The Palestine-Israel Journal sponsored a special
roundtable discussion on June 18, 1996 on the topic "From Autonomy
to Statehood," chaired by Mr. Daoud Kuttab, director of the
Institute of Modern Media at AI-Quds University and member of the
Journal's editorial board, with three panelists: Ms. Judi
Widetzky is chairperson of the World Zionist Labor Movement and
a member of the Bureau of the Labor Party in Israel. She is also
the chairperson of the Committee on Migrants and Refugees of the
International Council of Women and a member of the Network for
Peace. Dr. Sari Nusseibeh is president of AI-Quds University
in Jerusalem. He has written extensively about solutions to various
aspects of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Dr. Meir Pa'il, a
military historian, commanded the IOF Central Officer College and
was a leftist Knesset member for two terms.
Daoud Kuttab: Is the Palestinian goal to move from
self-rule to statehood viable after the recent changes in the
Israeli government?
Judi Widetzky: With the change of government in
Israel, I do not think we are going to move towards a Palestinian
state. The government is opposed to the concept, so if it is up to
them, it certainly will not be part of their plans.
Daoud Kuttab: We heard your Labor party for a long
time saying no to the PLO and refusing a Palestinian state, and
then this changed. Is the Likud line more a tactic than a real
intention?
Judi Widetzky: The Labor party too does not see a
Palestinian state as the only option. In our guidelines for this
election, we saw as a maximum a Jordanian-Palestinian entity, a
confederation. So I would not say that my party itself is pro a
separate state. As regards Likud, I do not know. However, according
to the Nixon China syndrome, there is a possibility that this
government could come round to supporting a Palestinian state. But
it certainly is not what they are planning on doing.
Daoud Kuttab: Dr. Nusseibeh, if the plan of the Likud
government is to make autonomy or self-rule into permanent status
that will lead to an apartheid situation. Is it an option for
Palestinians, since they are being denied statehood by the Likud
government, to demand publicly in negotiations that they are in
favor of Israel annexing the entire West Bank and Gaza, and giving
them equal rights?
Sari Nusseibeh: If the question has to do with the
negotiators and the position of the Palestinian negotiating
parties, then that has never been an option, because the PLO and
the Palestinian national movement have never been interested in
thinking in terms of amalgamation. I do not think this will ever
change. I do not think the time will ever come when the negotiating
parties representing the Palestinians will go to the Israelis, as
negotiators, and ask them to change the entire terms of the
negotiations.
Daoud Kuttab: What about public Palestinian
strategy?
Sari Nusseibeh: That is a different question, if your
question is whether the people will ever think in terms of such a
strategy. Then again, I think that was never really an option. In
the past, people were never very attracted to the idea of adopting
such a strategy.
Daoud Kuttab: You thought it at one time.
Sari Nusseibeh: I am not the people. I am a minority
of one person. But if you are asking the other question - which I
think is maybe the one you should ask - in the event of a
successful Likud policy, whether, in fact, things will so change in
the Palestinian public mind as to create support for this totally
different strategy - namely, the strategy of calling for equal
rights within the same system - then my answer to you is that it is
possible, yes. That it is not only possible, but actually probable,
and at one stage might seem more desirable than separation from
Israel, if people see clearly that integration is preferable to the
rights that they can achieve within the context of a very limited
kind of sovereignty - for example, a sovereignty that excludes
Jerusalem and excludes control over resources, such as water and so
on. With this kind of option, integration is much more desirable.
The time may indeed come.
Daoud Kuttab: Dr. Pa'il, could you tell us what
reaction will Israel have if the probable and the possible that Dr.
Nusseibeh spoke about is implemented?
Meir Pa'il: About 20 years ago, the PLO's doctrine
was to turn all of Palestine, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean
Sea, into what they then called a secular democratic state in which
Jews, Arabs and others would live together. In those days, the
Israelis, including the doves in Israel, rejected the idea. The
doves within Israel preferred the establishment of an independent
Palestine alongside Israel, basically in the West Bank and Gaza,
with East Jerusalem. In the Zionist history of the 1930s and 1940s,
there were groups who adhered to the idea of a binational
state.
