Responding to Moshe Arens’ call for West Bank Palestinians to become citizens of Israel, Carlo Strenger says history shows such a state is a recipe for disaster.
Carlo Strenger writing in Haaretz takes issue with Moshe Arens who argues for a one state solution where Arabs have full civil and political rights:
-
I will argue that Arens is too optimistic about human nature. He believes that rational interests primarily guide human action, and disregards the profound human need to feel part of a culture they share with others, and the desire to be governed by people they identify with.
Let me start with Arens’ insistence that the Greater Land of Israel will continue to be the homeland of the Jewish people. Its dominant narrative and national cohesion will be based on a Jewish-Zionist perspective, to which Arens is profoundly attached, and which, for him, is Israel’s raison d’être.
How can two and a half million Palestinians who have suffered under Israeli occupation for more than 46 years and have been in bitter conflict with the Zionist movement for more than a century identify with such a predominantly Jewish state? To this day I cannot fathom how the first session of the parliament of the Greater Land of Israel would function: would you expect Palestinians from the West Bank to sing Hatikva and identify with the Star of David?
But there are more general reasons to be skeptical of the viability of states that try to unify two or more ethnic groups, even if there is no violent history between them. Not only leading European politicians like Angela Merkel and David Cameron have come to believe that the multicultural ideal does not work.
A growing number of researchers in political science have become very skeptical about the possibility for state to function without a dominant culture truly accepted by the majority of the population. Recent history shows that most binational states run into troubles even if there is no history of bloodshed and violence. Czechoslovakia fell apart soon after the dismantling of the Soviet bloc; Belgium is constantly under pressure of the Flemish population that wants to secede; Scotland reserves the right to secede from Britain, so do the Québécois, the Catalan and the Basques.
There seem to be two blatant exceptions to this rule: one is Switzerland, a country that has four official languages and has been running its affairs very calmly and efficiently for centuries. But Alexander Yakobson has argued that Switzerland is not really multicultural, but rather multilingual, and that it shares a very strong common national ethos. Born and raised in Switzerland until early adulthood, I can fully confirm Yakobson’s view.
The other exception seems to be the United States, often hailed as the one, great successful model of multiculturalism. But the late Samuel Huntington, one of the great political scientists of recent times, has made a strong argument that the U.S. has never been really multicultural, but basically a White Protestant Anglo-Saxon Country. Its success in integrating waves of immigration was based on a simple principle: immigrants were offered the option to accept the Protestant work ethos and the idea of self-reliance. Those who could function in this framework could become part of the American dream.
Israel’s dominant ethos, to this day, is to have revived Jewish sovereignty after 2000 years. How exactly can we expect Palestinians to live with this ethos? Theirs is the exact opposite: their story is that Zionism was their catastrophe, their Nakba. How can these two narratives coexist within the same state? And how can we avoid a protracted struggle for demographic and political dominance in the Greater Land of Israel and endless competition for land and other resources?
As opposed to many younger members of Israel’s political right, who seem to care for Jews only, Arens is a true humanist. But unfortunately I am afraid that his well-meaning blueprint for a single state west of the Jordan will not bring peace, but an unending continuation of ethnic struggle by other means.
I share this view. But many, including Caroline Glick and Tzippi Hotovely, agree with Arens.
Most Israelis don’t want another 1.5 million Arab citizens even if we get to keep all the land. My solution is to annex only Area C and offer the Arabs in A and B, autonomy. As an incentive we could also throw in some of Area C to make A and B more contiguous. While taking the heat for the annexation and while negotiating autonomy or at least offering it, we should proceeds with a plan for financially induced emigration of Arabs.
@ bernard ross:Nothing is wrong with Oslo being abrogated. So long as we are talking autonomy for A and B the demand for us to give the arabs in those areas, citizenship will be insignificant compared to if we annexed A and B. In the meantime we could offer arabs compensation to leave. This would give us a chance to test its possibilities rather than to gamble on it as Sherman wants to do.
