olivewire.org

The One-State Reality: What Already Exists on the Ground

In January 2021, B’Tselem — Israel’s oldest and most respected human rights organization — published a document that broke sharply with the careful language of the Israeli human rights establishment. Its title was blunt: A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid. The report did not describe a future danger or a political trajectory gone wrong. It described a present condition. “The entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River,” the organization wrote, “is organized under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group — Jews — over another — Palestinians.”

That sentence arrived not as advocacy but as a finding. And it has since been reinforced by a widening body of evidence — demographic, legal, geographic — that makes the same basic argument: the two-state solution is not merely imperiled. For many analysts, it has already been foreclosed by facts on the ground. What exists today, from the river to the sea, is one state. The question is only what kind.

One Regime, Two Legal Systems

B’Tselem’s 2021 report identified four mechanisms through which Israel exercises control across the entire territory: immigration and demographic engineering, land allocation, movement restrictions, and political rights — each applied with strict differentiation by ethnicity. Jewish citizens of Israel live under Israeli civil law wherever they reside, including in West Bank settlements. Palestinians in the West Bank live under Israeli military law. Palestinians in Gaza live under a blockade administered by Israel. Palestinians inside the 1948 borders hold Israeli citizenship but face what Adalah — the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel — has documented as more than 65 laws that discriminate against them on the basis of national origin.

This is not one system with unequal outcomes. It is, by legal architecture, several distinct systems applied to the same population based on ethnicity and geography. Noura Erakat, the Palestinian-American legal scholar, has argued precisely this point: that Israeli law is not applied uniformly across the territory Israel controls, but is instead deployed selectively to maximize Jewish territorial presence while minimizing Palestinian political claims. The result, she writes in Justice for Some (2019), is a legal geography designed to make Palestinian rights perpetually contingent.

The Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory — codified in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — has applied to Israeli settlements in the West Bank since 1967. The ICRC has consistently affirmed this interpretation. The International Court of Justice reiterated it in its 2004 advisory opinion on the Wall. None of it has changed the trajectory. The settler population in the West Bank has grown from roughly 110,000 in 1993 — the year of Oslo — to more than 700,000 today, according to Peace Now settlement monitoring data and Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics figures.

Demographic Parity: The Number That Reshapes the Debate

Perhaps the most politically clarifying statistic is also the simplest. Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the population of Jews and Palestinians is now roughly equal. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics and Israeli CBS figures have for several years placed each group at somewhere between 7 and 7.5 million people in that combined territory — a demographic reality that has quietly dissolved one of the foundational assumptions of two-state logic, which held that separation was demographically possible.

Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, has written that the Oslo framework’s collapse was not accidental but structural. In The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine (2020), Khalidi argues that each phase of the conflict — from the Balfour Declaration through Oslo — has been shaped by a colonial framework that was never designed to produce Palestinian self-determination. Oslo, in his reading, created the conditions for permanent Israeli control under the appearance of a peace process, fragmenting Palestinian geography and authority while settlement expansion continued unabated. The one-state reality, in this analysis, is not a failure of diplomacy. It is the outcome of a consistent strategy.

Ilan Pappé, the Israeli historian at the University of Exeter, reaches a similar conclusion through different analytical emphasis. In his work on what he calls the “incremental genocide” in Gaza and the broader architecture of control, Pappé has argued that Israeli policy has always been oriented toward maximizing territorial control with minimal Palestinian population — a logic that stretches from the 1948 Nakba to the management of Gaza as what he describes as an open-air prison. Whether one accepts Pappé’s most charged formulations or not, his underlying structural argument — that one sovereign power controls the fate of all people between the river and the sea — is now shared by organizations operating with far more conservative methodological frameworks.

What Human Rights Organizations Have Found

B’Tselem was not alone in its 2021 turn. Human Rights Watch published A Threshold Crossed in April 2021, a 213-page report concluding that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. Amnesty International followed in February 2022 with Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians, a document that extended the apartheid analysis explicitly to Palestinian citizens of Israel — not only to those in the occupied territories. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, in reports submitted to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council since 2022, has used the same legal framework.

Yousef Munayyer, the Palestinian-American political analyst, has argued for several years that the debate over one state versus two states obscures the more urgent question: one state with what kind of rights? Writing in Foreign Affairs and elsewhere, Munayyer contends that the one-state reality already exists administratively and geographically; what remains contested is whether it will evolve toward equality or whether the current hierarchical arrangement will be permanently codified. The international community’s reluctance to name that arrangement — for fear of collapsing the two-state framework that legitimizes continued negotiation — has, in his view, only entrenched it.

The Gap Between the Map and the Slogan

Visitors to the West Bank do not cross an internationally recognized border. They pass through Israeli military checkpoints. The roads they travel are divided: some are accessible to Jewish settlers and Israeli citizens, some to Palestinians, and some to both but with radically different documentary requirements. The planning authority that governs construction in Area C — roughly 60 percent of the West Bank — is Israeli. The courts that adjudicate land disputes there are Israeli military courts. The currency is the Israeli shekel. The electricity comes from the Israel Electric Corporation.

None of this describes two states. It describes one state with two populations governed by different rules. B’Tselem named it. The demographic data confirms its permanence. The legal scholarship explains its architecture. What has not yet arrived is the political language adequate to the reality — a reality that millions of Palestinians have been living, without the luxury of abstraction, for decades.

Sources

Étiqueté , , , , ,

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *