The One-State-Two-Nations Proposal: introduction

The One-State-Two-Nations Proposal is a proposal to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. The two existing States of Israel and Palestine would unite to form a single sovereign State: the United State of Israel and Palestine (Usip).

Within the United State there would be two largely self-governing nations, Israel and Palestine, with a defined but open border between them. Each nation would maintain its existing national, legal, educational, cultural and religious institutions. The two nations would share the land while preserving their national lives and identities.

The detailed proposal is available as a PDF: click on the following link. This opens in a new browser tab. Return to this page if you would like to comment on the proposal.

The One-State-Two-Nations Proposal (PDF)

Shortlink: http://religion-science-peace.org?p=1535

About David Gerald Fincham

Retired academic scientist.
This entry was posted in 2. SHALOM, Israel / Palestine. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Al Pendleton

    I realize that sharing a dissenting opinion on this volatile topic is difficult and rare. With all of the misinformation permeating public media sources, one is usually
    bombarded with predominately a one-sided view, and that is the Israelis are an
    apartheid state oppressing the peace-loving Palestinian people. Yes, the Israelis did launch a preemptive strike again the Arab forces arrayed at its borders in 1967. Yes, based on all my research, the al Nakba did occur. There is “cleansing” in almost every conflict, which results in a refugee situation. But, the Palestinians are not the peace-loving victims being cruelly mistreated as the world media and organizations like BDS and the National Students for Justice in Palestine would have us believe. If they are so peace-loving, why were they expelled from Jordan in 1970, after they
    were granted full citizenship following the “occupation” of Cisjordan (West Bank) in 1949, after the 1967 War?

    Further, if Israel is an apartheid state, they are actually less apartheid than all the other states where Palestinians refugees are currently located. I have authored a
    research paper on this topic (Israeli apartheid), if you’d care to read it.

    I don’t know if the Palestinians and Israelis can ever come to some sort of terms for
    peaceful coexistence, but the Israelis have made peace progress with some Arab
    nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan and initial inroads are being made with Saudi Arabia.
    In the current political climate, Israel will never accept UNSCR 242 or 338. You may count on that! I’ve authored a research paper on this topic, as well.

    As I pointed out in my original comments with respect to your One State-Two Nation solution, you too, were one-sided in your description of “the problem!” However, I still support your recommended solution because it is “outside-the-box,” hasn’t been tried, and could really, possibly work. Albeit, I still feel that a lot of pre-solution
    advances need to take place before any resolution can be attempted. I was pleased to see that you removed one of your more “prejudicial” articles from your website. I’m not saying that it wasn’t factual, but it was prejudicial, and it was piling on. I could easily write with respect to the Arab side, but the problem is with which and with whose charter do I start? Should I start with the 1964, 1968, 1988, or 2017 Charter? Should I reference the PLO, Fatah, or Hamas? Maybe it would be best to go back to 1945 and start with the Arab League Charter, specifically, the Annex on Palestine.

  • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

    I have received the following comment from Al Pendleton. For some unknown reason it did not display here, and I reproduce its content below.

    I apologize in advance for the length of my comment!

    I read the document a couple of times, and I’ve never really been in favor of a two-state solution because of all the inherent issues and problems, many of which you pointed out, that would be raised. The one-state solutions have also left a little to be desired because they never really addressed the fact that there existed two completely separate peoples of faith.

    Your One State-Two Nations solution is one of the best I’ve seen, especially since it uses the template of a “one state-two nations” example that had previously worked to a great extent. The use of the Great Britain-Scotland into the United Kingdom template was an example of two “nations” without external influence (meddling) that identified a problem and strode to provide a solution that would benefit both nations. Obviously, there were issues that served to hinder the enactment and acceptance of the Treaty, e.g., coercion and bribery of participants, and the accusation that the Brits
    took advantage of the Scots’ economic disaster of the late 17th century, facilitated their acceptance and enactment of the Treaty.

    Before any talk of your proposal, there should be an extended period of prohibition of accusation, innuendo and inflammatory comments from both sides toward each other. Further, external “interested parties,” e.g., pundits, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), Hamas, Hezbollah, PA, Haaretz, Washington Post, New York Times, former Presidents Carter and Obama, i.e., all those who bash Israel on a daily basis, need to refrain from any and all negativism so
    that as cordial an atmosphere can be established to initiate any kind of resolution. The term “apartheid” can never be used again in reference to Israel’s treatment of Arab residents/citizens in Israel.

    A quick review of Legal Status of R efugees: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq will tell you that life for Palestinian refugees is better in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. Further examples can be seen in any of the following, for those who need additional references: Treatment and Rights in Arab Host States, Treatment of Palestinians Escaping Syria in Jordan, Treatment of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, Refworld | Iraq: Palestinians, Refworld | Syria: Situation of stateless Palestinians, Refworld | Jordan: Rights and obligations of Palestinians, Refworld | Saudi Arabia: Present Treatment of Palestinians, Refworld | Egypt and Palestine:
    The status of Palestinians with an Egyptian Travel Document, and Refworld | Kuwait and Palestine: Residence Status of Stateless Palestinians. Yeah, I’ve heard the, “But, we’re only talking about Israel!” comment too.

