A utopian vision may be the only viable solution

As global leaders gathered recently in New York for the UN General Assembly, the conflict in Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank continued unabated. And this despite many of these leaders, themselves staunch allies of Israel, recognising Palestine as a state.

While pressure had been mounting on New Zealand to follow suit [which in the end, the Government decided against] the continued pursuit of a two-state solution to an 80-year conflict, in my view, is not a viable option and hasn’t been for some time.

Firstly, the forced removal of Palestinians from their lands by Zionist paramilitaries in 1948 has become an enduring element of Palestinian identity itself, and one that will not easily be forgotten. Many still hold the keys of doors to houses since destroyed, wearing them around their necks as a reminder of the collective trauma of being forcibly displaced, and a lasting symbol of hope of one day returning to their stolen lands. This narrative of dispossession is taught in schools and passed down from generation to generation through art, poetry, music and dance.

Their right to return is also enshrined in UN Resolution 194 and is as embedded in the Palestinian struggle for self-determination today as it is in Zionism’s invocation of Israel as the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. When both sides summon historical memory, collective trauma and narratives of loss to claim ownership over the same territory, carving what is already a small piece of land into two will satisfy no one.

Secondly, since 1967, the concept of a two-state solution has been systematically undermined by Israel’s desire to control the whole of the lands between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea in the name of national security.

This includes the rapid expansion of settlements in Palestinian-controlled territory, the denial of Palestinian access to natural resources such as water, natural gas and productive agricultural land, the full control of Palestine’s external borders, limiting opportunities for trade, and the collection and distribution of tax revenue from Palestinians.

All of this has continued, and, in many instances, been precipitated by the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords. This agreement, brokered by the United States, sought to create a road map for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Instead, according to many Palestinians, the accords have legitimised Israel’s continued economic and security dominance over Palestinians and eviscerated any hopes for their eventual self-determination.

The renowned Palestinian scholar Edward Said, in his book The End of the Peace Process, lamented how because of this agreement, “Israel … can take credit for having made peace, and at the same time continue the occupation with Palestinian consent.”

Against this backdrop, for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, the current discussions at the UN were more of an academic exercise than an action that will lead to substantive change.

This is particularly the case when fundamental rights, like those to education, continue to be denied. Each day, thousands face obstacles in accessing schools due to the need to pass through military checkpoints, barrier walls, or settlements. They may arrive to overcrowded or unsafe classrooms because local authorities have not been granted permits for rehabilitation, expansion, or reconstruction work.

The teacher may not have received their salary for months, as the Palestinian Authority paying them has no monies of its own. And students and teachers may be told they are not allowed to use the Palestinian curriculum because it would undermine Israeli rule.

Moving forward, I believe the only viable option is a single, secular, democratic state, where all citizens, whether they are Palestinians or Israelis, would be given equal rights and protections under the law. While a utopic vision, it may be the only solution to ensure self-determination to all who now call historical Palestine their home, and address the anger, grief, histories and attachments which the land they live on holds for them.

To achieve this vision though, will require sustained pressure on the part of the international community on current Israeli and Palestinian leadership. On the Israeli side, a government which is content to retain the status quo of an apartheid state must be compelled to change through financial sanctions and divestment, and the cessation of military and intelligence cooperation by its allies.

Likewise, pressure must be put on the current Palestinian Authority to hold free and fair elections, replacing leadership which is seen as corrupt and incapable.

While our Government recognising Palestine as a state [at the UN in September] may have been an important symbolic gesture of solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian rights and self-determination, it would not have achieved its intended outcome.

Rather, what is needed now is bold and courageous international leadership which recognises that to stop the cycles of harm, grievance and suffering on both sides, a new path to peaceful co-existence must be forged.