To cite this article:
Ersoy, Tuğçe. “Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework.”
Bulletin of Palestine Studies, no. 1 (Summer 2017): 36-60.
SINGLE STATE IN PALESTINE: CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTISM
AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Tuğçe ERSOY
Res. Asst. Dr., Marmara University, Institute Research of Middle East and Islamic
Countries, Political History and International Relations of the Middle East, İstanbul,
Turkey (ersoytugce@gmail.com @TugceErsoyTugce)
Article Type: Peer-reviewed Research Article
Received Date: 02.05.2017, Accepted Date: 03.06.2017
Abstract: Palestine issue has been confined today to the limited understanding of
nationalism. All the solution proposals made within the insight of nationalism have
proved to be unsuccessful. Additionally, those solution proposals were unlikely to offer
a just and fair solution to the Palestine issue. Today the struggle for the Palestinian
state has begun to transform into a struggle for equal rights between Jordan and the
Mediterranean. Within this context, based on Kant‟s “perpetual peace” concept, and
engaging with cosmopolitan vision, this study seeks to pose whether a just and fair
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict passes through the creation of a single state in
Palestine. The case for one–state solution is a normative one and it is a question of
morality. The author acknowledges the dark spots of this option; however intends to lay
bare new and open discussions concerning the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict
Keywords: Constitutional Patriotism, Perpetual Peace, Cosmopolitanism, IsraeliPalestinian Conflict, One State Solution,
FİLİSTİN’DE TEK DEVLET: BİR KAVRAMSAL ÇERÇEVE
OLARAK ANAYASAL YURTSEVERLİK
Öz: Bugün Filistin sorunu milliyetçiliğin sınırlı anlayışına hapsolmuş durumdadır.
Bugüne kadar milliyetçi kavrayışla, milli kimlik odaklı ortaya atılmış bütün çözüm
önerilerinin başarısız olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, bu çözüm önerilerinin Filistin
sorununa adil öneriler olmadığı aşikardır. Bugün, bir Filistin devleti kurmak için yapılan
mücadele Ürdün ve Akdeniz arasında yaşayanların eşit haklar elde etmek için
gösterdikleri bir mücadeleye dönüşmüştür. Bu arkaplan ışığında, Kant‟ın „kalıcı barış‟
kavramında temellenmek ve kozmopolitan bakış açısıyla ilişki kurulmak suretiyle, bu
çalışma Filistin-İsrail sorununun çözümünün Filistin‟de tek devlet kurmaktan geçip
geçmediğini irdelemektedir. Tek devletli çözüm tartışması normatif bir tartışmadır ve
Tuğçe Ersoy
37
ahlaki bir sorunsaldır. Çalışmanın yazarı bu çözüm önerisinin karanlık noktalarının
farkında olmakla birlikte, sorunun çözümüne yönelik yeni tartışmalar için kapı
aralanmasının elzem olduğuna inanmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Anayasal Yurtseverlik, Kalıcı Barış, Kozmopolitanizm, Filistin-israil
Sorunu, Tek Devletli Çözüm,
“The equality must be established before the distinctness can be recognized”
Jan-Werner Müller
Introduction
Palestine issue has been confined today to the limited understanding of
nationalism. All the solution proposals made within the insight of nationalism
have proved to be unsuccessful. Additionally, those solution proposals were
unlikely to offer a righteous solution to the Palestine issue. Today the struggle
for the Palestinian state has begun to transform into a struggle for equal rights
between Jordan and the Mediterranean.
This study seeks to discuss one-state solution as the basis for the
resolution of the decades long conflict. The author acknowledges the dark
spots of this option; however intends to lay bare new and open discussions
concerning the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These thoughts
and discussions would be examined through the cosmopolitan perspective that
is built upon the ideal world order without inequalities, discrimination and
violation of human rights.
Cosmopolitanism can be traced back to the Stoics and the Cynic
movement of the Ancient Greek period. In the modern period, it was with
Immanuel Kant that the modern philosophical foundations of cosmopolitanism
have emerged. In his 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace”, Kant presented
cosmopolitan law/right as a guiding principle to protect people from the war
and he grounded this cosmopolitan right with the principle of universal
hospitality. According to Kant, the more the principle of hospitality extends, the
1
closer would be the human race to a cosmopolitan condition. A century later,
Hegel declared Kant‟s cosmopolitan condition a matter of “infinite importance”
provided that a human being is a human being not because he is a Jew,
Catholic or Protestant but because he is just a human being.
Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay”, 1795
1
38
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
This study understands cosmopolitanism as a normative perspective
for viewing the potentialities of our age rather than as an objective
characterization of our age itself. Adhering to different values or value systems
might be obstacles to reconciliation and co-existence among the different
groups. However, cosmopolitan vision, exceeding the ideals and values
specific to one group, seeks to arrive at a universal set of values. That being
said, the study would discuss the viability of a single state where two
communities would coexist without the perception of threat from each other.
The argument of one-state option arises from the reality that two state
solution has become difficult to be implemented in practice due to the facts on
the ground created by Israeli governments within the years. The violent and
insoluble background imposes upon the need to discuss and reveal the new
options for the resolution of the conflict. Within this context, based on Kant‟s
“perpetual peace” concept, and engaging with cosmopolitan vision, this study
this study seeks to pose whether a just and fair solution to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict passes through the creation of a single state in Palestine.
The case for one–state solution is a normative one and it is a question of
morality. It might be an ideal vision in light of stated solutions by the actors in
the region.
Thereby, inspiring from the principles of cosmopolitanism, the one state
vision presented as an option to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is built upon the following principles which are embraced as the basis for a
moral starting point:
No ethno-national group is superior or inferior to the other
Human rights, equality before the law and freedom is
respected
Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to practice their
religion, to worship in its holy sites and to access any part of Palestine
Each group has the right to protect their cultural identity.
