The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved: A one-state solution is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Episode Date: June 3, 2021

It is perhaps the most disputed land on earth, with claims over property rights going back thousands of years. For decades, foreign governments have attempted to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution. Yet the 1991 Madrid Conference, the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2000 Camp David Summit and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative have all failed in their ultimate goal: to create mutually agreed upon boundaries whereby both peoples can live side by side, peacefully, within secure and recognized borders. With every failed attempt at a two-state solution tensions between the two sides increase and hope for peace becomes ever more elusive; Palestinians, disillusioned with occupation and settler annexation, see their dreams of liberation and statehood slowly evaporating. Israelis, weary of corrupt Palestinian leadership and a continuous wave of terror attacks, do not see a legitimate partner for peace. Now, many Palestinians believe it is time to give up on this pipe dream. The two-state solution, they argue, is dead. The only chance at delivering peace to the region is to end the occupation and create one democratic state with equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. Most Jews oppose this plan. Israel was created as a safe haven for a people that have faced generations of prejudice, discrimination, and persecution. They argue that absorbing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza into Israel will lead to large scale violence and the end of the Jewish state as we know it. Arguing for the motion is George Bisharat, Law Professor at UC Hastings and a fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies. Arguing against the motion is Gil Troy, History Professor at McGill University and a columnist for The Jerusalem Post. QUOTES: GEORGE BISHARAT: “Only the one state solution, a state governed by principles of equal rights and true democracy, promises to resolve all of the injustices and bring durable peace to the region”  GIL TROY: “A one-state solution is actually a no Jewish state solution. It's a way of trying to wrap up in lovely language about justice and democracy an attempt to eliminate the Jewish state” Sources: PBS, AP, CNN, RT The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ The Munk Debates podcast is produced by Antica, Canada's largest private audio production company - https://www.anticaproductions.com/   Executive Producer: Stuart Coxe, CEO Antica Productions Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch Associate Producer: Abhi RahejaBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are options, and that's why we need to take this opportunity seriously. How many you can prevent global warming unless China is part of the solution? This is not normal male behavior. This is predatory behavior. We don't know how bad this bug is. We don't know what this bug does. All of that was thrown away in those eight minutes and 46 seconds, and that's the moment that I became an abolitionist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Welcome to the Monk Debates. On every episode, we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information

to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. A one-state solution is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oh, I'm your moderator, Rudyard-Griffis. It's arguably the most disputed land on earth, with claims over property rights going back thousands of years. For the last few decades, foreign governments have attempted to broker peace, between Israelis and Palestinians through a so-called two-state solution. We offer a more hopeful vision of a Middle East growing in freedom

and dignity and prosperity. We are here to renew our efforts to achieve this vision. It's more vital than ever that both Israelis and Palestinians find a way to get back to the table and begin negotiating a process whereby they can create two states

that are living side by side in peace and security. There's no solution for Israel other than a two-state solution. Attempts that negotiations have failed in their ultimate goal to create mutually agreed upon boundaries whereby both people, Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side peacefully within a secure and recognized set of borders. And with every failed attempt, tensions between the two sides have increased as the hope for peace becomes more elusive.

As a result, many Palestinians, now believe it's time to give up on a two-state solution. That agenda has been destroyed by Israel, by Israeli actions, because Israel did not comply with any of its obligations. That was Palestinian legislator Dr. Hanan Ashwari. She's part of a growing group of experts who believe that the only chance at delivering a lasting peace in the region is to end the occupation and create one democratic state with people.

equal rights for both Palestinians and Israelis. Many Jewish Israelis, however, are still committed to a two-state solution. Equally, I want to make it clear that we have not given up our hope for peace. We'll never give up our hope for peace. And I remain committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. They argue that creating one Palestinian state for all Palestinians and Jews will lead to the end of the Jewish state as we know it. On this installment of the monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, a one-state solution

is the best hope to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arguing for the motion is George Byshehrat, Professor of Law at UC Hastings and a fellow at the Institute for Palestinian Studies. Arguing against the motion is Gil Troy, Professor of History at McGill University, and column for the Jerusalem Post. George Gill, welcome to the Monk Debates. Thank you so much. Greetings to both of you. It's a privilege to be here.

I look forward to a civil conversation and a substantive one. I do too. And what a timely conversation this is. We've just seen a new bout of violence between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the various players in and around Israel.

