Free Palestine? I Think We All Agree ...
That said, we first might want to define what a "free" Palestine looks like.
Introduction
If you are the type of person who ascribes to classical liberalism, you (like myself) likely value individual freedom, the rule of law, and democratic governance. These principles, which have been foundational to much of the modern world, are essential areas of exploration in discussing the future of any nation-state, including Palestine. The notion of a 'Free Palestine' is often voiced these days, yet it carries diverse interpretations and implications. My sense is that it would be worthwhile to explore several of these interpretations, particularly examining the stark contrasts between a Palestine governed by an Islamic Theocracy and one rooted in liberal democratic traditions.
The quest for a 'Free Palestine' is something almost everyone I know (Israeli, American, Jewish, Christian, Muslim) is supportive of. While historical grievances and current realities cannot be ignored, I think it is important we look past current difficulties, focusing instead on the potential futures of a sovereign Palestinian state. Ultimately, the current hot conflict will end. When it does, understanding these two distinct governance models, can help shed light on the potential benefits and the societal impacts each would entail for a “free” Palestine as well as its citizens and neighbors.
An Islamic Theocracy, with its basis in religious law and governance, presents one set of principles and societal structures. It's a model that potentially influences every aspect of a future citizen’s life, from legal systems to personal freedoms, and has significant implications for minority rights, gender equality, and international relations. Understanding this model's impact on a 'Free Palestine' is crucial for any comprehensive analysis of the region's future.
Conversely, a liberal democratic Palestine would be grounded in values such as individual liberty, secular governance, and equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. While I know the modern left is very down on such constructs, this model promotes a much more inclusive approach to nation-building and offers a different perspective on human rights and international diplomacy. My goal today is to dig into these two possibilities, not only to contrast them but also to help allies and enemies alike envision a path towards a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One that aligns with the ideals of liberal democracy and ensures freedom of religion without pursuing the goals of an Islamic caliphate.
What is a 'Free' Palestine?
The term 'Free Palestine' resonates globally, symbolizing a call for sovereignty and self-determination for the Palestinian people. Yet, its interpretation varies significantly depending on who you ask. For some, it's a vision of an independent nation-state; for others, it's a broader call for social and political liberation.
At its core, the concept of freedom in a national context combines self-governance, autonomy, and the ability to make decisions free from external control. In the case of Palestine, this means the establishment of an independent state that can govern its affairs and represent the interests of its people. Something that has proven very difficult to implement over the years.
That said, freedom also encompasses the internal dynamics of a state, including how it governs its citizens and protects their rights. It's not just about the absence of external control, but also about the presence of internal justice, equity, and democracy. If you are part of the LGBTQ+ community, or even part of the Christian minority, the reality on the ground in Palestine can be rather disturbing. Thus, a crucial aspect of defining a 'Free Palestine' involves addressing the rights and needs of all its citizens. This includes ensuring equal rights, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, or gender, and fostering an environment where diverse voices and perspectives are heard and respected.
For many Palestinians and their supporters, a 'Free Palestine' means liberation from occupation and the ability to live in peace within recognized and secure borders. It implies an end to conflicts, checkpoints, and restrictions that currently define life in the Occupied Territories. What can be negotiated to arrive at that place? On the other hand, some envision a 'Free Palestine' as not just a political entity, but also a symbol of cultural and religious significance. This perspective emphasizes the preservation and celebration of Palestinian heritage, language, and traditions within a sovereign state.
The debate also extends to the geopolitical realm, where a 'Free Palestine' is seen as an integral part of regional stability. It's about how Palestine would interact with neighboring states, including Israel, and its role in international diplomacy and peace processes. Much to discuss, even more to implement.
Palestine as an Islamic Theocracy
Envisioning Palestine as an Islamic Theocracy involves a state where governance is based on Islamic law (Sharia). In such a system, religious texts and Islamic jurisprudence form the foundation of all legal and governmental decisions. This model integrates religious authority with political power, where clerics often hold significant influence or direct authority in governing the state.
