A Jewish and Democratic One-State Solution

This article originally appeared on the blog a Crazy Nation, and was reprinted in the Jerusalem Post

Jan. 12, 2010
by Joshua Reback, THE JERUSALEM POST

It's difficult to write this without being framed as some sort of fanatic. Either I should fall on the Left that advocates a binational state, or on the Right that can only see things through the lens of "Greater Israel." Both of these labels are presumptuous and have precluded debate about this issue. However, there is a way to reconcile these "extremes" and provide a reason to trend away from the two-state plan.

The Obama administration is trying to torpedo renewed discussion of this idea with a strained attempt to force two-state negotiations, while continuing the Bush administration's policy of building the PA's security apparatus. But an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in any capacity would contract the country's defensive posture and invite encroachment from Syria, with no guarantees the already extant terrorist groups in the area would not grow and infiltrate a Palestinian state's security forces.

At this point, annexing the West Bank (without the Gaza Strip) would not hinder Jews' clear majority in a unified state. That does not imply that absorbing the territory immediately would resolve a plethora of security, social and religious issues. But to give the vote to everyone in the West Bank would create both a Jewish and democratic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, sans Gaza. The question then becomes how the Jewish population intends to preserve that majority.

BUT BEFORE that can be answered, we need to remember why we should be concerned about it in the first place. This is a question that is seldom addressed, and its answers are seldom clarified by commentators. It was cited ad nauseam in the lead-up to the disengagement five years ago, but I am not so sure observers really understood why this issue was so important to Israelis.

Jews would instinctively bring up domestic security concerns. Israelis are especially cognizant of the pogroms in Europe and especially the Arab riots in 1929, 1936-39 and the two intifadas. Annexation evokes fears of anti-Semitic sabotage and civil war or pogroms if the government ever fell into the hands of a hostile Arab majority. This is a concern that no one can simply alleviate. Jewish sovereignty and qualitative ability to defend the Jewish world from attack are among the dozens of conceptual underpinnings of the entire Zionist movement. It is what justified one of the first global, collective gestures of affirmative action in modern history - the creation of an ethnically based country, the Jewish State of Israel.

The moderate approach in Israeli politics regarding a one-state solution would be to both annex the West Bank and push off the idea of official "binationalism." Such a state would have to remain a Jewish state, with a Jewish symbol on its flag - like an Islamic crescent adorns the Turkish or Pakistani banners - and maintain a Jewish majority (not plurality) in its territory.

This brings the whole debate back to the "big blue elephant" in the room - the need to increase Jewish immigration and the natural birth rate of Israeli Jews. These are not policies that Western democracies are expected to implement. But Western states do not exist for the sake of ethnic preservation against global instances of oppression, whether it be in Europe or the Arab world.

These policies are not radical to Israelis, and they are not radical to certain other ethnic states. And given the willingness to discuss population exchange and mass eviction during peace negotiations, they are not all too awkward to the likes of the Western powers, either.

Few Israeli politicians suggest this, because it assumes too many developments. Recently, Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely alluded to it when she fielded the idea of giving citizenship to Palestinians. There seems to be no guarantee that a renewed push for aliya and reversal of yerida would bear fruit, or that Jewish families would decide to have more children.

BUT GLOBAL Jewish leadership has fought against such pessimism. Tens of millions of dollars are already spent every year on all forms of Jewish outreach - religious, cultural and political. Activists the world over urge the end of assimilation and absorption of mixed families into the greater Jewish community. The push is for far bigger and far more Jewish families by leaders and organizations everywhere. The State of Israel, the strongest Jewish organization in the world, should coordinate all of these efforts, stress the importance of the Land of Israel to all streams of Judaism and emphasize the centrality of the state to the modern Jewish world.

It is possible to enhance Israel's Jewish, democratic and defensive characteristics simultaneously. Israel's Jewish character and the preservation of minorities' rights and needs are reconcilable. It is a mixture of idealism and practicality, yet an objective approach, politically satiable and the optimal one to take.

The writer is a graduate of Rutgers University with a BA in Middle Eastern studies. He is currently a student at Yeshivat Hamivtar in Efrat.

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli and Palestinian Leaders Meet

by David Bedein

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week welcomed the statement made by Palestinian Authority Chairman Machmud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who called for a resumption of negotiations with Israel. "If Abu Mazen stands behind that offer, then that is a positive thing and we're talking about progress," Netanyahu said in a meeting with Israeli journalists in Berlin following his meeting with German President Horst Koehler during his visit to Germany.

