Table of Contents
1. Autonomy, Not Statism
2. Democracy and Majority Rule as Potential Problems
3. Establishing Free Movement by Reviving the 1947 U.N. Plan
4. Why Communal Governance?
5. Ending Territorialism in Government
6. Conclusions
Content
1. Autonomy, Not Statism
I don't support the creation of a Palestinian state, but I do support increased Palestinian autonomy (and, if possible, total Palestinian autonomy).
However, the
fact that I don't support statehood for the people of Palestine (the West Bank,
the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights), is nothing against the
Palestinians. It's just that I believe that political statism is a
bad influence on governance, and makes it more likely that efforts to
help the Palestinian people will result in episodes of violence.
A
political state is traditionally defined as an entity which is
capable of wielding a credible monopoly on the legitimate use of
force, violence, or coercion, within a given territory, in the
pursuit of its legitimate political and legal goals and aims.
Thus,
the state intrinsically legitimizes violence, because by definition,
the state cannot operate unless it uses legitimized forms of violence
(i.e., war,
and the police use of force to enforce laws). If the state stops
using force, it ceases to be a state, and becomes a non-statist,
non-violent governmental entity, which operates through persuasion,
argumentation, debate, and keeping a wide range of non-violent
resolution possibilities open.
Basically,
I don't want to risk turning what are now considered terrorist
groups, into legitimate political entities.
It's not that entities like Hamas and Hezbollah don't perhaps deserve to be considered legitimate governments - after all, Hamas and Fatah are real political parties, and Hamas and Hezbollah do protect people physically, provide military training for them, and provide them with aid, like an army or a humanitarian army would do - I would simply rather avoid legitimizing both 1) entities currently considered "terrorist groups" by the U.S. government, as well as 2) existing political states, in any way. To do so would be to risk further legitimizing political violence.
And, to be honest, I don't want to risk legitimizing existing political states, by associating them with entities that provide actual aid, protection, shelter, and arms training, to the people who support them.
It's not that entities like Hamas and Hezbollah don't perhaps deserve to be considered legitimate governments - after all, Hamas and Fatah are real political parties, and Hamas and Hezbollah do protect people physically, provide military training for them, and provide them with aid, like an army or a humanitarian army would do - I would simply rather avoid legitimizing both 1) entities currently considered "terrorist groups" by the U.S. government, as well as 2) existing political states, in any way. To do so would be to risk further legitimizing political violence.
And, to be honest, I don't want to risk legitimizing existing political states, by associating them with entities that provide actual aid, protection, shelter, and arms training, to the people who support them.
If you look at the definition of the state, and compare it to the definition of a terrorist group, you will see that both of them use violence in order to
achieve political goals, as part of their definitions. The only difference between them is that a political state has been successful at establishing lasting and well-defined borders.
The fact that a group has begun to enforce laws and levy taxes, and claims that everyone in a certain area must follow those laws and pay those taxes, is what makes it a "legitimate political entity", but only because the form of political organization which is currently nearly universally accepted among the peoples of the world, is the model of the territorially contiguous, exclusive and monopolistic, centralized state. But the fact that such a group is successful at intimidating people and existing governments into respecting its authority, does not itself guarantee that a state's own subjects will not be terrorized by it, nor does it guarantee that the consent of the governed will be respected (when it comes to duly delegating authorities to the government from the people). Unless threats subside, as a way for the government to enforce its aims, the intimidation that the people feel due to their government's actions, will fester, and grow into revolutionary and insurrectionary movements.
The fact that a group has begun to enforce laws and levy taxes, and claims that everyone in a certain area must follow those laws and pay those taxes, is what makes it a "legitimate political entity", but only because the form of political organization which is currently nearly universally accepted among the peoples of the world, is the model of the territorially contiguous, exclusive and monopolistic, centralized state. But the fact that such a group is successful at intimidating people and existing governments into respecting its authority, does not itself guarantee that a state's own subjects will not be terrorized by it, nor does it guarantee that the consent of the governed will be respected (when it comes to duly delegating authorities to the government from the people). Unless threats subside, as a way for the government to enforce its aims, the intimidation that the people feel due to their government's actions, will fester, and grow into revolutionary and insurrectionary movements.
