Newsbook

News analysis

Israel's Jewish identity

The state we're in

Mar 17th 2011, 9:07 by D.L. | JERUSALEM

PERHAPS because herring was a respected staple in the Eastern European Jewish shtetl, there is no literal translation in Yiddish of the English phrase, "red herring". Instead, Yiddish-speaking Jews use the expression "climbing up the smooth walls" to accuse someone of coming up with superfluous and irrelevant arguments in order to cloud the issue.

That expression, which has made its way into Hebrew, comes to mind whenever you hear—as you frequently do—Binyamin Netanyahu demanding that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a "Jewish state". Israel was defined by the United Nations at its inception as the Jewish state. Its declaration of independence promised its non-Jewish citizens equal rights. For the world at large, "Israel" and "the Jewish state" have always been synonymous.

What, then, lies behind Mr Netanyahu's insistent request? The Palestinians suspect that in demanding recognition, Mr Netanyahu is seeking an advantage in the still-to-be-settled question of Palestinian refugees and their "right of return". Others, including many Israelis, suspect that he is trying to obfuscate his reluctance to lead Israel out of the occupied Palestinian territories.

One of Israel’s brightest diplomats-cum-academics has produced a paper that attempts, with dogged casuistry, to obfuscate the obfuscation. Tal Becker, who served as a close aide and peace negotiator under Tzipi Livni when she was foreign minister between 2005 and 2009, argues that the Israeli demand is justified, or at least understandable, but so are the Palestinian objections to it. He suggests ideas—mainly linguistic—for reconciling this conceptual confrontation. His deft course through the legal and political minefield suggests that Mr Becker's diplomatic unguents are far from exhausted.

Mr Becker wrote his paper as a fellow of the Washington Institute for Near-Eastern Policy, a think-tank with close ties to Israel. In it, he lays out the two sides of the argument starkly. 

"Some interpret the insistence on recognition as a precondition designed to thwart or delay genuine negotiations. Others view it as an attempt to predetermine the outcome of the Palestinian refugee issue or to legitimize the denial of equal rights to Israel’s Palestinian Arab minority. Still others consider the claim a manifestation of the unrealistic, if not arrogant, expectation that Palestinians repudiate their own historical narrative. Yet many Israeli leaders, most recently Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, have been equally adamant that such recognition is fundamental to any peace agreement. As Mr Netanyahu phrased it in his June 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University, ‘The root of the conflict was and remains the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state of their own in their historic homeland.'"

But he goes on to soft-pedal the most awkward inconsistency in Mr Netanyahu's position, namely that the Palestinians have in fact already extended the recognition he wants. Mr Becker records Yasser Arafat himself (coincidentally in an interview with me and a colleague at Ha'aretz) "definitely” agreeing that Israel is the Jewish state. But he then adds, gymnastically, "These sentiments, though arguably expressed only for public consumption [why 'only'? That's the consumption we’re interested in], nevertheless indicate a readiness on Arafat's part to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's desire to maintain its Jewish character in a way the current Palestinian leadership has not, as yet, been willing to contemplate."

Perhaps they have not been willing to have their faces rubbed in Israel's Jewishness by Mr Netanyahu? Perhaps they read of Mr Netanyahu's pandering to his hard-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, whose party, Yisrael Beitenu, has launched a slew of new bills discriminating against Israeli Arabs, and they recoil from this new, supremacist form of Israeli "Jewishness"?

Mr Becker makes the faintest references to these possibilities. He duly notes, with plenty of chapter-and-verse, that Israel's Jewishness was historically recognised in international documents, that it is not inconsistent with democratic tenets, and that it is upheld by the international community today, He somewhat contradicts his own assertion, moreover, about "the current Palestinian leadership", when he writes that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas,

"has not always been averse to using the term 'two states for two peoples'. Indeed, contrary to comments by Netanyahu, US special envoy George Mitchell has asserted in repeated briefings that both leaders have at least agreed that the goal of the negotiations should be the establishment of 'two states for two peoples' rather than just 'two states'."

There is an expression in Jewish-Israeli lore, too, for this attitude. It was coined by the late Israeli statesman, Abba Eban: "Can’t take yes for an answer."

