This article by Nadim Rouhana and Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, entitled “Settler-colonial citizenship: conceptualizing the relationship between Israel and its Palestinian citizens”, has been published in the journal Settler Colonial Studies, electronically in 2014 and in paper in 2015. A slightly modified version of the paper was recently re-published in Arabic in a book by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Beirut.

The article seeks to re-examine the relationship between Israel and its Palestinian citizens. While accepting the procedural nature of their citizenship as settler colonial citizenship, it suggests an alternative reading, with settler colonialism as the central analytical framework to understand this complex relationship and its development. The article goes through the different historical phases of collective political experiences of the Palestinian citizens in Israel since 1948.

To view the article:

Settler-colonial citizenship: conceptualizing the relationship between Israel and its Palestinian citizens

A Forthcoming International Conference at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy:

“The Fusion of Religion and Nationalism in Comparative Perspective:
Implications for Conflict Dynamics”

Join us on Thursday, March 31^st and Friday, April 1^st, as we examine the effects of the fusion of religious claims and nationalism on the dynamics of conflict, with special attention to legitimation and the moral architecture of violence.  Panels will discuss the range of manifestations in which religious claims can penetrate, reconstruct, promote, overcome, and/or challenge nationalism and the diversities of these fusions. The conference hosts international scholars who will examine the cases of India, Ireland, Israel, Palestine, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the former Yugoslavia. Discussions will also assist us in considering possible policy recommendations.

Thursday, March 31^st 2016 (3:30 PM)

and

Friday, April 1^st 2016 (9 AM)

With a keynote address by Michael Sells (University of Chicago) and a concluding panel on policy implications.

To view the Program

The main theme of the current issue of Jadal is the Joint List, which is a political alliance of four Arab-dominated parties in Israel. The formation of the Joint List has been considered as a historic step within the Arab political scene inside the Green Line, as it is the first time that the Arab parliamentary parties ran in the Knesset elections within a single list. The Joint List’s formation, its participation in the elections, and its success in receiving thirteen seats in parliament are achievements that may usher in a new and promising phase of Arab political activity inside the Green Line. At the same time, however, such successes may be temporary and ultimately reduce national action, if they are not followed by steps to improve the List’s effectiveness in producing political achievements beyond that of its formation.

It seems that there is a discrepancy between the public’s expectations from the Joint List and the expectations of some of its components. Furthermore, there exists a degree of romanticism among some Palestinians in the West Bank and the Diaspora about the prospects and potential impact of the Joint List, which neglects the context and limits of this experiment. First of all, it must be said that although the Joint List received thirteen seats in the Israeli parliament, making it the third largest list in the Knesset, its main accomplishment was not an electoral one. Rather, its achievement is in its formation and not the number of votes it obtained, as it was created in the wake of the division and fragmentation that prevailed in the Arab political scene inside the Green Line on the eve of the elections. However, the formation of the Joint List imposed political challenges that were perhaps unexpected to some of its components, while also greatly raising expectations regarding the performance of Arab political parties among

Palestinians inside the Green Line in particular and among Palestinians and Arabs in general. Moreover, the challenge posed by the formation of the Joint List within the Arab community is arguably even greater than that which it posed to the Israeli regime and government. The former includes the challenge of organizing the Arab society, building its national institutions, and leading mass action and popular struggle, rather than simply being content with traditional parliamentary work. Moreover, many Palestinians in the West Bank and the Diaspora viewed the Joint List as a model which could be emulated to end the division in the occupied Palestinian territories between Hamas and Fatah. This view has shortcomings in understanding the context of the Joint List, especially as it seems that after over half a year since the elections, the list’s political role may be limited – not in terms of its capacity to unite Arab parties, but in its ability to have a greater impact than previous forms of popular, political and parliamentary work. The problem lies not in the idea, but in the ability of its composite parties to use the list as a tool in the Palestinian political struggle.

In all cases, these high expectations, which extended beyond *the framework of Israeli citizenship*, imposed on the Joint List a political approach that aspired to respond to the public’s hopes – in terms of the list’s continuation in parliament, in terms of its parliamentary performance, and in terms of its ability to lead the popular struggle, build regional and national Arab institutions, and increase the Arab community’s confidence in political action.

