Who really wants binationalism?
Is it reasonable that a state with an Arab-Muslim majority, in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, will really be "binational," even if it is officially defined as such?
By Alexander YakobsonHave the English and the Scots gone out of their minds? Here in the Middle East, it is clear that there is something to fight about. But what reason is there for the national tension between Englishmen and Scots, who live together happily and prosperously in the United Kingdom?
With great seriousness, senior British statesman have recently been discussing the danger of the dismantling of the unification of England and Scotland. According to recent public opinion polls, the Scottish National Party (SNP), which upholds Scotland's resignation from the union, could win the coming elections for the local parliament. Surveys in Scotland show that more than 40 percent of the country's inhabitants support independence (according to another poll, that proportion reaches 59 percent). Also, 52 percent of the English replied that they are interested in Scotland leaving the union, in the sense of "we are here and they are there." The English press reports with concern on "anglophobic" tendencies in Scotland.
How has this happened? After all, in Israel, we have heard that Europe has almost entirely rid itself of nationalism and the national state, and that in the near future the victory parade of multi-nationalism and post-nationalism will come to the Middle East, where the masses, as everyone knows, are waiting for it with bated breath. However, it appears that the news of the death of nationalism has not yet reached the distant provinces where the English and the Scots live.
There we have two nations facing each other, Protestant Christians both, who have undergone profound secularization and are very close to each other in their modern culture. The two peoples have been living in the same state for 300 years; their representatives sit in the same parliament and in the same governments (and also serve as prime minister); they are partners to the same economic system; they intermarry with no difficulty; they live in the same neighborhoods; they fight in the same wars; they agree on the same values of a modern, democratic and liberal society and they speak the same language.
Not only has all of this not created a common national identity for the two peoples, it is even possible that this is not enough to keep them in the framework of a shared state. This, even though it is one of the most liberal and least nationalistic states in history, and even though the Scots have received an autonomous parliament and government of their own. It is not easy to explain this, but the reality is that most nationalities, even in Europe, aspire to national independence even when they are offered a reasonable and fair alternative to it.
The idea of one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which is known to the public as a binational state, has in fact been promoted by the Israeli right, which supports the establishment of Jewish settlements in the territories. Parts of the radical left also believe in the binational idea, but they cannot bring it about.
Beyond every other argument, of principle or practice, there is one question that must be answered by everyone who supports this idea: If the vision is realized, will it indeed be a binational state? If today, hundreds of years after the establishment of the United Kingdom, the Scots are still finding it hard to accept it as a true binational framework and about half of them see it as an expression of the hegemony of the English majority, is it reasonable that a state with an Arab-Muslim majority, in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, will really be "binational," even if it is officially defined as such? It is clear this will be an Arab-Muslim state in every respect. Or is it the case that someone believes that from the moment he has adopted a fashionable slogan that is detached from the reality even in Western Europe he is exempt from responsibility for the practical significance of what he is proposing to the Israeli public?
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Scotland might leave the UK because they think that more own control might succeed as it has in Ireland. They will not have their own currency,customs borders, closed labour market, immigration control and other factors that once constituted a sovereign state. In Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Finland and others ways have been found to FAIRLY live together. In Turkey, Iraq, and many others they havn't. I hope we will have the wisdom, and together with us Lebanon, Syria(20% christian) and Jordan (half Palestinians) to find a way to live FAIRLY together in prosperity and peace.
BiNationalism would spark Jewish Ressistance on a Grand Scale. No Jew would accept this any goverment that did would enrage the Jewish world and spark a ressistance against such a state and goverment.
Where Jews are first class citizen with full rights and Arabs are second class citizens. Where Arab MKs are being harassed and forced to resign because they are outspoken and refuse to be puppets like Abou Mazen.
This 'Canaanite' theory has gone far enough. The people who are today called Palestinians are Arab Moslems, by a huge majority, and their 'heart beats as one' with the Arab Moslem people living in Jordan and elsewhere nearby. The Israeli Jews have other affinities. Even linguistically, despite similarities, there is a chasm of difference between Hebrew and Arabic, and they were never mutually intelligible. These differences have to be respected. There are the Druzes, Circassians, and a minority of Arabs in Israel who absorbed the Israeli identity and are an inseparable part of the fabric of Israel. I even accept the fact that some local Christians may be in part descended from the early Jewish Christians who established the early church and so may identify less with Arabism. But lets face it. The critical mass of Arab Moslems west of the Jordan are exactly that, Arab Moslems, and they will never have an affinity to Israel unless it too is Arab and Moslem.
look its very simple - right now there are two states in ex Palestine mandate - thats jordan and israel - the balfour declaration said there would be a home for the jews and arabs - well they first established the arab home jordan in 1923 and then the jewish home in 1948 - so its simple - those who are in between and cant make up their minds have to choose the arab state of jordan or the jewish state of israel - theres not one state including jordan israel and the territories or 2 states by adding a second palestinian state - so if your a jew go to israel and arab go to jordan!
in all corners of the continent and on the British Isles. Visit any European country, ask around and observes, and you'll see this within hours. Also notice how they keep their armed forces in fighting shape.