    Additionally, the Palestinians cannot continue to be “held-harmless,” as you have also done. The Palestinian Arabs/Palestinians are just as culpable for the continued deterioration of actualization of any sort of peace accord as the Israelis, but a perusal of any source or reference only points to Israel as the main anti-peace culprit. We must put Holocaust denial, the killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, the killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War, specifically, the Deir Yassin
    massacre (against Palestinians) and the Hadasah Medical Convoy massacre (against the Israelis), and all killings, attacks and massacres post-1953 behind. Jews must let go of any thoughts of reparations as a result of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and Palestinians must relinquish thoughts of a “mandatory” right of return and unilateral reparations for the Arab towns and villages depop ulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This, though it will be extremely difficult, must be accomplished before any meaningful negotiations can take place.

    What do we do about all of the threats to “Kill all Jews,” “Wipe Israel off the Map,” “Never Accept the State of Israel,” etc. that are already codified in the writing of Pacts, Charters and Covenants? The issues in the following documents must be addressed:
    The Economy of the State of Palestine
    Pact of the League of Arab States, March 22, 1945
    Resolutions of the Palestine National Co uncil 1968
    The Palestinian Charter
    All-Palestine Government
    Hamas Covenant 1988
    The Hamas Charter (1988)
    Fatah’s Constitution
    Palestinian National Charter of 1964
    Palestine National Charter of 1968

    There needs to be an end to the talk of Palestinian “territories” and “occupied” territories. In actuality, there are neither Palestinian territories nor occupied Palestinian territories. These terms were initiated after the 1967 Six-Day War. An unbiased short history review will show that prior to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Palestinian Mandate showed no defined Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Jew “territories.” The 1947 UN Partition Plan was the first “official” plan which showed a defined demarcation of separate territor ial areas. After the 1949 Armistice, there were still no Palestinian territories; the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt, while the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. Neither of those countries is Palestinian. The Palestinians were essentially pushed aside by members of the Arab League. Actually, there were no Palestinians until the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) head, Yasser Arafat, so proclaimed them to be such in 1964. And, by the way, not once during the entire period from 1949 to 1967, did either Egypt or Jordan offer to establish a Palestinian State within their respective area of influence. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Egypt lost control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan, the West Bank, to Israel
    aggression. Whether Israel preemptively struck or not must also be made to be immaterial to the discussions of the one-state solution necessitating the repeal of UN
    Resolutions 194, 242, and 338. Talks should commence with UN Resolution 181 (II), in my opinion.

    When an air of civility and mutual respect has been achieved, then, and only then, can progress toward any kind of peaceful solution be addressed. At that point, it may be possible to start a two-pronged approach to a One State-Two Nation solution. One prong would be the creation of a Commission established by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995, similar to that used by South Africa post-apartheid era, which established three committees: the Human Rights Violations Committee, the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee, and the Amnesty Committee. The Israeli-Palestinian would function along similar lines. The other prong would be along the lines of the articles of Act of Union, May 1, 1707 (scroll to bottom), treaty that effected the union of Engla nd and Scotland under the name of Great Britain.
    The Palestine “act of union” treaty would effect the union of Israel and Palestine under the name, as you recommend, of the United State of Israel and Palestine (USoIP, USIAP). Note: USIP is already taken by the United States Institute of Peace. Maybe they could pay the Institute of Peace a royalty on the use of the acronym. The treaty was negotiated over a period of five years. The actual Act of Union was codified in three-days of conference! However, as with all treaties and actions between governments, there has been an almost continuous chronology of discontent by the affected populations, most notably the Scots, who felt they were “sold out” by their ancestors and even wrote poems and songs to that effect. There may be poems and songs written about a peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians, but hopefully they won’t be written and sung until 300 years of peace has passed.

    Okay, let’s say Israel, the Palestinians, the United Nations and the rest of the world come to some sort of agreement that this is a good idea. But, in the end, which one will emerge?
    One-state solution– many feel that this is only real possible solution. It also appears that President Trump agrees with you and is leaning in this direction, as well.
    Two-state solution– This is the prevailing option by most around the world and several U.S. Presidential administrations, which would envision an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. Coincidentally, it is
    also the solution of choice for the United Nations, as well as many of the International Accords, Summits, Conferences, Negotiations and Initiatives. As has been shown for decades, this option has too many cooks involved in making the broth and is, therefore, doomed to fail.

    Three-state solution– is the least known of the possible peace solutions. It is also called the Egyptian–Jordanian solution or the Jordan–Egypt option, is an approach to peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by returning control of the West Bank to Jordan and control of the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Based on the history of the lack of action by either named party during the post-Armistice years, and the subsequent treatment of Palestinian Arabs/Palestinians by the name parties, I think it’s safe to say that this “dog ain’t gonna hunt!”

    Your Recommended Solution
    As a critique/review of your proposal, I’ve high lighted certain words, phrases and paragraphs that, in my opinion, add to the genre of animosity toward Israel.
    2.2
    Currently the Israeli-Jewish nation inhabits the State of Israel, created in 1948. The Palestinian-Arab nation inhabits the State of Palestine, created in 1988. There is a significant minority of Palestinian Arabs within Israel, who were given Israeli citizenship after the 1948-49 war. There is a significant minority of Israeli Jews within Palestine,
    as a result of Israel’s illegal colonization of the West Bank.
    2.3
    The de facto bord er between the two States is the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line, also called the 1967 border). Palestine includes the West Bank and Gaza, 22% of former Palestine. Israel includes the remaining 78% of former Palestine. The West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and Gaza is blockaded by Israel and Egypt.
    4.8
    The only threat to the security of Israel arises from its occupation of Palestinian territory. The only threat to the security of Palestine comes from Israel. The Arab states and Iran will accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The United State will have no enemies, and can start to wind down the massive military capability it inherits from the IDF, and help create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
    There is no threat to Palestinians that they have not instigated by their own actions. I need specific documentation that the Arab states and, specifically, Iran, “will accept any peace agreement.” Who goes first with the nuke free zone, Israel or Iran? Pie in the sky! Fat chance Israel unilaterally disarms.

