Strategic Assessment # 14 The Jewish Identity of Israel: Consequences and Implications

Reading Time: 10 minutes

Summary:

The leaders of Israel think that the Jewishness of the state is mainly imposed by the status quo, and the de facto situation on the ground. Despite that the Jewish character of the state -with its racial content, purposely put by the Zionist project- contradicts with the humanitarian values and international laws; there is complicit or tacit approval from the Western countries, proving the double standards of conduct, and treating Israel as a state above the law. It seems that the Israeli insistence on the Jewishness of the state comes in the context of attempting to ensure the continuation of the Zionist project, regardless of any future changes.

Currently, Netanyahu put the Palestinians’ recognition of the Jewishness of Israel, as a precondition for his Government’s approval for the establishment of a Palestinian state; a state that is devoid of content, which includes the remainder of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, after forfeiting Jerusalem and the right of return. This will lead resistance to be under indictment, subject the Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship (Palestinians of 1948) to the risk of further persecution or transfer, and turn the Palestinians within the occupied territories of 1967 to servants and cheap labor for Netanyahu’s economic project.

The Israeli precondition of recognizing the Jewishness of Israel should be thwarted; the Israeli political blackmailing of the Palestinian side should be brought to an end; and any negotiations that could lead to such a result must stop.

Israel: A Historical Overview
Wartime
The Jewish Identity of Israel and the Peaceful Settlement
A. Oslo
B. The Road Map
C. Annapolis
D. Obama and Netanyahu
Political Objectives and Consequences
Suggestions and Possible Strategy of Confrontation

Summary
The leaders of Israel think that the Jewishness of the state is mainly imposed by the status quo, and the de facto situation on the ground. Despite that the Jewish character of the state -with its racial content, purposely put by the Zionist project- contradicts with the humanitarian values and international laws; there is complicit or tacit approval from the Western countries, proving the double standards of conduct, and treating Israel as a state above the law. It seems that the Israeli insistence on the Jewishness of the state comes in the context of attempting to ensure the continuation of the Zionist project, regardless of any future changes.

Israel: A Historical Overview
Over time, Israel has been considering itself a Jewish state. Even before its establishment, the central goal of the Zionist movement leaders was seeking to “establish a national homeland for Jews in Palestine”. On that basis, the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland in 1897.

Against this background, the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1971, and even the infamous Partition Resolution 181 of the United Nations in the November 29, 1947, provided for a Jewish state on about 55% of the land of Palestine, together with another Arab State.

Furthermore, the Armistice Agreement which was signed under the auspices of the major countries, including USA, Britain, and France, established ceasefire line as the borderline for Israel, although it cut about 21% of the Arab state in favor of the Jewish State. These major powers also have turned a blind eye to the collective expulsion against the Palestinian Arabs, both within the territories specified for the Jews, or that for the Arabs.

Thus, since its establishment, Israel considered itself to be a “Jewish democratic” state. And placing the Jewish character prior to the democratic character was not pointless; as it is a Jewish state for the Palestinians and democratic only for the Jews. This assumption was supported by many laws, notably the Law of Return, which gives the Israeli citizenship to Jews as soon as they set feet on the land of Palestine.

It should also be noted that the American and European understanding of the Jewish state notion was a compensation for what happened to the Jews during the WWII. Note that the Jewish state or solving the Jewish question at the expense of the Palestinian suffering was not only to compensate the Jews, or atone for the western guilt, but also to protect the interests of colonial powers in this sensitive and strategic region of the world. Therefore, this support has continued regardless of the change within the internationally dominant Western powers.

However, the Western concept of the Jewish state does not necessarily agree with its Zionist concept. The Zionists wanted Israel to be open to Jews of the world as soon as they set their feet on it; a racist country with laws to ensure special privileges for the followers of a certain religion, in contravention of the internationally accepted laws, values, principles, and human rights, which is not necessarily what all Western countries intended to.

Moreover, the countries which supported the partition resolution, did not intend an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians who will reside in the promised Jewish state. The Jewish state in the partition resolution was a bi-national, with the Palestinians constituting more than 49%, and Jews less than 51%. The Palestinians would have numerically surpassed the Jews in a few years, if it was not for the ethnic cleansing that was carried out by the Zionist gangs, and that reduced the Palestinians to less than 20%.