This is a kind of top of mind issue for people around the world watching this conflict unfold and now it's aftermath. Is there a path forward to some kind of peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians? Traditionally, we have looked at this in the context of a two-state solution. But today we're going to debate something a little bit different to try to provoke a discussion, to move the discussion forward. Our resolution is, be it resolved, a one-state solution. is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. George, you're arguing for the motion, so I'm going to put a couple minutes on the clock

and turn the program over to you for your opening statement. Well, thank you so much. So my support for this resolution stems from a simple truth, and that is that injustice breeds conflict and justice breeds peace. Currently, we've actually been living with, one-state reality in Israel-Palestine for the last 50-plus years since Israel conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. By that I mean that there is one effective sovereign over all of

that region. That sovereign is Israel. Israel has all of the power, makes all of the important decisions that influence how people live their daily lives. Currently, that one-state reality is governed by principles of what human rights watch and Betselaam, the Israeli human rights organization, have called apartheid. Apartite is injustice embodied. And the fundamental injustices against the Palestinian people include their forced displacement from their homes, which began in 1948 and continues today, the relegation of Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel to second-class status and brutal military occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that's gone on for more than 50 years. Only the one-state solution, the state governed by principles of equal rights and true democracy,

promises to resolve all of these injustices and thus to bring durable peace to the region. Thank you, George. Concise to the point. I appreciate that. Gil, we're going to turn the program over to you now with similar opportunity, two minutes on the clock to give us a a sense of your opening arguments in this debate. The resolution that we are reflecting on today, be it resolved, a one-state solution is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gil, you're arguing against the motion. Take us away. I believe in truth in packaging.

And so I would like to respectfully submit that we change this. And let's be honest, a one-state solution is actually a no-Jewish-state solution. It's a way of trying to wrap up in lovely language about justice and democracy, an attempt to eliminate the Jewish state. Democracy is basically built on two pillars. One is a pillar of one person, one vote. But the second in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Australia, in Canada, in Israel,

is also based on liberal nationalism on a sense of identity. And this attempt to eradicate the Jewish identity of the Jewish state is insidious. I'm all for John Lennon's vision of Imagine No Borders, but why don't we first try it in North America? Let's have the United States and Canada join, and then let's have all the European nations give up their flags and join. And then maybe various parts of Arabia, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be living together as well. So that's the first part of my objection. The second part of my objection is that I respectfully disagree. I actually think we right now have three different polities operating in that area.

We have Hamas, which Israel withdrew in 2005 and tried to give the Palestinians as much autonomy as was possible and as was safe for Israel. You have the Palestinian Authority, which has control in certain areas and less control in other areas. And you have the democracy of Israel. And in Israeli democracy for all its flaws, because no democracy is perfect, you have Israeli Arabs who have more democratic rights than almost any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Is it complicated? Yes. but I actually believe that a two-state solution, or even actually a three-state solution, where we invest in democracy, we invest in civil society, and we really nurture a society and a vision where Israelis can express their Israelis, their Israelis, their Israelis,

with sensitivity to their minorities, and Palestinians can express their national identity is a much better way of doing it. That's the way we do it in North America. That's what they do it in Europe. That's what we do it in 192 countries in the United Nations. Israel doesn't want to be first in giving up its society. sovereign rights and its character. Thank you, Gil. Again, great opening statement, a sense here of a well-shaped debate emerging. So, George, your opportunity now for another two minutes on the clock to rebut what you've

just heard from Gil. What are you going to take exception with? Well, there's plenty to take exception with, but I'll start with the basic proposition about democracy. The fact of the matter is that the United States is not based on the same principles as Israel. If we called ourselves, and wrote into our law that we were a white nation or that we were a Christian nation or that we were a nation for any other particular group or people and not for others, then we would be like Israel. Israel has certain democratic features. It has a Supreme Court.

It has a free press. It has other features of a democracy. But it tightly controls political power in such a way as to create what human, rights watch called a form of Jewish domination and what Betzalam, the Israeli human rights organization, characterized as a regime of Jewish supremacy. So there are certain shared features between the United States and Israel, but commitment to equal rights and to democracy are not the same. There is no principle of equal rights in the Israeli constitutional system or legal system that is firm and that is unequivocal, and all attempts to legislate an equal rights principle in the

Knesset in the Israeli parliament have been refuted by Israeli political parties. Thank you, George. We're going to get into a lot of the different aspects of your opening statements over the course of the next 40 minutes. So thank you for focusing in on one of Gil's arguments. Gill, same opportunity for you now to come back at George reacting to both his opening statement, or what you've just heard from him? I concede the point partway. The United States and Israel are sister democracies. They're not twins.

But political scientists have helped us with this language. There are some democracies, the United States and Canada being unique, that are civic democracies. Most democracies in the world today, most countries in the world today, are ethnic democracies. There are 27 different countries

with crosses on their flags. There are many, many Muslim countries that have the Muslim symbol on their flags. It is part of the, desire of people to express their identity, to express their national character through their political structures. That's the way we've been doing it in a world of nationalisms for the last 150, 200 years. And again, that's the way we ended up with 192 countries in the United Nations. It is not true that there is not a promise of equality. If you read the Israeli Declaration of