    5.3
    5 million Palestinian refugees with a right of return…
    This needs to stop! There is NO legal, binding “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was non-binding and non-legal based on the “source” of its enactment…the General Assembly.
    5.5.c
    Lausanne Conference of 1949…
    While a valiant attempt served no real useful purpose and should be scrapped EXCEPT for adding additional territory to be negotiated. The issues that came of the Conference, though signed by Israel, were numerous and insurmountable due to basic prejudices of all parties concerned, i.e., the cond itions for negotiation were complex, as the questions of refugees and of territories were closely linked.

    The Arab participants only wanted to act en bloc. Israel only wanted to negotiate with separate states. As the Arab delegations refused to talk directly with Israel, the Conciliation Commission shuttled back and forth between the parties. Israel also
    refused to negotiate on any point separately; it wanted to settle all problems at once within the framework of a general settlement. Israel’s positions have been described as follows: “the two main bones of contention were refugees and territory. Israel’s
    position on the former was clear and emphatic: the Arab states were responsible for the refugee problem, so responsibility for solving it rested with them. Isra el was willing to make a modest financial contribution toward the resolution of this problem but only as part of an overall settlement of the conflict and only if the refugees were to be resettled in Arab countries. On the second issue, Israel’s position was that the permanent borders between itself and its neighbors should be based on the cease-fire lines, with only minor adjustments.”

    The Arabs wanted to negotiate on the basis of UN resolutions 194 and 181.They wanted Israel to accept first the “right to return”. Israel rejected the principle of “repatriation of the refugees and payment of due compensation for their lost or damaged property, as well as for the property of those who do not wish to return” as formulated in Resolution 194, and asked large amounts of land in exchange for return of a limited number of refugees. The Arabs wanted recognition of the areas allotted to them by the Partition Plan and immediate return of the refugees coming from the areas that were conquered by Israel.

    You see…no way!
    5.6
    However, it will be necessary to take into account the illegal nature of the settlement
    program, and the great harm it has done to the Arab population.
    5.7
    There needs to be a reconciliation and reconstruction process in which settlements and their neighbors agree to live together peacefully, harm done is remedied, and serious crimes are punished. If cases where no agreement is possible, the settlers
    should return to Israel.
    Definitely agree. As stated, it should be something along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which addressed Human Rights Violations, Reparations and Rehabilitation, and Amnesty. And what responsibilities/actions are required of the Palestinians?
    5.8
    After 70 years of denial of their right to return, the most just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem would be for them to be given huge sums of money, by Israel, to enable them to settle in any country of their choice willing to take them.
    They don’t have a “right” and any solution must include other Arab country culpability in exacerbating the Palestinian refugee problem, as previously illustrated, with respect to any reparations.
    5.10
    Others might want to leave the Middle East an d join the Diaspora in Europe and the Americas. Britain and the USA in particular should be willing to take them…
    I wouldn’t want them in my country unless they unequivocally agree to immediate deportation upon proven complicity in any act of terrorism or criminal behavior. Period!
    6.8
    Israel and Palestine would be independent sovereign states, but the border between them would be an open one.
    No way could this work unless the Palestinians agree, irrevocably, to end intifada, fatwa AND Jihad! No ifs, ands or buts! Otherwise, there will be no deal.
    6.11
    The One State Declaration of 2007 is for a unitary state “founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens”. The Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return; and there would be “redress for the devastating
    effects of decades of Zionist colonization”.
    These latter two conditions would necessarily need to be part of a South African-type TRC. And, of course, the Palestinians are held-harmless, right?
    6.13
    Under the secular state model, neither nation would be able to express its national identity either politically or religiously. There would be no place on the map called ‘Israel’, and no place called ‘Palestine’. This would not be acceptable to either nation.
    Concur.
    7.6
    It would provide a right of return for Jews and Palestinians to establish themselves anywhere within their homeland, subject only to certain provisos.
    You have to stop saying “right of return” with no qualification! You’re talking about the “right of return” that is included in the Israeli Declaration (positive) and not the UN Resolution 194 right of return (negative), right?
    8.1
    Oslo process, Palestine recognized that “the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security”. Israe l, on the other hand, did not even accept that the State of Palestine exists, or that the Palestinian people have a right to live in peace and security.
    But, Israel recognized the PLO as Palestine’s official representative, which was a major step in acknowledging an organization whose sole existence was the destruction of Israel. Your bias is showing David…again!
    8.2
    To have a chance of success, any peace agreement must be freely negotiated between the two sovereign States. The beginning of the end of the conflict will be the day that (1) Israel can bring itself to say that “The State of Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security.” The next step will be for (2) Israel to accept that its settlement program in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal in international
    law, and bring it to a halt. The third step will be a withdrawal of (3) Israeli forces from the West Bank, as required by UNSCR242, their replacement by an interim joint civilian administration, and the (4) lifting of the Gaza blockade.

