A new-state solution for Israel and Palestine - "Condominialism"

[^_^ 5,021]

Imagine a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine in which Palestinians would have the right of return; Israelis could settle wherever they could purchase land in the West Bank; and Jerusalem need not be divided. This is not a fanciful vision, but a creative and eminently sensible reinvention of 21st century statehood.

...

In 2008, a Princeton University graduate student in philosophy named Russell Nieli gave a talk at the Princeton Center for Jewish Life that was so well received that he later expanded it into an article for the US-based magazine Tikkun, founded by Rabbi Michael Lerner. The article, "Toward a Permanent Palestinian/Israeli Peace - the Case for Two-State Condominialism", was published with the express aim of stimulating "productive thinking among a younger generation of Jews and Arabs not bound by the restricted vision and failed policies of the past".

"Two-state condominialism" is as visionary as the name is clunky. The core idea is that Israelis and Palestinians would be citizens of two separate states and thus would identify with two separate political authorities. Palestine would be defined as a state of the Palestinian people, and Israel as a Jewish state. Under "condominialism", however, both Palestinians and Jews "would be granted the right to settle anywhere within the territory of either of the two states, the two states thus forming a single, binational settlement community".

Think about that for a minute. As Nieli describes it, Palestinians "would have the right to settle anywhere within Israel just as Jews would have the right to settle anywhere within the territory of the Palestinian state. Regardless of which of the two states they lived in, all Palestinians would be citizens of the Palestinian state, all Jews citizens of Israel".

Each state would have the authority and the obligation to provide for the economic, cultural, religious and welfare needs of its citizens living in the other state's territory. These would be extraterritorial rights and responsibilities, just as the United States, for example, provides for its large numbers of expatriates, such as civilian dependents of US military personnel based abroad.

To make this work, the borders of each state would first have to be defined - presumably on the basis of the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed territorial swaps. Israeli Arabs would then be required to transfer their citizenship, national identity and national voting rights - but not their residence - to the new Palestinian state. They would have a permanent right to live in Israel and would retain the benefits to which they are currently entitled as Israeli citizens, but they would now vote as citizens of Palestine. All other Palestinians living in Israel would have rights and benefits only under Palestinian law.

Condominialism recognises the reality of the deep interconnectedness of Israeli settlers in the West Bank with the rest of Israel - through roads, water supplies, electricity grids, administrative structures and economic relationships (just as Israeli and Palestinian parts of Jerusalem are interdependent). Instead of trying to separate and recreate all of these structures and relationships, it makes far more sense to build on them in ways that benefit both states' peoples and economies.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332682321538283.html

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364310084' post='6081156]

Imagine a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine in which Palestinians would have the right of return; Israelis could settle wherever they could purchase land in the West Bank; and Jerusalem need not be divided. This is not a fanciful vision, but a creative and eminently sensible reinvention of 21st century statehood.

...

In 2008, a Princeton University graduate student in philosophy named Russell Nieli gave a talk at the Princeton Center for Jewish Life that was so well received that he later expanded it into an article for the US-based magazine Tikkun, founded by Rabbi Michael Lerner. The article, "Toward a Permanent Palestinian/Israeli Peace - the Case for Two-State Condominialism", was published with the express aim of stimulating "productive thinking among a younger generation of Jews and Arabs not bound by the restricted vision and failed policies of the past".

"Two-state condominialism" is as visionary as the name is clunky. The core idea is that Israelis and Palestinians would be citizens of two separate states and thus would identify with two separate political authorities. Palestine would be defined as a state of the Palestinian people, and Israel as a Jewish state. Under "condominialism", however, both Palestinians and Jews "would be granted the right to settle anywhere within the territory of either of the two states, the two states thus forming a single, binational settlement community".

Think about that for a minute. As Nieli describes it, Palestinians "would have the right to settle anywhere within Israel just as Jews would have the right to settle anywhere within the territory of the Palestinian state. Regardless of which of the two states they lived in, all Palestinians would be citizens of the Palestinian state, all Jews citizens of Israel".

