Draft:The canton plan

The canton plan is one of the alternatives proposed over the years as a solution to the territorial conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel. The basis of the plan is the idea of establishing a series of regional sub-political entities that would allow their residents self-determination in cultural and civil matters, while decisions on issues such as foreign affairs and security would be made by a federal government. This model was proposed several times during the British Mandate period by various parties since the 1920s, and in recent years, since the late 1980s, it has been occasionally raised again by both civil and governmental entities.

Background for the Plan

Since the beginning of the British Mandate over the Land of Israel, Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner, tried to establish a legislative council composed of Arab and Jewish representatives, which would operate alongside the appointed officials of the British administration. The intention was to involve the local population in the governance of the Land of Israel and to prepare it for a future in which it could develop self-governing institutions and take responsibility for its own fate within a framework of local autonomy.

A more concrete plan for division into cantons was proposed in the early 1930s, against the backdrop of the major crisis in the Land of Israel following the 1929 riots and the realization reached by various parties that Jews and Arabs would not be able to live together in a single state. This plan, formulated in the offices of the British government in collaboration with various elements of the Zionist Organization, was brought up for discussion on several occasions during the British Mandate period.

The Presentation of the Canton Plan During the British Mandate Period

Itamar Ben-Avi's Plan

The idea of dividing the Land of Israel into cantons—based on the Swiss model—was first proposed in 1927 by Itamar Ben-Avi, following his participation as a representative at the Zionist Congress. In an article he published in his newspaper, Doar HaYom, Ben-Avi expressed disappointment with the proposals presented at the Congress and suggested asking the British to grant parts of the Land of Israel the status of cantons, where Jews could exercise their sovereignty and accelerate the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the Land of Israel.

Itamar Ben-Avi's proposal was not fully detailed and primarily referred to the principle of establishing cantons based on the religious or national division of the population in the Land of Israel. Initially, Ben-Avi proposed the creation of fifteen cantons (eight Arab cantons, two Christian, and five Jewish) that would be united, according to the Swiss model, under a central federal government. Each of the cantons would enjoy broad autonomy and be able to set laws on issues such as education, religion, language, and immigration policy, while the central government would handle matters of foreign affairs, security, transportation, and customs tariffs.

In 1931, Itamar Ben-Avi revised the principles of his plan and favored a different structure, based on the division of the land into two autonomous regions, Jewish and Arab, which would be united under a shared central government.

This proposal encountered fierce reactions from various Jewish elements, who viewed it as a first step toward a Jewish renunciation of the Land of Israel as a national home. Negative responses to Itamar Ben-Avi's proposal continued to be published in the press years after it was first introduced.

Itamar Ben-Avi supported the idea of a Greater Land of Israel as a national home for the Jewish people and saw the canton plan as a temporary interim solution. He believed it would allow the Jewish population to absorb immigration and develop rapidly, free from the constraints of British rule and the threat of the proposed legislative council, in which Arab representatives had a clear majority. Ben-Avi's canton plan never developed into a practical program and was not put forward as a viable option. However, the principles it suggested were revisited in similar proposals presented during that period.

The principles introduced by Itamar Ben-Avi found a receptive ear in Archer Cust, an official of the British Colonial Office and the son-in-law of Sir Ronald Storrs, the first British governor of Jerusalem. In the 1920s, Cust was a relatively junior official and failed to convince British authorities to adopt the plan. However, about ten years later, he was in a position of influence that allowed him to bring the proposal up for serious discussion within the corridors of British governance.

Jackobson Plan

In 1929, before the 1929 riots, Victor Jacobson, who was then a senior diplomat (representative of the Zionist Organization in Paris) close to Chaim Weizmann, proposed dividing the Land of Israel into Jewish and Arab cantons. His plan outlined a three-stage process, at the end of which a united canton state, modeled after Switzerland, would be established. The cantons would be of four types: homogeneous Arab national, homogeneous Jewish national, mixed with a Jewish majority, and mixed with an Arab majority. The process was expected to take about 15 years, during which Jewish settlement would be directed to create clusters with a national majority.

