Harvard — February 28, 2012 3:21 pm

A Destructive “Solution”

By Joshua Lipson and Beth Drucker
Joshua Lipson is the Senior World Editor of the Harvard Political Review.  He and Beth are co-presidents of Harvard Students for Israel, writing on behalf of the group. The Harvard Political Review is a nonpartisan political review and a platform for student writing at Harvard. Watch this space for a letter of response from the organizers of the One-State Conference.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

This weekend, various on-campus organizations will be sponsoring a “One-State Conference,” which calls for the creation of a single state for both Israelis and Palestinians. Although the conference touts this proposal as a viable resolution to the ongoing conflict, we are gravely concerned that a one-state “solution” would both mean the end of Israel as a sovereign state and create the circumstances for a human rights catastrophe.  Despite claims to the contrary, the creation of a binational state would be both radical and antithetical to genuine peace.

The one-state idea marks a departure from the well-established premise of “two states for two peoples,” a solution supported by a strong majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Support for a binational state is ignorant of the undeniable fact that Israeli and Palestinian societies are drastically different in terms of economic development, political orientation, and cultural identity—a situation which would not change with the removal of a political border. Given the two sides’ history of mutual hostility and resentment, the creation of a single state will likely lead to violent ethnic conflict, a result desired by none but the most radical elements in the region. As a result, a majority of experts across the political spectrum agree that despite difficulties in reaching an agreement, a two-state solution is far preferable to a one-state non-solution.

We unequivocally support the right of all Harvard students to political expression. However, we are disturbed by the one-sided nature of this particular conference, whose program is assembled around a radical idea without providing a balanced discussion of the alternatives.

Dean David Ellwood of the Harvard Kennedy School shares our concerns: “I was deeply disappointed to see that the initial list of speakers for this student conference was so one-sided. I very much hope this will change. Without the balance of divergent views that characterize the most enriching discussions, the credibility and intellectual value of any event is open to question.” In the same letter, Dean Ellwood makes clear that Harvard by no means endorses the views or political aims of the One-State Conference.

We completely reject the premise of this conference, which runs counter to the very existence of a Jewish state as enshrined in international law. Accordingly, we ask the Harvard community and all supporters of peace to recognize the implications of this “solution” and decry such calls for the dismantlement of a sovereign state. Our group urges you to continue to engage in constructive dialogue, and to lend your support to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other viable and mutually agreeable initiatives toward peace.

Signed,
Beth Drucker and Josh Lipson
Co-Presidents, Harvard Students for Israel

Related posts:

A Cosmopolitan Capital City
Ben Yu
To Turkey through Palestine
LIVEBLOG: Richard Haass at the IOP Forum
  • Guest

    The equivalent of this editorial = “My view on abortion is absolutely correct and there is no way there can be rational support for the other side. Those on the other side are completely unreasonable. Therefore, I demand that any conference organized by True Love Revolution ensure that at least 50% of its speakers are pro-choice, preferably all.”

    - A Pro-Choice Supporter of Free Speech

  • Ibn Yaqzan

    “the creation of a single state will likely lead to violent ethnic conflict”

    wait… unlike the ethnic cleansing Israel of 800,000 Palestinians perpetrated in 1948 (documented by Israeli historians) or the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights since 1967 which has killed thousands upon thousands of Palestinians and placed an entire people under military rule?

    OH, i get it, you mean it would cause “ethnic conflict” for Jewish Israelis! You’re right, Palestinian life is cheap, but god forbid an Israeli have to live alongside those s/he has occupied for so many years! 

    Since Israel is a democracy, the majority of Israelis have in fact voted for leaders who engage in war crimes. It’s not just that they are stuck with an evil government (like, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia)- Israelis overwhelmingly vote for war criminals, and are thus culpable as well for these crimes! Yes, god forbid they have to face any consequences for the catastrophes they have brought upon their neighbors.

    Insane to hear these same, tired arguments repeated in American academia…

  • Simpson Buster

    The One State solution is NOT the end of Israel!
    It WOULD solve the thorniest problems that have stymied the negotiations for the past 20 years:
    Settlements – can stay
    Jerusalem – joint custody- no problem
    Refugees – possibly.  Maybe set immigration limits for both Jews (who today need only step on the TLV airport tarmac to gain citizenship) and Palestinians.

    Jews would have to give up the Zionist dream, but not the Hebrew language or Jewish customs or holidays.

    If Israelis prefer the two state solution (BTW, where is that fact from? not from their voting patterns – that’s sure), they had better get moving because that train is leaving.

  • Simpson Buster

    The One State solution is NOT the end of Israel!
    It WOULD solve the thorniest problems that have stymied the negotiations for the past 20 years:
    Settlements – can stay
    Jerusalem – joint custody- no problem
    Refugees – possibly.  Maybe set immigration limits for both Jews (who today need only step on the TLV airport tarmac to gain citizenship) and Palestinians.

    Jews would have to give up the Zionist dream, but not the Hebrew language or Jewish customs or holidays.

