The One-State ─ Deposition Before Imposition

by Dan Lieberman 

The one-state cannot be achieved without changing Israel’s legal and administrative structures, difficult tasks whose possibilities are remote. Deposing the characteristics of the Zionist mission that defines Israel is more plausible. Deposition precedes imposition; destroying the framework that supports Israel allows a new foundation for constructing a new state ─ a one-state, the natural state.

Now that the two state solution to the Middle East crisis has been declared dead, an alternative arrangement is being proposed – one state ─ a single state where Palestinians and Jews live together, equally in peace and harmony.

Israel has had the power to constitute, shape, and control the development of a Palestinian state adjacent to itself for many years. If it wanted a viable, free, and self-operating Palestinian state, would it not have helped create that state many decades ago? Instead, Israel has dismissed peace talks, continually encroached on Palestinian lands, threatened annexation, and driven the Palestinians to desperation. Declaring the two-state solution as dead is a misnomer; to die an entity must be born. The two-state solution never had birth; it was conceived on paper and lay dormant in the psyche.

The one-state needs no birth or introduction; it is an immaculate conception, a natural order that previously existed and been transgressed. Its re-injection into the search for an equitable solution to the Middle East crisis comes with doubts. (1)  Proposing the one-state without strategizing its implementation is counterproductive; imposing a fantasy without deposing the reality. (2) It has had a circuitious route, being forcefully prevented by Zionists during the British Mandate, which caused the crisis inflicted upon the Palestinian people; re-evaluated by those who saw errors in their ways and then diverted energies to a “dead end” two-state solution; and revived by those who realized the predictable errors in two-state concept.

The one-state cannot be achieved without changing Israel’s legal and administrative structures, difficult tasks whose possibilities are remote. Deposing the characteristics of the Zionist mission that defines Israel is more plausible. Deposition precedes imposition; destroying the framework that supports Israel allows a new foundation for constructing a new state ─ a one-state, the natural state.

One-State is the Natural State
From day one of the United Nations Resolution 181, neither the Palestinians nor the Zionists accepted two-states. The Palestinian rejection came from respectable and legal reasons; no organization had a right to arbitrarily divide their lands and determine their fate. The Zionist rejection came from practicality; establishing a viable Jewish state open to millions of Jews required territorial expansion and a state cleansed of all those who were not Jews.

When the Madrid, Oslo, and Camp David talks engineered the possibility of two independent states living side-by-side, the implacable foes tended to accept the concept, but not really. The Palestinians had  no choice ─ it was the best they could do at the moment; they went along, while hoping that someday circumstances would change and they would gain sufficient power to correct the wrongs of the past. For the Zionists, it was  a strategy ─ as long as the Palestinians and world bodies debated, talked, wrote, conferenced, organized, spent time, money and energy on a two-state solution, Israel could continue impeded on its way to its own desired solution ─ an Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

The United Nations Resolution

It has taken most of the western world seventy years to realize that the Zionists pursued a deceptive plan. From observations, very few understand that UN Resolution 181 never actually established a state for Zionists alone.

Because neither state had official names at that time, the designations of Arab and Jewish states were used to map out contours of land where the major portions of the ethnicities lived. The Jewish state, which hastily became Israel just before President Truman crossed out the words “Jewish state,” replaced them with the “state of Israel,” inserted the words “provisional government,” and gave the paper his signature of recognition, failed at its impulsive moment of origin. Although the state was, in effect, provisional and bi-national, a small Zionist group took control of all apparatus of the new state, and did that without consulting any Palestinian leadership. What leadership, well, no defined leadership, but place it all in proper context.

