PASSIA Meetings & Workshops
Home > Dialogue Program >2004

PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI IMPASSE -
EXPLORING SOLUTIONS TO THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT
The Bi-National Idea in Palestine/Israel: Conceptual Framework and the Contemporary Debate

Date: February 23, 2004 PASSIA, Jerusalem

Speaker: Dr. As’ad Ghanem, Haifa University

:: The Bi-national Idea

:: Questions 




 Participants:
   
Ann Le More, UNSCO, Jerusalem; Walid Assali, Lawyer; Mohammed Nusseibeh, Higher Islamic Council; François Osete and Alban Biaussat, European Commission; Hanan Aruri, UNDP; Raja Eghbaryeh, Abnaa El-Balad Movement, Umm Al- Fahm; Richard Colvin, Canadian Representative Office, Ramallah; Dr. René Klaff, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, Jerusalem; José Ferreira da Fonseca, Portuguese Representative Office; Hanlie Booysen, South African Representative Office; Peter Schäfer, FES; Germana Nijim and Katherine Nichols, Sabeel; Niall Holohan, Irish Representative Office; Nick Kardahji, Deniz Altayli, Mahdi Abdul Hadi, PASSIA.
 
 
 Summary:
  
The speaker outlined the concept of a bi-national state, how it differs from the idea of a unitary, secular state and also some arguments in favor of this kind of solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.


The Bi-national Idea

 

The speaker began by outlining several different possible solutions to the conflict:

 

  1. Ethnic cleansing – There are two different types genocide and “transfer” or expulsion. The former kind is dreamed about by marginal factions on the extreme right in Israel , and perhaps among a tiny segment of the Palestinian population, but it is not a political option and no one is seriously advocating it. Transfer on the other hand has already happened in Palestine (in 1948 when the State of Israel was established) and it could happen again. This is an option openly discussed by members of the Israeli Right, including some who are currently in the government. Some settlers use the immorality of transfer as an excuse not to move from the Occupied Territories , claiming that this would amount to ethnic cleansing. There is also talk of transferring Arab towns currently in Israel , such as Umm al-Fahm, to a future Palestinian state, as part of a more subtle form of ethnic cleansing.

     
  2. Apartheid-style situation – Israeli J ews would control all the land and deny rights to the Palestinians, similar to the situation in Apartheid-era South Africa . According to some commentators this situation already exists.

  3. Granting partial democratic rights to one group – Similar to option 2, where J ews control all the land, but Palestinians gain some rights within the state. A milder form of Apartheid.

  4. Separation/partition of the land – Creation of two states side by side, one J ewish and one Palestinian. According to Professor Ghanem the closest to this type of solution that has been reached so far was in 1969 when the Israeli Foreign Ministry seriously contemplated handing back the Occupied Territories . Since then this possibility, contrary to popular thinking, has in fact become more remote.

     
  5. Palestinian secular democratic state – From around 1971 onwards this was the favored option among the Palestinian community. The PLO argued that J ews do not constitute a national group and hence are not entitled to a state of their own. Nationality in this kind of state is based upon affiliation with the territory rather than upon membership of a particular ethnic group.

     
  6. Bi-national state – Citizenship and political rights stem from membership of a particular ethnic group. Four possible models; a) a wide coalition of the elites of the ethnic groups, b) a mutual right of veto so that one group cannot impose legislation that the other opposes, c) fair representation at all levels of government, with power split equally between groups (possibly with two ministers per ministry for instance with each responsible for their own communities affairs), d) internal autonomy where each group manages its own affairs.

 

Prof. Ghanem then described the four options that we are faced with at present;

  1. J ewish domination – Limited sovereignty for the Palestinians possibly in the form of a “mini-state” under Israeli control. Prof. Ghanem argued that this is the kind of option that the current Israeli government favors and is more relevant now than it has ever been. Sharon talks of a state but he means one with limited sovereignty that is dominated by Israel , whilst all other members of his government talk of very limited Palestinian autonomy and not statehood. Sharon is therefore on the left of his coalition. Further more, the current government is the kind that will dominate in Israel for the coming years. Sharon's electoral victories in 2001 and 2003 represents a strategic shift in Israeli politics and Israeli society, and the Right is attempting to fundamentally alter the structure of the Israeli “body politic”.

     
  2. Palestinian dominance – One Palestinian state that controls all the land. Not politically relevant but it is a goal which some Palestinians are actively fighting for, e.g. Hamas, PFLP etc. The fact that Sheikh Yassin has indicated that he may be willing to consider a peaceful period with Israel , following the formation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is a sign of the weakness of the Palestinian position.

