I analyze three different ways in which they argued against partition. Some of their arguments were anchored in their understanding of Judaism and Jewish history. They saw Jews, “the minority nation par excellence,” as a nation “spritualized”, “stripping itself of statehood and territoriality.” Hence partitioning Palestine into nation-states, they claimed, was profoundly un-Jewish. Other anti-partition arguments they voiced pointed to European models of multinational federalization. Their prime examples came from the Habsburg Monarchy, Finland, Belgium, and especially Switzerland. These examples challenged the claim that partitions (and nation-states) are inevitable, and that the vision of a binational Palestine is utopian. Their most decisive argument against partition, however, was grounded in an identification of the Zionist-Arab relation as a relation between Colonizer and Colonized. The only political way for Zionism to diffuse its colonial affiliation and nature, they insisted, was by committing to complete political parity in a binational Palestine.
See more of: AHA Sessions