The Palestinians and the Israelis seem to agree on one thing: that
the other is at fault. Both sides, either explicitly or implicitly,
want recognition by the other that they are innocent victims, that
the other side is wrong or has acted unfairly or unjustly; and
demand that the other side relinquish crucial aspects of their
identity.
Concentrating on a pragmatic approach that will benefit both
peoples without impinging on the sovereignty of either the Jewish
state or its Palestinian counterpart may lay the groundwork for
peace by focusing on joint decision-making on non-politically
charged issues. The Israeli-Palestinian Confederation (IPC)
Committee believes that one possible solution involves electing a
confederation government comprised of Israelis - both Jewish and
Arab - and Palestinians.
The confederation government remains applicable irrespective of
whether the Israelis and Palestinians live in one state or reach a
two-state solution. Their respective governments are free to
negotiate any political solution for the future. We believe that
even if two states were to emerge, there will still need to be
cooperation between those two states.
The Legislature
Approximately 10 million people currently live in the area, of whom
6 million are Israeli citizens and 4 million are Palestinians in
East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Dividing the entire region
into 300 districts apportioned by population should result in a
legislature divided between Israelis and Palestinians by a ratio of
approximately 60/40. If the relative birth rate
of Palestinians to that of Israelis maintains its current
trend, however, Palestinians will outnumber Israelis in the
not-too-distant future.
The legislature would tackle issues that the Israeli and
Palestinian governments - for internal political reasons - find
difficult to address. It would also deal with the day-to-day
quality-of-life issues where cooperation is required, including,
but certainly not limited to, establishing public facilities such
as water lines, highways, schools and hospitals.
The 300 representatives would only be able to pass legislation that
is acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians. In order to pass
any legislation, the following requirements must be met: To
encourage consensus and to prevent the majority from riding
roughshod over the minority, any confederation legislation would
require the approval of: 1) 55% of the Palestinian representatives;
and 2) 55% of the Israeli representatives. The Palestinian
government and the Israeli government must each have veto
power.
The requirement for a majority vote in each group, coupled with
veto power for both governments, should ensure that only
legislation that is reasonable to both sides could pass. This
system would foster cooperation, since any legislation promoting
the national aspirations of one side at the expense of the other
would easily be blocked. As a consequence, the representatives
would concentrate instead on initiatives that improve their
constituents' lives.
Such confederation legislation reached by consensus would
discourage both governments from exercising their veto powers. If a
legislation has wide popular support among the two peoples, it may
be untenable for one government to veto the legislation without
undermining its own legitimacy. In this sense, a confederation
would serve as a bridge between the Palestinian and Israeli
governments.
What possible legislation might be acceptable to both the Israeli
and Palestinian governments? Implied in such a question is the
underlying assumption that whatever is good for one side is not
good for the other, but that is far from the truth.
A confederation legislature could provide considerable advantages
to the region in two major categories: 1) the reduction of tension
and violence; and 2) the cultivation of economic prosperity for the
future. For example, the confederation could create a joint
emergency task force to establish emergency procedures in the event
of major public health problems and epidemics, earthquakes or other
natural disasters, or a nuclear attack. It could create joint
economic zones on the borders between Israel and the West Bank and
Gaza (half in Israel and half in Palestine). The zones would be
controlled by the IPC police force and would allow easy access to
Palestinians and Israelis, as well as other citizens.
Legitimacy
Given that neither the Israeli government nor the Palestinian
Authority is likely to relinquish its monopoly on governance
willingly, initially, the Israeli-Palestinian Confederation would
have to hold a private election. This would also establish the
independence of the legislative body, showing that it is neither a
tool of the Israelis nor of the Palestinians.
Direct representation elections for Gaza, the West Bank and Israel
are nothing new. Israel has been a functioning parliamentary
democracy throughout its existence and the 2006 Palestinian
elections have been recognized as honest, open and free.
The 300 representatives would not be targeted for attacks by
extreme or violent groups, because members of such groups are
motivated by antagonism against their own or the other government.
These elements believe that they can derail the peace process by
forcing their respective governments to act aggressively toward the
other. A confederation legislature would not be considered a
threat, and any attack on it would not lead to the desired reaction
of causing the Israeli or Palestinian government to lash out.
Whereas there is currently no mechanism for the Palestinians and
Israelis to solve day-to-day and long-term issues for the benefits
of both sides, and there are no rules to resolve conflicts when
they erupt, the confederation, once effective in demonstrating that
Israelis and Palestinians can govern together, would become the de
facto authority to establish rules to settle issues, solve problems
and enhance working and living relations between and among the
peoples of the region.
