews only?

IN A 2009 interview, BDS leader Omar Barghouti said, "I am completely against binationalism. A secular, democratic state, yes; but not binational. There is a big difference." Do you agree? And what, in your opinion, is the difference?

YES, I completely agree. A binational state by definition is a state made up of two nations. These two nations are historically entitled to the land. But Jews do not constitute a nation. Israeli Jews constitute a settler-colonialist community, not unlike the whites of South Africa or the French in Algeria. Settler colonists are not entitled to self-determination. However, the indigenous people of Palestine--Muslims, Christians and Jews--are all entitled to self-determination, and they do constitute a nation.

In fact, bi-nationalism is a Zionist idea since it looks at all Jews as a nation that is entitled to the land.

WHAT DO you say to people who say, "OK, I agree with what you're saying. But let's be honest. Two-states is the only realistic solution, and if you really want to help Palestinians, you should focus on ending the immediate problem of the occupation and supporting the two-state solution?"

I WOULD say that the one-state solution is more practical/realistic than the two-state solution. South Africa proved that civic democracy for all the inhabitants of South Africa was the way forward; the land of South Africa, according to the Freedom Charter, belongs to all those who live on it. That's a lesson that we need to learn from history.

Israel has shot the two-state solution in the head by creating new facts on the ground: by annexing Jerusalem, having a "Greater Jerusalem," and by increasing the number of settlers and expanding the existing illegal colonies (all colonies are illegal). In 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed, the illusion of peace prevailed, unfortunately. People believed that it was possible to have two states [with] a Palestinian state on 22 percent of historic Palestine.

That year, 1993, the number of Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was 193,000. Twenty years later, the number of settlers in the West Bank has risen to 600,000. Israeli settlements--or rather the Jewish-only colonies, since Palestinians are not allowed to live there--have become towns and cities, which means that Israel is not planning to leave the West Bank at all. And during these 20 years, Israel has erected a monstrous apartheid wall that separates Palestinians from Israelis and Palestinians from Palestinians.

Israel has also transformed the Gaza Strip into a concentration camp--as much as these two words might disturb some people who claim to have monopoly on victimhood. [Gaza is] an open-air prison. There is no communication between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The whole issue is personal for me; it is personal for all Palestinians.

For example, my sister lives in Bethlehem, just a one-hour drive from Gaza. But I have not been able to see her for 15 years. When both our parents died back in 2005, she was not able to come to their funerals. That personal experience tells you about the impossibility of having two states.

SO, JUST to clarify, you don't support the one-state solution just because a two-state solution has "failed;" you support it because one state is the only just solution, is that correct?

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Even if you implemented the two-state solution--which is an impossibility--it does not fulfill the right of self-determination, which is the right of return, equality and freedom. The two-state solution doesn't do that.

AT THE 2013 Left Forum in New York, Steven Shalom argued that, while unjust, the "two-state solution" nevertheless paves the way for one democratic state and should be supported on that basis. Do you agree?

NO, I do not! Does he also think that the anti-apartheid movement should have accepted the Bantustan solution based on the same logic? I have already made it clear in my previous answers and articles as to why that is a fallacy. A racist solution cannot pave the way to a just solution.

Archbishops Desmond Tutu said that "[they] wanted the full menu of rights." Why are we expected to beg for less than that? I fail to understand.

IS IT presumptuous for Jews and other non-Palestinians to endorse the call for one democratic state?

I STRONGLY believe that all solidarity supporters should heed the call for a one-state solution made by the oppressed Palestinians. They should be principled in their support for human rights and democracy as expressed through the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. Does the two-state solution subscribe to that declaration? No. Then logic and principle demand that they should support the call for the solution that does, namely the solution that calls for civic democracy and equality throughout all of historic Palestine.

After all, activists didn't feel it was presumptuous to support a single democratic state in South Africa, did they? And when the "president" of Transkei called on the international community to support and recognize his "independent homeland,"--his version of the "two-state solution"--international anti-apartheid activists did not buy that line!

