From
a recent speech about the Lebanon war by Ehud Olmert, it looks like the Israeli Prime Minister may secretly agree with Eliyaho Matz that the moment has come for Israel to recognize it is more than just a Jewish state:
In the life of a nation there are moments of transcendence, of purification, when political and sectarian disputes which separate us are replaced by a sense of mutual responsibility.
I highly value and appreciate the way the Opposition has been conducting itself in the Knesset these days. The human competition and personal rivalries are dissolved and instead our feeling of mutual responsibility arises, our sense of partnership, and primarily, our eternal love for our people and our land.
This is such a moment! All of us - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and Circassians - now stand as one person, as one nation, subject together to the same hatred and malice, and fighting against it in consensus and partnership.
When missiles are launched at our residents and cities, our answer will be war with all the strength, determination, valor, sacrifice and dedication which characterize this nation.
In this context--and Hezbollah's kidnapping
Arab Bedouin Druze Israeli soldiers to start a major war--this essay building on ideas first expressed by Hillel Kook and Samuel Merlin, two founders of the Irgun who served in the the first Israeli Knesset, seems particularly timely:
Who Is An Israeli?
by Eliyho Matz
Throughout the centuries, Jews have lived dispersed over many lands. They have always considered themselves a Religion-Nation, and the world has likewise recognized them as such. This concept originated over a period when Jews lived without sovereignty over a specific, identified territory of their own.
But since then, times and political conditions have drastically changed. In 1948, Palestinian Jews achieved what for many generations had been an impossible and imaginary dream, for in that year, they won both self-determination and sovereignty over a parcel of the land which in ancient times had been inhabited by their ancestors. With the ruling Palestinian Jewish leadership’s declaration proclaiming Israel to be an independent nation, the political status of this branch of the world’s Jews consequently changed from that of a non-sovereign people to a new, sovereign political entity. The process was very traumatic; nonetheless, a change was in fact achieved, although in practice its political ramifications still go unrealized many years after the event.
Regrettably, a majority of people outside and inside of Israel seem to view the State of Israel as an oversized, social community of Jews rather than as a political entity. The cost of this thinking has been the loss of a political identity for the nation’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike. Consequently, the most important decision concerning the survival of the Israeli nation is rooted in an unnamed and almost undiscussed subject, which I will name the Israeli Political Identity (IPI). This is not to say that the State of Israel is without many other problems, nor to imply that the IPI issue alone, once resolved, will automatically eliminate all internal and external difficulties for Israel. But it is essential that this matter of IPI be recognized and addressed before a safe and better future with a vision of lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors can be secured.
Israel’s current political confusion is an offshoot of the identity problem and can serve as an aid in understanding the IPI. Political issues in Israel fall, for one reason or another, into two arenas: the first is Israel’s political relationship with world Jewry; the second is Israel’s attitude toward the so-called Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People. In this short essay, I will attempt to examine and suggest solutions to these two concerns.
Israel’s Political Relations with World Jewry
Until the creation of the State of Israel, Zionism was a confused political, social and religious movement among a minority of world Jewry. In 1948, when Israel was declared an independent nation, a home for those Jews who desired it, Zionism as a political movement achieved its final political goal. In the years since Israel’s independence, a myth has evolved which suggests that there exists a uniformity of interests between Israel and world Jewry, a claim which is now especially associated with American Jewry. However, Israelis must come to the realization that American Jews cannot be expected to conduct themselves as though they are living in Tel Aviv, and this concept must be clear to all parties involved. The fact is, I find it dubious to assume that similar interests do exist between Israelis and American Jews. It stands to reason that the political, economical and social differences between the two societies and nations would make divergences inevitable. By the same token, many American Jews seem to think that Israel exists as a protector of American interests in the Middle East; this clearly is likewise a very dubious notion. As of yet, divergent priorities have caused no serious breach in the US-Israeli relationship. But the situation is not static. It is clear that Israeli national interests cannot be expected always to coincide with American or American-Jewish interests, and vice-versa, and the same holds true vis-à-vis Israel’s relationship with Jewish communities worldwide. This basic reality must be recognized before a meaningful relationship can be built between Israeli Jews and Jews of other nations.