"We have thought for a long time that there is reason to hold a meeting without reconditions and to begin taking steps that will bring about the promotion of the political process," Netanyahu added.

Netanyahu underscored, however, that without Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish character, it would be impossible to resolve the conflict.

"The root of the conflict isn't the settlements, the borders or one area or another," he said. "All of those issues will be raised for discussion and we are going to have to find solutions to them. The problem is the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

However, judging by Abu Mazen's statements yesterday before the Palestinian parliament, the differences between the two parties are larger than the mere question of whether Israel is recognized as a Jewish state. While Abu Mazen voiced his willingness to renew negotiations, he underscored that the condition for renewal was a suspension of all construction in the settlements. Moreover, Abu Mazen said that the negotiations needed to be resumed from the point at which they broke off during Ehud Olmert's term in office.

"In talks with the Olmert government it was agreed that the borders of the Palestinian state would include the Gaza Strip in its entirety and the West Bank in its entirety, including Jerusalem, the Dead Sea and the River Jordan," claimed Abu Mazen in his speech. "When we return to negotiations we will begin them from those points and not from zero."

An official in Abu Mazen's office added his own statements.

"We want negotiations in order to reach a solution of two states, but we want to discuss a final status arrangement and not waste time as occurred in the past," he said.

Senior sources in Ramallah said that an agreement in principle has been reached for Abu Mazen to meet with Netanyahu in New York.

"Abu Mazen will meet with Netanyahu not in order to negotiate, but in order to establish the rules of the negotiations," said one Palestinian official.

Sources in Prime Minister Netanyahu's entourage said that no agreements have been reached on that matter yet. If Netanyahu and Abu Mazen do meet, in fact, that will be their fist meeting since Netanyahu assumed office as prime minister.

Prior to his departure for Germany, Netanyahu met in London with special US envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell. American officials said after the meeting that Israel had, in practice, agreed to a temporary construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, but that the parties remained divided over the duration of that construction moratorium. The United States has demanded that the freeze last for one year, whereas Israel has agreed to a freeze that will last a number of months. Another issue in contention pertains to Jerusalem. The Americans have demanded that Israel not build inside Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Israel has refused to make any such commitment.

Following the meeting, Netanyahu said that certain progress had been made in that meeting towards a renewal of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"The discussions advanced us in the process, though a number of issues remain unresolved," the Prime Minister said upon his arrival in Berlin from London. "The intention is to advance while striking a balance between maintaining the settlers' basic needs of life and maintaining the basic conditions for launching the political process."

Netanyahu vehemently denied reports in the Arab and British media yesterday as if Israel were prepared to accept a six-month-long settlement construction freeze in exchange for an American commitment to intensify the sanctions against Iran.

Netanyahu met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday. At the center of their meeting will be the Iranian nuclear program and the German mediation efforts to bring about Gilad Shalit's release from captivity. Prior to Netanyahu's arrival in Berlin, Merkel said that she supported stiffening the sanctions against Iran, mainly in the realm of energy, in the event that Iran should refuse to meet the international community's demand that it suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

"The German political position on Iran is a firm and consistent position," said Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Merkel. "The volume of Germany's trade with Iran has dropped by approximately one-quarter, and we will welcome another significant cutback."

Despite optimism from Netanyahu and reports about a possible meeting with Abu Mazen, his party, Likud, is expressing displeasure over recent developments and plans to hold a meeting.

"The Americans are trying to create an imaginary partner for negotiations that does not want and is not capable of making peace with Israel," said MK Danny Danon yesterday and added: "The Middle East is not a Hollywood movie." He said, "Netanyahu's capitulation to American pressure on the subject of construction in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria will lead to further demands to make concessions, without our receiving anything in return from the Palestinian side."

MK Ophir Akunis, a former Netanyahu adviser, also said that he would oppose any agreement from the meeting on a construction freeze.

"There will be no construction freeze in Judea and Samaria and we won't stop the lives of the Israelis who live in the settlements," he said.

Along with the talk, preparations began yesterday to oppose a settlement construction freeze. MK Tzippi Hotovely convened the top leaders of Judea and Samaria for a meeting described as "initial preparation to counter the messages emerging from the prime minister's trip to Europe."

View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News