Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has buried the two-state solution

A document by the Central Committee of Da’am, January 2018

The decision taken by US President Donald Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution, a Palestinian state alongside Israel. By this recognition, Trump removed the illusion that the American administration is a trustworthy mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For years, especially since Oslo, the American policy was twofaced: On the one hand, the US reprimanded the Israeli construction activities in the settlements, and on the other hand it thwarted any anti-Israeli decision that stems from Israel’s violations of the international conventions following its fervent construction work in the settlements. The 25-year-long expectation for progress in the negotiations, as well as the two-state solution mantra, have been contributing decisively to strengthen the Israeli right and in fact were eliminating any chance to build a Palestinian state. Under this smokescreen, the Separation Wall was constructed, settlements were expanded, and the West Bank has changed totally. Today, the Israeli settlements contain more than half a million settlers. Trump’s victory in US elections expressed the end of the lie that the American administration is interested in a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, the Da’am party – which had decisively objected to the Oslo Accords – announced that following Oslo’s death, the conflict enters its last phase and hereby Da’am endorses the solution of one democratic state.

The election of Trump as the US President reflects a deep change in the American and international policies. In fact, the very first steps taken by Trump – including the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, as well as his decision to cancel the American participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership – expressed his desire to renounce the leading international role of the US and to adopt a policy of nationalist separatism instead of openness and integration in the world. Trump’s America First slogan expresses a racist and conservative outlook in face of the economic crisis that victimized millions of American and became widespread in the entire world. In 2008, the world was exposed to the lie that the neoliberal, borderless market economy can benefit the entire society. The crisis’ outcome was the opposite: the rich became gigantically richer while the poor were impoverished and reached the bottom. Today the situation is that 42 of the richest people in the world hold a fortune equaling that held by half the people living upon earth (according to data published lately by Oxfam).

Among these things, the Trump administration relates to Israel’s right-wing government as ideological partner in terms of its electoral base where evangelic Christians play a central role and adopt the Zionist ideology out of religious motivations. In the US itself Trump renounces the internal commitments taken by Obama, e.g. the healthcare law, immigration, women’s rights, taxation, etc. In addition, he seeks to change the US foreign policy, first and foremost the nuclear agreement with Iran and the American approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Against this background we should understand the way in which three religious Jews, known for being close to the settlers, were nominated to be the President’s advisors to the Middle East: Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was nominated as special envoy to the Middle East; his private advocate, Jason Greenblatt, was chosen to be special Ambassador to the negotiations’ affairs; and David Freedman, an outspoken and vocal supporter of the settlers, became the US ambassador in Israel. Therefore, it was clear that Trump’s victory means a deathblow to the two-state solution following the stands taken by Israel’s right-wing parties and government that wish to maintain the status quo for a long time.

While Israel was praising and glorifying Trump’s recognition in Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) decided to boycott the American mediation and refused to meet with Vice President Mike Pence when the latter visited the region in January 2018. The details of the “deal of the century” promised by Trump in his meetings with Netanyahu and Abu Mazen indicate that the White House decided to adopt the Israeli stand in full. Trump’s plan, which was published in the media, was greeted by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two regimes that exert incessant pressures on the Palestinian Authority to accept the American plan, including the announcement on the town of Abu Dis as the Palestinian capital. Regarding borders and settlements, the plan provides recognition to the settlement blocs and at the end of the day recommends annexing 10 percent of the West Bank territories to Israel. Thus, the Palestinian state will be subjected to Israeli patronage and control as the Israeli military will continue to rule the Jordanian border and control all the passageways. Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian negotiator, argued that the plan forces the Palestinians to be satisfied with the status quo as final. In his opinion, the plan determines that one state with two regimes will be forged, namely that the US will eventually recognize and legally legitimize Apartheid.

The Palestinian people in the vise of pressures

The two-state solution was buried following the Oslo Accords. Israel’s recognition of the PLO and the fact that Israel recognized it as an organization instead of recognizing a Palestinian state reflected a concession that eliminated the possibility to build the very Palestinian state. The new Palestinian authority (PA), created as an entity which replaces the PLO, was made dependent on Israel due to the financial Paris agreement. This situation together with the military coordination brought about a new political reality of “coexistence” between Israeli occupier and the PA which is tied financially and militarily to the occupation. The PA was transformed from a temporary entity, meant to pave the way towards a Palestinian state, into a permanent and privileged body which is not in line with the struggle for independence from the Israeli occupation. Thus, using the two-states slogan was and continues to be a camouflage to the symbiotic relations between the occupying state and the subordinated PA that pretends to represent the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Israel’s occupation.

