- Binationalism is not a plan but an existing
condition disguised as “military occupation” over the Territories,
and a “separate
entity” called the PNA.
- When discussing Binationalism one must be aware
that there are at least four types:
A consociational / ethnically based
power sharing system, recognized and accommodating collective rights
(Belgian model, Dayton model, N. Ireland ) usually 
involves cantonization
or federation.
A liberal, “one man one vote”, individual rights
unitary state model (post Apartheid South Africa ).
Various stages
of ethnic domination over a minority (or majority) – from “majority
tyranny” to Herrenvolk democracy.
Undeclared Binationalism (permanent “military
occupation”).
- All attempts to relate present Binationalism
to Birth Shalom and Hashomer Hazairs' ideas of Binationalism in
the Mandate period are wrong, as conditions are totally different.
Similarly, it is not the Secular State advocated by the PLO.
- Mandatory Palestine is (at least since the late
80's) one geopolitical entity and the attempts to maintain physical
or conceptual separation (“partition” or “withdrawal”) are meant
to postpone hard choices and ignore the monster that is Binationalism
which grows relentlessly.
- Ironically, the peace agreements with Israel
's neighbors have, by default, reinforced the integrity of Israel/Palestine
as a distinct geopolitical entity. The creation of rigid international
boundaries within the area of Israel / Palestine is impossible,
as the “Wall” demonstrates.
- Eventually people will realize that the struggle
for political and collective rights requires a demand for civil
rights. But by then the herrenvolk democracy will become
entrenched and more difficult to eradicate.
- Demography as a threat to a Jewish and democratic
state is a scarecrow because when an Arab majority materializes
the authorities will stop counting. Recent examples: Lebanon , Bosnia
and others. Even today Israelis do not count Palestinians in the
Territories and question the accuracy of Palestinian estimates.
- The Jerusalem Problem cannot be resolved by
sheer separation and all “solutions” based on physical partition
are fantasies. Binationalism Country of Jerusalem based on federal-borough
system points to the creation of the city as a capital of Federated
Israel/Palestine.
- Israel proper is a Binationalist entity as far
as its ethnic composition is concerned. No two-state solution
can resolve the collective status of the Palestinian-Israelis
(“Israeli
Arabs”).
Addressing immediate issues both in the occupied territories
and in Israel proper and resolving them equitably and fairly
is Binationalism.
- Acknowledging Binationalism is a realistic act, not only a
normative stance.
- Binationalism means that less emphasis should be given to borders,
resolutions and roadmaps – and much more to principles like
equality, dignity, mutual recognition and respect, fairness.
- The problems of separation to two states are more complicated
than a gradual devolution and the creation of “soft borders” (cantonization).
- A two-state solution must assume close cooperation that requires
joint institutions and equal decision-making input is issues like
water, environment, police, economy and labor, etc. The political
superstructure will resemble a confederation, more than two states.
This is caused by the fact that Israel/Palestine is physically indivisible
(water, communications, symbols, urban sprawl etc.).
- Multiculturalism is not an anti-Zionist concept. Zionism is
not a formula for Jewish ghettoization.
- “Two States” has become a slogan of the Israeli right and of
American neocons because Sharon has convinced them that ‘bantustanization'
is the solution to the demographic problem. It looks “respectable” because
the Israeli left declares it a triumph over the “Greater Israel” ideology.
- A Binationalism process facilities constructive thinking about
the future of the settlers and the attachment of Palestine to their
vanished homes.
- Binationalism might be a recipe for instability and has been
unsuccessful (except in Switzerland ) but two states is not necessarily
a better proposition because “nation states” coexisting
in the same “patrimony” – and suffering from the old Settler-indigene
syndrome – tend to sharpen nationalistic stances and foster revanchisme.
- One should pay attention to the fact that all recent breakthroughs
in the reconciliation process of intercommunal / ethnic disputes
(Northern Ireland, South Africa, Bosnia) have been based on consociational,
federal and autonomy arrangements, and not on partition.
- The enormous asymmetry between the two communities
will make all “final
status” schemes either a diktat of the Israelis or a dead letter.
A Binationalist process is open-ended and while not “resolving” the
irresolvable conflict it does not take away the hopes and create
conditions conducive to a solution, even one based on separation.
The topic of today's seminar was ‘bi-nationalism' introduced by
Meron Benvinisti . It was attended by a number of academics both,
Israeli and Palestinian, drawn from a variety of different NGO's,
universities and other organizations. The speaker outlined the
topic and then there was an opportunity for a detailed discussion
of the issues raised. A range of opinions were expressed as summarized
below.
