Zionist Proposals

1) The first proposal was made by the so-called ‘Peace Federation’, led by Rabbi Benyamin, who called for a dual-nation state. They warned the Jews that the failure to accept a single dual-nation state would not bring about peace for the Jews. As they predicted, this is exactly what has happened.

2) The confederate or federal solution proposed by Mieer Imit, a prominent leader in the Zionist movement and the Hagana organisation, holder of various important and prominent military positions, Knesset member and minister, and holder of various other positions.

He believes that the strategic concession of occupied land, by which he naturally meant territory such as Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and Gaza, would be tantamount to walking away from tangible gains for which, according to him, there could be no compensation, and although Egypt had offered such gains, they were subject to sudden change. He discussed the feasibility of establishing a federal state giving the examples of the European Union; the United States of America, which, according to him, experienced 13 years of turmoil up to 1789; and Nigeria, a multi-denominational and multi-nation state in his view. He wrote that the economic, military, geographical and historical considerations that underpin such a solution exist in Palestine.

He further noted that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state constituted a grave danger and that, in order to avoid these dangers, a single federal state must be established. “The problem of Jerusalem,” he wrote, “can be simply resolved by making it the capital of a federal union.

3) Proposal of the German Zionists. The 12th Conference of the German Zionists (the Structuralist School), convened on 11 September 1921, adopted the concept of establishing a single state for both parties, and thereby “establishing a place in an alliance with the Arab Palestinian people for our joint security in a developing state, the structure of which guarantees the national development of each person of our two peoples without interference”.

Arab Proposals

1) First Proposal of King Abdallah
i) One Kingdom.
ii) Administration selected by the Jews in areas inhabited by them.
iii) One Parliament, in which Jews were to be represented in proportion to their demographic share.
iv) Mixed Cabinet.
2) Second Proposal of King Abdallah
Partition of Palestine between Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, with the remainder left to the Jews.
3) Nuri Al-Said Proposal of 1942
i) One state.
ii) Jewish autonomy within this state.

All pre-1948 proposals called for a single state and some approached the Jews as the Palestinians are now treated, namely in terms of offering them autonomy and partition of land, etc.
The failure to accept the notion of a single state is thus the historical mistake which lies behind today’s tragedy. A declaration establishing one state by one party for its own benefit is also a mistake, and the concept of partition has failed and will do so again.
Before 1948 the Jews were regarded in just the same manner as the Palestinians are regarded today. There were a minority in Palestine, fed allusions to self-rule at one moment and Jewish areas another. Palestinians were in the majority, which is why they rejected the well-known partition resolution of 1947. Following 1948 this situation was reversed: the Palestinians became the minority as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars, the Jews the majority within the area termed Israel, and intimations of self-rule, Arab areas and partition were made to the Arabs, just as they had previously been made to the Jews.

The final historic solution is that proposed in this, The White Book.

The reason for this overview of the various proposals was to demonstrate that the notion of a single Palestinian state was on the negotiating table and that the rejection of this solution is the cause of the tragedy experienced by the region today. The alternative to the one state solution is what we see before us today.

Two States: Risks and Misconceptions

An Israeli scholar and Brigadier who served as a military commander in the West Bank from 1974 to 1976 once said that it was not possible to accept the partition of Palestine or agree to foreign rule over Israel’s territory. He justified his refusal with the following facts, which, because they are critical, cannot be ignored:

The West Bank is a mountainous area 50 km wide as the crow flies and up to 1000 metres high. It overlooks Israel’s vital heartland — a coastal plain just 14-20 km in width. 67% of Israel’s population live in this area, which also holds 80% of Israel’s industries. The presence of another party in the West Bank, posing a direct threat to the Israeli heartland, cannot therefore be accepted.

Brigadier Mieer Bael is a tolerant adherent of the Zionist left and member of the Peace Council, and yet he both affirms and emphasises, “Our right is historical in the West Bank and many believe it to be ‘the heart of the Jewish nation’. Our right to retain it is sacredly established in religious and historical duties and traditions, in which the people of Israel believe.
The same argument is put forward for not conceding the West Bank on grounds of critical reasons by Arie Shalev, a scholar and Brigadier, “Were we to lose the West Bank,” he wrote, “Israel’s depth between Tulkarem and Natanya would be just 15 km and between Qalqiliyah and the Hertzalia coast just 14 km. Israel would thus be exposed due to a lack of strategic depth in the face of any threat. In the event of war breaking out in the West Bank, Israel would be divided into two or three parts were an Arab army to reach the coast.”
“Even without a war, Israel would remain under constant threat from the West Bank and Israeli airspace would be at the control of the West Bank.
He went further, saying, “To guarantee Israel’s security, the West Bank must be divided into three defensive positions, namely Ghur and the river Jordan, the foot of the mountains of Samaria and the Judean desert, and the high peaks that link Jenin, Tobas, Nablus, the Lafuna heights, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Tikwa’. This is in addition to fixed lines of defence in the south of the Gaza Strip.”
“Any area dividing the Palestinians and the Israelis would not be source of security for Israeli. In fact, it would constitute a security irritation.”
However, he noted, “Israel’s policies have poisoned the Zionist idea of transforming the country into a two-nation state.”