Wartime
Since the declaration of the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, there has not been a claim to acknowledge the Jewishness of the State, maybe because the Israeli leaders take it for granted, considering it an issue related first and foremost to the Israeli desire and definition, and not to the Arab decision or approval.

In 1967, the “second Nakba” took place when Israel succeeded in six days in occupying Sinai, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip; three Arab armies were defeated. Then, for the first time, there were talks about calling for the Arab States to only recognize the state of Israel, while the “Jewishness” identity was being imposed as a fait accompli through force and oppression.

In spite of the partial victory achieved by the Arabs in the war of October 1973, they have not been able to substantially change the impacts and repercussions of the past wars. On the contrary, international resolutions were issued confirming previous resolutions, giving Israel the green light to claim the right to exist, within the safe borders, without mentioning specificities related to the identity and nature of this state.

The Jewish Identity of Israel and the Peaceful Settlement
In the climate of 1973 war, the process of settlement between Israel and the Arab countries was launched: firstly, with Egypt, then Jordan and the PLO. During the negotiations, Israel has never called for recognizing it as a Jewish state, according to Israeli self-belief mentioned above. Despite the fact that the peace process was launched on a basis that does not include the notion of the Jewishness of the state, however, this idea used to emerge sometimes during the settlement process and sometimes disappear.

A. Oslo
It is true that Oslo was launched at a time of global imbalance of powers, to the favor of the USA, Israel’s strategic ally; however, the occupation government was searching for a way to stop the first Intifada (1987 to 1993). In this context, the Oslo agreement was signed, and the PLO leadership recognized “Israel’s right to exist”. This entrapping expression means, among other things, recognizing the legitimacy of all that the Jewish state has done since the usurpation of Palestine, so far.

B. The Road Map
Until the year 2003, the (Jewishness of “Israel”) has not been raised on the agenda of the Palestinian–Israeli negotiations. It was done for the first time openly and directly by President George W. Bush at the Aqaba Summit on 25/5/2003, when he announced his country’s commitment to Israel’s security as a “vibrant Jewish state”, as a clear expression of Washington’s adoption of the 14 Israeli reservations on the roadmap.

It seems that the Israeli side expressed its reservations to evade from the final status issues, and in return, Bush declared his commitment to the security of Israel, in hope of revitalizing the Palestinian-Israeli settlement course, on the ground of concern over the repercussions of al-Aqsa Intifada Israel.

In spite of this, Ariel Sharon crystallized his plan for unilateral withdrawal through the concept of unilateral disengagement and separation from the Palestinians. This position was a result of Sharon’s conviction of failure to impose surrender on the Palestinians in the battlefield, as well as the divergence between the maximum that can be provided by Israel at the negotiating table, and the minimum that can be accepted by any Palestinian official, not to mention the Palestinian people in general.

C. Annapolis
The concept of the Jewish State faded out after the concept of unilateral disengagement. It re-emerged again with the former government’s threesome (Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak), following the failure of unilateralism and the Bush administration’s and Rice’s conviction that the road to Baghdad and the region is going through Jerusalem, and not vice versa.
The former Israeli government raised this issue in Annapolis conference, not as a negotiation precondition, not even as a condition of the agreement, but rather to extort and extract concessions from the Palestinians. Reference to the final status issues (Jerusalem, demarcating the borders, refugees) was omitted against omitting the reference to the Jewish state. Note that the head of the Israeli negotiating team, Tzipi Livni, had expressed her belief that the Jewishness of Israel is being realized on the ground.

D. Obama and Netanyahu
Entering the White House at the beginning of the year 2009, Obama emphasized working on establishing a Palestinian state, something that Netanyahu, the head of the Israeli right-wing government, did not like. Netanyahu has been repeating that he would not allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state, in addition to his lack of faith in the Oslo settlement in the first place.

Against this background, Netanyahu put the Palestinian recognition of Israel’s Jewishness as a precondition for negotiations on the three tracks (security, economic and political), before he revises this condition, considering it only a condition for reaching an agreement, or for the final solution to the conflict in the occupied Palestine. His right-wing view of this solution is represented in a state devoid of content, and in fact more like a broad self-rule with a flag a national anthem, like Andorra or Micronesia.

Political Objectives and Consequences
In putting this issue on the negotiation table, Israel aims, at a minimum, to extract Palestinian concessions in the central issues, in return for withdrawing it from discussions, as was the case during Annapolis. Furthermore, other main political objectives include:

– Referring the 1948 Palestinians (i.e. Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, within the Green line) to the Palestinian state, while keeping them in their current premises; in return for keeping the settlements in the West Bank.

