For many years so called statesman and various other luminaries have called for a two-state
solution to the long running Jewish-Muslim conflict, more commonly called the Arab-Israeli
conflict. In a recent post, this author has argued that a two state solution is a recipe for
permanent war. (Please refer to that post for more information)
Considering the continuing turmoil in the Middle East, it does not appear that a two-state
solution is imminent. Life is not a school yard game where there may be a question of whether
someone is safe at first base. Rather than continuing to argue about it, the players simply
decide to do a replay. History cannot be replayed. Revising history is extremely dangerous. The
policy of Nazi Germany was one of historical revision; in this case, the defeat of Germany in
World War I and the Versailles Treaty and its territorial adjustments. Particularly galling to
Germany was the creation of the Polish Corridor which separated East Prussia from the
remainder of Germany. German revanchism reached its apex at the Munich Conference at the
end of September 1938. The British had felt for many years that the treaty was unfair to
Germany and were ready to appease Hitler. France was weak, poorly prepared for war and
many of its citizens were sympathetic to Germany. The result was the dismemberment of
democratic Czechoslovakia which was not permitted to attend the conference which was
deciding its fate. The Sudetenland was Hitler’s “last territorial demand in Europe” or so he
declared. Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper signed by the Nazi dictator and
proclaimed “peace in our time”. Less than a year later, World War II began with the German
invasion of Poland. The point here is that history cannot be revised. What is is what is and
appeasement doesn’t work. Losers cannot be permitted to win at the conference table what
they lost on the battlefield. There is no replay
Applying these facts to the Middle East and the push by various international actors who
ascribe wisdom and good intentions to their proposals is historically an abomination. Starting a
war is very dangerous, and after starting one and losing it is absurd to compensate the loser
out of pity or some sort of perverse sympathy for a wrongly perceived underdog. A state of
Palestine did not exist before 1948. The West Bank was an integral part of Jordan and Gaza
was ruled by Egypt. The Six Day War of 1967 was not fought to create a Palestinian state but
rather to destroy Israel. Syria, Jordan and Egypt lost badly. Now, talk of a two-state solution is
rank nonsense. There can be no replays.
In recent years there has been a movement among elements of the Palestinian West Bank
population to support a one-state solution. This movement is buttressed by calling Israel an
“apartheid state” though it bears no resemblance to apartheid South Africa. But words are
cheap; it sounds good to simple minds and after all, someone as distinguished as Jimmy
Carter mistakingly uses such terms freely. To these people and much of the world, talk of a
bilateral democratic state, with full rights and citizenship for all sounds great. Would it work?
There are several nation-states in the world which should be examined to obtain a perspective
on how a bi-national or multi-ethnic state functions. Among nation states to be considered are
Spain, Sudan, Burundi, British India (today’s Pakistan, India and Bangladesh), Sri Lanka,
Cyprus and Lebanon.
Spain may be the most interesting nation to consider as it has gone through several historical
stages and is certainly a democracy today. It has gone from a monarchy to a republic, fought a
brutal civil war, was a Phalangist dictatorship for over three decades and restored a monarchy
and became a democracy that now belongs to the European Union (EU) It contains three
minority groups, each of whom has their own language and culture and two of whom had
serious movements for independence from Spain. Galicia, Catalonia and Basque Country
(Euzkadi) are all different nationalities within Spain. Their languages and cultures were
suppressed during the Franco dictatorship and they reacted with violence against Spain.
Catalonia, In recent years, has held several referenda against the wishes of Spain seeking
independence but failed to achieve victory in the referenda. Nevertheless, a strong
independence movement remains. Spain appears able to prosper as a unified democratic
state. Noteworthy is the dominant Catholic religion in both Spanish and the minority
populations which serves as a further unifying factor.
Another EU member with a multi-ethnic population has not fared as well. Cyprus, a
Mediterranean Island off the coast of Turkey was a British colony for many years. When
granted independence its two major groups could barely coexist. Greek Orthodox Christians
and Turkish Muslims found themselves in a country neither one was happy with. The Greek
Orthodox majority elected Archbishop Makarios to be president. Strong Greek Cypriot agitation
for enosis (union) with Greece persisted, and a Greek Cypriot coup, supported by the military
dictatorship in Greece caused Turkey to react. Turkish troops invaded Cyprus to protect the
Turkish Muslim minority. The island was divided into a Greek Cyprus and a non-recognized
Turkish Cypriot republic. Cyprus belongs to the EU and has consistently vetoed Turkish
applications to join the EU. Tensions between Greek and Turkish communities remain high and
there is little commerce between the two sections of the island. The Greek military dictatorship
collapsed as a result of the Cypriot coup; democracy was re-established in Greece and the
monarchy was abolished. Turkish troops remain stationed in the Turkish area with scant hope
for any unification of the island and restoration of the status quo ante.
