Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Bi-Nationalism? Or Bi-Polar?

The American Task Force on Palestine – ATFP couldn't wait and here is the (English) translation by Zalman Amit and Daphna Levitt of Meron Benvenesti's essay in last week's Haaretz Magazine, on "The Inevitable Bi-national Regime" and here are excerpts:-


...The settlers argued that from the very beginning, Zionism flew in the face of reality. It succeeded, they said, precisely because it ignored reality. Therefore, the demographic and geographic arguments used against the settlers evaporated in the fervor of their fantasies.

Sometime in the late 1980s, the settlements crossed the critical threshold beyond which continued demographic and urban growth were assured...In the new paradigm the settlements no longer have importance as instruments of spatial control...The age of ideology is over and erecting settlements, as well as dismantling them, has become an outdated pastime with no real impact on political developments, except as a symbol and a mobilizing device for both right and left.

The attempt to mark the settlements—and the settlers—as the major impediment to peace is a convenient alibi, obfuscating the involvement of the entire Israeli body politic in maintaining and expanding the regime of coercion and discrimination in the occupied territories, and benefiting from it...Defining the territories as “occupied” is, in fact, an attempt to depict it as a temporary condition that will end “when peace comes,” and is designed to avoid resolving, “in the meantime”, immediate dilemmas. The term is a crutch for those who seek optimistic precedents...

...Fragmentation became the major tool of Israeli control, to preserve their rule over Israel/Palestine from the river to the sea. Fragmentation serves them as insurance against the “demographic threat” when, very soon, the Palestinians achieve a numerical majority in the region. The ruling Jewish community will continue, even when it becomes a minority, to force this split on the Palestinians...

...they are unwittingly assisted by leftist circles and the “Peace Camp” that remain steadfast to the romantic notion about a cohesive Palestinian people, united in its struggle for freedom...

The traditional Zionist stance of denying the very existence of a Palestinian nation cannot serve as a response to the Palestinian demand for self determination in the occupied territories. Still the Israelis seek to limit their conception to a mere quarter of Palestinians, those who live in the West Bank. For them they have invented a unique concept of a “state”...

Large segments of the Israeli “Peace Camp”, who staunchly believe in “Partition of the Land” as a meta-political tenet, are gratified; they believe that they won the ideological, historical, debate with the Right. Now they can load the entire Palestinian tragedy on an entity that comprises less than 10% of the area of historic Palestine. Moreover it is supposed to offer a solution to all refugees outside Palestine “who can return to the Palestinian mini-state”, and also provide remedy to the Israeli –Palestinians who can achieve their collective rights in the Palestinian State. Indeed, a cheap and convenient solution; after all, it is seemingly based on the venerable model of the “national conflict” and the classic solution of two states for two peoples...

The conclusion that Israel will continue to manage the conflict by fragmenting the Palestinians is realistic. The status quo will endure as long as the forces wishing to preserve it are stronger than those wishing to undermine it, and that is the situation today in Israel/Palestine...This status quo, which appears to be chaotic and unstable, is much sturdier than the conventional description of the situation as “a temporary military occupation” would indicate. Precisely because it is constitutionally murky and ill defined, its ambiguity supports its durability: it is open to different and conflicting interpretations and seems preferable to apocalyptic scenarios, therefore persuasive.

...more than forty years after Israel/Palestine became one geopolitical unit again, after nineteen years of partition. The term “de facto bi-national regime” is preferable to the occupier/occupied paradigm, because it describes the mutual dependence of both societies, as well as the physical, economic, symbolic and cultural ties that cannot be severed without an intolerable cost. Describing the situation as de facto bi-national does not indicate parity between Israelis and Palestinians–on the contrary, it stresses the total dominance of the Jewish-Israeli nation, which controls a Palestinian nation that is fragmented both territorially and socially...

After the 1967 war the Israeli political Right played with the concept of bi-nationalism, in the shape that suited its ideology (the Autonomy Plan). Likud ideology rejected the” transitory” nature of Israeli occupation but its belief in “Greater Israel” clashed with the demographic reality, and liberal circles in Likud (led by Menachem Begin) struggled with the famous dilemma: a Jewish or democratic state? Begin’s answer was based on the (failed) system known to him in Eastern Europe after WW1—non-territorial, cultural and communal autonomy for ethnic minorities under the League of Nations minority treaties. Begin’s Autonomy Plan had been modified in the Camp David (1978) accords and territorial components were added. The Oslo model used many components (with major changes) of Begin’s Autonomy Plan, and the Oslo accords can be viewed as bi-national arrangements, because the territorial and legal powers of the Palestinian Authority are intentionally vague; the external envelope of the international boundaries , the economic system, even the registration of population, remained under Israeli control. Moreover, the complex agreements of Oslo necessitated close cooperation with Israel which, considering the huge power disparity between the PA and Israel, meant that the PA was merely a glorified municipal or provincial authority. So, in the absence of any political process, a de-facto bi-national structure, was willy-nilly, entrenched.

...bi-nationalism is not a political or ideological program so much as a de facto reality masquerading as a temporary state of affairs. It is a description of the current condition, not a prescription.


There's a lot to discuss and argue about but nevertheless, there is a convergence of left-right herein which should lead to more sensible planning based not only wushes but probabilities.

3 comments:

yoni said...

"...more sensible planning based not only wushes but probabilities."

good thing you weren't around to advise the early zionists, i guess. i suppose it's ok to advise current "zionists" and post-zionists based on probabilites rather than wishes, but i disagree that this is always the best route to take, if that's what you're implying. lotta factors... the "wishes" of the jewish people count for something, no?

thanks for the update.

yoni said...

btw, benvenisti here is completely ignoring the "wishes" of the palestinian "people", as well as the entire muslim world and the vast majority of the rest. "probability" is all well and good and has it's place, but even on a statistical/mathmatical level, true probability discourse must take "wishes" into account. the state of israel surviving till now is testimony to this. who could have predicted 60 years ago based on "probability" that we'd be here today?

unfortunately (for us) that sword cuts both ways. benvenisti's position (and i've heard him make his case many times) re: settlements is: "you can't unscramble the egg". this is heartwarming to hear for us "revenants", but based neither in history or logic.

yoni said...

allow me to be even more blunt: the mighty jewish people, who made something out of nothing, are also quite capable of making nothing out of something. those concerned for the wellbeing of the revenants and the jewish/israeli people would do well not to be lulled into a probabalistic fantasy land by such fine intellects as benvenisti. especially when the status quo is going so swimmingly! :)