The start of the debate on the so-called “one state solution” (OSS) represents a welcomed news for scholars, policy-makers and activists dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: after the 1990s – when the course of the Oslo process and the idea of a “two states solution” (TSS) structured on the UN resolution n° 242 monopolised the attention of the public opinion – it is time again to reflect on the dynamics of territorial and institutional integration between Israel and the Territories occupied in 1967. Nevertheless, we fear that such a debate risks to be focused only on the viability of specific institutional outcomes – one state or two – missing in this way its most ambitious target, that is, to understand the dynamics that originated it. In a moment where the very nature of demos and boundaries in Palestine is difficult to define, and the decision-making process is dangerously kept in balance between impasse and chaos, we suggest that substantial attention should be given to the structural elements of the picture beside the institutional architecture of feasible polities. The empirical measure of the viability of rival constitutional schemes could easily rests on shaky ground. Firstly, it is easy to point out that neither a two-state nor a one-state solution – and to be honest, no solution at all – seems to be in sight; in our opinion the Oslo process hardly represents both an “almost successful” negotiation and a viable model for the future. Secondly, we believe that each outcome has its own pros and cons – many of them depending on the proponents’ preferences and on an arbitrary set of conditions – and, in both alternatives, the best-case scenario would represent an improvement of the present situation. We feel that a positive contribution to this debate could be focused on the dynamics more than on the outcomes and its institutional shapes. We will therefore try to present the OSS/TSS debate underlining what lies underground this discussion; to do so, we will analyze the constituent elements of particular dimensions such as national identity, decision-making process and representation, as well as the interaction among the different levels – international, regional, internal – involved in the discourse of conflict resolution. For the sake of clarity we will structure our work dividing the debate into two parts, dealing separately with the Palestinian and the Israeli political frameworks. Nevertheless, it should be clear that our aim is not to determine the “Palestinian” or the “Israeli view” on the institutional options, but the constitutive debate at the institutional level, that is, the substrate (“the primordial soup”) that enables the discussion about the different options. We will review the discourses elaborated by policy-makers, academics, institutionalized think tanks and party leaders, to discover to what extent the OSS/TSS debate reveals the hidden logic of the alternatives.
Two States or not Two States? This is not the Question (yet)
ALLEGRA, Marco;NAPOLITANO, Paolo
2009-01-01
Abstract
The start of the debate on the so-called “one state solution” (OSS) represents a welcomed news for scholars, policy-makers and activists dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: after the 1990s – when the course of the Oslo process and the idea of a “two states solution” (TSS) structured on the UN resolution n° 242 monopolised the attention of the public opinion – it is time again to reflect on the dynamics of territorial and institutional integration between Israel and the Territories occupied in 1967. Nevertheless, we fear that such a debate risks to be focused only on the viability of specific institutional outcomes – one state or two – missing in this way its most ambitious target, that is, to understand the dynamics that originated it. In a moment where the very nature of demos and boundaries in Palestine is difficult to define, and the decision-making process is dangerously kept in balance between impasse and chaos, we suggest that substantial attention should be given to the structural elements of the picture beside the institutional architecture of feasible polities. The empirical measure of the viability of rival constitutional schemes could easily rests on shaky ground. Firstly, it is easy to point out that neither a two-state nor a one-state solution – and to be honest, no solution at all – seems to be in sight; in our opinion the Oslo process hardly represents both an “almost successful” negotiation and a viable model for the future. Secondly, we believe that each outcome has its own pros and cons – many of them depending on the proponents’ preferences and on an arbitrary set of conditions – and, in both alternatives, the best-case scenario would represent an improvement of the present situation. We feel that a positive contribution to this debate could be focused on the dynamics more than on the outcomes and its institutional shapes. We will therefore try to present the OSS/TSS debate underlining what lies underground this discussion; to do so, we will analyze the constituent elements of particular dimensions such as national identity, decision-making process and representation, as well as the interaction among the different levels – international, regional, internal – involved in the discourse of conflict resolution. For the sake of clarity we will structure our work dividing the debate into two parts, dealing separately with the Palestinian and the Israeli political frameworks. Nevertheless, it should be clear that our aim is not to determine the “Palestinian” or the “Israeli view” on the institutional options, but the constitutive debate at the institutional level, that is, the substrate (“the primordial soup”) that enables the discussion about the different options. We will review the discourses elaborated by policy-makers, academics, institutionalized think tanks and party leaders, to discover to what extent the OSS/TSS debate reveals the hidden logic of the alternatives.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
