The Foreign Service Journal, December 2012

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | DECEMBER 2012 19 greatest potential impact on Israel (given the cultural valuation of education by Israelis and Palestinians) is the Palestin- ian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel and its American sister organization (the U.S. Campaign for Aca- demic and Cultural Boycott of Israel). The interest here is in discouraging academic and cultural cooperation and perfor- mances with Israel until the occupation ends. In addition, many of the churches and civic organizations in the U.S. and Europe that reaffirm Israel’s right to exist also boycott and divest from companies providing products or services (including financial) that support Israelis or Pales- tinians who attack civilians. These nonviolent strategies are paying off. Many new solidarity groups have emerged during the last 10 years, such as the International Solidarity Movement and Women in Black. Professional orga- nizations and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Oxfam, Code Pink, the U.S. Veterans for Peace and other peace groups, are also involved. One State, Not Two Lastly and most importantly, I am greatly encouraged by the increasing discussion of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Jewish taxi driver first introduced me to this idea in 1988, when I traveled with him from Hebron to Gaza City. When I told him what I was doing there, he told me, “There is only one solution to our problem here, and we all know it. The Palestinians know it, we Israelis know it. That solution is one state with Jerusalem as the capital. You could call it the United States of Palestine with perhaps three states: Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. “Our problem is that the Palestinian leadership does not want this solution and the Israeli government would never allow it. And even if we could overcome these two, your American government would never support it. So we are caught in a situation without resolution because our leaders cannot agree on the only solution that will ever work.” At the time, I thought to myself, “What does a taxi driver know?” Still, it was an interesting idea that I stored in the back of my mind. I believe that idea’s time has come. We now have 20 years of experience demon- strating the impossibility of a two-state solution or even of creating an effective government for the Palestinians. Many voices are calling for a one-state solu- tion: a country in which Palestinians and Jews live together with equal rights and responsibilities. This would not neces- sarily be the end of Israel, but it would require a secular state, the end of the Jewish state. This is a real stumbling block for Israe- lis and the Jewish diaspora, who have all seen a Jewish state as a fundamental sanctuary. It seems to me, however, that religious states, no matter how benevo- lent, are simply not viable—not Islamic states, not a Jewish state, not even a peaceful Quaker state (think colonial Pennsylvania). Religious states by defini- tion discriminate against the minority (or minorities) and are therefore unstable and unsustainable. To date, Israel proves my point. So, for all the reasons I’ve already noted, a one-state solution is the only I am optimistic because I believe the time has finally come for a one-state solution to this long-running crisis. viable one. Under it, neither the Palestin- ians nor the Israelis get everything they want, but both sides get what they need. (For an excellent discussion of the one- state solution, read Ali Abunimah’s 2007 book, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse .) Seeking a Win-Win Solution For all these reasons, I have hope today. There are courageous Israelis and Palestinians who are getting beyond “us versus them” thinking and are moving into real, nonviolent conflict resolu- tion. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim peoples of Palestine are learning that we are all imperfect human beings, and only through nonviolent means can they bring about a lasting resolution satisfactory to all parties. As Moshe Dayan said, the only way to achieve peace “is not to talk with my friends but to talk with my enemies.” We have learned not to rely on the par- alyzed, self-interested and often co-opted U.S. and Israeli governments for answers or even to ask the important questions. As powerful as these governments are, people power, with international support, can still prevail, as it did in South Africa— eventually even with support from the U.S. government. Today I see growing Israeli, Pales- tinian and international support for finding solutions that are winners for all the parties to the conflict. Only such an approach can finally end the intolerable suffering of both the Israeli and Palestin- ian peoples. n