    If Israelis prefer the two state solution (BTW, where is that fact from? not from their voting patterns – that’s sure), they had better get moving because that train is leaving.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eliyahu-Ben-Abraham/1534644655 Eliyahu Ben Abraham

    to Ibn Yaqzan, Arabs/Muslims oppressed, exploited economically, and humiliated  Jews under their rule for more than a 1000 years. Jews were dhimmis along with other non-Muslims but Jews were kept in a lower status even than other non-Muslims. In the Hitler period most Arab nationalists were pro-Nazi, while the top leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Amin el-Husseini, collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust. After the UN General Assembly partition recommendation of 11-29-1947, Arab irregulars began attacking Jewish civilians throughout the Land of Israel on 11-30-1947 [11-29-1947 New York time]. Throughout December 1947 attacks on Jewish civilians continued. Jews were driven from neighborhoods near Arabs, such as south Tel Aviv, adjacent parts of Jaffa, from Haifa and from parts of Jerusalem, such as the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter around the Tomb of Simon the Just, on which a shameful protest movement is now focused. Ibn Yaqzan ought to learn the real history instead of Arab and Western Judeophobic propaganda.

  • Davevk

    Why don’t we consider this argument once one or two Arab states develop a peace loving democratic country where women and minorities have rights. Once we see one or two of these then we can debate. Can you name such a country?

  • Shalom Freedman

    The one- state solution conference might as well be called the ‘end of Israel’ conference. As that is the declared goal of the participants of this conference it somewhat disturbing that Harvard should willingly play host to it. Can one imagine a conference calling for the end of any other country in the world, without this being summarily rejected?
    The evil of the organizers and participants of the conference is matched by the folly and lack of backbone of those who permit its occurrence.

  • Peter Burman

    You write that the two sides have “mutual hostility.”  I believe that’s wrong.  Arab and Palestinian hostility against the Jews far exceeds any shown by the Jews to the Arabs.  The reason the League of Nations and UN proposed two separate states was because of Arab pogroms against Jews, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre.  What limited “hostilities” Jews have inflicted on Palestinians has been done by extremist individuals who were NOT acting on behalf or under the direction of the State of Israel.  The Arabs nations, Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, et al., have a history of sponsoring or inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide.  That is a big difference.  There is nothing “mutual” about it.

  • Peter Burman

    You write that the two sides have “mutual hostility.”  I believe that’s wrong.  Arab and Palestinian hostility against the Jews far exceeds any shown by the Jews to the Arabs.  The reason the League of Nations and UN proposed two separate states was because of Arab pogroms against Jews, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre.  What limited “hostilities” Jews have inflicted on Palestinians has been done by extremist individuals who were NOT acting on behalf or under the direction of the State of Israel.  The Arabs nations, Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, et al., have a history of sponsoring or inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide.  That is a big difference.  There is nothing “mutual” about it.

  • Peter Burman

    You write that the two sides have “mutual hostility.”  I believe that’s wrong.  Arab and Palestinian hostility against the Jews far exceeds any shown by the Jews to the Arabs.  The reason the League of Nations and UN proposed two separate states was because of Arab pogroms against Jews, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre.  What limited “hostilities” Jews have inflicted on Palestinians has been done by extremist individuals who were NOT acting on behalf or under the direction of the State of Israel.  The Arabs nations, Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, et al., have a history of sponsoring or inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide.  That is a big difference.  There is nothing “mutual” about it.

  • Peter Burman

    You write that the two sides have “mutual hostility.”  I believe that’s wrong.  Arab and Palestinian hostility against the Jews far exceeds any shown by the Jews to the Arabs.  The reason the League of Nations and UN proposed two separate states was because of Arab pogroms against Jews, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre.  What limited “hostilities” Jews have inflicted on Palestinians has been done by extremist individuals who were NOT acting on behalf or under the direction of the State of Israel.  The Arabs nations, Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, et al., have a history of sponsoring or inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide.  That is a big difference.  There is nothing “mutual” about it.

  • Peter Burman

    You write that the two sides have “mutual hostility.”  I believe that’s wrong.  Arab and Palestinian hostility against the Jews far exceeds any shown by the Jews to the Arabs.  The reason the League of Nations and UN proposed two separate states was because of Arab pogroms against Jews, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre.  What limited “hostilities” Jews have inflicted on Palestinians has been done by extremist individuals who were NOT acting on behalf or under the direction of the State of Israel.  The Arabs nations, Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, et al., have a history of sponsoring or inciting violence against Israel and Jews worldwide.  That is a big difference.  There is nothing “mutual” about it.

  • Simpson Buster

    The Israeli  resistance to the One State solution is simply a manifestation of the justified fear that the Palestinians may treat the Jewish minority as they have been treated by Israel.

  • Pingback: FEBRUARY 29, 2012 INTERNATIONAL DAILY ALERT… : Jewish Federation of CNY

  • Davevk

    Change the words Israeli to Jewish. And yes, we have seen how well Arabs treat their Jewish minorities as well as their women and foreigners.

  • Guest

    Made up factoids do not make a compelling contribution. Go home. Read some real history, then come back.  Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq declared war on israel in 1948 with express objective to destroy the nascent state. They lost. And again in 1967 when Egypt closed shipping to Israel.  They lost then too.  Meanwhile, 800,000 Jews left Arab states to come to Israel. 

    Insane to hear your same, tired invented stories.

custom writing