by Dror Eydar
1. The relatively new
line in the political controversy going on in Israeli society becomes
clearer with the passage of time. This line can be drawn relative to the
demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as preliminary,
inviolable condition for any future peace agreement. The left wing's
contention is that we do not need Palestinian approval for our identity
as a Jewish country. The Palestinians themselves claim, using sophistry,
that they recognize us according to the name by which we are known in
the world: the State of Israel.
This refusal, which
seems a trivial matter (one might ask our opponents: What difference
does it make? Say that you grant the recognition and get what you want)
is the tip of the iceberg of the conflict. Not a territorial conflict --
that we could have solved a hundred years ago and after -- but one of
principle: Does the Jewish nation have any right to this land, at least
as much as those who are negotiating with us? Or it is only because the
Jews cannot be forcibly expelled? What about the elegant claim that
considering that more than six million Jews live on this expanse of
land, the other side recognizes, under duress and ex post facto, the
political entity known as Israel? Take good note: some may define the
phrase "recognize Israel" as "recognizing Israel's right to exist," but
not recognizing the Jewish people's right to a state in this land.
Those who favor the
two-state solution say that without a peace agreement, Israel risks the
danger of a binational state in which two nationalities of equal size
exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The doomsayers
speak of a Jewish minority controlling an Arab majority, as happened in
South Africa, which would be the death knell of Israeli democracy.
Let us leave aside the
demographic statistics that show differently, or at least are
controversial, and ask: Couldn't a binational state exist even within
tiny Israel's borders? Even now, the more combative of Israel's Arab
citizens are talking about cultural autonomy that goes as far as
political autonomy. During the recent decades, parts of the Jewish
intelligentsia have been working to undermine the idea of Jewish
national feeling. Only last week Haaretz, which has been fighting
against that idea for many years, ran articles that view such feeling as
"racism" and "fascism," and as resembling the character of the Third
Reich's regime. The word "Jew," with its various diversions, causes
profound anxiety to this group. As far as it is concerned,
conversational Hebrew and some dry studies in Judaism are enough to
express the ethnic identity of Israel's Jewish population.
This view matches the
mood of some segments of American Jewry that are moving away from any
real Jewish identity and, as proof of their loyalty to universal and
non-particularist (read: Jewish) values, criticize Israel without letup
and see it as the root of (all) evil.
2. A new idea about
Israel's identity -- "a state of all its citizens" -- started spreading
in the 1990s. This is the idea that informs the New Israel Fund and a
plethora of other nongovernmental organizations, many of which are
anti-Israel. It is a purely Israeli idea, and relative to other terms
from the field of political science, it has hardly been used in academic
debates that are not connected with Israel.
The idea seems harmless
enough. What could be wrong with a state that takes care of all its
citizens? But we know that Israel takes care of all its citizens
equally, as anchored in its law and its institutions, even if at times
its expression on the practical plane leaves something to be desired
(and as far as that goes, non-Jews are not the only ones to suffer; so
do other groups within Jewish society).
The clear meaning of
the phrase "a state of all its citizens" is that Israel should no longer
be a Jewish and democratic state, but a state that contains several
national identities equally. That is why the idea should really be
called "a state of all its nationalities." In such a state, no
preference would be given to the Jewish people and its culture. The flag
and the national anthem would be changed, and the Law of Return would
be repealed. Even now, a battle against Israel's Jewish identity is in
progress. Every year, tens of millions of euros and dollars are funneled
into a fight whose purpose is to change the country's Jewish character.
The moment a peace
treaty is signed, we will not be left in peace. The heavy artillery that
had been focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be turned
inward, and the pressure will become far greater. The boycott,
divestment and sanctions movement will keep on doing its abominable
work, and Israel will continue to be called an "apartheid state" because
it "prefers" one nationality at the expense of another. The world will
discuss the Law of Return as a racist law that violates human rights.
The anarchists will move from the separation barrier in Bilin to
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and most of the Israeli media will support, as
is its boorish wont, the stripping away of Israel's Jewish identity.
The Palestinians, for
their part, will announce that although the territorial conflict has
been resolved, Israel is not free of guilt: Within its borders once
lived the oppressed Palestinian people, who were "exiled and expelled"
by the Zionist army. So, they will say, it is only right that the
Palestinian minority living in Israel be given national rights equal to
those of the Jews. We can continue this scenario, since it is no dream.
We have only to open our eyes and listen to Ahmad Tibi and Saeb Erekat
and Mahmoud Abbas and the representatives of Adalah -- The Legal Center
for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, and the officials of the New Israel
Fund, and read the hundreds of articles in Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth.
3. Several things must
be done to counter this evil and ensure true peace instead of the
fantasies of those who have forgotten their people and their country.
Here are three.
First: Pass the Basic
Law: Israel as the National Home of the Jewish People as soon as
possible. The purpose of a national home is to provide a legitimate
space for the blossoming of a specific, distinct culture, particularly
when the culture differs from that of the nations among which it stayed
during certain periods of its history -- and where, by most accounts, it
was stifled and oppressed. The justification for a national home -- and
all the more a state for the Jewish people -- increases exponentially
according to the degree of tangible and possible threat against the Jews
as a nation and as a culture. Dr. Assaf Malach showed convincingly in
his doctoral work that the moment we start removing Jewish markers from
the public space in the name of civic neutrality, we lose the basis for
having a national home. If we confine Israel's Jewish character to the
flag, the national anthem and the Law of Return, we will lose the
justification for these things as well, since if the national home is
not supposed to express the culture of the Jewish people, then why not
allow everybody to identify with the flag and the national anthem?
Second: The demand that
the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state must never be
dropped. To put a conclusive end to the conflict, the Palestinian side
must recognize the Jewish people's right to its own national home at
least in some part of the historic Land of Israel. Otherwise, the
conflict will continue.
Third: National feeling and
thought must be encouraged, and knowledge of the historical national
tradition of the Jewish people and the differences between it and other
national viewpoints must be expanded. Mostly, we should not let the
contemptible attempt to compare Jewish national feeling to well-known
racist theories upset us. National feeling is a deep and noble thing,
and even if it has been expressed in terrible ways, we must not give it
up. Rather, as with any good thing, we must beware of the radical fringe
and of alien, dubious viewpoints. And the main thing is to have no fear
at all.
Dror Eydar
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7619
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment