Without the Hijab and the Kassam
Readers of political commentary on the Middle East will frequently see reference to the 'one-state solution' in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. What perhaps is often not sufficiently clear is what lies behind that particular political ethos, exactly who is promoting it and why.
Advocates of the 'one state solution' are, by definition, opposed to the two-state solution – i.e. the creation, as a result of negotiations between the relevant parties, of a Palestinian State which will exist side by side – hopefully in peace and good neighbourly relations - with the Jewish State of Israel. This has been the premise behind the entire peace process since 1993. It is the basis upon which the Oslo Accords and later the Roadmap were built. It was the logic behind Israel's agreeing to the PLO being allowed to establish the Palestinian Authority and Israeli concessions on areas A and B. It is also the concept upon which all diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the region have been – and still are – based.
As frustrating as the peace process has been, the two-state solution remains the stated goal of the international community as well as successive Israeli governments during the last two decades and it is the solution of choice in the overwhelming majority of Israeli public opinion. On the other side of the dispute, whilst the Palestinian Authority also claims to be committed to the two-state solution, Hamas rejects it outright, refusing to take part in negotiations, refusing to recognise the right of Israel to exist and insisting upon the return of the descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
Many in the West (though by no means all) are able to recognise the rejectionist Hamas stance for what it is because the religious rhetoric and medieval-style language employed by its leaders to state the Hamas case is easy to identify as being rooted in Islamist theology and little attempt is made to hide the anti-Semitic attitudes behind the political-theological stance according to which, Jews must not be permitted to have their own state in the Middle East.
Less easy for many Westerners to understand is the similarity between the Hamas stance and that of advocates of the 'one state solution'. One reason for that is because its advocates steer clear of religious rhetoric; instead they present their case clothed in the language of human rights; making reference to international law, justice, democracy, secularism and equality – all concepts with which it is significantly easier for the Western mind to connect and empathise.
However, the bottom line of the one-state proposal in fact differs little from that of the Hamas 'solution' to the problems of the Middle East in that both see the eradication of the Jewish State as the answer to the conflict. At a conference in Stuttgart last November, the blueprint for the one-state solution was laid out by its main advocates.
"The adherence to a 2-State Solution condemns Palestinians with Israeli citizenship to live as second class citizens in their historic country, in a racist state in which they are not allowed the same rights as Jewish citizens. Furthermore, the continuance of a Zionist state on the land of the Palestinian refugees denies these refugees the internationally recognized right to return."
"The Two-State Solution cannot lead to anything other than the consolidation and cementation of inequality. The model of two states separated according to ethnicity or religion means ethnic separation or fundamental inequality inside this state, as we experience in Israel today. "
…….
"At the end of the discussion there was general agreement that only the creation of a shared secular and democratic state in historical Palestine with equal rights for all can bring peace and equality for Palestinians and Israelis – a state in which all people live together with equal rights, irrespective of their religion or background. This of course includes the Palestinians expelled from the country (fulfillment of Resolution 194 of the UN General Assembly)."
Many of the minds behind the Stuttgart Declaration are also involved with the Palestine Justice Network (PJN) which in April 2011 launched its 'One State Initiative'.
"Many people of good faith yearn for a future that is a joint democratic pluralistic state that encompasses all of the historic land of Palestine (currently the political entities of the apartheid State of Israel and the post-1967 Israeli occupied Palestinian Territories). It is time to put our beliefs into practice by bringing together all these people to effect the needed transformation socially and politically. We call on you to join us to formulate all the needed mechanisms for this transformation. We are seeking local and international legal experts to draft a constitution for our joint future state and we are seeking activists with other skills (media, lobbying, civil disobedience etc) to translate the vision into reality. In our joint future state, Palestinian Refugees will have the right to return to their homes and lands and to receive reparation for their suffering as supported by UNGA resolution 194. Return and self-determination are key pillars of peace based on justice. "
Obviously, the 'one state solution' is not designed to have any kind of input from the mainstream Israeli side of the equation; it is conceived as a solution to be imposed upon what is currently the majority of the population of the region, presumably by means of international pressure and possibly military force. That aspect of it alone should raise serious questions among those who take words such as 'justice' and 'equality' seriously, not least because the overall approach is eerily similar to that employed by Hamas; a total rejection of negotiations and a forced outcome.
Secondly, any state as described above, including returned refugees, would by definition be one with a Jewish minority. Even if it were initially a secular, democratic state, there is no guarantee that it would remain as such (both Hamas and the supposedly secular PA base their legal systems on Sharia law) and the ever evolving track record of sectarian violence in the wider region, together with the inevitable fruits of decades of incitement against Jews by both Hamas and the PA, would suggest that any remaining Jews would yet again become a beleaguered minority in a majority Muslim state. In other words, like Hamas, the proponents of the 'one state solution' wish to see an end to Jewish self-determination.
According to the EUMC Working Definition, one manifestation of anti-Semitism with regard to Israel is "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor". Such a claim is precisely the basis for the one-state solution. In addition, the repeated claims by proponents of the one-state solution that Israel is an 'apartheid state' also suggest that their driving force is motivated by anti-Semitism.
