[News] Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Nov 20 12:32:52 EST 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/
November 20, 2007
Thus Spoke Equality
Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State
By OREN BEN-DOR
Yet again, the Annapolis meeting between Olmert and Abbas is
preconditioned upon the recognition by the Palestinian side of the
right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed the "road map"
should lead to, and legitimate, once and for all, the right of such a
Jewish state to exist in definitive borders and in peace with its
neighbours. The vision of justice, both past and future, simply has
to be that of two states, one Palestinian, one Jewish, which would
coexist side by side in peace and stability. Finding a formula for a
reasonably just partition and separation is still the essence of what
is considered to be moderate, pragmatic and fair ethos.
Thus, the really deep issues--the "core"--are conceived as the status
of Jerusalem, the fate and future of the Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Territories and the viability of the future Palestinian
state beside the Jewish one. The fate of the descendants of those
750000 Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 from what is
now, and would continue to be under a two-state solutions, the State
of Israel, constitutes a "problem" but never an "issue" because, God
forbid, to make it an issue on the table would be to threaten the
existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The existence of Israel as a
Jewish state must never become a core issue. That premise unites
political opinion in the Jewish state, left and right and also
persists as a pragmatic view of many Palestinians who would prefer
some improvement to no improvement at all.Only "extremists" such as
Hamas, anti-Semites, and Self-Hating Jews--terribly disturbed,
misguided and detached lot--can make Israel's existence into a core
problem and in turn into a necessary issue to be debated and addressed.
The Jewish state, a supposedly potential haven for all the Jews in
the world in the case a second Holocaust comes about, should be
recognised as a fact on the ground blackmailed into the "never again"
rhetoric. All considerations of pragmatism and reasonableness in
envisioning a "peace process" to settle the 'Israeli/Palestinian'
conflict must never destabilise the sacred status of that premise
that a Jewish state has a right to exist.
Notice, however, that Palestinian are not asked merely to recognise
the perfectly true fact and with it, the absolutely feasible moral
claim, that millions of Jewish people are now living in the State of
Israel and that their physical existence, liberty and equality should
be protected in any future settlement. They are not asked merely to
recognise the assurance that any future arrangement would recognise
historic Palestine as a home for the Jewish People.What Palestinians
are asked to subscribe to recognition the right of an ideology that
informs the make-up of a state to exist as Jewish one. They are asked
to recognise that ethno-nationalistic premise of statehood.
The fallacy is clear: the recognition of the right of Jews who are
there--however unjustly many of their Parents or Grandparents came to
acquire what they own--to remain there under liberty and equality in
a post-colonial political settlement, is perfectly compatible with
the non-recognition of the state whose constitution gives those Jews
a preferential stake in the polity.
It is an abuse of the notion of pragmatism to conceive its effort as
putting the very notion of Jewish state beyond the possible and
desirable implementation of egalitarian moral scrutiny. To so abuse
pragmatism would be to put it at the service of the continuation of
colonialism. A pragmatic and reasonable solution ought to centre on
the problem of how to address past, present, and future injustices to
non-Jew-Arabs without thereby cause other injustices to Jews. This
would be a very complex pragmatic issue which would call for much
imagination and generosity. But reasonableness and pragmatism should
not determine whether the cause for such injustices be included or
excluded from debates or negotiations. To pragmatically exclude moral
claims and to pragmatically protect immoral assertions by fiat must
in fact hide some form of extremism. The causes of colonial injustice
and the causes that constitutionally prevent their full articulation
and address should not be excluded from the debate. Pragmatism can
not become the very tool that legitimate constitutional structures
that hinder de-colonisation and the establishment of egalitarian constitution.
So let us boldly ask: What exactly is entailed by the requirement to
recognise Israel as a Jewish state? What do we recognise and support
when we purchase a delightful avocado or a date from Israel or when
we invite Israel to take part in an international football event?
What does it mean to be a friend of Israel? What precisely is that
Jewish state whose status as such would be once and for all
legitimised by such a two-state solution?