"In the early 1900`s the area was very sparsley populated." "very sparsely" is a relative term. There is no reason that Palistine was less populated than the sourrounding areas. Where there is land to support humans, humans will multiply. YOur claim that half the people of Palestine moved there from neighboring areas because of settler activities is unbelievable. Would you believe that of the 40 million who lived in Balookistan in 1950, 20 million moved there from neighboring areas because of the economic activities of a few hundred thousands immigrants.
What else can we expect from Haaretz carefully screened contributors? Nice try Alexander but the land between the sea and Mesopotamia still belongs to the Jews. If it is true as you say that a bi-national cannot survive in this land than the foreign occupiers who invaded it unlawfully will go back to Arabia by hook or by crook.
Throughout history, no nation has ever managed to keep another in occupation over time; not the Romans, not the Turks, not the Greeks, or the French, the English, the White South Africans or anyone else UNLESS they either completed a genocide against the other as in the Americas and Australia or, they merged politically and socially with the occupied as in India and most other examples. The only time a rift was created after a merging of the peoples, was when someone decided to exploit the differences for evil and power. Such exploitation is possible even in an overwhelming majority nation as Israel as well as in Germany, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Humanity has choices for their future: live with weapons at ready all the time to defend this much-cherished "national character" or, risk spikes in their history but plan on living as equals in one nation. In my opinion, Israel has just one choice; to have political parity and equality for ALL three faiths and live as one family
Is it possible that the arm industry in the US is behind the Iraq war? Will the arm industry allow peace in Israel?
Actually the people we call Palestinians today are not really the descendants of the Canannites. The Arab invasions of the seventh and eighth centuries changed the entire demography of the area. About half of those who left mandatory Palestone in 1948 had only arrived there during the nineteenth century. In the early 1900's the area was very sparsley populated. It was after the Zionist settlers arrived and started creating economic activity, that many Arabs from Egypt, Syria, and (Trans)-Jordan moved there to take advantage of the new opportunities. These are the ancestors of many of the "Palestinians" in the territories today.
THEY CAN GO LIVE WITH THE WAHABBIS IN SAUDI ARABIA!!! ISRAEL IS A JEWISH,THAT BEING SAID ISRAEL IS THE ONLY JEWISH STATE IN THE WORLD, ISLAM HAS ALL THE LAND IN THE WORLD IT NEEDS, BUT WE JEWS WANT ONE SMALL PIECE OF LAND AND THE WHOLE WORLD HAVE A PMS ATTACK???
There is no need, no use, no reason to masturbate with destroying, dissolving, diluting or erasing Israel with that bland weapon of mass destruction called "binationalism". Palestinian Arabs can have their state, and will have it as soon as they stop terrorism, necrophilia, violence and incitement. Thereupon, the two nations can truly live in peace and security together, cooperating like good neighbors. If you want it, it's not a dream.
3 State solution: Israel, Palestine, and a third state for everyone else to fight over forever..... Its the only way everyone will be happy.
Rather than argue against the potential success of a Greater Israel, the article just goes to show that differing nationalities with historic enmities have co-existed peacefully as a single nation-state entity in other parts of the world. Israel can not continue to remain a democratic free society while it disenfranchises half of the people living on the Land. If it chooses to accept a path to a separate Palestinian state and expel its arabs to that state, Israel will sow the seeds for perpetually escalating wars until one side succeeds in total conquest and genocide. If Israel chooses to remain exclusively Jewish then it will have to transform to a monarchy or dictatorship, since a republic or democracy can not remain a free and open society with half the population reduced to sub-human existence.
That the desendents of the Angles, Saxons and Picts think that they cannot live together under one political entity in this modern age is plainly rediculous. There always are some elements in every society who are restless for no rational reason. In Belgium the Walloons and the Flems have lived together having 2 different languages and religions. In Switzerland Germans, French and Italians live under one flag evn though they speak 3 different languages (many are trilingual) and have 2 different religions. In Israel/Palestine demographics will determine the ultimate outcome. Israel has refused to allow the Palestinians their own state and in fact harbours dreams of having the Palestinians leave the land between the river and the sea altogether. This is not the situation in Great Britain. In Israel/Palestine a federative solution could have solved the issue as each side maintains its autonomy and sharing one economy and defense. Life is too short to waste on shauvinim and tribalism
At least the Serbs have had Serbia to escape to.
We can't even coexist with an Arab minority much less enter into a political entity that is "officially" bi-national. Separation of the two populations is really our best option in the long term. This is a problem that will one day blow up in our face but of course, that may be the only time we can take action.
Jews and Palestinians are of the same ancestory. Most Palestinians are decendents of the ancient Canaanites / Israelites with a mixed flavours of Romans, Greeks and Arab spices. As for the Jews, they also have the same ancestory, with different flavours, depends on where were they residing in the Past few thousand years. As for language, Palestinians have converted to Arabism, where as Jews are relearning the ancient language but flavored it with European/ Yiddish expressions and vocabulary, lost the semetic pronounciations of Ain and Heit, but hey, if the Jews from Europe can learn Hebrew, Palestinians from Canaan, can learn it much easier. After all ancient Hebrew vocabulay are almost identical to Arabic, and the Grammer is very similar. Palestinians love to have the whole country, so do the Jews as well. I am sure there exists a formula where coexistence on the whole is possible if religions are practiced as a private issue, and Nationalism be practiced in a secular form.