This special edition on the Joint List includes six articles. Professor As’ad Ghanem’s article discusses the future of the Joint List, and finds that there are several measures by which to examine the feasibility of the list, including its parliamentary achievements and performance, public confidence in the list and in the usefulness of its work, personal differences and rivalries among its members which may come at the expense of collaborative efforts, and its ability to lead the popular struggle in the Arab society.

In contrast, Saleem Brake’s article focuses on the parliamentary performance of the Joint List, suggesting that the list’s performance does not represent a substantial deviation from previous efforts at Arab parliamentary mobilization. He argues that the central issue faced by Arab political parties is not related to the political representation of Arabs in parliament, but rather to the limited possibilities of influencing the existing political system.

Dr. Taghreed Yahia-Younis provides a gendered reading of the Joint List at the level of representation, participation and political agenda, criticizing the absence of feminist discourse in the list’s rhetoric and the inadequate representation of women in the list. However, she notes the list’s underlying potential as a means to bring about socio-political change, and

suggests tools for the advancement of social discourse in general and particularly feminist discourse within the Joint List.

Professor Mustafa Kabha, a central member of the National Accord Committee, discusses the Committee and its role in advancing the establishment of the Joint List in his article. The article looks at the members of the Committee and their understanding of the importance of having a Joint List compared to the alternative of forming two lists. He also considers the merits and dynamics of the Committee’s work in reaching an agreement on realizing the list.

The final article to focus on the theme of the Joint List is by MK Dr. Jamal Zahalka, himself a member of the Joint List who participated in initiating its formation and had a central role in the success of its establishment. The article examines the debate on the establishment of the Joint List, which began even before the election date was set. The author also illustrates divergences within the list regarding perceptions of what unity between its various parties should entail, both before and after its formation, as well as among those who regard it as a “national front” facing a colonial project and those who regard it as a “united front” facing an extreme right-wing. He then outlines some of the challenges that the list faces, as well as some suggestions and conclusions about the development of the idea of the Joint List and its work.

This issue also offers two articles which deal with topics outside of the central theme; both address the role of the Palestinians inside Israel in the Palestinian national movement. The first article, which was written jointly by Dr. Mtanes Shihadeh and Dr. Ameed Saabneh, reviews an opinion poll on attitudes toward the role of Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line in the Palestinian national project. The authors place particular focus on the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, attempting to explain shifts in Palestinian political awareness regarding their role in the national movement. The authors argue that there is convergence between the positions of the Palestinians in the 1967 and 1948 areas regarding the importance of the role of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Palestinian national project.

In the second article, Dr. Mohanad Mustafa discusses the relationship between the Palestinian national movement and the Palestinians in Israel, focusing on the current tendency to idealize the role of Palestinians from the 1948 areas in the struggle for national liberation. In his opinion, this tendency is reflective of the radical transformation of the role of 1948 Palestinians in the Palestinian national movement – from a position of marginalization and even exclusion to one of central importance. In his opinion, the view that Palestinian citizens of Israel should be excluded from the national project indicates a lack of understanding of the situation which they face; while the notion that they should be central to it reflects the depth of the impasse which the Palestinian national movement is currently experiencing.

The full issue of Jadal is available in Arabic here.

This issue of Jadal deals with the themes of gender and sexuality, considering how they intersect with other power structures in the context of colonial Palestine.

The collection of articles considers colonial policies alongside silenced perspectives in the discourse of the Palestinian community on gender issues, with the authors challenging arbitrary separations between sexuality and the politics of colonialism. Several articles in this issue attempt to deconstruct the relationship between colonial practices and existing social patterns related to gender and sexuality. Some of the authors shed light on the colonizers’ attempts to portray themselves as open, liberal patrons of social and sexual freedoms, in contrast to the colonized, who are allegedly backward, oppressive toward women, and sexually harrassive. In addition, other articles discuss Palestinians’ political and social activism and their engagement with issues of gender and sexuality.

Most of the articles in this issue were written following the authors’ participation in an academic workshop during December 2014 which explored gender policies in the colonial context of Palestine, initiated and organized by ‘alQaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society.’