A Jewish state is a state which exists more for the sake of whoever
is considered Jewish according to various ethnic, tribal, religious,
criteria, than for the sake of those who do not pass this test. What
precisely are the criteria of the test for Jewishness is not
important and at any rate the feeble consensus around them is
constantly reinvented in Israel. Instigating violence provides them
with the impetus for doing that. What is significant, thought, is
that a test of Jewishness is being used in order to constitutionally
protect differential stakes in, that is the differential ownership
of, a polity. A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish
state is a recognition of the Jews special entitlement, as eternal
victims, to have a Jewish state. Such a test of supreme stake for
Jews is the supreme criterion not only for racist policy making by
the legislature but also for a racist constitutional interpretation
by the Supreme Court.The idea of a state that is first and foremost
for the sake of Jews trumps even that basic law of Human Freedom and
Dignity to which the Israeli Supreme Court pays so much lip service.
Such constitutional interpretation would have to make the egalitarian
principle equality of citizenship compatible with, and thus
subservient to, the need to maintain the Jewish majority and
character of the state. This of course constitutes a serious
compromise of equality, translated into many individual
manifestations of oppression and domination of those victims of such
compromise--non-Jews-Arabs citizens of Israel.
In our world, a world that resisted Apartheid South Africa so
impressively, recognition of the right of the Jewish state to exist
is a litmus test for moderation and pragmatism. The demand is that
Palestinians recognise Israel's entitlement to constitutionally
entrench a system of racist basic laws and policies, differential
immigration criteria for Jews and non-Jews, differential ownership
and settlements rights, differential capital investments,
differential investment in education, formal rules and informal
conventions that differentiate the potential stakes of political
participation, lame-duck academic freedom and debate.
In the Jewish state of Israel non-Jews-Arabs citizens are just "bad
luck" and are considered an ticking demographic bomb of "enemy
within". They can be given the right to vote--indeed one member one
vote--but the potential of their political power, even their birth
rate, should be kept at bay by visible and invisible, instrumental
and symbolic, discrimination. But now they are asked to put up with
their inferior stake and recognise the right of Israel to continue to
legitimate the non-egalitarian premise of its statehood.
We must not forget that the two state "solution" would open a further
possibility to non-Jew-Arabs citizens of Israel: "put up and shut up
or go to a viable neighbouring Palestinian state where you can have
your full equality of stake".Such an option, we must never forget, is
just a part of a pragmatic and reasonable package.
The Jewish state could only come into being in May 1948 by ethnically
cleansing most of the indigenous population--750000 of them. The
judaisation of the state could only be effectively implemented by
constantly internally displacing the population of many villages
within the Israel state.
It would be unbearable and unreasonable to demand Jews to allow for
the Right of Return of those descendants of the expelled. Presumably,
those descendants too could go to a viable Palestinian state rather
than, for example, rebuild their ruined village in the Galilee. On
the other hand, a Jewish young couple from Toronto who never set
their foot in Palestine has a right to settle in the Galilee. Jews
and their descendants hold this right in perpetuity. You see, that
right "liberates" them as people. Jews must never be put under the
pressure to live as a substantial minority in the Holy Land under
egalitarian arrangement. Their past justifies their preferential
stake and the preservation of their numerical majority in Palestine.
So the non-egalitarian hits us again. It is clear that part of the
realisation of that right of return would not only be a just the
actual return, but also the assurance of equal stake and citizenship
of all, Jews and non-Jews-Arabs after the return. A return would make
the egalitarian claim by those who return even more difficult to
conceal than currently with regard to Israel Arab second class
citizens. What unites Israelis and many world Jews behind the call
for the recognition of the right of a Jewish state to exist is their
aversion for the possibility of living, as a minority, under
conditions of equality of stake to all. But if Jews enjoys this
equality in Canada why can not they support such equality in
Palestine through giving full effect to the right of Return of Palestinians?
Let us look precisely at what the pragmatic challenge consists of:
not pragmatism that entrenches inequality but pragmatism that
responds to the challenge of equality.
The Right of Return of Palestinians means that Israel acknowledges
and apologises for what it did in 1948. It does mean that Palestinian
memory of the 1948 catastrophe, the Nakbah, is publicly revived in
the Geography and collective memory of the polity. It does mean that
Palestinians descendants would be allowed to come back to their
villages. If this is not possible because there is a Jewish
settlement there, they should be given the choice to found an
alternative settlement nearby. This may mean some painful compulsory
state purchase of agricultural lands that should be handed back to
those who return. In cases when this is impossible they ought to be
allowed the choice to settle in another place in the larger area or
if not possible in another area in Palestine. Compensation would be
the last resort and would always be offered as a choice. This kind of
moral claim of return would encompass all Palestine including Tel Aviv.
