When discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the terms “one-state”, “two-state” and sometimes even “three-state” solution are tossed around. These options refer to the “state” in a conventional manner: an organization with the monopoly over the use of violence within a given, clearly defined and defended territory.[1] Thus, a one-state solution has typically been defined as one sovereign nation state (either democratic or not) and two states have been defined as two clearly demarcated territories for two-peoples.
A few days ago, I attended a conference in East Jerusalem called The Best Plans for a Peaceful Israel/Palestine which presented a series of new and unconventional plans for a peaceful settlement.[2] While I think the premise of the conference—that we have not been able to solve the conflict with conventional models of the state so let’s expand our definition of what the state is— was really interesting, practically, I don’t believe any of these models will come to fruition. Many of the models proposed were based on the idea of a one-state solution in form but not in content. This new state does not look like a state in the conventional sense, it is a federation or something ‘post-state’ like a confederation of states like the EU or the US.
In this post I am going to explain why, no matter whether you call it a “state” or a “federation” or “condominium government” or “Union” or “The United States of Israel-Palestine” or a “Post-Nationalist, Humanist state”, a one-state solution is both undesirable and unattainable.
One State as a sovereign democratic nation-state
The traditional argument for one-state is pretty simple—it is one state for two-peoples. There are two potential outcomes of this kind of state: 1) We have a democracy with free and fair elections and Israel therefore loses its Jewish-ness; or 2) We have a Jewish state where Arabs are treated as second-class citizens and don’t have the right to vote and therefore it loses its democratic-ness. Neither of these are feasible options. On one hand, Israel is a Jewish state created to provide sanctuary for the Jewish people and on the other hand, it is a democracy based on concepts of equality and the protection of fundamental rights. Israel cannot afford to sacrifice either facet of its identity.
One State as a post-state federation
These arguments are slightly more nuanced and the details of the different plans take different forms, however the gist is something like this: There will be one state, spanning from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River with Jerusalem as the shared capital. It will be one country with two provinces and two identities where each province contributes equally to the federal parliament (regardless of population size). There will be free movement all over the country with no boundaries or checkpoints and Jews can live in the Palestinian territories and Palestinians can live in Israel. There will be a unified defense force but each province is permitted to keep its own national guard.
Some of the titles of these proposals are: The United Federation of Israel-Palestine, The Levantine Union, Parity for Peace, The United States of Israel-Palestine, The Post-Nationalists-Humanist State in Israel-Palestine, One Democratic Secular-State, Israeli-Palestinian Confederation and the 3-4-2 in 1 Federation of Israel-Palestine.[3]
There are a few ways to look at this concept of a federal Israel-Palestine: 1) it is a beautiful idea but it can never happen; or 2) It’s a terrible idea because most Israelis and Palestinians don’t want it to happen. Therefore, it’s either a great idea but impossible, or a terrible idea and therefore still impossible.
Why it is unattainable
This definition of a “nation-state” encompasses two important variables: the monopoly over violence and defined territory. Political Scientists and Political Historians describe the development of the nation-state as a slow evolutionary process that came about through the interplay of violence and the economy.[4] The interplay between security and profitable property begins with coercive action and through these rent-seeking payoffs the state achieves short-run stability. Ultimately throughout history, “the requirements of military technology led to alterations in control of the state as rulers were forced to exchange property rights and political concessions in order to achieve a viable military order in the face of ubiquitous competition among states.”[5]
This long evolutionary process was indigenous to Europe, and by the 19th century, the nation-state was formed. However, we see in modern history, where the state model has been unilaterally imposed, like in African states and Middle Eastern states, it has resulted in extreme political and economic inefficiency.[6] The gist of the argument is: the state structure in Africa, as it appears today exists initially because of colonialism but ultimately because the elites of Africa chose to keep the structure. While elites inherited the state structure, they did not inherit the real power that comes with it. This resulted in very weakly centralized regimes that today exert power through concentric circles of authority.[7] The states do not have the ability to exercise discretion with force or use the threat of force and thus they neither have the monopoly over violence nor legitimacy to rule. This is slightly more nuanced in Middle Eastern countries because while nations lack legitimacy, they have the monopoly over force (like Syria). As an aside, this is why I personally believe that the UN unilaterally giving the Palestinian territories state status is a mistake.