Tzipi Livni claims that she was actually the one who first voiced the current Israeli demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewishness, while serving under Ariel Sharon. She raised it, she explains, specifically in the context of the negotiation over the Palestinian claim to a right of return for the 1948 refugees and their descendants. That negotiation moved close to closure under Mr Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, with the two sides agreeing to a limited return for some refugees, to an internationally-funded resettlement programme for others, and, most importantly in Ms Livni’s view, to a solemn recognition of the Palestinian state as the place where the national aspiration of the Palestinian people would be realised. In parallel, the Palestinians would solemnly recognise Israel as the Jewish state where the Jewish national aspiration is realised.

Ms Livni, now leader of the opposition, accuses Mr Netanyahu of purloining and deliberately perverting this thinking for the precisely opposite end: to put a spoke in the wheels of peace talks and historic reconciliation.

Mr Becker, who knows all this perhaps better than anyone, has carefully wrapped its essence into his recommendations for "reconciling the claim and its objections". He writes: "the claim should be seen as seeking the Jewish people's right to self-determination in a sovereign state, rather than recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; recognition should be mutual… Recognition should be sought in the context of a conflict-ending agreement that includes agreement on a framework for resolving the refugee issue and on the establishment of a Palestinian nation-state alongside Israel."

Sensible stuff. Nevertheless, Mr Becker stands accused of exercising his valuable mind to deliver an elegant and learned paper which dignifies Mr Netanyahu’s spurious and demagogic tactic with the undeserving deference of scholarship.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

BriCruz

All who wish to reproduce my comment on mailing lists, repost on other blogs, or send to congress, senators and state representatives, or use for lobbying are welcome to do so. Let justice be served:

The only solution for a lasting piece is absolute democratic process (that we Americans cherish so passionately) for the entire territory in question, otherwise, the peace will not last. All people who lived there without regard to religion, race, etc. should vote on how they would like their one country to be run. I favor one state solution because two states would only attempt to “legalize” Zionist occupation that will be remembered in history until it is corrected by future large scale conflicts, so no lasting peace will result.

The only issue with the fair democratic process is what to do with all manipulated Jewish people who the Zionist regime imported for decades to increase the Jewish population from around 100,000 to over 5 Million since the start of the occupation. This is obviously an attempt to unjustly manipulate any future democratic process by forcefully increasing the occupier’s population at the expense of others. Any compromise other than the absolute fair democratic process with no manipulated population will be temporary with terrible conflicts looming to correct it in the future.

The truth is that the Zionist regime will not accept any democratic process even if the manipulated Jewish population is included because it cannot exist as a democratic country as Zionists will be outvoted by all others who live there (Zionists were in an infinite minority before the occupation). The Zionist regime can only temporarily exist through the force of its arms as a one people country where only select ones can vote and where different laws apply to different people.

The world must stand up against the Zionist regime by cutting all diplomatic and economic relations with it. Many countries have already stopped all relations with the Zionist regime and others are in the process of doing the same. We Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime through urging our state representatives and senators to do what the rest of the world is doing.

Jen_Todd

It appears that sharing and reposting others’ comments is becoming a trend. You can definitely copy, repost, or email mine to anyone including lobbying senators, state representatives and any other public officials who shape our country’s foreign policies.

The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.

Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.

Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.

Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.

In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud.

And_J

Imagine in the current time if France would want to create its own state in Michigan and separate it from the U.S. French are a minority in Michigan so democratic vote on the separation would not work because they would be outvoted by the rest of the Americans living in Michigan. So imagine if they had a historic opportunity when the U.S. is at its weakest and militarily occupy a part of Michigan and impose a regime where only French can vote and all the others who lived there cannot. Furthermore, the occupiers rename the occupied part of Michigan as the “French State” where not only that Americans are not welcome, but they are systematically expelled over time creating huge refugee camps in nearby states of Indiana and Ohio. Imagine then that at that point in history the artificial organization called the United Nations is full of French supporters and somehow that makes the occupation “legal” and Americans who fight for their homes in the occupied part of Michigan are labeled as terrorists. The occupation is a part of a careful log-term plan (i.e. Zionism) of acquiring land by French, so literally days after the occupation is implemented (what a coordinated plan!) the occupiers import millions of other French from all over the world to increase their population in Michigan from around 100,000 to over 5 Million in a short period. Then Americans resist and fight to regain the occupied part of Michigan, but Russia steps in, sends weapons, cash, and everything else the occupiers need to sustain the occupation.
What do you think all of us Americans would feel? We would hate French first, and then all of their supporters (Russia in this analogy) that make the occupation of our land possible. Still questioning yourself why people in the Middle East and other parts of the world do not like us? Because our Zionist controlled government, not the people, supported the very exact scenario as described above against our will and with our tax money making us accomplices in this unspeakable crime. The scenario that would outrage all of us Americans and make us fight against it if it happened in Michigan or anywhere else in the U.S.
This comment is not intended to make derogatory remarks about France and Russia. It is merely used as an example of how Americans would be outraged and fight back in the same situation as the forced establishment of the Zionist regime and its occupation of Palestine.
Urge your state representatives and senators to immediately stop any remaining support for the Zionist regime. Much of the support already stopped because of the increasing pressure on this issue, but we Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime and start actively opposing it.

