On the "One State Solution" to the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 initiated what has become known as the "Oslo Process", the recognised vision of how to resolve the longstanding violent conflict between the state of Israel and Palestinian representatives, organisations and people have been the so-called  Two State Solution, where the state of Israel is to mostly withdraw to its original 1947 borders, and a state of Palestine reign over the remaining territory of what used to be the British colonial "protectorate" of Palestine. This resulted in the creation of the Palestinian Authority reign over the Westbank and Gaza territories, pending final negotiations about nation state borders, which have never so far taken place. In the meantime Israeli seizure of Palestinian property and land, and colonial settlements in occupied territory have continued, as have violent rhetoric and activities both within the Palestinian territories (since the militant islamist Hamas movement seized power over Gaza and effectively put a stop to democracy there), and between the Israeli army and various militias and activists from the Palestinian side. Of course, mostly with the result of massive domination and show of force from the Israeli side, to the repeated disbenefit of people living in the areas, especially the blockaded Gaza strip. Very recently, some initiatives from Hamas has signaled attempts to overcome the infighting with the Palestinian Authority, but so far with no notable political result. Even more recently, US president Donald Trump stumbled into the conflict in the rogue elephant manner he has made himself known for and designated Jerusalem from now on to be the recognised capital of Israel, albeit the US (or the UN) does not recognise the territory where Jerusalem is located as part of Israeli territory, but as occupied land. Not surprisingly, this gave rise to a new wave of violence from military, militants and activists on both sides. The idea of the two state solution seems less politically realistic than it has ever done.

Against this background, a number of debaters have suggested an alternative idea, The One State Solution, which to a lot of people makes a lot more sense than the fiasco and resulting mayhem that has been going on since the creation of the state of Israel in 1947. This idea, simply put, is that all of the territory currently contested is made into one single state, that this state is made ethnically unaligned (abolishing ideas about a Jewish or Palestinian homeland), democratic, and secular, and that a deal is struck on the question of how people in various forms of exile may return (or not return) to the area to settle. One idea would here be to allow Palestinians housed in refugee camps, e.g., in Syria and Lebanon, since generations a "law of return", just as the present state of Israel allows a "law of return" for Jews who can prove appropriate lineage. Another notion is to stop the current Israeli practice, and to instate normal migration laws based on ethnically and religiously neutral criteria. All who discuss this idea recognise that no such deal will be satisfying chauvinists and extremists on either side, as it means abolishing the notions of a "Jewish", a "Muslim" or "Islamic", a "Palestinian", an "Arab", etc. state. Nevertheless, having one state, with one administration, one judicial apparatus, one police force and one military, will be in a better position to control such elements than in the current state of a nasty mix of virtual anarchy and martial law, where extremist on both sides continue to perpetuate a state of chaos and violence to no benefit for most people on either side. Some examples of proponents and critics of this idea can be found here, here, here, here.

However, the practical way towards a one state solution is making a lot of people uneasy, as it necessitates breaking with some cherished ideas and longstanding practical solutions. The most obvious way to instigate the one state solution is for the current state of Israel to simply annex the territory it presently illegally occupies; the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. Thereby, these areas are declared to be parts of the state of Israel, its settlers are recognised as Israeli citizens, with the same rights and obligations as any other current Israeli citizen. Those who want to hold on to ethnic or religious chauvinist political ideas don't like this, of course. Besides the obvious dissatisfaction from islamist camps (such as Hamas), there is also a lot of Israeli orthodox chauvinists and rightwing politicians, who quite like the present situation of occupation, as it allows the military to rule with martial law style arbitrary discretion. The whole Jewish settlement and land grabbing operation pretty much rests on this situation of (lack of) law enforcement. That, by itself, should be excellent reason for reasonable people to like the one state solution. But also many people of this sort I have talked to hesitate to support the one state road ahead, and I have heard two reasons for this: First, the fear of enlarged interstate military conflict though having surrounding countries interpret the move as hostile and react accordingly. This is an important point, but this risk is present also – if not more – with the current two state debacle. Whatever solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is reached needs to contain agreements with neighbouring countries in the region that guarantee sustainable, stable and peaceful conditions for all.

The second reason for hesitation is a distrust of the current state of Israel's ability to maintain itself as the kind of democratic, ethnically neutral and secular state, committed to rule of law and equal treatment, that is necessary for the one state solution to function. This reason, in contrast to the first one, is a game changer issue. This since it will force the state of Israel – and its present government – to finally put down its foot with regard to its political identity. With the one state solution, either Israel takes the consequences, and abolishes all notions of ethnic or religious identity as its basis, or it will have to abolish its often held out liberal democratic aura and turn itself into a bona fide apartheid state within its own lawful borders (in contrast to the virtual apartheid currently practiced via the partition into "real" Israel and occupied territories). Likewise, should citizens of Palestinian origin reach political power in the new one state of Israel/Palestine, they will face a similar choice between maintaining the ethnically neutral and secular democratic solution of a one state Israel/Palestine, or pursuing the islamist/Palestinianchauvinist agenda lurking within the notion of this territory "belonging to" a certain "people", thereby promoting their own apartheid solution. That is, the very same basic notion that drives the Jewish chauvinist notion of present day Israel, only with another "people" as the supposedly chosen one. Both, of course, can only lead to genocide, should they prevail.