A previous article, Crisis Solution – Return the Region to United Nations Resolution 181,showed that a 1948 census would have about 500,000 people described as Jews, in the new state (another 100,000 in Jerusalem), but only a small portion of that group had lived in the area for a long period of time, and only a portion of them had much investment in its past, present, and future. Except for 40,000 arriving in earlier 20th century, practically all Jewish immigrants had arrived within the previous 30 years and not necessarily as Zionists or to stay — some to work in the British Mandate, many fleeing Nazi Germany, others from refugee camps after World War II, and some adventurers. Relatively few Jews, outside of Jerusalem, were native to the region for more than one generation and almost all were from foreign nations. In this state were 400,000 Palestinians, most of whom could trace their roots to several generations.

The UN did not create two states; it divided one Palestinian state into two states ─ a Palestinian state composed of almost 100 percent Palestinians, and a Palestinian state composed of about 90 percent who were native to the area (400,000 Palestinians), a small contingent of foreign Jews that had come as Zionists to live permanently in Palestine, and another larger contingent of foreign Jews that arrived for expediency and not with original intentions of remaining. From that perspective, David Ben-Gurion and a small clique of opportunists took advantage of an ill-advised UN, an ill led, and ill- equipped Palestinian community, and a confused world to declare unilaterally their own state, without giving any attention to the 400,000 Palestinians in a bi-national state. With seasoned militia forces — Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and Palmach — the Zionists resolved the problem by cleansing the area of Palestinians and establishing a state composed mostly of Zionists, a state they called Israel.

The Mandate was only a way station for Jews caught in the horrendous tragedies during the 1930s and World War II. If neither cataclysm occurred, would these Jews have gone to the Mandate? Without them, how many Jews would have been there in 1947. These refugees deserved protection, but should those who had been in the area for only two to twenty years, have counted equally in a population census with Palestinians that had centuries of generations living in the same area? Did these Jews have a right to expel those who had provided them a measure of succulence? Didn’t they have a moral obligation to protect those who had been upset by their presence? Maybe the measures came unwillingly, but they were there and the refugee Jews survived. Normal response is to say, “Thank you, I will now leave and not bother you anymore,” and not repeat a crime by forcing exile on others, and, after doing that, grind the true owners of the land into non-existence.

Assuredly, if there was no ethnic cleansing and the UN planned bi-national state had come into existence, many Jews would have left. Within a decade, the Palestinians would have had an overwhelming majority, and, when they looked across the border, would have exclaimed. “Why are we in two states, let’s make one state.”

One-State
One-state for all is a correct concept, but not a strategy. Until there is an effective strategy, the proposition is a fantasy. Transferring the fantasy of two-states to a fantasy of one-state is another means to occupy time and energy in futility, of which the Israeli government heartily approves, especially because its own strategy is to have a no-state ─ an assemblage of people in a land without borders, without a constitution, without a fixed set of laws, and without a nationality that is described by the state. Easy to expand when you are a no-state.

Having one-state returns the area to the British Mandate and to what would have been the eventual outcome of the Partition Plan. To achieve that proposition, either the Israeli legal and administrative systems will have to be changed, or the characteristics that defined the Zionist mission will have to be deposed.

Israel’s Legal System

Much beyond this article to have a valid discussion of how Israel’s complicated and constantly evolving legal system will cope with a one-state proposal. We do know that this legal system has approved illegal land seizures, illegal settlements, illegal checkpoints, illegalities in construction of a separation wall, illegal transgressions on Palestinian life, and illegal discrimination against its Palestinian citizens in housing, education, municipal services, and bank loans. Re-adjustment of a tinged legal system, which condones illegal actions, to a legal system that pursues equal rights under law is a formidable challenge.

Israel’s Government

Israel’s present governing system, local and federal, is not aligned with a future one-state governing system. Local governments are almost entirely separated by ethnicity in a system that seems unbreakable. Israel’s governing has more than separation; it has forced movements and encroachment.

Jurisdictions, such as Ashkelon, have no Arab population and will not allow any Arabs to settle within their limits. Arab cities, such as Nazareth, which once contained a sizable Jewish population, have had the entire Jewish population relocated to a new city, Nazareth Illit, which has petitioned to have its name changed in order to free itself from identification with the home of Jesus Christ’s family. East Jerusalem and Acre, two of several municipalities that Israel covets for its Jewish citizens, are steadily encroached, with forced evictions of Arabs and stealth purchases by Jews.

