"What is a Palestinian state Worth?" by Sari Nusseibeh. Adam Kirsch, an editor with the Israel-based "Tablet Magazine", reviewed Nusseibeh's book in its 8 Feb 2011 issue. Kirsch commented: "In a new book, Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh assesses what Palestinians stand to gain from the creation of their own state--and what they stand to lose. But it is not wholly clear, from Nusseibeh's language here and elsewhere in the book, whether that means accepting Israel as a Jewish state. For an Israeli to be a "patriotic Palestinian" seems to look forward, instead, to a binational state, in which Jews and Arabs would embrace a common political identity. "The vision of the peaceful and prosperous future may take any of several forms," Nusseibeh writes: "one state, two states, confederation involving one country, or two, or three, and so on."....This ambiguity is not strategic or accidental; it lies at the heart of Nusseibeh's philosophical argument. Essentially, What Is a Palestinian State Worth? is a brief for liberalism--which makes it, in the generally illiberal political culture of Palestine, a radical document. ... "Among Palestinians," he writes in the book's most daring passage, "there may well be a more fundamental underlying cultural or religious disposition to believe in the reality of death so strongly as to view life as being on a par with death, or even of far less value." So long as this is true, there is no chance for peace between Palestinians and Jews, much less for the building of the kind of Palestinian society Nusseibeh hopes for. ... The most controversial proposal in What Is a Palestinian State Worth? has to be understood, I think, as Nusseibeh's attempt to change the terms of the Palestinian-Israeli discussion. At the beginning of the book, Nusseibeh suggests that the Palestinians give up their demands for sovereignty and instead agree to become second-class Israeli citizens--that is, citizens without the right to vote or run for office. "Thus the state would be Jewish, but the country would be fully binational, all the Arabs within it having their well-being tended to and sustained. ... In any case, such a scenario would provide [the Palestinians] with a far better life than they have had in more than forty years under occupation." It seems to me that Nusseibeh, who was one of the earliest proponents of a two-state solution, is not seriously endorsing this idea. He is fully aware that it would not be feasible or desirable, from either side's perspective. It is, rather, a thought experiment, designed to challenge the assumptions of both Jews and Arabs. For the Palestinians, it is a challenge to "think deeply about what states are for"--that is, to examine whether they want the trappings of statehood or a better, more secure life. For Jews, it is a challenge to contemplate whether such a two-tiered system, with its echoes of South African apartheid, is consistent with Israel's principles--and whether such a system might not already be in place in the Occupied Territories." As many Israelis consider themselves to be the "true" Palestinians, and as the U.S. is beginning its 150th celebration of "The War Between the States" {or the "War of Northern Aggression" to its southern diehards}, might Nusseibeh's creation of "The Confederate States of Palestine" last longer than the original C.S.A.?
