The Bi-national State: The Wolf Shall Dwell With The Lamb
Uri Avnery
12 July 2003
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb" prophesied Isaiah (11:6).
This is possible in our times, too -
provided you bring a new lamb every day.
I am reminded of this cruel joke every time the idea
of a bi-national state comes up.
In desperate times, messianic ideas flourish.
They permit an escape from the dark present to a better,
brighter world; from a feeling of helplessness to a sense
of creation.
No wonder that in these dark times, the bi-national
idea is raising its head again in some Israeli left-wing
circles. It's a beautiful and noble idea, imbued with faith
in humanity. But, like Isaiah's prophecy, it is an idea for
the days of the messiah. If it has any realistic chance at
all, this may come in another two or three generations.
In the meantime, it is indeed an escape from reality.
A dangerous escape, as we shall see.
According to the bi-national idea, the territory
between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River -
Palestine / Eretz Israel - will again constitute one state,
as in the days of the British Mandate before 1948.
Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, will live there
together as equal citizens. The exact form of the regime
- bi-national or non-national - is secondary.
All citizens will vote for the same parliament and the
same government, serving in the same army and police
force, paying the same taxes, sending their children to
the same schools, using the same textbooks.
An attractive idea, indeed.
It may seem strange that this idealistic vision is
reappearing just now, after it has failed the world over.
The multi-national Soviet Union has disappeared,
and now even the multi-national Russian federation
is in danger of falling apart (see Chechnya).
Not only Yugoslavia has disintegrated, but so have its
fragments. Bosnia, too, has fallen apart and been glued
together artificially, with foreign soldiers trying to keep
the peace somehow. Serbia has been compelled to give
up Kosovo in all but name, and the integrity of
Macedonia is in doubt. For a long time now, the unity of
Canada has been threatened by movements within the
French-speaking population. United Cyprus, with its
model bi-national constitution, is barely a memory.
And the list is long: Indonesia, the Philippines and many
other countries, not to mention our neighbor, Lebanon.
But there is no need to look far away. Our own reality
is enough. The immediate roots of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict are more than a hundred years. A fifth
generation has been born into it and its whole mental
world has been shaped by it. Basically it is a clash
between the Zionist movement and the Arab-Palestinian
national movement. After a hundred years, the force of
Zionism is far from exhausted. Its main thrust -
expansion, occupation and settlement - is in full,
offensive swing. On the Palestinian side, nationalism
(including the Islamic version) is deepening and growing
from martyr to martyr. It takes real faith to believe that
these two nationalistic peoples will give up the essence
of their hopes and turn from total enmity to total peace,
giving up their national narratives and being ready to live
together as supra-national citizens.
The 20th century has seen several "utopias" that have
caused terrible disasters. The communist vision, for
example, was based on the assumption that there is a
perfect human being or that human beings can be
perfected. It clashed with a reality of imperfect human
beings. As the German post-communist leader, Gregor
Gysi, once told me: "We tried to impose the perfect
system on imperfect human beings. So we tried to
impose it by force." Thus a system of terror came into
being and millions were slaughtered, from the Ukraine
to Cambodia.
One must pose three essential questions:
1. Will both sides accept this solution?
2. Can a bi-national state function?
3. Will it put an end to the conflict?
My answer to all three questions is an unqualified
'no'.
There is no chance at all that the present, post-
holocaust, Israeli generation, or its successor, will accept
this solution, which conflicts absolutely with the myth and
the ethos of Israel. The aim of the founders of the State
of Israel was that the Jews - or a part of them - could at
last take their destiny into their own hands. A bi-national
state means the abandonment of this aim, and, in
practice, the dismantling of Israel itself. The Jews would
return to the traumatic experience of a people without a
state throughout the world, with all that that implies.
And not as a result of a crushing military defeat, but as a
free choice. Not very likely.
And what about the Palestinian side?
Some Palestinians do indeed talk longingly of a
bi-national state, but I believe that for some of them,
at least, this is just a code word for the elimination of the
State of Israel, and for some others an escape from bitter
reality to the dream of returning to their homes and
villages of the past . But the great majority of the
Palestinian people want to live, at last, in a national state
of their own, a state that expresses their national identity,
under their flag and their government, like other peoples.
The chance that the two nations will accept the
bi-national idea in the foreseeable future is remote
indeed.
Would such a state - if it came into being -
be able to function?
There is hardly any multi-national state in the world
that really functions properly. (Have I mentioned
Switzerland?) Because in order to function properly,
one of two conditions must be fulfilled: either all sides
cede their national identity or they must have equal
economic and political power.
The very opposite is true in this country. There is a
gaping inequality between Israelis and Palestinians in
almost every respect. The disparity is immense.