The central government, housed in the Knesset, has a minority of Arab members, which ordinarily would be a formidable power bloc in a multi-party system that has a fractured parliament. Its impotence and the fact that none of the Jewish parliamentarians have ever voiced any consideration to a one-state, makes it difficult to comprehend how the federal system will convert from a government for one ethnicity to a government for all citizens.

Deposing the Zionist Mission  

Deposing the Zionist mission does not mean destroying Israel; it means deconstructing Israel, changing the guiding concepts that have made Israel into an oppressive, nationalist, and militant state.

What needs to be deconstructed in Israel’s guiding concepts?

Zionism
Zionism, if it still exists, or ever existed in a pure form, is responsible for the calamities that have fallen on the Palestinian people. Zionists brought the foreigners to the Levant. Zionists stole the land. Zionists expelled the native people. Zionists continued the oppression. Zionism caused the problems from day one. Zionists are the problem.

Attempts to delude others by saying the Zionist mission was benevolent and has been compromised is contradicted by Labor Party actions, which (1) Established, in 1920, Histadrut, the General Organization of Jewish only Workers that bankrupted Palestinian industries and pauperized Palestinians; (2) Seized Palestinian lands immediately after UN Resolution 181; (3) Forced Palestinians by threats, killings and intimidation to leave their ancestral lands; (4) Refused to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their  homes; (5) Destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages; (6) Placed Palestinian villages under martial law until 1967; (7) Regarded Palestinian as second-class citizens in benefits after allowing free movement; and (8) Initiated settlements in the West Bank immediately after the 1967 war.

Zionism has been an answer to persecution of the Jews

It is uncertain that relief from persecution was the principal driver behind the Zionist movement. Preventing assimilation of Jews into the liberated western world, their loss of identity as Jews, and lack of attachment to a Hebrew religion were more notable motivating forces. Although Jews were severely persecuted, together with other minorities, in the eastern European nations, they did not demonstrate a willingness to participate in the Zionist adventure. About 15,000 – 30,000 Russian Jews emigrated to the Holy Land; from 1881 to 1914, more than 2.5 million other Jews emigrated from Eastern Europe. Of these, about two million reached the United States, 300,000 went to other overseas countries, and approximately 350,000 chose Western Europe.

From http://www.balfourproject.org/the-jewish-question-in-19th-century-europe/

 Unwaveringly secularist in its beliefs, the Bund also relinquished the idea of the Holy Land and the sacred tongue. Its language was Yiddish, spoken by millions of Jews throughout the Pale. This was also the source of the organization’s four principles: socialism, secularism, Yiddish and doyikayt or localness. The latter concept was encapsulated in the Bund slogan: “There, where we live, that is our country.” The Bund disapproved greatly of Zionism and considered the idea of emigrating to Palestine to be political escapism.

As all minorities, persecuted Jews needed assistance. Is replacing one persecution by causing another more severe persecution worthwhile assistance?

The Middle East and North African Jews who came to Israel were Arabs; the Ashkenazi were European; the Falasha were Ethiopians; and the Yemenites were from the Arabian Peninsula. Israel replaced the differing languages, dialects, music, cultures, and heritage of these ethnicities with unique and uniform characteristics, and created a new people, the Israeli Jews. Destruction of centuries old Jewish history and life in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. accompanied the creation of a new people. The Zionists, who complained about persecution of Jews, wiped out Jewish history, determined who was Jewish, and required all Jews to shed much of their ancestral characteristics before they could integrate into the Israel community. Zionist actions showed that the dominant authority rarely allows others to compromise its dominance.

People can give any definition they want, but Zionism is defined by its actions and not by personal prescriptions. A reformed Zionist recites the creed he rejected.

