Israelis and Palestinians should explore single, secular state

The two-state solution has failed to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. The world ought to consider a new approach, says former president Kgalema Motlanthe.

Across the world, democracy's claim of having the sole mandate on the principles of freedom, justice and equality is being tested.

It has become increasingly evident that democratic states are capable of the very actions they claim to contest and the kinds of fascism their central texts abhor.

As such, we are cautioned to understand that democracy is not a destination, but a process, and is never guaranteed simply by its arrival or utterances.

story_article_left1

We are required to hold it to account and continually ask questions of its ongoing sites of conflict, civil war, poverty and human rights violations. They become, however, difficult to place into perspective when they have been subject to consistent repetition, because such circularity can cause stasis, or, at worst, fatalistic discourses to dominate. "What can we do?" can swiftly be reformulated into "there is nothing that we can do".

This is where we currently find ourselves as we consider the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli crisis. How, then, do we achieve ways of living together, particularly when separateness has for so long dictated the very character of who we are, marking the territory that we live in as well as our interactions, our realities and our bodies?

The collision of self-determination, struggles, minority rights, religious affiliations, fear, violence, nationalist struggles, ideology, international interference, regional conflict, human rights, occupation, and other factors has calcified into the present condition.

My visit to Palestine in 2006 convinced me of the necessity of recognising the fundamental principles of democracy in the region, which include the rights of each group to exist and enjoy sovereignty, and the recognition of the present and historical realities that see oppression, dispossession and different laws for different people living in the same area.

Having lived under such conditions, I know its effects all too well — and how they solidify into the character of states.

The two-state solution saw its genesis in the idea that "two states for two peoples" could be realised. It has constituted the most popular approach of the past decades.

While it ostensibly appears the most favourable option given the desire for a Jewish homeland and an independent Palestine that stand distinct from each other and enjoy mutual independence, it has increasingly seen failure in practice.

This solution has, as a result, failed to bear fruit and bring an end to the violence and tension that have morphed into the status quo in the territory. What we should seek is not mere management of the situation, but its active resolution and transformation.

The factors affecting the disenchantment with and stagnancy of the two-state solution include:

• The ceaseless growth of settlements in Palestinian territory, particularly the West Bank, and calls for part of its territory to be annexed;

• The rise of the religious right in Israel and extremist groups; and

• The political and geographic divisions within Palestine.

Primarily, the two-state solution has been difficult to achieve, given four pressing issues and differing demands. Firstly, a lack of consensus over borders. Secondly, both Israel and Palestine view Jerusalem as their separate capital. The two-state solution calls for it to be divided, but its eastern half has been annexed by Israel.

Thirdly, there is the matter of refugees - particularly the large number of Palestinians who now live in exile and cannot return under Israel's "right of return" policy. Finally, there is the matter of security — which Palestinians view as an end to military occupation and Israelis see as avoiding groups such as Hamas taking over the West Bank area, and maintaining their military presence.

story_article_right2

Former US secretary of state John Kerry has stated: "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic — it cannot be both — and it won't ever really be at peace." I cannot help but concur.

I am increasingly interested in the possibilities of a democratic one-state solution. Such a solution could perhaps take the form of a federal state, in which each side enjoys a majority in its territory.

I say this while acknowledging the minority fears that persist in the present. As such, a constitution would be required to guarantee the existence of such a federation, even as demographics shift.

I admit that a joint poll designed to assess support for a democratic, one-state solution was conducted and more than half of Israeli-Arabs endorsed the idea — but only 36% of Palestinians and 19% of Israeli Jews expressed their support.

It must be noted that the poll concluded that "majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution, but only in theory; their support drops off rapidly when they are asked to contemplate the details of such an agreement".

The formation of a new political entity and identity within a one-state solution will no doubt be a difficult process that would require compromises on all sides, a constitution, checks and balances and safeguards of the unified state.

Those who oppose such a solution argue that it would lead to violence and civil war. We must not forget that such violence was also predicted in South Africa but largely avoided because of sheer human will and brave leadership.

There are, as has been repeatedly argued, striking parallels with the South African historical condition, just as there are profound differences that colour our contexts. One condition cannot be entirely transposed onto another.

In this regard I think South Africa would do well to approach the Palestinian-Israel conflict with the kind of sensitivity it deserves. For one thing, as a nation we ourselves are still undergoing a healing process that may very well suffer setbacks.

It ill-behoves us to transpose the Israel-Palestinian conflict to our country such that we do not only re-open the historical wounds of our nation but, more ominously, expand the physical boundaries of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, thus ensuring its perpetuity.

story_article_left3

I am making this point aware that both the Muslim and Jewish communities in South Africa have historically been progressive forces that have contributed to a new human consciousness which must not be undone by reckless resort to ill-expressed international solidarity.

Additionally, anti-Semitic actions couched in the language of human rights and disguised by its discourse cannot be countenanced.

Similarly, the Muslim community all over the world has had to endure relentless assaults on their religion, culture, identity and personhood disguised as enlightened moral and modern critique.

I hope for a day when both Israelis and Palestinians are joined in a mutual rhythm and society in which differences are acknowledged, but are no longer a source of oppressive divisions and distrust.

This will require an acknowledgement of dispossession, violence, destruction, displacement, deprivation and fear, among many other factors. But it will also require hope, trust, a belief in change and a willingness to work towards it.

My version of a one-state solution is built on the idea that a federal, secular, democratic state can be created, in which all inhabitants have equal rights, and ethnicity and religion are no longer dividing features of life.

The late president Nelson Mandela's words sum up my feelings: "No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."

That should be our collective destination.

• Motlanthe is an ANC member and a former president of South Africa. This is an edited version of an address he delivered at the launch of 'Israeli Apartheid Week' last Sunday.