At no time, however, it would be on the cards to throw Israeli Jews
from their land.An egalitarian and pragmatic realisation of the Right
of Return constitutes an egalitarian legal revolution. As such it
would be paramount to address Jews' worries about security and
equality in any future arrangement in which they, or any other group,
may become a minority. Jews national symbols and importance would be
preserved. Equality of stake involves equality of symbolic ownership.
But it is important to emphasis that the Palestinian Right of Return
would mean that what would cease to exist is the premise of a Jewish
as well as indeed a Muslim state. A return without the removal of the
constitutionally enshrined preferential stake is return to serfdom.
The upshot is that only by individuating cases of injustice, by
extending claims for injustice to all historic Palestine, by fair
address of them without creating another injustice for Jews and
finally by ensuring the elimination of all racist laws that stems
from the Jewish nature of the state including that nature itself,
would justice be, and with it peace, possible. What we need is a
spirit of generosity that is pragmatic but also morally
uncompromising in terms of geographic ambit of the moral claims for
repatriation and equality. This vision would propel the establishment
of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But for all this to happen
we must start by ceasing to recognize the right Israel to exist as a
Jewish state. No spirit of generosity would be established without an
egalitarian call for jettisoning the ethno-nationalistic notion upon
which the Jewish state is based.
The path of two states is the path of separation.Its realisation
would mean the entrenchment of exclusionary nationalism for many
years. It would mean that the return of the dispossessed and the
equality of those who return and those non-Jew-Arabs who are now
there would have to be deferred indefinitely consigned to the dusty
shelved of historical injustices.Such a scenario is sure to provoke
more violence as it would establish the realisation and
legitimisation of Zionist racism and imperialism.
Also, any bi-national arrangement ought to be subjected to a
principle of equality of citizenship and not vice versa. The notion
of separation and partition that can infect bi-nationalism, should be
done away with and should not be tinkered with or rationalised in any
way. Both spiritually and materially Jews and non-Jews can find
national expression in a single egalitarian and non-sectarian state.
The non-recognition of the Jewish state is an egalitarian imperative
that looks both at the past and to the future. It is the uncritical
recognition of the right of Israel to exist at a Jewish state which
is the core hindrance for this egalitarian premise to shape the
ethical challenge that Palestine poses. A recognition of Israel's
right to exist as a Jewish state means the silencing that would breed
more and more violence and bloodshed.
The same moral intuition that brought so many people to condemn and
sanction Apartheid South Africa ought also to prompt them to stop
seeing a threat to existence of the Jewish state as the effect caused
by the refugee 'problem" or by the "demographic threat" from the
non-Jew-Arabs within it. It is rather the other way round. It is the
non-egalitarian premise of a Jewish state and the lack of empathy and
corruption of all those who make us uncritically accept the right of
such a state to exist that is both the cause of the refugee problem
and cause for the inability to implement their return and treating
them as equals thereafter.
We must see that the uncritically accepted recognition of Israel
right to exist is, as Joseph Massad so well puts it in Al-Ahram, to
accept Israel claim to have the right to be racist or, to develop
Massad's brilliant formulation, Israel's claim to have the right to
occupy to dispossess and to discriminate. What is it, I wonder, that
prevent Israelis and so many of world Jews to respond to the
egalitarian challenge? What is it, I wonder, that oppresses the whole
world to sing the song of a "peace process" that is destined to
legitimise racism in Palestine?
To claim such a right to be racist must come from a being whose
victim's face must hide very dark primordial aggression and hatred of
all others.How can we find a connective tissue to that mentality that
claims the legitimate right to harm other human beings? How can this
aggression that is embedded in victim mentality be perturbed?
The Annapolis meeting is a con. As an egalitarian argument we should
say loud and clear that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.
Oren Ben-Dor grew up in Israel. He teaches Legal and Political
Philosophy at the School of Law, University of Southampton, UK. He
can be reached at: <mailto:okbendor at yahoo.com>okbendor at yahoo.com
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20071120/6baa527b/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list