Palestine - one state or two?

Perhaps the biggest debate within the movement for Palestinian liberation is the question of the form of a future Palestinian state. Should there be one state incorporating current Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Or should there be a separate Palestinian State?

Chomsky makes a good summation of the one state and two state (binational) options here:

Among the options under discussion are one-state and binational approaches. These are crucially different. There are many forms of multinationalism in the world: Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, etc. The concept is a cover term for arrangements that allow forms of autonomy for groups within complex societies, not necessarily only those that choose to regard themselves as “nations.” Quite different are one-state systems, with no form of autonomy for various communities. In the US, for example, Latinos do not have autonomy or control over language or education in the areas stolen by violence from Mexico (or elsewhere); nothing approaching, say, the partial autonomy in Catalonia, to mention one of many cases of some form of multinationalism.

As a rule of thumb, those who favour one of these solutions do not consider the other a viable option. But regardless of which option appeals, it is important to consider what kind of political landscape could facilitate Palestinian statehood in the first place.

Any solution, whether related to the one state or two state proposal or something else entirely, will be dependent on the political power behind it. You have to remember that in everything Israel does there is the guiding hand of the world's only superpower. If that superpower has been able to create a highly advanced, powerful client state in Israel there is no reason why it cannot assist in creating a viable Palestinian state, either as part of Israel or not, with a handful of the funds it uses to support Israel. I say that as a statement of its capacity and powers rather than as a statement of probable outcome.

In other words, there can be no solution, like it or not, without leadership from the US. Let's assume there is a groundswell of public support for genuine Palestinian statehood. And this groundswell leads to an end to the Occupation. There is no reason not to assume such a state will be another Arab client regime which is still de facto reliant on Israel, particularly economically.

Of course, this assumes that Israel remains the key or a key client state for the US, thereby retaining its military and, to a lesser extent, economic strength in the region.

Obviously, this is not a good thing even if it is a result of the end of formal occupation. Therefore, we can't just look at what model Palestinian statehood will take. We need to also challenge the US-Israel relationship.

Insurmontable as it may currently seem, if Israeli and Palestinian societies can commence the long, painful process of integrating with one another, this would have the advantage of potentially reducing or removing the strategic relevance of Israel to the US. If this were to occur, the issue of Palestinian statehood would not just be a matter of recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. Rather, it would call into question the legitimacy of US interests in the region.

Seen in this light, Palestinian statehood no longer relates solely to the conflict with Israel or the situation in the Middle East. It goes further towards challenging US hegemony of the planet. Of course, by US, we really speak of the powerful elites for whose benefit the US's actions are primarily geared towards.