Few Palestinians question their share of responsibility. However, American cooperation with Israeli efforts to marginalize and divide the historic Palestinian leadership contributed to the political paralysis. The stated goal was to reduce Yasser Arafat's hold. But has this been achieved? In the past decade, the legitimacy of PA and Fatah leaders rested essentially on their capacity to govern, their ability to achieve statehood and their aptitude at obtaining support from the outside world. They now manifestly cannot deliver on any.
Arafat, in contrast, can count on what a majority of Palestinians still consider unimpeachable personal, historical and democratic credentials. He is weaker, no doubt, but most around him are even more so; what power he has lost in absolute terms he has made up for in relative ones. A policy intended to debilitate him has instead left him the one man standing.
Sharon's attacks upon the PA and attempted isolation of Arafat have been completely at odds with his goal of ending terrorism against Israeli civilians. Rather than strengthening and helping to constructively combat corruption within the PA, Sharon has taken it as given that Hamas and the PA are essentially one and the same, and thus severely weakened the one Palestinian organ that could have credibly and effectively combated Hamas. As I said, Sharon's actions are at odds with ending terrorism, but they are completely consistent with his implicit goal of preventing the existence of a Palestinian state.
I'm more and more convinced that the only viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict at this point is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, which Andrew Reding and others have suggested.
Whether they like it or not, Israel and Palestine need each other. Israel needs Palestine for its security and Palestine needs Israel for its economic viability. However far-fetched it may seem under present circumstances, that points to a federal solution as the only viable alternative to chronic conflict.
...Israel and Palestine would each be internally self-governing, with the exception of defense, foreign affairs, the national treasury and economic policy. These would initially be in Israeli hands (the status quo), but would be transferred to a new federal parliament once it became clear the federal experiment was succeeding.
Jerusalem would follow the example of Brussels. It would become the third entity in the federation -- and its capital. Both Jewish West Jerusalem and Arab East Jerusalem would have their own democratically elected councils, much like the boroughs in New York City.
Jewish settlers would be free to remain where they are, subject to the lawful authority of the regional government, which would be bound to respect their constitutional rights. They would be protected, as would all citizens, by an integrated federal police.
The borders between the two states would follow strictly along the Green Line, and Jewish settlers would be free to stay as taxpaying citizens of Palestine.
Another important consideration are the Jewish holy sites contained within the West Bank, to which Jews and Christians must be allowed access, just as Palestinian Muslims must be allowed continued access to the Haram al Sharif in Jerusalem.
Granted, this is a long way off, but I think it's the only way to create real security for both peoples while still recognizing the unique economic and religious realities involved.
Federalization might also be a potential solution for Iraq, but I don't want to get into that right now. I don't mean to suggest that federalism is a some kind of political solve-all or magic bullet, it's not. Iraqi federalism will likely look as different from Israeli-Palestinian federalism as it does from American federalism, and each with their own Gordian knots to struggle with, but as a way for starkly different cultural groups with competing interests, not to mention intense, long-standing grievances, to live within a single nation-state, it's something to explore.
No comments:
Post a Comment