Independence, and there is no Israeli Constitution, we can get into the reasons why later, the Israeli Declaration of Independence in an extraordinary way, in 1948, as Arab armies are attacking the partition plan, which the United Nations had put in, had tried to put into place, as Arab armies are threatening to eviscerate the Jewish people, nevertheless, the Jews offer equal rights to all the inhabitants. And they're well aware of that that means Arabs, it means Muslims, it means Christians. Has Israel been a perfect democracy? Of course not. But no democracy is imperfect, but it's better than many of these perfectly awful dictators. that surrounds it. I'd like to also object to this notion of apartheid. I read the Human Rights Watch report. It's a 213-page report. They use the word apartheid over 200 times. When they define apartheid, they define it in racial terms. It's an inflammatory term that goes back to the South African, the horrific regime in South Africa, which was a race-based discrimination. There is no race-based discrimination in Israel. The conflict in the Middle East, is between Jews and, by the way, Israeli Arabs, because 20% of Israelis are Arabs, and some of them

were killed in the recent conflict. So it's Israelis and Palestinians. There are no laws to find people on the basis of race. And if you look at Israel's relations to Egypt, to Jordan, to the UAE, to Sudan, to Gaza, to the Palestinian Authority, to its Israeli Arabs, we see multiple different polities, we see multiple different kinds of relationships between the same group of people, Israelis, and different kinds of Arabs. So to assume and to inject that ugly language of apartheid is purely an attempt to delegitimize Israel, to demonize Israel, to undermine its very rationale for existence because, oh my goodness, if it's an apartheid state, it's like South Africa, it therefore doesn't have the right to exist. And that's why I return to my initial proposition

that all this talk about one state is ultimately a no Jewish state proposal. Thank you, Gil. I get to join the conversation now and try to think up some of the key questions that are on the minds of our listeners having digested here your excellent opening remarks, framing this debate. And maybe to come to you first, George, on this point of a Jewish state. Needless to say, we all understand that the founding of Israel was to do just that, create a Jewish state out of the horrors of the Holocaust to provide Jewish people around the world with a security. with refuge, with an ability to say definitively, never again. So how, George, is that unique element of Israel, that it is a Jewish state? How is that a possibility? How could that be a reality in your one-state solution? Or is it just not? Is this something that has to go by the wayside to pursue a greater set of social goods

that you think a one-state solution would achieve? Yes, I believe it is impossible to implant a Jewish state in what was an overwhelmingly Palestinian Arab country without causing deep injustices. And that is precisely what occurred. When Israel was founded in 1948, its leaders were very clear in understanding that they could not establish a clear, a strong state with a strong Jewish majority without. expelling Palestinians, and that is exactly what they did in mass numbers. 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or terrorized into flight in 1948. They, by their numbers and by their overwhelming ownership of land, they were an obstacle

to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Now, you know, as to whether a Jewish state is allotable goal in the abstract, I leave that discussion to another time. But the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in a country that was at the turn of the 20th century was 95% Palestinian Arab and possibly three to five percent Jewish, native indigenous Jewish people. And still in 1948 was was two-thirds Palestinian Arab and one-third Jews after, you know, decades of British mandatory rule. fostering massive Jewish immigration, the creation of a Jewish state in that land under those circumstances necessarily entailed injustices to Palestinians. And if we are going to correct those injustices,

and if we are going to reach a durable peace, we have to face those injustices. And whether we like it or not, we are destined to live together. We, Palestinian Arabs, and Jewish Israelis are destined to live together in that land. And the question is under what principles, under principles of Jewish supremacy and or domination, if you use the language of human rights watch or Betzelam, amounting as they argue to the crime of apartheid under the Rome statute, not saying that it's identical to South African apartheid. Or is it going to be under principles of equal rights? And I think, you know, multinational, multicultural democracies have shown that when people are invested in the political system, they have political voice, they have choice, they have roots to redress their grievances. That's what they do. You know, they take the political route. They take the invitation to be engaged and they resolve issues peacefully. South Africa, you know, is is not today a perfect democracy. It struggles with deep social inequalities,

but it's a far better place than it was under apartheid. And, you know, the predicted attack on white people never occurred because, you know, the people were intelligent enough to engage in a process of reconciliation and an investigation of the injustices of the past and, you know, made a better. better democracy, made a democracy and enabled, invested everyone with, you know, with interest in the outcomes and has moved forward peacefully since. That same future can hold. A better future can be old. We can do a better job even than South Africa did. There's absolutely no reason that Jews and Palestinians cannot live together. They are living together. The only question is, you know, what's the peaceful way forward? And if we don't address fundamental injustices, we'll never get there. Well, Gil, let's have you come back, I think, on two key points George is making here. First is that there is a fundamental injustice at the heart of the

founding of the state of Israel, the expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands, and that all of the conflict that we're seeing all the suffering on both sides in the intervening decades revolves around both parties in ability to address that, that initial injustice in an equitable way to resolve it to create the preconditions for peace. So I want to hear you on that point. And then, Gil, I want to hear you on this idea that that Israel could make a successful transition, an effect from a form of ethnic nationalism to a civic democracy. As you mentioned, Gil, the types of democracies that we have in the United States are Canada, where minorities are accommodated, where two majorities, in fact, French and English in Canada,

can coexist together because the new founding of that democracy is based on civic terms, not ethnic terms. I love the vision of Destin to Live Together, and I connect to that. The question is how, and the question is how when it gets to that. And I acknowledge Palestinian nationalism. I respect the Palestinian national narrative. And I also acknowledge Palestinian loss. I don't use language like implant, expel. I don't give a one-sided vision with all the lovely tone and lovely language that I'm hearing that basically negates any of the complexity that was involved in the founding of the state of Israel. I don't hear that in 1947 the United Nations voted in a Jewish state and an Arab state was actually a Jewish entity at the time, an Arab entity at the time.