In a 2007 paper which echoes some of the themes of his book of the previous year concerning the resurgence of anti-Semitism, Professor Bernard Harrison writes that "The facts belie the proposition that the conduct of Israel is comparable to that of the Nazis or even to that of South Africa under apartheid". However, as Professor Harrison is at pains to point out, unfairness alone does not necessarily equate with anti-Semitism. A traditional motif of anti-Semitism is the belief that "the Jews" as a people are irredeemably evil. In modern Western thought the Nazi regime and the South African apartheid regime are those which the broadest consensus of thought would regard as evil and therefore deserving of being dismantled. The purpose of the employment of Nazi analogies and apartheid comparisons by advocates of the one-state solution is to equate Israel with the evil of those regimes and therefore to justify calls for its destruction. Significantly, no such accusations are made against any other state, including those with human rights records far worse than that of Israel has ever been. It is therefore to be concluded that in singling out Israel for censure and potential dissolution, such claims are rooted in anti-Semitism.
Clearly then, the basic aims of the Islamist Hamas movement and the secular 'one-state' campaign are identical and equally rooted in anti-Semitic attitudes, although their methodologies differ. Whilst Hamas relies almost entirely on military methods (armed conflict, backed by its sponsors in Iran and other members of the Islamist bloc) and justifies its anti-Semitic aims in terms of theology, the 'one-state' movement employs the language of quasi-human rights and includes in its arsenal the political weapons of delegitimisation, civil disobedience, economic warfare in the form of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and 'lawfare', supported and often aided by a plethora of political NGOs.
The list of over 1,200 signatories supporting the Stuttgart Declaration reveals the extent of the spectrum of activities in which supporters of the 'one-state solution' are engaged. One of the more prominent names on the list is that of UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, Richard Falk who also expressed his support for the declaration aiming to dissolve the Jewish state on his own blog. Other well-known figures include former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison – a familiar figure on the lecture circuit who openly peddles anti-Semitic conspiracy theories , Iranian 'Press TV' employee and 'Respect' member Yvonne Ridley and 'Respect' and 'Viva Palestina' founder George Galloway.
In addition, we see signatures from members of various anti-Zionist Jewish groups such as Rosalind Levy from 'Jews for Justice for Palestinians' and 'Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods', Mike Cushman also of JBIG (which has received positive feedback from no less than the Iranian state news-agency for its actions) and Jeff Halper of ICHAD. Like the drafters of the 'one-state' initiative, all these groups employ anti-Semitic terminology such as 'apartheid' and 'racist Zionist state' in their attempts to delegitimize Israel.
The Suttgart Declaration predictably attracted endorsers from British branches of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign including Tony Davies of Exeter, Janet Moir of Birmingham, Rod Walters of Abergavenny, Suleiman Sharkh of Southampton (also a lecturer at its university) and Hugh Mackay of Edinburgh. Also of West Midlands PSC is signatory Sammi Ibrahem who is behind the virulently anti-Semitic website named "Shoah". Ramzi Obeid of ISM California and Paul Larudee of the 'Free Palestine Movement' and a founder of the ISM also signed the declaration. The ISM is of course one of the organisations (together with other Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood linked bodies) behind the various flotillas attempting to breach the naval embargo on Gaza. It therefore comes as no surprise to see the signatures of flotilla participants Hajo Meyer and Hedy Epstein appearing on the declaration.
British universities have significant representation on the list of supporters for the Stuttgart Declaration, including Haim Bresheeth of the University of East London (also a member of BRICUP), Raya al Dadah of Birmingham, Nur Masalha of the University of Surrey and SOAS, Ilan Pappe of Exeter, Mona Baker of Manchester, Oren Ben Dor of Southampton and Sue Blackwell of Birmingham – a prime mover behind academic boycott motions within the UCU.
Among the members of Palestinian groups supporting the 'one-state solution' are Leila Khaled of the PFLP Central Committee, Omar Barghouti of PACBI; the 'engine' behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, Uri Davis of the Fatah Revolutionary Council and Shir Hever and Michael Warschawski of the Alternative Information Centre. Other signatories are Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, Rifat Odeh Kassis - also of the AIC, and involved in the Christian EAPPI program, special advisor to the World Council of Churches and a co-author of the Kairos document.
Mazin Qumsiyeh –a founder of Al Awda, chair of the ISM -linked Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement and activist for the Popular Committee against the Wall is also a signatory and has blogged about the Stuttgart conference. Lubna Marsawa of the 'Welcome to Palestine' campaign (better known as the recent 'flytilla'), former Mavi Marmara passenger and 'Free Gaza' board member was a speaker at the conference and signed the declaration. Guardian journalist Patrick Seale and regular 'Comment is Free' contributors Ghada Karmi (also of Exeter University) and Sam Bahour added their support.
The signatories of the Stuttgart Declaration and the supporters of the PJN want to see Israel cease to exist and in that, they are no less extremist and fanatic than the Islamists. They should therefore be viewed not as 'human rights activists', but as Hamas without the hijab and the Kassam; like Hamas and other terrorist organisations they seek neither negotiation, nor peaceful co-existence. Some of the 'one-staters' may hold racist views; others may not, but the 'solution' they advocate certainly is anti-Semitic, as is often the delegitimising rhetoric used to advance that aim. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is part of that propaganda and it is vital that it is recognized as such by all who wish to see two states for two peoples living peacefully side by side in the Middle East.
Hadar Sela is a Contributing Writer for The Propagandist living in the Middle East