Jacobson identified six targets for Jewish settlement: Lake Hula, the Jordan Valley, and the Negev (which were sparsely populated), the Upper Galilee, the Jezreel Valley, and the coastal plain (where there was already a significant Jewish demographic base). Jacobson's plan introduced the term "national canton" into Zionist political thinking, but it was not brought up for discussion within the Zionist institutions. In 1932, Jacobson abandoned the idea of cantonization. He concluded that the goal should be Jewish sovereignty over part of the Land of Israel and prepared a detailed plan for the division of the land.

Dr. Paltiel Dickstein's Plan

In February 1930, following the proposal to divide the Land of Israel into Jewish and Arab cantons, two articles by Dr. Paltiel Dickstein were published in HaOlam, the journal of the World Zionist Organization. The author, who was one of the founders of the School of Law and Economics in Tel Aviv and a supporter of the plan, attempted to clarify the concept of a canton and the status of the residents living within it. He detailed examples of issues where self-governance would be implemented and presented the views of those who opposed the canton plan.

Dr. Dickstein, with his legal and administrative background, outlined in his plan how the cantons would be managed and the format in which the ethnic affiliation of each canton would be determined. In his proposal, he suggested establishing not only Jewish and Arab cantons but also mixed cantons where Jewish and Arab populations would be allowed to live and settle together, with periodic reviews of the demographic situation until a majority of one population was achieved. These proposals garnered little public interest and had no significant impact on the political developments of that period.

The British Government Offices' Plan in the Early 1930s

In September 1931, a plan to establish Jewish cantons in the Land of Israel was once again brought up for discussion in British government offices in London. There were claims in the press that these proposals had been developed in collaboration with the Jewish Agency, particularly with Dr. Chaim Arlosoroff, head of its Political Department. These reports were denied by members of the Jewish Agency, but their denials were met with skepticism.

Proposals by Ahmad Khalidi and Musa Al-Alami

On December 27, 1933, Palestinian writer Ahmad Khalidi, head of the Arab Government College in Jerusalem, anonymously published his plan for a settlement based on Arab and Jewish cantons in the newspaper Falastin. On January 7, 1934, he wrote a memorandum titled "Proposals for Solving the Arab-Jewish Question in Palestine Based on the Cantonization of the Country and the Creation of an Arab and Jewish State," which he submitted to Judah Leon Magnes. In this memorandum, he proposed that the Arab canton would include Gaza, Haifa, the Beit She'an area, and the Judea and Samaria regions, while the Jewish canton would consist of the coastal area between Tel Aviv and Atlit, the Jezreel Valley, and the Jordan Valley from Tiberias to the Hula Valley (a total of approximately 2.5 dunams, less than a tenth of the land's area). On July 23, 1934, he wrote to Magnes: "I do not see cantonization as an ideal solution, but it may be no less practical than any other solution ever proposed." He also wrote that the initiative for the plan should come from the Jewish side and that "some transfer of assets and population will be necessary." Two "independent, autonomous local governments" would be established, "run entirely by Arabs and Jews with limited British consultation." According to his plan, the country was to remain under British mandatory rule for a period, with a Jewish-Arab-British council managing Jerusalem and being responsible for "defense" across the land. After this period, the Arab canton would be merged with Transjordan under Abdullah's rule: each canton would have its own executive council, and Abdullah himself "would serve as the head of the executive council of both cantons." However, in another letter to Magnes, Khalidi wrote that to persuade the Arabs to reach "reconciliation," it would be necessary to limit Jewish immigration and ensure the permanence of the Arab majority in the land.

A copy of Khalidi's proposal was sent by Magnes to David Ben-Gurion. In his response to Magnes, Ben-Gurion wrote: "The proposal is interesting because it comes from an Arab. It seems to me that, from an Arab perspective, it is not desirable because it mainly leaves them only in the impoverished hill region and also cuts them off from the sea. However, it is important that there are people among the Arabs who are seeking some agreement to satisfy, to some extent, Jewish aspirations."

At the same time, Musa Al-Alami also supported the concept of cantonization, but under "the supervision of the mandatory government." According to his plan, the Jewish canton would be even smaller than the one proposed by Khalidi: only the coastal strip between Tel Aviv and Atlit. In his view, limiting the size of the Jewish canton would allow the Arabs to concede on restricting Jewish immigration: "The Jews will be able to bring as many immigrants as they want into their canton and enact any legislation they deem appropriate there."