The first article is written by lawyer Hadeel Badarne, and examines Israeli political incarceration, which she sees as reflective of the gendered power relations within the capitalist colonial system from the moment of arrest. In the article, the author discusses violent sexual practices to which women are subject in Israeli prisons, and also addresses sexual violence towards male prisoners. Badarne believes that sexual torture does not receive its rightful place in the Palestinian struggle; rather, it remains enveloped in silence, it is not classified as political torture, and it is relegated to the private sphere. She argues that this silencing entrenches sexual taboos and increases the oppressor’s power.

In the second article, Budour Hassan presents a reading of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States, describing the context, debate and radical criticism surrounding it. Hassan suggests that the gay rights movement in the United States is part of a system of white domination, failing to show solidarity with groups who suffer from additional levels of repression such as homosexual/transgender “illegal” immigrants. She adds that the gay rights movement’s choice to struggle for the right to marry is an abridgement of the struggle for sexual liberation, and notes that the decision to legalize same-sex marriage results from the desire to contain and domesticate homosexuals and to preserve marriage as the predominant form of partnership to regulate sexual and emotional life. In her analysis, the author considers the reactions of communities across the Arab world to the decision and criticizes the hypocrisy of supporting same-sex marriage legalization in the U.S. while continuing to internally suppress homosexuals.

The third article, which was written by activists from alQaws, presents a historical analytical reading of the position of the Palestinian left in the Palestinian Liberation Organization on social issues, with special attention to gender relations and homosexuality. The article points to two important factors that impacted their positions: the position of the Soviet Union and later the course of the first Intifada. The article argues that left-wing parties played a role in involving women in politics. However, in terms of gender issues, they prioritized pursuing national liberation from the occupier above social liberation. The authors add that during the first Intifada, the Palestinian national movement acceded to an Israeli scheme that recruited collaborators through entrapment on the basis of participation in illicit sexual relations and taboo social customs, including same-sex relations. Instead of confronting such colonial schemes, the Palestinian national movement adopted slogans that imposed conservative ethical rules, reducing the space for community tolerance and validating internal taboos.

The fourth article, written by Yara Saadi, discusses a campaign carried out by a group of Israeli students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Mount Scopus campus. These students denounced what they described as “sexual harassment and stone throwing” coming from the direction of the Issawiya neighborhood. The author notes that the campaign’s slogans and content suggested that women felt a lack of security and a violation of their rights as students to participate in the space of the university. However, she reads the campaign in the context of the location of the Hebrew University, as well as Israel’s daily policies of colonization in Jerusalem. Reviewing the project of establishing the university, she notes that the decision of its geographical location was in line with classic colonial strategies followed by the Zionist movement. She then examines the policies and practices of the Jerusalem Municipality in implementing plans to isolate Palestinian neighborhoods and villages, which have blocked development and created segregation, leaving the Issawiya neighborhood trapped and isolated. Based on this analysis, the author argues that the students’ campaign does not revolve around sexual harassment or even around threats to university students, but is primarily based on maintaining control of space.

The fifth article, which was jointly written by Haneen Maikey and Ghaith Hilal, explores perceptions of homosexuality within the Palestinian community, the role of colonialism in forming these perceptions, and homophobia within Palestinian society. It does so by analyzing key stages in Palestinian history since the first Intifada, passing through Oslo, the second Intifada, and the division between Fatah and Hamas. The article also discusses the Israeli propaganda campaign which presents Israel as a “paradise” for homosexuals in the region, whitewashing its image as a colonial state and transforming it into one of a “liberal and democratic” country. The authors suggest that perceptions of homosexuality are always tied to allegations of collaboration with the colonizer and cultural imperialism, confirming this argument by reference to various historical events. The article also touches on the origins of the Palestinian queer movement, and on the formation of their anti-colonialist political consciousness.

The issue also includes two articles whose central topics fall outside the themes of gender and sexuality. These articles engage with issues of national identity and culture and their intersection with colonialism and oppression, as in the articles mentioned above.

Eyad Barghouty’s article examines the Palestinian cultural movement inside the Green Line, describing what he refers to as the “forty-eight situation.” He argues that the cultural movement operates in a context where several barriers that hamper and stall it are interwoven. The article refers to three of them: firstly, the funding barrier, whereby the Israeli government allocates small amounts of funding towards Arab culture as a tool to control the content, orientations and identity of Arab cultural production; secondly, the socio-ideological barrier, which is manifested in the dominance of the Islamic movements and their intellectual and behavioral patterns over large segments of society; and thirdly, the geopolitical barrier, which refers to the chasm between the cultural movement among Palestinian citizens of Israel and the broader Arab world. The author argues that this situation results from the acquisition of Israeli citizenship by Palestinians in the area that became Israel in 1948. This citizenship limits their connections with Arab countries, their audiences and cultural movements, due to the fact that these countries forbid entry into 1948 Palestine so as not to normalize relations with Israel. The article was written following a series of cultural and artistic events that reflected these barriers.

In the last article in this issue, Amer Ibrahim addresses the question of national identity in the occupied Golan Heights. He does so from a perspective which views national identity as a functional form of subjectivity practiced by the individual within specific spatial and temporal conditions. This stems from the fact that Israel’s colonization of the occupied Golan Heights creates different temporal and spatial spheres in the same colonial setting, imposing the challenges of adaptation, coexistence and formation of identity on the colonized. Throughout the article, the author considers national identity through the lenses of time and performativity, and reviews Zionist settler colonial practices in the Golan Heights since their occupation. The author argues that despite the strong presence of a Syrian national discourse in the face of the Israeli colonial discourse, the daily colonial conditions on the ground produce existential situations that result in dichotomous discourses and practices; making the exercise of national identity in the Golan Heights dependent on the time and place within which the identity is exercised. Thus, certain identity practices appear in certain places, and are obscured in other places and times.

The full issue of Jadal is available in Arabic here.

On December 16^th and 17^th, Mada al-Carmel hosted a workshop for Palestinian PhD students and postgraduates on “Zionism and Settler Colonialism”. The workshop, held in Ramallah, took place as part of Mada’s PhD Program, a project launched in January 2015 aiming to help develop the next generation of critical Palestinian scholars by creating a space for Palestinian PhD students and postgraduates to share their ideas, advance their work, and receive feedback from experts in their respective fields.

On the first day of the workshop, Mada director Nadim Rouhana presented the opening remarks. He noted the resurging importance of the settler-colonial framework, particularly after the failure of the Palestinian statehood project and of efforts to attain equal rights.

The first lecture of the day was given by Mahmoud Yazbak, Professor of Middle Eastern History. He presented a paper dealing with early Palestinian responses to Zionism based on analysis of the Arabic press from 1870-1917. He argued that while various Palestinian newspapers articulated strong critiques of the Zionist movement, there was relatively little organized Palestinian mobilization against Zionism throughout this period. He also sought to consider reasons why this may have been the case.

The next lecture was given by Rana Barakat, Professor of History and Archaeology at Birzeit University. Drawing upon her ethnographic research on the Nakba with displaced refugees, she raised the question of whether even critical renditions of Palestinian history end up telling the story of Zionism as opposed to those of Palestinians. Questioning the value of categorizing settler-colonial projects as “successful” (Australia, North America) or “failed” (South Africa, Algeria), she proposed the idea of a continuous Nakba as an alternative framing. She also critiqued the ways in which certain Palestinian narratives demonstrate a need for recognition – to prove that “we were here” prior to 1948. Her lecture sparked discussion on whether it would be desirable or even possible to tell the story of Palestine without focusing strongly on Zionism.

The following lecture was given by Patrick Wolfe, Distinguished Visiting Professor in Colonial Studies at Arizona State University for 2015. Discussing the analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa, he elaborated on the differences between settler-colonialism and other forms of colonialism, proposing that the intent of pure settler-colonialism is to replace the indigenous population with a settler population, rather than to extract surplus from their labor. He remarked that South African delegations to Palestine found conditions in the West Bank worse than at home, because Zionism is based around a logic of elimination rather than one of exploitation. Noting the alignment between individual settlers and the Israeli state, he also argued that no hard-and-fast distinction could be made between civilian and military occupiers in the West Bank.

The final lecture of the workshop’s first day was given by Ahmad Amarah, a member of the workshop and a PhD candidate at New York University, who discussed the ongoing reality of settler-colonialism in the Naqab. He argued that the concept of “terra nullius,” or no man’s land, has been used by settler colonialists to claim land at various times. He discussed the state’s use of legal means to facilitate Zionist dispossession of Palestinian Bedouin. He also remarked on the framing of settler-colonialism as a form of development or modernization, in contrast to the alleged primitivity and lawlessness of the Bedouin community.

The second day began with a lecture by Vijay Prashad, Professor of International Studies at Trinity College and journalist at Frontline, al-Araby al-Jadeed, and The Hindu. He began by emphasizing the importance of approaching history from the “standpoint of the toilers” – those at the margins of society whose experiences are underrepresented in official records. Discussing the Oslo Accords and their stifling impact on Palestinian resistance, he argued that the Palestinian leadership’s capitulation mirrored the entire third world’s surrender to neoliberalism during the same era. He offered a critique of the dominance of NGOs over the Palestinian liberation movement and of the limiting impact of funders’ agendas. He also argued that international politics is entering a new phase of multipolarity, and that the Israeli state has been quicker to adapt to this change than the Palestinians.

The next lecture was given by Yehouda Shenhav, Professor of Sociology. He began by offering a critique of dominant strains in the Israeli left, which maintain faith in the discourse of peace negotiations and portray the conflict as an issue of inter-religious struggle. He went on to discuss the positionality of Arab Jews in relation to Israeli and Palestinian politics. Presenting the results of linguistic research, he noted that only a tiny fragment of Israeli Jews are fluent in Arabic. He suggested that increased knowledge of Arabic among Israeli Jews could greatly change political realities. A lively debate over this point ensued, with some noting that Israeli Jews in the military and other state institutions learn Arabic to better “know the enemy.”

The workshop’s final lecture was presented by Gadi Algazi, Professor of History. He proposed that settlers are means within the project of settler-colonialism, noting that trees were planted on top of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages when not enough human capital was available. He noted divergences between “colonial entrepreneurs,” who seek to profit off of indigenous labor, and “pure Zionists,” who seek the elimination of the Palestinian population. He put forth a distinction between imperialism and settler-colonialism, arguing that Israel’s imperial project largely failed whereas its settler-colonial project succeeded. His lecture sparked discussion on the role of indigenous elites in facilitating continued Israeli colonization, as well as on the limitations of legal discourse as a means of attaining liberation.

As part of a series of workshops held by the PhD Program to work through critical readings on Zionism and settler-colonialism, Mada is planning a third workshop to be held in Amman in March 2016. The workshop will focus on culture and colonialism.

The latest issue of Borderlands, a cutting-edge refereed electronic journal aimed at showcasing transdisciplinary social science and humanities research, features editing and contribution from key individuals in Mada al-Carmel. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, director of Mada’s Gender Studies Program, edited the volume, while both Shalhoub-Kevorkian and Mada General Director Nadim Rouhana contributed articles to the issue. The special issue was based on a workshop held in occupied East Jerusalem and organized as part of a joint project between Mada al-Carmel and Tufts University, entitled “The Fusion of Religion and Nationalism Project” and supported by the Luce Foundation.

Entitled “The Politics of Suffering,” the issue focuses on the embodiment of suffering and pain as a result of the legacies and ongoing realities of colonialism, settler-colonialism, and violent nationalisms. It features scholarship related to a wide range of geographic locales, including South Asia, the former Yugoslavia, Australia, North America, and Palestine.

As Shalhoub-Kevorkian explains in the introduction, the idea for this issue arose organically from the workshop mentioned above, in which participants not only dealt with critical academic work on settler colonialism and suffering, but also encountered such themes more directly by meeting with Palestinians facing eviction in the neighborhoods of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. Similarly, the issue’s various articles resist a divide between academic scholarship and active involvement in the world, and are informed by the lived experiences of those facing and resisting oppression.

Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s article, entitled “Criminalizing Pain and the Political Work of Suffering: The Case of Palestinian ‘Infiltrators’,” analyzes the work of suffering as it manifests itself in the oral testimonies of Palestinians who managed to return home in the aftermath of the 1948 Nakba, which displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. She argues that the Israeli state’s criminalization of these returnees as ‘infiltrators’ serves as a means of legally legitimating the practice of population transfer. She notes that the Palestinian struggle for return and against further expulsion is ongoing, with Israel continuing its efforts to inscribe further suffering over Palestinian bodies, spaces, and lives.

