I think that Haredi autonomy or self-governance in Israel is a likely event, be it in a one-state or two-state solution. To that end, I propose a "Haredi Autonomous Area" or "Haredi Province" that will govern South and Jerusalem Districts under a stricter interpretation of Halakhah. In this way,
- the Haredi sector of the Israeli population will tend to their own affairs with their own regional Knesset (and Sanhedrin, if they prefer), letting the secular, atheist and liberal population remain in the Gush Dan under their own laws.
- the Haredim will become the face (and, if necessary, force) of the Israeli Hebrew side of the dispute over Jerusalem and Judea (southern bulge of the West Bank), letting secular nationalists (Hilonim Leumim) in Israel concentrate more upon their own affairs and less upon defending face for erstwhile theocrats (ranging from Hasidics to Kahanists) who could care less for "liberals" and the "left fifth column".
This idea is not intended to bring stability to the state, but rather to concentrate the fight between Hebrew-speaking Jews and Arabic-speaking Muslims in the southern portion of the country, while letting the dispute over Samaria/Shomron (northern West Bank) be settled between Gush Dan migrants and Arab residents without as much of the religiously-motivated bitterness.
Why not just go ahead and slit their throats and your wrists at the same time. If Israel isn’t united, it’s dead.
But why not federalism? Unity is retained, but I think that the Israeli Haredim are better ideologically suited for any conflict with Muslims over Jerusalem than any secular Israeli.
Plus, the Israeli Haredim are usually stereotyped in Israel as default conscientious objectors to military service, which pits them against most non-Haredi Israelis who send themselves or their children into military service. So if that’s true, then it makes sense that the Haredim should rule and defend an autonomous area that is not under the rule of “heretics”, “apostates”, and “non-Jews” (terms that you’ll find in abundance in the discussion threads of Israeli English-language news websites such as Haaretz, Ynet and Arutz Sheva), but is under a more stringent religious mandate that respects the rights of the more secular coastal plain region around Tel Aviv and Haifa within their own borders.
So why should secular Israelis have to police and micromanage on behalf of a sector of the population that doesn’t participate in their own country’s defense or policing except for when it comes to plainly international disputes (the West Bank not included)?; that’s like the second Bush administration having to intervene when Pat Robertson called publicly for Hugo Chavez’s assassination a while back.
Plus, why should secular and non-Haredi Israelis be subjected to the sort of ill feeling that is constantly domestically directed against their own constituencies by Haredim? Finally, as the Haredi birth rate is the highest in the Israeli Hebrew/Jewish population, they are more likely to shift Israeli politics in their favor; an autonomous area of self-governance will allow them the ability to rule themselves within their own framework, while allowing secular Israelis to rule within their own less-religious framework as well. The Haredim are satisfied and empowered to regain the most religiously-sensitive area of the West Bank (Jerusalem and Judea), and the non-Haredi Israelis retain the rest of the state.
In a similar vein, a State of Judea movement has existed since the days of Meir Kahane. Such a movement would easily fit within the general idea of a Haredi autonomous area, as most of the settlers in Judea/southern West Bank would come from the HAA and its overall religious sentiment anyway.
Federalism doesn’t work, especially in a country that is so targeted as Israel. If you think that if you got rid of the Haredim (Unsure of the proper noun to use) that your troubles with the Muslims would go away, you are sorely mistaken. Dividing a country up has never worked. It only causes the tensions to flare up more than ever.