Peel Commission Report (1937)

The Peel Commission, established after the first phase of the Arab Revolt in 1936, presented the idea of cantonization in Chapter XXI of its report: the establishment of a federal state with autonomous Jewish and Arab districts or cantons. However, the commission rejected the idea, as its members believed that cantonization suffered from all the flaws of partition without offering its main advantage—achieving peace between the parties.

The Morrison-Grady Plan (1946)

In July 1946, British minister Herbert Morrison and American diplomat Henry Grady proposed the cantonization of the Land of Israel as part of the "Morrison-Grady Plan," initiated by the British government. Morrison and Grady proposed a "regional autonomy plan": the establishment of a small Jewish district along the coastal plain and a larger Arab district in the central mountainous area. The districts would be autonomous, but within a federal arrangement that would last five years under the rule of a British High Commissioner. According to the plan, Jerusalem and the Negev were to remain under British control during this period. At the end of the five years, the parties were to decide on the nature of the state to be established: a single-national, bi-national, or a division into two states. This plan was outright rejected by the Arabs, while the Zionist leadership responded with an ambiguous statement.

British Foreign Office Plan (February 1947)

At the beginning of 1947, against the backdrop of Britain's weakening position in the Land of Israel and its declared intention to relinquish the mandate granted for administering the territory, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin reintroduced the canton plan as a potential solution to the issue of the Land of Israel. On January 10, 1947, Bevin proposed that Britain continue to rule over the Land of Israel for an additional five years, during which the country would be divided into Jewish and Arab cantons, where residents would receive autonomy and be able to manage their internal affairs under the supervision of the central government. The Arabs rejected the proposal outright, and the Jewish Agency expressed willingness to accept the proposal under certain conditions, but these conditions were not acceptable to the British. On February 14, 1947, Bevin announced Britain's decision to refer the issue of the future of the Land of Israel back to the United Nations General Assembly for discussion.

Revival of the Canton Plan Since the Late 1980s

Professor Shalom Rosenberg's Plan

In 1988, following the outbreak of the First Intifada, Professor Shalom Rosenberg reintroduced the canton plan as a possible solution to the Palestinian issue. Aware that he was exposing himself to "the harshest accusation—naivety," Professor Rosenberg nonetheless laid out the main elements of the proposed plan in a detailed and comprehensive article. He addressed issues such as the problem of Palestinian refugees and the involvement of regional countries (for instance, Egypt contributing part of the Sinai Peninsula), points that would resurface in later proposals. For example, on September 8, 2018, it was reported that the President of Egypt had proposed to the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority the idea of annexing parts of Sinai to expand the Gaza Strip and establish a Palestinian state under the full control of the Authority. In exchange, Abu Mazen was asked to forgo the return to the 1967 borders. The report stated that Israel and the United States were informed of the move, but Abu Mazen rejected the proposal outright.

Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Plan

In the early 2000s, Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Lieberman formulated a proposal based on the principles of the canton plan. He published it in a document titled "The Canton Plan—A Proposal for a Political Settlement Between Israel and the Palestinians." When a similar plan was proposed in 2003 by the Yesha Council, Lieberman was quick to emphasize that the plan had been first published by him and was included in the platform of the "Yisrael Beiteinu" party as early as 1999. In 2004, amidst discussions about the Disengagement Plan, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to ten government ministers (including Benjamin Netanyahu, Uzi Landau, Tzachi Hanegbi, Limor Livnat, Natan Sharansky, Zevulun Orlev, and Effi Eitam), in which he proposed a model based on the canton plan. In an interview he gave to Kol Yisrael, Lieberman stated that "the goal is not to thwart the Prime Minister's plan but to offer an alternative approach... many people oppose this [Prime Minister's] plan... I did not send the letter to those ministers who have publicly announced their support for the plan, but only to those whom I believe could help formulate an alternative plan."

