Accept Israel as the Jewish State?

[Snowden]

war on terror
Accept Israel as the Jewish State?
By Daniel Pipes

Surprisingly, something useful has emerged from the combination of the misconceived Annapolis meeting and a weak Israeli prime minister, Ehud ("Peace is achieved through concessions") Olmert. Breaking with his predecessors, Olmert has boldly demanded that his Palestinian bargaining partners accept Israel's permanent existence as a Jewish state, thereby evoking a revealing response.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

He confirmed these points a day later, describing the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people" as the "launching point for all negotiations. We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people." The Palestinian leadership, he noted, must "want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state."

Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict — Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations. Since nearly the birth of the state, these have focused on the intricacies of such subsidiary issues as borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations.

The Palestinian leadership responded quickly and unequivocally to Olmert's demand:

• The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee in Nazareth unanimously called on the Palestinian Authority not to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
• Salam Fayad, Palestinian Authority "prime minister": "Israel can define itself as it likes, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state."
• Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's executive committee: "This issue is not on the table; it is raised for internal [Israeli] consumption."
• Ahmad Qurei, chief Palestinian negotiator: "This [demand] is absolutely refused." • Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Department: "The Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity. … There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined."

Erekat's generalization is both curious and revealing. Not only do 56 states and the PLO belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but most of them, including the PLO, make the Shari'a (Islamic law) their main or only source of legislation. Saudi Arabia even requires that every subject be a Muslim.

Further, the religious-national nexus extends well beyond Muslim countries. Argentinean law, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe points out, "mandates government support for the Roman Catholic faith. Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of the Church of England. In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the constitution proclaims Buddhism the nation's 'spiritual heritage.' … 'The prevailing religion in Greece,' declares Section II of the Greek Constitution, 'is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ'."


So, why the mock-principled refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? Perhaps because the PLO still intends to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.

Note my use of the word "eliminate," not destroy. Yes, anti-Zionism has until now mainly taken a military form, from Gamal Abdel Nasser's "throw the Jews into the sea" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Israel must be wiped off the map." But the power of the Israel Defense Forces has prodded anti-Zionism toward a more subtle approach of accepting an Israeli state but dismantling its Jewish character. Anti-Zionists consider several ways to achieve this:

Demography: Palestinians could overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel, a goal signaled by their demand for a "right of return" and by their so-called war of the womb.

Politics: Arabs citizens of Israel increasingly reject the country's Jewish nature and demand that it become a bi-national state.

Terror: The 100 Palestinian attacks a week during the period, September 2000-September 2005 sought to induce economic decline, emigration, and appeasement.

Isolation: All those United Nations resolutions, editorial condemnations, and campus aggressions are meant to wear down the Zionist spirit.
Arab recognition of Israel's Jewish nature must have top diplomatic priority. Until the Palestinians formally accept Zionism, then follow up by ceasing all their various strategies to eliminate Israel, negotiations should be halted and not restarted. Until then, there is nothing to talk about.

Daniel Pipes: Accept Israel as the Jewish State?

[RalphZ]

Pipes is a bit of a character. This article ought to be really disturbing to readers and its tone probably should not be acceptable to anyone here. Change "Jewish" to "white" and you can see the kind of bigotry that is behind the argument presented.

Like it or not, Israel is changing. The mass of European immigrant Jews are probably not feeling as demographically dominant as they once did. That is an inevitable consequence of settling in the promised land. Another generation, born there, will slowly take the lead and they are not Europeans in outlook. In the background a significant Arab population continues to live within the territory of Israel. Like it or not, Israel is not just a Jewish state. It never was and it is even less likely to be in the future.

Olmert seems to be taking a line that exemplifies something critics have noted for a long time about the state of Israel. This state is not really a state in terms of the current western understanding of what constitutes a state. Israel is an anachronistic attempt to define a state on religious and ethnic grounds and to do so indefinitely. That is not realistic. Choosing to go this route suggests Olmert is not serious about seeking a negotiated end to the lingering conflict in Palestine.

To suggest, as Pipes does, that negotiations of "borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations" are "subsidiary issues" to the recognition and validation of Zionism is to suggest that there can be no peace. If the present Israeli leadership really believes this reasoning, it will not be possible to reach any lasting understanding with non-Jews in Israel or Palestine. To accept Pipes' line of reasoning, and that articulated by Olmert, one might as well argue the the Boars had a reasonable case for Apartheid. This mindset really has rather disturbing undertones. While the difficult "what ifs" might seem far in the future right now, the principles guiding the Israeli leadership to that future should be scrutinized. In the case of Olmert and Zionism, that really needs to be done.