Levy2008

1. LAND OWNERSHIP – Who is the right owner?
During past 400 years, more then 70% of the land mass on earth, is neither owned, nor occupied by its original occupants. Australia, the entire North, Central, and South American continents. Part of Europe, Abu Musa Island in the Gulf, Etc.
Aren't Australians, Canadians, Americans, Polish, Argentinians, Iranians, and host of other people should be labeled as “occupiers”?

Right after WWI, and fall of the Ottoman Empire, land ownership in the region was divided by 3 different groups:
a). The ottoman Empire – until the British mandate had ended.
b). Large tracks were owned by wealthy Arab land owners (Effendi). In turn they leased the land to the local Arab Peasants, who now call themselves “Palestinians”. Although they have lived there for a long time – they did not legally own the land, because they never lived as sovereign state under framework recognized by International community.
c). 7% was legally purchased from the Turks by local Jewish population.

2. RIGHT OF RETURN - to whom?:
Arabs conveniently remind the world of Palestinian refugees plight, where they lost their homes to Israelis.
The fact is, as late as 1950's there were more then 1.2M Jews living throughout the Arab-Islamic states. By the mid 60's, more then 1.1M of them were forced out of their homes and land. Their properties were confiscated by their Muslim and Arab governments, or looted by their neighbors. Most of them were absorbed into Israel. If one uses the same standards, shouldn't those Speharadic Jews living in Israel be also labeled “Refugees” as well?. Why not?

3. OCCUPATION – Who, where , what?
Arab holler their lungs about Jewish occupation in the ME. And the need to have Palestinian refugee to what they call “return to their (non-existing) home.
One would think, 99.8% occupied by our Arab friends is not large enough to accommodate the refugees (most of whom already live among them). But 0.2% of it, is large enough to do so.
Please, take a look.

STATE.................................. SIZE (sq. km)........PERCENTAGE
Bahrain.................................................665...............0.01%
Egypt...........................................1,001,450...............8.42%
Iran..............................................1,648,000.............13.85%
Iraq.................................................437,072...............3.67%.
Jordan...............................................92,300...............0.78%
Kuwait..............................................17,820...............0.15%
Lebanon...........................................10,400...............0.09%
Libya...........................................1,759,540..............14.79%
Oman..............................................212,460...............1.79%
Qatar.................................................11,437................0.10%.
Turkey............................................780,580.................6.56%
Saudi Arabia...............................1,960,582...............16.48%
Somalia.........................................637,657..................5.36%
Sudan..........................................2,505,810................21.06%
Syria..............................................185,180..................1.56%
UAE................................................83,600...................0.70%
WB & Gaza (Palestine)....................6,220...................0.05%
Yemen...........................................527,970...................4.44%

Subtotal:.................................11,878,078.................99.83%

ISRAEL........................................20,770.....................0.17%

TOTAL...................................11,898,848.................100.00%

Levy2008

The "Jewish State" thing, is not new. UN itself had coined that name. Look how many times this name is mentioned in that famous resolution.

Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine (29 November 1947)

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE.
...
...
3. Independent Arab AND JEWISH STATES and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and JEWISH STATEs, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and JEWISH PROVISIONAL COUNCILS of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

7. The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and JEWISH STATEs, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.

Source: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253

If 22 Arab countries label themselves as "Islamic" states - They should not object to Jews calling their countries "homeland of Jews", or "Jewish State" - definitely the Palestinian dominated by Hamas

tzatz

Yesterday in Britain, Sir Richard Dearlove … the Former MI6 chief said …

in regard to relations with Israel and it's security services … that while they are difficult …

"that doesn't mean it's not important and that it's not given close attention professionally and politically"

He was speaking at a conference marking the 60th anniversary of British-Israeli diplomatic relations …

This is the point … it's gutter trash in Britain that don't acknowledge the truth!

