This post was written by Tim Kelly, Hyun Seung Noh, Allissa Fisher and Ashton Knippenberg
In his 2010 article, “One State/Two States: Rethinking Israel and Palestine”, Danny Rubinstein presents the argument that though some might support a two-state solution, in reality it might not be feasible. For his article featured in Dissent Magazine, Rubinstein uses the example of 50-year-old Palestinian spokesperson Sufian Abu-Zaida, who has recently changed his mind about a two-state possibility after years of work moderating talks between Israelis and Palestinians. By now, most of the world forces are backing the idea of Israel helping the Palestinians create a state of their own. “The Obama administration, the European Union, Russia, those Arab states that still maintain their initiative of almost a decade ago (to establish peace with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal to the 1967 border),” writes Rubenstein. But for some reason, the Palestinians seem to not want to cooperate.
Rubenstein goes on to describe the current (2010) situation in the West Bank, where Israelis hinder Palestinian progress by controlling major waterways, roads and infrastructure. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is one of the few who continue to work to change this situation, but the decline in the Palestinian nationalist movement in the past few years has pushed the reality of two-states (which both sides seem to want) out of the realm of possibility.
Using several examples, Rubenstein constructs reasoning for this decline in the Palestinian nationalist movement and shows that in 2010, hundreds of thousands of were Palestinians applying for Israeli citizenship without embarrassment because of the fear of losing residency. He concludes, after deeply analyzing the differences between older and younger generations of Palestinian politicians and explaining the thought processes of several refugees, that though perhaps both sides might want a two state solution, trends in 2010 severely hindered this hope.
It seems as though Rubenstein’s opinion on the inevitability of a one-state solution aren’t universally held. Jane Adas also an article in the New York City and Tri-State News as a response to Danny Rubenstein’s “Keeping the Two-State Solution Alive.” In her response she not only sites and explains the main points of his argument but also supplies plausible reasons why the idea of a single state are not so popular. She references a Green Party representative Norman Finkelstein as well as U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer arguing that, although a single state between Isreal and Palestine seems promising, it may not be a resounding success long term. Finkelstein feels that there is a lack of support for both sides. Adas explains that “he suspects that declining support for Israel has less to do with intermarriage than with the fact that both Israel’s history as we now know it and Israel’s present behavior have become indefensible from a liberal, moral standpoint.” This historical controversy between these two groups has allowed for a lot of mistrust that may not be so easily forgotten in the long run of a developing single state. He further explains that this mistrust has lead to some economic disagreements and sanctions that hinder the Palestinians.
Kurtzer disagrees with the possibility of a unified single state on more of a cultural level. Not only are there economic disputes but there are many social discrepancies. He feels that “both parties not only had histories of bad behavior—Israel’s settlement expansion and Palestinians’ ‘predisposition to resort to violence when things got tough’—and were divided on substantive issues, but each side also was divided internally.” His argument is that their individual differences historically do not allow for the proper cultural diffusion that Rubenstein encourages.
In “Is it too late for a two-state solution?,” written for +972, an online magazine, Lisa Goldman supports the points in Rubinstein’s article, saying that Rubinstein’s claim that the waning of the Palestinian national movement will ultimately be the catalyst for a single state is very much true. She also mentions that the purpose of Rubinstein’s article is not just to show what is happening, but also to warn people that it might not be possible to reverse the process. At large, her article outwardly seems to agree with Rubinstein’s theory by pretending as neutrality. In her writing, Goldman is trying to prove to Rubinstein’s readers that a one-state solution is becoming the more realistic possibility, even though Rubinstein never outwardly spoke of a one-state is solution, implying that she sneakily supports the idea of Israel’s most prominent journalist, Danny Rubinstein, especially in her use of the contradictory title, “is it too late for a two-state solution?.” The purpose of her article is to make people see the Palestinian situation and to justify the argument that a one-state solution might be an inescapable result.
According +972 magazine’s webpage, the magazine was found in 2010 to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. Moreover, the publication is committed to human rights and freedom of information, so it does not represent any one organization, political party or specific agenda, according to the site’s “about” section. +972 allows guest contributors to publish as a fair and credible medium, based on English-language. Differing from the information found on the +972 web page, the print version of +972 magazine is known for left-wing news, sponsored by Israel-friendly-companies and organizations. Lisa Goldman is a cofounder of +972 magazine and is a former journalist of Israel. Her response article toward Danny Rubinstein is a supporting article in accordance with her political viewpoint.