In addition to the fact that the Oslo Accords have perpetuated the occupation and the settlements, enabling Israel to enlarge the latter, they have brought about a devastating outcome: the Palestinian split between Fatah and Hamas, between the West Bank and Gaza. Instead of becoming a unified entity, albeit temporary, in its quest to become a sovereign state, the PA became a matter of internal struggle between Fatah and Hamas. Although Hamas objected to the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA, it decided to use the democratic elections held in 2006 in order to exploit Palestinian frustration with Fatah’s corruption. Hamas participated in the elections and its gamble was correct as it won the majority within the legislative council. Since 2006, no elections have been held. As a result, Hamas transformed its government into a “resistance government.” The two parties blame each other for the new situation; Hamas’ claims that Fatah refuses to accept its authority and undermines its rule brought about a coup against the PA in which Hamas gained control over Gaza strip. Thus, the PA became subjected to controversy which deepened the internal Palestinian split and yielded a sheer destruction from which the Palestinian people suffers until now.

There were times where it seemed that the bloody struggle between the two Palestinian factions and their mutual hatred are stronger than their hostility to the Israeli occupation. Each side has been adhering to its rule, coordinating its interests with the occupation, insisting to maintain its authority and refusing to renounce its privileges at the expense of the suffering faced by the people living in the West Bank and Gaza. The speech delivered by Abu Mazen in front of the members of the Palestinian Central Committee in January 2018 (which was convened after Trump’s recognition in Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and due to the leaks on the “deal of the century”) demonstrates that Abbas sticks to his rule and leaves the door open to the return of the US mediation. He doesn’t change anything in the economic agreement, and the military coordination keeps the split with Hamas alive, with the excuse that the PA must be “empowered”, namely that Hamas should renounce its rule in Gaza and be disarmed.

In the struggle between both sides we must determine that the Fatah’s PA and the Hamas rule in Gaza constitute two dictatorial regimes just like the corrupted Arab ones which were swept by the Arab Spring (although the task was not fully accomplished). Both Fatah and Hamas, which are fighting each other over political power, are besieged: Hamas suffers a siege exerted by the Egyptian military rule, the PA in Ramallah and Israel, while the PA lost the support of the Egyptian and Saudi regimes after they decided to line up with Trump and Israel. This situation illustrates the absurdity of the Fatah-Hamas split since this struggle turns on the question who will rule the autonomous Palestinian zone that is bound to Israel while the latter besieges them from every side. These two regimes are far from the one-democratic- state paradigm and continue to spread the lie that the road towards an independent Palestinian state is open, as if the struggle is centered around the nature of this state – a Fatah-style dictatorship or an Islamic one, a state next to Israel (Fatah) or a resistance state (Hamas).

Three conditions for establishing one democratic state

With no Israeli will or international mechanism to build two states, we must assert that the very existence of the PA constitutes an obstruction to the one-state solution, which will be the sole alternative to the Apartheid regime that is currently being forged. By cooperating with the occupation, the PA provides it a cover, hereby strengthening the Israeli right and giving it a monopoly over the Israeli political arena. In fact, the PA’s existence serves the Israeli right twice: Abu Mazen, who insists upon rejecting the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, is presented as a no-partner for peace. The Labor party as well as the centrist parties endorse this claim. On the other hand, the PA’s mere existence, which continues to be committed to the military cooperation with Israel, produces a sense of security among the Israelis. In addition, there is a widespread illusion in Israel that the Palestinian people prefers the PA and rejects the scenario of anarchy which might exist following its collapse. Therefore, we can see a consensus that argues this this strange coexistence – a Palestinian Authority that lacks any authority and depends upon the benevolence of the omnipotent Israeli rule – will last forever as long as the Israeli government guards the PA’s existence and prevents the annexation of populated territories near Israel.