Neither of the identities should be predicated upon the negation of any
other‟s identity
The study proceeds in three steps. First, the author seeks to demonstrate
why the two-state option as the prevalent solution proposal is not feasible
anymore either morally or practically. Second, the historical foundations of
one-state in Palestine are elaborated. Within this framework, certain Jewish
organizations that have advocated one state in Palestine, Hannah Arendt‟s
thoughts nurtured by cosmopolitan vision on a bi-national single state and
Palestinian stance regarding single state in Palestine is analysed. At this
juncture, it should be pointed out that rather than a bi-national state this study
offers the formation of a civil-democratic state in Palestine in line with the
Tuğçe Ersoy
39
cosmopolitan vision. This would be the subject of the third section. In this
section, the author would discuss the proposed future state that is based on
the concept of constitutional patriotism which is raised by Jurgen Habermas.
His point of departure for this model is the possibility of the idea of another
form of societal bound that is free from any kind of nationalism and racism
which are seen as the focal point of current civil wars and ethnic conflicts. As
for conclusion, prospective objections to one state option and the difficulties
concerning its implementation would be discussed.
Why Two State Formula is Controversial?
The idea of establishing two states in Palestine dates back to the British
Mandate Period. Due to the increasing confrontations between Jews and
Palestinians, Peel Commission, which was gathered in 1937 to find a solution
to the ongoing confrontation, offered the separation of two peoples and
establishing two states, one Palestinian, other Israeli, in order to put an end to
the ongoing clashes and conflict between two sides. It was the first time that
the two-state option got on the stage. This was followed by the Partition Plan
of United Nations (UN) that was introduced in 1947 after British Mandate
Authority proclaimed that it was unable to put an end to the ongoing violence
in Palestine. With the Resolution 181 Palestine was divided between Jews and
Palestinians; 55 % of the territories for Jews, and 45% of the territories for
Palestinians. However, this partition plan was rejected by the Palestinians (and
also by the Arab states) on the grounds that it was unjust and it disregarded
2
the demographic reality of Palestine. As a matter of fact; at the time of
partition, the Palestinian population was nearly 1.3 million while the Jewish
population was approximately 600,000. As is obvious today, the partition plan
did not work. Moreover, with Israel‟s appearing as an occupying power
following its capture of West Bank and Gaza Strip with the June War in 1967,
the road to two-state solution began to collapse due to the emergence of the
Greater Israel ideology which sought to integrate whole Palestine into Israel
proper. This paved the way for the inauguration of the Israeli settlement
2
It should be noted that Arab resistance to partition was motivated not only by the objection to the
establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine but also some certain politics. Arab resistance to
partition did not stem solely from their objection to the establishment of a Jewish state in part of
Palestine but also by the conflict of interests among the Arab states regarding the Palestinian part
of the partition: Jordan wanted to bring it under its own rule. Iraq supported the plan in the hope of
merging with the enlarged kingdom of Jordan and thereby gaining access to the Mediterranean.
Syria and Lebanon opposed the enlargement of Jordan for fear that it might jeopardize their
independence and lead to the realization of Greater Syria plan. Saudi Arabia was opposed to any
change due to the fear of Jordan‟s extending and strengthening, thereby trying to conquer their
ancestral land Hejaz. See Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists and
Palestine 1921-1951,(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.80-81
40
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
enterprise by which the territories would be annexed gradually to Israeli state
and which would make the two-state option unviable.
The Jewish Settlements as Obstacles to the Two State Solution
The two-state option gradually steers away from being a practical solution
first and almost because of the Israeli settlement activity in the occupied
territories (OTs). Jewish settlements have divided the territory on which a
Palestinian state is envisaged to be established. As there would not be a
territorial integrity - the most needed factor for a nation state - such a state
would be far from being viable. This is one of the most advocated arguments
of the Palestinian side during the negotiations. If the settlement issue is not
3
solved, the creation of a genuine Palestinian state is not possible.
The settlement activity began with the first government initiative when
some 160 Arab houses edging the Western Wall in Jerusalem were
demolished in 1967 after Israel captured Jerusalem in Six Day War. This act
was followed by the expropriation of about 600 buildings in the Jewish Quarter
4
so as to be rebuilt for Israelis. With the Likud in power, from 1977 onwards,
Israel began to build settlements in between Palestinian population centres in
order to de-localize the Palestinians. The aim was to change West Bank‟s
demographic balance by transplanting Israeli Jews from the overpopulated
5
coastal zones.
According to B‟Tselem, today, nearly 498,000 settlers (186,646 in
neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem and 311,431 in the rest of the West Bank
some 190,000 in East Jerusalem) live in 124 settlements in the West Bank and
6
12 large settlements in East Jerusalem. In recent years, settlement policy is
marked by building small blocs of some 50,000 people (see map 1).
These blocs (Givat Ze‟ev, Pisgat Ze‟ev, Ma‟ale Adumim, Ariel, Efrat,
Etzion, Beitar Illit) control strategic corridors of the West Bank and prevent
Palestinian territorial adjacency. Areas A, B, C in the West Bank and H-1 and
H-2 in Hebron threatens freedom of movement between the following four
disconnected Palestinian areas: the northern West Bank, the southern West
3
The settlement issue is always the hot debate between the sides and any solution is brought into
question. The latest offer is the following: On 11 June 2017, Haaretz revealed that in a draft of
U.S. peace framework in 2014, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that the Obama
administration insert a provision stating that Israeli settlers and settlements in the West Bank
would be allowed to remain in a future Palestinian state under Palestinian jurisdiction. Netanyahu
then withdrew the demand from the draft following pressures from the Israeli right.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.794973
4
Ann Mosely Lesch, “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977”, Journal of
Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No.1, (Autumn 1977), p. 29
5
Peter Dermant, “Israeli Settlement Policy Today”, MERIP Reports, No. 116, (July-August 1983),
p. 3
6
B‟Tselem Land Expropriation and Statistics, http://www.btselem.org/settlements/statistics
Tuğçe Ersoy
41
7
Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. This situation impels some scholars and
policy makers to argue that this separation makes Palestinians live in
Bantustans. These blocs and settlements are linked by a system of bypass
roads which are merely open to Israeli settlers (see map 2). Israel started
constructing these roads and highways during the Oslo peace process. These
roads are separating Palestinian areas and they are annexing the Jewish
settlements.
