One Country, Two Systems

Image source: Creative Commons

Albert Einstein famously stated, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

This adage rings true for the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the British Peel Commission of 1927 and the subsequent UN Partition Plan, the prevailing solution has been the Two-State Solution. Numerous US presidents, including both Democrats and Republicans, have pledged their commitment to this elusive vision. However, given the current political realities and the ongoing conflict, it’s time to explore alternative approaches.

The Two-State Solution, while once seen as a viable path forward, has faced numerous challenges and setbacks. The United States has consistently championed this approach. Carter, George W. Bush, Clinton, and all subsequent US Presidents have regarded much of the land Israel captured in the 1967 war, including parts of Jerusalem, as “occupied” and believed it should be designated for a Palestinian state. Throughout the 1990s and into the present, the two-state solution gained traction among international organizations and political leaders, with varying levels of support. In January 2020, Trump proposed a “Vision for Peace,” but a two-state solution did not materialize. Biden’s administration emphasized that achieving this solution should be the goal of renewed Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Even following the Hamas attack on October 7, Biden has maintained his support for a two-state solution, as does Vice President Harris, while Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who supported it publicly for many years, has now firmly opposed a Palestinian state as of February of this year.

Certain groups, like Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have consistently rejected Israel’s legitimacy and any negotiations for a two-state solution.

It seems to me that the main reason this Two-State Solution continues to be elusive is because, in fact, it is impossible. It is impossible for many reasons, but mainly because the parties and their leaders who will need to live with it are basically not interested!

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. The Two-State Solution, in the guise of the UN Partition Plan, was created at the same time as the birth of the State of Israel and was already powerfully rejected by all of Israel’s neighbors as expressed in their unified military attack of the fledgling state.

Instead of persisting with a solution that has proven elusive, we must consider new possibilities.

One such alternative that I would suggest being considered is the framework that was established for Hong Kong when, in 1977, the British decided to step away from that colony too. It is referred to as the One Country, Two Systems model. Applied to the Middle East, this creative approach envisions a unified state with distinct political and administrative systems for Israelis and Palestinians. While this may seem radical, it offers a potential framework for coexistence and shared governance.

The One Country, Two Systems framework for a demilitarized Hong Kong provides notable advantages, allowing the region to maintain its own legal and economic systems separate from mainland China. This autonomy has fostered a unique identity and supports the preservation of Hong Kong’s distinct cultural and social values, which differ significantly from those on the mainland.

Of course, the framework is not without its challenges. Concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and political freedoms have in recent years intensified, and it is true that residents feel that the promises of autonomy are being undermined, which has led at times to widespread discontent and protests. Moreover, increased interference from the central government in Hong Kong’s affairs has raised questions about the future of the promised autonomy, creating a complex and often tense relationship between the region and mainland China.

Nonetheless, the State of Israel is not Communist China, and the objective of maintaining a lasting peace in the region is certainly an important incentive that is at the top of Israel’s priorities.

Implementing a One Country, Two Systems model, as I see it, would allow for separate national elections for each entity, bringing an end to the ongoing fears of the demographic crisis and the end of the Jewish State. Military defense would be the sole responsibility of Israel. An overarching council made up of appointed representatives of the two entities would maintain ongoing communication and seek to resolve issues and challenges as they arise, with a goal to create interdependency and mutual prosperity for both entities.

Implementing this new idea would require careful negotiation, compromise, and a willingness to think outside the box. It would involve addressing issues such as territorial divisions, power-sharing arrangements, defense arrangements and the protection of minority rights. However, it could also provide a unique opportunity to create a more equitable and sustainable future for both Israelis and Palestinians.

By exploring alternative solutions and challenging our preconceived notions, we can open up new possibilities for peace and reconciliation. It is time to move beyond the failed paradigms of the past and embrace innovative approaches that can address the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.