Editorials
Surprising Thoughts
On Arab Autonomy
Only a few weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu presented his plan for rec-
onciling Israeli and Palestinian national aspira-
tions for sharing territory west of the Jordan
River. Before his planned meeting with
President Bill Clinton this month, Netanyahu's
goal is to achieve consensus within his cabinet
about how much land to place under
Palestinian control.
Whatever the dimensions of Netanyahu's
suggestions, they are modifications of a long-
standing consensus Zionist notion: autonomy
for the Palestinians as a solution to the "Arab
Question."
For more than a century, Zionist thinkers
have debated the issue. Unlike most Zionist
contemporaries, Ahad Ha'am, the guru of cul-
tural Zionism, predicted Jewish-Arab conflict in
Palestine. After his 1891
trip to Palestine, the
Ukrainian-born writer
asserted, that if Jews "usurp
the place of the local popu-
lation the latter will not
yield easily."
In the same decade,
Theodor Herzl, the father
of modern Zionism argued
otherwise, foretelling of
cooperation between Arab
and Jew in Palestine. The
Russian socialist Zionist
A.D. Gordon noted that
Arabs, like the Jews, had claim on the same
land, "but our historical claim," he said, "is
stronger."
The dazzle of building a Jewish territory and
defining its goals caused most Zionist thinkers
to dismiss Arab opposition to the Jewish return
to Zion. In the 1920s, David Ben-Gurion, later
Israel's first prime minister, argued that Arab
anger toward Zionism was artificially inspired
by agitators. He believed that Arab opposition
would be neutralized by the economic benefits
from Jewish nation-building, a notion that Ben-
Gurion's protege, Shimon Peres, would articu-
late half a century later.
"The Arabs," Ben-Gurion said, "have no
right to rule the country ... no right to close the
country to us ... Jerusalem is not the same thing
to the Arabs as it is to the Jews." In 1918, he
advocated national autonomy for both Arabs
and Jews. The difference was that Jews were
eventually to have a state; "the Arabs," he said,
will ultimately enjoy "full internal autonomy in
all cultural, economic and social affairs."
As the father of Likud's Revisionist Zionism,
nearly 90 years ago Vladamir Jabotinsky
believed that a voluntary agreement between the
Jews and Arabs in Palestine was inconceivable.
Nor did he believe that the Arabs could be
bribed by cultural or economic advantages.
Jabotinksy adopted the "Iron Wall" philosophy,
which stipulated that only when Jewish force
and power was so strong would Arab hopes of
ridding Palestine of the Zionists finally disap-
pear. Jabotinsky did not try to argue that the
use of force was moral; to him, Zionism was
more just and right than any Arab claim. He
believed that since the Arabs living in the land
could never be reconciled with Zionism, they
would have to be granted minority self-rule.
Other Zionist thinkers disagreed. In the
1920s, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes, and
Arthur Ruppin advocated a Jewish right to
immigrate to Palestine, but not impose them-
selves on the Palestinian Arabs. For these bi-
nationalists, the solution was equality of rights,
Jews and Arabs each enjoying autonomous
management of their own
affairs.
Though the most con-
tentious of political oppo-
nents, Ben-Gurion and
Jabotinsky, identified the
Arabs in Palestine as a
national movement, advo-
cated political autonomy,
and believed strongly in
separating the two commu-
nities. The details came
from more recent leaders
such as Menachem Begin,
Yitzhak Rabin, and now
Binyamin Netanyahu.
In fact, in the September 1978 Camp
David Accords, Begin acknowledged that the
Palestinians should receive "full autonomy" in
Judea and Samaria (the West Bank); in
September 1993, Rabin redefined Palestinian
self-rule with PLO leader Yassir Arafat in the
Declaration of Principles: Palestinians would
receive limited self-rule with Israel retaining
sovereignty, overall responsibility for security,
and jurisdiction over Jewish settlements.
Today, Netanyahu proposes that Israel retain
about 70 percent of the land west of the Jordan
River, what he calls a "functional division of
authority." Overall security will remain exclu-
sively with Israel, but no independent
Palestinian state.
This plan is patterned after a bi-partisan his-
torical Zionist consensus. But will political
autonomy satisfy Palestinian national aspira-
tions?
The answer will most likely be some place
in between: a Palestinian state within a limited
territory, possessing more than autonomy
but with clearly circumscribed political
authority. ❑
The ideological
models of both
Labor and Likud
aren't far off in
thinking.
1/2
1998
24
— Dr. Kenneth W. Stein
Can Israel rule him? A Hamas supporter in Nablus. Israeli thinkers
have long debated the issues of Palestinian autonomy.
LETTERS
Danto Article
Was Limited
I just completed reading the
article and editorial regarding
the Danto Center ("Mediocre
Marks" "Counting Bed Sores"
Dec. 19). It was unfortunate
that business obligations pre-
cluded my talking to Julie
Edgar prior to the publishing
of the article and editorial.
I would like to point out
that during the past several
months, the Danto Center has
undergone a number of sur-
veys that rate its performance.
The state survey that the arti-
cle focused on was but one
during this period.
I am the general manager
responsible for the Danto
Center as well as our other
centers in the state of
Michigan for Health Care and
Retirement Corporation
(HCR) so I do have some
familiarity with the situation
described in the paper. I am
responding, however, as an
individual with some knowl-
edge of the center and indus-
try. My comments are not to
be construed as either compa-
ny policy or position.
What was stated in the arti-
cle regarding the most recent
survey done by the state of
Michigan was accurate. We
did have an unfortunate start
for the center in that original `–`,
survey that was not good.
Since that time we have had a
number of follow-up surveys,
both from the state and from
the regional office of Health
Care Financing Administration
(HCF), the federal department
that oversees the surveying
process for the states. In all
cases, the surveys have demon-
strated improvement in quality
of care and in the level of
responsiveness on the part of
staff to the residents.
Neither the article nor the
editorial mentions the fact that
ARTICLE on page 26