Consider the arithmetic of a hypothetical in which Israel, the West Bank and Gaza become a single democratic state, with universal adult suffrage and Israel’s existing proportional electoral system.
The political dilemma confronting the Israeli right is not difficult to understand.
A Palestinian state would mean surrendering territorial claims and accepting a sovereign Palestinian neighbour. A single state with equal citizenship would mean something potentially more threatening to the Israeli right’s political project – surrendering its permanent electoral dominance.
The present arrangement – occupation without full annexation – avoids both outcomes, preserving Israeli control over the territory while withholding equal political rights from millions of Palestinians.
The numbers help explain why.
Take a combined electorate of approximately 13.4 million, including Israel’s existing electorate and eligible Palestinian voters in the West Bank and Gaza. Using the assumptions in this calculation, Palestinians would account for roughly 3.2 million additional voters, or about 24% of the combined electorate if the 13.4 million figure already includes them, but approximately 33% if it represents the existing Israeli electorate before their inclusion. On the latter assumption, Palestinian voters would translate into roughly 40 seats in a 120-seat Knesset.
Assume, purely for the purposes of the illustration, that West Bank voters support Fatah and Gazan voters support Hamas, in line with the broad political division reflected in the last Palestinian legislative election in 2006. The resulting Palestinian parliamentary bloc would be substantial, although its precise composition would depend on turnout, party choices, electoral thresholds and the electoral system ultimately adopted.
Now compare that hypothetical with the figures cited for the current Israeli political contest. Netanyahu’s right bloc on 54 seats, the opposition on 47 and Arab parties on 19, with no bloc reaching the 61 seats needed for a majority.
One-state scenario
Under the assumptions of the one-state scenario, the Israeli right’s representation would fall sharply as Palestinian voters entered the electorate. The right would no longer be a few seats short of a governing majority; it could be far removed from one. Palestinian representatives would become indispensable to the formation of many possible governments.
That is the political arithmetic. It is not, by itself, proof of any individual politician’s motives, nor does it establish that every Israeli right-wing voter shares the same objective. But it illuminates the structural incentive facing a political movement whose conception of Israel depends on retaining a Jewish electoral majority and a specifically Jewish character to the state.
This is where arithmetic becomes a question of democracy. The Israeli right can reasonably fear the consequences of incorporating millions of Palestinian voters into a single electorate. Some Palestinians support Hamas, an Islamist movement whose record includes attacks on civilians. Israelis have security concerns, including the prospect of violence, the protection of minorities and the survival of their democratic institutions. A unitary state would present formidable constitutional and practical challenges. Equal citizenship alone would not magically resolve them.
But the existence of those concerns does not dissolve the democratic contradiction. If a government claims democratic legitimacy while exercising enduring control over a population whose members lack an equal vote in the government that ultimately determines so much of their lives, then the limits of that democracy must be confronted.
Simple calculation
The choice cannot be reduced to a simple calculation of how to preserve a majority. Democracy means more than allowing the existing electorate to choose its rulers. It also requires confronting the rights of people subjected to a state’s power, and determining whether those rights can be reconciled with the state’s constitutional identity.
The arithmetic therefore helps explain the Israeli right’s preference for the status quo. A Palestinian state would entail territorial and political concessions; a unitary democracy would threaten its electoral predominance; continued occupation without annexation preserves control while postponing the choice between those alternatives.
Yet what appears rational from the standpoint of maintaining political power is not necessarily democratic, just or sustainable. The status quo depends on keeping the two populations in a political arrangement in which one exercises decisive power and the other is denied equal participation in that power. It may defer the demographic dilemma; it cannot resolve it.
The central contradiction is that the Israeli right’s fear of losing its demographic majority may explain its resistance to a single democratic state, but it cannot justify indefinitely denying Palestinians equal political rights while maintaining control over their lives.
And this is where the logic becomes more disturbing. If partition is rejected, equal citizenship is feared, and permanent subordination cannot finally resolve the contradiction, then displacement becomes an apparent solution to the demographic problem. Where displacement fails, the alternative may be the progressive erasure of Palestinian presence, identity, society and national possibility — through territorial fragmentation, the destruction of the conditions necessary for communal life, and the denial of a viable political future.
Treated as an obstacle
This is not an inevitable sequence, nor does the arithmetic alone prove a unified intention to bring it about. But it is a trajectory against which policy, rhetoric and conduct must be judged. The question is no longer simply how the Israeli right can preserve its majority. It is what happens to a people whose equal citizenship is feared, whose national sovereignty is resisted, and whose continued presence is treated as an obstacle to the desired political order.
When democracy is made conditional on maintaining a particular demographic majority, the danger is that the people who threaten that majority come to be treated not as citizens with equal rights, but as a demographic problem to be removed, or a national existence to be extinguished.
The mathematics explains the incentive. Fear helps explain the politics. Neither settles the question of legitimacy.
[Image: by salajean]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend