The Two-Legislature Solution vs. The “Puerto Rico Model”

In his recent book, “One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Former Ambassador David Friedman presents a model for Jewish-Palestinian coexistence based on the relationship between the United States government and the people of Puerto Rico, which was ceded to the United States by Spain in 1898 under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War.

Ambassador Friedman explains how the United States wrestled with this relationship, granting US citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1922 but not granting them access to rights under the US Constitution.  (It should be remembered that Native Americans who maintained tribal ties and resided on tribal land within the United States were not granted US citizenship until 1924.)  In 1950, the US Government solved this dilemma by authorizing the residents of Puerto Rico to write a constitution to govern themselves.

The resulting model, as summarized by Ambassador Friedman, “…properly evolving over time to ensure fairness to Puerto Rican residents, nonetheless retains two features: (1) the United States has absolute sovereignty over Puerto Rico, and (2) the people of Puerto Rico have extensive rights of self-government but not collective national rights to vote in U.S. elections.”  He goes on to say, “It is a formula within which both the United States and Puerto [Rico] have moved forward in peace and prosperity.”

Applying the Puerto Rico Model to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) after annexation by the State of Israel, the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians would be as follows:

• Israel would hold absolute sovereignty over all of the territory.
• Palestinians would have all civil and human rights under Israel’s Basic Law on Human Dignity without the collective right to self-determination as provided by Israel’s Basic Nation State Law, (i.e. Palestinians will not vote in national elections).
• Palestinians will be free to enact their own governing documents, as long as they are consistent with those of Israel
• Palestinians will not pay Israeli income taxes but will be taxed to support their local needs.
• Palestinians will not be required to serve in the Israeli military.

The goal of this model is that, “With appropriate and necessary security assurances and financial assistance, Israel alone can work with Palestinian civilian leadership to bring the Palestinian economy, educational system, and health care programs up to first-world standards.”

Discussion of this model shows a sincere effort to find a way for Israel to attain security and possession of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) while benefiting the Palestinians who live there.  Ambassador Friedman writes, “Living as permanent residents of Judea and Samaria under Israeli rule is a massively better option for Palestinians than living in the abusive conditions created by the PLO and Hamas.”

But as with many of the other proposed models, the Puerto Rico Model leaves some sticky unanswered questions.  Puerto Ricans who move to a state in the United States, which they are completely free to do as US citizens, do have the right to vote in elections.  Only those who choose to stay on the island of Puerto Rico are restricted from voting in national elections.  If this model were to be instituted in Judea and Samaria, does this mean that the Palestinians would be restricted to live in that area?  If they are allowed to live anywhere in Israel, would they have the same rights as Israeli-Arabs who are citizens?  Would there be a pathway to citizenship as is available to non-citizen permanent residents in the United States?

In the United States, the Constitution differentiates “Indians not taxed” from those counted for apportionment of representation in the Congress.  Non-citizen residents are included in this number although they may not vote.  Also included were Indians who accepted US citizenship under such arrangements as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek between the US Government and the Choctaw Nation and thus paid taxes.

Creating a category of permanent resident who is essentially a ward of the State of Israel is less similar to the Puerto Rico Model and more similar to the Indigenous Reservation System developed for Native Americans in the 1800s.  No matter how benevolent this system was or was intended to be, it is recognized that it does not fit into any definition of the support of human dignity as practiced by member nations of the United Nations and expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Public concerns about the Indigenous Reservation System led the US Government eventually to bestow full citizenship on Native Americans.

If the proposed Puerto Rico Model in its most restrictive version were to require Palestinians to remain in their present locations, similar to the Indigenous Reservation System in the United States, then it would eventually succumb to the same forces that resulted in full citizenship for Native Americans, which would result in the same problem as the One Binational State for Israel, that being a non-Jewish majority with full voting rights who could, conceivably, reduce the rights of Jews in Israel.

The Two-Legislature Solution comes to the end point much more quickly, with more likely acceptance by all parties, and with greater security for Jews, even if in the minority.