The Independent, November 28, 2012, Why I am no longer a Zionist, by Wayne Meyers.

…none of that criticism was ever allowed to cross the red line of rejecting the idea of the Jewish State itself. We did not go so far as to accept the idea that Zionism was racism or that Israel ought not exist – indeed we had special sessions on Machon where we were explicitly taught strategies for arguing against these ideas. The concept of a democratic secular one-state solution for all inhabitants of the Holy Land, under which Jews and Palestinians would be equal citizens in the eyes of the law, was not at any point on the table.

Zionism has detractors who regard it as militarist, virulent nationalist, kleptomaniacal, racist, separatist, and downright deceitful, devoid of characteristics that allow granting equal rights in a common state. As long as there is Zionism and Zionists in power, there is no peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis and no path to establishing a single state where all citizens are equal.

The ideology cannot be erased, but, similar to other nationalist and racist ideologies, it can arouse sufficient public contempt so that its message becomes futile and its actions become powerless. By exposing the true nature of Zionism, the public will be amenable to distancing from the Zionist project. This process will not be propaganda or public relations; it will be a concerted effort that uses the media and communications in all forms and explains how Zionism has prevented Middle East peace and harmed the Jewish conscience.

Israel is the historic home of the Jewish people and they are returning to their homeland.
How this exaggeration came to be used and accepted defies logic. Zionists shape their views from personal attitudes and have a way of stating them as if they speak for all Jews, With much chagrin, I heard, at a recent conference, a well-known Zionist, well known because of his opposition to Israel’s oppressive tactics and for now favoring a one-state, say that, “We can say the Jews have a real historic connection to the land of Israel;” “Jews have been talking about Zion and Jerusalem for a thousand years” (Are there any recordings of Jews expressing themselves 1000 years ago? Did the entire Jewish community make the statement or just one Jewish person?); and, “We cannot deny that Jews are a people who have deep roots in this land.” A well-known Palestinian activist followed this dubious rhetorict with, “You are right, we cannot doubt the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land…, but Zionism was still a settler colonial project.”

As my mother used to say to me, “Danny, you can plotz.”

Ancient Israel was home to ancient Jews. The area that is now Israel was not the ancient home of modern Jews. When ethnicities speak of an ancient home, they speak, such as from the voices of Native Americans, of caring for the land or for the hunting grounds, of attachment to a soil that nourished them, and with intimate knowledge of ancestors. They may look back at a recognized civilization that gave the world new advances in technology, culture, warfare, administration, or other disciplines, and left identifiable physical traces that excite humankind. Modern Jews have no attachment to a soil, no memories of an advanced civilization, no honest attachment to an ancient land, and no intimate knowledge of ancestors.

From my own and others experiences ─ within one generation, any attachment to a foreign land is lost. No matter where someone grows, and no matter the conditions in that country, the infant grows into an adult that becomes attached to the soil, air, climate, food, and warts of that country. One generation is all that is needed to lose attachment, and the Zionists talk about a supposed heritage that has been interrupted by 100 generations.

Egyptians, no matter where they live, may identify with their ancient ancestors. These ancestors remain alive in verified history, books, documents, images, drawings, artifacts, monuments, and constructions. Same goes for Italians descended from Romans, Greeks descended from Greeks, Iranians descended from Iranians, Chinese descended from Chinese. All these ethnicities can trace their lives back to validated civilizations, and to recognized ancestors, in verisimilitude as if they existed today. There is no ancient civilization or ancient relative with whom Jews can identify that existed in the Holy land. Israel has multitudes of Canaanite, Crusader, Roman and Arab ruins; sparse reminders of ancient Hebrew expressions. There are some still quasi historical and mythical characters —David, Solomon — and misidentified structures —Tower of David, which is an Arab minaret, Tomb of Absalom, which is a Greek edifice. False history and myth do not determine reality; misidentification undermines it.

Historical evidence shows that, after the ancient Hebrews, due to conquest and subjugation, faded from history, many of the later Jews were not attached to the land and did not consider it a national home ─ just the opposite ─ a large number of the later Jews preferred to remain in the land of exile, Mesopotamia. Jews moved throughout the Roman Empire, populating Alexandria, Rome, Cyrenaica, Salonika, Cyprus, and other places. From the time of the Maccabean revolt of the mid-2nd century B.C. to the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century A.D., some of whose centuries included the reign of the Hasmoneans, a sizable Jewish exodus to Mesopotamia and Persia and throughout the Roman Empire occurred. Freed from pastoral life, dry conditions, and restricted economies, new communities of Mesopotamian Jews, knowledgeable and worldly, appeared in the Fertile Crescent. That region, which housed the great Jewish academies of Surah, Pumbadita, and Nehardea, best expressed the legacy and heritage of modern Judaism.

Recognized Tel Aviv University archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman documented their explorations in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Simon & Schuster, 2002, and provided a definitive rebuttal to Biblical history. Their archaeological diggings demonstrated that “the Israelites were Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture. Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear.”

A constant drumming of public relations and historical misconceptions have made it seem as if the more than two thousand years of lack of control and sizable physical presence by Jews in the Levant did not occur. Today is portrayed as only a short interval from the 2700-year-old reign of ancient King Hezekiah. Centuries of Christian and Crusader rule and more than one thousand years of Muslim rule and their tremendous constructions and creations in Jerusalem are downplayed. The Christian and Muslim everything become nothing, and a minor Hebrew something becomes everything. Myth replaces reality. Ethereal spirituality replaces physical presence.

Combatting this pillar of Zionist transgression follows President Reagan’s advice while at the Berlin wall, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls.”

Undivided Jerusalem is the Heart and Eternal Capital of Israel

Verified history, which may include, but is not biblical history, does not portray Israel as a capital city that administered extensive areas, collected taxes, supplied military, and provided services for long periods. Speculation awards it to some monarchs after 900 BCE, maybe the Hashomeans, to Jewish governors under foreign control, and administration by a Sandehrin during the beginning of the Common Era.

Hebrews maintained control of Jerusalem and outlying areas for only brief periods. In 701 B.C.E., Assyrian Ruler Sennacherib conquered Israel, deported its citizens, and besieged Jerusalem. In 586 B.C.E., Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. In 332 B.C.E., Greek Leader Alexander the Great conquered Judea and Jerusalem, and placed the area under rule of the Seleucids, military officers in Alexander’s army,  until the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebel warriors, regained control of Judea, in 141 B.C.E. In 63 B.C.E., Roman General Pompey captured Jerusalem and created anarchy. In 37 B.C.E the Roman Senate appointed Herod the Great as King of the Jews, and he administered the area until four C.E. In 70 C.E., a Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.

After 135 C.E., Hadrian changed the city name to Aelia Capitolina and forbade Jewish and Christian presence. No more interrupted capital (if it ever was one) and infinitesimal Jewish presence for almost 1900 years. The adjective of an eternal capital is an eternal fabrication.

The Holy Basin contains well-marked Christian and Muslim institutions and holy places that have had historical placement for more than a millennium — Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Al Asqua Mosque, Dome of the Rock and its Mosque of Omar. Some remains of Jewish dwellings, burial grounds and ritual baths can be found, but few, if any, major Jewish monuments, buildings or institutions from the Biblical era exist within the “Old City” of today’s Jerusalem. The oft-cited Western Wall is the supporting wall for Herod’s platform and is not directly related to the Second Temple. According to historian Karen Armstrong, in her book Jerusalem, Ballantine Books, April 29, 1997, Jews did not pray at the Western Wall until the Mamelukes in the 15th century allowed them to move their congregations from a dangerous Mount of Olives and pray daily at the Wall. At that time, she estimates that there may have been no more than 70 Jewish families in Jerusalem. Have seventy Jewish families determined the “holiest site” of the Jews? No remains of the Temple have been located.