    Let’s see, Israel this, Israel that, Israel this, and Israel AND Egypt that. Do the Palestinians have to do anything? That’s really going to work well, David!
    In the end, I really like your idea. It’s one of the few out of the box solutions I’ve seen that may have a good chance of actually realizing some sort of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But, I reiterate, THEY have to be the ones doing the negotiating with a minimum of outside meddling…the UN, the US, Arab League, everyone! Unless, of course, the negotiating parties request assistance.

    Al

    • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

      Thank you for your positive comments about the One-State-Two-Nations Proposal. I see it as a vision for the future which might help to spark the cordial dialogue between the two peoples (I do not mean their governments) of which you speak and which is essential before there can be progress towards a peaceful settlement. I do not expect this to be quick or easy, and I agree with you that it should include some kind of Truth and Reconciliation process.

      A one-state solution can only come about by a voluntary union of the two existing States. (By the way, there are eight organizations using the acronym USIP: I think people will know from the context when it is referring to the United State of Israel and Palestine). This means there must be an interim two-state period in which the two States recognize each other, and agree to work together to find the best way to a future of peaceful co-existence.

      I must now challenge some of your remarks.

      Your contention that there are no Palestinian territories, no Occupation, and there were no Palestinians until 1964 makes no sense.

      Palestine became a defined political identity in 1922 under the Mandate. In 1925 its residents, formerly Turkish citizens, became Palestinian citizens. The foreign Jews who settled in Palestine under the Jewish National Home Policy were also considered to be Palestinians, though only a minority of them chose to become citizens.

      On May 14 1948 the State of Israel was declared within the frontiers specified for the Jewish state in the UN partition plan (55% of the area of Palestine). The parts of Palestine outside the partition borders remain Palestinian territory to this day, since Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside those borders. The 1948-49 war ended with Israel gaining control of a further 23% of Palestinian territory, and the Armistice agreements allow Israel to keep control of that territory pending a peace agreement. In 1967 Israel gained control of the remaining 22% of the territory of Palestine, namely the West Bank and Gaza, and has held them under military occupation ever since.

      The right of return is not based on UNGAR 194. It is an individual human right in customary international law. Customary international law is not statute law, but more like the common law of the English legal system. It is based on declarations, treaties, historical precedents, state constitutions, legal precedents and the UN Charter and Resolutions. For example, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. The the same phrase is used in Article 5d(ii) of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(1965). Article 12(4) of the International covenant of Civil and Political Rights says: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

      The question to answer in the case of the Palestinian refugees is “what is the country to which they have a right to return?” The view I adopted in the One-State-Two-Nations Proposal is that before 1948 they were Palestinian citizens, and the country to which they should return is Palestine. (I believe Netanyahu has made such a proposal.) However, I recognize that some refugees who originated in areas that are now part of Israel still have family and other links with those areas and would like to return there. It is a virtue of the One-State-Two-Nations proposal that the open borders between the two nations would make that possible.

      • Al Pendleton

        With respect to the use of the USIP acronym, I was being facetious.

        Again, my territories/occupation contention makes perfect logical sense, and I must disagree. Palestinian “territories” implies, at least to me, that the Palestinian Arabs (before 1964/1968) or Palestinian Palestinians (after 1968) controlled areas of land, terrain or country. They didn’t. As I previously stated, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and the Jordanians controlled the West Bank.

        Neither of these countries was administering these two areas for the
        safe-keeping of the Palestinian Arabs. Following the 1967 War, both these areas came under the control of the Israelis. Therefore, I reiterate there are NO Palestinian territories, therefore there is NO Occupation. The only terminology that can objectively be applied to these areas is “disputed.” How can one claim ownership or rights to/of something over which they had no control with which to begin?

        To the last point, I’ll let the Palestinian Liberation Organization speak
        for itself:

        “The Palestinian National Charter, as amended by the PLO’s Palestinian National Council in July 1968, defined “Palestinians” as “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine
        regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father—whether in Palestine or outside it—is also a Palestinian. The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”[1]

        Concur in your description of “who” were Palestinians. And their passports agree with you!

        I agree completely with your delineation of what were Palestine and the declared State of Israel subsequent to the 1949 Armistice. Again, I disagree with the use of the term “occupation.” I think I’ve demonstrated that this is NOT the case. In the end, I think we
        must agree to disagree on this point.

        Per the documentation cited with respect to the “right of return,” all true, and I would say that other than yourself and perhaps a handful of others, no one could delineate the historical information you’ve highlighted. However, the Palestinians, PLO, Hamas, Palestinian Authority, Arab League, US and UK main stream media, Foreign Policy Journal, Boycott, Divestment, Sanction (BDS)[2] and National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP/SJP)[3] have all indicated that the “right of return” is based on the UNGAR 194.

        Agree, BUT what IS the country to which they have a right of return? What do the Palestinians consider to actually be Palestine? Perhaps, I should allow them to answer that in their own words!

        “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”[4]

        In their own words, the Palestinians consider the British Mandate, i.e., Palestine, parts of Syria (Golan Heights), and parts of Lebanon to be their homeland. Graphically, this is what the Palestinians declare as their homeland: (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-british-mandate-1921-1923)

        I must point out that the ORIGINAL British Mandate included Transjordan, as well. Are the Palestinians claiming this as well? I doubt it as well, but their Charter wording leaves everything open to interpretation.

