The Day After
Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun
When they attempt to propose political solutions for the period following what they continue to refer to as the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” or the war between Israel and Hamas, as if these were two equal parties, Western diplomatic offices often revisit the old plan of establishing a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli state. This project seemed reasonable after the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the Palestinian regions previously administered by Jordan (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and Egypt (Gaza), and annexed the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. At that time, there was an illusion of restoring to Palestine the political autonomy recognized by the 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 and of creating the conditions for what was then called a just and lasting peace.
The Oslo Accords, signed in 1995, which transitioned the PLO from a terrorist organization to the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Authority first in Gaza and then in Ramallah, appeared to foreshadow the creation of a Palestinian state. In fact, the terms of this agreement were a deception and a trap. By dividing what remained of Palestine into three zones (Zone A for cities where the Palestinian Authority was ostensibly responsible for security and administration, but with the possibility of Israeli military incursions; Zone B for villages where the PA handled civil matters and Israel controlled security; and Zone C, constituting 62% of the West Bank, where Israel maintained total control), all conditions were set for the proliferation of settlements and the establishment of an apartheid system.
Since the war in Gaza, the extensive devastation in the West Bank (nearly 400 deaths to date), and the forced expulsion and destruction of numerous Bedouin villages in the Negev, the term apartheid is no longer adequate; we must now speak of ethnic cleansing. In her report presented to the UN in March 2024, Francesca Albanese stated that the rhetoric describing “the entire Palestinian population of Gaza as an enemy to be eradicated or eliminated by force” is no longer exclusive to the far right. It explicitly articulates the project of replacing one population with another. As early as March 1948, the Zionist leadership had devised a military plan, the D Plan (Dalet in Hebrew), whose objective, as Ilan Pappe writes, was “to acquire as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.”[1] Since then, an additional step has been taken with the 2018 amendment to the Basic Law, which defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, recognizing the natural, cultural, historical, and religious right to self-determination exclusively for the Jewish people, promoting Jewish settlements, and removing Arabic as an official language alongside Hebrew. This amendment provides a legal foundation for ethnic cleansing.
Under these conditions, the recognition of a Palestinian state has the merit of affirming the existence of a Palestinian people and considering Palestine as a political entity whose colonization is illegitimate. Symbolically, this gesture is significant. However, as Éric Hazan and Eyal Sivan write, the idea of two states as the culmination of a “peace process” remains a myth whose feasibility is questionable[2]. Even if this state were to be established within the borders occupied since 1967, which would require the expulsion of settlers and a complete reconfiguration of the territories, what would become of the sovereignty, including military and police control, of this state, its border management, and its territorial continuity? What about the Palestinian refugees living in various Arab countries, deprived of citizenship, or the Palestinians from territories that became Israel who now live in camps in the West Bank or Gaza? And what about the Palestinians within Israel who, despite having citizenship, experience second-class status?
The idea of a shared state is often dismissed as a sympathetic yet baseless utopia. It is sometimes also labeled as an antisemitic proposition aimed at destroying the Jewish state, which is presented as the only protection capable of ensuring Jewish security. Historically, this objection is unfounded. In a recent book, Shlomo Sand[3] reminded us that a faction within Zionism acknowledged the presence of current inhabitants on the ancient Jewish land and viewed this territory as their “collective home”. The concept was to envision a binational state based on the ethnic and political acknowledgment of religious affiliations. The 1969 PLO proposal for a secular and democratic state over all of Palestine, perceived as an intent to “drive Jews into the sea,” also envisioned citizenship based on religious grounds (Muslims, Jews, Christians).
Since the failure of the Oslo process, the aspiration for establishing a truly secular and democratic single state, focusing on sharing rather than partition, has gradually emerged among both Israelis and Palestinians[4]. One of the first to articulate this was Edward Said. In a 1999 New York Times article titled “The One State Solution,” he wrote: “I see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has brought us together, a truly democratic sharing, with equal rights for every citizen. Reconciliation can only occur if both peoples, two communities that have both suffered, decide on their existence on a secular basis. This does not mean a diminishment of Jewish life as Jewish life or a renunciation of the aspirations and political existence of Palestinian Arabs. On the contrary, it means self-determination for both peoples without one’s hegemony over the other.” The definition of equal rights cannot be merely formal; it requires the abolition of privileges and, thus, the sharing of land. Two years later, Said, drawing inspiration from Nelson Mandela, asserted that only a solution “affirming our common humanity as Jews and Arabs” could end the conflict. In other words, “Two peoples on one land. Or: equality for all. Or: one person, one vote. Or a shared humanity affirmed in a binational state”[5].
A shared state, the acknowledgment of common humanity, also signifies the end of colonization. This entails recognizing Israel as a colonial fact, as historian Maxime Rodinson[6] described, and envisioning a solution that restores truth and reconciles ethics with politics, as was done in South Africa. Instead of this realistic utopia, today’s dystopia of another single state based on a messianic ideology appears to be materializing, violating human rights and international law. The Nakba, once denied, is now claimed with calls for the expulsion and elimination of Palestinians, as if the death drive alone should prevail. As difficult as it may be, we must persist in imagining the conditions for a genuine coexistence where Palestinians and Israelis share this small territory and jointly develop what could become the first true democracy in the Middle East.
[1] Ilan. Pappe, Le nettoyage ethnique de la Palestine, La fabrique, 2024, p. 75.
[2] Éric Hazan et Eyal Sivan, Un État commun entre le Jourdain et la mer, La fabrique, 2012.
[3] Shlomo Sand, Deux peuples pour un État ? Relire l’histoire du sionisme. Le Seuil, 2023.
[4] Les déclarations et les prises de position en ce sens sont nombreuses. Je voudrais juste citer ici l’organisation One Democratic State Initiative https://odsi.co/en/
[5] Edward W.Said, « La seule solution », dans D’Oslo à l’Irak, Fayard, 2004, pp73-74.
[6] Maxime Rodinson, « Israël fait colonial ? », dans Peuple juif ou problème juif ? Maspéro, 1981.
The French version can be found here