In an Islamic Theocracy, the legal system is predominantly derived from the Quran and the Hadith. This means that laws and regulations are heavily influenced by religious doctrines, which guide everything from personal conduct to societal norms. Such a system often includes religious courts that handle various aspects of law, including family and moral issues, in accordance with Islamic teachings.
The rights and freedoms under an Islamic Theocracy can significantly differ from those in secular systems. Freedom of expression, gender equality, and minority rights might be interpreted and applied in ways that align with religious teachings. This could lead to a societal framework where religious norms heavily influence education, culture, and even economic policies.
One of the characteristics of an Islamic Theocracy is its potential impact on minority groups, including religious and ethnic minorities. Non-Muslims might be allowed to practice their faith but could face restrictions and different treatment under the law. The rights and roles of women could also be specifically defined and limited in accordance with traditional Islamic views.
In terms of international relations, a Palestinian Islamic Theocracy might align itself more closely with other Islamic nations, shaping its foreign policy based on religious solidarity and principles. This could influence its stance on diplomatic relations, trade, and international agreements, potentially differing significantly from secular or Western-oriented states.
Adopting an Islamic Theocratic model in Palestine raises questions about the balance between religious doctrine and the diverse needs of a modern state. It would necessitate a careful consideration of how to uphold religious laws while ensuring the rights and freedoms of all citizens, maintaining international relations, and addressing the complex realities of the region. It is hard to see how the realities on the ground would make this type of governance successful.
Especially all the more so when you consider aspects of the Hamas charter like this:
Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
Such claims, rooted in the past and cloaked in the name of God, do not lend themselves to a peaceful co-existence in this day and age, and in the area in question.
Palestine as a Liberal Democracy
In stark contrast to an Islamic Theocracy, envisioning Palestine as a liberal democracy places the emphasis on secular governance, individual liberties, and equal rights irrespective of religion or ethnicity. In such a framework, the state operates under a system of laws that are shaped by democratic principles and processes. Elections, freedom of speech, and the protection of minority rights would be cornerstones of this model. The government, while representing the majority's will, is bound by a constitution that safeguards the rights of all citizens, ensuring that no single group dominates at the expense of others.
In this imagined future liberal democratic Palestine, the legal system would be based on a constitution that separates the powers of the government into distinct branches, ensuring checks and balances. This separation aims to prevent the concentration of power and promotes transparency and accountability in governance. Such a system would likely encourage political pluralism, allowing for the representation of a wide range of political views and ideologies in the government. This inclusivity is crucial for addressing the diverse needs and aspirations of the Palestinian populace.
Aside: It's noteworthy to consider the benefits for Israel in finally establishing a formal constitution. While Israel operates on a system of Basic Laws, a comprehensive constitution could provide a more solidified legal framework, enhancing its democratic governance. A constitution would offer clear definitions of citizens' rights and state responsibilities, promote greater stability and predictability in legal interpretations, and strengthen the checks and balances between different branches of government. Furthermore, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a well-defined constitution might serve as a powerful tool for conflict resolution and peace-building, setting a precedent for mutual respect and legal boundaries in the region.
The principles of a liberal democracy also extend to ensuring freedom of religion. This model would not favor one religion over another (again, Israel take note), allowing individuals to practice their faith freely, without state interference. This secular approach is vital in a region marked by religious diversity, as it promotes coexistence and mutual respect among different religious communities. Moreover, it provides a platform for addressing and reconciling the historical and religious complexities that are part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A liberal democratic Palestine would likely adopt foreign policies that align with international norms and standards, fostering relationships based on mutual respect, cooperation, and peace. In the context of the Middle East, such an approach could contribute to regional stability and open avenues for constructive dialogue with neighboring states, including Israel. The establishment of a democratic Palestine based on these principles could be a significant step towards achieving a lasting peace in the region, grounded in mutual respect and recognition of each other's sovereignty and rights.