I’m trying to articulate the fact that a post-state country (like a federation) is the next step on the evolutionary timeline but it cannot come before statehood. This is why Europe is (somewhat) capable of having a union of states, because they already had generations of nationalism and individual state-building activities. You can’t skip from non-state to post-state, you can’t unilaterally impose something that is not indigenous or created locally—it will not work.
Why it is undesirable
To put it bluntly, it is undesirable because people are both racist and nationalistic. Even in Europe where there is a successful model of a union people have racist and nationalistic ideas. For example, there is a reason that Turkey has not been admitted into the EU (and it has nothing to do with their government).
Many of the lecturers at the conference suggested that Israel and Palestine would live side-by-side in a greater federation like New York and New Jersey in the United States. However, there are few fundamental flaws with this comparison: 1) People in New York don’t hate people from New Jersey (all rhetoric about driving aside); 2) There is no real difference between the people of New York and the people of New Jersey that would contribute to them not wanting to live with each other—ethnic groups span borders and it makes no difference to a New Yorker if a New Jerseyian moves next door to him or vice versa; 3) There are still clearly defined borders.
Addressing these concerns individually:
1. While we cannot dwell on emotion when coming to a political solution, feelings need to be taken into account. I cannot imagine that the vast majority of either Israeli or Palestinian society will just decide one day that they don’t hate Muslims, or they don’t want to blow up Jews. Or that they don’t hold a grudge for the fact that their son was killed in a terrorist attack or that they were evicted from their homes. There is too much hate in this country right now, too much ignorance on both sides for us to live in harmony and denying this fact ignores the complexity of the issue. Peace does not mean harmony and it has been difficult to come to a peaceful solution as it is, imagine how difficult a harmonious solution would be.
2. I believe that a federation would be a slow process that would eliminate the Jewish-ness of Israel and minimize Palestinian nationalism. Why do the vast majority of people make Aliyah? To live in a country with other Jews. Maybe they are religious and want to live in a place where there is a plethora of kosher restaurants, where they don’t have worry if their milk or bread is Kosher and where there will always be a Minyan. Or maybe they are secular but want to live among people who understand what a Passover Seder is, or they don’t want to be persecuted or made fun of for their beliefs and/or heritage.
3. Put simply, borders—even city/state borders—prevent against collective action problems.
The underlying issue
This might be slightly more controversial but I believe that the underlying issue is one of national identity.
I think the most offensive argument made against Palestinian statehood is: There is no such thing as Palestinian identity, the Palestinians never existed as a people, they don’t deserve a state, there’s no such thing as a Palestinian blah blah blah… No, that is not true. National identity is very easily created, you don’t need hundreds of year to forge a national identity—what was an Israeli before 1948? The Palestinians deserve a state just as much as the Israelis do. However, I think the underlying issue is the manifestation of this Palestinian identity and desire to build a strong Palestinian state. All of the one-state federation plans involved using the already cultivated and built land of Israel. Rather than focusing on what Palestinians can gain by joining a larger nation with Israel, they should be focused on the institutions necessary to build their own state—building roads and schools, establishing an efficient system of government. I’m not saying that a process of the sort has not begun, nor am I saying that it has always been easy for the Palestinians to do so, however, I am saying that it is necessary.
Where do we go from here?
I agree strongly with Gershon Baskin who introduced the conference by saying that “the only solution is a two-state solution.” But these two states have to be strong states with a strong sense of practical nationalism. Zionism and the strong desire to leave ones home and build a land for the Jewish people made Israel what it is today. A similar sentiment needs to be cultivated in the Palestinian population. To take this one step further, these state-building activities should also be promoting a democratic state; activities that promote civil society development.
Maybe we as a generation are too obsessed with the state model and maybe a nation-state in the long-run is not the best solution. However, until individuals are capable of a “post-state” mentality, a two-state solution is the only option for Israelis and Palestinians.
[1] More or less what Weber says
[2] The conference was hosted by IPCRI, the Free Muslim Coalition and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. These ideas were presented on Monday November 28, 2011 at Ambassador Hotel in Sheik Jarrah.
[3] For more information about these plans visit the website: http://www.thebestplans.org/
[4] The books I’m referring to specifically are: Coercion, Capital and European States by Charles Tilly, and Structure and Change in Economic History by Douglass C. North.
[5] North, 208
[6] If you’re interested in the specifics and details of this argument, refer to: States and Power in Africa by Jeffery Herbst.
[7] Political elites’ power often dissipates as you get further away from where they reside in urban areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment