A Modest Proposal

by Aron Trauring

Bassem Eid, founder and director of the East Jerusalem-based Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, explains why he supports the roadmap:

"Contrary to general opinion, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not so complicated. It just takes strong, brave decisions and a commitment to enforce them. "

This article of Eid brought to my mind a modest proposal for how to resolve the conflict. Regular readers know my opinion about the destination of the road map. For me, a flag is just a pretty rag and a country just another piece of rock on this planet. I truly can't understand why people are willing to die for a rag or a rock.

Which is why I would propose the following (at least as a mental exercise). The Palestinians should come to the Jewish Israelis and say the following: "You find it so important to assert ownership of this land from the sea to the Jordan river. You find it so important that this country be a Jewish state. You claim, however, that your Jewish state will be a democratic one. Fine. We accept all three claims as well. You can claim all the land from the sea to the Jordan river as Israeli, and declare Israel is the Jewish state. You won. But we have three conditions that need to be embedded in an Israeli constitution and guaranteed by international supervision:
1. that we be accepted as full citizens under the law, which also means we will be accorded equal rights, opportunities and obligations.
2. that Palestinian refugees be given full compensation for their lost property and from now on be treated by Israel like any other foreigner.
3. that control of the land and resources be fully maintained by the Israeli government and not any other agency."

Try this proposal on one of your Jewish Zionist friends or Palestinians friends, and watch them squirm.

At first glance, the Jewish Zionists should be thrilled with this proposal. I mean, if they truly believe that Zionism is not racism nor contradictory with democratic values, how could they refuse such a generous offer? They get exactly what they have demanded - full recognition of Jewish ownership in the real estate of this disputed land and no requirement to accept the refugees en masse (note they need only be treated as foreigners, not citizens).
The Palestinians, on the other hand, might be outraged at giving up their "rights" to rag and rock. But if we play out this proposal, it is deceptively "dangerous" to pre-conceived notions.

From the Palestinian side, except for rag and rock, they have gotten their basic human rights back and a whole lot more. Any Arab that marries an Israeli Arab will acquire citizenship. And Palestinian refugees who want to, can come and visit and work in Israel, and be naturalized like any other foreigner. Sure it will be galling and seemingly unjust to be considered a "foreigner." But the practical implications will be neglible, and certainly far better than the current situation, or even the two-state solution, which forever will bar them from returning to their place of birth. Under this scenario there is no barrier for those Palestinians who desire it, to eventually return and acquire their lost property (perhaps paying for it with their reparations).

Palestinian Arabs, guaranteed equal rights, can live anywhere they like. The Israeli government will no longer have the legal right to discriminate in the allocation of benefits to its citizens as it does now (e.g. by giving only certain benefits to people who serve in the army). Clause 3 ensures that the Jewish Agency can not meddle in Israeli development policies, so Arab neighborhoods must be allocated the same resources as Jewish ones. Moreover, there will be no restrictions of Arabs moving into Jewish neighborhoods, as is the de facto case currently (and vice versa of course).

And while Hebrew will be the state language, Arabic which is even now one of the state's official languages, at least de jure, will get equal treatment. The Jewish holidays will be official holidays along with the Muslim and Christian ones. Beyond that, what does it mean practically that Israel is a "Jewish state?" Certainly, in the day to day running of the country -- the garbage collection, economic development, environmental issues and regional stability -- Jewishness is quite irrelevant. Under this agreement, Israel can't prevent Arabs from being involved in the political process and being part of the government. Inevitably there will be coalitions between Jewish and non-Jewish parliamentarians.

Once we have established Israel as a democratic state, with whatever borders it might have, then while it might be a cultural homeland for the Jewish people, ethnic origin should have no other significance vis-a-vis citizenship. Hence, if true equal rights are granted to Arabs, then its quite possible that the "Jewish" state will eventually have a non-Jewish Arab Prime Minister, as the Arab minority grows. And the likelihood of this scenario grows as more of the West Bank and Gaza are incorporated into the final borders of Israel. In my modest proposal borders, the "Jewish" state will certainly and inevitably have an Arab Prime Minister -- which is of course not an earth-shattering idea if you believe in democracy. In sum, the idea of a Jewish state (as opposed to cultural homeland) has no meaning in a democratic world-view.

The Jewish Zionists should be happy - they have their rag and rock, and all have acknowledged their supremecy in these two. But, if you put the modest proposal to "liberal" Zionists, they will begin to squirm. Because this modest proposal clarifies the inherent contradiction and intellectual dishonesty of their Zionist ideology. Ethnic origin does have significance for them. An Arab Prime Minister of Israel is not something even the most "liberal" Zionist is willing to contemplate. So to prevent the "horrific" scenario of an Arab Prime Minister, those who like to think of themselves as democrats, need to scramble for ways to ensure that Jews have a "demographic" majority within Israel's borders. However, they realize that isn't enough to guarantee the Jewish "character" of Israel. So to be a Jewish state, even "liberals" argue that Jews must have rights that others don't, as is the case now.

Hence, anyone who is intellectually honest, reluctantly must conclude that Zionism is a racialist, non-democratic movement, something "liberal" Zionists vehemently deny. To its credit, the extreme right are intellectually honest. They don't have a problem with this characterization of Zionism, because they don't believe in democratic values. They propose ethnic cleansing or apartheid as legitimate Zionist solutions to the Arab "problem."

Of course this will be equally true of a Palestinian state, if citizenship is based on ethnic criterion. And so we've come full circle. Unless you believe rag and rock are more important than human rights and democratic values, two states for two peoples is not going to solve anything. We might as well be honest from the start and give up this absurd need to call this land a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, or assert Jewish or Palestinian ownership over a piece of rock, now red with wasted blood.