Association Bylaws Join Board Newsletter Articles FAQ Help Contact





Articles and links to articles on our website are published with the understanding that we do not share all of the authors views, yet we find the material relevant to our cause and useful to readers and for research purposes.

Terms of Use

Articles published on this website are owned by their respective authors and are reproduced with their kind permission. Any reproduction of any of these articles is prohibited without prior consent by their respective author.


Our bylaws and the invitation to join our association may be freely reproduced and disseminated.


The design of the website is the creative property of Pixelindustries (Germany) and The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel owns the untransferable right of use.

A One Democratic State might be THE Solution

This paper was delivered at the International Seminar on the Palestinian Struggle and Globalization, 29 - 31 August 2003, Bethlehem.

Rifat Odeh Kassis
Executive Director, East Jerusalem YMCA, Palestine
President, Defense for Children International, Palestine section (DCI-Palestine)

The Palestinian struggle for self-determination has taken many routes and each, with its own twists and turns has taken the struggle forward in its own way. Subsequent to the Oslo process, one stage of this struggle, the era of exiled leadership and the armed struggle from outside Palestine, concluded. Oslo and its preceding related processes substituted dialogue for armed struggle and this was welcomed by the international community and a large sector of the Palestinian population, including those who had once thrown their sympathies and support behind the armed struggle. Dialogue finally seemed far more viable and likely to end the bitter years of conflict. It promised a just and lasting peace and a strategy to pave the way for Palestinian aspirations to be achieved. Equally, it promised Israel peace through recognition of its right to exist as a State within defined boundaries and with security.

Tragically, the promises and prospects of Oslo evaporated into thin air with the failure to bring to fruition their intent. It resulted in deep frustration among the Palestinian populations and those in the international community who had dreamed along with their Palestinian compatriots that a just peace was possible, even imminent. In the aftermath of Oslo, it became apparent that Israel was quite unwilling to countenance even some objective essentials and fundamentals in the route to peace. The thorny question of settlements was one of these. Equally crucial was the failure to find common but just grounds on the wider questions on the status of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders. Quite clearly the Israeli view was not veering towards an end to occupation. Analysts suggested that maybe what Israel really wanted was a ‘soft occupation’. It did not help too much that Israel was still an occupier in Lebanon and was drawn into a losing battle in the South of Lebanon with the Hizbollah- a factor that had its indirect impact on the talks with the Palestinians because it allowed Israel to deflect attention from the question of occupation to that of security. This conveniently helped to evade the fundamental issue of Palestine, its freedom based on justice and with dignity.

Alongside, the sagging pace and glaring omissions in the evolution of the formulae of Oslo resulted in elevating the right-leaning Likud to power. This was possible only because of a drastic alteration of the public mood in Israeli wherein the push for Oslo was replaced firmly by the desire for a heightened and still more aggressive type of occupation. The end result was to bring the Palestinians to their knees and get them to accept what was on offer, never mind that the offer was inadequate, devoid of justice, and in violation of all the possible and applicable tenets of international law. On the Palestinian side, it was plain to see that the talks were getting nowhere. The settlements were growing in numbers; the Palestinian economy was being demolished as a way of getting the Palestinian resistance to succumb to the arm-twisting measures. The processes of the ‘bantustanization’ of Palestinian territories were rapidly being put in place. Everyday, there were blatant human rights violations, closures, curfews, arbitrary arrests, houses demolished, infrastructure torn down, and agricultural activities cut short—the list goes on. In short, nothing seemed promising.

A look at recent history may be helpful. The first ‘Intifada’ in 1987– the people's uprising- was a defining moment and turning point in the long Palestinian struggle for independence and self-determination. It significantly influenced the course and flow of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict at large. Why? Because for virtually the first time in Palestinian history the weight and the core of the struggle shifted to the confines of Palestine itself. No more was the base and origin outside. Not Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. The locale and organization of the struggle found centre-stage in the West Bank and Gaza. A significant and noteworthy dimension of the Intifada was that it was, in essence, a movement with young people at the forefront. But it was sufficiently solid to assume the dimensions of a mass uprising joined in by women and men of all ages while cutting across the entire gamut of the political and ideological spectrum. Israel could no longer rest on the claim (dubious as it was) that the Palestinian resistance was being orchestrated from the outside with the sponsorship of Arab and Muslim countries whose sole aim was to destroy Israel. This time around Israel had to contend with the fact that the struggle was planned and executed from inside Palestine and by the very people who had lived under a brutal and totally unjust and unwarranted occupation for more than 20 years at that point in time. The previous Israeli claims that the people were not in charge of the resistance could no longer serve to malign the Movement. The entire Palestinian nation revolted, each one contributing to the struggle. A well-organized leadership appeared and led the people in their struggle. And this time around, the leadership was right in the presence of the people who could be influenced and actually take their ideas and resistance from the minds and hearts of the people. It was no longer possible for Israel to ignore this peaceful but determined resistance. They were faced by the reality that a solution simply had to be found.

The Intifada was indeed the catalyst for new political and diplomatic initiatives and Oslo was the formula that was proposed for working it out. Let us dwell on this at some more length. For all its promise and prospects, Oslo failed. You could say it never really took off despite the euphoria that followed its signing and announcement. I can even recall how ordinary Palestinian people wiped out awful memories of occupation and offered olive branches and flowers to soldiers as their tanks withdrew. The disillusionment set in very fast. Clearly, the Oslo agreement failed for the very simple reason that Israel used it as a sort of opium to silence criticism of its occupation. It was manipulation at its worst and cunning at its best on the part of Israel! The Palestinians saw in Oslo the openings for a historical reconciliation. The expectations of both sides were at wide variance and hugely contradictory. Oslo was so weak and ineffectual that it had no effect on stopping Israel’s continued colonization of Palestinian territories. So cynical was the Israeli attitude to Oslo, that they used the opportunity of the world’s gaze on Oslo to convert the accord into the “green light” with which they colonized the Occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza at a rate faster than the previous 26 years of colonization. Even by the most conservative estimates, the number of settlers in the Occupied West Bank increased from 247,000 to 380,000 and the number of settlements increased to 345 or more, not to mention the confiscation of land for things like the by-pass roads and other such tools of occupation between 1993 and 2000.

To Israel, all these gains simply did not satiate their need for more. Having gained what they could, they then set out to create a system and a solution, which would make their access and power unassailable. By 28 September 2000, Ariel Sharon, under the eyes and ears of Ehud Barak, had successfully seen off Oslo. In any case, Oslo was extraneous to the hawks within the Labor party and absolutely irrelevant to the Likud as a whole. Oslo’s opponents never meant it to be the grounds for a just and lasting settlement. So they tried to circumvent the accord by attempting to enforce their own interpretations of it. This way they didn’t look completely out of step in the international community. Barak, in fact, came up with his own formula and interpretation of the Oslo Accords and tried to impose it as a "final solution" for the Palestinian people at the Camp David II negotiations. Barak, then Netanyahu, and finally Sharon decided to employ brute force to impose their solution on the Palestinians with the tacit compliance of the United States government (under both Clinton and Bush Jr.).

Fast forward to the Second Intifada. Equipped with lessons learned from the first Intifada, Palestinians adopted the slogan ‘Freedom and Independence’. It was another affirmation from the Palestinian people that occupation was no longer acceptable. It had to end. New and different realities were created on the ground. The facts are known to all of us. This Intifada has seen more killing, more separation, and a far bloodier struggle than before. Not only are the Palestinians losing lives and properties. It is a similar pattern within Israel as well. Aside from increased casualties, the Israeli economy is floundering and on the verge of collapse. Their people are more desperate than anytime before. Local and foreign investors have deserted the country having designated it as ‘unsafe for investment’ and lacking ‘decent investment climate’. Immigration into Israel is at a standstill. Many have left Israel to safer and greener pastures in Europe and the United States thus making the claim of the Jewish homeland into something of a mockery. What kind of homeland is it where life is unsafe, jobs are scarce, military service is compulsory, and racism is rampant for those who are not of European origin? As expected, and as usual, the Palestinians have lost a lot too but have succeeded in maintaining their spirit and their determination to continue their struggle for their independence. Three years of confrontation have not brought an end in sight to the conflict. Instead, the continuous conflict has triggered other conflicts in the region.

All this of course, embarrasses the US government no end. They have pretended to be the mediator and tried to forge a peace. But even this peace is floundering because it is a peace designed to serve US interests. Each formula that the US puts on the table gets unraveled only to be doomed to failure. In the meantime, the US is being compelled by other factors to do something. The situation in the region, the so-called war on "terror", the war in Afghanistan, the war on Iraq- all of these events- compel the USA to present alternatives in the form of political initiatives that they hope to mediate. The Road Map was their new mantra. Once again, the Palestinian Authority and some important political factions took the view that it could serve as a possible base for the commencement of a journey to a historic and negotiated settlement and as a reconciliatory step. Not surprisingly, Israel has its own designs. It is more than obvious that they are maneuvering to draw the map to suit their needs and interests. Sharon, for example, conditioned his acceptance of the Road Map with some changes. The changes he wants in place are quite outrageous and hideous and lay basis for the argument that an independent Palestinian State is neither viable nor desirable. At best, he is willing to hand the Palestinians a State with no real power. The Palestinian identity is completely outside the frame of his calculations. His notion of the Palestinian State was, and continues to be, one which will do his bidding and bring to a firm and definitive conclusion any resistance to occupation. In other words, the Palestinian State would have to be the handmaid of the Israeli State, subservient in all respects to Israeli interests, and being a State only in name, not content. Sharon has proposed the absurd and is candid about it. He feels neither shame nor regret when it comes to oppressing the Palestinians. It was the foundation of his political career and he sees no reason to abandon the way he has conditioned himself to think and act. After all it has brought him power and legitimacy. He is called a ‘man of peace’! Sharon wants a Palestinian state comprised of enclaves cut off from one another inside the West Bank and Gaza. The "Apartheid Wall" of which he is the architect has been described as "temporary". The fact is quite the opposite. The Wall has been constructed at prohibitive costs to the Palestinian. We the Palestinians have paid with our blood, sweat, tears, and our land”.

The Road Map will meet the same fate as Oslo for many reasons. Chief among them is that Israel does not want to have a state next to her within borders as defined before the war of 1967. They might be interested in a Palestinian state within Jordan but definitely not between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The Palestinians on the other side can never ever fulfill the Israeli demand on this score- that new borders be drawn to suit the apartheid-type solutions that Israel has in store for them.

The second reason for the failure is that the solution proposed is not viable any more. It envisages a two-state solution- something that is a fast evaporating idea- a mirage at best. Israel’s thirty-five year illegal colonial enterprise has not been, and cannot be executed without forcefully dispossessing the Palestinian population of the rights guaranteed to them under UN Resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international treaties. The full implementation of Israel’s colonial designs for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which entail vast confiscation of Palestinian lands and water resources as well as disruption of Palestinian territorial contiguity, would leave the Palestinians with a “state” only in name. Israel’s ultimate goal is to permit a Palestinian “state” with no recognition of Palestinian national rights and no recognition of the Palestinian peoples’ historic and religious attachment to Jerusalem; the right of return for refugees, limited access to water and land, and insufficient area to accommodate population growth and returning refugees. The borders of Israel define “Greater Jerusalem” as including at least 31 Israeli settlements and cover 440 square kilometers, of which only 25% is within West Jerusalem. With a planned length of 360 kilometers, the new Israeli Apartheid Wall will be three times as long as the Berlin Wall and, at points, twice as high. This wall, most of which is built within Occupied Palestinian Territory, will effectively serve as a means by which Israel can consolidate and de facto annex all Occupied Palestinian Territory on the western side of the wall.

The proponents for peace have been somewhat glib in articulating the idea of a two-state solution. The idea is bound to flounder because it has some very fundamental flaws within it. To persist with the idea is to ignore reality and, unthinkingly, provide the seeds of frustration and disappointment from which can stem more conflict. Apart from the above-mentioned factors, there are many other compelling reasons why the two-state solution has no scope to go anywhere and does not introduce an end to the conflict.