Comparing and Contrasting the Two Models
The fundamental difference between an Islamic Theocracy and a liberal democracy in Palestine as I see it, lies in their approach to governance and law. An Islamic Theocracy integrates religious doctrine into the state's legal and administrative framework, making Sharia the foundation of its legal system. In contrast, a liberal democracy is rooted in secularism, with laws created through democratic processes, ensuring the separation of religion and state. This distinction profoundly affects how each model views and enforces laws, individual rights, and freedoms.
In terms of individual freedoms and human rights, a liberal democratic Palestine would likely emphasize individual liberties, freedom of expression, and equality before the law, regardless of one's religious beliefs. Conversely, an Islamic Theocracy will most certainly place religious doctrine at the center of its legal system, which will lead to a different interpretation of rights and freedoms based on religious texts. This difference has significant implications for minority rights, gender equality, and freedom of religion.
Another key area of divergence is in the role of citizens in the governance process. In a liberal democracy, citizens have the power to elect their representatives and influence government policies through a free and fair electoral process. An Islamic Theocracy, while possibly having some form of electoral process, is highly likely to have religious leaders with significant influence or authority over governance, thereby limiting the scope of democratic participation.
As noted earlier, when it comes to international relations, a liberal democratic Palestine would potentially align more closely with Western nations and international standards of human rights and governance. An Islamic Theocracy will orient its foreign policy based on religious solidarity and principles, leading to different alliances and priorities on the international stage. Both models can significantly shape Palestine's interactions with Israel and its role in the broader Middle East conflict, highlighting the importance of the governance model in determining the course of long term regional peace and stability.
Challenges & Opportunities in Achieving a two-State Solution
The two-state solution, proposing separate Israeli and Palestinian states coexisting peacefully, remains a central yet challenging goal in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The primary obstacle currently is an unwillingness of either party to forgive ( here thinking of the aphorism: forgiveness means giving up all hope of a better past ). The divergent aspirations, security concerns of Israel, and the political fragmentation within Palestinian territories complicate reaching a consensus on borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of Palestinian refugees but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to do so.
Also we face the varying internal governance models within the current Palestinian territories. The prospect of a unified Palestinian governance structure, essential for negotiating a two-state solution, is hindered by the differences between the governance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The West Bank's relative alignment with a more democratic governance model contrasts with Gaza's governance under Hamas, which has characteristics of an Islamic Theocracy. This internal division within Palestinian leadership creates difficulties in presenting a cohesive stance in negotiations.
Despite these challenges, I see clear opportunities for progress. International diplomatic efforts and negotiations have the potential to bridge gaps between the parties. The involvement of global powers and regional actors can facilitate dialogue, offering incentives for compromise and helping to mitigate security concerns. Additionally, a growing recognition of the unsustainable nature of the status quo could motivate both sides to reconsider longstanding positions.
Civil society initiatives and grassroots movements in both Israeli and Palestinian societies advocating for peace and coexistence present another avenue for progress. These groups help to build trust and understanding between communities; in turn, fostering a supportive environment for political solutions. Encouraging people-to-people interactions and cooperative projects can lay the groundwork for a more sustainable peace process.
Ultimately, achieving a two-state solution will require significant concessions and courageous leadership from both sides. It involves not only resolving tangible issues like borders and security but also addressing intangible elements such as mutual recognition, historical narratives, and fears. The path to a two-state solution is fraught with challenges, but with persistent diplomatic efforts, internal reconciliation within Palestinian territories, and a commitment to mutual respect and understanding, it remains a viable and desirable goal for lasting peace in the region.
Probably the most important thing we can do as non-participant allies (here meaning those of us who reside outside the region) is dial down the rhetoric and model peaceful dialog and solution oriented conversations.
