Ursula Haeckel may be right that the extremism of the current Israeli government could lead to its own collapse and herald a more conciliatory alternative politics (Letters, 7 February). But while she confidently avows that the two-state solution is long dead, other interested parties are equally convinced there is no alternative to it. The greater danger is that there may be sufficient truth in both these hard-nosed articles of faith to point to a future of endless conflict.
While asserting “Israel/Palestine has become a two-nation state”, her call for one person one vote – atomising everyone down to the level of the individual – would deny collective rights to both nations. The unitary state concept may be popular in some western circles, but a sustainable solution can only come from the inside-out, not the outside-in.
Yet collective rights do not have to take the form of fully sovereign, separate entities. Support for a voluntary confederal arrangement, preferably including Jordan, is gaining ground. But the Palestinians would first need their independence, for otherwise, given the huge power imbalances, it would be either an Israeli hegemonic state masquerading as a confederation or an Israeli-Jordan condominium over Palestine.
A useful template could be the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This was a peaceful transition based not on ethnic purity and enforced population transfers, but on mutually agreed legal and political jurisdiction over demarcated territory, with open borders and free movement. Within a confederation, this model may have greater all-round appeal in the current reality to the original two-state concept, while retaining the basic aspiration and right to self-determination for both peoples.
Dr Tony Klug
London
