One Small Step For Bi-Nationalism
Israel’s Central Elections Commission has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that this year (unlike in prior elections where similar petitions were submitted) it will ban the participation of Arab parties.
I can’t comment on the technicalities of the decision; I don’t know Israeli election law and none of the stories I read explained why the commission came to this decision this year.
But I can say this: I’ve said for years that Israel’s true existential crisis does not relate to the territories but to relations between Jewish and Arab citizens. And this decision could be a major milestone in turning Israel into a bi-national state, regardless of how things develop in the territories.
Israel’s Arab sector has been considerably radicalized by the situation in the territories. Or, rather, I should say that while a minority segment has assimilated more fully than ever before into mainstream Israeli life, the unassimilated majority is more oppositional and hostile to that mainstream than ever before.
In theory, Israel has four directions it could go in dealing with the fact that it is an avowedly Jewish state with a large non-Jewish (Arab) minority.
Israel could argue that there is no problem with being an ethno-national state with a large ethnic minority population, provided that the ethnic minorities have protection against certain egregious kinds of discrimination. The Israeli Arab population currently suffers under considerable layers of discrimination, which are justified based on the security situation Israel finds itself it; if that situation were to be resolved in the context of a regional peace, Israel would have to eliminate these restrictions, or have a problem meeting this standard. Supposedly, this is what the average Israeli liberal sees as the end-game.
Israel could transfer the Arab-dominated portions of the country (e.g. the Triangle region in the Galilee) to an Arab country. This would only be legal under international law if the population in question voted for it in a plebiscite and dissenters had the option to retain their Israeli citizenship. While I can imagine (unfortunately) circumstances where this could happen not in accordance with international law (as, indeed, some far-right Israeli political parties already call for), I don’t see a plebiscite being held any time soon.
Israel could disestablish itself as a Jewish state and become a “state of all its citizens.” I’ve never been very clear on what this means, nor on what the model is for such a state (I’m guessing “America” which reflects a poor understanding of this country), but in any event this isn’t going to happen. Europe is full of ethno-national states – e.g., Germany, Hungary, Greece – and so is Asia – e.g., Thailand, Korea, Japan – and I don’t see why Israel would choose to voluntarily disestablish itself even if I could see how.
Or, finally, Israel could grant the Arab-dominated portions of the country the status of a national minority, as opposed to an ethnic minority, which would mean considerably more autonomy for those regions and might require changing the electoral system to assure representation for these regions in the central government. In other words: Israel could become a bi-national state, with the Arab areas having a status somewhat analogous to Quebec.
This is a very plausible end-game scenario, but it’s not something the Israeli center has ever embraced. Indeed, avoiding bi-nationalism is part of what separation from the Palestinians was supposed to be about. But if Israel’s Arab sector gets even further alienated from the mainstream, a national-minority “solution” is going to look relatively good compared to the uglier outcomes that one can imagine.
Israel’s current Arab citizens are, more or less, the people or their descendants who got to keep their homes because they didn’t flee in 1948, while many in the West Bank and Gaza are people who did flee and weren’t allowed back, right?
So, there has been relatively little terrorism committed by Arab citizens of Israel since they, personally, have been treated relatively well by Israel.
The problem, then, is not terrorism, but that their birthrate is higher (is this true), and eventually they might become a majority and vote to convert Israel from a Jewish to an Islamic state, or the like.
One policy possibility, therefore, is that Israel could offer voluntary buyout packages to its Arab citizens: “If you choose to move abroad and give up Israeli citizenship, we’ll pay you and your family $200,000” or whatever. A fixed sum (varying based on age, etc.) would be more appealing to the poorer, less assimilated, and more alienated Arab Israelis so it would tend to peacefully let off the Arab demographic and nationalist steam building up inside Israel.
Many European countries currently offer money to legal resident immigrants in return for leaving the country, although the amounts are typically too small to have many takers. So, the principle of paying people to leave is widely accepted.
— Steve Sailer · Jan 13, 03:12 AM · #
The story was written ambiguously, but I’m 90% certain the CEC did not ban “Arab parties” generally, but rather two Arab parties specifically (which, of course, are the only two Arab parties currently represented in the Knesset). The parenthetical, of course, makes the point somewhat moot (though I believe there are smaller Arab parties running which might now get above the 2% threshold), but there is a difference between generally prohibiting all Arab parties, and prohibiting these ones particularly, for particular reasons (I think the cited ones were support/incitement of terrorism and refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state).
That being said, I find the decision appallingly anti-democratic, and fully expect it to be overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court.
— David Schraub · Jan 13, 05:37 AM · #
There’s nothing particularly wrong with the bi-nationalism proposed here; since Israeli Jews wish to preserve the ethnic character of the state, a good compromise would be to allow the Israeli Arabs separate but equal national institutions. I would question whether this is what we are seeing here; whether in fact these sort of steps are a prelude to an Intifadah inside Israel (which may result in the compromise you propose, but may not). I agree, a stupid & reckless decision by Kadima & Labor to join in with the even-more-rabid right, maybe they hope that the Supreme Court will rescue them (one hopes so, though they don’t deserve it).
Some corrections:
a. Hadash (the Communists) is another major Arab party that has not been prohibited from running. It also has Jewish voters (though not many).
b. The idea that discrimination against the Arab minority is the result of the conflict is a bit overstated. The difference in the condition of the Druzes, who are loyal citizens, and other Israeli Arabs, is not huge.
c. The ‘demographic danger’ posed by Israeli Arabs is probably overstated, they have a higher birthrate than the Jews, but Arabs are at the moment less than 20% of the population, the Jews have a reasonably high birthrate as well, so we are talking many decades in which a great many things may change. I would think greater dangers are loss of American support, an internal Intifadah, or (the very worst) a nuclear war.
d. Buyouts won’t work, they won’t work in Europe and they certainly won’t work in Israel, where the Arabs not immigrants and are very much attached to the soil, especially the ‘unassimilated’ ones. Certainly no Arab (or non-Arab) country is going to receive them.
e. There aren’t really any Israeli Arab ‘regions’. There is the ‘Triangle’, which isn’t the Galilee, and isn’t a triangle, but a strip of Arab villages and towns in central Israel along the border with the West Bank. You have a large Bedouin population in the Northern Negev, mostly living in shanty towns, occupying the same region as Jewish towns. Most of the Arab population is in the Galilee where they form a slight majority. You also have Arab minorities in several Jewish-majority cities. So really, there is no territorial basis for creating an Arab autonomous region that does not include many Jews as well.
— Danny · Jan 13, 11:38 PM · #
Steve: see Danny on your idea. Paying natives to leave isn’t going to happen, and wouldn’t work if it were tried.
Danny: I should have said, “the two dominant Arab parties” were banned. It worth saying, though, that Hadash, while predominantly Arab, is not an “Arab party” as such. Re: Druze: OK, and the condition of the Ethiopian immigrant population is pretty bad as well. If we’re talking about formal discrimination, the Arab sector suffers specific debilitations, precisely because they are not viewed as loyal. (When I said discrimination was “justified” by the conflict, I didn’t mean that I approved of it; I was merely stating the formal justification.) As for the regions: you are right and I misspoke about the “Little Triangle;” I was mixing it up with the Arab-dominated region in the southern Galilee. Basically, I’m referring to the two pieces of territory that Yisrael Beiteinu thinks could be transferred to the P.A. in exchange for Israel retaining the large settlement blocs – I can’t see how that would happen legally without a plebiscite, which I don’t see happening, but I could imagine some kind of restructuring of the political system that gave these areas lots more autonomy without restricting (indeed, probably enhancing) their ability to participate in national political life. Not saying I favor such a thing, just pointing out that this is a possible future.
— Noah Millman · Jan 14, 07:40 PM · #