In a joint state, if it were to be set up, the Jews would
dominate the economy and most other aspects of the
state, and try very hard to preserve that situation.
At this point in time, a bi-national state would be an
occupation regime in a new form that would thinly
disguise a reality of exploitation and economic, cultural
and probably political repression. The situation of the
Arab citizens in Israel, after 55 years, is not very
encouraging.
Therefore, I do not believe that such a solution,
if it were possible at all, would put an end to the conflict.
It would only set it on a different track,
perhaps more severe and more violent.
All this is known, of course, to the adherents of the
bi-national idea. In order to escape the contradiction
between their vision and reality, they have developed
a theory that goes like this:
In the beginning, the joint state will indeed be some
kind of an apartheid state. But the situation will change
gradually. In time, the Arabs will become the majority in
this state. Even now, some 5.4 million Jews and
4.6 million Arab Palestinians live between the
Mediterranean and the Jordan. The Arab birthrate will
change the ratio soon. The Palestinian majority will fight
for equality. The world will support it, as it supported the
South-African struggle against apartheid. Thus we will
achieve a real state of equality.
This is a wishful dream.
The white racists in South Africa were hated by the whole world.
Unlike the Jewish Israelis, they had no powerful base of support.
American Jewry has immense political, economic and
media might, and they will not lose it for many years to come.
Israel continues to rely on - and will do so for a long time
- the guilt feelings of the Christian world inspired by the holocaust.
At the same time, the Arabs are becoming more
and more the bogyman of the Western world.
It will be far more difficult for international pressure to
influence the Jewish community that will dominate the
bi-national state. It will take generations, and in the
meantime the expansion of the settlements will go on
relentlessly. In a bi-national state every Jew can,
of course, settle wherever he or she wants.
The Palestinians will continually lose out economically,
and the gap between the two peoples will grow.
It can be assumed that the power struggle in the
bi-national state will cause severe violence, as it did
in South Africa.
The conclusion is: two states are needed for two peoples.
This will direct the national feelings of the two peoples
into reasonable, constructive channels, that will make
co-existence, cooperation and, finally, a genuine
reconciliation possible.
The independent political structure of the State of
Palestine will put at its disposal international and
national barriers against the danger that its far more
powerful neighbor would use its economic might to
exploit the Palestinian people or even expel them.
The Palestinian people will at long last feel that it has a
solid base, as did the Jews after the establishment of
the State of Israel.
The recent past has shown that even this is extremely
difficult to achieve. We still have to overcome much
mutual fear, hate, myths and prejudices to make it
possible. But those who despair at these obstacles and
so adopt the bi-national gospel resemble an athlete who
can't manage a 100 yard sprint and therefore enrolls for
the marathon.
There is great danger even in propagating this idea.
It is said that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
The very mention of the bi-national vision will scare the
great majority of Israelis, who are now slowly
approaching acceptance of the two-state solution,
will arouse their most deep-seated existential anxieties
and push them into the arms of the extreme right-wing.
It will give the Right a powerful weapon:
"What did we tell you? The real aim of the adherents of
the two-state solution is to abolish the State of Israel by
stages!"
Some of the new advocates of the bi-national solution
use a very odd argument. They say: "Sharon declares
that he is for the two-state solution, but he means some
enclaves comprising 50% of the occupied territories.
Therefore we must not support the establishment of a
Palestinian state." The simple answer is: should we
abandon a good and positive idea just because the
enemies of peace pervert it and try to use it for their
ends? Logic would dictate the opposite: to expose the
perversion of the idea by Sharon and fight for a
Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders.
In the early 50s, when we raised the two-state idea
again after the 1948 war, we did not speak of
"separation". Today, too, we reject this term absolutely.
We speak of two states with an open border between
them, with free movement of people and goods (subject,
of course, to mutual agreements). I am convinced that,
in the light of the geographical and political facts,
a natural process will lead to an organic connection,
perhaps a federation, and later, by common consent, to a
regional community like the European Union.
In the end, we shall reach the objective: to live
together in peace, side by side. Perhaps a later
generation will one day decide to live in one joint state.
But today the propaganda for this utopia diverts attention
from the practical, immediate objective, at a time when
the whole world has accepted the idea of "two states for
two peoples". This remote utopia blocks the way to a
solution that is achievable in the near future and sorely
necessary, because in the meantime "facts on the
ground" are being created.
I am convinced that the 21st century will bring vast
changes in the structure of the world and the way of life
of human society. The importance of the nation-state
will gradually diminish. A world order, world law and
world-wide structures will play a central role. I believe
that Israel will whole-heartedly take part in the march of
humanity. We shall not be tardy. But there is no point in
expecting the Israeli public to be 50 years ahead of the
times.
gush-shalom.org
len |