Each state would have the authority and the obligation to provide for the economic, cultural, religious and welfare needs of its citizens living in the other state's territory. These would be extraterritorial rights and responsibilities, just as the United States, for example, provides for its large numbers of expatriates, such as civilian dependents of US military personnel based abroad.

To make this work, the borders of each state would first have to be defined - presumably on the basis of the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed territorial swaps. Israeli Arabs would then be required to transfer their citizenship, national identity and national voting rights - but not their residence - to the new Palestinian state. They would have a permanent right to live in Israel and would retain the benefits to which they are currently entitled as Israeli citizens, but they would now vote as citizens of Palestine. All other Palestinians living in Israel would have rights and benefits only under Palestinian law.

Condominialism recognises the reality of the deep interconnectedness of Israeli settlers in the West Bank with the rest of Israel - through roads, water supplies, electricity grids, administrative structures and economic relationships (just as Israeli and Palestinian parts of Jerusalem are interdependent). Instead of trying to separate and recreate all of these structures and relationships, it makes far more sense to build on them in ways that benefit both states' peoples and economies.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332682321538283.html

This doesn't address some of the biggest issues - the refugees, also the vast territory that Israel controls in the West Bank - not just the settlements, but the whole Jordan Valley as well as other strategic areas including the major water resources.

Also, the plan calls for Israeli Arabs to have their citizenship summarily revoked and transferred to Palestine, simply because of their ethnicity. This is a violation of international law. It would have to be voluntary, not mandatory. Meanwhile, Israel keeps the settlements which were seized illegally, and nothing is said about compensating the Palestinian owners for their losses.

It's not even clear how the idea of Palestinians freely moving to Israel would be implemented, because Israel has many neighborhoods and communities in which homes and apartments are simply not made available to Arabs - even Israeli Arabs - and this sort of discrimination is not only permissible by law, but actually encouraged by fanatical religious leaders (who are also public employees.)

Eventually, most people will realize that the most just, as well as the most pragmatic solution is a single state with equal rights for all of its people. That's what should have been done in the first place. The solution can be applied in steps, though - and a bi-national state could be one of those steps, but only if it is done justly and fairly.

[^_^ 5,021]

Is there a reason the countries that had control of Gaza and the West Bank before the war can't just take them back? Assuming Israel allows it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364311704' post='6081230]

Is there a reason the countries that had control of Gaza and the West Bank before the war can't just take them back? Assuming Israel allows it.

Britain? Ottoman Turkey?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364311704' post='6081230]

Is there a reason the countries that had control of Gaza and the West Bank before the war can't just take them back? Assuming Israel allows it.

Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was defensive (to stop millions of Palestinian refugees from being driven across the border into Jordan, by securing the West Bank and East Jerusalem from being taken by Israel.) However, this occupation was not recognized by the international community.

The Jordanian government is in favor of an independent Palestinian state, and has officially ceded any claim to the West Bank to the Palestinian people (as represented by the PLO.)

Egypt is also in favor of an independent Palestinian state, and has signed treaties with Israel which specify that Gaza is a part of the Palestinian state along with the West Bank.

So that's basically why.

[^_^ 5,021]

Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was defensive (to stop millions of Palestinian refugees from being driven across the border into Jordan, by securing the West Bank and East Jerusalem from being taken by Israel.) However, this occupation was not recognized by the international community.

The Jordanian government is in favor of an independent Palestinian state, and has officially ceded any claim to the West Bank to the Palestinian people (as represented by the PLO.)

Egypt is also in favor of an independent Palestinian state, and has signed treaties with Israel which specify that Gaza is a part of the Palestinian state along with the West Bank.

So that's basically why.

Ok, so looking at this from the Israeli point of view. They have a Jewish state, which they believe they need for historical reasons.

A number of their Arab neighboring states attack them. They repel the attack and end up with some territory that used to be in their control.

Fast forward a few decades, it is agreed that the only pragmatic way out of the mess created by that war, its consequences and the years of settlements is a single state with equal rights for all.

So what we end up with, if not immediately then in the short term, is a state that is no longer a Jewish state. A direct consequence of an attack by Arab states on Israel. The Arabs win.

Which loops us back to the perceived historical need for a Jewish state. Were they wrong to begin with in thinking they needed a Jewish state? Or were they correct in believing they needed one and if so, what now?

Edited March 26, 2013 by ^_^

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364312686' post='6081288]

Which loops us back to the perceived historical need for a Jewish state. Were they wrong to begin with in thinking they needed a Jewish state? Or were they correct in believing they needed one and if so, what now?

Since the world decided apartheid in the case of South Africa, and ethnic cleansing in the case of the Balkans were unacceptable, then that leaves two solutions the world can accept: either give up the idea of a Jewish state, or give the Palestinians complete autonomy in their own country, with an equitable division of the existing territory, which the world body has determined to be the pre-1967 borders.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364312686' post='6081288]

Ok, so looking at this from the Israeli point of view. They have a Jewish state, which they believe they need for historical reasons.

A number of their Arab neighboring states attack them. They repel the attack and end up with some territory that used to be in their control.

Fast forward a few decades, it is agreed that the only pragmatic way out of the mess created by that war, its consequences and the years of settlements is a single state with equal rights for all.

So what we end up with, if not immediately then in the short term, is a state that is no longer a Jewish state. A direct consequence of an attack by Arab states on Israel. The Arabs win.

Which loops us back to the perceived historical need for a Jewish state. Were they wrong to begin with in thinking they needed a Jewish state? Or were they correct in believing they needed one and if so, what now?

I understand that European Jews who survived the Holocaust might feel unsafe in a country where Jews were not the majority and not in control of the political system, the military, etc., and felt they needed a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority in order to be safe. But if that's what they wanted, they should have set it up on an uninhabited island somewhere - not tried to forcibly carve it out of a land which already had an overwhelmingly non-Jewish population, and then try to kick all or most of the non-Jews out.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a Jewish state. What's terribly wrong is the idea that you can plop it down on top of someone else's homeland, and then drive all of the non-Jews out in order to create that state.

[^_^ 5,021]

I understand that European Jews who survived the Holocaust might feel unsafe in a country where Jews were not the majority and not in control of the political system, the military, etc., and felt they needed a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority in order to be safe. But if that's what they wanted, they should have set it up on an uninhabited island somewhere - not tried to forcibly carve it out of a land which already had an overwhelmingly non-Jewish population, and then try to kick all or most of the non-Jews out.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a Jewish state. What's terribly wrong is the idea that you can plop it down on top of someone else's homeland, and then drive all of the non-Jews out in order to create that state.

I assume you understand (even if you don't agree or aren't sympathetic to) the cultural draw of Jewish people to that part of the world.

But yes, I do agree that it would have been more pragmatic to have done this somewhere else.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364313491' post='6081325]

I assume you understand (even if you don't agree or aren't sympathetic to) the cultural draw of Jewish people to that part of the world.

But yes, I do agree that it would have been more pragmatic to have done this somewhere else.

Certainly I understand the cultural draw of Jewish people to this land. Just as I understand that Christians all over the world, as well as Muslims, also have deep religious ties to this Holy Land. But that doesn't mean any one of these groups has the right to move there en-masse and take over the place through military force, and kick out all or most of the people who aren't members of their group.

Also, Palestinians aren't just people somewhere in the world who have a deep religious tie to the land. It's their home - their families have been living there for centuries (many who include Hebrews among their ancestors.) They are the indigenous people of Palestine, and they have every right to live in their homeland as any Jewish person has.

Edited March 26, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud

[^_^ 5,021]

Certainly I understand the cultural draw of Jewish people to this land. Just as I understand that Christians all over the world, as well as Muslims, also have deep religious ties to this Holy Land. But that doesn't mean any one of these groups has the right to move there en-masse and take over the place through military force, and kick out all or most of the people who aren't members of their group.