And, by the way, most South Africa anti-apartheid activists who have visited Palestine now support the one-state solution. Some of my South African friends and comrades say it very clearly: "The one-state solution is the only solution, because we can't support a racist solution." That's why even the official South African line of supporting a two-state solution is not that popular among South African solidarity supporters of Palestine--not to say even among members of the cabinet. They know what racism is all about!

The five-state solution in South Africa was the brainchild of the architects of apartheid: White South Africa on 88 per cent of the land, and four "independent homelands", or Bantustans, for the natives. In fact, the original plan was to have 11 Bantustans, if four was not enough for you.

The solidarity movement supported the call for civic democracy and a secular democratic state in South Africa, because that was the only solution. There could be no compromise, no negotiations with apartheid. The same thing should apply to the Palestine solidarity movement. Why is that so difficult to understand?

IN A recent interview, Noam Chomsky said that the one-state solution was an "illusion" because it "has no international support." How do you respond?

DID HE also add that the two-state solution has become a facade, a fantasy in the heads of those who believe in fantasies? Didn't he also argue in his latest piece in Mondoweiss that Israel and the U.S. have killed the two-state solution?

Personally, I feel heartbroken when I see an extremely smart thinker like Chomsky missing the point and deciding to adopt a soft Zionist position! There is something with people like Chomsky and Finkelstein with whom you tend to agree about everything in the world except on Palestine. That's why, understandably, some BDS and one-state activists in the U.S. call them PEP (progressive except on Palestine).

There is an overwhelming international support for our right to self-determination, and this entails our right of return and equality. How is the two-state solution going to deal with these two internationally sanctioned rights? Chomsky fails to provide an answer, unless he thinks we are not entitled to our right of return and equality. He is smart enough to know that the two-state solution is a racist one. Didn't he think so about the Bantustans of South Africa?

YOU RECENTLY said, "At one point in time, the BDS movement will be asked to take that stand" in favor of one democratic state. Why has the BDS campaign refrained from taking this stand so far, and should it do so now?

EVERY ACTIVIST knows by now that the BDS movement is rights-based, rights that are guaranteed for all human beings regardless of ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, etc. BDS is guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is why most, if not all, BDS activists are staunch human-rights defenders.

I am nevertheless aware of tensions arising from the Boycott National Committee's (BNC) lack of a political program and its focus on a rights-based approach. This issue is certainly worthy of discussion within the BNC's secretariat. But we also need to take into consideration that the BNC is a coalition--with all the compromises that coalitions have to make in order to work as a front. That is why the BNC has become the frame of reference for international boycott movements.

I believe that a good comparison with the South African experience, within this context, can be made, which shouldn't overlook the role of the United Democratic Front (UDF) that functioned with representation from the National Congress Party as well as other political parties and civil society organizations--in exactly the same manner as the BNC.

The UDF adopted two out of what South Africans called the "four pillars of struggle," namely mass mobilization and the boycott campaign. History stands witness to this approach that contributed immensely to ending apartheid. In my opinion, the BNC has learnt this historical lesson from South Africa. But it took the international community about 30 years to heed the call made by the anti-apartheid movement, whereas the Palestinian BDS call was made in 2005 only.

That is why I think there will come a time when BDS will be asked to take a stand vis-à-vis the one- or two-state solution. And I strongly believe that it will come in support of the former.

HOW IS the call for a single secular democratic state throughout historic Palestine connected to other liberation struggles in the region?

WHEN THE Arab Spring started in Tunisia and Egypt, Israel was extremely worried because the struggle in the Arab world is for human rights and democracy. And democracy is the antithesis of Zionism, exactly the same way democracy in South Africa was the antithesis of apartheid, and which ultimately led to the end of institutional apartheid there in 1994. (I still think that economic apartheid exists in South Africa, but this is something we can address in another context.)

As a Zionist project, Israel knows very well that true democracy in the Arab world would spread and reach Palestine. Israel would be expected by the international community and by the Arab Spring to be truly democratic. That means one person, one vote. And after the right of return, one person, one vote would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine.

That, to my mind, is the link between the Palestinian struggle for freedom, self-determination, and liberation, and the struggle for democracy and human rights in the Arab world.

