What it means for Israel to be a Jewish nation-state

In the context of its attempts to legitimise and establish itself as a Jewish nation-state, Israel is seeking to remove the Palestinians from place and time and impose its narrative of the area’s history as well as add historical and moral legitimacy for itself.

As for the direct political meanings that Israel wants to achieve by means of insisting on demanding its recognition by others as a Jewish state, they can be summed up as follows.

First, it establishes the status quo, i.e. its control of Palestine’s historical territory from the river to the sea, and therefore imposes its will on the Palestinians, and either determines the outcome of negotiations or sets the ceiling in advance to suit its religious and ideological claims.

It is true that we are referring to the idea of “two states for two peoples”, but this is different from the two-state solution. It also means that the establishment of the Palestinian state will be done in accordance with the borders imposed or approved by Israel and that the solution will ultimately mean the end of the Palestinians’ rights and demands.

Secondly, it imposes an Israeli conviction that historical Palestine is “Israeli land”, meaning it is exclusively the property of Jews and is not the subject of dispute between two peoples or “nations” or that it is equally rightful for both sides. It portrays the Palestinians as by passers or intruders of the time and place. What we can conclude from this is that Israel’s claims make it seem as if it is conceding part of its “right” to Palestine or what it considers to be “Israel’s territory” to the Palestinians in order for them to establish their own state on the condition that they agree to the Israeli narrative or the fact that Israel is the true owner of the land. It is as if Israel is doing the Palestinians a favour and portrays itself as being morally superior to the Palestinians.

Thirdly, Israel refuses to take any responsibility for the Nakba and the birth of the Palestinian refugee issue. It refuses this to resolve this matter because, in accordance with its nation state status, it is a state for only Jews; they are the ones who have the right to determine their fate while the Palestinians can determine their own fate, but only in their state.

Fourthly, Israel is trying to use this project to pressure the Palestinians and exploit them in order to subjugate the Palestinians and impose their dictations on them by threatening the citizenship of Palestinians living in the territories occupied in 1948 and by threatening to revoke the residency permits for those in Jerusalem. In light of such legislation, the Palestinians would be residents that have no political or national rights based on the fact that Israel is a Jewish nation state. It is worth noting that Israel continues to treat Palestinian citizens as individuals or sects, not as nationals or Arabs. Therefore, Israel will be able, through legal means, to prevent national expressions by Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as ban any sort of political relationship with the Israelis by threatening to revoke their citizenship or deport them. This means that “Israelifying” themselves is the only option open to them.

On the Israeli level, this project is in the context of the internal political competition in the country, part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to attract and polarise nationalist and religious right-wing trends in order to maximise his chances of winning the next election. He has also described the disputes between the secular and religious trends during debates and conflicts between the secular and religious parties. He also mentioned the relationship between religion and identity and the level of democracy exercised, and such discussions are the basis of the tensions within Israeli society. He cannot cover these tensions up or alleviate their escalation either by drawing attention to the external challenges, which Israel calls the existential danger, and Arab hostility to Israel.

On the other hand, we can date Israel’s demand of its recognition as a Jewish nation-state back to the reservations it had regarding the Roadmap for peace proposed by the previous US administration in 2003. Israel’s sixth reservation stated: “In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.”(Haaretz, 27 May, 2003).

This demand was reiterated during a speech made by Ariel Sharon in the Aqaba Conference (4 June, 2003) which was attended by the US President at the time, George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. At the time, Bush endorsed this demand during a statement where he said: “America is strongly committed and I am strongly committed to Israel’s security as a vibrant Jewish state.”

Tensions between Israel and the Palestinians reached their peak regarding this subject during the Annapolis Conference (27 November, 2007), which was organised by the United States towards the end of Bush’s term. The Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, and the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni both mentioned this demand during their speeches.

The Israeli side tried to ensure that the “Joint Understanding” document proposed at the start of the Annapolis process used the term “the Jewish state”, but the Palestinian side, supported by the Arab states, strongly rejected it on the grounds that the requirement was only to recognise Israel and not to recognise its nature as a Jewish state. This threatened to blow the entire Annapolis Conference, which resulted in Israel backing down from its demand.

Based on this, the Likud and Kadima party leaders, along with the right-wing extremist parties Shas, Yisrael Beytenu, the Jewish Home, and the National Religious Party (NPR), adopted this proposal and added it to the list of Israeli conditions for a settlement with the Palestinians. As for the other parties, Labour, Meretz and later Yesh Atid, they did not care about this condition nor did they rely on it. They considered it to be excessive and unnecessary, especially since others’ recognition of Israel’s nature did not matter as long as Israel determines its nature as a Jewish state. They also believed that proposing such an issue would only provoke trouble and expose Israel’s weaknesses, not strengths.