Government
cannot fulfill its intended role of a civilizing influence on people,
if it is busy legitimizing violence, as a matter of its everyday
duties. That is why we need government to reject monopoly, the
legitimization of violence, and territorialism: the most harmful features, as well as the key defining features, of the state. And, most importantly, we need to reject statism in government, whose practitioners (statists) use violence, threats, coercion, and pressure, as their routine tools of enforcement.
We
do not need more statism in the world, but we do need more autonomous
regions, and we need localities to have more control over what
happens in the regions. Therefore, I support autonomy for
Palestinians, Catalonians, Scots, the people of Rojava, etc.,
but not statism.
2. Democracy and Majority Rule as Potential Problems
If political division turns out to be a stumbling block to the establishment of a united Palestinian state, then a possible solution could be to make each of the three Palestinian regions - the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights - into its own state, or into its own autonomous zone.
If each Palestinian area became a state, and the State of Israel continued to exist, then this could be termed "the Four-State Solution". But if each of the three Palestinian territories, and the Jewish territories, were each autonomous, that would be a stateless solution featuring four autonomous zones.
I believe that autonomy of regions is a better solution than a democratic state, in terms of fostering the best representation, and the most freedom, for individuals and localities.
The fact that the Gaza and the West Bank combined are politically divided, a Palestinian state, and majority rule within that potential state, would be likely to result in the political oppression of somewhere between 60-80% of the people. Given the fact that Hamas is more popular in Gaza, and Fatah is more popular in the West Bank, it's likely that a State of Palestine could result in divided government, gridlock, or even civil war.
If each Palestinian area became a state, and the State of Israel continued to exist, then this could be termed "the Four-State Solution". But if each of the three Palestinian territories, and the Jewish territories, were each autonomous, that would be a stateless solution featuring four autonomous zones.
I believe that autonomy of regions is a better solution than a democratic state, in terms of fostering the best representation, and the most freedom, for individuals and localities.
The fact that the Gaza and the West Bank combined are politically divided, a Palestinian state, and majority rule within that potential state, would be likely to result in the political oppression of somewhere between 60-80% of the people. Given the fact that Hamas is more popular in Gaza, and Fatah is more popular in the West Bank, it's likely that a State of Palestine could result in divided government, gridlock, or even civil war.
About 40%
of Palestinians support Hamas, 40% support Fatah, and 20% are
monarchists. That's why the establishment of a Palestinian state
would be tricky. If the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, were to be united into a single Palestinian, state, then it would be difficult to pull off without oppressing
at least 60% of the people.
Think about it: If Fatah ruled, then the 40% of Palestinians who prefer Hamas and the 20% who prefer a monarchy might not feel represented. If Hamas ruled, the 60% who prefer either Fatah or a monarchy would not feel represented. If the monarchists ruled, then 80% of the people would not feel represented.
It's possible that establishing a Palestinian state ruled by a Fatah-led majority coalition, or a Hamas-led majority coalition, could result in only "mild oppression" (by which I mean those who prefer other parties would be represented in government, but might not necessarily feel fully represented). Still, if they say they don't feel represented, then we should take them at their word, that they need better representation. Full, adequate and satisfied, and responsible representation - with as fully consensual and voluntary participation in government as possible, should be the goals.
So should fully voluntary association and cooperation be the major goals of any and all negotiations between Hamas, Fatah, and the monarchists, and freedom of mutual aid to help people when governments cannot do so or refuse to do so.
So should assurances that no minority group be oppressed, and that a government be created which is incapable of oppressing minority groups. Perhaps a high supermajoritarian threshold should need to be passed - like 80% or 90% - to ensure that the smallest voting bloc (the monarchists) are no more than 50% upset with whatever legislative change is occurring at any given moment.
Think about it: If Fatah ruled, then the 40% of Palestinians who prefer Hamas and the 20% who prefer a monarchy might not feel represented. If Hamas ruled, the 60% who prefer either Fatah or a monarchy would not feel represented. If the monarchists ruled, then 80% of the people would not feel represented.
It's possible that establishing a Palestinian state ruled by a Fatah-led majority coalition, or a Hamas-led majority coalition, could result in only "mild oppression" (by which I mean those who prefer other parties would be represented in government, but might not necessarily feel fully represented). Still, if they say they don't feel represented, then we should take them at their word, that they need better representation. Full, adequate and satisfied, and responsible representation - with as fully consensual and voluntary participation in government as possible, should be the goals.
