Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, met Barack Obama at the White House on 18 May 2009 without making any visible concession over the political future of the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, any recognition of Palestinian statehood (if he is prepared to conceive this at all) is conditional on the Palestinians' willingness to recognise Israel as a "Jewish state".
Gershon Baskin is the co-chair of the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information (IPCRI)
This view is widely shared across the Israeli political spectrum: then foreign minister Tzipi Livni made the same demand prior to the Annapolis summit in November 2007. The parties at that gathering could not reach an acceptable formula regarding the definition of the state of Israel. The impasse was in its way acknowledged in President George W Bush's words: "This settlement will establish Palestine as the Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people." Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, gave similar voice to the problem when he said: "It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic - it is none of my business."
This issue has a much longer history. Yasser Arafat's letter to Israel's then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the time of the signing of the Oslo accords of 1993 declared: "The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." But once again, the exact character of the state was left undefined.
Most Israeli critics of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process state that the Palestinians have never really accepted Israel's right to exist because they refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. There was, interestingly, no such demand made to Egypt or to Jordan when they signed peace agreements with Israel. The Israel-Jordan peace treaty (26 October 1994) and the Israel-Egypt peace treaty (26 March 1979) use identical words in committing each side to "recognise and respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence". In neither case is there explicit mention of a "Jewish state".
An old confusion
There are two substantive reasons why the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. The first is that Palestinians have not received from Israel any clear answer regarding the status of more than one million Palestinians in Israel, in the event of their recognising Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians fear they would be paving a road that would be used by Israel to transfer the Palestinian citizens of Israel to the Palestinian state. That fear is substantiated by the stated policies of Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, and the plans that he has outlined for moving the border between the two "states" in areas (such as Umm el-Fahem) where there are large clusters of Palestinian-Israeli citizens (see Laurence Louër, "Arabs in Israel: on the move", 19 April 2007).
The second substantive reason for Palestinians' refusal is that in their view, recognition will a priori remove the discussion of the rights of Palestinian refugees from the negotiation-table even before they have the chance to raise their claims and demands.
The United Nations resolution which provided international legitimacy for the creation of both the state of Israel and the Palestinian state. UN Resolution 181 of 27 November 1947, does refer to a Jewish state: "Independent Arab and Jewish States ... shall come into existence in Palestine..." The Palestinian declaration of independence made in Algiers on 15 November 1988 calls on this very same international legitimacy for the founding of the Palestinian state: "...UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, ...provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty."
The definition of Israel as a Jewish state is found in Israel's own declaration of independence on 14 May 1948: "...hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." The declaration has no official status in Israeli law. The reference to the Jewish state in Israeli law is in "the Basic Law: The Knesset" (1958) which declares that political parties or individuals who do not recognise Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" cannot run in elections.
A new foundation
In practice and reality, Israel defines itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The character of the state is a secular-nationalistic definition and not a religious one. Israel is the state of the Jewish people in the same way that France is the state of the French people and not as Iran is an Islamic republic, but as Iran is the nation-state of the Iranian people. It is true that the definition of Judaism encompasses both religion and nationhood, but in international political relations between states, it is the secular definition and character which is in the forefront.
There should be a basic law in Israel which defines the character of the state of Israel. That law must come to terms with the 20% of the citizens of the country who were born here and who must be recognised as having a stake in the country. I am quite certain that if the law in Israel defined Israel as "the state of the Jewish people and all of its citizens", the Palestinian leadership would be able to recognise Israel as such; and that most Jewish Israelis could live with this as well. The current lack of definition enables Israel's Palestinian citizens to feel estranged from the state and allows the state to view those citizens as less than full citizens.
|
Among openDemocracy's
many articles on Israel and the Palestinians:
Jim Lederman, "Ariel Sharon and Israel's unique
democracy" (12 January
2006)
Ghassan Khatib, "Gaza: outlines of an endgame" (6 January 2009) |
Comments
The problem here is that there is no more a Jewish 'people' than there is a Catholic ' people.' The use of 'people' infers race or nation and religion does not confer race or nationhood on anyone. Jews would not exist if there were no religion called Judaism just as Catholics would not exist if there were no religion called Catholicism. Catholics may be lapsed, as in non-practising, and so may Jews, but anyone born a Catholic remains a Catholic as does anyone born a Jew remains a Jew.
There has been a Palestinian people for thousands of years and now there is an Israeli people. Any attempt to try to turn Judaism into a race or nation is not only deeply flawed, it is doomed. This concept is only mooted in order to expel all non-Jews from Israel. In truth, orthodox Judaism rejects any notion of Jews as a race or a nation.
It is all more propaganda.
Gershon says:
'The character of the state is a secular-nationalistic definition and not a religious one.'
This is pure puffery. Jewish, Judaism, Jew are all religious connotations. It's like saying an Islamic or Christian state is not by definition religious.
Any state which gives preferential treatment to Jews, or Christians, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists or whatever, is not secular.... it is religious. And that is because there would be no concept of Jew or Jewishness without the religion of Judaism.
Many Jews (like many followers of other religions) including my ancestors have given up their religion over the years and no longer consider themselves Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant or whatever in any way. And that is because the defininitions only exist because they are sourced in religious belief.