        To close, may I say that it is a pleasure to engage in a discussion/debate that has been maintained on a professional, non-name calling level as is usually the case on this topic. I look forward to your or others’ response. Thank you!

        [1] “The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968: Articles 5-6″
        [2] https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
        [3] https://www.nationalsjp.org/points-of-unity.html
        [4] “The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968: Articles 1-2″

        • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

          1. Your territories/occupation contention does not make any logical sense. The parts of mandatory palestine outside the borders declared by Israel in 1948 remain palestinian territory: territory within which the palestinian people have a right to self determination- i.e to rule themselves. The fact that they could not exercise that right, because their land had been invaded and conquered by others, does not take away that right. The West Bank is officially designated by everyone except Israel as Occupied Palestinian Territory. I do not agree to disagree on this point: you are flat out wrong.
          2. You seem confused about the extent of the territory of the British Mandate. The Palestine-Syria and Palestine-Lebanon borders were finalised in 1923: Palestine did not include the Golan Heights. Historically, Palestine included only a small strip of cultivated land to the East of the Jordan, and the river was the border between Palestine and Transjodan under the Mandate. The Palestinians are not claiming Transjordan.

          • Al Pendleton

            I can only say this so many times, there was/is NO “Palestinian” territory, either identified in the Mandate for Palestine or the Palestine Partition Plan (UNGAR 181). They had NO territory, in the geographical area of Palestine, to exercise the right to rule themselves. Per UNGAR 181, the “territories” commonly referred to as Palestinian were, in fact, assigned to the Palestine Arabs, NOT Palestinians. The Palestinians had NO land to be invaded or conquered by
            anyone. The only Palestinians, per se, at the time were Jews (Mandate for Palestine). The West Bank didn’t exist in name until Jordan (Cisjordan) changed it from Samaria and Judea after THEY conquered it in 1948/49. It has since been called the West Bank. So, there is no Occupied Palestinian Territory!
            Also, have you seen any document or reference indicating that the Palestinians were clamoring for their territory (Gaza and West Bank) while the two areas were under the “control” of Egypt and Jordan, respectively from 1948-1967? I haven’t been able to find anything. I accept your declaration to not agree, but, with all due respect, it is you who are flat out wrong, not I.

            I am not confused about anything. As a matter of fact, most
            people are confused as to what was actually mandated in the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine, the actual legal document, was a Trust, which identified a specific
            geographical region to become the Jewish National Homeland. It delineated specific responsibilities for its administration by a Mandate for the British. By virtue of that included mandate, the British became the Trustee (British Mandate) of the Mandate for Palestine.

            The Mandate for Palestine was unanimously approved by the 51 voting members of the League of Nations and finalized as you point out in 1923. There are specific remarks contained
            therein which pertain to Arabs and non-Jew inhabitants; there ONLY reference to the word “Palestinian” has to do with citizenship by Jews (Article 7). Further, the original Two-State Solution was the option exercised per Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, which created the “Arab” country of Transjordan, in which all Arab residents of Palestine Palestinian Arabs) were granted immediate citizenship. Other Arab states were created as a result of Mandates: Lebanon and Syria (French) and Iraq and Transjordan (British). When the League of Nations ceased to exist, the Mandate continued in effect per UN Charter, Chapter XII, Articles 77-80.

            As a historical point of information, 13 countries voted “against” UNGAR 181 (Partition Plan): Afghanistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Greece, Turkey, Egypt and Cuba. Fifteen countries voted “against” UNGAR 142 (Right of Return): Afghanistan, Byelorussian
            SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen, and Yugoslavia; Iran abstained. No Arab country voted “for” either Resolution. Why? Maybe Article 11: “…that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments (plural) or authorities responsible…”

            I believe I clearly indicated “original” British Mandate or Mandate for Palestine (7 Dec 1920, draft), clearly not the final map approved, but as I’ve read other anti-Zionist articles (Foreign Policy Journal) reference “draft” documents as proof of Palestinian territorial claims, I believe it’s applicable in this case. In case you’re interested, you can view it and the final maps here: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflictmandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

            Finally, I didn’t say the Palestinians “were” claiming Transjordan; I said their “Charter wording leaves everything open to interpretation.” And it still does.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            Now I see the source of your confusion.
            You say that the Mandate “identified a specific
            geographical region to become the Jewish National Homeland.” That is a fundamental misunderstanding. What the Zionists suggested for the Balfour Declaration was “the re-constitution of Palestine as the Jewish national home” but this was rejected by the British Government on the advice of British Jewish leaders, and the actual text says, and this is repeated in the Mandate: “the establishment IN Palestine of a Jewish national home.” I give a simple example: it is the difference between “there is a bathroom in my house, and “My house is a bathroom”.

            This misunderstanding has led to you misinterpret Article 7 of the Mandate to mean that Palestinian citizenship was to be given only to Jews. This is nonsensical: the citizenship law was passed in 1925 and the existing population, formerly Turkish citizens, became citizens of Palestine. Immigrant Jews were given the opportunity to acquire Palestinian citizenship, but a majority chose not to.

            The idea that the Jewish national home was to include Transjordan is an invention of the hasbarists. When the Zionists went to the Paris peace conference in 1919 they did hope that they could be given some territory to the East of the Jordan, but the British did not agree to it, and the Zionists gave up to concentrate on obtaining access to the Litani river in Lebanon. That idea failed as well, because of the Sikes-Picot agreement.

            I suppose the draft of the Mandate which you mention is the one proposed by the Zionists. I would be interested to read it if you can give me a link.

          • Al Pendleton

            It’s clear to me that the 1936 British Mandate Report[1]
            defines a specific geographical area, but you may see it differently. However, as you indicate, it was not the Mandate. But, a specific geographical area was described in the Sir Erle Richards “P-Memo” (pg. 49) [2] prepared prior to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. In any case, a specific geographic area was not included in the Mandate.

            Unfortunately, the truth to the question of citizenship, which you dismiss out-of-hand, was a little more complicated than just choosing “not to.” The 1926 report[3] (pages 32-35) details the difficulties encountered by resident and, primarily,

            immigrant inhabitants to Palestine. I believe the report was primarily referring to Jewish immigrants, but here, again, I could be wrong.

            With respect to the map/proposal of including Transjordan as part of Palestine, you are correct. Upon further research, I found that the ‘Zionist’ desire was based on the lack of territorial specificity of the proposed Mandate for Palestine based on the San Remo Conference of 1920 and NOT any specific draft as previously stated by me.

            I leave you with the following:

            “The question of borders doesn’t interest us… From the Arab
            standpoint, we mustn’t talk about borders. Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it…The P.L.O. is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call “(Trans-)Jordan” is nothing more than Palestine.”
            ― (attributed) Yasser Arafat, 1970, interview with Italian television

            Or maybe he didn’t say that!

            As an aside, I checked out “Foreign Policy Journal” primarily
            because you listed it on your website as a resource, and I had been turned off by Foreign Policy Magazine (foreignpolicy.com). After perusing a few articles, I’ve decided to dump FP Journal as well, especially after reading the “Moses #Metoo”[4] and “Passover”[5] articles. Wow! I wonder if they actually find their articles funny. But, please, when Jeremy, and especially John (anti-hasbarists), write some article bashing or demeaning Islam and/or The Prophet Mohammed, let me know. I’d really like to see the fallout from that!

            [1]http://ismi.emory.edu/home/resources/primary-source-docs/1936report.pdf
            [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference,_1919#/media/File:British_Memorandum_on_Palestine_1919.jpg
            [3]http://ismi.emory.edu/home/resources/primary-source-docs/1926minutes.pdf
            [4]https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2018/05/17/moses-for-metoo/
            [5]https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/06/passover/

  • Al Pendleton

    I apologize in advance for the length of my comment!

    I read the document a couple of times, and I’ve never really been in favor of a two-state solution because of all the inherent issues and problems, many of which you pointed out, that would be raised. The one-state solutions have also left a little to be desired because they never really addressed the fact that there existed two completely separate peoples of faith.

    Your One State-Two Nations solution is one of the best I’ve seen, especially since it uses the template of a “one state-two nations” example that had previously worked to a great extent. The use of the Great Britain-Scotland into the United Kingdom template was an example of two “nations” without external influence (meddling) that identified a problem and strode to provide a solution that would benefit both nations. Obviously, there were issues that served to hinder the enactment and acceptance of the Treaty, e.g., coercion and bribery of participants, and the accusation that the Brits
    took advantage of the Scots’ economic disaster of the late 17th century, facilitated their acceptance and enactment of the Treaty.

    Before any talk of your proposal, there should be an extended period of prohibition of accusation, innuendo and inflammatory comments from both sides toward each other. Further, external “interested parties,” e.g., pundits, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), Hamas, Hezbollah, PA, Haaretz, Washington Post, New York Times, former Presidents Carter and Obama, i.e., all those who bash Israel on a daily basis, need to refrain from any and all negativism so
    that as cordial an atmosphere can be established to initiate any kind of resolution. The term “apartheid” can never be used again in reference to Israel’s treatment of Arab residents/citizens in Israel.

    A quick review of Legal Status of Refugees: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq will tell you that life for Palestinian refugees is better in Israel than anywhere else in the Middle East. Further examples can be seen in any of the following, for those who need additional references: Treatment and Rights in Arab Host States, Treatment of Palestinians Escaping Syria in Jordan, Treatment of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, Refworld | Iraq: Palestinians, Refworld | Syria: Situation of stateless Palestinians, Refworld | Jordan: Rights and obligations of Palestinians, Refworld | Saudi Arabia: Present Treatment of Palestinians, Refworld | Egypt and Palestine:
    The status of Palestinians with an Egyptian Travel Document, and Refworld | Kuwait and Palestine: Residence Status of Stateless Palestinians. Yeah, I’ve heard the, “But, we’re only talking about Israel!” comment too.

    Additionally, the Palestinians cannot continue to be “held-harmless,” as you have also done. The Palestinian Arabs/Palestinians are just as culpable for the continued deterioration of actualization of any sort of peace accord as the Israelis, but a perusal of any source or reference only points to Israel as the main anti-peace culprit. We must put Holocaust denial, the killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, the killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War, specifically, the Deir Yassin
    massacre (against Palestinians) and the Hadasah Medical Convoy massacre (against the Israelis), and all killings, attacks and massacres post-1953 behind. Jews must let go of any thoughts of reparations as a result of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and Palestinians must relinquish thoughts of a “mandatory” right of return and unilateral reparations for the Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This, though it will be extremely difficult, must be accomplished before any meaningful negotiations can take place.