Ensuring Freedom of Religion without Islamic Theocratic Goals
Establishing a state that ensures freedom of religion without aligning with Islamic theocratic goals is a delicate balancing act, particularly in a region as religiously and culturally diverse as the Middle East. For such a Palestinian state, this will entail the creation of a secular framework that respects and protects the practice of all religions while not allowing any single faith to dictate state policy. In my view, this separation of religion and state is crucial in preventing the establishment of a theocracy and maintaining a pluralistic and inclusive society.
My bias clearly being in favor of a liberal democratic Palestine, I see the constitution as playing a pivotal role in safeguarding religious freedom. It must explicitly state the secular nature of the state while guaranteeing the right to freely practice one's religion or belief. This includes not only the freedom to worship but also the right to observe religious customs and traditions, ensuring that religious communities can thrive without fear of state interference or discrimination. (Again: Israel take note)
Education and public discourse are key areas where a balance must be struck. The education system in a secular Palestine should offer a curriculum that is inclusive of various religious perspectives while emphasizing critical thinking and mutual respect. Public discourse, fostered through media and cultural institutions, should promote understanding and tolerance among different religious communities, helping to dismantle stereotypes and prevent sectarianism.
Legislation will be another critical area of concern. Laws in Palestine must be crafted to ensure they do not favor or discriminate against any religion. This includes laws pertaining to personal status, inheritance, and other civil matters, where religious influence can be particularly pronounced. A judicial system that is independent and not influenced by religious doctrines can ensure fair and impartial adjudication for individuals of all faiths.
Engagement with religious leaders and communities is also essential. A democratic Palestinian state should actively involve these leaders in dialogues about national unity and social cohesion, encouraging them to be proponents of religious tolerance and coexistence. Such engagement can help mitigate fears of marginalization and promote a shared vision of a diverse but united society.
Creating a Palestinian state that ensures freedom of religion without theocratic goals will be a complex undertaking. It will require constitutional safeguards, inclusive education, fair legislation, judicial independence, and constructive engagement with religious communities. Through such measures, I feel confident that such a Palestinian state can respect and celebrate its rich religious diversity while fostering a secular, democratic society that no longer sees itself in conflict with the state of Israel.
Conclusion
Recent events, the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7th as well as the subsequent (and harrowing) battles between Hamas and the IDF in Gaza have cast a somber shadow over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The appalling loss of innocent lives and the devastation wrought on communities are stark reminders of the high stakes involved. We find ourselves, collectively, in a situation, steeped in despair and suffering, which all too painfully underscores the urgent need for a sustainable and peaceful resolution.
Aside on Current Calls for a Ceasefire: A ceasefire in Gaza, while potentially halting immediate hostilities, often serves as a short-term solution. It temporarily pauses the violence without addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. In contrast, the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza could present a more sustainable path towards protecting innocent civilians. The ongoing armed struggle by Hamas against the IDF, under the banner of seeking self-determination and sovereignty for the Palestinian people, has not yielded the desired outcomes. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and instability. The surrender and demilitarization of Hamas could potentially remove a significant threat to Israel, reducing the likelihood of future conflicts and opening the door for genuine progress towards peace and self-determination for the Palestinian people. However, achieving this would require intricate diplomatic efforts and a comprehensive approach to ensure lasting peace and security for both Palestinians and Israelis.
Yet, amidst this bleak backdrop, there remains a glimmer of hope and a steadfast belief in the possibility of a brighter future. The challenges are immense, and the path to peace is fraught with complexities, but the potential for a harmonious coexistence based on mutual respect and understanding persists. The aspiration for a two-state solution, rooted in the principles of liberal democracy and respect for human rights, continues to offer a beacon of hope.
For the sake of humanity, for both Israelis and Palestinians who have endured decades of strife, it is imperative to strive towards this goal. The journey toward peace requires collective resolve, unwavering commitment, and a compassionate understanding of each other’s narratives. It is through this lens of shared humanity and the relentless pursuit of dialogue and reconciliation that a better future can be forged—a future where both nations can coexist in peace and dignity.
All of this to say: ultimately everything here depends on what your goals are …