– Abolishing the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their villages and towns which they were displaced from in 1948, on the grounds that there is no logic in their return to the Jewish state.

– Relinquishing the Palestinian rights in Jerusalem, and giving Israel the full right in the city, as long as it has been recognized as a Jewish state, which overruled the right of the Palestinians; Muslims and Christians.

– Giving Israel the opportunity to portray its acceptance of establishing a capital for the Palestinian entity on the outskirts of Jerusalem (Abu Dees) as a major concession by Israel, for which the latter deserves recognition and reward, that would include controlling the holy places, and keeping the major settlement blocs in the West Bank,

– Giving Israel the right to seek security of the state in accordance with the logic of the “safe state for the Jews,” which means to justify the refusal to return to the borders of 1967, as non-secure borders -which is more likely, particularly in light of the Palestinian negotiator approval of the exchanging land principle.

– This would undermine the right of the Palestinian people in resistance, retroactively. If the state is Jewish, and the state has the right to this land, why should the Palestinian people resist that? Why would they confront it? As long as the Jewishness of the state has been recognized by the Palestinian and Arab leaders.

– Undermining the Palestinians within the Green line who hold Israeli citizenship (Palestinians of 1948), following the failure of the “Israelization” project because of their stamina and resistance by raising the slogan of a state for all its citizens; and in light of the demographic indicators that the number of Palestinians and Jews in historic Palestine will be equal in few years.

– Giving Israel the freedom to abuse the Palestinians of 1948, continuing discrimination against them at all levels, and imposing transfer on them by all political, economic, and social means, in order to drive them into the so-called “voluntary migration” at best, or to accept the “Israelization”, at worst, as well as accepting the Jewish identity of the state, and accepting third-class citizenship.

– Reviving the theory of alternative homeland, especially with the introduction of the idea of an expanded Palestinians self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. Maybe even reviving the idea of the pre-1967 reality, where Gaza return to the Egyptian supervision and the West Bank to the Jordanian supervision, possibly with the presence of a feigned Palestinian leadership. Note that this may increase tension between the Palestinians themselves, as well as with their fellow Arabs in Jordan, in the absence of a unified Arab Palestinian strategy for managing the conflict with Israel.

– At home, the Palestinians of 1948 will turn to be third-class citizens, after the Ashkenazi and Sephardim, while the Palestinians in the 1967 occupied territories will turn to be servants and cheap labor for the Israeli project according to Moshe Dayan theory of on the “enlightened occupation”, which is substantially similar to the economic peace theory of Netanyahu.

Suggestions and Possible Strategy of Confrontation
The Israeli plans and projects in general, and the idea of a Jewish State in particular, can only be confronted by the most possible degree of Palestinian national consensus and understanding. This necessarily requires putting an end to the current division and returning to the least basic program included in the national reconciliation document.

It seems that the prospects for a settlement with the government of Netanyahu-Lieberman are nil; therefore, there is no need to waste efforts in the inter-Palestinian negotiation and fighting to pass it or even to stop it. Furthermore, the efforts must be focused on developing a strategy for managing the conflict with Israel and preventing the latter from achieving its stated objectives, both in terms of the Jewishness of the state or the liquidation of the Palestinian national project, through the demolition of its foundation that are associated with Jerusalem, the right of return, the borders of the state, the state’s sovereignty over its territory, and the evacuation of settlements.

– Away from the need to end the Palestinian internal state of division, focus should be on the fact that the Jewish state idea basically targets the Palestinians of 1948, thus an integral part of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Palestinian negotiator should refrain from providing any concessions that undermine their steadfastness, and discourage their resolve in the face of racial discrimination practiced against them; which increased lately through a package of discriminatory laws designed to impose transfer on them.

– The Palestinian Arab and international civil society institutions have an important and central role to play in the struggle against the idea of the Jewish state, by explaining its racial implications and repercussions on the just cause of the Palestinian people and their legitimate national rights.

– Centers of research and studies and the media also have their role in confronting this idea through pressure to prevent the approval on it in any way. Seminars and Debates should be held on the threats and destructive consequences of this idea, not only on the Palestinian cause, but also from the point of establishing an Israeli and Jewish hegemony on the Arab and Islamic worlds. There is also need to provide recommendations and suggestions for how to deal with the idea and thwart it.