The One-State Solution: Redux

Palestinian writer Ahmad Samih Khalidi proposes his solution to the middle east conflict: A one-state solution.

By positing one homeland for both sides, the one-state solution not only does away with the conflict over history and mutual legitimisation, but has practical political implications as well. Both sides can maintain their “right of return” without this being at the expense of the other, and Israeli settlers would not need to be removed from where they are today. Jerusalem could truly become the shared capital of a unitary Arab-Jewish state.

So according to Khalidi, all Israel has to do is welcome all palestinians into her cities with open arms. Ride buses with palestinians. Allow all palestinians to vote and elect their own government (which will occur, given the population growth trends). And the palestinians, who have shown that they despise the Jews (the “sons of monkeys and pigs”), who have shown that they have no compunctions about blowing up innocent people, will miraculously accept Jews as their neighbors. We just have to trust them. Simple!

If there was one thing that Oslo taught us, it is that the arabs do not react well to compromise. It is interpreted by them as a sign of weakness, giving them the strength and confidence to attempt to wipe us off the map. It is so-called “respectable” intellectuals like Khalidi who recognize that the best way to destroy Israel is from within; via demographics. What better way to eliminate the Jewish state than by replacing it with an arab one?

Khalidi asks “what is more important, democracy, or the Jewishness of the state? A Jewish state, or a homeland for Jews and Arabs alike?” My answer is that a synthesis between the two can be found, to the extent that Israel’s Jewish nature is not compromised.

Democracy is basically one vote for one person. Israel is already a democracy in this sense. Israeli Arabs have voting rights and political parties, despite the fact that a perecentage of them openly call for Israel’s destruction. Granted, their are restrictions, such as on their ability to serve in the IDF, but these are pragmatic in nature.

Preserving Israel’s character is another issue entirely. No other country in the world would be asked to abandon its essential character. For instance, would Japan allow its Japanese citizens to become the minority? Would the US allow itself to become an Islamic state? So why should Israel have to forgo its Jewish nature?

The Arabs have their own states in which other cultural groups have very few rights. They are certainly not offering to share their states with any other nations. Why should Israel be asked to share control of its land with a group of people, who cannot even be called a nation, and whom are overtly seeking to destroy us?

The one-state solution is just another tactic in the palestinian arsenal, aimed at destroying Israel and replacing her with Palestine. And Khalidi is just another Yasser Arafat, albeit hiding behind the facade of respectability.