During an interview with PBS’s “Firing Line” released on Friday, Democratic U.S. House nominee Melat Kiros said that a two-state solution “ignores the reality of how Israel was created as a state and robs the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination as well.” Because “that is land that they would not have the same rights to occupy as well, that, in theory, was all of Palestine to begin with.” She further stated that “the question I’ve had for a lot of folks is, what does it mean to be a Jewish state? And, for a lot of folks, I think that means protecting and securing the Jewish majority. But I think the historical record has shown that you cannot organize a government around protecting a majority for one group without sacrificing the rights and protections of others.”
During an exchange on what parts of the DSA platform she agrees with, host Margaret Hoover asked if Kiros agrees with, [relevant exchange begins around 28:32] “Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right of self-determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital.”
Kiros answered, “I think it’s up to the Palestinians, through their right of self-determination, to determine a capital or whatever that statehood would look like, but protecting their right to self-determination and everything else that you said.”
Hoover further asked, “There are many Jews who believe, very strongly, in a two-state solution, and there are many people who believe in a two-state solution, including Israelis, because they are afraid — it is their view that the only way to reliably guarantee the security of the Jewish people after centuries of persecution, that culminated in the Holocaust, is to have a Jewish state. Why is that concern misplaced?”
Kiros answered, “Well, first and foremost, I would argue that I don’t think anyone has actually presented a truly effective proposal for a two-state solution. For example, a two-state solution would have to resolve the fact that there are 750,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank from Israel. If we’re being serious about a two-state solution, then that would mean expelling 750,000 people from the West Bank. I think a two-state solution also ignores the reality of how Israel was created as a state and robs the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination as well.”
Hoover then cut in to ask, “A two-state solution would rob them of their ability to have self-determination?”
Kiros answered, “Because it would — that is land that they would not have the same rights to occupy as well, that, in theory, was all of Palestine to begin with. I also believe and deeply appreciate the concern and the fear that the Jewish community has about their security in what would potentially be a one-state solution. But I also believe it robs the humanity of the Palestinian people, that they would somehow be incapable of living peacefully alongside the Israeli people, when Jewish Palestinians and Jewish Israelis have lived peacefully alongside the Palestinian people for a really long time before the expansion of the Israeli state really started to become aggressive and violent, in many, many cases.”
Kiros continued her answer by saying, “I believe in democracy. You cannot have a democracy in a place where not every single person shares the same rights. And the question I’ve had for a lot of folks is, what does it mean to be a Jewish state? And, for a lot of folks, I think that means protecting and securing the Jewish majority. But I think the historical record has shown that you cannot organize a government around protecting a majority for one group without sacrificing the rights and protections of others. That is why many human rights organizations have accused the Israeli government of waging apartheid on the Palestinian people within Gaza and the West Bank. That is a product of a state where, even if the intention of protecting one group comes out of really earnest and honest places, that is the reality of systems and governments where protection for just one group will inevitably lead to the sacrifice of protections for others, and will devolve into systemic acts of government violence against others as well.”
Hoover then asked, “So, tell me then, in the context of a one-state solution, what concrete institutions would protect Jews if they no longer control the government or the military and find themselves in the minority?”
Kiros answered, “It’s the same question for any other democracy where there are minorities, right? … It gets back to what does it mean to be a democracy. Because the debate here is the idea of a Jewish state that is a democracy.”
Hoover then followed up, “But the Israelis would argue, and I know you have heard this, that there are Arabs, a million Arabs, at least, living with full rights and freedoms in the state of Israel. I recognize that doesn’t represent the West Bank or Gaza, but within Israel. So, they would argue that they’re a pluralistic country and actually a democracy. So, I guess the question is, if it were to be a one state with all of Palestine — or all of the West Bank and Gaza, how does one guarantee the security of the Jews?”
Kiros responded, “That’s part of what those deliberations would have to be, right? And I think that is a role that the United States has to play in these peace talks, where we talk about — I think we talk about this like it’s a zero-sum game, like we can’t guarantee the right to return for Palestinians and the right to some kind of reparations as a result of this genocide that they’re facing right now, while also securing basic needs and protection for Jewish people in what would be this new form of government that –.”
Hoover then cut in to ask, “Should the Arab nations that are neighbors also take a role in influencing the outcome of and the democracy of a supposed one-state solution? If the United States should take a role, what role should the Arab partners and the Arab League take?”
Kiros answered, “I think anybody who’s committed to democratic values has a role to play. But, to be clear, this is the Israeli[s] and Palestinians that need to be leading this. Like, that is what self-determination is, right? For them to decide what kind of a government that they want to live in.”
Hoover then said, “The reality, right? Is that, as we both know, since October 7, the overwhelming majority of Israelis, from the liberal side to the conservative side, are all deeply concerned about what would happen if there was a one-state solution. And so, I guess, reasonably, we can all have our –.”
Kiros cut in to respond, “The concern is valid, but the concern doesn’t justify allowing the status quo to continue, right? There are people whose lives are being lost right now and children whose limbs are being blown off. We have a responsibility to defending our democratic values and holding our allies accountable in that way. And it’s not like we’ve never figured it out before, right? It’s never been perfect. And it’s never easy, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an excuse to not do what is in line with our democratic values, which is to secure equal rights and equal dignity to any human being that’s living in what is supposedly a democratic state.”
Later, Kiros said that “what Israel is meant to achieve and stand for as a country is not one shared belief, right?” And people on the left must give “our vision of what we believe in, with our democratic values, that extends, not just to the Palestinian people, but to the Israeli people and to the Jewish people — that land has a distinctly Jewish character, a distinctly Christian character, a distinctly Muslim character.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Read the full article here