The PA’s existence provides a pretext to the Israeli Left, represented by the Communist Party/Hadash and Meretz, to go on supporting the two-state illusion by claiming that the PA is a genuine partner for peace. Hadash leans on the fact that the Communist Party has been endorsing the idea of two states since 1948. In 1992, Hadash forged the parliamentary block that enabled Yitzhak Rabin to form a government, even though he lacked a majority in the Knesset. A year later, it zealously supported the Oslo Accords by claiming that they would bring about an independent state of Palestine; Hadash considered Yasser Arafat a leader whose positions must be endorsed unequivocally. Today, the positions of Hadash stand in great contradiction with the moods in the Arab world: it expressed reservations regarding the revolutions of the Arab Spring, positively supports the regime of General el-Sisi in Egypt, and consistently defends the murderous regime of Assad in Syria. In addition, it delivers unconditional support to Abu Mazen. On the other hand, Meretz believes that Israel must have a Jewish majority (with democratic rights for the minorities within it), hence introducing the two-state solution as a proposal for national separation: a Jewish state for the Jews and an Arabic state for the Arabs. In their eyes, the idea that the two nations would live together upon equal basis is not in line with the “threat” where the Jews might lose their numeric supremacy.

Another party, Balad, which stands in severe confrontation with its partners in the Joint List over their missing seat in the Knesset, started an internal discussion on the solution to the Palestinian problem after a substantial group of party members realized that the Trump declaration and the steps taken by the Likud government signify the end of the two-state solution. Balad, a coalition between different political groups unified in their nationalist views, finds it hard to reach a clear position which would finally determine its support in the one-state solution. The controversies within the party on the one-state solution resemble the internal debate held among its members regarding the Arab Spring, especially with regard to Iran and Syria. The fact that Balad is heavily reliant on Qatar makes restricts its ability to adopt an independent position. In most cases, Balad is characterized with more than two positions regarding critical questions while its members are unified only in their opposition to the Israeli government and their criticism of the PA.

Because of this complex situation, and since there are no Jewish or Arab forces that adopt the idea of one-state despite the total failure of the two-state solution, we are faced with the question: upon what is the Da’am party based once it raises the one-state banner? The simple answer is as follows: With no two-state solution, there is no other way but to introduce an alternative, rooted idea which will serve the interests of the societies, the Israeli and the Palestinian alike. The more complicated answer involves the dialectic reasoning that sees the struggle for one democratic state as ideological, political and economic. The conditions enabling us to build a broad popular movement – Palestinian and Israeli – from the two sides of the ‘Green Line’, which will call for one democratic state, depend on defeat of the evangelical right in the US and in Israel alike. This question is not reduced to the way lives would be conducted between Israelis and Palestinians, but to the way they would be conducted on the international level. It is an existential struggle between conservative, self-isolated and racist forces and revolutionary forces that are open to the world and are internationalist in their essence.

Though some liberal circles are revolted by the occupation and by the mischief it causes to the Israeli society, we see that 50 years of ongoing occupation along with the legitimacy given to the settlers and the political right demonstrate that Israeli society alone is incapable of providing the required political forces that can end the occupation and build a joint society in one state. Therefore, there are three preconditions which can secure the feasibility of changing the political paradigm: First, a deep change in the industrial countries and the defeat of the racist forces that wish to revive the past with slogans like “America First.” Second, the defeat of the dictatorial Arab regimes based on the victory of the Arab Spring that demands democracy and freedom. Third, a deep political change in Palestinian society itself, expressed in the founding of alternatives to Fatah and Hamas. This change requires an economic factor, namely the transition to a modern economy based on renewable energy and internet, and a social one, i.e., a transition from traditional society to a modern one where women are fully equal. It seems, prima facie, that this one-state solution is not realistic, since the three conditions are impossible right now, but we must bear in mind that the historic period wherein we live is saturated with revolutionary changes, and the material condition of this period, the third industrial revolution, heralds deep historic changes.