This, I suggest, is what makes the one state solution both very scary for many people, and at the same time immensely attractive. It is the best solution under ideal conditions, but given the still apparently strong commitment of dominant parties involved to ethnic/religious chauvinism, and the infantile notion of a possibility to "win" over the opposing side, it may seem politically infeasible. At the same time, the alternatives of continued anarchy and war or one or the other version of genocide are hardly more appealing. I'm torn.

***

The Leadership Moral Qualities of President Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump

Holders of political positions of high office, such as presidents or prime ministers, always attract controversies due to the content of rivaling political aims, agendas and visions. But one thing you would expect of any holder of such a position is that this person possess the ability to lead. For this is what such offices are ultimately about. The new US president, Donald Trump, has now been in office for some – very brief – time. Mostly these beginning days of a new US presidency – or a new cabinet in a parliamentary democracy – are ones of relative calm and ease; of settling in and attending to the formalities necessary to, thereafter, be able to rule for real and do one's best to realise whatever political program one has been elected on. Not so this time. Donald Trump has in a very short time managed to (I'm not giving any specific links here – all you need to do is to do a bit of Googling):

a) ... issue an unlawful (according to some court decisions even unconstitutional) executive order on one of his central deliveries to those who elected him: the so-called travel ban, aka Muslim ban, in spite of the fact that his closest legal adviser, the acting attorney general, had advised him against the design of the order;

b) ... fire said acting Attorney General for having done her job and extended said advise, before being forced by the legal system to back down;

c) ... attacking the federal courts that decided said order is unlawful for doing their constitutional job and applying and interpreting the law – openly mocking them as "so-called" judiciary, earning himself the epiteth of the "so-called POTUS" – rather than realising that said order needs to be redesigned to achieve legal compliance;

d) ... appointing a personal security adviser, Michael Flynn, who already from the start was heavily in question from a national security standpoint due to dodgy Russian contacts, and who then lied about that to his own administration, making himself into an even worse threat to national security, before being exposed as a liar and finally fired just a few days after his appointment, but apparently as long as two weeks after the President had been briefed about the question marks hanging over him;

e) ... apparently openly lying about this documented foreknowledge when asked by a reporter;

f) ... fire the acting Attorney General (same as b above), who – again! – had done her job, and advised the President about the national security threat posed by Flynn;

g) ... trying to surpress the unsurpressable and increasingly credible information about his campaign staff having had potentially illegal contacts with Russian intelligence agents and officer prior to his inauguration;

h) ... failing to have one of his central ministerial appointments confirmed by Congress, in spite of having a secure GOP majority in both houses;

i) ... making a number of apparently unplanned and ill thought-through international political attempts (Mexico, Russia, China, Europe, Israel, Nato, Yemen ...), which so far have only weakened the international standing of the USA due to their apparent lack of systematic strategy, and their confusing lack of grounding in the US diplomatic and international affairs ministry;

j) ... appoint a press secretary, Sean Spicer, of such questionable competence and skill that he has already managed to antagonise more or less the entire news media corps and made himself the laughing stock of the world;

k) ... apparently for this reason elevated his former campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, to some form of unspecified advisory capacity, whose role now seems to be to second guess Spicer when he seems to be botching up 8which happens frequently), but who has already herself been caught with open lying and fabrication of facts, all of which just serves to deepen the confusion and lack of credibility of the new administration; 

l) ... himself, personally!, as well antagonising and attacking the same media for criticising his actions, via Twitter or actual press conference, rather than learn from his obvious mistakes and take action to bring them onto his side. His first solo press conference is, in this respect, a stuff of legends in its exhibit of confusion, lies and complete lack of judgement – even the formerly good media dog of the GOP and alt-right, Fox News is decrying the spectacle, and counting the lies;



m) ... apparently also antagonising, rather than allying, large parts of the very federal administration that is meant to help him execute his policies, e.g., by derailing or ignoring its expert opinion and intelligence, among other things regarding all of the items above;

n) ... continued to openly and blatantly lie, and antagonise all that point this out for doing so.

