One-Way Musings on One-State Solution

Eric Alterman’s July 15 column in the Forward argues that Israeli intransigence is, in effect, the sole reason a peace agreement hasn’t been reached with the Palestinians.

The CUNY professor quotes a pro-Palestinian Israeli activist pinning responsibility for the stalemate on a land-hungry version of Zionism:

[I]f all that was necessary were to work out the details of the end of the occupation and the creation of two states based on the finality of the 1947 borders — that is, of the Zionism that liberates people rather than real estate — “[Palestinian academic Sari Nusseibeh] and I could conclude a peace agreement before lunch.”

The Israeli activist suggests that Palestinians will be “liberated” only if their borders follow the 1947 lines. This is self-contradictory: If he believes the liberation of people should be valued over the liberation of land, why does he argue that a peace agreement must hinge on specific borders? If Palestinian insistence on those lines has prevented an agreement leading to their “liberation,” it is Palestinian leaders, and not Zionism, who deserve blame for valuing real estate above liberation. (Never mind that a majority of Palestinians recently rejected the concept of two states for two people under any borders.)

This passage’s focus on “the finality of the 1947 borders” is also misleading since the ’47 lines were never considered a border, let alone “final.” On the contrary, the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement specifically notes that the lines were “agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.” And UN Security Council Resolution 242 was drafted with language underscoring that, in the words of the its chief author, “the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… . We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever.”

Most notable, though, is the disconnect between Alterman’s quote and the reality of recent negotiations. Palestinians have repeatedly been offered “liberation” — not only in the distant past, as the author acknowledged, but also multiple times in recent years. At Camp David, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat rejected peace agreements, and Palestinian statehood. And his successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected the same during his negotiations with Ehud Olmert.

Perhaps Sari Nusseibeh would be able to conclude a peace agreement “before lunch.” But his leaders clearly have other priorities above liberation.