Some commentators think that, instead of Palestinian independence, the best way for Israel to solve the “Palestinian problem” would be to annex the Territories outright and extend full Israeli citizenship to all the Palestinians.
Of course, if they did that, Israel would no longer be a “Jewish state.” [yawn] It would still be a Jewish-majority state – but, probably, only for a couple of decades longer.
OTOH, it would be a way for everybody who lives between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River to have a common government in which all could participate. Nobody would be persecuted, nobody would have to leave. Even the West Bank settlers could stay where they are. Could they all, perhaps, then, live in peace?
BrainGlutton, are you going to make me talk about this here, too? Drat.
But yes, this represents my vision, as being the fairest for both parties, and the most durable for the long term. The current vision of a “Jewish democracy” is inherently discriminatory, and dependent on a demographic reality that is certain to change.
There are two many on either side that want the whole enchilada (or matzo ball, or fallafel) for themselves. You’d still have the thorny issue of the right of return. Once you get that enacted, it no longer is a Jewish majority state.
I think the best solution is partition. As close to the original UN version as possible. Keep Jerusalem as some form of international protectorate.
But again, cleave to that UN line and you leave lots of Palestinians in Israel, and with their birthrate, they’ll be the majority before too long. With partition, you just spend a ton of energy arguing over boundaries, water rights, Jerusalem, the settlers, etc. – and solve nothing. The binational state (excellent Wikipedia article, by the way) is an elegant solution that causes a lot of recrimination at first, but does at least cut through that Gordian knot.
What if Palestinians in the occupied territories don’t WANT to be Israeli citizens?
Should the US annex Mexico if the vast majority of Mexicans don’t want to be annexed?
Annexation wouldn’t work, because it would restart the intifada, and this time Israel wouldn’t be able to exlude palestinian “Israeli citizens” from Israel proper. Expect a wave of massacres. And it would probably trigger declarations of war from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Official sabre-rattling from those countries has died down, mostly because they can see that a two-state solution is coming, like it or no. If Israel annexes the West Bank outright it would mean war. Either Israel would win and have to face another round of suicide bombings, or Israel would lose and the winning Arab armies would begin killing each and every Jew they can find.
I’m sure Sal would send a strongly worded letter to the UN protesting the genocide.
The absolute best strategy is the “Three State Option”. Egypt annexes the Gaza strip, Jordan annexes 90% of the West Bank, Israel stays roughly within it’s current borders. Of course this will never happen, Egypt and Jordan don’t want to annex ungovernable hell-holes any more that Israel does.
But as of today, only 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs. It’s going to take a looooong time for that 20% to grow to 50%, long enough that demographic changes make it likely that it will never happen.
And you honestly believe a referendum on annexation would be approved by Palestinians? The mind boggles. With the level of hate, murders, massacres, public celebration of suicide bombers, and on an on?
If someone is willing to strap explosives onto themselves and kill themselves just for the chance to murder a few Jews, is that person going to vote to ruled by Jews?
Yes, of course, if we could put aside all that hatred, a multi-ethnic state would make sense. But the reality is that we can’t just wish it away, any more than you can wish the Holocaust away.
Arabs don’t want to be ruled by Jews. Jews have very good reason to believe that Arab rule would mean genocide.
Never going to happen. Only someone delusionsal would believe that the Palestinians would vote themselves under Jewish rule.
It could happen in a generation if the birthrate is high enough. But whether it happens in 20 years or 50, the issue doesn’t go magically go away as you suggest. Morever, the way the Israeli political system is set up, on the basis of lots of small parties that need to make a coalition in order to govern, if the Palestians begin to reach even 30 or 35%, it could put them in a kingmaker role.
You miss the point (actually, several points, the main one being that 99.99% of Palestinians are not suicide bombers) – but anyway, if the Palestians of the Occupied Territories were given voting rights, they wouldn’t be ruled by Jews – they’d be the majority. If Israel were as confident as you that the Palestinians would reject citizenship, they’d offer it just to score some political points.
Is the level of hate greater in Israel than it was in South Africa or the American South during Jim Crow? There is some precedent when I suggest that multiethnic societies can work.
Sal, Palestinians simply don’t want to be part of an Israeli state. They want to be independent. The antithesis of being independent is being a minority in a country that one opposes. It’s a non-starter, no more than convincing Washington that the US should remain a British colony, convincing Sukarno that Indonesia should be part of Japan, convincing Michael Collins that Ireland ought to be part of Britain, and so forth. No matter how reasonable it might sound to you, there’s just no basis of an agreement among the effected parties here.
If you really think this is a good idea, how about absolishing the state of Israel and declaring all that territory, plus the West Bank, plus Gaza, to be the new state of Palestine? Do you think Israelis would be okay with that?
Why is everyone so sure of that? Has anyone asked them? BrainGlutton is absolutely right – if they’re going to under Israeli rule anyway, why wouldn’t they want to get a vote? And anyway, what solution are you proposing?
One State eliminates Israel as a Jewish State and likely creates a state with a Jewish minority to an Arab majority in short order. Not something Israel is going to agree to. Ever.