Fair enough.

So let's say the single state with equal rights for all model was put in place and both parties agreed to it.

Do you believe people (on both sides) who have spent their lifetime in a state of conflict with the other side will suddenly be able to "switch off" combat mode and live peaceably?

The parallel that comes to mind (not because it's a perfect analogy but because it is what I am most familiar with) is the partition of British India. My family was, pre-partition, spread out between what is now the Indian state of West Bengal and what became East Pakistan (and is now Bangladesh) after partition. The years leading up to Partition were particularly bloody, as certain people realized the British era was coming to an end and this was their moment to "strike" and grab land. Gangs led by both Hindus and Muslims launched organized terror campaigns to intimidate and expel members of the other community and the result was a strengthening of the hand of people who wanted partition (people like Jinnah and Patel) and a weakening of the hand of people who wanted a unified India (people like Gandhi and Khan). Public opinion shifted away from the Gandhian idealism of a unified India and partition became inevitable. Many died, many were uprooted. The root cause of it all was people who wanted to exploit the moment of transition for their own gain.

The cynic in me thinks something very similar could happen in that region. Like India, it is densely populated and land is a coveted commodity. Like India, there exists two distinct communities with a history of animosity.

Is coexistence really possible? Wouldn't it get derailed by people with their own interests?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364314342' post='6081377]

Fair enough.

So let's say the single state with equal rights for all model was put in place and both parties agreed to it.

Do you believe people (on both sides) who have spent their lifetime in a state of conflict with the other side will suddenly be able to "switch off" combat mode and live peaceably?

The parallel that comes to mind (not because it's a perfect analogy but because it is what I am most familiar with) is the partition of British India. My family was, pre-partition, spread out between what is now the Indian state of West Bengal and what became East Pakistan (and is now Bangladesh) after partition. The years leading up to Partition were particularly bloody, as certain people realized the British era was coming to an end and this was their moment to "strike" and grab land. Gangs led by both Hindus and Muslims launched organized terror campaigns to intimidate and expel members of the other community and the result was a strengthening of the hand of people who wanted partition (people like Jinnah and Patel) and a weakening of the hand of people who wanted a unified India (people like Gandhi and Khan). Public opinion shifted away from the Gandhian idealism of a unified India and partition became inevitable. Many died, many were uprooted. The root cause of it all was people who wanted to exploit the moment of transition for their own gain.

The cynic in me thinks something very similar could happen in that region. Like India, it is densely populated and land is a coveted commodity. Like India, there exists two distinct communities with a history of animosity.

Is coexistence really possible? Wouldn't it get derailed by people with their own interests?

I do think co-existence in Palestine is possible - Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed there in peace for centuries. A majority (more than 60%) of Palestinians are already in favor of a single secular-government state with equal rights for all citizens, and Israeli Arabs are overwhelmingly in favor of the idea.

I don't think it could be carried out suddenly. It would have to be done in steps. And Israel would have to make the first steps - it holds all the power.

But it all starts with justice, and the framework is already in place. Israel would have to stop building settlements, and either start dismantling the ones that are built on private Palestinian land that was seized, or pay the owners fair compensation. It would have to remove its soldiers from the Jordan Valley and from most of the West Bank. It would have to end the blockade on Gaza. Security for borders and existing settlements during the transitional phase could be provided by UN peacekeeping troops, along with joint Israeli-Palestinian security.

I anticipate questions and comments about Hamas. This clip with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (the quadriplegic, nearly blind founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, assassinated in the street by an Israeli missile as he left a mosque in his wheelchair) may be informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKa1kRWX0AA

Edited March 26, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Darnell 8,478]

As Nieli describes it, Palestinians "would have the right to settle anywhere within Israel just as Jews would have the right to settle anywhere within the territory of the Palestinian state. Regardless of which of the two states they lived in, all Palestinians would be citizens of the Palestinian state, all Jews citizens of Israel".

I like this, a lot !