Source: FMEP
7
Jeff Halper, “The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control” Middle East Report, No. 216, (Autumn
2000), p.15
42
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
Map 1, Source: FMEP
Roads are permanent structures and they are ideal as a mechanism of
control. Via the roads, (The Trans Israel Highway -Highway 6- and the bypass
and security roads) Israel would be able to construct unconditional control over
all the West Bank even after a Palestinian state could be established.
In 2000, during the Camp David talks and following Taba talks (2001)
Prime Minister Ehud Barak has made an offer to Yasser Arafat which left 93%
of the West Bank, considerable parts of East Jerusalem and all Gaza to
Palestinians. In return the Palestinian side proposed 97%. However, even if
these offers would have been accepted, the creation of a sovereign and viable
Palestinian state would not have gone further from being a dream because of
Israel‟s control over the West Bank with the roads and settlements which have
become permanent.
According to some scholars, Israeli occupation of 50 years has turned into
today an apartheid style regime. The elements of apartheid are inequality,
separation, dependency, control, violation of human rights, exclusivity and etc.
and all these facts are visible in the occupied territories of Palestine. Physical
occupation of territory provides Israel to control every aspect of the Palestinian
life. It is also argued that what Israel has done in the occupied territories till
today is part of a colonization project which is composed of four determinants
Tuğçe Ersoy
43
of the Israeli policy: demography, security, economic activities and water
8
resources.
Map 2, Source: FMEP
8
See A. Abu Ayyash, “Israeli Planning Policy in the Occupied Territory”, Journal of Palestine
Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, (Autumn 1981)
44
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
The declared aim of the Israeli settlement policy is security. However,
security is seen as the most useful pretext for territorial expansion and building
more settlements by the opponents, since settlements are irrelevant to the
security of Israeli. Nevertheless, according to Israeli understanding, security
means the control of political, military and economic aspects of the State.
Israel persists on a demilitarized Palestinian state whose air space will be
controlled by her for reasons of security and additionally the control of
Palestinian labour and commercial actions are seen as indispensable for
security reasons. But from the Palestinian viewpoint, this means restricting
Palestinian development rather than consolidating the security. The settlement
policy after 1967 also stems from the water resources in the West Bank.
Hayim Gvirtzman (Lecturer at Hebrew University) argues that Israeli stated
policy is to establish unconditional sovereignty over water resources. As a
matter of fact, the settlement map is overlapping with the map of the water
resources. Therefore, the Israelis are able to use 500 million cubic meter of
600 million cubic meter of water derived per year; this provides for Israelis to
9
save 1 billion dollars and compensates one third of Israeli consumption.
For Palestinian side, one of the most significant failures of the peace
process was that Israel spent no effort the halt the settlement activity while
Israel criticized the on-going acts of violence and terrorism against Israelis
both in the occupied territories and inside Israel. On the eve of the signing of
the Declaration of Principles, the expectations for a settlement freeze were
high although the peace agreements did not mention the cessation of Israeli
settlement activity in West Bank, Gaza Strip or Golan Heights, however such
activities involved appropriating more Palestinian lands while frustrating and
10
angering most Palestinians. The expectations were diminished with Israeli
decisiveness on continuing the construction of settlements. During the seven
years of Oslo process, settler population was doubled and the number of
housing units increased.
It might be argued that as well as Palestinian terrorism, including suicide
bombings, settlement expansion undermined the peace process. Anthony
Oberschall argues that it was the settlement expansion that provoked violent
incidents and magnified the security dilemma as every settlement meant more
land seized, and more roads, checkpoints, military installations to protect
them, which in turn increased Palestinian attacks and insurgency and which in
turn fostered Labor-Likud outbidding on more security which was not
Marwan Bishara, Filistin/İsrail- Barış veya Irkçılık (Palestine/Israel: Peace or Apartheid), trans. Ali
Berktay, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2003, p.107
10
Moshe Maoz, “The Oslo Peace Process: From Breakthrough to Breakdown” in The IsraeliPalestinian Peace Process: Oslo and the Lessons of Failure, ed. R. L. Rothstein et al., Brighton:
Sussex Academic Press, 2002, p. 144
9
Tuğçe Ersoy
45
11
achieved. Thus, the settlement expansion distorted Palestinian social,
economic and political development on the one hand; it dwarfed on the other
12
hand, the capacities of Palestinian Authority (PA) and its national project.
Palestinian society began to believe that the growing settlements in the
occupied territories were delimiting Palestinian existence through the control of
land and movement. Furthermore, the immediate result of the settlement
activity was violation of Palestinian rights by denying their entry to more land
and by the demolition of their houses in order to build bypass roads which
were to connect the settlements.
As the peace process moved towards its end, Israeli settlement activity
continued in order to control over as much territory in the occupied territories
as possible. According to, B„Tselem„s study of settlement activity in the West
Bank; the sharpest increase during the entire Oslo period was recorded in
2000, under the government of Ehud Barak when almost 4,800 new housing
13
units began to be constructed. By the time, the Camp David meeting started,
the Palestinian full control over the West Bank was less than 20% and civil
control over only 40 % of that territory. 60 % was still under Israeli control with
14
the 41.9 % of the West Bank directly controlled by settlements.
The psychological costs of the ongoing settlement construction to
Palestinians are multifaceted: loss of life, torture, humiliation, restriction,
waiting for hours in the checkpoints and etc. All these feed frustration and
anger among the Palestinians. In Baruch Kimmerling‟ definition, the policy
Israeli state adopts toward Palestinian people is to “politicide”: “the dissolution
of the Palestinian people‟s existence as a legitimate, social, political and
15
economic entity” In other words, “politicide” means marginalization. Israel
has the right to defend itself and duty to protect its citizens from attacks, but
not by any means. However, building settlements which distorts Palestinian
existence is an obstacle to possible peace agreements and to the future
Palestinian state.