So should fully voluntary association and cooperation be the major goals of any and all negotiations between Hamas, Fatah, and the monarchists, and freedom of mutual aid to help people when governments cannot do so or refuse to do so.
So should assurances that no minority group be oppressed, and that a government be created which is incapable of oppressing minority groups. Perhaps a high supermajoritarian threshold should need to be passed - like 80% or 90% - to ensure that the smallest voting bloc (the monarchists) are no more than 50% upset with whatever legislative change is occurring at any given moment.
3. Establishing Free Movement by Reviving the 1947 U.N. Plan
Whether
we pursue statism and sovereignty, and territorially contiguous and
united polities (political entities) or not, in my opinion, we should
turn to the original United Nations plan to divide the Holy Land,
from 1947, for inspiration and guidance on resolving the Israeli-Arab
Conflict.
In
that plan, the Jerusalem / Bethlehem area would have become a
U.N.-protected international zone, with the remainder of the land
being broken up into six sections (three of them parts of a Jewish state, shown in aquamarine; and three of them parts of an Arab state, shown in golden).
I'd
like to draw your attention to the two "four corners"
points, one near Nazareth (labeled "North Four Corners" in the second image) and the other at north end of Gaza (labeled "South Four Corners").
In each of those places, Israeli and Palestinian authorities could easily build a bridge over a tunnel, so that the two Palestinian corners connect through a tunnel, and the two Israeli corners connect through a bridge (or vice-versa).
In each of those places, Israeli and Palestinian authorities could easily build a bridge over a tunnel, so that the two Palestinian corners connect through a tunnel, and the two Israeli corners connect through a bridge (or vice-versa).
Free interior movement could have easily been established within the two states. Establish free interior
movement in both states, and then open the borders up when it's safe
enough. The Israeli/Palestinian borders could have been opened up - to allow free movement between Arab-majority and Jewish-majority areas - only when it would have become peaceful enough for both sides to consider do so in concert with each other.
It's as easy as that! Perhaps it could have worked, if this detail about bridges and tunnels had been added to the U.N. plan. Adding a simple bridge-and-tunnel at those two locations could have changed history, and provided a new potential solution to providing freedom of travel in areas plagued by problems related to border disputes, enclaves and exclaves, and overlapping and overcomplicated jurisdictional boundaries.
It's as easy as that! Perhaps it could have worked, if this detail about bridges and tunnels had been added to the U.N. plan. Adding a simple bridge-and-tunnel at those two locations could have changed history, and provided a new potential solution to providing freedom of travel in areas plagued by problems related to border disputes, enclaves and exclaves, and overlapping and overcomplicated jurisdictional boundaries.
If the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (of 1947, U.N. Resolution 181) could have been workable for people on both sites, then why was the plan rejected by the
Palestinians? Because it would have allowed Jewish sovereignty in the
homeland, which to them was intolerable, in any way, shape, or form.
But
can we blame them for not being able to tolerate this? It's not as if
there are no Jewish
people to
whom Jewish sovereignty is tolerable! In fact, there are at least
18,000 rabbis in Brooklyn, and at least 100,000 Jews worldwide
(perhaps even many more) who acknowledge that YHVH (G-d) is
the sovereign of the Jewish people, not the
Israeli state, nor the Israeli Armed Forces!
[Note:
For more information about criticism of Jewish sovereignty from a
Jewish perspective, please watch Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro's speech at the
Barclay's Center in Brooklyn, New York on June 11th,
2017, for more information, at the following
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjO2nNz09k]
This
means that there can be
a multi-faith solution that recognizes the equal and full human
rights of both Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land, and doesn't involve
the existence of a state of Israel. The fact that there are thousands of rabbis
who reject Jewish sovereignty, means that there is no reason why
rabbis and imams couldn't work together to solve this issue in a
non-political context based on morality, human rights, and reaching
an understanding across faiths.
To be clear, I understand that there is already a
limited form of Palestinian autonomy within the Israeli state; that
is not what I am asking for. The degree of autonomy which the
Palestinian Liberation Authority has, is so small that it is
intolerable.
For example, the Israelis refused to seat elected officials from the Hamas party in 2006. More Palestinian autonomy within the State of Israel might look good on paper, but it probably won't fully solve the problem, because the Palestinians would be left with something less than full sovereignty.
For example, the Israelis refused to seat elected officials from the Hamas party in 2006. More Palestinian autonomy within the State of Israel might look good on paper, but it probably won't fully solve the problem, because the Palestinians would be left with something less than full sovereignty.
The
resolution to this conflict could involve a single-state Holy Land,
with full autonomy for Jews in predominantly Jewish areas and
communities, and full autonomy for Arabs and Muslims in predominantly
Muslim communities. Such a plan, in my opinion, should involve Jewish
autonomy, rather than statehood, and even then, only over areas which are designated parts of a "Jewish state" on the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan map.
This would require the State of Israel to not only return to pre-1967 borders and give those lands to the new Palestinian authorities; it would require the State of Israel to give back additional lands (lands which are now situated near the State of Israel's boundaries with Gaza and the West Bank).
This would require the State of Israel to not only return to pre-1967 borders and give those lands to the new Palestinian authorities; it would require the State of Israel to give back additional lands (lands which are now situated near the State of Israel's boundaries with Gaza and the West Bank).
Such
a plan could also involve partial U.N. control. Perhaps the U.N.
could administer Jerusalem, or the greater Jerusalem area. Perhaps the U.N. could guard only the external borders, providing the troops necessary to do so, while leaving Jews and Arabs to govern and protect Jerusalem jointly.
Another potential solution is that the U.N. could administer a joint capital city area, so as to allow both the Jews and the Palestinians to claim adjacent parts of Jerusalem as the capital "cities" (really, neighborhoods of Jerusalem, or multi-village groups of Jerusalem's suburbs).
From those "capital cities", the autonomous zones or communities could be governed, as either centralized federations, or decentralized confederations, depending on what each group wants. I would recommend decentralized confederations of communities, so as to allow the maximum degree of autonomy.
4. Why Communal Governance?
Another potential solution is that the U.N. could administer a joint capital city area, so as to allow both the Jews and the Palestinians to claim adjacent parts of Jerusalem as the capital "cities" (really, neighborhoods of Jerusalem, or multi-village groups of Jerusalem's suburbs).
From those "capital cities", the autonomous zones or communities could be governed, as either centralized federations, or decentralized confederations, depending on what each group wants. I would recommend decentralized confederations of communities, so as to allow the maximum degree of autonomy.
4. Why Communal Governance?
If
the possibility of a United Nations -administered Jerusalem was not
so far-fetched, then the idea of Jerusalem being run differently from
the way other communities nearby are run, should not be considered so
far-fetched. So, then, why shouldn't each community have a chance to
govern itself – for the most part – autonomously?
After all, the mode of governance which the Jewish people are
supposed to be following, is that of the Sanhedrin, the courts of 23
rabbis in each community. Jerusalem's Sanhedrin is supposed to have
71 rabbis. Jewish law treats Jerusalem differently, but not because
it is the “capital of the Jewish people”. The G-d of Abraham never designated Jerusalem any sort of “capital”. Instead, because it's a
high-population city, and because it's considered a holy city. The point is that each community could govern itself, more or less, the way it wanted. That's libertarian communalism, a form of which is Bookchinism, the mode of governance currently being practiced in Rojava.Another reason why communal governance should be viewed as preferable to statism - as a solution to keeping Jews safe while they are in the Holy Land - is that political sovereignty, and such a thing as "a Jewish political entity" is not supposed to exist, until the Messiah (Mashiach) arrives. The covenant between G-d and the Jewish people was made when the people of Moses were in the desert; they had not yet arrived in the area now considered Israeli lands, and G-d's promises to the Jewish people were not conditional upon creating Jewish sovereignty, territorially contiguous government, political government, nor segregated living nor treatment favoring Jews.
There is nothing in Judaism which requires Jews to practice segregation, or territorially contiguous government which requires all people in a given territory to submit to Jewish law. Jews can set up an eruv - a wire - to outline an area in which Jews will be free to carry items outside of their homes during Shabbat, but the eruv is only a symbolic boundary. Jewish definitions of what is public vs. what is private property, regarding eruvin, does not necessarily conform to the actual state of property ownership and territorially exclusive political entities which exist on the ground today. Furthermore, areas designated as part of the eruv do not include people's homes! So there is no reason why an Arab home or village could not exist -and even exercise full autonomy or sovereignty - right in the middle of a Jewish area.
[Note: For more information about eruvs, see the following link: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/615-the-eruv-a-jewish-quantum-state. This article calls the eruv "An interesting alternative to the territorial exclusivity claimed by many of the world's religions - and indeed nation states."]
An image taken from the article mentioned above.
Yellow = parts of the eruv
White squares and rectangles = people's homes
(and potentially, Arab homes inside of a Jewish community)
Given these facts, is
there any reason why we cannot, or should not, have statelessness and
communal autonomy, with free travel and free movement of labor and
capital, in the Holy Land? Absolutely not!
The
only potential problem is communities dealing with individuals who
come to them to do harm. They must be dealt with on an individual
basis, because collective punishment is a war crime, and because only
individual human beings make decisions. They sometimes conspire to
commit the same crimes, but still, you cannot blame an entire people
for the crimes of one of them. Kristallnacht got
started, and the Great Synagogue of Warsaw was set ablaze, because a
single Jew shot an ambassador, and all Jews were blamed.
We
must not tolerate mass punishment, mass deportation, forced
deportation, internal deportation, or deportation for work purposes; neither for Jews, nor for Palestinians, nor for any other human beings.
We must find a way to end borders, and territorially contiguous
governance (wherein the state dominates all and individuals have
neither freedoms nor rights, but may only follow orders).
5. Ending Territorialism in Government
Still,
communal and regional autonomy only protect individual rights so
much. Austrian social democrat and Marxist Otto Bauer proposed
"National Personal Autonomy", which would enable each
individual to file a form with a civil registry of their existing
nation-state, notifying them as to which nation they would like to
become a part of.
Why
do we even have territorially contiguous governance, when nearly all
governments are capable of transporting goods and services to their
subjects even when they're abroad, and considering that no reasonable
person would choose to be protected by a nation whose infrastructure
is too far away from him to provide him with any real protection?
It
is not necessary for governments to preclude people from membership
(i.e., citizenship)
solely based on their location, if that government is capable of
delivering what it needs to deliver in order to make that person a
citizen in full standing.
[Note:
To learn more about territorial governance, statism, and the
critiques against them and possible solutions to them, look up topics
like Panarchy, National Personal Autonomy, and Functional Overlapping
and Competing Jurisdictions.]
6. Conclusions
I should mention that I recognize and admit that I, as an American, should not talk about what another country should to do restore autonomy to oppressed people living within it, unless I also talk about similar problems in my own country. A country damages its own credibility in diplomatic negotiations, if it is guilty of the same crimes and human rights violations which it is trying to get other parties to those negotiations to take seriously.
The
United States of America, just as well as the State of Israel does to
the Palestinians, needs to provide reparations to the Native
Americans, and give them as much autonomy over their own affairs as
possible. Additionally, the U.S. should decentralize, and afford more
autonomy to communities, in the same manner which I have recommended
that the political entities in the Holy Land decentralize.
I
believe that decentralizing powers to the regions will not only help
protect the rights of racial and ethnic minorities, but also that it
will accelerate the process of delivering greater autonomy to
under-served communities (which are not well connected to
well-developed cities that have already-built infrastructures which
are capable of sustaining and rapidly improving the local economies
of such small towns which are in need).
When considering possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wider Israeli-Arab conflict, we should not resign ourselves to believing that this is a millennia-old dispute that can never be solved.
Political
solutions can help
solve this problem, if and only if "political solutions"
ceases to mean "violent solutions". We need non-violent
conflict resolution, and we need to let as many people as possible
run their own lives, if we want these conflicts to end, without
relying on too much supervision from the international community.
But
again, political solutions are not the only solutions which should be
tried. There is still a chance for multi-faith negotiations to work,
as long as parties to the negotiations focus on achieving mutual
respect of holy places and burial sites, and keeping most of
Jerusalem accessible to people of all faiths (except for those parts
of Jerusalem and the Holy City which all parties involved will agree
should be occasionally off-limits to certain groups of people on the
basis of faith, in the interest of preventing riots and showing
respect to pilgrims).
What
solution would you propose,
to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amicably, and to
address the problem of the legitimacy of political violence?
Originally
Written on July 19th, 2020
Edited,
Expanded, and Published between August 17th and 19th, 2020
The title of the article has been changed several times.
The title of the article has been changed several times.