First, a two-state formula has no scope to contain the potential fallout of the demographic problem inside Israel because the Arab minority will emerge as a majority sooner or later, unless Israel takes extreme open racist measures like ethnic cleansing etc. (This I will never put beyond the political capacities of any Israeli government).

Second, we must admit that the facts, which Israel created on the ground over the 35 years of occupation, have destroyed the climate for a two-state solution.

Third, the presence of a Jewish state on one side will only prompt the emergence of an Islamic state on the other side and will motivate more Islamic states, as extreme and as racist as Israel, to emerge in the region. The latter will be unacceptable to the International Community in the current situation.

Fourth, and a very crucial factor that will work against a two-state formula is that when it is inaugurated, both states will share one common geographical space, a space which cannot be disconnected because it is linked with history, people, holy sites, economic relations etc.

Fifth, the Palestinian State will be composed of mostly refugee communities. Currently, in the West Bank and Gaza almost two-thirds of the people are refugees. If refugees from outside are add to the already overcrowded and poor communities living there, there will be a drastic decline in economic standards and the competition for scarce economic resources will only create social tensions. Coping with this will require need more than grants and gifts from donor states.

Sixth, the two states will never be symmetrical in terms of power and Israel cannot be expected to be magnanimous in the asymmetry that now prevails. Any attempt to equalize things will be seen as a threat. Nor is there any likelihood of equality coming about now or even in the near future.

Seventh, a Jewish state steeped in European mores, traditions, and cultural practices will continue to be a minority in the region. It has never shown the willingness or capacity to be integrated or engage with the dominant social factors in the region which will provide the recipe for more tensions and eventually conflict of a severe nature.

Eighth, the two-state solution will not ultimately satisfy any of the other nations living in this region forever. Religiously but also demographically such a solution will put barriers between the same nations. This solution has the potential to divide and spread the Palestinians into two or more different countries.

Ninth, within the framework of a two-state solution, the refugee problem will never be resolved, nor will the other equally persistent issues of Jerusalem or settlements and the settlers be tackled fairly and adequately. (400,000 settlers including Jerusalem and settlements now account for almost 42 percent of the West Bank, not including Palestinian East Jerusalem. Israeli settlements and bypass roads have virtually encircled occupied East Jerusalem, making it impossible for Palestinians to develop and expand their most important urban center - and making a mockery of the idea of a shared capital.

Tenth, Israel's so-called security wall, parts of which is nearly 8 meters high and are topped with watch towers and barbed wire, has more to do with seizing Palestinian land than it does with security. The wall is not being built on Israel's border, but rather in occupied Palestinian territory in such a way as to separate Palestinians from their adjacent farmland and water resources, thereby denying Palestinians not only their freedom of movement but also their livelihood.

In summary, one can conclude that the two-state solution might have been possible some years ago. Not any more. The realties, which Israel itself created on the ground are beyond the scope of honest co-existence simply because too much water has flowed under the bridge of this conflict. Israel alone must assume responsibility for the impasse. The Palestinians never held the bargaining chips in their hands. We had to be content to play second fiddle simply because the US under the influence of powerful lobbies had tied their hands, and Europe simply cannot really extricate itself from the guilt of the holocaust.

In the sixties, the notion of a single democratic state where people of different nations and religions in the area could live had gained much currency. Many factions in the PLO believed in this solution. But the battle for justice in the Middle East has begun to defy the obvious. The best choices are not always the wisest choices! Such are the dimensions of the conflict. So, what are the contours of a single state solution? And why does it seem such a futile path to pursue especially considering that it is such an attractive and ideal solution? In fact this is not a popular one on the streets of Palestine these days nor indeed in Israel. It used to be a much-discussed idea some four decades ago as a viable idea. It was popular among the educated and informed progressive groups and many political factions who saw the benefit of having one democratic state.