Nadim Rouhana’s article, entitled “Homeland Nationalism and Guarding Dignity in a Settler Colonial Context: The Palestinian Citizens of Israel Reclaim Their Homeland,” examines the ways in which Palestinians assert a connection with their homeland in the face of years of Israeli indignities and efforts at erasure. He focuses particularly on the form of “homeland nationalism” articulated by Palestinian citizens of Israel, who remain steadfast in expressing their (non-exclusive) right to the land despite the existing reality of exclusive Israeli control.

Additional articles in the issue deal both with topics directly related to Palestine and with themes drawn from disparate geographic contexts. Rosemary Sayigh addresses suffering in Palestinian refugee camps; while Rema Hammani focuses her analysis on the Israeli checkpoint. Sarah Ihmoud goes on to consider the 2014 act of racialized terror committed by Israeli settlers against Mohammed Abu-Khdeir. Goldie Osuri interrogates connections between a 2012 gang rape case in Delhi and sexualized violence in Kashmir; while Suvendrini Perera discusses atrocities against Tamil civilians in the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war and considers the role and limitations of global institutions of justice. Following this, Joseph Pugliese analyzes suffering in the context of Israeli technologies of violence implemented in the occupied zones of Gaza and East Jerusalem. Jasbir Puar considers bodily violence by analyzing what she refers to as the Israeli state’s “right to maim”; while Sunena Thobani deals with violence against indigenous women in Canada. Dino Abazovic considers the fusion between religion and nationalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, both during ethnic conflict and in its aftermath. Reflecting the international scope of the various contributions to the journal, Magid Shihade concludes the issue by arguing that Zionist settler colonialism should be understood in its global dimension and not on a purely local or regional basis.

By editing and contributing to this issue of Borderlands, Mada’s researchers drew connections between Palestine and other settler-colonial contexts or instances involving the entanglement of nationalism and religious claims. Mada al-Carmel’s research and publications situate Palestinian issues within international discussions of homeland minority rights, settler-colonialism, racism, identity, and democracy in multi-ethnic states.

This issue of Borderlands is accessible in full here.

In October 2015, Mada conducted a survey on the role of the Palestinian community living in Israel within the wider Palestinian national project. Palestinians living within Israel and Palestinians living in the oPt were asked for their opinions on a number of issues including representation, participation, and the current and future roles of ’48 Palestinians.  The survey results were also discussed in-depth during Mada’s November 2015 conference which was held in partnership with the Institute for Palestine Studies.

Main findings:

• There was more support among Palestinians in the oPt for the participation of ’48 Palestinians within Palestinian political institutions, with only 6% of ’48 Palestinians agreeing with this compared to 51%. Although 49% of ’48 Palestinians agreed that they should participate in both Israeli and Palestinians political institutions.
• In terms of representation within Palestinian political institutions, only 26% of ’48 Palestinians saw an urgent need, 15% saw a non-urgent need, and 51% saw no need whatsoever. The opposite was true for Palestinians in the oPt, 51% of whom saw an urgent need for ’48 Palestinians to be represented.
• There was a similar discrepancy for the assessment of the current role of ’48 Palestinians within the national project from both populations, with 35% of ’67 Palestinians thinking their current level of involvement was reasonable, while 36% of ’48 Palestinians thought their current role was not enough.
• There was more convergence between the Palestinian population on the assessment of the future role of ’48 Palestinians within the national project, with both ’67 and ’48 Palestinians agreeing that they needed to play a bigger role than they currently did; at 55% and 56% respectively.
• Palestinians want ’48 Palestinians to play a bigger role in the national project, but seem to disagree with the way in which to do this. While ’67 Palestinians emphasize representation and participation in Palestinian political institutions, this is not as important to ’48 Palestinians.
• In relation to the conflict itself and its potential solution, more ’48 Palestinians support the two-state solution than ’67 Palestinians; 60% and 44% respectively. Only 3% of ’48 Palestinians see no solution at all, compared to 14% of ’67 Palestinians. Roughly the same amount of people saw the one-state solution as viable, with 21% of ’67 Palestinians and 28% of ’48 Palestinians answering as such.