'Two-state solution in Palestine conflict a pipe dream'

To get straight to the point, in seeking an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, everyone is hoping for a two-state solution. A clear, unambiguous and appealing solution through which indisputable, defendable borders would be created. 

But this seems impossible. Worse, holding on to it amounts to sliding insidiously into a one-state solution that would begin with the annexation of zone C (as supported by HaBayit HaYehudi, “The Jewish Home”, Naftali Bennett’s religious party).

This would effectively be a form of apartheid. 

It would be the end of the ideal of Israel, the miraculous country built by immigrants from the first aliyahs. Jewish cultural heritage would be trampled and it would be an affront to the Palestinian people’s honor, who would feel ridiculed, and it would constitute the end of peace irrevocably.

The reality on the ground (1) shows that the pursuit of a two-state solution is a farce entertained by those who support apartheid. This is because zone C is not just a zone, but in fact, covers the entire Palestinian territory.

In the middle are 169 (yes, 169!) A and B zones (which would not be annexed) that are like tiny islands or Palestinian fjords. Those who support the two-state solution say that the alternative to annexation would be an exchange of territories.

 Four in five settlers live in “large settlement blocks” such as Betar Ilit or Modi’in Illit, which only cover 4% of the land. Be that as it may, they still constitute enclaves in Palestine, like reverse Bantustans, and there would still be 120,000 settlers to move, including some of the most zealous. 

In light of the national drama that was unleashed when 5,000 settlers were moved from Gaza (which is not holy land) and the violent measures needed to evacuate them, one imagines the worst, which is to say civil war.  

There is a double urgency to the situation: to stop looking for a two-state solution and to prepare for the creation of a single state in which security and personal dignity are ensured. 

This would be a solution of compromise inspired by the Swiss model, which has proved itself in terms of assuring smooth cohabitation between multiple cultures, religions, and languages. 

It has also been successful in maintaining peace on a social level. Its founding principle is the Confederation recognition of the authority held by the cantons, each of which has its own constitution.

Imagine a country composed of districts, to use the historic appellation, defined according to geographical and ethical common sense. These districts would be as homogenous as possible and would, of course, include religious minorities. 

Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Nablus, and also East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, Jericho, numbering a few dozen cities in total, would be represented in a bicameral system. There would be a house of representatives, with numbers in proportion to a districts’ populations, and an upper house which would function as a senate.

Cantons, in harmony with the Confederation’s Constitution (and not the federation, the small difference being in the distribution of power) each have a parliament and a constitution that legislate on all religious, fiscal, police and educational matters. 

Legislation concerning security, administration of nation research institutes, foreign policy, and the military all remain under the jurisdiction of the Confederation.  

In this system, the canton’s fiscal authorities collect taxes and transfer a small proportion to the central government. The wealth of each canton is thus largely reflective of the productivity of its inhabitants.  

Each canton would freely decide on its name, as Switzerland does. Here you find in peaceful cohabitation, the Republic and Canton of Geneva, the State of Vaud and the southernmost area, the Canton of Valais, the differences of appellation causing no conflict.

Each district would decide on the religion to inscribe in its Constitution (if indeed it wanted to inscribe one. Switzerland has a variety of cases in this regard). According to this framework, Tel Aviv could choose Judaism as its official religion, with its own fiscal system to support its religious institutions.

There are still many issues to be addressed and negotiated. These include, among others, the demarcation of districts, the question of population return and Palestinian participation in the army (with staggered implementation of regulations over several years).

The creation of a national constitution after the election of a constituent assembly is another crucial issue which has to be tackled.

But first, the state would have to be recognized by all countries in the Arab world, as per the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative, the benefits of which would be innumerable.

Separation walls and checkpoints will then be abolished, highly favorable economic relations developed, and most importantly, the return to normal life, for everyone.

(1) In zone A (20 % of the West Bank), Palestinian authorities are responsible for security, in Zone B (20%) they have partial responsibility and zone C (60%) is under complete Israeli control.