PASSIA Meetings & Workshops
Home > Dialogue Program >2004

PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI IMPASSE -
EXPLORING SOLUTIONS TO THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT
Two-States in a Federal Union
   
April 26, 2004 PASSIA, Jerusalem

Speaker: Nasser Abu Farha, University of Wisconsin
Participants: Catherine Nichols, Sabeel; Xavier Pelletier, French Consulate; Layla Kaiksow, Palestine Fair Trade Association, Manuel Schubert, Konrad-Adenauer Foundation (KAF), Ramallah; Elisabeth Petersen, Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES); Katharina Friedrich, FES; Peter Schäfer, FES; Michèle Auga, Director, FES; Mohammed Nusseibeh, Engineer; Samer Nusseibeh, Engineer; Walid Assali, Lawyer; Adnan Abdul Razeq; Hana Hasan, ECHO; Alban Biaussat, European Commission Office; Amit Leshem, Van Leer Institute; Abdul Rahman Abu Arafeh, Director, Arab Thought Forum; Mohammed Shadid, Welfare Association; Ibrahim Daibes, Journalist; Caroline Vanquaethem, Volunteer, Youth Development Department (YDD), Arab Studies Society; Albert Aghazerian, Lecturer and Consultant, Jerusalem; Zaki Abu Halaweh, Journalist; Ishaq Al-Qutub, Al-Quds University; Nick Kardahji, Deniz Altayli, Mahdi Abdul Hadi, PASSIA.



The recent escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict casts doubt on how this conflict can be resolved. However, as the conflict escalates, the need to resolve it becomes even greater.

The current discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represented in the two-state solution approach diverts the attention away from the main issues of conflict that need discussion and resolution. The main issues of conflict remain on the Israeli side, the exclusive nature of the Jewish State's construction in Palestine , and on the Palestinian side, the continued perception of Israelis as foreign colonialist presence in Palestine . Stemming from these conflicting concepts is a whole chain of social and political processes, in diametric opposition to each other, resulting in cycles of war and violence and posing serious threats to the security of both people now locked in the conflict.

The concept of an exclusive Jewish state necessitates and generates discriminatory measures against the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country, the Palestinians, in order to maintain it. At the same time continued perception of Israelis as foreign colonialists necessitates and generates nationalist liberationist programs that aim at driving Israelis out of Palestine The two separate states solution discourse attempts to come to a co­ existence arrangement between Israelis and Palestinians by bypassing these issues. This discourse continues to fail.

The two separate independent states program will continue to fail because it rests on false assumptions. Its proponents assume that the exclusion of Palestinians from what is now Israel has been normalized and accepted among Palestinians and that the presence of Israelis and their collective rights for cultural expression in Israel has been normalized and accepted by Palestinians and the broader Arab region. Attempts to make political arrangements based on these assumptions continue to fail before their conclusion.

The two separate states solution is in practical terms not viable for many reasons. First of all, the two-state solution will pose a greater security threat to Israelis because an independent Palestinian state would house millions of Palestinians who have countless claims in Israel that are not addressed. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza represent only one third of the Palestinian population. Their suffering must be relieved immediately by ending the Israeli military occupation, but an end to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not the end of the conflict. The plight of the exiled Palestinian population, the demographic crisis in Gaza , and the rights and concerns of the Palestinians inside Israel would not be addressed. Moreover, the two-state solution fails to consider the Palestinians' right not to be excluded from their historic homeland in what would remain Israel and Israelis' right not to be excluded from their historic homeland in what would become Palestine.

The fact that Palestinians and Israelis live in a landscape that they both call home is a reality that any viable resolution cannot ignore. The solution lies not in how to divide this landscape, but rather in how to share it. Reality requires both peoples to reconsider their current programs and the choices they make. Israelis need to re-examine the ways in which to view the State of Israel as a Jewish state, when half of the population in the space they consider their homeland are not Jews. At the same time Palestinians need to re-examine their nationalist liberation program when 55 years after the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine a new Israeli identity, whose homeland is also Palestine, has emerged and is as entitled to practice its collective rights. The new generation of Israelis, the Sabra Israelis, have no homeland but Israel . To continue to view this population as foreign colonialist is in effect holding this population hostage to history and the injustices Palestinians suffered in the process of establishing the State of Israel in Palestine . On the other hand, to continue to define Israel as a state for the Jews and not for its inhabitants, regardless of their ethnicity, is to continue to pose threats of encapsulation, expropriations, and expulsions against the Palestinians. A solution must bring about recognition among Palestinians and Israelis that today they are integral components of the land of Palestine-Israel.

What the Alternative Palestinian Agenda (APA) presents is a break from the current discourse that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This solution is fundamentally inadequate to comprehensively resolve the conflict. A viable solution to the conflict must consider the historical context of the conflict, recognize the current realities, and address the concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis in combination not isolation. The APA proposal is designed to comprehensively respond to all of the Israeli and Palestinian concerns and to equalize and normalize relations between them.