    What do we do about all of the threats to “Kill all Jews,” “Wipe Israel off the Map,” “Never Accept the State of Israel,” etc. that are already codified in the writing of Pacts, Charters and Covenants? The issues in the following documents must be addressed:

    The Economy of the State of Palestine
    Pact of the League of Arab States, March 22, 1945
    Resolutions of the Palestine National Council 1968
    The Palestinian Charter
    All-Palestine Government
    Hamas Covenant 1988
    The Hamas Charter (1988)
    Fatah’s Constitution
    Palestinian National Charter of 1964
    Palestine National Charter of 1968

    There needs to be an end to the talk of Palestinian “territories” and “occupied” territories. In actuality, there are neither Palestinian territories nor occupied Palestinian territories. These terms were initiated after the 1967 Six-Day War. An unbiased short history review will show that prior to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Palestinian Mandate showed no defined Palestinian Arab or Palestinian Jew “territories.” The 1947 UN Partition Plan was the first “official” plan which showed a defined demarcation of separate territorial areas. After the 1949 Armistice, there were still no Palestinian territories; the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt, while the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. Neither of those countries is Palestinian. The Palestinians were essentially pushed aside by members of the Arab League. Actually, there were no Palestinians until the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) head, Yasser Arafat, so proclaimed them to be such in 1964. And, by the way, not once during the entire period from 1949 to 1967, did either Egypt or Jordan offer to establish a Palestinian State within their respective area of influence. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Egypt lost control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan, the West Bank, to Israel
    aggression. Whether Israel preemptively struck or not must also be made to be immaterial to the discussions of the one-state solution necessitating the repeal of UN
    Resolutions 194, 242, and 338. Talks should commence with UN Resolution 181 (II), in my opinion.

    When an air of civility and mutual respect has been achieved, then, and only then, can progress toward any kind of peaceful solution be addressed. At that point, it may be possible to start a two-pronged approach to a One State-Two Nation solution. One prong would be the creation of a Commission established by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995, similar to that used by South Africa post-apartheid era, which established three committees: the Human Rights Violations Committee, the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee, and the Amnesty Committee. The Israeli-Palestinian would function along similar lines. The other prong would be along the lines of the articles of Act of Union, May 1, 1707 (scroll to bottom), treaty that effected the union of England and Scotland under the name of Great Britain.

    The Palestine “act of union” treaty would effect the union of Israel and Palestine under the name, as you recommend, of the United State of Israel and Palestine (USoIP, USIAP). Note: USIP is already taken by the United States Institute of Peace. Maybe they could pay the Institute of Peace a royalty on the use of the acronym. The treaty was negotiated over a period of five years. The actual Act of Union was codified in three-days of conference! However, as with all treaties and actions between governments, there has been an almost continuous chronology of discontent by the affected populations, most notably the Scots, who felt they were “sold out” by their ancestors and even wrote poems and songs to that effect. There may be poems and songs written about a peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians, but hopefully they won’t be written and sung until 300 years of peace has passed.

    Okay, let’s say Israel, the Palestinians, the United Nations and the rest of the world come to some sort of agreement that this is a good idea. But, in the end, which one will emerge?

    One-state solution– many feel that this is only real possible solution. It also appears that President Trump agrees with you and is leaning in this direction, as well.

    Two-state solution– This is the prevailing option by most around the world and several U.S. Presidential administrations, which would envision an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. Coincidentally, it is
    also the solution of choice for the United Nations, as well as many of the International Accords, Summits, Conferences, Negotiations and Initiatives. As has been shown for decades, this option has too many cooks involved in making the broth and is, therefore, doomed to fail.

    Three-state solution– is the least known of the possible peace solutions. It is also called the Egyptian–Jordanian solution or the Jordan–Egypt option, is an approach to peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by returning control of the West Bank to Jordan and control of the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Based on the history of the lack of action by either named party during the post-Armistice years, and the subsequent treatment of Palestinian Arabs/Palestinians by the name parties, I think it’s safe to say that this “dog ain’t gonna hunt!”

    Your Recommended Solution

    As a critique/review of your proposal, I’ve highlighted certain words, phrases and paragraphs that, in my opinion, add to the genre of animosity toward Israel.

    2.2
    Currently the Israeli-Jewish nation inhabits the State of Israel, created in 1948. The Palestinian-Arab nation inhabits the State of Palestine, created in 1988. There is a significant minority of Palestinian Arabs within Israel, who were given Israeli citizenship after the 1948-49 war. There is a significant minority of Israeli Jews within Palestine,
    as a result of Israel’s illegal colonization of the West Bank.

    2.3
    The de facto border between the two States is the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line, also called the 1967 border). Palestine includes the West Bank and Gaza, 22% of former Palestine. Israel includes the remaining 78% of former Palestine. The West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and Gaza is blockaded by Israel and Egypt.

    4.8
    The only threat to the security of Israel arises from its occupation of Palestinian territory. The only threat to the security of Palestine comes from Israel. The Arab states and Iran will accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The United State will have no enemies, and can start to wind down the massive military capability it inherits from the IDF, and help create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

    There is no threat to Palestinians that they have not instigated by their own actions. I need specific documentation that the Arab states and, specifically, Iran, “will accept any peace agreement.” Who goes first with the nuke free zone, Israel or Iran? Pie in the sky! Fat chance Israel unilaterally disarms.

    5.3
    5 million Palestinian refugees with a right of return…

    This needs to stop! There is NO legal, binding “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 was non-binding and non-legal based on the “source” of its enactment…the General Assembly.

