“At 4 P.M., the State of Israel Will Be Established”
—Yediot/Haaretz, May 16, 1948
“State of Israel is Born”
—The Palestine Post, May 16, 1948
“United Nations Approves State of Palestine”
–Date Approaching
It is conceivablewithin the course of realpolitik that despite obfuscation; politicalfilibustering; dancing the diplomatic two-step (direct, indirect); wadingthrough a plethora of plans, initiatives, think-tank reports, whitepapers and expert opinions (from Madrid to Oslo to Allon to Arab toFaya’d); it appears increasingly likely that all might boil down toa single resolution enacted by the United Nations Security Council.
When in August2009, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Faya’d laid out his designfor perfecting the infrastructure and institutions necessary to supportstatehood and slapped a two-year time frame on the plan, few realizedthe speed and intensity with which it would resonate throughout theworld, picking up support from a wide range of interests.
Domestically,the ‘Palestinian Street’ became energized with perhaps its firsttangible, reachable goals that diverted the populace from the mountingcynicism and skepticism with which it viewed virtually all promisesmade by its leadership until then. Supplemented by highly visible eventsshowcasing growing private sector entrepreneurialism, the mood on thestreet improved markedly from where frustration was the dominant emotionslightly more than a year ago.
The internationalcommunity has bit big-time. For reasons ranging from the dynamics ofdomestic politics to a sense – right or wrong—of supporting theunderdog, Faya’d’s start of the ‘countdown-clock to statehood’is allowing western leaders to vouchsafe support for the Palestiniancause replete with greater zeal and less personal/political risk.
In Israel,leading security officials acknowledge the success of American and Europeanefforts to train a competent security apparatus and the success of thePalestinian security forces in maintaining the peace wherever they havebeen given the opportunity to do so. In response, sixty Israeli tourguides are now being permitted to enter Palestinian areas and it appearsthat other Israeli citizens will soon be allowed to traverse the checkpointsat will.
Since all ofthese developments clearly buttress the mantra of the “two-state solution,”it belies the growing conventional wisdom that it’s primarily thefringe of each camp that prefers the less-fashionable “one-state”option.
On the Israeliright—but hardly “fringe”—former Defense Minister Moshe Arensrecently wrote in the mass-circulation Haaretz that Israel “isalready a bi-national Jewish-Palestinian state,” a position echoedby parliament speaker Ruby Rivlin, a member of Prime Minister Netanyahu’sLikud party. Those who adhere to this thought are diametrically opposedto those who argue that the “one-state solution” spells death bydemography for the democratic Jewish state. Opponents offer a visionof a dramatic handing-over to Israel’s Arab population the keys tothe kingdom on the morning that census figures show an Arab majority-of-one.They even point to support for the one-state approach Libyan strongmanMu’ammar Al-Qadhafi took in a recent New York Times op-ed asproof-positive that it must be “bad for the Jews.” Supporters ofthe one-state option respond to the demographic argument in-part bypointing to minority rule in Jordan and Syria. Some even cite a 1946piece by Albert Einstein considered supportive of a single bi-nationalcharacter for fledgling “Palestine” – the term predominantly referringto the region’s Jewish population at the time.
The Palestinianside, too, offers mixed views on the question of “one- or two-state”option. Adopting the demographic argument, some Palestinian leadershave employed the “one-state” idea as a threat to push the Israelistoward final concessions. It’s an argument many Israelis accept: losesome now or all later. Munib Al-Masri, the Palestinian billionaire whoseesteemed position has landed him in the unenviable role as mediatorbetween Fatah and Hamas, recently told The Media Line that, “Palestinianscan go either way, but the ‘two-state’ solution is better for Israel.”
The sole factorboth sides agree upon is that the status-quo is not sustainable –an opinion shared reluctantly by some with Barack Obama.
Throughoutyears of interviews with Israelis and Palestinians, it has become noticeablethat fewer and fewer still offer references to Jericho cafes filledwith Jewish Israelis on Saturday nights or recall what Jewish IsraelisNOT clad in army green and manning checkpoints look like: visions lostto both Israeli and Palestinian youth.
In that vein,the Faya’d plan and the apparition of a U.N. resolution establishingthe State of Palestine loom large in catalyzing Israelis to take a positionbefore one is imposed upon them. Conventional wisdom sees Israeli leadershipas being more malleable in the aftermath of the Goldstone and Gaza flotillaimage debacles and most believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu and PresidentObama share a clear understanding of what the final agreement is goingto look like
Many also seethe American interlocutor as losing patience with Palestinian obfuscationin the form of seemingly endless pre-conditions: the latest being Israel’sformal acceptance of ’67 borders and an international force to enforcethem.
Those who preachstagnation have it wrong. Although timing and details are not yet clear,the parties should neither underestimate the movement at-hand nor besurprised when the announcement from the U.N. fills the headlines.
FELICEFRIEDSON is President and CEO of The Media Line Ltd., an American newsagency specializing in coverage of the Middle Eas; and founder of TheMideast Press Club. She can be contacted at
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.