The Concept of ‘Bi-nationalism' – A summary
of Meron Benvinisti's position
The first key point to be stressed is that ‘bi-nationalism'
is not a plan for the future or a proposed solution, but a currently
existing condition. It is a description of the current
conflict not a prescription . It is important to stress
this point and make sure a distinction is drawn between the two.
The model of the ‘bi-national condition' is meant to provide a
framework in which a viable solution can be developed.
Some further
points;
- The term ‘bi-national condition' is preferable to the occupier/occupied
model because it captures the mutual interdependence of the two
societies and their physical, economic etc. interconnection.
- When a two-state model is proposed it is presumably the case
that an extensive degree of co-operation between the two entities
will be envisaged (e.g. on water, security etc.). It is only
a small step from there to seeing how really there is only one
state in operation on this model.
- There is a huge disparity of power between the two communities
and this must be acknowledged in any peace negotiations. Israel
has used this disparity to its advantage in the past (as the
more powerful entity) during peace talks to push for agreements
that work in its favor. An equitable agreement will seek to redress
this imbalance if it is to be durable.
Attempts to apply a two-state model will simply
result in ‘cantonisation'.
A Palestinian ‘state' would be too weak to be an equal partner
to Israel and would end up simply being an appendage to Israel,
reliant on that state especially economically. A two-state approach
only succeeds in postponing the hard questions to a future stage.
The two communities will have to come to agreements about sharing
(for example) water and arable land as pressure on resources
increases.
Opposition to this model
Several individuals at the
seminar expressed dissatisfaction with this model. The following
points were raised;
- A common viewpoint was that two separate states are highly
desirable in the short term at least in order to achieve some
kind of separation between the two communities. This is something
which majority opinion on both sides is in favor of.
- A one-state model is unworkable and would lead to civil war
or major internal strife of some kind (Lebanon is sited as an
example). The only possibility of peace is via a separation of
the two nations into their own polities.
- A two-state solution is the best approach; it has failed in
the past because it has not been attempted properly, not because
it is fundamentally unworkable. ‘Oslo' was flawed because it
lacked an end-stage and all substantive issues were left to some
unspecified future date.
- The kind of model advocated by individuals such as Meron Benvinisti
is likely to prove particularly unpopular in Israel. The whole
Z ionist project is based on the notion of a sovereign state
that is exclusively for the Jewish people. Any kind of one-state
agreement would place that in jeopardy.
In general, opponents of the ‘bi-nationalism'
account focused on the unworkability of a one-state model either
because it was undesirable to one or both communities, or because
it would be unstable (like Lebanon). Given sufficient political will
and proper leadership a two-state model can be made to work. Just
as Israeli Prime Minister Begin went against public opinion with
regards to dismantling settlements in the Sinai, so it will be possible
to implement the kinds of changes that will make a Palestinian state
possible.
Responses to these points
The speaker, along with
other participants partly or wholly sympathetic to his viewpoint,
addressed these criticisms at length.
- The idea that ‘separation' is achievable is illusory. The two
communities are too intertwined for any kind of division to be
possible. Attempts to remove the settlers, to take one example,
are likely to be unsuccessful as they are too firmly rooted in
the West Bank.
- Although it is fair to say that some of the attempts at one-state,
consociational models have failed elsewhere (e.g. in Lebanon)
it is also true that all recent peace deals in ethnic/intercommunal
disputes have been based on some form of consociational/power
sharing model. Partition has not been seen as a viable option.
- Several people pointed out that two-state models have been
pursued for decades without success. What reason is there to
think that future attempts will prove to be more successful?
Oslo failed not because it was not properly formulated, but because
it as based on the false premise that a two-state solution was
possible.
The key argument is that opponents of the ‘bi-national'
model are ignoring the high degree of interconnection between the
two nations. A two-state model would only be possible if there was
at least some degree of equality between the two communities,
but given the relative powerlessness of the Palestinians such an
approach would only generate future problems.
Conclusion
There
was little agreement on the Israeli side with Meron's position.
Most felt that a consociational or unitary state model would
be both unworkable (because it would lead to serious internal conflict
as in the case of neighboring Lebanon) or because it would
be unacceptable to Israelis (because it would fatally compromise
the Z ionist project, i.e. the notion of an exclusively Jewish state).
On the Palestinian side there was much more sympathy with the idea
of some kind of one-state solution, but a belief that in the short
term at least it would be unpopular amongst ordinary Palestinians
because of a strong desire for separation from the Israelis. In addition
it is likely that PNA would perceive any attempt to move to a one-state
model as a threat to their position. In general there seemed
to be little acceptance of the notion that the two communities were
not separable and that a two-state solution could not, in principle,
be made to work at least in the short term, although there
were some who argued that given past failures it was difficult to
see how a future two-state model could be successful.