Ok, so all of this in just a few weeks, and long before any real policy making has begun. Everybody know that several of Trump's central promises that got him elected will run into severe trouble in the process of making actual law, confirm the federal budget, et cetera. For a large portion of his GOP majority of course sees that several of his ideas will not be of benefit to either the American people or the Republican party – such as starting trade wars, or radically increase the federal financial deficit and lending to be able to realise the combination of the promised infrastructure and industry projects, the increased military spending in combination with decreased federal taxes. One would have supposed that the Trump inner circle knew about this, and therefore would take some care to prepare to ground well for the very real political battles that lie ahead, especially as this would mean using a period of relative calm, when new administrations are usually left comparably alone in terms of critical scrutiny. If they don't €#%+ up, that is. Which is what Donald Trump has apparently been doing from day one. But this is already clearly set out in any number of reports and commentaries available all over, and not any kind of original point of mine.

What I would like to comment on is what moral qualities of President Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump are revealed by how he has chosen to handle these early challenges, troubles and setbacks. For such qualities are, of course, central to any leader's prospect of success, both regarding central projects one is set to realise (whatever these are), and regarding one's ability of holding together whatever organisation one is set to lead in order to effect that realisation. I am thus not reviewing the moral quality of his political aims, vision or agenda, but rather how well is is equipped to lead an attempt to realise those aims, that vision and agenda.

1. Carefulness
This quality is about a leader's ability of preparing actions well – its antonym is carelessness. As related above Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump scores very low in this dimension of leadership. many of the chaotic blunders during these first few weeks could have been easily avoided by better preparation. The ability of exhibiting carefulness depends on several of the qualities listed below.

2. Wisdom
This quality is about several things, bounded together by the importance for a leader to be able to learn from mistakes, revise opinion in view of misjudgement, and design his or her administrative support to secure this ability. Well-known obstacles to the achievement of wise leadership is for a leader to surround him-/herself with advisers that are "yesmen" and/or loyal rather than competent, to be prone to assume people who object to one's propsals are conspiring, rather than carefully considering the content of criticism. So far, Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump has demonstrated very little on this front. Possibly the only sign so far is the final, at great pains, forcing out of Flynn, and the final, again at great pains, grumbling contention that, possibly, the travelban order will have to be entirely redrafted and rule of law respected after all. A wise leader would, of course, never have hired Flynn in the first place, or acted immediately on the incriminating information, and would immediately have accepted the court decision regarding the travelban, and gone back to work to do better, rather than firing the foremost adviser who had told him how the land lay and mock the same constitution that gives him the power he is so amateurishly attempting to execute.

3. Responsibility
This is about two things. First, to accept the link between power and accountability for the consequences of its wielding. Second to communicate this sense of responsibility to the surrounding world. This means not, e.g., blaming underlings for one's own mistakes (e.g., of appointing them) or ignoring their advise, or others for their predictable reactions to what one does. Again, Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump has a long way to go to even approach the minimal standard of a half-decent leader.

4. Perspective
This is the ability to assume and see the reason of the points of views of others, as well as be able to think strategically and long-term, acknowledging the complexities of an heterogeneous world. This could, for instance, imply accepting some adaption to opponents' and critics' points of view in order to realise larger objectives further on, or to think once or twice about how other around you might respond when you threaten them. As a case in point on both fronts, while Trump may very well chose to tax Mexican imports to pay for the so-called border wall that Trump has promised to build (as he has hinted that he plans), this will, of course, have an effect on the consumption of said goods, undermining the revenue in question, while at the same time it is predictable that Mexico can easily offset the damage by taxing US imports to a similar degree to offset the damage. As there's a more or less 50/50 import/export trade relationship between the two countries, the netto effect would mainly be a shrunken economy on both sides, and it would seem that the Trump threat has pretty much nothing going for it, unless one fails to think two or three steps ahead. Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump once again fails to exhibit such qualities,

5. Restraint
This is basically about keeping one's cool in the face of opposition and complications. To keep a clear mind in order to be able to realise one's plans, to forestall opposition to read one's hand, to avoid unnecessarily antagonising those with which one may in the future be forced to attempt negotiation and compromise, and to secure a basic understanding and respect also of those who have a critical stance to one's attempts (such as the press). Above,  I didn't even mentioned specifically the Twitter activity that Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump, I may add that now, to underscore how magnificently he is failing also on this point.

6. Effectiveness
Now, a leader who is lacking in any of the qualities 1-5, may be excused if he/she, as the saying goes, gets the job done. The problem is that Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump is not, and to a great extent due to his very lack of the moral qualities needed for great leadership. As mentioned, so far, all of the circus created has been far from any real policy making challenge – it's been about the elementary preparations for those. And Donald "So-called POTUS" Trump isn't even able to pull that off. Partly because of this failure, partly because of the lack of qualities 1-5 so far demonstrated, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to realise any of his rather ambitious campaign promises, although there will, of course, be an expected policy swing to the right – with known negative consequences for the core supporter groups of Trump. Where that will leave US politics four years from now is not an entirely comfortable thought.

***