Quoting Mr. Baskin:
"Most Israeli critics of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process state that the Palestinians have never really
accepted Israel's right to exist because they refuse to recognise Israel as a
Jewish state. There was, interestingly, no such demand made to Egypt or to
Jordan when they signed peace agreements with Israel. The Israel-Jordan peace treaty (26 October 1994) and the Israel-Egypt peace
treaty (26 March 1979) use identical words in committing each side to "recognise and respect each
other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence". In
neither case is there explicit mention of a "Jewish state"."
While this may be true, Mr. Baskin, there are things you choose to overlook. The real question here is why do you choose to overlook them?
Egypt and Jordan respectively decided for a peaceful settlement with Israel. They had no reason to insist upon the right of return, as the Palestinians do. The underlying fact is there are Palestinian entities who don't want a separate Jewish state. you're double talking around that little tidbit in your quest to make Israel look like the bad guy.
Have the Palestinians ever sought a peaceful settlement with Israel that has lasted longer than a few days, or hours? Have they ever taken the initiative upon themsleves to really reach out to Israel, and offer concessions themselves? The answer is NO.There are a bunch of broken Palestinian promises.
Why is it everything must be placed upon the backs of the Israelis? There are two parties here who are equally responsible for peace in the region. You are effectively trying to blame Israel for everything, when that is just not so.
Has Hamas ever rebuked its charter, calling for the destruction of Israel, and the death of every Jew? Article fifteen of that document still exists, and it is relevant to the peace process, and the creation of an independent Palestinian state. All hatred must be laid aside for the common good of both peoples, not just one side.
If the Palestinians really desire a state of their own, then why do they need the right of return? They would have their own separate homeland, would they not? That would, in essence, make the right of return a moot point. This is exactly why Netanyahu asks that Palestinians regard Israel as a Jewish state. Does that mean Palestinians now living in peace in Israel will be forced out? No it doesn't, but you make it sound like it is an inevitable thing. Perhaps you should rethink your position, and look deeper into all the facts, and not just those that suit your purposes.
There is a real Palestinian plight. The Palestinians do suffer. But why do they suffer? They do share responsibility for their own suffering. You may as well live in Swasiland if you're going to deny that. If it weren't for Palestinian terrorist attacks against the people of Israel, would the Palestinians be suffering so much?
There are evil entities in the Palestinian government that would rather see the Palestinian people suffer for the sole intent of keeping them on the tight leash of hatred of Israel. That, my friend, is their mortal sin. It is their undoing. It must stop, and so must Palesinian terrorist attacks if there is to be any chance at peace.
7 eagles,
By claiming that the Palestinians are equally responsible for this situation with Israel you are suggesting that the Tibetans are equally responsible with the Chinese; the American Indians were equally responsible with the English settlers; the Australian Aborigines were equally responsible with the English settlers; the Maoris were equally responsible with the English settlers?
Since when has any indigenous people, colonised by others, been seen as 'equally responsible?' Never.
You claim that Gershon ignores facts when you ignore the most important fact of all: Israel only exists because it was established on someone else's land and that 'someone' was the Palestinian people. Just as America was established on Indian land, Australia on Aboriginal land and New Zealand on Maori land, to cite just a few of the historically recent colonisers, so Israel was established on Palestinian land.
The Palestinians should have a right of return because it is their land. Unlike the other colonisers Israel has refused to either return to UN mandated borders and give the Palestinians back their land or, to annex all of Palestine (like the other colonisers) and establish a State with equal rights for all.
Israel on the other hand keeps its indigenous people imprisoned in concentration camps and continues to dispossess and abuse. Can you imagine the outcry if America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand tried to do this? We know what an outcry there was when South Africa did the same thing that Israel does now.
The tragedy of this conflict is such farcical positions as yours where the truth of the occupation and colonisation of Palestine and the dispossession and subjugation of the indigenous people of that land is denied.
Rossolimo--
Every piece of land owned by Jews in the Palestine Mandate before 1947 was willingly sold to them at high prices by the Arab owners. Some of these were absentee landowners--but that was the Ottoman social system 120 years ago. Some of these were ordinary farmers.
The land that was taken as a result of the 1947-1948 war was the result of a war which the Palestinians and the Arabs started, and lost. At that time, no one expected the Yishuv to win. Amin al-Husseini the Palestinian leader, who was a wanted war criminal for his pro-Hitler atrocities in World War II, expected to launch a second Holocaust if he won. He didn't. Now the Palestinians complain about the Nakbah which would not have occurred if they hadn't attacked the proto-Israelis.
Meanwhile, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands between 1948 and 1960. This is 100,000 more people than those who suffered in the Nakbah. Everything was taken from them, they too became penniless refugees, and some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, and no one cares about this. The only difference between them and the Palestinians is that they didn't attack their neighbors before this happened to them. One result of this tragedy is that half the current Israeli Jewish population is (literally) Middle Eastern (i.e., Mizrahi Jewish refugees).
I suggest that financial compensation for the Palestinians come from this property unjustly seized from innocent Jews in the Middle East. And I say to you, "Good luck in THAT project!"
You have to see the whole board. In which case one should also point out the simultaneous partition of India (1947-1948), because 1/3 wanted their own state. The result was a civil war like the one in the Palestinian Mandaate, only a civil war that left one million dead and 13 million refugees, numbers that dwarf the Nakbah.
I note that none of the 7 million penniless Hindu refugees who fled or were thrown out of Pakistan, or their descendants, blow up universities in Karachi--or busses filled with schoolchildren. This is a Palestinian cultural choice, and they have to live with the consequences of that choice.
Post new comment