Why a 'Two-State Solution' in Israel/Palestine doesn't work | The Marc Steiner Show

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
Marc Steiner: Welcome to the Marc   Steiner Show here on The Real News. I'm Marc  Steiner, it's great to have you with us.   Now today as we record this interview it's a  holiday called Yom HaZikaron, which is celebrated   in Israel and by many Jews around the world. It's  a holiday that commemorates the fall and those   killed in battle, civilians killed in war,  and as some would say, in terrorist attacks   in Israel. Now in Arabic there's another holiday,  another saying, Yom Adikra, which is Remembrance   Day for Palestinians forcefully removed from their  homes, forced to live in refugee camps in Israeli   prisons. So it's intertwined, as these two people  are and will remain. After the '67 War there was   hope and a push for a Two-State Solution, but now  as our guest have written, this is all but fantasy   because the occupation, the Israeli settlements  in the West Bank, the growth of Palestinian   populations, created a world where Palestinians  and Israeli people are deeply intertwined,   even if their relationship is one  of the oppressor and the oppressed.  So just what would a One-State Solution look like?  How would that happen? I was reflecting on this,   looking in my study at home I have a poster,  a poster I got actually in Cuba in 1968 when   I was there. And it shows a map of the Holy  Land. It draped the Palestinian and Israeli   flags on the other side where the words,  "One land, two peoples, three faiths."   Has this time come? Is it even possible? Well, today we're going to explore some of   that, and my guests are Dr. Nathan Brown, who is  Professor of Political Science and International   Affairs at George Washington University and  a non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Carnegie   Endowment for International Peace, and Dr. Shibley  Telhami, he was the Anwar Sadat Professor of   Peace and Development at the University of  Maryland and non-Resident Senior Fellow at   the Brookings Institute. And they wrote a really  interesting article along with Michael Barnett   and Mark Lynch in a recent edition of Foreign  Affairs called Israel's One-State Reality.   It's Time to Give Up on the Two-State Solution,  and they join me now. And gentlemen, welcome. Good   to have you both with us. Nathan Brown:  Thank you. Shibley Telhami:  Pleasure. Marc Steiner:  So in the midst of the madness that we're  seeing in Israel and Palestine with the   demonstrations taking place as mostly among  Israeli Jews against the administration,   with the continue organizing and going  on the West Bank and other places   and with a really right wing and religiously  fundamentalist government in power at Israel,   talk again from your perspectives, and Nathan,  I want to start with you and then Shibley,   jump right in. What is the One-State Solution  which many people have talked about. Now,   let me just take a quick digression. I  remember a piece I did the other week   just reflecting on 1948 when [foreign language  00:02:49], who was the founder of the modern   Hebrew language, Martin Buber, the great Jewish  philosopher, and Albert Einstein all called for   a binational state in 1948. So this is not a new  thing, but talk a bit about the possibility for   this vitality today, Nathan. Nathan Brown:  Well, I think one thing that we're trying to do  in the article is maybe postpone a little bit of   that discussion by National State, a One-State,  a Confederal State, even a Two-State option.   Those things are ones that have various assets  and liabilities. What we're trying to see in   the article though is we're not there yet  and we're not probably going to get into   any of those outcomes anytime soon. Where  we are right now is in a One-State Reality,   there is one state and that state is called Israel  that controls the entire mandatory territory of   Palestine. It includes both parts of what was  going to be partitioned back in 1947, 1948.  And it is not a solution. It is not what you  were referring to what somebody like Magnus   or the poster you saw in Cuba was talking about.  It is one of domination and repression and that's   not a solution. So we're not going to get to  a solution anytime soon. A One-State Solution   might be a great one. Speaking for myself, I  thought a Two-State Solution was a fine idea   and I think we'll hear from Shibley, but he  probably would agree. What we have to do is   to stop using the idea that there is a Two-State  Solution just around the corner. We've got to stop   using that idea to obscure the reality of what is  right now a deeply entrenched, very unequal and   very repressive situation. Marc Steiner:  Shibley? Shibley Telhami:  Yeah, I echo what Nathan said. I mean,  a lot of people misunderstand. We are,   as political scientists when we started this, and  all four of us come from being supporters of a   Two-State solution even before it was popular. But  what we have noticed is that as people have been   using the promise of two states to distract from  an awful reality on the ground in more of a smoke   screen to cover up something that has to be dealt  with. In fact, the Two-State Solution have become   impossible in any foreseeable future at the  very same time that you have had an entrenched   One-State Reality that is unjust and strategically  problematic. And so what we basically set out to   do is to define that one reality, to say number  one, why it is a One-State Reality. Number two,   wherever you're going to go down in the  future and we don't have a solution.  I can't speak for all four of us, but I would say  that all four of us start with the principle that   whatever arrangement you have, it should be one  of equality, one of equal rights for both. And to   our mind, there are only two real possibilities  and somewhere in between, maybe confederation,   but it's either Two-State or One-State, none  of that is on the horizon. But what we have   noticed is at the moment, the idea that let's  wait for a Two-State has distracted from what   has become a lifetime for most people on the  ground, particularly Palestinians who are on   the receiving end of a very unjust reality  that we have. Once you call it a One-State,   what we're calling on people to do is  let's take a look at what now exists.   Let's put aside, a lot of people have been looking  at it as if you have a pre 67 Israel, which is a   flawed democracy with some discrimination against  Arabs but not any worse than many other places,   and then you have a temporary occupation that is  about to end, then once it ends will all be fine.  And of course, that is not what's happened  because the occupation has become permanent,   entrenched institutionally, legally, and nothing  looks like it's on the horizon to change that. And   so we are asking people to put on a new pair of  glasses to look instead at the entire territory as   a single state that controls both pre 1967 Israel  and the territories that were occupied in 1967.   And once you put on those kind of glasses, then  it's impossible not to reach the conclusion that   is something very akin to apartheid. And if that  is the reality, then you have to ask the question,   where do we start? We have to start with that  reality. And then we look at our own government,   all four of us are American, and we look at  our history and what we're doing now and what   we doing for years, for decades is really  enable and entrench this One-State Reality   that is unjust and strategically problematic. And so our point of departure here is to recognize   this reality and to say, "No, we don't want to be  enablers. Don't do it in our name as Americans,   because what you're doing is you are entrenching  an apartheid-like One-State Reality and make   it an impossible to address by throwing this  smoke screen about of a promise of a Two-State   Solution that has not been around the corner  for decades and it's not likely to be around   the corner for decades." Marc Steiner:  Now, I read your article actually twice  because I want to make sure I had it all   in my head before we sat down together. And  when you write about how the 2000 Camp David   Accords failed, and I think the line was  "where the Two-State solution went to die"   and we see where we are at this moment, so  where do you think the discussion goes from   here? How does it move ahead? You can't talk about  a solution to Israel Palestine without the United   States, clearly. Whether people agree or disagree  with that politically, it's not the issue. The   issue, the reality is that it's not going to  happen without that. And you see a growing,   as I've been covering, a growing population of  especially younger Jews who are staying enough,   and that's a political influential group  that's growing. But where does it go from   here? How did the discussion even begin, both  there and here about an alternative solution,   about dealing with the reality on the ground  and what that might mean? What do you both   think about that? Nathan Brown:  Well, I think at this point it may make more sense  to focus on how things get better and how we set   things on the right path rather than the ultimate  destination. You mentioned seeing a poster in   1968. I wasn't in Cuba in 1968, but I remember  1968 very clearly. I won't speak for Shibley,   but we are of a generation, I think, that  lived and understood the conflict a certain   way. And when you talk about younger generation,  I think that's true on all sides, on Israeli side,   on the Palestinians side, and actually on American  side, American Jewish side and so on. So I think   what we have to do is to realize essentially  it is probably up to a future generation to   find whatever kind of permanent arrangement if  we'll allow Israelis and Palestinians to live   together justly. What we have to do in the short  term, as Shibley said, is stop exempting this   area from international standards about apartheid,  about laws of occupation, about human rights.  And that's essentially what we're doing. So if  we're going to focus on what the United States   should be doing, what the United States should  be doing is not trying to sketch out some kind   of final solution and them just saying when  the party are ready, they'll call us. What   the United States should be doing is saying  the same kinds of standards that we apply   throughout the world in all kinds of conflicts  to all kinds of populations have to apply here.  And when we, for instance, say something like,  well, when you talk about international law,   that's really irrelevant, the parties really have  to deal with each other and they have to sketch   out this Two-State Solution, what we're really  doing is, as Shibley use the term smokescreen,   we're camouflaging what's going on. So I think the  focus really has to do with how do we make things   better now? How do we set things on the right  track? How do we enable future generations and   much less, what does a future just solution look  like in detail? Because our generation, and now   I'm speaking solely for myself, Shibley may hope  to live much longer than I do. I don't think I'll   be part of the generation that solves this thing. Marc Steiner:  I'm afraid you might be right. Shibley? Shibley Telhami:  Yeah. If I may add, just basically to  think about what we're recommending here.   There are two layers here. One layer is  recognizing the reality as it exists, which   makes people pass different moral judgements and  different policy judgements. We see, for example,   that once you look at it through the prism of  One-State Reality that is unjust, you looking at   it through the prism of a social injustice issue.  