Israeli political scientist/leader Meron Benvenisti says that a binational entity is the inevitable solution in Israel/Palestine because the landgrab has created such a structure in fact. He points out that binationalism has long been a current in the ideological contention over Palestine and the political resolutions. Who knew? This is instructive reading:
Until the mid 1940s, the Zionist officially defined its ultimate national objectives exclusively by the general formula of the transformation of Palestine (Eretz Israel) into an independent entity with an overwhelming Jewish majority. The ultimate objective of all national movements, the creation of a sovereign state, was implied in Zionist self-identification as a national liberation movement. However, the debate on the merits of emphasizing that ultimate objective continued throughout the history of the Zionist movement. The official leadership concentrated on formulating intermediate political objectives and those changed according to political conditions. These objectives (in chronological order) were: a national home, unrestricted immigration and the creation of a Jewish majority, “organic Zionism” (i.e., settlement and an independent Jewish economic sector); power-sharing (”Parity”) with the Arabs (irrespective of size of population); a bi-national state; a federation of Jewish and Arab cantons; partition. Only in the early 1940s the Zionists openly and officially raised the demand for a sovereign Jewish state. The territorial objectives of the Zionist movement were also ambiguous. The agreement to the partition of Palestine (1936, 1947) was accepted by many as merely a phase in the realization of the Zionist aspirations, but also (by some) as a fundamental compromise with the Palestinian national movement.
During the Mandate period the bi-national idea was acceptable to the Zionist establishment, including Haim Weizman and David Ben-Gurion. However, one must remember that the Jews were a minority and the demand for a Jewish state was impudent; power sharing, and even parity, sounded better. Also, a federation of cantons could have evened out the huge Arab demographic lead. The choice between bi-nationalism and partition was made twice: in 1936 the Peel Commission rejected the Cantonization Plan of the Jewish Agency and chose partition; in 1947 the UN General Assembly voted for partition and rejected the minority plan for a federal state.
Only a marginal group of Jewish intellectuals considered the bi-national state as the only way to avoid endless bloody conflict. They sought to emulate the Swiss model, accentuated the principle of parity but did not elaborate the details. Indeed, there was no need for such elaboration since both the Palestinians and the Zionists rejected the bi-national idea, and most Jews considered it treason. Hashomer Hatzsair movement adopted some elements of the bi-national model, but the establishment of the State in 1948 called off the initiative. The opinion that the realization of Zionism can only be achieved by a sovereign Jewish state triumphed, and those who dare to challenge this precept are considered traitors.
After the 1967 war the Israeli political Right played with the concept of bi-nationalism, in the shape that suited its ideology (the Autonomy Plan). Likud ideology rejected the ”transitory” nature of Israeli occupation but its belief in “Greater Israel” clashed with the demographic reality, and liberal circles in Likud (led by Menachem Begin) struggled with the famous dilemma: a Jewish or democratic state? Begin’s answer was based on the (failed) system known to him in Eastern Europe after WW1—non- territorial, cultural and communal autonomy for ethnic minorities under the League of Nations minority treaties. Begin’s Autonomy Plan had been modified in the Camp David (1978) accords and territorial components were added. The Oslo model used many components (with major changes) of Begin’s Autonomy Plan, and the Oslo accords can be viewed as bi-national arrangements, because the territorial and legal powers of the Palestinian Authority are intentionally vague; the external envelope of the international boundaries, the economic system, even the registration of population, remained under Israeli control. Moreover, the complex agreements of Oslo necessitated close cooperation with Israel which, considering the huge power disparity between the PA and Israel, meant that the PA was merely a glorified municipal or provincial authority. So, in the absence of any political process, a de-facto bi-national structure, was willy-nilly, entrenched.
Description, not prescription
It is no longer arguable; the question is not if a binational entity be established but rather what kind of entity will it be.
Meron Benvenisti is so radical he was fired from Haaretz?
What does that tell you.
Haaretz has the most anti Israel writers on this planet, yet they considered Meron to radical.
Meron needs to wake up.
Fatah has a death penalty to any Arab who sellls land to the Jews.
All Fatah maps show all of Israel as Palestine.
The Arabs treat every minority like dirt. (Kurds, Coptics, Black Christians of Sudan, Berbers, Chaldeans)
Why dont Meron Benvenisti move to Gaza or Syria and live under these Arabs?