A single state is one which is democratic and secular. Not Jewish. Not Islamic. It will stand for justice and equality of all races and religions. It will accept and tolerate each religious community and accord each of them their right to practice and propagate their religion. Those who oppose this are from both sides. The Jews, influenced by Zionism, fear being overpowered in demographic terms very rapidly and the balance of power in number terms turning against them. The Palestinians, for their part, fear that that the superior economic circumstances of the Israelis will enable them to maintain and perpetuate their higher status. This pattern of thinking may just be getting too cynical. Can one simply rest in the past and abandon principles? Or shall we dream dreams and work on actualizing them?

The respected Israeli analyst Uri Avnery, writing in the Palestinian Chronicle, a journal of Palestinian studies, under the auspices of the UC Berkeley, has posed questions that must be considered before proceeding with this idea and popularizing (or re-popularizing it). He argues that if this idea has any realistic chance of being actualized it will happen a few generations down the line at best. There is, in his view, no political space for such an idea to take root and grow in the here and now. He dismisses the idea as untenable by pointing to the negative experiences of the multi-national Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Canada, Cyprus, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon and many other countries. He asks: Will the two now-strongly nationalistic identities- the Zionists and the Arab-Palestinian- give up their national narratives and be ready to give up their supra-national claims. How do I read this? With disappointment mostly because Uri Avnery is meant to be part of the Israeli progressive project for the resolution of the Palestinian Question. So you begin to wonder what IS happening. Either, Uri is pessimistic or he is simply unwilling to concede the essential Israeli claim to land and more land. By discounting the prospects of one democratic state (bi-national state), Uri leads the progressive Israeli charge to defend Zionism while still couching it in the language of progressive and liberal thinking. He argues in this vein: ”There is no chance at all that the present, post-holocaust, Israeli generation, or its successor, will accept this solution, which conflicts absolutely with the myth and the ethos of Israel.” Speaking of the Palestinians he observes that “some Palestinians do indeed talk longingly of a bi-national state,” but this, he complains, “is just a code word for the elimination of the State of Israel and for some others an escape from bitter reality to the dream of returning to their homes and villages of the past.”

Uri Avnery as a representative for the average Zionist left, simply cannot possibly countenance such a state functioning because, as he says: “there is hardly any multi-national state in the world that really functions properly.” I am not sure if he includes the USA and Canada in this argument as well. He goes on to describe how the gaping inequality between Israelis and Palestinians in almost every sphere would be perpetuated by the Israelis. The Palestinians will continually lose out economically, and the gap between the two peoples will grow. His conclusion? "Two states are needed for two peoples. This will direct the national feelings of the two peoples into reasonable, constructive channels that will make co-existence, cooperation and, finally, a genuine reconciliation possible.” But like many of the opponents of the bi-national state, Uri becomes a bit jaded, even somewhat blinded in his vision of things when he argues, “There is great danger even in propagating this idea. His logic: “The perfect is the enemy of the good…(and) the very mention of the bi-national vision will scare the great majority of Israelis, who are now slowly approaching acceptance of the two-state solution. It will arouse their most deep-seated existential anxieties and push them into the arms of the extreme right-wing.” He goes on to rationalize things and guesses that “talk of bi-nationalism will give the Right a powerful weapon to justify their suspicion that the real aim of the adherents of the two-state solution is to abolish the State of Israel by stages!”

