Palestinians Need More Than Just Statehood

The mass starvation and famine taking place in Gaza has led to a renewed discussion of a two-state solution that would grant Palestinians their own state. This has emerged, we’re told, because states like the United Kingdom and France have decided that “enough is enough,” and are considering endorsing a Palestinian state at the United Nations. It’s a weak gesture after two years of genocide, and even if a two-state solution comes to pass, it’s highly questionable what it would do for the average Palestinian.

Under a two-state solution, the Palestinians would be granted the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside mutual and minor adjustments to accommodate present settlements. Based on the 1967 borders, the arrangement would leave Palestinians with 22% of their historic homeland. Israel would keep the other 78%. Some two-state advocates support the right of return for the 5-million-plus Palestinians refugees, but there’s no support for that option among powerful states.

Under a one-state solution, Israel and Palestine would become a single, democratic state — one person, one vote — where Palestinians and Jews live alongside each other as equals under the law, much like post-apartheid South Africa.

As of May, the majority of Palestinians rejected the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. However, there’s some nuance here. When presented with three options — the two-state solution, a confederation between the states of Israel and Palestine, and a one-state solution in which Jews and Palestinians live equally — 47% of Palestinians selected the two-state solution, compared to 15% for a confederation and 14% for one-state. The remaining 24% said they did not know or didn’t want to answer.

Many, if not most, political analysts and activists supporting Palestinian liberation believe a single, democratic state with a right of return would be more just than the two-state solution. Yet some prominent two-state proponents, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, view it as the only practical option due to its endorsement by states in the international community. The one-state solution, they point out, has virtually no support among governments and is infinitely more antagonistic to Israel and the United States, who would never entertain it. Because a one-state solution isn’t realistic, they reason, those who advocate for a single state effectively help Israel continue to dominate the entire territory.

Supporters of a one-state solution counter that there are so many Israeli settlements in the West Bank by now that it has become impractical to separate out Israel from Palestine. Moreover, they argue, if a one-state resolution replaced apartheid in South Africa, it could also be done in Israel-Palestine.

There are a number of additional points that should cast serious doubt on a two-state solution, some of which are rarely discussed, if at all.

Let’s begin with the obvious: over the past two years, Israel has basically destroyed Gaza. Even if some Gazans ultimately want to stay put, in defiance of Israeli aggression, it doesn’t mean that Gaza is safe for habitation. Over 95% of Gaza’s land is now unusable, thanks to Israel’s attacks on land and greenhouses. Added to this, its electricity, water sanitation, health facilities and universities have been decimated. By January, 92% of its housing units and 70% of all structures had been destroyed or damaged. The situation is even worse now. 

In theory, Gaza could be rebuilt and perhaps fully repopulated, at least the parts that have not become environmentally hazardous. According to experts, that could take as long as four decades.

There are other crucial points that require attention. For example, the Middle East is a climate hotspot — meaning the effects of climate change are more extreme than the global average — which renders the area highly unstable over time. While the global average temperature has increased by about 1.2°C above the pre-industrial level, Israel-Palestine has warmed by 1.5°C. That’s a sizable difference that creates real problems. By the end of the century, Palestine, Israel and Jordan could reach as high as 4°C. Climate change is creating “a general decrease in precipitation of 25% regionally and up to 40% locally”; an increase in extreme weather events; and “a growing rate of desertification,” EcoPeace Middle East has reported.

Increasingly, Palestinians will be pit against Israelis seeking new and greener pastures as the environment around them becomes more hostile. A two-state solution might hold for a little while, but as the climate heats up, the arrangement is bound to collapse into warfare and renewed annexation, while Palestinians suffer the most severe effects. This point is hardly ever addressed in conversations about justice in Palestine, especially in reference to the debate over Palestinian statehood.

We must also account for what has really transpired in “post-apartheid” South Africa. While the brutality of formal apartheid racism has in fact receded over the past 30 years, the situation remains dire for most Africans. Inequality has gone down slightly between races, but it went up in general (meaning among all races), thanks to the transition to neoliberalism and failure to redistribute wealth and income. There was no happy ending.

Instead, as many as two-thirds of the population — almost exclusively Black — lives under the meager poverty line of $3 per day. A small Black elite and middle class has emerged while the poor Black majority languish in poverty. Over half the youth are unemployed, and those who do have jobs can barely make a living. Corruption is rife, from the government and corporate sector to the police and military. Cops shake down immigrants for cash on the spot. Jobs are awarded to those with friends or family, or even outright purchased. Gender-based violence, disease and crime are rampant. Communities are still mostly segregated. On the ground, apartheid lives on, albeit in a new form.

This should be a warning sign for all of those concerned with justice for Palestine. What most people want more than anything else is a comfortable standard of living. They want a job, a fair and dignified salary, some money for entertainment, and time to spend with friends and family who can enjoy those things with them. But for most Palestinians, that will not become reality if there is no mass redistribution of wealth and power. Prior to the Gaza genocide, average daily wages in the West Bank and Gaza were a small fraction of what they are in Israel, which has spent decades annexing territory with valuable resources like water and agricultural land for its settlements.

Without socioeconomic justice, a Palestinian state or even a one-state capitalist “democracy,” will offer liberation on paper only, for a little while, until it collapses back into barbarism catalyzed by a burning planet.

With the dominant conversation about statehood, you’d think we’re still living in the 20^th century. It’s time we acknowledge these issues and address them squarely.