Democracy in a state of emergency

The well-covered visit of Vice President Pence in Israel during January, his firm promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the warm official hospitality with which he was welcomed, point out the close strategic relations between the Israeli right and its American counterpart. The sheer Israeli refusal to advance towards any arrangement with the Palestinians, the Israelis’ objection to any withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, are based on the unequivocal support Israel enjoys from the US evangelical right, the electoral core of the Republicans. The victory of Trump was enabled due to a deep split within the Republican party between different sections; it was so deep that the party found it hard to elect an agreed Presidential nominee. Trump exploited this split, and though he was never a party member and was even considered to be a Clinton supporter, he managed amazingly to beat all other candidates. This internal split in the Republican rank-and-file, together with the parallel split in the Democratic party between those who support Hillary Clinton and those who endorse her rival, the leftist Bernie Sanders, indicates how severe is the crisis America has been undergoing since the collapse of the banks and the investment firms in 2008.

The 2008 crisis exposed the devastating meaning of the bank managers’ greed, as well as the corruption of the big firms; it revealed that the bipartisan political regime has been serving in fact the capitalists at the expense of the ordinary man and woman. The Americans lost their faith in the Washington-based democracy. The political polarization brought about a situation where many people endorsed two candidates who promised “to drain the swamp” and fight the banks. On the one hand, Trump and his close advisor, Steve Bannon, represented the far-right, and on the other hand Bernie Sanders spoke for the radical left. Both promised to fight Wall Street, and after Trump was elected the polarization worsened and all the bridges between the American right and left were burnt. Thus, on the one hand, the middle states in America are characterized by conservative views and endorse Trump, while America of the Eastern and Western coasts – rich New York and California – reject Trump’s agenda.

However, the struggle is not just about geography but also about seeing the future. New York and California represent the economic future: they constitute areas that operate and concentrate technological innovations, hereby creating the new economy expressed in the internet and startup firms vis-à-vis the old firms that are based on the traditional industries that lose their economic weight in favor of robotics and artificial intelligence. The capitalist, neoliberal system has arrived at a dead end by creating mass unemployment, erasing hundreds of billions of public capital and pension savings, expanding environmental pollution and risking the very planet. Thus, the poverty became widespread and the politics as well as the politicians were corrupted. Today, there is no politician whose conduct is not dictated by the capitalists. It is true for Israel as much as it is true for the US. We must conclude, therefore, that many supporters of the right wing in the US, Britain, France and Israel originated from the working class, e.g. the workers of Teva (an Israeli firm bought by international capital, which is no longer national based) who lose their jobs because of the competition over cheap labor coming from China, or due to the transition to robotic work. Today, there is an international audience that sees the democratic regime as one that does not serve the citizen, by claiming that the economy (neo-liberalism) works for the benefit of the capitalists and impoverishes the worker. It is a situation which forces the society to look for alternative, revolutionary solutions.

Thus, Trump has promised to his base of support, the industrial workers who became unemployed, to return to the previous century by withdrawing from the globalization, building tariff walls, fighting imports from China, erecting a steel wall to prevent immigration from Mexico, and reducing the corporate tax from 35 to 21 percent, a move that would create a budget deficit for the US. These steps could create international chaos, trade wars between Europe, Asia and America, and a new economic crisis. A recent report by the Bank of Israel has warned against economic collapse due to the chaos forged by Trump in the international economy. It will be created by the zero-interest rate, which encourages taking unlimited loans from the banks, which in turn brings about an artificial rise in the value of stocks and real estate. In short, a financial bubble.

At the regional level, we see that the recent demos in Iran, which have been demanding to overthrow the regime, as well as the demos in Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco, prove that the very causes which produced the Arab Spring continue to exist. Even the regimes in the industrial countries have entered into crisis: In Germany, as of this writing a government has not been built yet; Spain suffers from Catalonia’s separatist aspirations; in France the two major parties have collapsed; Belgium has sunk into governmental crisis, and Britain is torn due to the Brexit controversy. However, the situation in the Arab world is much worse. In spite of the failure of the Egyptian youth movement to build democracy, the military regime has lost its credibility following the fact that it is ideologically terrorizing the people and because of the poor economic conditions; in Syria, the Assad regime is incapable of regaining its control over the country; in Yemen the war continues and this is also the situation in Libya; and in Iraq the people cannot enjoy even one single day of peace. This situation demonstrates that the process that was launched by the 2011 Arab Spring is still underway.