It is interesting to note though that even Pipes readily quotes a Palestinian who claims: "This issue is not on the table; it is raised for internal consumption." I suspect this is true. However, that raises an equally distressing point. Is this mindset actually common or acceptable among Israelis? Let's be honest. Would anybody here tolerate a government that emphasized the inherentness of a European and Christian identity of a given state? Those are rather broad categories encompassing many ethnic and religious identities but for the US, as an example, the fact of significant minority African and Asian presence makes even this untenable without creating serious tensions with substantial parts of the legitimate citizenry of the USA. How about claiming an inherent Scottish and Anglican identity for a given state? I suspect there would be some objections -- or there should be. Demographics change over time. Maybe the dominant population groups will remain the same. Maybe they will change. The particularistic identifications of what are now considered to be Germans, a mere 200 years ago, ought to give some reason for pause regardless. It is effectively impossible to stop the ebb and flow of such change. Trying to impose a particular identity on everyone is just not possible. Yet, demanding the legitimation of Zionism is trying to do precisely that.

Pipes is more interested in suggesting that Muslims do the same thing. Pointing to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as a basis seems rather dubious though if the object is to find examples of anything comparable to the Zionist agenda Pipes seems to be supporting. After all, the OIC not only includes Saudi Arabia (which Pipes holds as an example) but also countries like Turkey, Nigeria and Egypt. None of these examples of OIC members support Sharia as the basis for law nor do they require prescribed religious or ethnic identity for membership in the state. Pipes' position begs the question: Does he really think Israel ought to compare itself with Saudi Arabia for such purposes? Not many people see Saudi Arabia as a shining example of a modern state.

To go on, as Pipes does, to put forth examples of historical identifications as a basis for buttressing his argument in favor of legitimizing a Zionist Israel ought to make readers wonder. Does Argentine constitutional support of Roman Catholicism require international acceptance? Does the United Kingdom expect the world to acknowledge its Anglican roots? Does the Bhuddist heritage of Bhutan expect international acknowledgement? (This is another choice example of a modern state, by the way.) Does the prevailing Eastern Orthodoxy of Greeks demand external legitimation? These are all statements of legacies. They matter to some extent, internally, but they do not matter to otherwise. And what of the examples of the United States, or Canada or Australia or even Germany?

The UK has certainly changed a great deal since Henry VIII and the creation of Anglicanism. I think most people would think it has progressed. While respect for tradition generally persists, it does not imply that the current generation of British need to stay true to that heritage.

It takes Pipes quite some time to express the fear that underlies his prose. That fear is that Israel, over time, will lose its Jewishness. There is an amusing comment about it: "Arabs citizens of Israel increasingly reject the country's Jewish nature..." That is surprising? It does point to an unstated duality in Zionist thought I will deal with shortly. More telling is Pipes' more serious comment about demographics: "Palestinians could overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel..." The fact is that this is happening. There are relatively fewer Jews and relatively more Arabs in Israel and Palestine and the demographic trends suggest this will become more pronounced in years to come. Any settlement would likely make things worse. Like it or not, the idea of a Palestinian "homeland" made up of the West Bank and Gaza is about as likely to achieve longterm peace as the South African attempt to create homelands. The Palestinian homeland includes the territory of Israel. Likewise, ardent Zionists will argue the Jewish homeland includes the West Bank and Gaza.

It is unfortunately true that compromise is not yet in the minds of the Israeli leadership. It is equally unfortunate for the diehard Zionists, that their wrong-headed determination to hold on to the Jewishness of Israel will inevitably lead to the Palestinianization of Israel as demographic reality begins to be felt. It is doubtful that any of the Jewish heritage of Israel will be preserved if the intransigence of the present generation persists in the future. Aristotle was right, in the long run numbers will tell.

Now although Pipes couches much of his argument in religious terms it ought to also be remembered that Jewish identity carries a duality of religious and ethnic identification. He touches the point when referring to Arabs and Jews but is savvy enough to realize how poorly this position would go over among is target audience. Hence, the emphasis is on the religious character of Israel. Zionism, however, is not quite so religious. Many of its adherents identify Jewishness with ethnicity more so than with religion. This too should be a rather disturbing subtext to reading Pipes.

[Woodmonkey]

Another excellent post, Ralph.

[Snowden]

Speaking of religion and the Jews in Israel, my thoughts turn to the Muslim and Christian divisions within the Palestinian population. Since Islam is effectively driving out Christianity, this could leave only Muslims in the Palestinian segments of Israel, and they will of necessity overflow into Israel, as you say, Ralph.

Now in Islam, a Jew is a Jew, or so I understand. The religion is only part of it; and Jews are those people most hated by Islam and this means there will be a powderkeg in that tiny bit of land which is called Israel today. I believe this is part of the plan throughout Arabia for eradicating Israel; the Palestinian population has nowhere to go.

One of the Jewish newspapers today reports that the Palestinian Authority has passed a law saying to negotiate for or about Jerusalem is treason. To me this clearly states that they are still insisting that Jerusalem is their capital and that they will not share it with Jews. With such a statement, there can be no peaceful division of Jerusalem. Not that it was possible in the first place.

Thanks for your input here.