The Federation Movement's Plan

In 2014, a conceptual public movement called "The Federation Movement" was formed with the aim of promoting "a new political vision for regional stability and prosperity." Members of the movement developed a plan that expanded the concept of cantons and proposed applying it to the entire Land of Israel, including the territories of Judea and Samaria. The core of the proposal was to divide all the territory west of the Jordan River into autonomous cantons, each with local laws governing various civil issues currently debated among different population groups in Israel, such as the introduction of civil marriages and the operation of public transportation on the Sabbath. Even in those cantons with a Palestinian Arab majority (including in the Galilee and the Negev), the rules would allow residents of each autonomous canton to govern their preferred lifestyle.

Cantonization of Israel as a Solution to Social Fragmentation

Recently, the idea of dividing Israel into cantons has resurfaced in public discourse as a solution to the increasing social fragmentation among Israeli citizens. Proposals have been made for divisions based on geography, as well as on a personal (individual) basis. The rationale behind these division proposals is to allow each group within the population to live according to its own values. One of the most notable references to this topic is President Reuven Rivlin's "Tribes Speech" on June 7, 2015. Rivlin identified secular, national-religious, ultra-Orthodox, and Arab groups as the main "tribes." The social divide has since deepened, especially in light of the "judicial reform" initiative promoted by the 37th Israeli government in 2023. This initiative created an additional sharp division between those who fear for Israel's identity as a liberal democracy with three independent branches of government and those who see the current situation as a "dictatorship of the judiciary." This divide does not always align with the division into the main tribes identified by Rivlin.

The Vision of Cantons by Carlo Strenger and Jed Yadid

In October 2014, Carlo Strenger and Jed Yadid published the "Vision of Cantons." Their argument was that, on certain issues, there will never be a national consensus. Therefore, to maintain national unity while allowing for the expression of diverse identities within the country, power should be delegated to the regional level. They also included a map showing their proposal for division into regions or cantons. Their geographically based proposal is built on the existing reality of de facto geographic separation, especially regarding the Arab and ultra-Orthodox populations, and to a lesser extent, the national-religious population. They proposed that regions would have authority over areas such as health, education, environment, and transportation, while the central government would handle issues like military and security, national infrastructure projects, foreign policy, and more.

The Aluma Plan

A personal-based division into cantons (or what the authors call "Aluma") was proposed by Eugene Kandel and Ron Tzur as part of the Israeli Strategic Future Institute (ISFI). The proposal was written in response to the "judicial reform" and the events of October 7, 2023. They believe that the uncompromising internal struggle over values threatens the very existence of the State of Israel. In their view, under the current political system in Israel, there is no way to end this internal conflict. They also address the economic aspect, in which large and rapidly growing population groups make collective decisions that they are neither able nor willing to finance themselves, feeling confident that they can "force" others to foot the bill. In practice, it is taxpayers outside these groups who are required to bear these costs. They warn that the liberal Zionist public will fight for its values and the livelihood of its children as long as there is hope for change. The loss of that hope could be a point of no return, leading to the state's end. The process could be swift and abrupt. The first to leave would impose a heavy burden on those who remain, causing more to wish to leave, potentially creating a self-reinforcing chain reaction similar to a "run on the bank."

Their proposal is to transition Israel from a unitary system to a three-tiered federal system: a federal government, governments of three "Alumot," and local authorities. "Aluma" refers to a new governing framework of social autonomy under a constitution and federal government, without a geographic component. The proposal includes the establishment of three Alumot as a new governmental layer under a national federal government in Israel: a Jewish, democratic, and liberal Aluma; a religious-nationalist Aluma; and an "all residents" Aluma. Every citizen would choose which Aluma to belong to and would be required to adhere to a unique legal system aligned with their values. The leadership of each Aluma would be elected separately through political elections by its members and would have exclusive responsibility for a range of issues—taxation, budget, education, health, welfare, pensions, and more—based on the preferences of its members. The federal government would handle security, foreign relations, environmental quality, monetary policy, the criminal justice system, construction and maintenance of infrastructure, the operation of national institutions and bodies, and the provision of public services that the Alumot or municipal authorities cannot efficiently provide. In addition, the federal government would be responsible for maintaining and enforcing the constitution and federal laws.

Criticism

Einav Schiff criticizes what he calls the "fantasy of separation between Israel and Judea." He argues that the implementation of cantonization is unrealistic and that merely discussing it may increase hostility between the various groups.