This is the crux of the problem because it somehow says to us, the Palestinians, that we must wait for the generosity of the Israeli before we are given legitimacy. What if they never come around? How many generations of Palestinians will have to put up with the colonial instincts and approaches of Israel? Mr. Uri Avnery himself comes with the right arguments when he says: “Should we abandon a good and positive idea just because the enemies of peace pervert it and try to use it for their ends? Logic would dictate the opposite: to expose the perversion of the idea by Sharon and fight for a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders?” Mr. Avnery hopes that one day “we shall reach the objective: to live together in peace, side by side. Perhaps a later generation will one day decide to live in one joint state. But today the propaganda for this utopia diverts attention from the practical, immediate objective, at a time when the whole world has accepted the idea of “two states for two peoples”. I can agree with Mr. Avnery fully when he states in a prophetic tone: “I am convinced that the 21st century will bring vast changes in the structure of the world and the way of life of human society. The importance of the nation-state will gradually diminish. A world order, world law and worldwide structures will play a central role. But I can not agree with him when he says, "I believe that Israel will whole-heartedly take part in the march of humanity. We shall not be tardy. But there is no point in expecting the Israeli public to be 50 years ahead of the times.” I would argue that Mr. Avnery has not tackled the facts on the ground for the last 35 years and how to deal with them. In the same token I would argue with his belief that the current Israel, as a racist state, can play the human role he described unless it changes its practices and attitudes. Mr. Avnery knows quite well the Apartheid system inside Israel and the way the Arabs and the other minorities are treated. If Israel changes all these practices then it would be possible for Israelis to accept the one-state solution. Since Israel failed to offer equality to its own citizens for the past 50 years, it is unlikely that it could add something positive to human history. Supported by the Christian Zionists and other re-actionist forces in the US and Europe, the racist country of Israel plays the role of regional watchdog, fighting to suppress all progressive countries or powers in the region.

I must underline the fear I expressed just a while ago- Mr. Uri Avnery comes across as a fervent Zionist except, of course that he gives the impression of progressive and visionary thought. I am no political analyst or philosopher but I cannot help asking: If an idea is a good one, why wait for a few generations to realize it? And who said that pluralism is not viable simply because it has not been the European experience? Why find grounds to be re-jectionist when you have to be proactive in the search for positive ideas? I have a grave fear and concern that those we once banked on have now turned around and opted for the status quo. In fact, I am rather persuaded by a growing sentiment in Palestinian circles that the average Israeli rejects both a democratic bi-national state and a two-state solution. They simply do not subscribe to the idea that Palestinians have the right to freedom and independence. Mr. Avnery is different only in one way. He wants soft-Zionism, not the Sharon variety. Me? I want no Zionism at all. Nor do I want fundamentalism in Islam or Christianity or in any form anywhere in any political spectrum. I don’t want to see any fanatic ideology in the world. Zionism is in the lead of such ideologies and should be fought against. This is what is expected from Mr. Uri Avnery and others.

One will have to go beyond the confines of Israeli and Palestinian territories to find merit in the one-state idea. Or shall I call it the one-state ‘ideal’? Or, perhaps, as Mr. Avnery would call it, ‘The Utopia’? A unified state is one which will need sweat and tears- I hope there will be no blood. It will require concerted effort and struggle too against the very tenets of the Zionist project. [For that matter, the struggle must vociferously oppose any form of fanaticism- Islamic, Jewish, or Christian. I want to be a dreamer and to dream dreams of a world, of a Middle East in which my children and their children and all subsequent generations of children will not have to resort to defining borders, of going to Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, and other secret locations to avert catastrophes. I need a solution which will bring eternal peace, not one that will take me from one war to another.

The Middle East is not devoid of natural and human resources. A region free of the fear of conflict could convert weapons of destruction into instruments of peace and development. The collective gifts of all the peoples can be mobilized and unleashed into a common union and market place of enhanced prosperity. This is what many of our people dream of- simple peace and prosperity. NOT hatred and war, or death, or demolished houses, or ransacked olive fields or orange groves, or midnight knocks on the door and the arrest of a loved one who may never return.

The alternative is nothing short of disaster. Israel can win a short-term war. It can even try to expel the Palestinians out of the West Bank or Gaza. They may have won the conflict but only for an interim period. The bigger question is “Will they have won peace?” The Palestinians for their part can continue the resistance and unravel the Israeli populace with attacks. Even peaceful resistance- which is the bulk of the Palestinian resistance- takes its toll. The question remains: ”Who will win peace? Perpetuating the conflict and extracting short-term victories is easy. But what are the consequences? Death and destruction? Hatred and more prejudice? Young lives and futures jeopardized by irreversible anger? Recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan must illuminate our minds. Mere military success adds nothing to peace. On the contrary, it breeds violence.