Tel Aviv University archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman discoveries “suggest that Jerusalem was sparsely populated and only a village during the times of David and of Solomon. During the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel had an insignificant existence, too poor to be able to pay for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire.” It was not until the eighth century B.C., 200 years after David, that Jerusalem began to grow.

Myths have been portrayed as reality, and for reasons other than spiritual and cultural attachment. Israel has a hidden agenda.

Israel is a physically small and relatively new country with an eager population and big ambitions. It needs more prestige and wants to be viewed as a power broker on the world stage. To gain those perspectives Israel needs a capital city that commands respect, contains ancient traditions, and is recognized as one of the world’s most important and leading cities. Almost all of the world’s principal nations, from Egypt to Germany to Great Britain, have capitals that are great cities of the world. To assure its objectives, Israel wants an oversized Jerusalem that contains the Holy City. That’s not all.

Jerusalem has significant tourism that can be expanded and provide new commercial opportunities as an entry to all of the Mid-East. An indivisible Jerusalem under Israeli control is worth a lot of shekels. Moreover, if Israel competes with the United States as the focus of the Jewish people, it needs a unique Jerusalem to gain recognition as the home of Judaism.

By controlling all of the holy sites, Israel commands attention from Moslem and Christian leaders. These leaders will be forced to talk with Israel and Israel will have a bargaining advantage in disputes. Whatever Israel gains the Palestinians are denied. Even if Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will direct its policies to limit the effectiveness of that state. Since East Jerusalem and its holy sites greatly benefit a Palestinian economy and increase Palestine legitimacy, Israel will do everything to prevent East Jerusalem being ceded to the new state of Palestine.

West Jerusalem only gives Israel a North/South capital. An indivisible Jerusalem gives Israel a forward look towards an East/West capital or a centralized capital of the land of previous biblical Jewish tribes. The Museum of the Citadel of David has an inscription, “The land of Israel is in the center of the world and Jerusalem is the center of the land of Israel.” This self-praise was echoed at a West Jerusalem coffee house in a conversation with several Israelis. A youthful Israeli abruptly sat at the table and entered the conversation with the words, “All the world looks to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the center of the world and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everyone needs Jerusalem and they will need to talk with Israel.”

That is why Israel desperately wants its greater Jerusalem.

The West Bank is Judea and Samaria.
Google Judea and Samaria and be subjected to links that popularize its identification as replacement of the legitimate term West Bank. Shall we return to calling New York, New Amsterdam, Jerusalem, Uru-salim, its original Akkadian name, interpreted as “foundation of joy, the Canaanite god of the setting sun” Or how about Israel being called by a previous name, Canaan?

How can ancient tribes that wandered around an area and stopped existing in an area two thousand years ago, have more significance (or any significance), than the presence of well-established people, who have inhabited an area for centuries and have a right to name their locale? The devious attempt to rename the West Bank is an attempt to extinguish the existence of the Palestinian people, to make it appear that ancient Hebrews still live in the land and no others reside in the vicinity. This denial of self-determination of an indigenous people is criminal, and should be subjected to criminal penalties.

Use of the words Judea or Samaria in search engines and in social media as replacement of the term West Bank, and in search descriptions that mitigate the existence or demean the entitlement of its multi-generational Palestinian inhabitants should be banned as being racist, citing violence, and offensive to an existing ethnicity.

Right of ReturnThe Israeli Right of Return permits Jews from any nation, even those who never had the nationality or are direct descendants of an Israeli, to migrate to Israel and automatically have the right to apply for citizenship. Except for Armenia, other nations do not pursue this rule. Nations that have a Right of Return give that right to previous nationals and usually their children. The exception, Armenia, has only a small minority out of its borders, and all disbursed Armenians can directly trace their heritage directly back to an Armenian ethnicity. Arabs who were previous Israeli nationals, and whose children can claim direct descendant from an Israeli, have no right of return.