Two States allow for separate identities, which hopefully recognize that they have a future optimized by cooperative ventures. Long term a loose federation might be possible and mutually beneficial. But first both sides will need a chance to cool down and to build trust. And to deal with the pragmatic issues of economic development, minority protections, improved education for all, etc. The emergence of Kadima, and the continued support it garners even in a world without Sharon, shows that Israelis are ready to go there. Now we need the same from the Palestinians…
Well, seeing as how I’ve visited the Middle East a couple of times and spoken to Palestinians – including Palestinians in refugee camps in Jordan – and I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians reject completely and vehimently the idea that Israel should be allowed to annex the occupied territories. Again, there is no resignation whatsoever
The words “UN Resolution 242” also tend to come up a lot.
And you avoided my question: if you think a binational, single state is the optimum outcome, do you believe that Israelis would accept the disestablishment of Israel and allow it to be subsumed into a new Palestine?
Anyway, two states is the only realistic solution.
And to repeat what I said both in the other thread and above: Israel may have no choice in the matter, given the imbalance between Arab and Jewish birthrates. The unwillingness of Israel and its supporters to contend with this fact is quite striking.
Here’s something else – people act as if the one-state solution is as remote as the dark side of the moon. But frankly, the two-state solution is no closer. People want to believe that Sharon pulled out of Gaza to help prepare the way for a two-state solution. To me it’s obvious to me that Sharon pulled out of Gaza because the cost, relative to the number of settlers, was too high. The West Bank is a completely different kettle of fish. The Israelis have spent the last 40 years doing their damndest to make their presence there permanent. It’ll take a ton of agony to remove enough settlements to make a Palestinian state viable.
Ravenman, I appreciate that you’ve actually talked to some Palestinians about this, which is more than many can say. But when we talk about annexation of the Occupied Territories, there’s a critical distinction to be made. Palestinians would certainly be averse to Israeli annexation without extension of citizenship or other rights to the Palestinian inhabitants. But annexation PLUS citizenship --which is what the one-state solution is about – is a horse of a different color. I imagine that your informants are objecting to the former, rather than the latter. As I mentioned before, annexation would actually make Palestinians the majority in the combined territories, and Israel would then cease to have its present form.
What makes you come to this conclusion? It is your own opinion of what Palestinians ought to think? Or do you have some evidence that Palesetinians do actually value voting rights as being an acceptable substitute to independence?
One of the first rules of successful negotiations, of course, is understanding what the other side needs in order to get an agreement. I just don’t think you understand at all what Palestinians want. There’s simply no ground at all for an agreement on these terms.
I wish you’d answer my question about whether you think Israelis would be content to live in Palestine.
Ravenman, don’t get your back up so quickly here. It’s a simple question: when you say Palestinians are objecting to annexation, what flavor of annexation are we talking here – with full citizenship, or without? You’ll agree, I think, that it makes a big difference – or all the difference, I should say.
As to whether Israelis would be content to live in Palestine, no, they probably wouldn’t be so wild about it. Were the Afrikaaners wild about finding themselves suddenly in black-ruled South Africa? Probably not, but – as I am forced to say repeatedly – it’s not always a matter of choice. When Palestinians become the demographic majority in Israel proper, as their birthrate suggests they will, then the two-state solution becomes moot. As does Israeli unwillingness to live under a Palestinian majority.
Oh, I’m not getting my back up, I just don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that anyone beyond a fringe few on either side of the debate would ever find a binational state a workable idea.
With respect to your question: it makes no difference at all what sweetners one might propose. As I understand it, that the vast majority of Palestinians would reject annexation (1) without voting rights; (2) with voting rights, or even (3) with voting rights, a brand new car, a plasma TV, and a pretty new flag without the Star of David on it.
Let’s get real here: a heck of a lot of Palestinians still would prefer Israel to be destroyed or vanish into the aether. There’s just no way that you can go from that sentiment to accepting any form annexation, no more than one could convince David Duke to vote for Ralph Nader, even if you offer Duke great riches in return.
What’s more, if Israelis do not want to live in Palestine, as you conceed, and as DSeid has pointed out, then there’s no reason for Israelis to ever agree to a unified state.
Look, I understand the attractiveness of everyone setting aside their differences and coming together under a peaceful country with liberty guaranteed for everyone. It would also be great if we could find a candidate for President here in the US who was so sage and respectable that he would receive a unanimous vote of the American people. Despite the desirability of both suggestions, neither has a grain of realism to it.
Sal While the potential eventual demographics within Israel in a two state solution may not be a choice, an immediate one-state solution would be. It won’t happen (and Sev the Arab side has been trying force for over half a century … it has only made their position worse and worse, time for another approach). As we discussed elsewhere that potential demographic eventuality must be a matter of concern for any Zionist. But the predictions are predicated upon an assumption that currrent birthrates and current immigration/emigratioin patterns will continue unchanged. That is a huge assumption and one that assumes that other circumstances won’t change or that other circumstances changing will not effect the current figures.
IF one assumes a two state settlement that creates both an economically viable and somewhat secular Palestine that is able to work with Israel in coventures (over a period of years) and that is able to deliver on security for Israel (admittedly a huge assumption itself), then there is great reason to believe that those rates will change.
Israel can bring its political attention to issues of social justice for its minority citizens. From the Zionist’s self-interested POV improved SES and education level of its Arab citizens is very likely to be followed with a decrease in the extremely high birth rate of that population.
With security asssured Israel becomes a more desirable location for Jewish immigration. OTOH an economically viable and secular Arab Palestine becomes an attractive location for Arab Israelis who have a sense of Palestinian nationhood.
In short, there is time to do what is needed to change those demographic factors. First steps are withdrawl, security, and getting a Palestinian state up and running.