The debate in Israel over the two-state solution has been further catalyzed by the vague references to a future Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank as an end goal in the Trump 20-Point Peace Plan. This overlaps with the ongoing debate in Israel over the “two-state” versus the “one-state” solution to the Palestinian issue.
Critics of the two-state solution claim that such an outcome would pose a mortal danger to Israel’s security as well as undermine Israel’s connection to the heart of the biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria. Critics of the one-state solution claim that as a result of such a move, Israel would cease to be either a Jewish state or a democratic one, both of which are anathema to Israel’s core values.
This debate has gained stronger relevance given the possibility of expanding the Abraham Accords to include the key player of Saudi Arabia, which is clearly in Israel’s national interest but predicated at least on the vision of a pathway to a future Palestinian state.
Federalism: A third option for Israel
We believe, however, there is a third option that can help promote Israel’s national interests both vis-à-vis its future relations with the Arab world and its future as a secure Jewish and democratic state. This would be in the form of federalist principles, which have been successfully used in a variety of international contexts where several ethnic groups must live together – the EU is just one example.
Federalist principles, as articulated by the political scientist and seminal expert on federalism, Daniel J. Elazar, offer an approach that enables diverse groups to coexist or be in proximity when statist divisions are not always possible or even desirable. It also proposes various types of power-sharing arrangements to ensure maximum stability between groups in conflict, who must find appropriate ways to coexist. Finally, it also postulates social partnerships, where possible, as a means of furthering cooperation among different entities. Elazar also points out that federalist principles are grounded in the Judaic idea of covenant.
Federalist principles could be applied to achieve beneficial arrangements in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The evidence is strong that a Palestinian state is currently neither feasible nor perhaps even desirable. Under-the-radar opinion among the Palestinian population in the West Bank appears to indicate that there is a great fear of being left solely to the authority of the formal Palestinian leadership. Therefore, power-sharing relationships can provide a type of checks and balances that can help ensure a more beneficial relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.
Elazar wrote a penetrating book back in 1991 entitled Two Peoples: One Land, in which he describes the situation of the peoples, Jews and Palestinian Arabs, who both share an attachment to the entirety of the same land. He suggests that sovereignty need not coincide entirely with attachment. Under a federalist orientation, a sliding scale of arrangements could be developed appropriate to the needs and limitations of a particular time period.
For instance, at a time when so little trust exists between Israel and the Palestinians, federalist principles would be applied to provide maximum dignity and economic development for the Palestinians and maximum security for Israelis. At this point, the emphasis would be on establishing functional relationships.
Indeed, the one bright spot in Israeli-Palestinian relations centers on functional cooperation, including security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian locales in areas such as ecology, and Israeli-Palestinian NGOs working on people-to-people relations, particularly in the West Bank. These efforts on the micro level, which essentially represent federalist principles in action, could be expanded and lead to a situation of not one state or two states but, for the time being, one and a half states.
According to Elazar, other solutions could be envisaged further down the line, if sufficient trust develops between Israel and the Palestinians, such as a confederation involving Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians. Indeed, a confederation is predicated on the Palestinians achieving a state, but then immediately amalgamating as part of a larger whole. This vision could also enable enhanced joint ventures in ecology, the establishment of joint industrial parks, and even the connection of railways, contributing to greater stability in these arrangements.
In the context of the Trump plan, such a process might well meet the requirements of countries such as Saudi Arabia for normalization with Israel, with much of the Arab and Muslim world following. Such a model might also be employed in Gaza once stability is achieved and the Trump plan can move to its more advanced stages.
Thus, we believe that a federalist approach can offer a solution to the Palestinian issue, which in its immediate stages can provide for functional cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians, along with cautious power-sharing relations. This can organically evolve from positive interactions already existing at the micro level, and it could later evolve into a form of statehood that would be immediately amalgamated into confederative relations with Israel, Jordan, and possibly Egypt. Such an approach could meet Israeli security needs, foster Palestinian economic growth and dignity, and meet the requirements of Saudi Arabia for the expansion of the Abraham Accords.
Ben Mollov is on the faculty of the Graduate Program in Conflict Management, the School of Communication, and heads the Project for the Study of Religion, Culture and Peace at Bar-Ilan University.
Shosh Shor teaches in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University.