In the Gulf states, we see a severe political crisis that erupted in Saudi Arabia after an internal coup d’état was launched by the contender Mohammad bin Salman. It is evident, therefore, that an historic age came to its end there. The internal changes, the distancing from the radical Wahabi current, the arrests of the royal family members and the decision to indict them for corruption, the decisions to open the cinemas to women and to let them drive, their presence at football games – all these developments did not arise out of nowhere. They constitute the Saudi acknowledgement that the “allowances’ state” based on oil revenues and the Sharia regime cannot exist any further because of the decline in oil prices and the huge budget deficit. Nonetheless, the Saudi monarchy, like Iran, is unready to cope with the third industrial revolution that aspires to realize economic and political democracy, to provide civil liberties, to let people express their thoughts and obtain uncensored information.

The political coup in Saudi Arabia along with the socioeconomic reform in the country, as well as the demonstrations held in Iran, prove again that the Arab regimes are about to collapse. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Middle-Eastern political arena has been nothing but a hostage in the struggles between the Saudis and the Iranians. Iranian and Saudi money managed to corrupt the Arab regimes and the popular movements, from the PLO to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. In this context, the fact that this money has vanished, together with the collapse of the corrupt regimes, means that political Islam too is about to collapse, for it is fed by this same money, with which it managed to brainwash people, mainly the poor. The third industrial revolution, based on renewable energies, will enable the intellectuals who led the Arab Spring – the generation of the internet and the social media that took an active part in the info revolution – to reoccupy the public arena and become a political force, leading their countries towards a democratic change based on a new cooperative economy.

Netanyahu and Trump will fall

The energy revolution as well as the info one abolishes national borders and racial conflicts; they unify people on a new basis with governmental intervention. Netanyahu represents the old, neoliberal line that brought about social gaps within Israeli society; that line caused the housing crisis as well as price increases, because state-owned firms were privatized in favor of gigantic monopolies. Like other citizens in the industrial countries, the Israeli feels how the big capitalists, who took over all the financial resources by bank loans, became bankrupted but did not have to pay debts amounting to billions. Moreover, the political establishment became entangled with corruption stemming from the close relations between politics and capital.

These affairs cannot be removed from the political agenda and have already put senior ministers and officials behind bars. Netanyahu himself is being subjected to probes because of his relations with one of the major capitalists. Even his close associates, including family members, are subjected to police probes on corruption allegations following the German submarines affair. Trump is being investigated too for plotting with the Russians and other corruption allegations. There is no wonder that we see the two being investigated as both represent the interests of the rich and use demagogy against the ruling elites; they turn their criticisms toward the US Democratic party and the Israeli Labor Party, which leans on the Ashkenazi elite.

The corruption itself stems from the dead end to which the Israeli Right has sunk. Netanyahu and the Right do not present new ideas, neither on the conflict with the Palestinians nor on economics. For Netanyahu, his surrounding reality is nothing but “fake news” á la Trump; he finds in the Arab Spring a chance to anchor Israel’s strategic relations with dictatorial Arab regimes like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He thinks that democracy does not suit Arab society. Although these regimes are hanging by a thread due to their incapacity to cope with years-long economic and social problems, Netanyahu wishes to form a strategic axis with them. He believes that the demonstrations in Iran express the desire to return to the Shah period and renew strategic relations with Israel against the Arabs; he rejects the idea that the Iranian workers and youth, like their Egyptian fellows, struggle for the same cause, namely to overthrow the dictatorial regimes and build an alternative democratic society quite unlike the Shah’s dictatorship. For the Israeli Right, the true threat is not Iranian missiles but democratic change in Iran and Arab world, which will isolate Israel as a religiously fundamentalist occupying state.

At the economic level, for 30 years the government has been using the same methods, despite the fact that Israeli startup firms have been contributing decisively to the development of new technologies, e.g. internet, robotics, autonomic car, block chain and biotechnology, water purification and renewable energy. This situation is evident as we see the two-year state budget that takes care of the right wing coalition’s parties’ needs, and taking no responsibility for preparing society to future developments. It is a government that is busy with racist legislation, with limiting the power of the Supreme Court, with censoring artworks, with introducing religious contents into the educational system. It is favoring the capitalists and discouraging professional training, it is encouraging the use of gas and private cars instead of solar energy and public transportation. This government does not understand that the world is moving toward a new generation of energy and production, where industrial workers will lose their jobs in favor of artificial intelligence and robots. This situation will create serious social problems with which we should cope by acknowledging the truth that by 2025, 2 out of 4 billion jobs will be eliminated.

