Palestine-Israel Journal: Let me ask you about the concept of a
trilateral Palestinian-Israeli-Jordanian confederation that is
being proposed in certain circles these days. In a confederation,
the constituent states are independent and retain their political
independence. Israel and Jordan are already sovereign states with
control over their borders; how much symmetry would Palestine enjoy
within such a context? Wouldn't it be wiser for it to forge its
independence before merging into a broader framework?
Ghassan Khatib: Palestinians do not see this whole issue of
confederation as a priority. Irrespective of how they will feel
about it in the future, most Palestinians, if not all, think that
it is not feasible and is not desirable to either make
arrangements, or even talk about this trilateral confederation
while Palestine is still under occupation.
We all believe in investing all efforts into ending the Israeli
occupation and establishing a sovereign and independent Palestinian
state within the borders of June 1967, including East Jerusalem.
Then the confederation could be discussed or negotiated by this
Palestinian state. Otherwise, any discussion or any arrangements in
that direction before ending occupation, before winning
independence, will be completely at the expense of the Palestinian
side and against their interests. They would be the weaker side in
the negotiations and would face innumerable disadvantages as a
result of the occupation and lack of sovereignty. So we first have
to be a state, then we can behave like a state and negotiate such a
proposal, regardless of whether it is acceptable or not.
For people who call for a confederation, it is a given that
Palestine will be a state. But even as a state, will Palestine be
on a par with Jordan and Israel?
It is not enough to say that the persons who raise this proposal
assume or accept the establishment of the Palestinian state. It is
also necessary to know where exactly the state is going to be and
what will be its characteristics. Because the danger that we are
facing now is that those Israelis who accept the idea of a
Palestinian state have in mind something that is not really a state
from a Palestinian or objective point of view. They do not include
East Jerusalem in it; they do not include the totality of the
territories occupied in 1967. In their mind, they reckon on
maintaining the settlers and the settlements, thus leaving the
Palestinian entity, to a very large extent, fragmented and
disintegrated. There will be many other constraints on the
viability of the state, as envisioned even by these Israelis who
accept the principle of a state. With such a state, we cannot be
part of any confederation because we will be so greatly
disadvantaged.
That is another reason why we should insist on ending the
occupation completely, and establishing a Palestinian state on the
totality of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, with East
Jerusalem as its capital, before being able to discuss the issue of
trilateral confederation. And even after becoming independent, we
need time to develop our economy before being able to start
negotiating confederation on an equal footing with the two other
constituent states that have been independent and developing their
economy to a greater or lesser extent for 50 years or so. The
Palestinians not only need independence, but also a sound level of
development to prevent our being the disadvantaged party in such a
confederation.
Advocates of confederation mention the advantages of solving
such contentious issues as the problem of water, refugees,
Jerusalem, settlements, etc. Would you comment on that?
Yes, I think this is a positive aspect of it. But, unfortunately,
it neglects another difficulty that such an option will create. I
invite those people to look into the kinds of issues that will
surface in such a situation. If we have a confederation whereby
Palestine, Israel and Jordan are living together in one
confederation, the Palestinians will raise the issue of their
rights whether in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or in the part
of the confederation which is Israel. We cannot be part of a
confederation whereby one of its components has rights and
legalities and the other component is denied them and is
discriminated against. The Palestinians will ask - in vain - for
equal rights and unified legal standards to be applied for
everybody. For example, the Palestinians will be asking for their
rights in West Jerusalem as well as in East Jerusalem, in Haifa or
in Jenin. The idea of an independent Palestinian state is the only
solution that will prevent the parties from getting bogged down in
these thorny issues, assuring a historical compromise, without
which the Palestinians will keep having the right to claim what
they lost in 1948.
You mean these problems are best tackled when all parties are
independent and cooperating together.
Exactly. We have to settle the historical problems by a compromise
which is based on the borders of 1967, guaranteeing each people the
right to self-determination and independence in parts of Palestine,
and then we can talk about mutual relations. Otherwise, if we talk
about confederation before solving the historical aspects of the
conflict - like what happened in 1948, the rights of the
Palestinians in that part of Palestine, the rights of the refugees,
etc. - then we will be left with these thorny issues like future
time bombs. That is why, the right way to approach future relations
is first to agree on a historical compromise, reconciliation, based
on dividing the land into a two-state solution; later it will
become much safer to talk about future relations, including the
possibility of a trilateral confederation.
On the economic level, many people see advantages in such a
set-up. However, the Israeli economy is infinitely stronger than
the Palestinian and Jordanian ones combined. On such a basis, will
it be inevitable that the stronger swallow the weaker? Will this be
the position for years to come?
That depends on the terms for such a confederation, and depends on
when it is going to take place and how. If we get into that subject
before independence and before a certain level of development in
the Palestinian economy, yes, I think it is going to be totally at
the expense of the Palestinian economy, and Israel will be the
dominant party. It would then use this trilateral arrangement in
order to facilitate the regional Israeli-Arab relations on the
economic level. This will put Israel in a more advantageous
position, regionally and internationally. That's why in other
examples in history, when states aim at moving towards each other
in such confederations, they first take steps that would reduce the
inequality among them, especially on the economic level. So we have
a long road of developing the Palestinian and the Jordanian
economies towards bringing them nearer to the level of the Israeli
economy if this confederation is to be successful. This is one of
the lessons that one can draw, for example, from the efforts in
Europe towards creating the European Union. Even among the Arab
states, the failure of attempts to unify or confederate, or to
develop relations between neighboring Arab states, is related to
the fact that the relevant countries did not tackle their
inequality on the economic level before approaching political
relations.