And who rejected it? Not the Jews, even though it was a very difficult compromise for them to make, to accept. But they said half a loaf is better than none. It was the Palestinian leadership. And I emphasized the Palestinian leadership. Because it's an amazing book by Afram Karsh. He calls it Palestine betrayed. Who betrayed the Palestinians, the extremists?

Those who didn't acknowledge that the Jews also had rights to the land, that the Jews. also had collective connections and historic connections to this land, that the Jews, in a sense, are the original Aboriginal people connected through their Bible, through their language, through their culture to this land. It's very central to them. And true, they were expelled, but there was always a Jewish connection there both physically and also emotionally. So I respectfully disagree with the setup, the historical assumptions that are being built in. From the start, first of all, the Jewish state was not only reaction to the Holocaust. Zion is. is deeply rooted in thousands of years and more immediately in the century and a half conversation

going on throughout the world about nationalism and identity and liberal nationalism. And yes, there were some examples of violence in 1948 where Palestinians were expelled. But there also were many, many examples of Palestinians fleeing because they expected the Arab armies to come and push the Jews into the sea. There were other examples in Haifa, for example, of the mayor reaching out to his Palestinian. At the time, they didn't call them Palestinians, right? They just called them Arabs because Palestinians were both Jews and Arabs, the Jewish mayor of Haifa, reaching out and saying, no, we've lived together.

It's only the extremists. It's only Hajamina Hussein who's bringing in this narrative, this one-sided narrative. So let's just, I don't need you to accept my narrative, but I need you to accept and acknowledge complexity. Once we acknowledge complexity, and once we acknowledge, and I don't, we acknowledge what I think is the fundamental challenge and the fundamental obstacle piece in the Middle East, which is, and we're hearing it implicitly is the refusal to accept the Jewish collective rights and the Jewish collective entity in the Middle East and in Israel. And I believe that it's possible to share, and you know why?

Because in Jerusalem, where I live, in the state of Israel, on the whole, Israeli Arabs and Israelis Jews, and I know there were riots in the last week and a half, but that was mostly young hoodlums, Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews have improved every 10 years, the situation between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews becomes more and more equal. Every 10 years we see numbers showing more and more Israeli Arabs living good middle class lives like most Israelis do. More and more we see, for example, during COVID, everybody can aware of the fact that 20% of Israeli Arabs, the population is 20% of the doctors are Israeli Arab, 23% of the nurses are Israeli Arab. 43% of the pharmacists are Israeli Arab. I myself was vaccinated by a male Israeli Arab nurse who might call the nurse.

If we want to look in the Middle East for one model, and this gets to the second point about transitioning to, a different approach, if we want to get to a model in the Middle East of some kind of amity, some kind of comedy, some kind of justice, some kind of mutual respect. We don't find it in Syria, I'm sorry to say. We don't find it in the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. And I wish in the list of injustices, we also talked about the brutal homophobia, the brutal sexism, the brutal crushing of dissent that goes on in the Palestinian Authority and in Hamas. The only place where we find, some attempt at that beautiful vision you had of destined to live together is in Israel. Is it perfect?

Of course not. But is it better than it was 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago? Yes. And do we have Israeli Arabs in the Supreme Court? Do we have all kinds of Jews who are like I, including myself, who fight ardently for equal rights, who denounced Bibi Netanyahu again and again for his ugly Reddit, who were appalled by some of the people who entered our Knesset? We have a democracy.

We have a range of people. the challenge in a democracy isn't do things go bad. The challenge is when things go bad, when people are extremists, A, do we have mechanisms to perfect them, to improve them, and B, do we have voices to denounce them? And I know that I'm one of those voices. Hi, Munk podcast listeners, Rudyard-Griffis here, your host and moderator.

A big thank you to all of our listeners. We've achieved an important milestone. One million downloads in 18 short months since we started the Munk Debates podcast. That's a testament to you, our listeners, appetite for civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. Please write a review about the Monk Debates podcast

in your podcast store. Like us on social media, spread the word about civil and substantive debate via this pod. Thanks again for all your support and for helping us achieve this important milestone, a million downloads in 18 months. Now, back to our program.

So, George, let's try out another argument on you that I think our listeners would have kind of top of mind listening to you both. And it's the idea that the two-state solution really is the international framework that has been built up through multiple accords that's been adopted in effect by the great powers. You know, no one today outside of a small minority is talking seriously about a one state solution, maybe first. many of the reasons Gil has raised. So, I mean, why is it time to kind of switch horses when, yes, we're at a period of poor relations between Israelis and Palestinians, but we've been through, you know, other bad patches before. Relations can improve. Why not continue to invest in a two-state solution as the dominant approach, given its longevity and given the fact that it accommodates some of these complexities that Gil is rightly raising?

Well, the answer to that is pretty simple, and that is that Israel, supported by the United States, to my great regret, has killed any opportunity of the creation of a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state by its settlements in the occupied territories, in the occupied West Bank. There are now, if you count East Jerusalem, which is, in fact, part of the occupied territory. There are something close to 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank in hundreds and hundreds of Israeli settlements that crosscut with the roadwork and all of the other infrastructure supporting them turns the Palestinian territories into tiny little islands of land. And there is no political force within Israel or outside of Israel. Or outside of Israel.

that will force the withdrawal of those settlers and those settlements. And there is no possibility of the creation of a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state, one that actually, you know, has real control over its borders, over its airspace, over trade, over transportation, over the environment and the like in those tiny little remaining areas of Palestinian minimal control. So Israel, and again, as I said, backed by the United States through its military aid, through its diplomatic cover, has killed any possibility of a two-state solution. Moreover, there is, in fact, substantial support for one-state solution, including within the United States, but, you know, more importantly, you know, among Palestinians. And there is a small number of Israelis who, you know, who support one state as well.

And it's interesting, not all of them are progressive Israelis. There are some on the Israeli right who have supported one state. Generally speaking, their vision of it isn't like mine, but there are openings of discussion and there have been discussions on the Israeli right of annexing and providing citizenship to the people of the West Bank. That's not a whole solution at all. But there is more significant and growing. awareness of the fact that we are living in this one state reality and what we need to do is to fix

it and make it right, make it a just one state reality that operates on principles of equal rights and true democracy. So, Gil, come back on that because, you know, I think there is an argument to the layperson like myself looking in from the outside to say that, you know, the settlements continued under Netanyahu. They were aggressively pursued as a state policy. result now is that the Palestinian reality, just in terms of geography, is so fractured, is so denuded of the potential of nationhood that one could argue that Israel has, in a sense, de facto removed the two-state solution as a path that we can now pursue together because there is no interlocular there to actually assemble into a functioning nation state. Do you

up that? The great Palestinian educator, Sarinusseba, wrote a book that could only appear in English because we're really dealing with a culture that, a political culture that doesn't have democracy, that came out a few years ago called, What is a Palestinian state worth? And he was essentially asking the same question. And he was pointing out that the more rigid we are about borders and this myth of contiguity, the more we try to exaggerate just how much harm the settlement project has done, the less chance Palestinians have of achieving a situation where they can have what he wants, which is a quality of life, freedom, dignity, identity. And I actually, I go against many of these assumptions. First of all, as a historian, I can tell you that the borders of the

Middle East changed repeatedly. So when anybody talks to me about the occupation from 1967, as if the 1949 improvised borders were somehow made holy. First of all, they were never recognized by the United Nations. Secondly, the Jordanians took it over. And then all of a sudden says anything over that land, anything over that boundary is somehow illegitimate, which includes the restored Jewish quarter, which includes a restored number of settlements like the ones at Cushetian, which in 1948 were eviscerated by the Jordanians, I get nervous.

And I say this when I speak to my right-wing Israeli friends too, as well as to my left-wing Israeli friends and to my Palestinian brothers and sisters. I say, let's accept the confusion. Let's accept the chaos. Once we can lean into the chaos, then we can start saying, okay, what's most important is entity by entity. You know, I was in Hawaii a few years ago, and they have archipelagos, and there's still a sense of Hawaiiness, even as you jump from island to island. The West Bank is very, very large and filled. with lots of empty space. I think it's possible with goodwill, with the exact same goodwill that George is assuming you'd need a multicultural democracy, but actually it's a little bit

safer because you'd be getting people more of a sense of autonomy, more of a sense of their own vision. I think you could create Palestinian entities. In fact, right now, there are these red signs with white lettering which will not allow anybody no matter how extremist a settler you are, no matter how much extremist, a Jewish right winger you are, to go into more. most Palestinian cities on the West Bank. Why? Because since the Oslo peace process, there have actually been, there's been a lessening of the Israeli footprint. And that's why, again, I have to object to this notion that there's one state going on right now. The entity of Gaza is its own story. The entity of the Israeli democracy, multicultural democracy, I might add, is its own

story. And even the Palestinian territories, called the West Bank, have areas A, B, C, with different kinds of autonomies and different kinds of power for the Palestinian Authority and for the Israeli army. So again, all I ask is to accept complexity. Once we accept complexity, let's also take some context. The Palestinian Authority in Hamas can't get along. They have had unity talks again, again, again, and they started in violence, and they often end up these days not in violence because they're not living side by side. The assumption that somehow we can add the Jews to the mix after, I'm sorry, not just 50 years, but 70 years, 80 years, 90 years of Arab extremists calling for the eradication of the Jew, of calling Jews every kind of name, of seeing us only as