Following what we call our War of Independence, the 1948 war,
basically everyone gave up this idea. From what I know about Jewish
Israeli public opinion, they would accept the idea that Israel
politically rule the entire area from the Jordan to the
Mediterranean Sea. They would agree that the Palestinians get
autonomy, and that we negotiate this with them and discuss it.
Security and foreign policy would be determined by the Israeli
government, and most other rights would be given to the
Palestinians automatically, even those Palestinians who live in
East Jerusalem. They would call this autonomy, an autonomy without
political rights. They would have citizenship, of course, either
Palestinian or Israeli citizenship.
Daoud Kuttab: And they could vote for the
Knesset?
Meir Pa'il: This is a problem. They would not have
political rights. I am not that sure the Palestinians would agree
to this situation. If I were in their place I would not agree. If
things developed gradually, with no guerilla or terrorist wars or
clashes, maybe after a generation the Palestinians would
automatically get more rights. I prefer the idea of two independent
states, without defined borders or defensive walls. As far as I
understand the existing policy of the PLO now, they will not agree
to less than statehood.
Daoud Kuttab: The choice of autonomy means apartheid,
because there is no autonomy without political rights and without
citizenship. In all autonomies around the world, people can vote
for the federal government, and are then autonomous in local
matters, such as culture, education and language. Here, we already
have an autonomy. We speak Arabic. We worship. We have our culture.
So there is nothing Mr. Netanyahu can offer us except apartheid as
the final status. What would the Israeli public say if the
Palestinians insisted on political rights and on voting for the
Israeli Knesset? Some people are even saying privately, today, that
maybe we will demand to join the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). If we
want to have equal rights, we want to be equal in everything.
Judi Widetzky: I think that would frighten the
Israeli public very much. I do not agree with Dr. Pa'il. I think
the Israeli public would feel much more comfortable with a clear
definition of two entities, not necessarily two states, but
certainly two entities. Israel would definitely be able to accept a
Palestine-Jordan confederation because, I think, we realize that
there has to be a political solution. The only thing we would feel
uncomfortable with is a political solution that went all the way to
a state, which is obviously what the Palestinians should be
requesting.
I personally applaud equal rights, but on the issue of asking for
one state with equal rights ¬the specter that helped the Likud
win this election was the fact that they managed to put fear into
the Israeli electorate as to a final take-over of the Jewish state,
saying that the PLO ploy right now is to accept Oslo as a
waystation, and the next step would be to demand the rest of the
country. That was one of the fear tactics that was used in these
elections that made a lot of people vote the Likud rather than
Labor, even though they were for the peace process. Even the fact
that there are now so many Israeli Arab members of Knesset who
aren't afraid to speak out, is making some of the people in the
country uncomfortable.
Daoud Kuttab: Dr. Nusseibeh, is the fact that the
idea of a Palestinian discussion of amalgamation or integration
scares Israelis enough to strategically change Palestinian
tactics?
Sari Nusseibeh: It is true that the sudden and formal
adoption of a strategy like this on the part of the Palestinians
would terrify Israelis. What I take into account as a Palestinian,
in addition to fear, is also justice, and justice consists of an
equitable division of rights between Israelis and Palestinians,
which we can do either collectively or individually. This means,
therefore, that either we end up having two separate states, or we
end up having one state with equal rights for each individual. I
think most Palestinians agree to this. This may frighten the
Israelis, but it should be worked out so that justice does reign
supreme, and also that the fears of the Israelis are allayed in the
long run.
One should watch how things are going to develop. To the extent
that the Likud is going to be successful in preventing the
possibility of the evolution of a separate Palestinian state, to
that extent the probability of a change in Palestinian public
opinion about their own strategy is also going to increase. If the
Palestinians see that it makes no sense any longer to seek
independence or separation, the ground will then be ripe to see
that only integration makes sense. They might not do this formally.