  3. Territorial separation – Separate states as anticipated at the end of the Oslo process. This is the most relevant option which everyone is talking about. However what Israelis mean, even the Left, when they talk of a state is not the same thing as what Palestinians expect.

     
  4. Bi-national state – There are three stages in the progress towards a binational state; 1) Firstly there has to be mutual recognition between the two groups – Prof. Ghanem argues that this is difficult for Palestinians who historical have not recognized the J ewish people as a national group; 2) A change in attitude and orientation is required. At present most Israelis want to be a part of Europe which they feel a much stronger affinity for, whereas Palestinians see themselves as Arabs who are part of the Arab World. Both groups will have to rethink their identities within the context of a binational state; 3) There is a need for genuine compromise between the two sides.

 

The development of the idea of the bi-national state goes back to the early twentieth century. Many J ewish leaders at that time did not think that they had the power to defeat the Arabs and establish a J ewish state, so instead they sought to compromise with them and establish a bi-national state. Brith Shalom, established in 1925 was one group which campaigned for a bi-national state. Mapam (later merged with other parties to form what became the Israeli Labor Party) opposed partition and supported a bi-national state between 1946-48. Since then, no political party in Israel has campaigned for a bi-national state.

 

There are seven arguments that can be put forward in support of a bi-national state:

  1. Differing expectations of what partition should involve. Palestinians often use public opinion polls that show high levels of support for the two-state option amongst Israelis as propaganda to boost their cause. However the two sides have different conceptions of what a Palestinian state should entail and what a two-state settlement will involve. Israelis do not support the kind of partition that Palestinians are in favor of. For example with regards to East J erusalem , Israelis are not in favor of granting Palestinian sovereignty over all of this part of the city. Similarly there is no consensus for evacuating all the settlements from the West Bank and withdrawing fully to the 1967 border. It is unlikely that any Israeli government could ever achieve these goals even if they were politically desirable to Israelis, which they are not.

     
  2. Common interests/needs. Both communities have common needs for example in relation to water resources. Similarly it is in the interests of both communities to cooperate on areas such as economic policy.

     
  3. Settlements. Can the settlements ever be removed? According to Prof. Ghanem, Israel has reached the point where this is no longer possible. The settlers have become a dominant force in Israeli politics (several current ministers are settlers) and removing them would cause serious internal strife that no Israeli government would want to deal with.

     
  4. East J erusalem . The settlements in East J erusalem are too integrated to be removed. Even the Israeli Left regards settlements in east J erusalem as part of Israel 's capital.

  5. Refugees. Israel will not allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes/lands under a two state agreement. This issue cannot be resolved within the context of a partition-style solution.

     
  6. Palestinians in Israel . What is their fate in a J ewish state

     
  7. The image of the ‘homeland'. When Palestinians speak about their homeland they are thinking of all of historic Palestine , not just the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

These are all issues which have been known about for decades, they are strategic issues. What are the factors which are fuelling discussions about bi-nationalism now:

  1. Rightwing government in power – this kind of government is unlikely to offer the Palestinians a fair solution. Palestinians were right to reject Barak's offer, but Sharon will not offer anything close what he offered.

  2. Settlements – Israeli settlement activity is continuing, reducing the chances of a viable Palestinian state.

  3. There have been no real negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians since Sharon came to power.

  4. Separation Wall – prevents negotiations from beginning because it preempts outcome.

 

As a final remark, Prof. Ghanem said that many people see the bi-national option as unrealistic. However he said that the two-state option is no closer to being realized than a one-state option. We are equally far from many different possible solutions.

 

Questions

 

Several points were raised by the participants:

  • Bi-national option seems very distant it is not something most people are talking about, although another reason in support of it is economics.
  • Another point raised by several people was that it seemed a major task to persuade the Zionists to abandon their exclusively J ewish state and opt for a bi-national one.
  • Other consociational models have not been very successful. Belgium has an uncertain future, whilst Lebanon collapsed into civil war. Even if consociationalism is suitable in some cases, how can we be sure it is suitable here?
  • Palestinians will need to be persuaded of the benefits of the bi-national approach – they are deeply nationalistic.

 

By way of a response to these points Professor Ghanem made the following remarks:

  • The point of no return has been reached and an independent Palestinian state is no longer possible. Israel has created a de facto one state.
  • We should think in terms of conflict management rather than conflict resolution. It is unlikely that any attempt at solution will be completely successful in the current environment, but the bi-national option is likely to be more successful than other possibilities.
  • The refugee problem will not be solved in a two-state solution. They are the essence of the conflict, they are the reason the PLO was established in the first place.
  • Palestinians need to consider J ewish needs, they need to consider what coexistence involves.

 

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