Since the collapse of the neoliberal regime in 2008, the world has been entering a new economic stage characterized by decentralization. The proof is the rise of Bitcoin as a digital coin which is not under central supervision like the banks. The mistrust in the collapsing banks, which have caused millions of people to lose their savings, has brought about the invention of new monetary regime based on transparency and social supervision through the internet. The interesting thing here is not Bitcoin but its block chain technology which democratizes the internet and hence society.  The new regime, together with renewable energy produced on citizens’ roofs, heralds the economy’s democratization, the elimination of monopolies and the death of the central state as the body that determines the fate of its citizens.

The future actions of Da’am

Da’am’s vision of the future is based on the economic and political changes in the world that are enforcing themselves upon the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians. Da’am’s one-state vision introduces new content which is not just forged out of our conviction of the failure of the two-state solution, which became impractical after the Oslo Accords. We act out of a deep conviction that the third industrial revolution is changing conventions, enabling us to build a cooperative society based on internet, democratization and renewable energy. The new innovations are based on the contribution of individuals and groups to building an information base which is open to all users like Wikipedia, Google and Facebook.

The Arab intellectual understands that Arab society’s entry into the third industrial revolution is a precondition for saving it from the abyss. The collapse of the old and corrupt Arab regimes and their oil economy, as well as the fall of the two-state solution, does not necessarily mean that a better regime will be built. However, it opens the door to a modern alternative based not on nationalism but on cooperative principles that can unify the Arab world on the basis of renewable energy and the internet-based modern economy. The internet played a vital role in the hands of the youth who wanted to overthrow the regimes; thus, the internet took the monopoly on information out of the hands of these regimes and occupied the public arena. However, it is just the first step, because we need alternative political, social and economic work which will shove aside the influence of the religious currents and traditions that bind the society and rule it, especially its women.

Progress toward the one-state solution depends on political and economic development at the international as well as the Arab levels. Therefore, we support the spirit of the Arab Spring and its potential to influence the Palestinian and Israeli arenas. Palestinians as a people did not join the Arab Spring. They remained indifferent toward the huge revolutionary wave, because of their disappointment and despair. They are besieged by the PA, Hamas and the Israeli occupation. However, the policies undertaken by Netanyahu are bringing about the collapse of the PA, either because of its political isolation and financial condition, or because a new youth movement will rise, whose members, like their sisters and brothers in the Arab world, want a future that corresponds to their ambitions, their culture, and their connections with the world through the internet.

Regarding Israeli society, we must propose a social and economic program based on encouraging the use of renewable energy and all the cooperative initiatives that seek to liberate people from state control as well as from exploitation by monopolies in the fields of consumption and production. Israeli society itself has been undergoing a deep identity crisis. The Right proposes to Israeli citizens they  choose between being “Jews” or “democrats”; every definition harbors an entirely different world of concepts regarding education, the approach to asylum seekers, women’s equality, religion and the Sabbath, and Arab society.

The insistence by leftist and liberal circles on maintaining Israel as a Jewish state places them in a situation of weakness vis-à-vis the Right, which is steadily eroding democracy in favor of “Judaism.” The Israeli Left relies on the police to indict Netanyahu; they wish to overthrow him through courts of law and not by ballots. In addition, the Left is far from creating a revolutionary economic program which can suit recent technological developments like the programs partially applied today in China, Germany and Scandinavia.

We should develop any initiative that suits our goals and broadens our alliances with all who agree to the principle of one democratic state in Israel and the occupied territories. We must spread our ideas and articles, strengthen the workers’ organization WAC-MAAN, which unites Israeli and Arab workers, initiate cooperatives for renewable energy and carry out other initiatives proposed by Israeli and Palestinians activists, people who wish like us to build a modern society based on full equality between the two peoples with democratization of the society and the economy.

About Da'am: One State - Green Economy

Daam proposes an Israeli/Palestinian Green New Deal, both as a response to the current political-economic crisis and to create a basis for true cooperation between the two peoples. It is a plan that can end the conflict, abolishing the apartheid regime that Israel has imposed since 1967. It can replace the Occupation with a partnership based on civil justice, which will grant full civil rights to Palestinians equally with Israelis in the framework of a single state.