Aside from Jewish settlements, another fact as a reality on the ground is
the Jews who live in those settlements. It is unrealistic to disengage nearly
500,000 Jews from the settlements in the West Bank; no Israeli politician takes
11
Anthony Oberschall, Conflict and Peace Building in Divided Societies: Responses to Ethnic
Violence, London:Routledge, 2007, p. 139
12
Nigel Parsons, The Politics of Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to Al-Aqsa, London: Routledge,
2005, p. 226
13
Yehezkel Lein, “Land Grab: Israel‟s Settlement Policy in the West Bank”, B„Tselem Report, May
2002, http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.pdf
14
Information adapted from the statistical table (Table 9: Area of Settlements by Region) in
B„Tselem Report Land Grab: Israel„s Settlement Policy in the West Bank, May 2002
15
Baruch Kimmerling, Politicide: Ariel Sharaon‟s War against Palestinians, London: Verso, 2003,
Introduction, p. 3
46
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
this risk. Ariel Sharon‟s unilateral disengagement decision from the 21
settlements in Gaza Strip in 2005 was met with violent reactions. There are
frequent confrontations between settlers and the Palestinians in the OTs. The
settler society is mostly radicalized and they do not want the Palestinians in
the territories despite the fact that they are the latecomers and the ones who
caused the deprivation of the Palestinians. However, neither the Jews who live
in the territories for decades nor 3, 9 million Palestinians from West Bank
could be expelled from West Bank today. The solution lies in searching for
ways of living together.
Two-State Solution as the Source of Instability
Another problem with the two state option is that a Palestinian state would
bring instability rather than stability. With no territorial integrity, water
resources needed for the development of agriculture would be uncontrollable;
the split of major cities would have negative effects on economy and would
influence the trade with neighbours. Poverty would grow, thereby this would
foster instability. On the other hand, according to the then Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak‟s offer during Camp David talks in 2000; a Palestinian
state would have no air space and no military force. Besides, Palestinians
would have no sovereignty but custodianship on Jerusalem. The creation of an
economically weak and militarily unviable Palestinian state would represent a
permanent temptation to an Israel which would retain its armoury and would
16
be able to insist upon continued U.S. or international support. As a result, an
instable Palestinian state would bring more instability and violence to Palestine
and would make a permanent peace unlikely.
The controversial issues such as Palestinians‟ right of return, frontiers,
settlements and security have always been envisaged to be negotiated during
the final status agreements. Ultimately, the peace offers, including Barak‟s,
were not accepted by Palestinian leaders for the resolution of the conflict on
the grounds that this would be an unjust and unfair solution from the
Palestinian point of view.
Two-state option is brought to agenda lastly by Saudi King Abdullah.
Known as Arab Peace Initiative, this solution plan seeking for two states in
Palestine is agreed by all parties of the conflict. However, this agreement is
based on the political rhetoric. Two states in Palestine are based upon the
withdrawal of Israel from the territories occupied in 1967. However, no Israeli
politician so far has agreed to full withdrawal from the OTs; nor to evacuate the
16
Michael Rice, False Inheritance: Israel in Palestine and the Search for a Solution, (London:
Kegan Paul International,1994), p. 185
Tuğçe Ersoy
47
Jewish settlements . Besides, according to American Jewish Committee‟s
Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, only 15% of American Jews
believes that Israel should withdraw from all the settlements despite the fact
18
that support for a Palestinian state was at 56 % in 2005 while in Israel 34 %
of Israeli Jews would support a full withdrawal to the 1967 border; 65%
19
opposed to it , 53 % of Israeli Jews believe the state has the right to
20
encourage Arab citizens to emigrate . At the international level, a 2004 report
by the United Kingdom‟s Department for International Development (DfID) in
consultation with the Foreign Office demonstrates that any action from the
international community cannot save the possibility of partition: “Without action
soon, there is a real danger that facts on the ground [Israeli settlement
expansion and construction of a separation barrier] may make a viable two
21
state solution almost impossible (emphasis added) ”.
17
In sum, for today, it might be contended that envisaging an Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank is a disillusion. With the infrastructure,
population density, contribution to the land; Jewish settlements have become
the immovable objects. Additionally, one can easily fathom out that Israel has
no intention to allow a Palestinian state with full sovereignty after a glance at
the peace negotiations. Partition has always been difficult to attain from the
very day it was first stated; and today, under these circumstances, it has
become unachievable.
One final remark should be made on the separation wall. Although it is
argued that the wall would create a de facto two-state solution; it is more likely
that as a result of the separation wall, there has occurred apartheid-era South
African reality rather than a state for the Palestinians. Keeping these in mind, it
might be concluded that two-state solution wanders away gradually from being
the only option for a permanent peace settlement between Israel and the
Palestinians. In spite of the fact that two-state solution is the most favoured
solution offered by international public opinion, it is obvious that there is a gap
between rhetoric and reality. One should understand that which is feasible
theoretically, might be unattainable in practice.
One State in Palestine: Historical Foundations
17
Withdrawal from the occupied territories was always postponed to final stage or permanent
status talks. This was the case nearly all peace talks starting from Camp David Accords in 1970s,
Oslo Process in 1990s, Bill Clinton Camp David Talks in 2000 and Quartet‟s Road Map in 2002.
18
Ali Abunimah, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, (New York:
Metropolitan Books, 2006), p. 42
19
Yoav Stern, “Poll: Most Israeli Jews say Israeli Arabs should emigrate”, Haaretz, April 4, 2005
20
“Poll: Most Israeli Jews believe Arab citizens should have no say in foreign policy”, Haaretz,
November 30, 2010
21
Patrick Wintour, “Alarm at US drift over Middle East”, Guardian, July 21, 2004
48
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
The idea of a single state in Palestine is not a new phenomenon. Cultural
22
Zionism has advocated peaceful co-existence in Palestine. The issue was
discussed and supported by certain circles among the Jews during the
Mandate Period as well. Those groups were Zionists and promoted Jewish
immigration to Palestine like the revisionist Zionists but at the same time they
advocated a bi-national state whose identity would be both Jewish and
Palestinian. The groups that supported a bi-national state in Palestine were
Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace), Kedma Mizraha, League for Jewish-Arab
Rapprochement and Cooperation, Agudat Ihud (Unity Association) and
Hashomer Hatzair movement. All these groups advocated the recognition of
two nations in Palestine and they sought a political structure that would
guarantee the principle of non-domination of one community over another.
As for the Palestinian side, there was individual attempts regarding the
cooperation with the Jews around the bi-national idea; but no organized
movement has occurred among the Palestinians for this political activity. In this
section, Brit Shalom, Agudat Ihud, Hannah Arendt‟s thoughts on bi-nationalism
in Palestine and Palestinian position on single state would be analysed.
Brit Shalom
The idea of single state in Palestine has been negotiated throughout the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s. The first group that advocated peaceful co-existence
with the Palestinians was Brit Shalom and it was founded in 1925 by Arthur
Ruppin. Brit Shalom members, influenced by the Jewish writer Ahad-Haam often referred as the leader of spiritual Zionism - were conjoined by a common
belief in co-operation between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arabs; for them
this was not merely a moral necessity, but the only long term practical
23
solution. The prominent Jewish personalities such as Judah Magnes and
Martin Buber were close to this group.
According to the founder of Brit Shalom, “one need not be a maximalist,
i.e., demand mass immigration and a state, to be a faithful Zionist… What was
24
vital was a recognition that both nations were in Palestine as of right.” The
aim of Brit Shalom was to pave the way for a mutual understanding and
cooperation between Jews and Palestinians on the basis of complete equality.
In a memorandum published in 1930, Brit Shalom was calling for “the
constitution of the Palestine state… composed of two peoples, each free in the
22
Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, (London: Verso, 2002),
pp. 9-10
23
Daniel
Reisel,
“The
History
of
the
original
Brit
Shalom”,
http://www.britshalom.org/background.htm
24
Cited by Irene L. Gendzier, “Palestine and Israel: The Bi-national Idea”, Journal of Palestine
Studies, Vol.4, No.2, (1975), p. 30
Tuğçe Ersoy
49
administration of their respective domestic affairs, but united in their common
25
political interests, on the basis of complete equality.”
The ideal Brit Shalom stood for was challenged by the ceaseless
confrontations that emerged due to the Palestinian reaction to the Jewish
immigration in Palestine. With the outbreak of the Arab revolt in 1936, Ruppin
26
concluded that bi-nationalism was nothing more than a pipe dream. At the
end of 1936, Brit Shalom disappeared.
Agudat Ihud
Ihud was founded in 1942. The new group was essentially a revived Brit
Shalom under the formal leadership of Martin Buber and Judah Magnes with
the active participation of Brit Shalom activists and sympathizers such as
27
Henrietta Szold, Moshe Smilansky and Hugo Bergman. At the first public
gathering, the speech of Magnes was remarkable for he has foreseen the
situation if the partition was implemented. According to Magnes, the idea of
Jewish state should be abandoned as it would inevitably mean war in
Palestine: “Is the Jewish state of such importance as to justify war? For
myself, I answer No! … Because the warfare will breed hatred difficult to
28
assuage for generations.”
Ironically, the co-founder Martin Buber‟s
predictions concerning the situation in case Jewish state was established
prove to be right today. He envisaged that the establishment of a Jewish state
would lead to war for generations and would require the Jewish state to
behave like a militarist nation, “and he does not want to be a citizen of such a
29
state” (emphasis added).
Ihud pointed to Switzerland, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union as
successful examples of multi-national states. Ihud program comprised of ten
points including issues on immigration, land, cooperation, development and
political activity. In an undivided bi-national Palestine, there would be equality
irrespective of majority and minority; the state would be neither a Jewish nor
an Arab state but a state in which legitimate aspirations of both Jews and
Palestinians could be reconciled; the cooperation between Jews and
25
Benny Morris, One State Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, (New Heaven:
Yale University Press), 2009, p. 46
26
Ibid, p. 48
27
Yoram Hazony, Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel‟s Soul, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p.
246
28
Ibid.
29
Morris, op.cit., p. 49
50
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
Palestinians would be in all walks of life-political, agricultural, industrial, social,
30
scientific and cultural.
Hannah Arendt and Bi-nationalism in Palestine
Arendt‟s writings and analysis on Israel and on the tension between Jews
and Palestinians decades ago might be read as if they are written today.
Arendt‟s Kantian roots seem to have helped her in developing ground-breaking
thoughts on how to achieve peace in Palestine. Arendt believed that peace
cannot be achieved through violence, nor can moral obligations for the next
31
generation be secured under the threat of violence.
In her essays, Arendt was against the political position of right-wing
revisionist Zionists which advocated the creation of an independent Jewish
state in Palestine. Arendt has condemned this line for ignoring the rights and
will of the Palestinians. According to her a Jewish state would culminate with
the dispossession of Palestinians and this, too, would have effects on the
Jewish existence in Palestine. Reducing tensions and achieving peace in
Palestine was possible through bi-nationalism. In her essay Can the JewishArab Question Be Solved published in 1943, she wrote that “Palestine can be
saved as the national homeland of Jews only if it is integrated into a
32
federation.”
A genuine federation would be made up of clearly identifiable nationalities
or other political elements that together form the state. Such a federation
would solve the national conflicts since the unsolvable minority-majority
33
problem would cease to exist. In this federation both Jews and Palestinians
would enjoy equal rights as members of a larger system, thereby the question
of who should rule over whom would become meaningless. By this way, Jews
34
would not require a national state of their own.
Just as Magnes and Buber, Arendt too has foreseen some certain
consequences of partition and the probability of a war as an outcome: “We
cannot exclude the possibility that after the war Palestine might become the
worst Diaspora problem of all, instead of being a place for Jewish national
35
emancipation to develop.”
30
For the detailed program of Ihud see Palestine Divided or United? The Case for A Bi-national
Palestine before the U.N., IHUD Association Booklet, (Jerusalem: Achva Cooperative Printing
Press, 1947), pp. 10-18
31
Gordon A. Babst, “Hannah Arendt, Peace and Palestine”, Paper presented at MPSA Annual
Conference, Chicago, April 22-25i 2010, p. 4
32
Hannah Arendt, Jewish Writings, (New York: Schoken Books, 2007), p. 195
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid., pp.196-197
35
Ibid., p. 194
Tuğçe Ersoy
51
Arendt‟s distinction between state and nationhood paves the way for the
separation of national identity from the state. Without this distinction, Israel as
the state of Jewish people excludes the Palestinian minority and maintains
their inferior status. Hence, the debate must be over the separation of national
36
identity from the state in order to establish a state of all its citizens. For
Hannah Arendt responsibility for the human world, whether one is a victim or
victimizer, is at the core of her political philosophy; and it is the basis of her
37
politically radical and self-critical analysis of Jewish experience.