It might not happen within the context of five years. It all
depends. For example, let us say that what Dr. Pa'il just said
about autonomy takes place. Time goes by, another five or ten
years. The Palestinians who live under such an autonomy are going
to feel exactly what Ms. Widetzky said, that they are living in a
state of apartheid where they have some, but not all, rights. They
are going to feel that they are living under the jurisdiction of a
legislative body named the Knesset in which they are not
participating. Only the Israelis, primarily Jewish Israel - has
that option. So they are going to feel the only option that is
available to them is to seek to participate. When that happens, I
am not sure that Israelis will necessarily feel so terrified.
At that point in time, Israelis who are aware of things are going
to see very clearly that I am not talking about terrorism. I am not
talking about confrontation. It is going to be very obvious,
black-and-white obvious, that there is a state of apartheid.
Indeed, you might see in the future those Israelis striving for
justice, wishing to be working side by side with Palestinians,
precisely in order to bring about a peaceful
evolution of the system into that kind of state.
Daoud Kuttab: We are talking here about whether
Palestinian statehood is irreversible or not. Clearly the victory
of Netanyahu has slowed that train down. Do you agree that people
like yourself have lost the struggle for two equal states alongside
each other?
Meir Pa'il: First, I do not agree that the struggle
is lost. Second, I would like to explain something about the
Israeli nationalist mind. There is a majority within the Israeli
public opinion, in the Israeli right and even within the Israeli
Labor sector for establishing in the West Bank - or most of it -
and the Gaza Strip an autonomy with no political or security
rights. And what about citizenship? They have a solution: Jordan.
Palestinians would live here, in the western side of the Jordan,
under Israeli supremacy and political sovereignty, with equal
social, educational and religious rights. But they would be
citizens of Jordan. They would vote for the Jordanian parliament,
and serve in the Jordanian army if the regime accepted them. They
understand that maybe Israel will be blamed for maintaining an
apartheid state, and the way out for these Palestinians regarding
their political rights is to be Jordanian citizens.
Sari Nusseibeh: Let them vote in Jordan.
Meir Pa'il: Let them vote there. Even the Arabs in
Nazareth could vote in Jordan. This is their answer: that our
eastern border is Jordan. We are against evacuating the Jewish
settlements, and do not agree that the Green Line is the final
border. As regards the permanent solution for the Palestinians
alongside Israel, they will not agree to an independent Palestinian
state with the capital in East Jerusalem. And let's assume that the
Israelis under Binyamin Netanyahu, supported by the Americans and
so on, at least for the time being, achieve their goal - I accept
your definition - it will be an apartheid autonomy because
Palestinians will not have political rights. I am not that sure
that the Jordanians will be ready to accept the ludicrous idea that
Palestinians live in Nablus and vote in Jordan. From the
nationalistic Israeli point of view, the more they negotiate with
Jordanians, the more they will have to give up in terms of
territories. For example, King Hussein will not be ready to give up
Jerusalem or the Temple Mount.
Most Israelis would say: "If we had no other choice but to enable
the Palestinians to get their Arab sovereignty, we would prefer a
Palestinian-¬Jordanian federation to an independent
Palestinian state." If they were to succeed temporarily to turn
Oslo III into this kind of Palestinian autonomy, with
semi-independence and the danger of apartheid, the development
could take two different directions: The first is, instead of an
independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, we would establish
a binational state. Morally and from the point of view of justice,
this is acceptable. I have no problem to live with Dr. Nusseibeh in
the same state or the same neighborhood, but I am afraid that, as
long as the Israeli public opinion and regime are against it (like
the white man in South Africa), resistance will start functioning
within Palestinian circles - different kinds of resistance, perhaps
a civilian Intifada. This resistance may spread to Nazareth
too.
This is why I think that to raise the second option of an
independent Palestinian state is important now. Tactically, were
the PLO to ask my advice, I think they should tell the Israelis:
"Okay, you want autonomy. So you want us to live in apartheid. But
just remember the end of apartheid in South Africa." The idea of
exchanging independence for full autonomy is an excellent
diplomatic or political negotiating trick. If both people find
themselves mature enough to agree, I think this is the best
solution on earth.
Daoud Kuttab: Ms. Widetzky, I want to ask you a
question I asked the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when I was
the first Palestinian to interview him three months before the Oslo
I agreement was signed. I asked him, "Imagine 10 or 15 years into
the future - I hoped he would live that long, but Yigal Amir chose
otherwise - what do you expect to see as the status of the
Palestinians?" I would like to ask you why not enough Israelis are
giving that question serious thought.
Judi Widetzky: You are giving me a chance to dream. I
happen to think that, in the course of history, we are going to be
looking at a wholly different structure of states. National states
are not going to be as important in that future time as they are
now. This is why I much prefer a separation to the integration that
you are suggesting. I see the Palestinians as having political
rights in a Palestinian entity and in the federation with Jordan.
The voting would be within the Palestinian entity and not voting
for Jordan. It is only with security rights that I have a problem.
I do not agree with either/or, statehood or autonomy. There is a
third option from my point of view, and that is political rights in
the Palestinian entity that is not necessarily full statehood. I do
not agree with apartheid.
I have been dealing with the whole question of refugees. One out of
50 people in the world today is on the move. States are going to
change and all sorts of political entities are going to change. And
so are we. Therefore, my concept of what could happen in the Middle
East is probably a confederation between all of us, where there
would be different types of entities, like the united states of
Europe: not only Jordan, Palestine and Israel, but even Lebanon,
Syria and further than that. Each of us will have some part of us
that keeps a separate identity. I definitely would like the
Palestinian entity or state - and I suppose, being realistic, that
it is going to be a state and not an autonomy - as a secular and
not a religious state. Just as I want my state to be a secular and
not a religious one. One of our fears is that, by accepting your
expression of Palestinian nationality, we may be losing ours. And
that is our problem, not yours. It is ours because maybe we have
not defined for ourselves what is a national liberation movement of
the Jewish people. Fifty years ago they knew what it was. Maybe if
we were sure of ourselves as to what we are, we would be able to be
more open to accepting what you are.
Daoud Kuttab: Dr. Nusseibeh, it seems from this
discussion that there are natural alliances being established
between those 49 percent of Israelis who, in one way or another,
support a Palestinian state in the long term, and the Palestinians.
Can Palestinians and the groups on the left and left of center in
Israel work together in trying to win over public opinion?
Sari Nusseibeh: I do not have the answer to the
question of alliances. Normally alliances are formed in order to
achieve interests. To have an alliance with anybody who shares the
same values as I have, I do not really think too much about race or
religion. I think it is a good thing to try as far as possible,
today, to make use of the opportunity that arose in the last year
or two, of creating separation between the two people in general.
Have a Palestinian state if possible alongside Israel. This is
probably going to be more pleasing to the Israelis, and certainly
more pleasing to the Palestinians, whether it is the ideal solution
or not. I think everything should be done to try to make use of
this opportunity, whether through addressing Israeli public
opinion, through alliances, through meetings, through research,
etc. However, the chances are that whatever you do is going to fail
if the Likud stays in power and succeeds in the policy it is
pursuing. The Likud will try¬ which makes perfectly good sense
from their point of view - to ensure that the kind of entity to
emerge will not be the kind of entity that, from my point of view,
will be acceptable because it will not be possible to develop it
into a state. That is why I said at the beginning, if the Likud is
successful, whatever we do, it is not going to be possible to
continue working for a two-state solution.
For me, a binational state is not a tactical demand. I have always
looked upon national liberation movements as a prerequisite for a
movement of liberation from nationalism. To my mind, neither
nationhood nor statehood should be regarded as sacrosanct. What is
sacrosanct are human values, regardless of religion. Ideally, we
should really have a single state. And it is a paradox that, in
fact, the success of the Likud, which is anti-Palestinian, is in
some strange way a step in the direction of creating such an ideal
state of affairs. Ten or twenty years ago, I personally made the
suggestion that Palestinians should seek Israeli citizenship, and I
made the suggestion fully aware that I was doing it partly in order
to ring some bells on the part of the Israeli public and
leadership. Today, however, I would not personally ring any bells.
