Rekindling the Bi-national Option

The bi-national idea, an intensely contested one, is not new to the region nor is it a Palestinian creation. The Jewish groups during the British Mandate era first advocated bi-nationalism, that is, the sharing of political powers equally between the Jewish and Arab communities in Israel/Palestine, their comparative sizes notwithstanding. With Israel’s establishment as a Jewish state in 1948, the bi-national idea seemed predestined to political extinction. However, with the virtual collapse of the peace process, the eruption of the second Palestinian Intifada, the de facto Israeli reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and especially the changes in the Jewish-Palestinian demography, this seemingly overlooked notion appeared to have made a political comeback. This time, however, most advocates of bi-nationalism were from the Palestinian side, with a few on the Israeli side. In the gradual course of time, some outside observers too, began advocating bi-nationalism as a solution.

On the basis of the claims made by the proponents and opponents of bi-nationalism, it can be inferred that there are genuine concerns about the feasibility of the bi-national option. On the one hand, the Israelis feel that it involves the risk of an attenuation of the Jewish identity of the state of Israel. There are misgivings among the Israelis about the practicability of the conjunction of a Jewish identity, which is more akin to the Western character with a Palestinian one that retains a Mediterranean personality. Moreover, there always remains a fear among the Jews that a bi-national state would no longer provide a safe haven for the world Jewry, in instances of persecution. On the other hand, the Palestinians feel that the majority of the Israelis would not back the bi-national option and as such they should look for a more attainable alternative to the two-state solution, at least in the short term. Besides, the superior Israeli economy would perpetuate the Palestinian susceptibility to economic control and political manipulation by the Israelis. Despite these reservations, the quest for exploring the bi-national option remains among academics, members of the civil society and even a section of the practitioners of politics among both the communities. The aim is to find a more equitable resolution of the conflict and the vision strives for a comprehensive and enduring closure.

Since the turn of the last millennium, several efforts have been made to set up a platform to facilitate an organised attempt at debating and propagating the idea of bi-nationalism in Israel-Palestine. The efforts gathered momentum with the convening of the first international conference at Madrid during 2-6 July 2007, entitled ‘Israel-Palestine: One Country, One State.’ A second international conference on the one-state was held in London during 17-18 November 2007, entitled ‘Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Palestine/Israel.’ During 28-29 March 2009, the Boston Conference on ‘One State for Palestine/Israel: A Country for all its Citizens,’ was convened. A fourth international conference, entitled ‘Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace,’ was held during 22-24 June 2009 at York University in Toronto. The first Haifa conference entitled ‘Haifa Conference for the Right of Return and the Secular Democratic State in Palestine,’ was held on 20-21 June 2008. Invigorated by the success of the conference and the interest it stimulated, a follow-up to it was held in Haifa again on 28-30 May 2010. Various themes were explored and debated upon in these conferences, these included: ‘Reimagining the Conflict,’ ‘Rethinking the Geography and the Nation,’ ‘Israel and International law,’ ‘Future Paths’ and ‘Translating Ideas into Action.’ Both Palestinian and Israeli grass-roots activists and some non-governmental organisation (NGO) representatives participated as speakers and discussants. There were practical discussions on strategies, logistics, methods, policies and organisational means required for the implementation of the one-state.

The Toronto Conference was not merely a one-state conference, it was rather an appraisal and examination of the effectiveness of alternative state models for resolving the conflict. The two states option was considered alongside the one-state solution. The conference included advocates of the one-state and two-state solutions as well as others. Many Zionist Israelis were present, as such the mood was quite electric and at times the arguments were animated, resulting in a degree of polarisation at the culmination of the deliberations. The conference enabled to break the prevalent sense of fear often connected with any questioning of conformist Zionist rationale and in the process unfastened new viewpoints. The Haifa Conference in particular conferred on the one-state paradigm a new facet. The notion had moved beyond the confines of academics and had struck roots in the ranks of the Palestinian community inside Israel. It was perceived as part of the on-going political awakening process they had been feeling and presented them with a platform to facilitate their ideas and help unite their ranks. Leaders of the major parties active among Palestinians in Israel, namely the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash), the National Democratic Alliance (Balad) and Abnaa El Balad, participated in the conference. The Haifa conference also stood out for incorporating Palestinian grassroots activists and youth, backed by a sizeable number of Jewish activists, articulating their views about the future. This introduced an aspect of realism to the theoretical debates which the intellectuals of the one-state movement had been engaged in so far.

The reality today is that while the two-state solution continues to be the accepted choice for most in Israel-Palestine, there have been concerted attempts to bring together and project other models as possible alternatives, the most visible of the options is the bi-national option, which has been espoused by both communities at different points in time. An analysis of the differing viewpoints related to bi-nationalism reveal, the road ahead for the Bi-national state (BNS) certainly appears to be a long and winding one. Yet, there is a discernible attempt by sections of society within both the communities to popularise and promote the concept as a viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It seems appropriate to revisit and revitalise this alternative at this juncture, when state boundaries in West Asia are being redrawn and the region itself is being reimagined.

Priya

20/8/2017

Excerpts from ‘Israel-Palestine: Revisiting the Bi-national State’ (Chapter 3) in Priya Singh (Edited) Re-envisaging West Asia: Looking Beyond the Arab Uprisings, New Delhi: Shipra, 2016.