foreign implants, the assumption that we can shift into some kind of kumbaya situation when even the Palestinians can't get along and can't establish democracy is so outrageous as to be insulting. And so all I want is some balance, some complexity, some nuance. And once we have nuance, again, then that can be the basis of compromise. If it's all or nothing, if it's a caricature of the evil Israelis versus the put upon Palestinians, then we're lost. So, George, I want you to come back on that point of Gills, which is that Palestinian politics itself has not been on a healthy trajectory over the last decade. There's been an absence of elections for over a decade now. Mahoud Abbas, you know, is facing

really a dire and imminent challenge by Hamas in the West Bank politically. Hamas obviously dominating Gaza. Hamas are recognized by Canada, the United States, governments around the world, as a terrorist organization. So, I mean, talk to us a little bit about why we should be in any way hopeful that a one-state solution could kind of defenestrate a movement that seems to become increasingly radical. increasingly polarized, increasingly violent in terms of the trajectory of Palestinian political culture. Well, you know, there's a lot to say there. And I think to attribute matters to Palestinian

political culture as opposed to the conditions under which Palestinian politics unfold is to essentialize and to obscure the realities of Palestinian politics. In fact, Palestinians have been forced to live under conditions not very conducive to democracy. Our leaders have been either assassinated or imprisoned or hounded into exile. And what remains are, you know, not exactly the cream of the crop. Abbas, Mahmoud Abbas, has essentially, turned into the security subcontractor of the Israeli occupation under the terms of the Oslo Accords is supposed to be operating to protect the colonizers rather than the colonized. That's what he's

been doing. That's why he's an illegitimate leader. Hamas is a sad and regressive organization. Its ideology is lamentable to say the least. And I don't defend its, you know, its repressive aspects in any way. But these are, these are not exactly natural conditions. These are not, you know, Palestinians don't have free choice. There has never been an opportunity for all Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel. And Gil, with respect, I would say to you that the term Israeli Arabs is demeaning and is part of the eraser of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian citizens of Israel are those who remained in Palestine and were not forced out in 1948 and their descendants. They are part of the Palestinian people.

There has never been an opportunity for all Palestinians, those who are in exile, those who live under military occupation, those who are citizens of the state of Israel to get together and to discuss and to deliberate and decide a path forward for the Palestinian people as a unified whole. Now, we have seen over the last month or so unity emerging amongst those people among Palestinians of all of the regions, including the Palestinian citizens of Israel. And, you know, that's a positive development. And it, you know, it needs to be advanced. And there needs to be more dialogue on the Palestinian side.

And there needs to be more deliberation and genuine democracy that enables a. Palestinian voice that represents the interests of everybody to come forward. Thank you, George, Gil, to come back to you on a question of political culture also, there are those that argue that Israel itself is paying a price for this intractable conflict that you have seen in Israeli politics over the last decade increasing radicalization, increasing power on what you might call the right end of the political and religious spectrum, and that these forces amped up in no small part by the conflict of the Palestinians are themselves a threat to the kind of pluralistic democracy that you've rightly lauded in this debate,

in terms of its ability to accommodate aspects of Arab culture within it. So to what extent are you worried that by kind of kicking the can down the road on a seemingly endless discussion about the permutations and possibilities and complexities of a two-state solution, Israeli democracy itself is increasingly on the chopping block? I'll answer that excellent question in a second. But first, I have in my hand the results of a poll where a quarter of Israeli minorities, 23% define themselves primarily as Israeli. Another half, 51% define their identity as Israeli-Arab.

I think there's a tendency sometimes to look from afar and clump everyone together. I think there's a tendency sometimes to look from afar and see the Palestinians as one entity when, first of all, many of them see themselves as if this is more historic, saw themselves as part of the Arab nation, and many of them also see themselves as part of their particular tribes or family, Hamula, family clans. So I think we have to be very careful not to impose American-style, Western-style, terms, if we're going to really talk about respecting the integrity of every one of the Palestinians

and Jews here, we have to be careful not to impose American-style terms and American-style oversimplifications on the conversation. I'm with you. Part of the reason why I am so frustrated with the Netanyahu of reign, part of the reason why, if I may boast, I take credit for being the first person in the Israeli press over two and a half years ago to call for Bibby Netanyahu to resign. Begging the president to give him a pardon, because I said, I just, just time to get out is because we've had stasis. We've had stasis on so many issues, on Jewish democratic issues, on the Palestinian issue, on the quality of Israeli Arab life.