Ofcouse he dont want to do that.
And we thought red state/blue state over here was bad. Is it bad that I’m looking forward to an Israeli civil war? I’d rather nobody was shooting anybody, but I’d rather if Israelis were shooting each other, rather than Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.
“Fatah has a death penalty to any Arab who sellls land to the Jews”
And so they should.
Selling land to European Jews was a factor in the growth of the Zionist community. Experience shows it should be counted as treason.
Its a semantic argument, not a substantive one.
There is the prospect of two distinct states, not two distinct cantons.
Beinvenisti states that the occupation is the administration of a bi-national state in fact. Is that appealing to anyone frankly? An acceptable end arrangement?
I think enfranchising everyone between the river and the sea is a valid approach. One person, one vote.
Then, if the people(s) wish to partition themselves (or do some sort of federal approach, or whatever) they can debate it in the Kneseet and pass a bill.
Witty doesn’t want that. It would spell the end to Jewish exclusivity over Palestinians — or as he likes to call it, “self determination.” A “self determination” that requires the Palestinians to surrender their property rights, military, access to air and sea and political freedom to make their own treaty arrangements without an Israeli veto, of course.
It is also a self determination that punishes Jews who convert or marry out – or even who follow the wrong branch of Judiasm.
My advice to Benvenisti is to speak to the Kurds, since they were the ones that actually created a 1 state solution and opposed a state for their people.
Good article for Meron.
us.oneworld.net/article/300000-syrian-kurds-buried-alive
Baruch Rosen and Richard Witty are all over this one, too.
Rosen says: “My advice to Benvenisti is to speak to the Kurds, since they were the ones that actually created a 1 state solution and opposed a state for their people.”
Perhaps Rosen’s hasbara minders got that wrong, as his statement contradicts itself
They don’t hire the megaphones for their strength of sanity or rationality, Mr. Parker. That just seems to get in the way, after all.
I agree with you, 100%
But perhaps I should have made Rosen’s crap and contradictory statement a little more clear:
“My advice to Benvenisti is to speak to the Kurds, since they were the ones that actually created a 1 state solution and opposed a state for their people.”
It is clear that his Israeli-imported sweatshop advisors haven’t got the story right, and Rosen is talking babble
Just for the record, Meron Benvenisti is not some obscure figure but the one-time deputy mayor of Jerusalem — who deserves to be much better know worldwide. He was raised inside the Zionist establishment, but he had the tremendous intellectual courage to challenge his own lifelong beliefs. A good comparison might be the great Henry Siegman. He made the first powerful argument for the one-state solution from within (Jewish) Israel that I ever came across.
Alongside this giant, Baruch Rosen’s “arguments” are simply pathetic.
Witty also gets it wrong. Since the two-state solution has gone down the plug hole, there are only three solutions to the problem in the short term:
- Two cantons in Palestine, where the Israelis are dominant
- Two cantons in Palestine, but called ‘two states’, where the Israelis are still dominant
- A big bloody mishmash, a ‘one nation’ state where Israelis exercise apartheid over the whole area ( A difficult proposition, since the differences between Israelis and Palestinians are not just white and black)
Sorry, I forgot the fourth and probably most popular alternative amongst the majority of Israelis: complete ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza.
This won’t cause a single problem to the rest of the ‘civilised world’. It will rid them of a problem that has been a lot too much trouble.
Maybe I haven’t lost my last shred of optimism, but I don’t think the rest of the world will let Israel get away with genocide. (Of course, I’m not at all confident that the rest of the world will actually stop a genocide of Palestinians if it starts, either.)
And you’ve got Witty pegged — I don’t think he’s wrong, he’s just being disingenuous. He couldn’t give two shits if Israel started slaughtering Palestinians outright — he didn’t when it was ongoing during Operation Cast Lead, after all.
After Burundi and Rwanda I don`t have the faith you do in opposition to genocide. There is a difference though – in that Palestine has finally begone to capture the western world`s attention.
The Israelis already exercise an insidious form of apartheid over their own (20%) Arab population, with discriminatory laws that leave them very much outside the general protection and promotion of incoming Jews (via the Law of Return), even if the immigrants are a bunch of fleeing Russians who have no Jewish connections at all, and are using Israel as a way station to the US.
Very unconvincing as usual Witty.
You seem desperate.