The Palestinian Stance on the Single State
The problem with the bi-national program was that there were no
Palestinian partners for the vision of a single state in Palestine. As Magnes put
it in 1932: “Arabs will not sit on any committee with Jews...[Arab] teachers...
38
teach children more and more Jew-hatred.” Nevertheless, Magnes was
successful in finding some Palestinians who shared the same vision with him.
Adil Jabr a member of the Jerusalem Municipal Council drafted a proposal for
a bi-national Palestine in 1940. Fawzi al-Husseini, the head of a Palestinian
association Falastin al-Jadida (New Palestine) declared himself in favour of
the principle of non-domination and the establishment of a bi-national state on
39
the basis of political equality and full cooperation between two peoples.
The Mandate period saw the emergence of bi-national ideas especially
among the Jews. As for Palestinians, their situation was different. As the
indigenous people of Palestine, they were afraid that the Jewish existence
40
would undermine the Palestinian character of the region . Ongoing Jewish
immigration has added to this fear, resulted in a feeling of threat against their
identity. Within this context, it is understandable that the Palestinians did not
engage with the bi-national idea.
The call for a single state among the Palestinians emerged as a proposal
to the solution of the conflict in the 1960s. After the traumatic dispersal of the
Palestinians following 1948 Arab-Israeli war, they have begun to regroup and
organize under their own leadership. A leader of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization‟s (PLO) dominant faction Fatah argued in 1969 that they wanted
to create in the historical borders of Palestine a multi-racial democratic state,
“a state without any hegemony, in which everyone, Jew, Muslim, and
Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Bi-nationalism and Jewish Identity: Hannah Arendt and the Question of
Palestine”, in Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem, ed. Steven Aschheim, (California: University of
California Press, 2001), p. 180
37
Babst, op.cit., p.5
38
Morris, op.cit., p. 52
39
Gendzier, op.cit., p. 31
40
Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1994), p.130
36
52
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
Christian, would enjoy full civic rights.” PLO‟s stance regarding one-state
option is highly criticized by Benny Morris as he contends that Palestinian
vision was never to establish a secular and democratic state. Rather, he
believes, Palestinians has sought to create a terrorist state, not a democracy
and they would recourse to ethnic-cleansing of Jews; this is what, according to
Morris, understands the Palestinians from one-state solution (emphasis
42
added).
41
Setting the Framework for a Single State in Palestine: The Constitutional
Patriotism as the Ideal Model
Cosmopolitanism pursues a middle path between two extremes: one is
the end of the nation-state thesis and the other is the reconciliation of
cosmopolitanism with the existing nation-state.
Jurgen Habermas developed the theory of constitutional patriotism as a
device to integrate pluralistic and multicultural national communities on a
rational and lawful basis which would provide an antidote to all forms of ethnic
nationalism. Nationalism can no longer meet the requirements of our age
despite the fact that it has once provided valuable resources for anti-imperialist
43
struggles. Besides, nationalism is not a necessary or permanent precondition
44
of the democratic process.
Constitutional patriotism is a way of conceptualizing political integration at
the supra-national level and it has been advocated as the most plausible
source of political cohesion in societies emerging from civil war, pervasive
45
injustice or theocratic modes of legitimation, as in Bosnia. Constitutional
patriotism is a self-reflective form of loyalty to the constitutional principles of
the state; it enlarges tolerance and respect for the other; it recognizes the
necessity of the nation-states but also heterogeneity of their populations; it is
inclusive of all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, language,
religion or ethnicity, and the political community it visualizes is one of equal
rights-bearing individuals united by a shared attachment to constitutional
46
practices and values. Constitutional patriotism demands loyalty only to the
constitutional principles of the state and not the state itself; the critical content
41
Abuminah, op.cit., p. 108
Morris, op.cit., p.12
Robert Fine, Cosmopolitanism, (London: Routledge, 2007), p. 44
44
Jurgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, (Cambridge: The MIT
Press, 1998), p. 132
45
Jan-Werner Müller and Kim Lane Scheppele, “Constitutional Patriotism: An Introduction”, I•CON,
Volume 6, Number 1, (2008), p. 68
46
Fine, op.cit, pp. 44-45
42
43
Tuğçe Ersoy
53
of constitutional patriotism is the principle that the state can expect obedience
47
to its law only if it rests on principles worthy of recognition.
Constitutional patriotism does not contradict with the cosmopolitanism
since it is based on the universal principle of right; it is inclusive and
comprehensive. Due to its principles upon which it is built; constitutional
patriotism includes universalistic principles while it accommodates these
principles with the particular national institutions. This allows individuals to
become a world citizen whilst he/she might stay attached to his/her country.
Therefore, the constitution serves as a bridge between the particular and the
48
universal.
It is essential for constitutional patriotism to preserve neutrality of the legal
system within a multicultural society in order to provide the diversity and
integrity of the co-existing different forms of life. Only a consensus on the
procedures for the legitimate enactment of laws and the legitimate exercise of
49
power the citizenry as a whole can be held together in complex societies.
The progressive extension of the status of citizenship to the whole population
does not just provide the state with a new source of secular legitimation; it also
50
produces a new level of abstract, legally mediated social integration.
A Civil Democratic Single State in Palestine
The failure of the Oslo Peace process based on two-states in Palestine,
the ongoing settlement activity which blurs the frontier of Israeli state and the
wall that closes up the Palestinians in an apartheid-era South African reality
and thus distances them from the dream of independent Palestinian state… All
of these conditions demonstrate that one-state is an already impending reality
in Palestine. In geographical terms Palestine is indeed one country. The Green
Line is completely artificial; the natural boundaries are Dead Sea and Wadi
Araba. On the other hand the country‟s variety of resources and services
cannot be divided. And ultimately, Palestine‟s shape and size is so ineligible
that this makes its division into two states a practical nightmare and nigh
51
unthinkable.