One more thing. We could be very selective as to who we make this offer to. It need not be to all arabs in A,B and C or just to all Arabs in C. It could initially be to all Arabs in Qualiqilya which is in Area B. If we could get them all to leave, we could also annex that community which is adjacent to the green line.
@ Ted Belman:
A very brief and cursory scan of the past 2000 years, would attest to the fact that no matter what JEWS do or do not do they will be held up to a different standard.
If what we do or do not do is with the intent ‘to look good’ or to please the rest of the world…. then this effort would be doomed from the start.
As far as the invented people go….
here is the offer:
http://youtu.be/SeldwfOwuL8
@ Ted Belman:further, on thinking: it makes sense to annex all C right away to prevent further erosion on the basis that that area is majority israeli population and the rest will be left as an area still in dispute. I agree that it would forestall the citizenship question till later while ending the US/euro swindling of area C from the jews. In fact their behavior and the arab behavior can be cited as making the annexation necessary to protect Israels rights being undermined by them. Much can be done if there were enough israelis who wanted Israel. This is the only issue regarding any scenario: the will, motivation and desire of the Israeli people.
Ted Belman Said:
If you annex only C are you saying to leave AB under the status quo for future determination? Also, what is wrong with Oslo being abrogated and becoming an overt failure as opposed to a clandestine failure? a failure of Oslo might provide the chance for a complete change in policy. If there is no giving of land sovereignty over AB but just the same autonomy which exists now then it can work as a continuing temporary measure. I have nothing against annexing C entirely but I do not agree that it gives a chance to evade pressure as the same uproar arising from annexing YS would arise from annexing C. further, it appears that annexing all c is just an idylic dream, israelis are not interested in even all C, or so it appears to me.
What are the “few” things the west would complain about if C is annexed entirely. certainly I agree that it is better to annex all C than only 10% of C as it now appears. basically I agree with you that it is important to take all c before the euros do their dirty work with the arabs; remove that card from their hand. that way only densely populated arab areas can remain in dispute.
@ bernard ross:You didn’t read me carefully. I don’t want to annex A and B now because we would then have huge pressure to give them citizenship. My approach evades this pressure yet allows us to offer them compensation to leave or autonomy. If we annex only C then the West will complain about a few things which are easier to handle. Such an Act would give Arabs the right to abrogate Oslo. The West would be left to complain about the same things they complain about now and maybe about the annexation. We can handle that.
right now it seems that retaining all of C is as much as an idyllic dream as annexing all of YS and transferring the arabs. therefore, why not seek it all as at least if attained it would be a sustainable solution. If one gives any permanent sovereignty it will mean arab immigration to the west bank. If one retains soveriegnty over AB and control but allows the same autonomy as now then this can be a temporary solution but in the end it must be overall israel. The problem is that all the evidence points towards no permanent peaceful coexistence between the jordan river and the med. In this case sustainable permanent solutions must be envisioned even if they cannot be immediately achieved. The only sustainable permanent solution is a jewish Israeli state with a minimum of peaceful arabs. the hostile arabs must be transferred. this approach recognizes that security will only improve by reducing the arab hostile population. “solutions” must be fact based and not hope based. Not PC but facts will prove this out.
I know of no arabs who care for jews, at least enough to be recognizable as a group. Why should jews care for them? It is this fake “humanism” which is killing jews and preventing jews from getting back their homeland. This is only “humanism” for the gluttonous desires of the arabs.
I disagree with many on the Right – I believe in annexing ALL of Judea and Samaria and granting the Arabs ger toshav status. Those who refuse to accept this would be summarily deported.
It doesn’t matter how many Arabs winds up with Israel because none of them could vote for the leadership of the Jewish State or determine its policies. Israel is not obligated to grant them civic citizenship when even Arabs in the Arab World lack them.
Its time to annex Judea and Samaria because this is Jewish land. This is the sole basis of Israel’s claim and Israel does not have to share its homeland with aliens. Go and read the Torah!
Noch a schlemazel.