    5.5.c
    Lausanne Conference of 1949…

    While a valiant attempt served no real useful purpose and should be scrapped EXCEPT for adding additional territory to be negotiated. The issues that came of the Conference, though signed by Israel, were numerous and insurmountable due to basic prejudices of all parties concerned, i.e., the conditions for negotiation were complex, as the questions of refugees and of territories were closely linked.

    The Arab participants only wanted to act en bloc. Israel only wanted to negotiate with separate states. As the Arab delegations refused to talk directly with Israel, the Conciliation Commission shuttled back and forth between the parties. Israel also
    refused to negotiate on any point separately; it wanted to settle all problems at once within the framework of a general settlement. Israel’s positions have been described as follows: “the two main bones of contention were refugees and territory. Israel’s
    position on the former was clear and emphatic: the Arab states were responsible for the refugee problem, so responsibility for solving it rested with them. Israel was willing to make a modest financial contribution toward the resolution of this problem but only as part of an overall settlement of the conflict and only if the refugees were to be resettled in Arab countries. On the second issue, Israel’s position was that the permanent borders between itself and its neighbors should be based on the cease-fire lines, with only minor adjustments.”

    The Arabs wanted to negotiate on the basis of UN resolutions 194 and 181.They wanted Israel to accept first the “right to return”. Israel rejected the principle of “repatriation of the refugees and payment of due compensation for their lost or damaged property, as well as for the property of those who do not wish to return” as formulated in Resolution 194, and asked large amounts of land in exchange for return of a limited number of refugees. The Arabs wanted recognition of the areas allotted to them by the Partition Plan and immediate return of the refugees coming from the areas that were conquered by Israel.

    You see…no way!

    5.6
    However, it will be necessary to take into account the illegal nature of the settlement
    program, and the great harm it has done to the Arab population.

    5.7
    There needs to be a reconciliation and reconstruction process in which settlements and their neighbors agree to live together peacefully, harm done is remedied, and serious crimes are punished. If cases where no agreement is possible, the settlers
    should return to Israel.

    Definitely agree. As stated, it should be something along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which addressed Human Rights Violations, Reparations and Rehabilitation, and Amnesty. And what responsibilities/actions are required of the Palestinians?

    5.8
    After 70 years of denial of their right to return, the most just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem would be for them to be given huge sums of money, by Israel, to enable them to settle in any country of their choice willing to take them.

    They don’t have a “right” and any solution must include other Arab country culpability in exacerbating the Palestinian refugee problem, as previously illustrated, with respect to any reparations.

    5.10
    Others might want to leave the Middle East and join the Diaspora in Europe and the Americas. Britain and the USA in particular should be willing to take them…

    I wouldn’t want them in my country unless they unequivocally agree to immediate deportation upon proven complicity in any act of terrorism or criminal behavior. Period!

    6.8
    Israel and Palestine would be independent sovereign states, but the border between them would be an open one.

    No way could this work unless the Palestinians agree, irrevocably, to end intifada, fatwa AND Jihad! No ifs, ands or buts! Otherwise, there will be no deal.

    6.11
    The One State Declaration of 2007 is for a unitary state “founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens”. The Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return; and there would be “redress for the devastating
    effects of decades of Zionist colonization”.

    These latter two conditions would necessarily need to be part of a South African-type TRC. And, of course, the Palestinians are held-harmless, right?

    6.13
    Under the secular state model, neither nation would be able to express its national identity either politically or religiously. There would be no place on the map called ‘Israel’, and no place called ‘Palestine’. This would not be acceptable to either nation.

    Concur.

    7.6
    It would provide a right of return for Jews and Palestinians to establish themselves anywhere within their homeland, subject only to certain provisos.

    You have to stop saying “right of return” with no qualification! You’re talking about the “right of return” that is included in the Israeli Declaration (positive) and not the UN Resolution 194 right of return (negative), right?

    8.1
    Oslo process, Palestine recognized that “the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security”. Israel, on the other hand, did not even accept that the State of Palestine exists, or that the Palestinian people have a right to live in peace and security.

    But, Israel recognized the PLO as Palestine’s official representative, which was a major step in acknowledging an organization whose sole existence was the destruction of Israel. Your bias is showing David…again!

    8.2
    To have a chance of success, any peace agreement must be freely negotiated between the two sovereign States. The beginning of the end of the conflict will be the day that (1) Israel can bring itself to say that “The State of Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security.” The next step will be for (2) Israel to accept that its settlement program in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal in international
    law, and bring it to a halt. The third step will be a withdrawal of (3) Israeli forces from the West Bank, as required by UNSCR242, their replacement by an interim joint civilian administration, and the (4) lifting of the Gaza blockade.

    Let’s see, Israel this, Israel that, Israel this, and Israel AND Egypt that. Do the Palestinians have to do anything? That’s really going to work well, David!

    In the end, I really like your idea. It’s one of the few out of the box solutions I’ve seen that may have a good chance of actually realizing some sort of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But, I reiterate, THEY have to be the ones doing the negotiating with a minimum of outside meddling…the UN, the US, Arab League, everyone! Unless, of course, the negotiating parties request assistance.

    Updating

    • http://religion-science-peace David Gerald Fincham

      Thank you Al for your comment. I am very busy with domestic issues at the moment, but will attempt to reply within the next week. Also, there seems to be a Disqus problem – your post came to me by email but does not appear on the site, although it is marked ‘approve’. Will try to correct.