So, yes, being caught in this back and forth is not a great outcome for Israeli democracy. But let me say two things. One is when I look at the situation today in 2021 and compare it to 2001, when Bob, bombs were going off, left and right. Most bombs, I'm sorry to say, detonated by Palestinian suicide bombers, led by Yasser Arafat, away from negotiation toward terror. When in 1991, before the Oslo Peace process, take those moments, and I can take many others, I actually think we're closer to a two-state solution. I actually think there have been structures, formats, cultures developed that create a possibility for an entity which the Palestinian Authority kind of, mimics and the entity that Hamas took over violently and now controls. So just as I see complexity in the conflict itself, I see complexity in the state of Israeli democracy

and in the possibility of a two-state solution. I think that Israelis have made tremendous progress. You know, 50 years ago, 60 years ago, Israelis had a very hard time acknowledging, as I've repeatedly acknowledged in this discussion, Palestinian national identity. 30 years ago, it was very hard for most Israelis to acknowledge the need for a Palestinian state. Most Israelis accept those realities. And if there's a shot at peace, I think we've seen. We've seen it with the Egyptian-Israel Accords and the Jordanian-Israel Accords. We've seen it with the UAE Accords.

If there's a shot at peace, we saw it with the Oslo Accords. If there's a shot at peace, you'll see a shift. But it takes leadership. It takes leadership on the Israeli side, and we actually might now be entering a situation where we're going to have a more pragmatic leadership, which will rely on four Israeli-Arab votes in order to have a majority in the coalition, in the Knesset. And it also takes a lot of leadership from the Palestinian side. And I think it's simply to shirk responsibility to say, oh, the Palestinians haven't had an opportunity

to develop their own culture. I get that it's very complicated situation. But I also think that it's unfair to accuse Israel, to hold Israel accountable for every single abuse of democracy that occurs by Palestinians on fellow Palestinians. And especially when we look at the broader Arab world, it's very hard to find the models that Palestinians could follow in building a democracy except in Israel. And in fact, Israeli democracy has been a training ground, a laboratory for many Palestinians, some of whom use their skills from watching Israelis to take Israel and the IDF, the Israel defense forces to court. And I love that. I love the complexity. I love the messiness

and I love democracy when it works. Thanks, Gil. Well, before we go to closing statements, I want to give you an opportunity, George, just to give us your thoughts on what we've seen transpire in Israeli politics that there seems to be finally the end here of the Netanyahu era, the potential for this new coalition to emerge, that as Gil mentions, will rely on no small part on Arab-Israeli votes within the Knesset to survive as a government. Does this make you any more optimistic about the trajectory of Palestinian-Israeli relations going forward or even a bigger picture? Not at all.

Not at all because Netanyahu as a personality has never been the issue. The Israeli settlement project was not begun by Netanyahu. It was begun by Labor Party governments long before him. and he accelerated it during his tenure and he's been a strong supporter of settlement, but so have all other Israeli governments, whether left, right or center. The fact of the matter is that there is this strong rightward shift in Israeli politics is a historic shift that has started. I mean, it started back in the late 70s with the election of Menachem Begin, I think,

1977, if I'm not mistaken. And it has been a consistent trend over time. It's not just Benjamin Netanyahu. It's the Israeli people. The Israeli young are, you know, among the only young population, youthful population in the world that are more to the right than their parents. And the prime minister that we are likely to get first in this new political arrangement, Naftali Bennett, you know, brags about how many Arabs he has killed and, you know, how he has no problem. with it. So, you know, in the Labor Party, which once actually had majorities in the Knesset,

has, what, six seats after these recent elections. So the Israeli left has been decimated. It has disappeared. Progressive Israelis have emigrated in large numbers. They no longer want to live in a racist society. They're tired of it. And there are other factors. But really, the main, the main factor driving the move to the right is that Israel is faith. resisting resistance from a Palestinian population. It is the project of settlement, which really is the continuation of the force displacement of Palestinians that began in 1948, has never stopped. It has taken different forms in different times. And Palestinians have always resisted that. And then to, you know, you have to, I mean, if you're going to continue colonizing, you have to

use violence. And to use violence, you have to have a justification for it. And that's what all the racist rhetoric of Israeli politicians is all about. It's justifying the oppression of another people and the dispossession of another people. And that has, like I said, it has never stopped. It's taken different forms over different times. It's been more acute in some places than other places. But that's really what's at the root of it. So no, the new Israeli government will be as bad or worse and perfectly consistent over time with all others. Thank you. This is been a terrific debate. I'm conscious of our time. Let's go to closing statements on our motion today, be it resolved. A one-state solution is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict. Gil, you've been speaking against the motion. Let's have your closing remarks. First, I just have to respond on this left-right thing. That, again, is an imposition of American ideas into Israeli politics. It's true that Israeli youth are more security conscious, more security traumatized by what's gone on when, for example, Israel withdrew from Gaza and the result was rockets. But if you look at them on so many other levels, attitude towards women, towards gays, towards, you know, towards tattoos, towards anything else. Culturally, you actually see them in ways that we would call them left. All I'm saying is let's lean into the complexity. I'm also respectfully requesting that rather than injecting Western terms that don't apply,

colonizer, racist, apartheid, that are demonizing, to delegitimizing, that make it seem all too simplistic, and that ultimately are trying to rob the Jewish state of its very legitimacy, is not helpful. Ultimately, I go back to what I started with, which is that I do believe that you can dress it up with all kinds of talk about democracy and justice, but fundamentally, when you talk about a one-state solution, you're talking about a no-jewish state solution. And I notice how in the 1940s there was a partition between Pakistan and India, I noticed that so many entities throughout the world ultimately say, we want to have our little space. And the story of the Jewish people returning to their land wasn't just about the Holocaust,