Palestinians and progressive Israelis must resist the urge to counter the claims of a Jewish State with an Islamic regime, which can only pour more oil on the flames of the conflict. It is incumbent on progressive forces to find ways of articulating the ideals of a single, democratic, secular state and to use comprehensive education strategies to have the Palestinian and Israeli masses consider the idea. Young fertile minds must be won over as a start and, if the notion of the two-nation theory is not viable, then one must ask about the notion of a single democracy, where Israelis and Palestinians can co-exist within the parameters of a pluralist society. What chance does this formula have of getting any further? Those who once were sold on the idea have now voiced doubts and questions. It’s not that they disagree with its positive connotations, but that they have become tired and suspicious. The entire political landscape is polluted with distrust and the bitterness of failed experiences, of naked aggression, of homes demolished, of agricultural fields destroyed and rendered useless, of sons, daughters, and fathers put into prison for no rhyme or reason, and of children brutalized.

Palestinians and progressive Israelis must also educate international opinion and gain advocates in a variety of forums, for example, the EU, the G-8, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union- and all other international political alliances. International NGOs, international religious bodies of all faith traditions, trade unions, etc., should be mobilized to understand and advocate for such a model.

They say:" The powerful do not part with power voluntarily; they do so under pressure.” Here is a function for the international community. Unless pressure is brought on Israel to abandon its separatist stance, any peace initiative is a non-starter. This is the function of the international community but the Palestinians and the progressive Israelis must provide the materials and arguments for their case.

One can also hope to put in place the foundations of a joint progressive entity which can unify the struggle of both nations. A joint solid progressive political party would implement such a resistance project. Palestinian and Israeli aspirations can only be fulfilled when people across the divide the separatist tendency affirm the fact of pluralism as an ideal to be pursued with vigor and enthusiasm, and thus hand the forces of fundamentalism and Zionism a sound rejection. The spark for this must come from a new generation of people- or from those who have been sidelined by the present forces because they have sought to propose alternatives.

In Israel, the Peace Movement, which has traditionally opposed occupation and all its attendant features needs to pursue its work with greater courage and vigor and to overcome its fear of being labeled a traitor? These are the risks of peace and they must be taken if we are to avoid the risks of war. Lest it appear that these are brand-new ideas, I must quickly point out that there exist a large number of people who share the one-state ideal. They are unorganized and scattered. They cut across the political divide. If only they can find ways to come together and unite, their combined forces and their moral authority can influence and shape public opinion significantly. In some ways it can be argued that there is a sense of ‘conflict-fatigue’ growing among people. People would enthusiastically welcome a solution that held the promise of justice and security for both the peoples. This is, perhaps, the time to create a new political force. Such a force must, of necessity, cut across the religious and ethnic divide. It must unite all progressive and liberal forces who believe in pluralism- political, religious, ethnic, racial, etc. After all, the solutions are going to have to be political. The current political space is occupied by parties who are tired and devoid of new ideas and caught up in self-interest. How can you expect those whose need to survive exceeds the need to come up with real political solutions? The failure of Oslo has proved this argument beyond the shadow of a doubt.

For both sides, there exist some extremely tricky issues that have to be resolved. None of these are ones that can be papered over or postponed. Solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be found on a piece-meal basis, one-at-a-time. The solutions must be comprehensive.

The solutions will not come from mere compromise. We cannot reach compromise because a compromise is usually a half-and-half thing. No one is happy at the end of it. I would rather use the concept of reconciliation, which is to say we must adopt shared principles. Within the framework of these principles, each side can agree to give up something in the interests of the larger peace. For this we need statesmen. And where shall they come from? From among our people. Recount the Bible stories of liberation. The prophets were not messianic or charismatic people. They were humble men who possessed a vision of something distant and worked tirelessly to achieve it. We might have to settle in for the long haul. The question becomes then: What seeds are we sowing and on what soil?

Is this a dream? Perhaps. But the prophet Isaiah tells us that when we are devoid of visions, we perish.

I want to end by recalling the song of the great poet, social thinker, and singer John Lennon, IMAGINE.

Imagine there's no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for need or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one