Israel
and Buridan’s Ass
With Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon’s recent
pronouncement regarding the issue that this Israeli government would never
accept a Two State Settlement, an old paradox comes to mind regarding a Paradox
of choices
“Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in
philosophy in the conception of free will.
It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass that is equally
hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail
of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is
closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational
decision to choose one over the other.[1]
The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher
Jean
Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes. A common variant of the paradox
substitutes two identical piles of hay for the hay and water; the ass, unable
to choose between the two, dies of hunger.”
Wherein Israeli Democracy finds itself in the position of the Ass…
Now before we start, lest anyone scream and shout about this in some way
denigrates Israel or
supports the dissolution of Israel,
it does neither. Rather, it is a reflection of a concern that I have regarding
the future of Israel.
Because of The Occupation of the West Bank, Israel faces some existential
questions regarding its character as a State. With Danon’s pronouncement, the
nation needs to decide what path it wants to go down. Is Danon right, despite
protests from upper echelon Likud / Betainu ministers and officials, that there
is a large enough group of MK’s that would block any agreement for a Two State
Solution and at the very least will maintain the “status quo” indefinitely? OR
Will Israelis reject the One State Solution or continuation of the status quo
and force new elections in the face of some very serious existential questions?
One of these questions regards the nature of Israel’s democracy. Here I would
pose three points of view regarding that. Now remember, according to
Israel’s
Declaration of Establishment
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish
immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the
development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be
based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it
will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its
inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of
religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the
Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations….
WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the
onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the
State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the
State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all
its provisional and permanent institutions.
The very call for “Jewish Democracy”.
The above paragraphs from the Declaration of Establishment lay out some of
the founding democratic principles of the founding of the State of Israel. The
Declaration promises equal rights, full and equal citizenship to all Israelis,
be they Arab or Jew. It doesn’t talk about second class citizens, and it
doesn’t support disenfranchisement. So given that – here are the concerns to
Democracy.
If Israel
actually does formally reject the Two State Solution what are its options as a
Democracy. Well, one route being discussed is that should Israel annex the West Bank, the Arab population
living in the West Bank would have every civil right that Jewish citizens of Israel would
have but that they would NOT have the right to vote in National elections. In
other words,
approx
2.7 million Palestinians (other reliable estimates put the numbers at 2.6
million) would be disenfranchised and have no vote for the leaders of their
nation.
Just this would mean that Israel
as a nation would be turning away from both its Declaration of Establishment
AND it’s commitment to Democratic processes. One source of pride for Israel is that it can rightfully point out that
it is a Liberal Democracy in a sea
of Autocratic and
Theocratic regimes that have no interest in human rights and/or democratic
processes. Sure Egypt
just voted, but, then their government put forth changes in political process
which would hamstring those same democratic processes. Yes Lebanon has some form of strange
Democracy but honestly, only as much as Hizbollah and their Iranian allies
allow.
So, with the absorption of 2.7 Million Palestinians the demographic
representation of Israel
would change from
75.4%
Jewish (6.042 million Jews to 1.658 million Palestinians out of 8.018 million
people) to having a population of 10,618,000 and the demographic split
would be approx. 57% - 43%.
OF that 43% of the population, more than half of that figure would have no
voice in the election of their nation’s leaders.
This brings us to the second part of the equation, with Birthrates, Aliyah
(and Yeridah) the Jewish population of Israel is growing at approximately 1.8%
per year as compared to the Arab population with was growing at 2.4%, this
would eventually create a Jewish MINORITY in Israel (which would not bode well
for long term stability as minority states don’t tend to last for that long in
today’s world), most likely within three decades.
In either case, whether or not the Arab population of Israel is allowed to
vote, with the full annexation of The Occupied Territories, Israel as a
democratic nation as envisioned by it’s founders would cease to exist either in
the near term or thirty years from now.
For some, the nature of Israel
as a democracy is simply not that important. It is obvious through their
advocacy and policies that they don’t see the Israel
in those terms and that the existence of Israel first and foremost as a
Jewish State trumps anything else. For them, this is the reality of the
Occupation and re-settlement of “Eretz Yisrael”.
One should then ask - What part of Israeli society do they represent? Well
if one uses the election as a guide – the advocates of One
State (or at least advocates of a de facto
One State better known as the Status Quo) hold
43 seats in the current government out of 120 total seats.
According
to a recent Panels poll they would hold 42 seats if elections were held
today (and the neo-Kahanist Otzma L’Israel would cross the electoral threshold
and gain three seats).
For a bit of perspective, the advocates of Two States (in some form IF you
count Yesh Atid – who seem to endorse the idea if not completely willingly), now
hold 42 seats but would hold 54 seats in a new election. I don’t count the Arab
parties here because none of them nor Hadash (A mixed Arab and Jewish party)
advocates for anything but a Palestinian One State Solution.
Then of course, it is important to think of the ramification of this. IF
Israel, decides to annex and allow full democracy (something I think they
should do IF they decide to annex – because I am strong believer in “be careful
what you wish for”, AND I am a huge fan of democracy as a system of
government), then Israel would cease to be the National Homeland and State of
the Jewish people. It would be a democracy and who knows how that would end
(Personally, I believe that it would be full of strife and eventually force a Two State
solution).
OR if Israel maintains
the Status Quo or annexes (per Danon and the Right) then Israel would in
effect cease to be a democracy, and would face the incredible problems that
ruling over a sizable minority, a minority that doesn’t have full civil rights,
presents. Not too mention that in this case annexation goes against the very
foundation of democratic government of the State.
So, how does Israel
solve this problem – how does it (as Buridan’s ass in the paradox) choose a
path out of this? Well, in one respect it could drop all pretense of being a
democracy, declare an end to democratic processes except for some individuals
and watch what happens. Maybe nothing happens and no one cares, but I would
assess that this is irresponsible thinking at best, more likely purely
delusional. The problem of course with this is that at least half of their
populace (and polity) fully disagrees with this, thus setting off their own
issues. Also, is it realistic to think that there would not be repercussions
from Israel’s
trading partners and main ally, The United States? I think the obvious answer
is no. There will be repercussions and harsh ones at that.
This would be the same for the solution that the Hard Right advocates which
is to, expel the Arab population. Now, how would that go over with Israel’s own population, the rest of the world,
and with their key ally the United
States? Somehow, I don’t think that would
float well. The idea of wholesale ethnic cleansing would not sit well with most
Israelis, and for sure would bring on international isolation on the order of North Korea not
to mention immediate war with its neighbors and with no ally to back it. Further,
that would be a “step too far” for even the moderate Right (if that term makes
sense). Even they wouldn’t support that.
At the same time, Israel
is faced with the very real issue that the other side (the Palestinians) don’t
seem to be able to step back from their maximalist demands. While advocates for
the Palestinians cite a 55% acceptance of a Two State Solution amongst the
Palestinian Polity and general support for the Arab League revised offer, no
one mentions the issue of “Right of Return”, which would create an Arab
Majority in Israel (and thus end Israel as the National Homeland and State of
the Jewish People) should Israel even accept that agreement.
Polls of the Palestinian Polity show
no willingness to
compromise on their claimed “Right of Return” to Israel proper. A clear 70% of
Palestinian respondents polled put “Right of Return” to Pre-1967 Israel as
either the first or second priority for a new Palestinian State.
So while, there is “acceptance” of a Two State Solution amongst the Arab
populace, it is two states of Palestine and Israel run by
Palestinians. Given that, why would Israel accede to any demands that
the Palestinians make?
Where can Israel
go at this point? Danon brought the issue public, but he represents a sizable
minority of the Israeli populace. IF Israel takes the path laid out by
Danon (either annex or maintain the status quo, Israeli democracy dies. Even if
Israel takes Naftali Bennett’s path (as laid out in HaBayit HaYehudi’s
platform), they kill their democracy because in the end ruling over Autonomous
land areas really is not the same thing as those people in the Autonomous area’s
creating their own nation.
At the same time, capitulation to Arab demands would not bring peace either.
It might work with some of the nations that are already in a treaty with
Israel, and perhaps some of the Gulf States might be more willing to deal, but
the hardliners in Lebanon, and Syria (no matter who wins the Civil War there) would
never go for it and really neither would the Palestinians. SO the nation faces
existential questions in this regard as well.
Still, inactivity only would result in further problems. The American
Government is offering their full backing to at least getting the Peace Process
going again. It is my belief, that the current Israeli administration should completely
reject Danon’s statements and work with Secretary Kerry and the Obama
Administration to get discussions moving if for nothing else than both sides to
lay out clear and final goals in an international setting.
In my mind, Israel should offer the Olmert map of 2007-08, a map that would
guarantee Israeli security as well as would maintain the neighborhoods and
areas built up in the post 1967 period and at the same time allowing the
Palestinian polity a better chance at full representation for themselves. Also,
I think that Israel should
at least discuss at least Autonomous Palestinian control over neighborhoods and
Muslim sites in Jerusalem.
In return, Israel should
settle for nothing less than complete Palestinian renunciation of their “Right
of Return” to any parts of Israel
and that there needs to be a full peace treaty with full economic and societal
relations between the two nations.
Of course the question is, is this realistic in today’s climate of mutual
mistrust and (judging by some of the comments posted in discussion forums)
hate? I don’t know. It has not been really tried. Olmert never presented his
final map to Palestinian President Abbas. A “final take it or leave it”
discussion dealing with tricky issues like Jerusalem and Palestinian “Right of
Return” has never been had in an international forum. But those are the two
thorniest issues and the two issues that need to be settled for there to be long
lasting peace.
Should the Palestinians reject this, then I believe it is incumbent upon the
Israelis to simply create borders that would guarantee Israeli security and at
the same time would allow the Palestinians to create their own separate and
distinct state from Israel thus removing any demographic issues and threats to
Israeli Democracy and too the nations founding principles.
I believe this is the only way that Israel can maintain it’s democracy
without having to compromise itself in an unhealthy manner. In the end, this is
up to the Israelis. Are they willing to make the hard choices that nations
face? The one thing is that they simply can’t be like Buridan’s ass and simply
do nothing until the situation becomes far more dire.