Cutters

tzatz: That wall is illegal, and that is a fact. No decision has been made as to where Israel will be, it could go back to its 1947 boarders, why not? The wall as is is an attempt at stealing land. To disagree is to be a neo-nazi.

The UN and Human rights groups have found masses of evidence that are not part of the 'Jewish' faith are discriminated against, there is no rule of law in Israel.

tzatz

@ aaordona:

Your comment is ignorant of the reality of the 'facts'.

Israel is a liberal democratic Jewish State. It's population is made of MOSTLY JEWS but 20% of the population is Arab (Muslim & Christian).

The Jewish State is a state where the 'RULE OF LAW' provides all citizens with equal access and opportunity … freedom of religion … and a judiciary that does NOT privilege one individual over another.

In other words … NO STATE DISCRIMINATION.

Your ignorance of the facts leads you to believe the opposite.

How did you become so … determined to NOT SEE … that the 'disputed territories' … 'the West Bank & Gaza' … Judea & Samaria … ARE NOT NOW NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN 'OWNED' BY 'Israeli Palestinians' … a meaningless term!

On the whole, I agree that the ultimate solution to the Arab/Israeli Conflict must be settled in a TWO STATES … FOR … TWO PEOPLES SOLUTION.

Read the Clinton Parameters … they will form the basis of a future agreement.

aaordona

How can Israel be known as a Jewish state when it has a huge Palestinian/Arab population. Sad enough that they are discriminated against and have no rights. The ideal solution would be of course a separate Palestinian state but the reality is that will never happen. With the never ending cycle of illegal land grabbing by the Israeli government and construction of illegal settlements on land that was rightfully owned by Israeli Palestinians that will never happen. Sadly it will only be a matter of time until another major war happens in the region and the results will be sad for all involved

tzatz

"that wall is illegal under international law..."

That's not true. Only those who hate the existence of the Jewish State believe this. The fact is ANYONE CAN BUILD A WALL … IF IT'S ON THEIR TERRITORY … LIKE A PERIMETER BARRIER.

What's at question is … why build it where it is. Frankly, in lieu of a settlement between the parties … the Israelis built it … approximately on the previous 'Green Line' which was the 1949 Armistice Line. I said approximate since there's been NO decision to establish borders between the new Arab State of Palestine … since there's been NO FINAL AGREEMENT.

What the barrier did provide is … safety for the Israeli population. Since the Palestinian leadership engaged in the Al Aqsa Intifada which lead to the deaths of over 1000 ISRAELI CITIZENS. This could not be tolerated. The solution was simple.

Good fences make good neighbours. It's worked out well for the Israelis.

Cutters

tzatz: Nice attempt to dodge, but that wall is illegal under international law...

Noticed that you dodged the murders, child abductions and rapes carried out by Israeli authorities, not to mention the lack of free press and oppressive state reactions demonstrations.

Hardly a country that one can compare to any in the free world, and more like another ME cesspool.

F R O Y

"Egypt is the ONLY one that could be considered an ally of the USA…"

You are in a serious state of denial, Tzatz. Abdullah II, Mohammed VI, Bouteflika, Ben Ali, Saleh, the whole lot of petro-monarchs in the Arabian Peninsula... They are all Uncle Sam's chumps. Impossible to deny it now after so many years of close "counter-terrorism" collaboration, economic aid, military training and assistance, establishment of military bases, diplomatic support, multi-billionary deals...

Why do you think the US and the West kept so silent when Ben Ali was on the verge of being sent packing to Riyadh? Or now when Saudi tanks enter Bahrain to help quash the revolts? Or in Yemen while the army kills dozens of protesters? They've got in bed with all of them. They knew it was dirty and sordid and immoral, but they did it all the same, and now they feel ashamed of it, but can't bring themselves to end the seedy relationship. And Israel profited of those relationships through and through. The "moderates" kept their animosity against the "Zionist entity" at a rhetorical level, but collaborated with the supposed enemy anytime required on the practice, and they kept receiving all the American goodies.

But now when their thrones, and perhaps their very throats, are at risk, the despots might consider that anything goes, if Israel provides the excuse with a new onslaught on the sieged Palestinians. Egypt will certainly not go to war, but Israel can forget about the quiet but vital assistance it has until now provided against Hamas. The quiet assistance will probably continue, just to the other side of the fight.