At the first glance, it might be implied that a single state would solve
the most crucial issues that two-state formula is not able to overcome. The
settlements built in the West Bank since 1967, the Palestinian refugee problem
and the status of Jerusalem would cease to pose problems in reconciliation
processes. Even, Zionism would attain its objective of establishing a
47
Ibid., p. 45
Ibid., p. 42
Habermas, op.cit., p. 225
50
Ibid., p. 132
51
Ibid., pp. 176-177
48
49
54
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
permanent and constant existence as equals, not as occupiers. And
Palestinians would enjoy their rights in a single state.
Such state would help de-territorialisation of the conflict; moreover the
issues of demography and ethnicity would not be the bones of contention
between Jews and Palestinians, nor would they be the sources of political
power and legitimacy. This state, due to its character, would help preserving
distinct identities and address their particular needs.
The Proposed Model of the State and Its Fundamental Values
There are various alternatives for a single state model in Palestine. Binationalism, federalism and Lebanon‟s consociational model are among the
models discussed for Palestine. With reference to its viability and suitability,
this study touches upon the civil (secular)-democratic model for the coexistence of two communities in Palestine.
Civil-democratic state provides three criterions:
1. This state would not override the fundamental rights of the any
community
2. It would meet the demands of all parties within moral and just
perspective
3. It would preserve fundamental human rights of the all
52
individuals who live on the land of historical Palestine.
Within the context of these three criterions, the civil-democratic state in
Palestine;
Would respect the rights of all its citizens irrespective of
ethnic, cultural, historical or religious references
Would have a functional constitution in which the citizen rights
are clearly determined; regardless of ethno-religious and cultural
background, equality before the laws would be the principal starting
point
Would have legislative, executive and judicial branches as
every state and the employees in these branches would not be
appointed in terms of ethnic or religious belonging as in Lebanon
Would reflect historical, cultural and religious aspects of the
peoples as part of the cultural wealth of the country; however this
would not be done at the expense of the alienation of the others
52
Raja Halwani, Tomis Kapitan, The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: Philosophical Essays on SelfDetermination, Terrorism and the One-State Solution, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), p.
221.
Tuğçe Ersoy
55
Would provide exact separation between religion and the
state; no any religious group would be superior to the other religious
groups; the freedom of worship would be guaranteed
Would have immigration laws that are thoroughly aforethought
and fair; within the justice framework, Jews and Palestinians and their
descendants shall have priority
Would fairly regulate equal share of the resources and would
provide that all its people take the advantage of all kinds of
opportunities indiscriminately
Would have an education system which is built upon universal
values; the instruction of Jewish and Palestinian history and the
periods of encounter between two people would be regulated in a
manner to give a critical insight. (hand in hand schools project is a
very good example for an effective education system in Palestine)
Would provide bi-lingual education; the education language
shall be both Arabic and Hebrew, spoken languages by the majority,
but a valid language (for instance English) should be taught in order to
provide the connection with the world
Would provide minorities the inauguration of private schools
Would be extremely cautious in preventing racist discourses
and hate speech
Conclusion: Is One-State Option Unrealistic?
As well as one-state option as the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict has proponents; there are more opponents of it compared to its
proponents. One of the fervent opponents of one-state option is Benny Morris.
Morris believes that one-state option is a non-starter “because the Palestinian
Arabs, like the world‟s other Muslim Arab communities, are deeply religious
and have no respect for democratic values and no tradition of democratic
53
governance.” Besides, two communities have no common ground according
to Morris. They differ in religion, language, cultural and social life and ways of
54
thought and conduct are incompatible. Another point, Morris adds his
argument is the ever growing fear and mistrust of the other as a result, on the
Jewish side, terrorism and violence and on the Palestinian side, as a result of
55
displacement, dispossession, defeat and the ongoing occupation.
53
Morris, op.cit., p. 170
Ibid., p.178
55
Ibid., p. 179
54
56
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
One practical objection is that neither Jews nor Palestinians support a
single state in Palestine. It is a truism that one-state option has not yet become
the popular subject among the Jews and the Palestinians; however a literature
on this issue is broadening and people have begun to hear more on the issue
in media. After the collapse of the Oslo Process, having understood that twostate option has become very hard to attain, Palestinians have inclined to
alternative options like one-state option. This option is currently more popular
among the Palestinians than the Jews. However, Israeli leftists and liberals,
too, discuss the option as an alternative solution. According to a research
made by Harry S. Truman Institute of Hebrew University, the support for two56
state solution is declining gradually while one-state option gains ground.
Those who believe that one-state is impractical base their arguments on
the belief that Palestinians are anti-Semitic and hostile to Jews and that this
makes co-existence impossible. But it is more reasonable to look for the
causes of this hostility not on Palestinian hatred of the Jews but on the
violation of their fundamental rights by the Jews from the day they began to
settle in Palestine with the motto “A land without a people for a people without
a land”. As Virginia Tilley puts it, the fundamental conflict should not be
identified with the hostility between two people; rather this conflict is an
outcome of antipathy that emerged due to the nationalistic antecedents of
57
Zionism.
One last concern expressed frequently by the right-wing Israeli politicians
is that one-state solution would abolish the Jewish existence. The political
parties such as Kach, Moledet and Yisrael Beitenu have publicly opposed this
idea and supported the reduction on the population of Israel‟s Palestinian
minority either by forced transfer or transfer to the future Palestinian state.
Though one-state approach would put an end to the state of Israel as it is
today; it would not put an end to the Jewish existence in whole Palestine and
would not prevent Jewish people having positions in the country‟s government.
The Jews will continue to live in Palestine with full equal rights and equal share
of the resources. Consequently, one-state solution should not be understood
as the annihilation of one community; what this option offers is a permanent,
peaceful co-existence of two peoples in their homeland.
Today a single state in Palestine has become de facto reality. As Rashid
Khalidi indicates in one of his articles, despite the existence of citizenship
types in various levels, there is one state between Jordan River and the
Mediterranean. What should be done is to discuss the model which would
Benjamin Joffe-Walt, “Palestinians increasingly back 1-state”, Jerusalem Post, 22.03.2010,
www.jpost.com
57
Virginia Tilley, The One-state Solution: A Breakthrough Plan for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian
Deadlock, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 144.
56
Tuğçe Ersoy
57
allow the peaceful co-existence of Jews and Palestinians in Palestine where
there are enough place for two communities.