The current realities demonstrate that Palestinians and Israelis are not separate nor are they separable. Consequently, I propose two sovereign states joined in a federal union. These states would reflect the current demographic distribution and population density on the ground. The Israeli state would consist of areas currently inhabited by Israeli Jews. The Palestinian state would comprise areas which are

predominantly inhabited by Palestinians as well as areas that are vacant or lightly populated and can sustain higher population density in order to accommodate Palestinian returnees. East and West Jerusalem, along with the city's suburbs and the city of Bethlehem , would fall under separate jurisdiction independent of either state and would constitute the capital district of the federal union.

Each state would have its own legislative parliament, state government, judiciary system, police force, education system, language, flag, and national holidays. The District of Jerusalem would have its own district council representative of the residents of the district, run its own affairs and police force. The Federal Union would have an executive administration to coordinate aspects of common interest for the two states, such as external security through a unified army and internal security, by coordinating between the various security apparatuses of each state, as well as ethno-national relations between the two states and shared use of resources.

This proposal responds to nationalist aspirations of the Palestinians and Israelis by allowing for two states. The Federal Union arrangement leaves room for both to remain included in the space they call home. By addressing the issues of conflict between Palestinian and Israelis, the relations between them can be normalized, which would make room for the normalization of Israel and Israelis in the region as a whole. The normalization of these relations is the security guarantees both people aspire to and ultimately the resolution to the conflict.

Visit the APA web site: http://www.ap-agenda.org/

Nasser Abu Farha's E-mail: nabufarha@students.wisc.edu

Summary

The Alternative Palestinian Agenda (APA) proposal:

  • Based upon UN Partition Plan of 1947 (UNGA Resolution 181) with one Palestinian state and one Jewish state. Borders modified to take account of current realities.
  • Palestinian state would be founded on land that is predominantly inhabited by Palestinians (including the Galilee and the Triangle) or on land which is sparsely populated (e.g. in the Negev ). Jewish state on predominantly Jewish land.
  • Plan allows for the return of around 2 million refugees to former village sites which will be rebuilt, to cities such as Haifa , Jaffa and Tabariyya, or to new cities and towns to be constructed.
  • States would be in a federal union, with Jerusalem and environs (incl. Bethlehem ) as a separate district independent of either state (cf. Corpus Separatum) . Federal executive would coordinate, foreign, economic and defense policies as well as inter-state relations.
  • Plan takes current situation as a starting point. No Palestinians or Israelis will have to relocate – settlers in WBGS can remain where they are.
  • Proposal acknowledges the sense of “belonging” that both nations feel towards the land. Recognizes that legitimate Palestinian rights must be fulfilled if conflict is to end (and they will not be fulfilled under conventional two-state solution). At the same time the proposal recognizes that the Israelis are a definite and rooted presence on the land and they have a right to remain here (and they cannot be forced to leave).

Full details of the of the APA can be found at www.ap-agenda.org

Discussion

Several points were raised in the discussion that followed the presentation. Many similar comments were raised; the main questions are summarized below: 

  • Firstly, many of the participants argued that this proposal was extremely utopian given the current political environment. Following the Bush-Sharon correspondence any kind of peaceful, negotiated settlement has become all but impossible. In this context where the conventional two-state deal is unworkable, the APA, which calls for a larger Palestinian state on more of the land, is surely highly unrealistic.

    Abu Farha's response to this kind of argument was to point out that the APA is a plan for the future, once the political environment becomes more favorable, not a plan to be implemented now. This is a plan that needs to be worked for at the grassroots level and it will take time to build a movement in favor of it.
  • Another point raised was that the proposal allows the West Bank and Gaza settlers to remain where they are. Surely this is unacceptable to most Palestinians?

    In reply to this Abu Farha argued that this kind of perspective comes from a “post-67” mindset. What is the difference between Israeli “towns” in the Galilee and Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank ? Aren't they basically the same thing, colonies built on Palestinian land? Once a federal solution is adopted where the land is more open to both people and the idea of an Israeli presence in Palestine is conceded, then why should the settlements in the WBGS be removed?
  • Some participants pointed out that in terms of international law UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 carry more wait than the partition resolution. This is because the latter is a General Assembly Resolution and hence is regarded as advisory only, whereas resolutions of the Security Council are regarded as binding. Therefore if international law is taken as the basis on which a solution will be built then we should stick to the conventional 2-state model based on UNSCR 242.

    Farha responded by arguing that UNSCR 242 was not related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but to the Arab -Israeli conflict. The resolution relates to the situation in the aftermath of the June War of 1967 and does not specifically mention the Palestinians at all. Instead it mentions “states in the region”. Although the partition resolution may not carry the same weight as a Security Council ruling it is still a much more feasible basis on which to build a solution to the conflict.

 

 

PASSIA
The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-6264426 / 6286566 • Fax: +972-2-6282819
P.O.  Box 19545,  Jerusalem
 Email: passia@palnet.com
Copyright © PASSIA