How realistic is it to expect reciprocity in such a set-up,
especially on the part of Israel, on such issues as open borders,
labor mobility, flow of goods, etc.?
I have great doubts that Israeli society, given the Israeli
mentality as we know it now, will be willing to open up culturally,
socially and economically toward the Arab world. Also, I have
doubts if the Arab world will be willing, socially and culturally,
to interact in a normal situation and on a confederation level with
Israel. I think that there is a serious social and cultural gap in
addition to the economic one between the two sides that will make a
confederation difficult. We have a long road of reconciliation,
normalization, harmonization, between the two cultures, the two
societies, the two economies, which might allow us in the future to
see whether a confederation is possible or not. But as it appears
now, the gaps on all levels tell us that such a project would be
undesirable and unrealistic.
On a broader level, one main advantage of a confederation is
seen as the enhancement of Palestine's and Jordan's opportunity to
"join the league of developed nations," to attain rapid economic
growth and to enter global markets. Do you see that happening?
Also, Israel is already there; does it stand to gain from such an
arrangement?
Well, first of all Israel is not there yet. These are two different
things. Israel is more advanced than the Arab states, but it is
neither a part of the industrial states, nor even of the other
category called the tiger states. Israel still has a long way to go
on the road to development and increase per-capita income and other
economic indicators to reach this situation.
Also, we have to take into consideration that the Israeli economy
is based to a large extent on foreign aid and subsidy. Tens of
billions of dollars have been injected into the Israeli economy by
both the United States and Germany. I do not recall the exact
figures, but I think Germany has injected the Israeli economy with
over U.S. $80 billion, and more than that was given by the United
States. This is part of the success of the Israeli economy. There
are still many structural difficulties within the Israeli economy
that have to be tackled before talking of confederation with
anybody - with any state, whether it is Jordan or Palestine or any
European country.
There are also structural problems within the Jordanian economy, as
well as the fact that we do not know the characteristics the
Palestinian economy is going to have. That is why, not only from
the Arab perspective, but also from the Israeli perspective, talk
about confederation between the three sides is premature, except if
the idea behind this suggestion has to do with domination rather
than confederation. You hear Israelis talking about a Palestinian
state. On closer examination, you will find them talking about a
quasi-state or what they call "autonomy-plus" or something like
this. When they talk about equal relations between the two sides,
you look into it and you find they are approaching it from a sort
of discriminatory standpoint, and what they have in mind might be
some kind of Israeli domination within this trilateral arrangement.
A real and genuine confederation has the following
requirements:
* There has to be an independent Palestinian state.
* It has to be a viable state, i.e., it has to include all of the
West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and to be fully sovereign.
* The Palestinian state and Jordan have to go a long way in
developing their economies in order to somewhat bridge the economic
gap with the third side.
* Steps towards harmonizing the economic systems in the three
communities have to be taken and this is a long process.
* We also have a long way to go in education and normalization so
as to allow the society and the culture, in addition to the
economy, in the three areas to coexist in a confederation.
Actually, this is my next question. How important is the
existence of commonalities between the constituents of a
confederation for that confederation to work a) on the level of
foreign policy, common goals, etc.; and b) on the level of cultural
compatibility, harmony, and the acceptance of the other?
Cultural compatibility more than harmony. The culture on each side
should be able to accept that of the other components. This is not
the situation now. The Jordanians and the Palestinians are unable
now, culturally, to accept Israel. I think the same goes for
Israel, but this is not very transparent on the surface. In
general, some of these aspects that you refer to are necessary
prerequisites for a successful project like this, and others might
not be. For example, the different states can have an independent
foreign policy. This is possible because there is not one model of
confederation; there are different models, but there are minimal
requirements that are necessary in any kind of confederation: a
harmonized economic system, the same pricing system, the same
taxation system, the same currency, or at least the same banking
system and regulations that will allow free movement of capital,
goods and persons. Because these factors of production are
necessary components on any level, a very complicated and long-term
restructuring process will be needed in the three components of the
confederation. This process should move gradually towards a certain
end and it will be prolonged, but it cannot be planned for before
winning independence for Palestine.
What you are saying is that, in this case, there is a danger for
Palestine to dissolve itself even before having achieved
independence.
That is right. This solution might be at the expense of the
Palestinian component, not only economically, but also politically.
This might be a way to escape the obligations of giving up
occupation, of giving us rights, of removing parts of the injustice
inflicted on the Palestinian people as a result of the previous
stages of the conflict. The Palestinians have no interest in
dealing with this issue before reaching a solution with Israel that
will ensure ending the Israeli occupation and solving the refugee
problem in a fair way, based on international legitimacy. One
cannot avoid issues that are demanding a solution now, and a
confederation can only exacerbate them.