Neither Burundi nor Sudan has ever been a democracy. Both are African nations that went
from colonial status to independent dictatorships with significant minority problems. Both are
known for genocidal warfare against the minority Christian and animist populations in Darfur
(Sudan) and the slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Burundi. These events augur poorly for
proposals in favor of multi-ethnic states.
British India was promised independence after World War II. Under the British crown Hindus
and Muslims lived and worked together. However, with the coming of independence, the
Muslim minority led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah agitated for partition. India was divided into
Muslim and Hindu states, namely India and Pakistan. This was followed by the greatest
migration in human history as millions of Hindus fled Pakistan and millions of Muslims fled
India. Today, Pakistan is over 99% Muslim and India still has a significant Muslim minority.
Despite democracy and full equality for all citizens (a Muslim served President of India),
significant inter-communal tensions which frequently erupt into violence occurs regularly. Of
notable interest is Jammu and Kashmir, Indian states with large Muslim majorities. These states
had Hindu rulers and were assigned to India despite their Muslim majority. Despite two states
(now three) violence and dangers of war between two nuclear armed states is a common
occurrence at the line of control (border) between India and Pakistan. Also to be noted is the
devolution of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. East Pakistan had a Muslim majority but
was separated by India. A war between East and West Pakistan resulted in the creation of
Bangladesh. Bangladesh, too, is over 99% Muslim and is not welcoming to non-Muslims.
Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, is an island nation off the coast of Madras, India. Its majority
Sinhalese speaking population is Buddhist while its Tamil speaking Hindu minority has long
standing grievances against the governing Sinhalese majority. Ethnic violence has frequently
erupted against the Tamil minority. There is little understanding how one can obtain political
and social peace in this island nation. Progress is nullified by the ongoing threat of ethnic
conflict and violence.
Finally, we reach Lebanon, a Middle Eastern nation with multiple ethnic and religious groups. It
was formerly part of Syria but was separated by France when it was the mandatory ruler.
French interests in the Levant have endured for several hundred years and were marked by the
capitulations when the Ottoman Empire held sway in the region. French influence remains
strong in Lebanon. The 1943 Constitution called for a Maronite Christian President, a Sunni
Muslim Prime Minister and a Shia Muslim Assembly Speaker. No census has been done for
decades in Lebanon because of the fear that a census would reveal that the population
percentages at the time of the establishment of Lebanon no longer exist as the Muslim
percentage has increased greatly. Simultaneously, Shiite Muslims, encouraged by Iran, have
established Hezbollah as their leading organization. It has significant parliamentary
membership, its own army and control over much of southern Lebanon. It acts as Iran’s proxy
in the Iranian war on Israel. Several wars with Israel have led to widespread devastation across
Lebanon. Lebanon’s economy has collapsed, the state barely functions, no presidential ballot
has been held, thus leading to a vacant presidency; national chaos prohibits any kind of civilian
government from exercising authority. Lebanon was previously a democratic state but the
demographics alluded to and the constitutionally required division of political power have
rendered Lebanon powerless. The long touted binational democratic state is no more. In its
place is rule by ethnic militias.
With this background on the success or failure of other states with multi-ethnic or multireligious
populations, it seems clear that a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is neither attainable nor desirable. The Peel Commission, established by Great Britain, the
mandatory power, in 1938 sought to resolve the conflict. The Commission believed that
partition was the best hope for the future as the two communities could not get along
peacefully. Sir Reginald Copeland, a commission member noted that “the two communities
had little affinity for each other and had little in common” and would best be served by
partition. Lebanon attacked Israel in 1948; no peace treaty was ever signed and only an
armistice agreement exists. There was some hope that at the time of the incumbency of
Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel a peace treaty might be signed. That hope was rendered
meaningless by Gemayel’s assassination. Israel, were it to adhere to a one state solution would
forfeit its Jewish character and inter-communal tensions would be at the explosion point
continuously. It would become the next Lebanon! While Israel is a democracy, the religious
difference would be overwhelming, thus rendering one state as a nonstarter. The only
remaining option is a three-state solution. That idea, however practical or impractical that it
may be, will be covered in another post.
In summary, a bi-national democratic state has certain requirements to be effective. Firstly is
democracy, secondly is a certain educational level in the minority group which could then be
socialized into democracy and civil rights. Mutual group acceptance would be obligatory.
Different religions and cultures render such a proposal dead on arrival. A one-state solution is
no solution at all but a signal for continuous conflict and mutual assured destruction. This
option is therefore not worthy of consideration and must be discarded.
Garry S. Sklar
At sea at the Azores
November 17, 2024
Comments