Dov Waxman and Dahlia Scheindlin have a proposal up at the Guardian exploring the idea of a “confederal approach” to the one- versus two-state question in Palestine/Israel. They call this the “two-state solution 2.0”.
First read their ideas, and note what’s glaringly missing — anything to change current Israeli policy:
[T]here is another way. It combines elements of both one-state and two-state solutions. It is a confederal approach, proposing two sovereign states, with an open border between them, freedom of movement and residency, and some limited shared governance….
The 1967 ceasefire lines would be the basis for a border, but a different kind of border, not today’s 9m concrete wall, but one aimed at allowing people on both sides to cross freely, to visit their holy places, to work, shop, socialise – in short, to breathe.
…..While each state would decide its own citizenship policies, including laws of return, citizens of one state could be permitted to live as residents in the other (as in the European Union), with each state setting limits on the number of non-citizens granted residency.
This would open up a new way of addressing the intractable issue of Palestinian refugees. Israeli Jews adamantly oppose the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper because they view it as bringing about the end of Israel’s Jewish majority; Palestinians just as resolutely insist on it – indeed it has become the symbolic centrepiece of their national struggle…. In a confederal approach, however, Palestinian refugees who wish to return could live in Israel as residents, but would exercise their full citizenship rights, such as voting in national elections, in Palestine.
De-linking citizenship and residency also helps address the thorny problem of Jewish settlers, who number more than half a million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem…
….. a confederal approach envisions a united Jerusalem as the shared capital of two states….
….a confederation is the idea of establishing some joint institutions and legal mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between the two states, not only in security matters but also in areas such as economic development and management of shared resources….
However far-fetched it may appear, it is the most realistic approach because it accommodates the demands of Israelis and Palestinians for national self-determination…..
I appreciate their creativity and (clearly) positive intentions. However, Waxman and Scheindlin say it is the “most realistic approach” without offering any suggestions on how to get Israel to accept this proposal. Israel is in the driver’s seat; why would the government change a thing?
I think it’s unrealistic and irresponsible, at this juncture, to discuss an “approach” without discussing implementing acceptance.
The two are addressing a British audience and say, “people no longer know what to do about it”. Yes, we’ve certainly run the gamut on what to do, without applying outside pressure and interference (sanctions for example).
Let’s imagine every person in the US and the UK read this and agreed with it and Palestinians embraced it whole-heartedly — then what? Do you think Israel would agree? Why do they think Israel will change its conduct one iota? And what does that mean for Palestinian human rights? What difference would it make, in practical terms, if we all loved the proposal but the Israeli government didn’t? It just becomes another idea to chew over for years and years — pushing any resolution down the road.
The discussion we should be having is what the global community needs to do to force Israel to comply to a plan — because if they (the global community) are unwilling to do that — new ideas are just an exercise in futility. What conversations should people be having with their elected officials to get them to act — to “approach” making Israel comply with a change of course? Because this article does not go near addressing that “approach”.
Waxman wrote a few years ago it was “too much to expect” that American Jews could bring peace to Israel/Palestine, and I agree with him. That leaves the rest of us.
On a final note, Bradley Burston has had it up to here, again, this time with supporters of BDS.
I’ve had it up to here with the bludgeoning, exclusivist tactics of BDS activists, who attack with immediate and snarkily supremacist condescension any suggestion that there might be other ways to fight occupation.
He thinks the movement is full of mean people who think Israelis are “incapable of listening to reason…all alike, all of them stonehearted, all of them hateful, all of them worthy of being hated.”
No, we’re tired of just deploring the occupation and doing nothing. We’ve tried everything else. Now it’s our turn to do what our governments won’t, after decades. The “approach” we’ve chosen is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Live with it.
I do appreciate the efforts of Waxman and Scheindlin. But at this point any idea for a solution needs to include at least a notion about Israeli compliance.
Thanks to Ofer Neiman
Annie
(1) You have it wrong that the article is addressing a British audience. This is extracted from a longer piece published in the Washington Quarterly.
(2) “I think it’s unrealistic and irresponsible, at this juncture, to discuss an “approach” without discussing implementing acceptance.” That is a somewhat strange argument to hear on MW, which I thought embraced the “War of Ideas in the Middle East”, and often argues that any issue that raises public consciousness and develops debate is beneficial.
For how long has their been discussion of a Two State Solution, without detailed analysis of the path to implementation – beyond of course periodic exhortations by American Secretaries of State, occasional condemnations by the UN and a general acceptance that an agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders will be necessary? Why should the bar be set higher for this proposal, and why does a similar implementation path not apply? The flimsiness of the implementation approach to 2SS (esp. Oslo) has been go for confidence building measures now, and we’ll grapple with the serious issues (like borders, refugees. and Jerusalem) later on.