I would not call for or talk about integration. But it will come. I
think five years down the road you will probably have people
beginning to say it and espouse it openly.
Daoud Kuttab: Dr. Pa'il and Ms. Widetzky, what can be
done by Israelis and Palestinians to speed up the process of
relative justice?
Meir Pa'il: I very much respect Dr. Nusseibeh's
ideology, which I share with him. And I agree that the more
Israelis impose their system on the Palestinians, the more they
themselves will encourage the process of a binational state in the
long run. We will have to get used to the idea. For example, most
Israeli Jews now accept the Palestinian minority within Israel.
They understand that they have the right to vote. Here and there
someone complains, why do they vote for peace and so on. But they
are there. They are 18 or 19 percent of our population and they are
getting organized. In the meantime, I would like to put forward
another consideration. We are living in an international world. All
of us live in what is accepted by two-thirds of the human race as
the Holy Land. Just imagine that, while discussing the problem of a
Palestinian autonomy here, maybe some arrangement is agreed upon
where Arafat's government or the autonomous government starts
functioning from Azzariya, from Abu Dis, maybe from the Mount of
Olives or from Ramallah. Just assume that, after six or seven
months or one year, if there are quite a lot of Jewish settlements
all around the West Bank, the international community and the
United Nations will decide to recognize the Palestinian autonomy as
an independent state. The Israelis will vote against it in the
United Nations, but the Security Council and almost all states all
over the world will recognize this fact. This is another direction
in which things may develop.
The Israelis think that we are the stronger now, so we can impose
our will.
And, basically, the Americans are supporting the Israeli Zionist
interests. I am not sure that they are correct. So maybe the third
agreement, Oslo III, will end with autonomy and not with an
independent state. But an independent Palestinian state can emerge,
not through us and not through the Palestinians, but through the
international community. And the Israelis will not be able to do
anything but accept it.
Daoud Kuttab: But what can be done between Israelis
and Palestinians to speed up the process?
Meir Pa'il: Negotiate. Get to know each other at
whatever level we can. I think every Israeli should speak fluent
Arabic and I would like most Arabs to speak fluent Hebrew. To learn
the other's history and culture, to learn to respect each other.
Most Israelis are frightened of Palestinian terrorism, and I think
the Palestinians are more or less frightened of Israel. It is not
simple because, being stronger, the more we impose our system now,
the more we encourage violent behavior on the other side. The only
way I know is to try to do whatever we can to know each other, to
accept each other, to visit each other, and gradually we will see
each other as human beings.
Judi Widetzky: For the past five years I have been
having conversations with Palestinian women. I am one of the women
who went to Brussels for the formation, in 1989, of the Women's
Peace Network. I have always thought that women were more open to
holding these conversations. Not only Brussels started with the
women, but also Angola and Ireland. Then when the real process of
negotiating began, there were no women around the table. I really
believe that this was one of the reasons for the hang-ups in all of
them. For five years we had our ups and downs as to how to talk to
each other, but we learned about each other. We learned why we are
afraid of each other, and we realized that both sides have fears
and both sides have aspirations and it is not one-sided. I believe
that there is no other way. A political solution is not going to
work if there is not a personal solution among the people, if the
people do not feel they have to make peace. Therefore, they have to
get to know each other. Talking to each other is imperative for
peace, but it is not enough. There still has to be a political
solution, and that is the catch. If it could only be done by
dialogue, we would have had it a long time ago.
Sari Nusseibeh: I agree and I put it perhaps even
more strongly: whatever the outcome is going to be politically, I
think it is a primary imperative that Palestinians and Israelis
continue to develop this dialogue and engagement in mutual
cooperation. I would even go to the extent of calling it a process
of naturalization, and I am quite aware that what I am saying is
maybe not very popular. But in my own view, this process of
naturalization between Israelis and Palestinians, regardless of the
political outcome, is a necessary condition for producing an
outcome that will, eventually, be acceptable to both sides. People
should discuss, enter into joint ventures at every level,
regardless of what the political situation is, with the view that,
since we are living together, we might as well have an acceptable
form of life to the extent possible.