The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have reached a critical stage
which demands serious thinking on the continuation of the peace
process and the direction of the negotiations. What is the best
possible future of the two peoples - the Palestinian and the
Israeli? How can they best move together towards a comprehensive,
moral and lasting solution?
As academic researchers seeking alternative ways of thought and
action, we would like to raise for discussion an old-new option.
This can serve as an alternative to the current discourses based on
the Oslo process which apparently leads to a political separation
between Israel and Palestine.
Breaking the Freeze
This is not an ideal proposal and neither does it necessarily
represent our personal beliefs and ideologies. However, at this
point, it seems to us more timely and realistic than the
alternatives, and its very discussion could serve as an
ice-breaking tool to the present freeze in uninhibited
thinking.
Several factors led us to reconsider the old and not-yet
implemented slogan of "Two states for two peoples." If this is not
attainable, we must seek more appropriate and practical solutions
which would fit the new realities on the ground:
• The Oslo accords, which are at present the only framework
for negotiations, do not present the permanent solution, and
actually leave open different options. This requires long years of
debating over details which in the meantime are becoming
irrelevant. An example can be seen in the negotiations over an
arrangement in Hebron: both sides agree that even when it is
concluded and implemented, the agreement will not bring peace,
security and mutual trust in the city.
• The Israeli side - be it headed by a rightist or a Labor
government ¬would not accept the establishment of a sovereign
independent Palestinian State. On the other hand, anything less
than full independence would not be acceptable to the
Palestinians.
• The current Israeli government does not intend to evacuate
the settlements, and the settlers, backed by the government, have
no intention of leaving their homes. The opposite is true - there
are plans for more building and "thickening" of the settlements. On
the ground, the results of such a development will prevent the
implementation of separation into two states.
• Any suggested solution to the question of Jerusalem would
bring about an explosion. At present, there is no existing plan for
a settlement in Jerusalem which could satisfy both sides. We can
assume that such a solution will not be found in the foreseeable
future, due to the current mistrust and suspicion between the
sides.
• The character of the Palestinian National Authority and the
regime developing within its territories raises gloomy thoughts
concerning the future of the independent Palestinian State when it
is established. Neither the Palestinian public nor Israeli
neighbors could settle with a regime that showed signs of
authoritarianism and corruption. It is our obligation as people
committed to human rights and freedom to warn against such
tendencies.
• Current processes at work among the Palestinian-Arab
population inside Israel indicate that the solution of two states
for two peoples will neither satisfy nor solve the problems of the
Palestinian citizens in the state of Israel. The framework of the
Oslo agreements does not take into account this community and does
not suggest ways to cope with their distress.
• The ideas raised every now and then to exchange the Arab
Triangle villages in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West
Bank, and the negative responses they arouse, reinforce our belief
that the solution of two states will not solve the existing
complexities and would probably open a Pandora's box of new
problems.
• Issues like water, ecology, economics, transportation and
many others should be dealt with by maximal overall centralization
and with the utmost coordination. Two separate states and separate
bureaucracies would not be able to cope with these issues.
• Finally, the two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian - regard
the whole country as their respective homeland and believe in their
natural right to rule over the whole territory of Eretz
Yisrael/Filastin. Any line drawn to divide it would be artificial
and leave dissatisfied elements on both sides, dreaming of change
and struggling for it.
A New Direction
In view of the above points, we wish to propose a new direction for
discussion, even though we are aware that this path could engender
sharp criticism from all sides. We believe it is the task of
academia - Israeli and Palestinian alike - both to recognize and
point out the difficulties and to present unorthodox ways of coping
with them.
We suggest the following as the final goal of negotiations: the
establishment of one sovereign state on the entire territory of
Eretz Yisrael/Filastin. In this state, the two communities will
live side by side and maintain complete autonomy. The Palestinian
community will include those Palestinians who are now citizens of
Israel. Both communities will be completely autonomous in their
internal affairs, such as education, culture, religion, language,
media, ways of life, etc.
Sovereignty and government will be shared, with all that implies:
foreign affairs, joint economy, joint security services, based on
the current coordination already existing. The barriers and fences
will be removed, the Green Line will be erased and new joint
institutions will begin to operate. Jerusalem will be the joint
capital, with special arrangements for the holy places. The
settlements will remain where they are. It seems to us that in
order to avoid unnecessary tensions, and allow each community
maximal autonomy, it is undesirable to mix populations beyond what
exists today. In later stages this could be changed.
A Shared Civil State
It is not our intention at this preliminary stage to relate to all
the problems this idea inevitably raises. These demand deeper
thinking and wider study. We can use existing and theoretical
models around the world which have been developed by political
scientists.
We should not ignore the fact that, during the early stages, the
Jewish community will dominate almost all areas in the mutual
state, but it is possible to gradually, attain economic equality
and a more egalitarian division of power and government. This will
not be easy and will demand a revolution in the thinking and
ideologies of broad sections of both peoples.
It is our belief, however, that this land which procreated original
and revolutionary ideas throughout the generations, can establish a
successful model of a civil state shared by two communities.
Despite the deep differences between Jews and Palestinians, there
is also a great deal in common between them, and their love for
their shared homeland can overcome differences rather than foster
hostilities and war. We suggest that now is the time to move in a
new direction in order to save lives, energy and resources, in the
hope of bringing peace and harmony to this tormented land.