During the last three decades the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved by territorial partition into two separate nation-states has gradually taken over the political spectrum on both sides. Moreover a near-consensus status around the two-state ‘solution’ has also been reached among the International Community, mass media and worldwide public opinion.. This unquestioned support for the two-state vision remains firm despite the disastrous failure of the peace process, and the growing notion among Palestinians and Israelis that partition has become less feasible than ever before and less capable of providing the basis for long-term peace.
In recent years this scenario has brought to the emergence of a body of thought critical of the two-state paradigm, and which calls for the exploration of alternative possibilities that would enable the two groups to share the entire territory under the guiding principles of democracy, tolerance, and equal citizenship. The birth of the non-racial democracy in South Africa and the implementation of the power sharing arrangement in Northern Ireland have strengthened the belief that partition is not the inevitable, nor necessarily the most desirable resolution to the conflict.
Within this context, the London One State Group was created in October 2006 for the purpose of contributing to the development of these “One State” ideas through the support of action, education and networking of grassroots organizations in the region that are, or can be, engaged in this goal. Our hope is to broaden the discourse regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict towards consideration of a One State vision as a desirable and achievable alternative.
The conference – “Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Israel/Palestine”—is not intended to produce a comprehensive blueprint for a unitary state. The term “One State” is used here in its broader sense, inclusive of a variety of concepts that are commonly referred to by terms such as "secular democracy", "bi-nationalism", "state of all its citizens", "federalism", "multiculturalism", etc. We have dedicated a substantial portion of the conference to a debate that would attempt to unpack this terminology and thus contribute to the long process of engineering a new political landscape that would not rely on imposed exclusivism of any type, but would instead foster diversity, engender pluralism, and be compatible with our changing times.
We know first handedly the complicated psychological environment that we are addressing, which has been contaminated for more than a century by fear and hatred, violence and grief, constructed mythologies and demonized conceptions of the "other". We nonetheless believe in the power of a common One State vision to be the lighthouse in the long and troublesome journey towards a democratic state that would provide a home for its people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, class, religion or beliefs.
|