The next war for Israel can be much more than it would bargain for. It should think twice before escalating the situation in Gaza.

tzatz

"rouge state" - You mean like Russia?

The International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) in its advisory opinion on the legality of Israel's separation barrier uncritically adopted the UN General Assembly phrase "Palestinian territories" as applying to all the territories.

The UN General Assembly is a political body. It is not a global legislature that creates international law through its resolutions. Thus its designation of the whole of the West Bank as "Palestinian" is not a legal determination and should not have been adopted by the Court.

The historical narrative set out in the ICJ Opinion was critically flawed and this was pointed out in the separate opinions of the minority judges.

There has as yet been no legal definition of a future boundary between Israel and the territories of the Palestinian Authority. The 1949 Armistice line was not and is not a political boundary. Such a future boundary will have to be negotiated between the parties.

So … that's not the ICC you're referring to … it's the ICJ

You've got to get your acronyms right … LOL

tzatz

No Froy … you're the one spinnung.

Egypt is the ONLY one that could be considered an ally of the USA … and no they won't/can't go to war … they've got to write their constitution … the ISLAMIST Muslim Brotherhood is too busy trying to take charge of Egypt for now … no need to distract … now's not the moment

It's the others … enemies … not on the payroll that are struggling under the weight of the despotic/autocratic/militaristic leadership … currently being NO. 1 in this game - SYRIA

Too bad … Syria's Leader just had a profile in a big Western Magazine … Vogue … you can see it here:

http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/asma-al-assad-a-rose-in-the-des...

What a joke! The benevolent 'western' leader at ease in his own home! Almost makes you want to throw-up!

No Froy … the Arabs are 'playing' at looking/acting like they're 'of the West' BUT THE TRUTH IS APPARENT TO ALL.

THE ARABS … like Assad … ARE HYPOCRITES - YA THEY CAN WEAR A SUIT … SO WHAT?

Didn't Arafat get a Nobel for Peace?

Didn't Arafat marry a woman?

Come on Froy …

F R O Y

"Ah … so the Arab/Muslims DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CAUSE … THEY ONLY SEEK TO use … the Palestinians as a DISTRACTION. Thanks for pointing that out Froy."

Pathetic spinning attempt, Tzatz. Anybody can see that the proper sentence should have been: "Ah … so the Arab/Muslims DICTATORS (most of them on US payroll to toe the US/Israeli line) DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CAUSE … THEY ONLY SEEK TO use … the Palestinians as a DISTRACTION."

It is no secret that Arab dictators, specially the "moderate" ones, only remember the Palestinian cause when they have troubles at home, because they know well that their Arab subjects feel very strongly about the abject treatment the Israeli regime has been meting out on their Palestinian brethren for the past 4 decades. Nothing better to defuse a dangerously rioting street than to get into a new conflict with the good old Israeli foe.

Cutters

tzatz and that is probably why Canada lost out to Portugal for a seat on the UNSC.

Maybe one day Israel will be a land where the Rule of Law exists, but as it is in breach of the International Courts ruling on its wall, cant see Israel being anything more than a rouge state.

tzatz

This is from Canada … my country:

"Canada vigorously condemns the rocket attacks on Israel launched from the Gaza Strip. These terrorist attacks, which indiscriminately target civilian areas, are abhorrent and criminal," he said in a statement.

"Israel has a right to defend itself against such terrorist acts," the statement added. "Terrorism is never justified. We call on all parties in Gaza to cease these criminal attacks. Those responsible should be brought to justice."

I rest my case.

tzatz

This headline JUST announced:

'Hamas says ready to halt rocket fire if Israel stops Gaza strikes'

So … I guess I KNOW … WHO'S TIT FOR TAT … STARTED THIS THING … Froy

Did you ever play musical chairs Froy? You lost!

BTW … there were ~45 Losers at the BDS Rally … mostly young people … not many Arabs … but then again they had LAND DAY to 'celebrate'? The whole BDS movement is based on a LIE … the lie that explains it stands for:

a. Right of Return for 4 Million Arabs into the State of Israel

By definition, this would deconstruct the State. The Losers running this 'movement' have allied themselves with the Leninist/Trotskyist/Communist sojourners … there was a sign which read: STOP THE ALLIED BOMBING OF LIBYA …

In Toronto, the fresh spices sold at major grocery stores … come from Israel … I just love to cook …

About Newsbook

In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th- and 17th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered battles, disasters, debates and sensational trials

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events