Immigration quotas that favor entry from certain nations and restrict entry from other nations are considered discriminatory; Israel goes full length, not allowing anyone from any country to immigrate, except a Jewish person. Israel’s self-absorbed and patronizing attitude of being the official protector of world Jewry imposes problems for Jews in other nations and violates the sovereignty of their home countries.

Israel is the Only Democracy in the Middle East
Israel followers seek advantage by adding praiseworthy phrases after the word “Israel,” such as, “Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East”; “Israel’s IDF, the most humane army in the world”; “Israel, the only country in the Middle East that has religious freedom.”

Examining the first expression leads to a conclusion that Israel cannot be a democracy for one fundamental reason — it is not a nation. A previous article athttp://www.alternativeinsight.com/Does_Israel_Exist.html gave reasons for this assertion. A summary:

• Borders define a nation and Israel has no defined borders.
• There is no Israel nationality; nationality is defined by ethnicity.
• Laws govern a nation, and some of Israel’s laws are inconsistent (Mandate, Ottoman, religious) or prejudicially applied to favor the Jewish population.
• The Right of Return, which permits Jews who are not descendants of Israeli Jews  to migrate to Israel and automatically have the right to apply for citizenship, is not a rule pursued by any other nation,
• Israel has a chaotic political system in which political Parties come and go every few years, change direction, and join forces to survive.
• An unusual large percentage of Israelis (12 percent) do not live in Israel.
• Israel’s intelligence services have engaged in a large number of extra-judicial killings and its military has seized and attacked peaceful ships in international waters.
• Israel has no Constitution or historical documents that replace a Constitution.

Multitudes of United Nations (UN) decisions accuse Israel of severe human rights violations at https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports on Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses athttps://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses.
B’Tselem documents Israel’s human rights violations at https://www.btselem.org.
Amnesty international (AI) testifies to Israel’s lack of protection of human rights at
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian- territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/.

Democracies have rules of law that apply equally to all citizens.

• Few Arabs have been able to rent housing or buy property in West Jerusalem.
• Few Arabs have been able to purchase government sponsored housing.
• Separation of populations results in the separation of activities, recreation centers, and education
• Although some Arabs are able to obtain college scholarships, the large majority of college scholarships require previous military duty. Because Arabs are not eager to serve in the Israeli army, college scholarships for Arabs are more limited.
• Arabs do not obtain many, if any, housing loans.
• The state of Israel owns more than 90 percent of the land. “In trust” only “for the Jewish people.” Except in rare occasions, non-Jewish citizens cannot purchase land.
• Whenever the Israeli army wants to construct a military base, it expropriates Arab property for the endeavor. Because a rabbi performs marriages, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew within the boundaries of Israel.

Democracy, the rule of law, applies laws and procedures equally to all citizens. This Israel is not a democracy and never can be. A true democracy that has effective rule of law will create another Israel, a nation that reverses theft of Palestinian lands, resources, and patrimony, which began in 1948, and is proving to be non-ending.

ConclusionArriving at one-state, in which all of the state’s citizens have equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal freedom of movement, has difficult hurdles. Popularization, debate, and discussion will aid, but not enable fruition. Natural progression is the path to accomplishment, deposing the characteristics that define the present Israeli regime by revealing its true nature and stimulating the world to take action. Economic pressure combined with moral indignation moves those who combine economic progress with humanist philosophy, twin pillars of Jewish thought and motivation from the start of the industrial revolution. Exposition ─ facing the doom created by anti-social actions ─ leads to deposition ─ deposing the forces that create the doom ─ leads to imposition ─ replacing existing institutions forces with new institutions that lead to a one-state, to renewed prosperity, and higher regard for all human life.

Dan Lieberman edits Alternative Insight, a commentary on foreign policy, economics, and politics. He is author of the book A Third Party Can Succeed in America, a Kindle: The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name).