Feasibility
At IPC's symposium on February 26, 2006, held at the University of
California, Los Angeles, Prof. Alan Dershowitz surprised many
guests by expressing his general approval of a "loose
confederation, based on the kind that now exists in parts of Europe
with economic and other forms of cooperation involving natural
resources and water." He stated that "the confederation idea is
worthy of consideration, as long as it does not mean a one-state
solution." He went on to say, "Any kind of a confederation would
require that Israel retain its sovereignty, its ability to defend
itself, its ability to reflect Jewish culture and history."
Former President Bill Clinton, in a personal letter, was very
encouraging of our pursuing the idea of a confederation - perhaps
reflecting on his own experience with former Prime Minister Ehud
Barak and the late President Yasser Arafat.
Moreover, the idea of a confederation is widely accepted around the
world. It is designed to achieve a mechanism of cooperation while
preserving the identity and special needs of its states.
The European Union is a multi-national union of independent states.
It is an inter-governmental union of 27 states, each maintaining
its own government and identity. Ever since its establishment in
1992, the EU holds an election every five years for the common
European Parliament. The EU manages to maintain a common government
for all of the 27 states, yet each one of them has its own separate
national government.
Switzerland has two chambers in its legislature: the National
Council, representing the people; and the Council of States,
representing the cantons. The National Council has 200 seats, with
each canton contributing representatives in proportion to its size.
The Council of States has two members for each canton and one
member for each half-canton. The Swiss system is meant to create a
balance in which the small cantons are protected from the
large.
The United States and Canada have a similar formula, combining a
federal government overlapping with separate state governments. At
the same time, each state sends two senators and a proportionate
number of House representatives to a common Congress.
An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation would pass legislation on many
issues that are unlikely to be enacted by each government
independently. For example, a confederation government could pass
legislation to borrow $10 billion from Arab and other countries to
construct utility and transportation grids extending from Haifa to
the West Bank to Jerusalem and Gaza. Such a project could
substantially stimulate the economies of both the Israelis and the
Palestinians. It is unlikely that the Israeli or Palestinian
government would veto such legislation, given the potential
benefits to their people.
Enacting such common legislation could enhance the area's natural
resources, tourism and security. A confederation government would
act as a mediator between the Palestinian and Israeli
governments.
Not a One-State Solution
Would a confederation pose a threat to the existence of the future
Jewish state? What would happen if the Palestinian population were
to gain the majority?
The confederation is not a one-state solution. The Israeli and
Palestinian governments would remain sovereign and independent of
each other. The division of land between the Israeli and
Palestinian states would remain subject to negotiations between the
two governments.
The confederation is not tied to the ultimate outcome of such
negotiations. Such an arrangement would be necessary whether the
Israelis and Palestinians agree on the division of land or not. A
confederation is a third government designed to enhance the lives
of the Palestinians and the Israelis, in the same way that the EU
is designed to enhance the lives of the Germans and the French, for
example.
It is assumed that the Muslim population will outnumber the Jewish
population in the region some time in the future, with or without a
confederation. And if in 50 years the Israelis were to become a
minority, they would be protected under the confederation suggested
in this article. Any confederation legislation would require 55% of
both the Israeli and the Palestinian representatives to vote in
favor of the legislation, and the Israeli government would maintain
its veto power.
At the same time, as long as the Israelis retain the majority, they
must give the same veto power to the Palestinians. Otherwise, it is
unlikely that the Palestinians would reciprocate with the same
recognition of veto power when the Israelis become the
minority.
Focusing on People, Not on the Division of Land
Up until now, the conflict has been viewed strictly in terms of
land. All peace negotiations so far have focused primarily on the
division of land between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This
approach has ultimately failed, mainly because the governments have
been too weak and the land is too small. The combination of shared
holy places and natural resources in this tiny area has made a
resolution almost impossible.
A confederation government would utilize a second dimension of the
conflict, which has been clearly neglected. It would approach the
issues on the basis of people, not strictly on the division of
land. It would manage the daily and economic lives of the Israeli
and Palestinian peoples and would create a mechanism to deal with
each other's lives. Each representative to the confederation would
focus primarily on benefiting his constituents from his own
district and not the national aspirations of his country.
This new mechanism of passing legislation is likely to encourage
cooperation between representatives based on the interest of their
constituents. Israeli and Palestinian representatives would find
themselves on the same side of an issue. The Palestinian and
Israeli governments, which would possess veto power, would watch
over the national interests of their people. They would be
justified in exercising their veto power if significant national
interests were threatened, whereas they would face national and
international pressure if they attempted to veto reasonable
legislation. Once the process begins, more areas of common
interest will be discovered, and the benefits to both sides will be
obvious.