(3) “The discussion we should be having is what the global community needs to do to force Israel to comply to a plan” Surely the first thing we need to is to agree what the plan is, before we talk about how to impose / implement it. The international community continues to talk about the 2SS, though increasingly it is being acknowledged that settlements and economic integration have made a viable second state impossible. The parameters of the 2SS were well known, and broadly agreed. The only problem was implementation. But the concept of a 1SS is not well developed, and could come in a diversity of shapes and sizes, and these various options surely need to be subject to serious debate? The simple formula 1S1P1V works pretty well in dozens of countries, but the Zionist movement has fiercely opposed this approach for more than a century, so simply reciting 1S1P1V like a magical incantation isn’t going to solve anything. Serious work to elaborate constitutional forms that might persuade and be acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians are desperately urgent.
(4) I think you overestimate the power and influence of the global community. Look at any issue of major regime change: e.g. American Civil Rights; collapse of Apartheid in South Africa; collapse of Soviet power; transformation of fascist regimes in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Myanmar, etc. External condemnation and international isolation were contributory, but ultimately the forces for internal change achieved the transformation. The same I am sure will apply in I/P.
(5) “No, we’re tired of just deploring the occupation and doing nothing. We’ve tried everything else. Now it’s our turn to do what our governments won’t, after decades. The “approach” we’ve chosen is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Live with it.”
BDS has a vital role to play, but gains achieved so far have been relatively minor; further gains will be very hard-fought; and other changes must go hand in hand alongside an accelerating strategy of BDS.
What I am long-windedly trying to get at (and I don’t think I’m really disagreeing with anything you say) is that if and when I/P is resolved it will be as a result of multiple interlocking processes, which will need to evolve in parallel. These comprise:
(a) as per PW’s excellent article today: liberate American Jews from the taboo of criticising Israel.
(b) in the process, liberate American non-Jews so that the real facts about the conflict can be known and debated, in an atmosphere free of anti-Semitic slurs.
(c) fight like hell to get money out of politics, so that the voice of the American people can be heard, and the power of the lobbies reduced.
(d) fight like hell to find a progressive presidential candidate who can be elected and will be prepared to be even-handed on I/P and prepared to waive the American veto at the UN.
(e) fight like hell to reduce carbon-dependence and develop clean energy which will have the effect of undermining the dictatorial regimes maintained in the Middle East by a West hungry for cheap oil.
(f) continue rapprochement with Iran which will undermine Israeli-warmongering efforts and transform Middle Eastern international relations.
(g) continue and accelerate the BDS process.
(h) change on the American front is vital because of its special relationship, but will in the process energise and accelerate activism in Europe and elsewhere.
(i) develop fully worked out proposals for the solution to I/P, which will very likely be some form of hyprid 1S/2S solution, for instance on the lines advocated by Waxman/ Scheindlin and Ali Abunimah.
(j) reach out to and embrace progressive elements in Palestinian society who will react non-violently and very positively to the changing climate of world opinion. (Some of the $5billion p.a. saved by no longer arming Israel could work wonders in building civil society institutions)
(k) reach out to and embrace progressive elements in Israeli society who will compromise on their current economic, political, military and cultural power if the only alternative is long-term decline and pariah status.
(l) allow Israelis and Palestinians to work out and agree their own solution, rather than thinking that the global community can impose one.
1S1P1V. No other way.
I think Burstein’s playing both sides, one minute he’s fuming about zionist policies and the next minute he’s whimpering oww! BDS hurt my feelings and I’m not gonna play anymore! Neither is the BDS movement Mr. Burstein – get used to it. It’s the only thing now that’s having any impact so forward it must go. There’s no other peaceful way. It’s the colonialists, the zionist government and all the stupid supporters of it’s policies that always choose to draw blood before listening to reason.
yes, the most realistic approach is BDS…
thanks for the article Annie
Happy Mother’s Day
This is not actually a new proposal, in fact, if you read the UN Partition Plan carefully, freedom of transit was included as well as a full economic union. https://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/independent-sovereign-palestine/
Uri Avnery has been talking about a confederation for years, having initially discussed it with Yasser Arafat.
It is clear that two completely independent sovereign states won’t work: the land is too small and the infrastructure and economies too inter-related. I disagree with the Guardian piece on two points. The so-called 1967 border ( i.e the 1949 Green Line) has no legitimacy at all. (I have an article coming up about that on Mondoweiss very soon: Annie, please nudge Phil if you have the chance.) Palestine deserves and needs much more territory than the 22% of their historic homeland outside the Green Line. Also, complete freedom to change residence would result in a rush of die-hard Zionists into the West Bank and Gaza in pursuit of the Zionist dream of settling all of the land from sea to river.