Would a "binational" or "one-state solution" be best for Israel/Palestine?

Great Debates
41

While agreeing that Sharon’s demise changes the equation, I’ll believe this when I see it.

But let’s suppose that the Israelis do act as you suggest – yank their settlers out, and disengage. The question then is, why the hell didn’t they do this 25 years ago, before they had filled up the West Bank with settlements? This gets to my larger point here, which is that if you’re going to be eventually forced by circumstances to do something – like evacuate the West Bank – why don’t you use some prognostication skills to not go down that particular road in the first place? Where’s the mystery in all this? The Israelis had to know that putting the settlers in was pouring gasoline on the flames. They had to know that the Palestinians, poor as they were, had an astronomical birthrate. They had to know that the Palestinians would resist, making things hot (and expensive) for the settlers.

This is what I’m saying here – the Israelis don’t have a good track record on realism. They let ideology lead them astray.

But who knows – maybe Olmert will be the man history remembers – the man who brought Israel the one-nation solution. Because remember that both Gorbachev and De Klerk, like Olmert, were rightist apparatchiks who came up through the ranks.

42

Ah Sal, I thought that you didn’t want to spend energy on the past? But since you brought it up, let me remind you of some history.

Israel won this territory, right? At that time there were two thoughts as to what next: annex it (would’ve been legit at the time, won in a defensive war) or not. Decision? Not. The Arabs will be willing to negotiate a peace deal in return for it. The Arab answer? The infamous three nos. No peace with Israel, no negotiation of Israel, no recognition of Israel. Still Israel didn’t think that they meant it, they’d come around and deal. Surely they’d realize that eventually they’d have to? So when settlers wanted to move a few people in, in return for enough votes to make a coalition, well what the hell, it’ll just be a few years and just a few settlers. Still no negotiations (well Egypt came around), and guess what, the settlers grew in numbers and became more and more of an obstacle. And those who supported settlers became needed ingredients for any coalition.

Let’s get this straight. Israel would’ve dealt at the outset and stayed within its initial sliver, but the Arabs said no. Another war, another no deal from the Arab side. Before settlements Israel asked for negotiations, land for peace, and again told no-no-no. Each time the situation ratcheted worse for the Palestinians. Same with Arafat and Barak. You want to talk about why not 25 years ago? Ask Arab leadership. Not realistic? Believing that Israel would somehow just go away after 1968 and that negotiating was not needed, that was unrealistic, thinking that just saying no to Barak’s offer with no counter offer until Barak was a lame duck and it was too late, that was unrealistic.

And even talking about one-state at this point in time, that’s unrealistic.

43

Brian, even Sharon’s statement’s had to be taken with a grain of salt. You go into negotiations claiming that you’ll settle for nothing less than a lot more than what you’ll actually settle for. He’d have dickered at the table.

I’d look to current number two Kadimanik (and very popular) Livni for a more realistic take of Kadima’s plans:

44

Why did Israel occupy the territories in the first place? Because Gaza had been annexed by Egypt and the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. When Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel in the 1960s, Israel kept the territories as bargaining chips…figuring that they’d trade the territories to the Arab states in return for peace treaties and recognition.

Except Jordan and Egypt refused to take the territories back. Israel couldn’t give the territories away, couldn’t annex them, and couldn’t hand them over to a hostile palestinian population. So Israel has half-heartedly settled the territories, half-heartedly handed them over to the Palestinian authority, and half-heartedly muddled along with the status quo.

45

Let us also remember that Tamerlane is NOT a Muslim. He is in fact a boring, middle-aged, white, atheist suburbanite fond of pork products, decent-quality booze and taking the Lord’s name ( any of a dozen or more, really ) in vain when he stubs his toe.

When I have expressed political opinions on the topic before they generally come out to some approximation of John Mace’s in post #3 and DSeid’s in post #13, if perhaps not for entirely identical reasons. Philosophically I dislike the concept of ethno-religously based states and Israel is no exception to that. However emotionally I’m more than a little sympathetic to the concept of Israel, given the whole panoply of Jewish history. Practically I am more than aware that my own intellectual and emotional views are irrelevant - Israel is not only there to stay, but it is there to stay as a Jewish-majority state - the vast majority of Israelis simply won’t countenance anything otherwise.

Given that my best solution would be an interlocked confederacy, as long-term it is the only thing that makes sense economically in the region. However since the collapse of the Oslo accords and the advent of the Second Intifida I have reluctantly come to the view that such a goal is impossible in the short-term and therefore an interim ( which might last decades ) two-state solution is necessary. I don’t think it is a good solution, just the best of several very poor choices. I would predict little immediate cessation in violence - the best that might be hoped for is a long, slow winding down. Even then I wouldn’t be so bold as to predict it will ultimately work at all.

The one somewhat “unrealistic” goal I still devoutly root for, in line with JM above, is an internationalization of Jerusalem under U.N. auspices. As a cultural treasure for multiple faiths it is too vulnerable as a flash point to allow Israel ( or anyone else ) to stubbornly cling to it. I’d also like to see virtually all West Bank settlers removed in exchange for a cession of all but the most symbolic of right-of-return claims ( i.e. perhaps just that property that those original refugees from the 1940’s still alive can unambiguously produce title to ). But I regard all of the above paragraph as near pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

  • Tamerlane
46

True, I would balk. Especially since I have been raping you and killing your family for forty years.

47

Use more and better.’

48

Perfectly stated, Tamerlane.

49

And who exactly would be using it?

50

Sal I find it interesting that you see the Kadima position, as I’ve supposed it, to be appealing. It includes the possibility of unilateral disengagement if a negotiated settlement is not possible. Before the unilateral action in Gaza advocates for the Palestinians were stating that unilateral Israeli action was intolerable. I suspect that if such a time comes that the Israelis decide to withdraw behind a defensible fence without a negotiated settlement, then those same people will be calling Israel all kinds of names.

BTW Tamerlane, if it isn’t clear, I entirely agree with you that a federation is the best long term answer, and more for the interests of the Palestinians than for the Israelis. I am enough of a pie-in-the-sky kinda guy to believe it is doable … after a few decades of cooling down and trust building. And while I have indeed pictured you middle-aged and enjoying some decent quality booze along with pork by-products, I do get a giggle out of picturing your taking an ancient diety’s name in vain after stubbing your toe. Boring, I doubt sir.

51

Sorry . . .

So, haven’t we got any Arab Dopers? Or any Muslim Dopers at all, since Aldebaran was banned?

52

Sorry, missed this thread… kind of late to the party :frowning:

I just saw this at work, so Y’all will have to wait another 12 hours or so for my response. Yeah, I know the suspense is killing you… :smiley:

(And BrainGlutton – I appreciate your calling out to me for input)

53

OK, while this thread does appear rather dead, I as much as promised BrainGlutton, the OP, to weigh in.
And I agree that it is a pity that we don’t have any local people from other Mid-East countries on the board… it would be interesting. But that’s the way it is.

The way I see it, Israel was created as a haven for the Jewish people. By “people”, I don’t mean religion; nor do I mean ethnicity nor culture. It’s a mixture of all three, and you don’t have to be part of all three facets of Judaism to be a member. I, for one, am an atheist, of a stripe hard enough to scratch a diamond. So religion doesn’t mean anything to me. Ethnically, I could easily pass as a White European. Which leaves culture, and maybe just a je ne sais quoi type of belonging.

This whole rambling preamble is to say one thing – Israel should be a Jewish country. What’s “Jewish?” Well, to me at least it’s pretty circular – a Jew is one who feels a sense of belonging to the Jewish people. A good wide-scale example of this is the Druze Arabs, who made an early decision to align themselves with the Jews in Israel, and as a result have gained nearly complete social acceptance. A good negative example are the ultra-orthodox Jewish “Neturei Karta” sect, who do not believe in a Jewish state in Israel before the Messiah comes, and have aligned themselves against the state despite being Jewish.

Bottom line – as far as I am concerned, Israel should be the home of all those who wish to share the lot of the Jewish people here; whether by birth, conversion or just declaration of sympathy and belonging. Others are, of course, accorded full citizenship rights if they are citizens, but do and should find themselves in the position of being a “minority”.

I don’t want a “bi-national”, or more correctly bi-cultural state. I want a country that is “mine” in a sense I can’t describe, but one that almost any European can tell you about as well.

Hope this makes some sense.

54

So why do they live there?

55

This is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, you say Israel should be the home of all who wish to share the lot of the Jewish people, but then on the other, you insist that they be those other non-Jews remain a minority.

You can construe “Jewish state” two ways. In the first way, it’s simply a state with a large number, even a majority of Jews. In the second way, it’s a state that insists on having a Jewish majority. The binational state as per the OP would be an example of the first, but Israel as it is now is an example of the second. But the second way is problematic, because it asserts, as part of the construct, that a Jew is more valuable than a non-Jew. That’s my basic gripe against Israel – that the insistence on a Jewish demographic majority is inherently discriminatory. And as long as that insistence remains in place, there can be nothing but conflict with the Palestinians. Discussions of the two-state solution are immaterial.

56

They think the land is holy.

57

Actually, I think what Noone means in the second place is a state that insists on having a Jewish character. IOW, a state where Hebrew will always have first place over Arabic, the money will always be called shekels, the flag will always bear the Star of David, the Law of Return for Jews will always be maintained, etc. Of course, in practice, that requires either a numerical Jewish majority or a discriminatory apartheid regime.

58

Right, a non-Jewish majority would have other views on the examples you cite. Which, of course, explains why the Zionists are so insistent on the subject of numeric supremacy.

59

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
And yes, demographics are a bitch. Which is one reason why many Israelis have come to realize that the only way to maintain a country with some kind of Jewish “character”, without imposing that character in an authoritarian way, is by giving up the dream of controlling all of what we consider “our” land. Remember, originally the British (in the Balfour Declaration) intended to create a Jewish Homeland in all of what is now Israel, the O.T., and Jordan. This has gradually been whittled away… and probably rightly so. Israel should control those parts of the region where there exists a strong “Jewish”, or “Israeli,” if you wish, majority.
The upshot of this is of course a two-state solution; Israelis who want a single Jewish state in all of historic Palestine are willing to be Apartheid rulers. I’m not, if only because any authoritarian regime is its own slippery slope towards dictatorship against all.

60

Speaking of Neturei Karta, a visit to their website is indicated here. On the subject of Israel, NK is “opposed to its very existence. In practice, we shun any participation in the state and refuse to accept its benefits, financial or other, in any form.” Which means, I suppose, there aren’t very many NK members in Israel.