When the hostility of two communities towards each other is taken into
account, the idea that Jews and Palestinians could live in a single state seems
impossible and unviable. It is naïve to presume that attaining this ideal would
be easy. Yet, the idea of single state does not pose a problem in theory, but in
practice. Nevertheless, it is still possible that after several generations, the
theoretical discussion could become established as a viable option in the
minds of both Jews and Palestinians. The fact that the “One-State
Conference” has been held at University of Harvard on March; the wide
support by many Israeli activists and intellectuals for the “Olga Document”
58
which calls for one-state in Palestine in 2004 ; the stand of Israeli politicians
like Moshe Arens (former Defense Minister) and Reuven Rivlin (former
Knesset spokesperson) for one-state solution by declaring that it is already an
impending reality in Palestine reinforces this verdict.
At the international level, Palestine issue ought to be understood by
thinking beyond the Westphalian order. Once done, this would trigger a
change in our perception of the world, thus might contribute to a change in the
policies. To this end, the first step shall be to renounce the belief that the
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could only be attained through
sharing Palestine, separating two communities. Additionally, the nation-state
paradigm on which international system is based has become questionable
renders the one-state solution negotiable.
The author is aware that one-state option carries great political difficulties
despite the fact that it is plausible from the moral and theoretical framework. It
seems still hard to accomplish the one-state option with the existing burden of
violent and bloody history. Nonetheless, this does not change the reality that
this option is the impending reality in Palestine and that it stands as the fair
option to the resolution of the conflict. Today, every one Israeli citizen in five is
Palestinian and every one person in OTs in six is Jewish. If the preceding
pages of this study have meant anything at all, then justice requires that the
Palestinians be restored to their lands, along with the Jews. The prospect for
peace in Israel/Palestine depends not upon the intervention of great powers or
supranational bodies, but upon the development of an understanding between
Jews and Palestinians, which now seems hopeless. But there may be some
hope.
58
For full text see, “The Olga Document”,
http://www.nimn.org/Perspectives/israeli_voices/000233.php
58
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
Bibliography
Abunimah, Ali. One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the IsraeliPalestinian Impasse. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Arendt, Hannah. Jewish Writings. New York: Schoken Books, 2007.
Aschheim, Steven, ed. Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem. California: University
of California Press, 2001.
Ayyash, A.Abu. “Israeli Planning Policy in the Occupied Territory.” Journal
of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1. Autumn 1981.
Babst, Gordon A., “Hannah Arendt, Peace and Palestine.” Paper
presented at MPSA Annual Conference, Chicago, April 22-25i 2010.
Bishara, Marwan. Filistin/İsrail- Barış veya Irkçılık, trans. Ali Berktay,
İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2003.
B‟Tselem Land Expropriation and Statistics.
http://www.btselem.org/settlements/statistics.
Dermant, Peter. “Israeli Settlement Policy Today.” MERIP Reports, No.
116. July-August 1983.
Fine, Robert. Cosmopolitanism. London: Routledge, 2007.
Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
London: Verso, 2002.
Gendzier, Irene L. “Palestine and Israel: The Bi-national Idea.” Journal of
Palestine Studies, Vol.4, No.2. 1975.
Haaretz. “Poll: Most Israeli Jews believe Arab citizens should have no say
in foreign policy.” November 30, 2010.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1998.
Halper, Jeff. “The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control” Middle East
Report, No. 216. Autumn 2000.
Halwani, Raja, Tomis Kapitan. The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict:
Philosophical Essays on Self-Determination, Terrorism and the One-State
Solution. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
Hazony, Yoram. Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel‟s Soul. New York:
Basic Books, 2001.
IHUD. Palestine Divided or United? The Case for A Bi-national Palestine
before the U.N., IHUD Association Booklet. Jerusalem: Achva Cooperative
Printing Press, 1947.
Tuğçe Ersoy
59
Joffe-Walt, Benjamin. “Palestinians increasingly back 1-state.” Jerusalem
Post, 22.03.2010, www.jpost.com
Kant Immanuel, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay.” 1795.
Kimmerling, Baruch. Politicide: Ariel Sharaon‟s War against Palestinians.
London: Verso, 2003.
Lein, Yehezkel. “Land Grab: Israel‟s Settlement Policy in the West Bank.”
B„Tselem Report, May 2002.
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.pdf
Maoz, Moshe., “The Oslo Peace Process: From Breakthrough to
Breakdown” in R. L. Rothstein et al. ed., The Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Process: Oslo and the Lessons of Failure. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press,
2002.
Morris, Benny. One State Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine
Conflict. New Heaven: Yale University Press), 2009.
Lesch, Ann Mosely. “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 19671977.” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No.1. Autumn 1977.
Oberschall, Anthony. Conflict and Peace Building in Divided Societies:
Responses to Ethnic Violence. London:Routledge, 2007.
Parsons, Nigel. The Politics of Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to AlAqsa. London: Routledge, 2005.
Raz-Krakotzkin. Amnon. “Bi-nationalism and Jewish Identity: Hannah
Arendt and the Question of Palestine.” in Steven Aschheim ed., Hannah
Arendt in Jerusalem. California: University of California Press, 2001.
Reisel, Daniel. “The History of the original Brit Shalom”.
http://www.britshalom.org/background.htm
Rice, Michael. False Inheritance: Israel in Palestine and the Search for a
Solution. London: Kegan Paul International, 1994.
Rothstein R. L.. et al The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: Oslo and the
Lessons of Failure. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2002.
Shlaim, Avi. The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists and
Palestine 1921-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Stern, Yoav. “Poll: Most Israeli Jews say Israeli Arabs should emigrate.”
Haaretz, April 4, 2005.
Tessler, Mark. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1994.
“The Olga Document”
60
Single State in Palestine: Constitutional Patriotism as A Conceptual Framework
http://www.nimn.org/Perspectives/israeli_voices/000233.php
Tilley, Virginia. The One-state Solution: A Breakthrough Plan for Peace in
the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2005.
Werner, Müller Jan, Scheppele Kim Lane. “Constitutional Patriotism: An
Introduction.” I•CON, Volume 6, Number 1. 2008.
Wintour, Patrick. “Alarm at US drift over Middle East.” Guardian, July 21,
2004.