The point is that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not break new ground when he made this proposal after having previously focused on the demand of “security first”, i.e. stopping Palestinians from committing all acts of armed resistance. He was beat by Sharon, Olmert and Livni (who is now opposed to the current form of the project). Netanyahu shifted towards demanding the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state since he made a speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009 after the Palestinians, under Abbas’ leadership, implemented the conditions set out by the Roadmap.

Ben-Gurion was the first Israeli Prime Minister to back down from describing Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. the state that all Jews, wherever they are, identify with. According to Yossi Beilin, in an article in Israel Today on 3 December, 2010, “the moment Ben-Gurion began presenting Israel as a Jewish state and called on all the Jews of the world to immigrate to Israel” he angered the American Jews at the time and their leader Jacob Blaustein, a billionaire who donated to Israel. In addition to this, three leaders of Jewish-American organisations came to Israel in May 1948 and met with Ben-Gurion, telling him “Israel does not have the authority to announce itself as a Jewish state and call on the Jews of the world to immigrate to it because this will spark implicit hostility against Semites and claims regarding dual loyalty.” Blaustein even threatened to stop donating to Israel “if its leaders continue to clash with non-Jews regarding the issue of dual loyalty”.

He also explained to Ben-Gurion that “the United States is not the Diaspora and is not a place where the Jewish people were stuck. For the American Jews, the United States is their final destination.” Then, according to Beilin, Ben-Gurion stopped describing Israel as a “Jewish state” and declared that “the state of Israel represents its citizens alone and speaks on their behalf. It does not seek, in any way, to represent or speak on behalf of the Jewish citizens of other countries.” (The Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR), Ramallah).

It is worth reminding everyone that this project, or bold move, is one of the products of the unfair and incomplete Oslo Accords signed in 1993 which was not based on any resolutions or international conventions related to the Palestinian issue. It is also based on the negotiations on the will or approval of the two concerned parties, which was an indirect expression that intended to cover up the fact that Israel, which has full control and which is internationally backed, will be the one to decide the nature of the negotiations, their priorities, their paths, and their results, and this is what happened.

It is a well-known fact that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 dictated the “establishment of a national state for the Jews in Palestine”, and not the establishment of a state for the Jews or a Jewish state. This was also reiterated in the British Mandate and in the recommendations of the international committees regarding Palestine before the establishment of Israel.

Also, UN Resolution 273 (1849), in which the nations of the world recognised Israel, made the condition that the state stipulated by resolutions 181 (1947) and 194 (1949) be established. The first resolution stipulated the division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, while the second provides for the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Both of these resolutions were approved by Israel at the time, but they were not implemented.

In this regard, it is worth noting that talking about a Jewish state at that time was different from being a Jewish nation-state because the division resolution stipulated that the Palestinians remain in the state allotted for the Jews while the Jews remain in the state allotted to the Arabs. It also stipulated that an economic union be established between the two states and that there would be international management of Jerusalem.

This means that referring to Israel as a Jewish nation-state is heresy as is the new emphasis on this fabricated state’s colonial and racist nature. In addition to this, talk of a Jewish nation-state today is not limited to the state being a Jewish state for its citizens, but also considering it a state for all Jews around the world, and that Israel will revoke the nationality of all Palestinian Israeli citizens, or so it is threatening, while they are living on their own land.

However, such talk does not mean that Israel isn’t already acting as a Jewish state, regardless of the legal aspect. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and it behaves as a nation-state for the Jews across the world, presenting itself as a safe haven for them. Israel also translates this into its laws and guarantees Jews the “Law of Return” according to which it allows any Jew in the world to come to Israel and get citizenship.

There is also the Israeli state property law which considers all land to be the property of the state and prohibits its sale or the transfer of its ownership. This also includes the state’s symbols, including its flag, anthem, the Knesset, and the laws derived from the teachings of the Torah. More importantly, Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians reflects this and this explains their expulsion and the attempts to eliminate them from all existence.

Israel’s arrogance and escalation stems from a sense of inferiority and a lack of serenity. Even 60 years later, this state is still searching for its identity and trying to assert itself. This state, which has always lived on the claim that it is an oasis of democracy, modernity, and secularism, is now establishing a state based on historical and religious myths and is working on defining itself based on religion. Meanwhile, it is confused about its identity and whether it wants to be a democratic state or a Jewish state, a secular state or a religious state.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 17 December, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.