it wasn't just by anti-Semitism, is also a vision of a liberal democracy that could work that could flourish, that could help benefit all of humanity, including Israeli Arabs. And ultimately, that's what I want to build my case on. So I would like to respectfully end. First of all, I also like to thank the moderator and Regard and George for your thoughtful comments. I think the more conversations we have like this, the better we are. And also to everyone from the Monk debates for organizing this, I'd like to finish with a vision. A vision out of one state solution. But again, if two or even three state solution, of archipelagos, of everyone being able to find their own balance,

where there's enough prosperity around, and there's enough freedom around, and there's enough identity around, And there's enough mutual respect around for us to realize how much we gain by working with one another, not fighting one another. And that comes sometimes from remembering the Robert Frost cliche that good fences make good neighbors. I think we're better off with a healthy Israeli democratic entity with a growing and increasingly strong and equal Israeli Arab minority. And I use the language at 53% of Israeli Arabs use. I think we're better off with a Palestinian authority that seems to not want to. want to work very well with the people in Gaza. And I really hope that we can use all our creativity and all our brain power and all our love and all our heart to find ways out of this

imbroglio. But we don't do it by delegitimizing one another. We don't do it by oversimplifying. We do it by leaning into the complexity and by having a vision of peace. Shalom Salam. Thank you, Gil. George, we're going to give you the last word on our debate today, be it resolved. A one-state solution is the best hope of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. you've been arguing in favor of the motion. Wrap up this debate for us. Well, thanks very much. And thanks, Gil, for your contributions to the discussion.

I really appreciate it. You, Rudyard, for the great moderation. I will also go back to where I started, which is injustice breeds conflict. Justice breeds peace. That's where we need to go. The international community has been trying to implement some form of partition

for the last 80-plus years. if you go back to the very first proposal for the partition of Palestine in 1937 with the Peel Report, Peel Commission report. And we have tried for all of this time and we have failed. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have to take a different direction. We have to start with the recognition that Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews are destined to live together in that small space. in perpetuity. The question is whether we go forward under principles of apartheid, which is the current

situation, or whether we go under principles of equal rights and true democracy. That's where we need to head. We need to address fundamental injustices that the Palestinian people have suffered, their expulsion in 1948, their relegation to second class status within Israel and military occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If we don't deal with these fundamental injustices, then we are going to have continuing conflict. The one state solution is the framework within which all of these injustices can be addressed. Now, it comes at a price for both people, which is surrendering the possibility of exclusive sovereignty. But binational arrangements have worked elsewhere. They can work in Palestine. There's no reason that we can't live together and probably.

prosper together. And Israel, Palestine can become a progressive society that is a model for democratic change and inclusion and multiculturalism and a fair and just society for the entire Middle East. We can change that region fundamentally. We can be a beacon of true democracy if we choose that path. Thank you, George. And thank you, Gil. This has been just what I think we all hope for a civil and substantive debate of a very difficult, very contentious issue that really matters so intensely to millions of people around the world. So for the two of you to come together in a spirit of goodwill, to listen to each other's arguments, to engage with each other's ideas is a privilege indeed. It's a privilege to us, our listeners, but I think more importantly,

it advances the conversation regardless of what side you come down on this debate. We've all learned something today. So on behalf of the Monk Debates community, George Gill, thank you so much for being part of this conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, George and Gil. Thank you, guys, for a terrific conversation. If you, our listeners, have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com. Here's a recent email from a listener, Andrew, commenting on one of our latest Monk members-only podcast and a discussion we had about the origins of the COVID-19 virus. Andrew writes, hi, Redyard, I think you missed an important point.

One of the members of the World Health Organization's team investigating the Wuhan Link had a vested interest in the lab and its gain of function research. You're not going to get a valid report with people on the WHO team who want to avoid responsibility for the leak. The Chinese government, has been less than forthcoming about the origins of COVID-19 and is clearly putting roadblocks in the way of discovering the origins of the virus. Well, thanks, Andrew. Great reflection. Great comment.

Next week's Monk Debate podcast will delve into this controversial subject. Did COVID-19 leak from a lab? We've got two world-leading experts to make the case for and against. Don't miss that debate. A reminder that our Monk members-only podcast, which comes out every Friday, is you. yours to listen to any time as a perk of our free basic membership. You can access that at monkdebates.com forward slash membership. Thank you for being a member of the monk debates community and for helping us spread the word about the importance of civil and substantive debate

of the big issues of our time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are produced by Antica Productions and supported by the Monk Foundation. Richard Griffiths and Ricky Gurwitz are the producers. Api Rahaja is the associate producer. The Monk Debate podcast is mixed by Kieran Lynch. The president of Antica Productions is Stuart Cox. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating.

Thank you again for listening.