SPEAKING OF BDS, Norman Finkelstein recently accused the BDS campaign of hypocrisy for appealing to international law when it comes to Palestinian rights, but refusing to respect international resolutions, like the 1947 UN partition, that--he claims--legitimize the existence of the "Jewish state." How do you respond?

I'M SO sorry to hear that from a smart person like Norman Finkelstein.

As U.S. solidarity supporters, you have principles. You can't reconcile an unjust partition and apartheid with human rights and democracy. Has Norman Finkelstein forgotten that Israel defines itself as the state of Jews only? Do you expect me to recognize something like this, just because the United Nations declared it to be so? We recognize those laws and resolutions, like 194, that are just and reject those, like the partition resolution, that are unjust. That is the way all human rights struggles have operated. How is that hypocritical?

That is how it was in the struggle against apartheid South Africa. Whether it was Norman Finkelstein or his mentor Noam Chomsky, everybody heeded the call by South Africans. We all said, "What do you want, you oppressed, colonized South Africans?" They said, "We want an end to apartheid." And right now, Palestinians are saying we want an end to Israeli apartheid.

I would have understood him had he supported the two-state solution based on UN Resolution 181, passed in 1947, which offered to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state as the solution. It is a very unfair and problematic resolution in that it offered the Jewish minority (660,000 out of 2 million people) the larger part of the land (56 percent).

This 56 percent, offered to the Jews, included an equal number of Jews and Palestinians. And since most Zionists, soft or not, fought for a Jewish majority in Palestine, that ultimately led to the Nakbah, that is, the orchestrated process of ethnic cleansing. Two-staters, such as Finkelstein, do not say that a Palestinian state should be established on 44 percent of Palestine based on UN resolutions!

So I would argue that it's Norman Finkelstein who's being hypocritical, because he is unwilling to do for Palestinians what he and all other activists did for South Africans. And in fact, he's being Zionist and racist when he actually expects us Palestinians to listen to what he has to say in the first place. No, excuse me, he is supposed to listen to what we have to say--unless he has decided to ignore the fact that the 2005 BDS call has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society, including national and Islamist forces! Is that really not enough for genuine supporters of Palestine?

IT HAS been 20 years since the Oslo Accords were signed. What effect did these accords and the so-called "peace process" that followed have on the struggle for the core Palestinian rights called for by BDS: equality, right of return, and the end of occupation?

I'LL SUM it up by quoting Edward Said in 1993: the Oslo Accords are a second Nakba. Oslo has reduced the Palestinian people to those who only live in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, while excluding Palestinian refugees and Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel. Oslo never alluded to Palestinians' right to return to their villages and towns from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and never alluded to equality in the 1948 territories. Oslo basically codified and legitimized the ethnic cleansing--the Nakba--of 1948.

Oslo also gave a false impression to the international community that there are "two equal parties"--Palestinians on the one hand, and the Israelis on the other--engaged in "dialogue" to solve their problem. But there are not two equal parties. There is no dialogue. There is an apartheid regime seeking to perpetuate its rule on the one hand and an indigenous people struggling for their inalienable rights on the other.

Rather than acknowledging the necessity of disassembling this apartheid regime once and for all, Oslo fetishized the trappings of statehood--that if you offer Palestinians a flag and a red carpet for its president and a national anthem, then you have solved the Palestinian question once and for all.

Going back to Norman Finkelstein: you have the struggle of colonized Palestinians against settler colonialists--thanks to the BDS movement, thanks to the formation of the BNC, thanks to the formation of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, and thanks to the revival of the one-state idea. You have intellectuals and activists like Edward Said, Azmi Bishara, Ali Abunimah, Omar Barghouti, Ramzy Baroud, Joesph Masaad, Ilan Pappe and all these people who have decided to say farewell to the two-state solution and to endorse the one-state solution.

As solidarity supporters, you need to support democracy and human rights--the same principles you followed in the 1980s against apartheid South Africa. You didn't waste time discussing the practicalities of having Bantustans in South Africa. So you need to join us in putting the two-state solution on the shelf in a museum because it delays our liberation, and instead support our call for one state.

First published at Mondoweiss.