You look at it, and we see a lot of Americans,   for example, in the public opinion polls that  I'm doing in the US, the shifting attitudes   toward what Israel Palestine are predicated on  this shifting assumption increasingly looking   at Israel Palestine as an issue of social justice  similar to racial issues in America and elsewhere,   rather than as a strategic problem that  needs to be resolved. And even some of the   young evangelicals are looking at it that way  instead of looking at it through the prism of   biblical prophecy according to our newest polls. So I think that that's one thing about the reality   and figuring out how are you as a society, it's  not just government. We're not only talking about   governments, we're talking about individuals,  about society, about people who care about   human rights, people who care about democracy,  the world over, transnational organizations. So   we're not only talking about a government, but  secondarily, we're not taking anything away from   the tools available to government in addressing  what are obvious violations of international law.  So when we say we want the world to recognize  that it is now a semi-permanent One-State Reality,   we are not saying that Israel is sovereign over  that One-State. We differentiate in our work   between sovereignty and statehood. Statehood  is about control. Sovereignty is about the   outside world recognizing that control.  And even if you accept the state control,   that is the Israeli state control over that entire  territory, it is still not going to be accepted   by the international community by the fact that,  for example, the settlements remain a violation of   international law. That doesn't change that order. And so therefore you have two tracks here. You   have one track in which you need to hold the  state responsible for the same rules that apply   in international relations, norms and laws. And  you have to also have society and government   hold the government responsible for what  occurs in the territories that it controls   as a single state. And so it's not like we  are basically... What we're telling our own   government is you got to do it on both scores.  For example, you can't be against settlements   and then you go and shield Israel from the  consequences of violating the international law   at the UN when in fact it builds these illegal  settlements. And the thing about it is, one of   the things that the Two-State language did is that  it replaced the term international law. So we say,   "Oh, settlements shouldn't be built because they  undermine the prospects of Two-State Solution."  Well guess what? It has nothing to do with the  Two-State Solution. Settlements were wrong even   before the Two-State Solution was on the table.  And this is a violation of international law.   And we got to go back to basics and we got to be  consistent internationally to be able to, in fact,   particularly for the Biden Administration, which  is trying to make the case internationally over   its support for Ukraine, it has to be very  consistent. But in this particular case,   it's worse than that. It's not just maintaining  norms that are typical in international relations   such as the sovereignty norm, but if we're  right about the One-State Reality being akin   to apartheid, you're talking about one of the  stronger norms of the 20th century that we need   to find a way to uphold. Marc Steiner:  I have difficulty formulating this. It's almost  as difficult as formulating a solution to this   problem. But in the article, you have this quote  in here from Itamar Ben-Gvir where he declared   that "Gaza should be ours and the Palestinians  can go to Saudi Arabia or other places like Iraq   or Iran." So the reality is that you have this  extremely right wing fundamentalist government   in charge of Israel at the moment. And so let's  take it back to the United States for a moment.   How does that conversation happen in our  country with this government that we have,   election coming up and how you begin to address  this and what it is that the United States should   be doing, if anything, changing its position,  changing the way it approaches this entire   situation. I mean, that's part of what you're  getting to in this piece. That's a huge piece   of this. So where do you think that goes given all  this reality and how do you think you get there?   Nathan, go ahead. Nathan Brown:  Yeah. It's a tough question, and I will  confess here, I'm realistic. I think that   current Biden Administration just  does not want to deal with this.   People who deal with this issue are actually  pretty well aware of what's going on,   and they wouldn't necessarily disagree  with much of our analysis about where   things are right now. But just the idea of this  incredible sea change as coming into an election,   it's like, "Let's not deal with that.  Let's deal with deal with other issues."  And that's one reason why I think a little bit  of longer term focus may be required. I think   the sorts of sea changes in thinking that Shibley  was talking about, focusing on rights, focusing   on equality, one implication for instance would  be that the situation of the population of Gaza,   a million people under siege now for really  in some ways a couple of decades, that's a   pressing issue. That's not just a short term  security curfew or anything like that. This is   an ongoing engineered humanitarian disaster. And  talking about issues like that much more placing   current restrictions and some of which may have  some security justification, many of which do not.  And these are ones I will say, you mentioned  Ben-Gvir, certainly the current Israeli government   is suggesting the prospect of making things  far, far worse. But these problems predated   the current Israeli government. So the kind of  sea change that we're talking about in thinking   and in prioritizing is one that will, I think,  lead to some pretty painful choices. Again,   I don't expect the current Biden Administration  to do this, but I suspect that with the sorts of   changes, the generational changes that are going  on, the changes in public opinion shifts in public   opinion that Shibley was talking about, that'll  be the way the debate goes, and politicians are   probably going to have to get used to it and  start having to address the problem in new ways.  Marc Steiner: So Shibley, I'm curious how you're polling   or how you see public opinion in this country  shifting and what that says about what Nathan was   just saying and what might happen next? Shibley Telhami:  Yeah. So first let me just  add to what Nathan said-  Marc Steiner: Oh please, go ahead. Absolutely, yeah.  Shibley Telhami: Basically on this thing   that it's not just Ben-Gvir, right? I mean  that's awful and obviously we see that and   that made it real for a lot of people who who've  been trying to look the other way or in denial.   But the reality of it is the pupil in Israel  showed 48% of Israelis support the statement   that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from  Israel. That's nearly half. 79% said that Israeli   Jews should have privileges over non-Jews in the  State of Israel. So this is something that has   been happening in society over time. Society have  moved to the right and honestly, had it not been   for the 20% Arab citizens who also get to vote  and have some share of the seats in the Knesset,   it would be overwhelmingly a right-wing government  in Israel. There's no question that's where the   Jewish population has gone. But going back to, number one,   where public opinion is in the US and also what  the Biden Administration can do. The first with   public opinion, there's no question there's been  a transformation, particularly among Democrats.   Less so among Republicans, but definitely among  Democrats were increasingly Democrats are tilting   toward the Palestinians over Israel. We saw not  just my polling, but the Gallup poll recently,   that showed for the first time in all their years  of polling, Americans sympathize more with the   Palestinians than with Israel by 11 percentage  points. We've seen that. Also, Americans,   I'm not sure that they see Israel the same way  that politicians do. In fact, I'm releasing a   poll literally today in an article that Brookings  Institution is publishing that shows that among   those who express opinions about what kind of  state Israel is, there is a equal plurality that   on the one hand says Israel is a flawed democracy,  and the same number of people say it is a state   with segregation similar to apartheid. So that's all Americans and a plurality   of Democrats say that it's a state with  segregation similar to apartheid. So we   have something really shifting even at the  public level, but with the Administration,   while I agree with Nathan that there's nothing  that could be expected that would lead to   a solution by the government. There are things  that the government can do without much trouble,   in all honesty, to stop being part of the problem  and start being part of the solution. For example,   if in fact our description is right, that what we  now has a One-State Reality similar to apartheid,   do we really have shared values between the United  States and Israel as it now exists? So if not, why   are we saying that? Why are we misleading people? Why aren't we telling the truth? If in fact a   Two-State Solution is not on the horizon,  why are we lying that we're trying to   stop a UN resolution in order to save  a Two-State Solution, when in fact,   in the process we're enabling the construction of  settlements. We're working overtime to reinforce   the status quo instead of change it. So all  we're saying is stop doing it. Not do something   new. Stop saying these words. Stop shielding  Israel at the UN when in fact it's violating   international law over settlements, for example. And why are we working overtime to try to bring   peace between Arab states and Israel without tying  it to addressing the Palestinian issue, divorcing   it from the Palestinian issue. We're working  overtime, we're sending our diplomats, we're   twisting arms, we're creating incentive. Even the  president himself went to Saudi Arabia in part for   that purpose. Why? So we are already doing things  that actually entrenched the status quo. All   we have to is stop doing that. It's not that we  need to do a solution, but stop being part of the   problem. That's the first step to moving forward. Marc Steiner:  So I'm very curious as to both of your  personal political analysis about where   you think the future might take this. And none  of us are prescient, you know what I mean,   but when you look at the end of apartheid in South  Africa and the falling of the apartheid regime,   you look at the end of segregation in America and  what happened in the south and across the United   States from the 1960s, neither one ended up in  a panacea and the right wing is very powerful   in this country, and South Africa is a mess.  Let's put it lightly. So given that though,   I'm really interested to hear what you both think  about how you think it can proceed to go forward.   And you've both been in this for a long time and  as have I, and I have no answers. I'm not going to   ask you to say that you both have answers to this,  but how do you see the future unfolding and how   can it unfold, given the reality of One-State  at the moment, because that's what it is?  Nathan Brown: I think that's a fantastic question and I don't   think I have a fantastic answer. I think different  communities are moving in different directions,   and let me just make a couple observations. Marc Steiner:  Please. Nathan Brown:  I don't offer hope or a panacea, but just  some interesting movement. I think one of   the interesting things here, and I'm going to  speak personally, American Jewish community   made almost a deliberate decision in the last  quarter, last third of the 20th century, we're   going to reorient American Jewish identity around  Israel in terms of pronunciation, in terms of   food, in terms of Israel experiences and so forth  and so on. And I think that's in crisis right now   where you've got a significant part, especially  of nonorthodox American Jews essentially saying,   "We don't like where this country is going." And  so it's a crisis for the American Jewish community   that you won't see at the leadership level, but  you'll see at the grassroots and the younger   generational level, and it's beginning to play  out in policies of Hillel towards dealing with   BDS and so on across college campuses and so on. So it's playing out in an interesting way there.   And I don't know how it will shake out. Among  Palestinians, I think there's a disengagement from   the old leadership structure, the PLO. Palestinian  Authority doesn't look to anybody right now like   it's the colonel of a Palestinian state. But where  that goes? Do new structures arise? How is it   the Palestinians who are divided among all these  different West Bank, Gaza, Israel, the Aspirants?   Do they have any capability for  forming new strategies, new visions?  Again, there's a new generation that's toying  about with these things on social media,   but are they capable of building a  sustained movement? I don't know.   And then a final thing just to watch is Shibley  said, we're not just talking about governments,   we're talking about people and individuals.  There are social movements. There's transnational   activism in a way that didn't exist or was much  less vital I think, in previous generations. So I   can see those are interesting trends to watch that  will probably shape how the conflict emerges, but   where they lead in the long term, I don't know. Marc Steiner:  Shibley, you got your  crystal ball in front of you?  Shibley Telhami: Well, it's a process. None of us really   know how this is going to end in all honesty. And  we all obviously hope whatever it is, it would   be one where you have equality and fairness and  human rights respected for both Arabs and Jews.   That's what we all want. We don't really have  a particular aim be beyond that. And obviously   one that would be stable over time. I think the  idea here though is along the lines that Nathan   suggested that what we're trying to do is shake  up the conversation in order for people to make up   their minds and create a different momentum that  is going to inevitably move this in some direction   or another, but hopefully away from the awfulness  that now exists and what shape or form it takes,   who are going to be the key players in society  and in government, who will move it, I don't know.  But I do know that we, the United States  government, have a critical role to play   and have played a critical role. There is no way  that the settlement building would've expanded   and occupation would have lasted as long as  it did without all the things that the US   government provided to shield Israel at the UN  and international organizations, to provide the   cutting edge technology that enables a regional  superiority, that gave the comfort to do what it   does on the West Bank, to seek peace treaties  between Israel and the Arab states without   advancing the end of occupation in the process.  Those things would not have happened without   the United States. And the entrenchment of that  reality as we speak is happening because these   things are still ongoing. And we got to stop that. Marc Steiner:  Well, A, this article is a really good article,  and B, I really enjoyed our conversation and hope   this is one of many we can have over the coming  months as we see how this unfolds, because I think   we're at a very critical juncture. As you wrote in  your article, there are all kinds of factions and   divides among Israelis, among Palestinians, and  across. So the fact is not so simplistic answer.   You can see in the reality of people's ideas and  where this is going. So I want to thank you for   the work you're doing, bringing this all to our  attention, and I really look forward to seeing   what comes next in the work you both are doing.  And so I want to thank you both, Nathan Brown and   Shibley Telhami for taking your time today to  joining us here on the Marc Steiner Show. It's   been a pleasure as always, to talk to you. Shibley Telhami:  Thanks for having us. Nathan Brown:  Thank you. Appreciate it. Marc Steiner:  And I want to thank you all for joining  us today. Please let me know what you   thought about what you heard. You can  tell me what you'd like us to cover,   what you thought about today's conversation. Just  write to me at mss@therealnews.com and I'll write   you right back. And while you're there, please go  to www.therealnews.com/support, become a monthly   donor, become part of the future with us. So for  David Hebden, Adam Coley, Kayla Rivara, and the   crew here at The Real News, I'm Marc Steiner.  Stay involved. Keep listening, and take care.
Info
Channel: The Real News Network
Views: 13,180
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: real news, the real news, real news network, realnews, the real news network, therealnews, trnn, palestine, israel, two state solution, zionism
Id: ahr_9XP8LxU
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 32min 13sec (1933 seconds)
Published: Tue May 09 2023
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.