This notion that there exists a common interest among all Jews is a fundamental misconception nurtured by the fact that Israel is a State which is not founded upon modern political precepts. It is the only state in the world that belongs, supposedly, not to a defined population of citizens, but rather to an ill-defined international body of people, at the cost of denying definition to its actual population. The fact is that a large sector of Israeli leadership, both on the Right and on the Left, are prepared to wait, as long as necessary, for the “Jewish People” to come “Home,” a concept which is of course politically absurd, and which in practice, produces an astonishing measure of political confusion for all Israelis who must ask themselves how they fit into this scenario.
Israel can be defined as a theocracy which was established by a secular majority. As it is politically organized now, the State does not officially concern itself with, or for that matter, acknowledge, its own people, the “Israelis,” as a political or social entity that is significant and worthwhile in itself with its own essence as a nation. To date, Israeli political leaders still do not grasp the fact that in 1948, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations community to be a sovereign state, an opportunity was given to Palestinian Jews to determine their own political identity, or in political terms, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty. It seems as though Israeli politicians do not wish to deal with this fact at all. But this is the crux of Israel’s existence: i.e., how to deal with its own self-determination, sovereignty and political identity.
Certain errors have been made by Israeli political leaders since the establishment of the Israeli nation. One fundamental failing that has led to this deep confusion concerning identity is the circumstance whereby the Constituent Assembly was abolished on the same day that it was assembled, and no constitution was ever drawn, either on that date or at any later date. Consequently in Israel a body of laws has taken the place of a desired constitution. And although these laws legally serve as a substitute for a constitution, they avoid dealing with many of the State’s most vital questions. For example, they fail to set forth a clear definition of such national concerns as civil liberties, the relationship between Nationality and Religion, and just who constitutes its citizenry. Since each of Israel’s political parties maintains its own national goals, no consensus has ever been reached on the manner in which the State should treat both its neighbors and its own non-Jewish, yet Israeli inhabitants. Israel’s isolation in the region is first of all a problem stemming from its lack of political definition vis-à-vis the question “Who is an Israeli?”, which is not to be mistaken for the legitimate theological question” Who is a Jew?” There was no need to establish a State in order to define this latter question. Hence, if no Israeli national identity exists, then the term “citizenship” is not serious, as it does not include non-Jewish Israelis, and to possess “citizenship” means nothing more than to hold a bureaucratic paper. It would thus follow that if there exists no Israeli Nation, then Israelis are just wasting their time in their desire to pursue self-determination. However, an Israeli Nation does exist, but it is a Nation that does not acknowledge its own existence.
Why as Jew and as an Israeli who lives in Israel must one also have to define himself as a Zionist? It is a paradox today that Zionism, a confused, politically and religiously undefined ideology, does not in essence recognize the State of Israel. For according to the Zionists, Israel does not belong to Israelis, but rather to a whole mixed spread of Jewish people. There is an attempt among Zionists to make the uniqueness of Jews, and Jewish life, a norm in Israel. As an example of the Zionist stand, one must only look at the phenomenon whereby Zionist Congresses continued to be held even following the proclamation of Israel’s statehood, just as they had been held before this event. One can only wonder whether it would thus follow that the State of Israel were suddenly to vanish, then too the Zionist Congresses would likewise continue to convene as if nothing had ever happened.
It is not possible, practical or desirable to force Israeli national allegiance upon the Jews of the world. One must become accustomed to the idea that there are well-meaning Jews who prefer not to live in Israel; also, that there are Jews living outside of Israel who are politically different from Israelis. This in no sense should imply that Israeli Jews and other Jews cannot develop a meaningful cultural or any other type of positive relationship, if they should so desire. But it does draw a line to the fact that not all Jews belong to the same political entity, and consequently no unfaltering political connection or destiny does or can exist between Jews of Israel and Jews of other nations. Certain steps must be taken immediately in order to effect a drastic change in this state of political confusion in Israel. This then leads us to the second part of this paper.
Israel’s Attitude Toward Israeli Arabs & the Palestinian People
The solution to the question concerning Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People constitutes part of the confusion of the IPI. In political terms, the solution is very simple: the government of Israel must give Israeli Arabs a political option to become part of the Israeli Nation. This would include military service or other similar options on their part, and full citizenship in return. If, on the other hand, an Israeli Arab should choose not to become a citizen, then he would be able to become a resident, such as the US offers, in which case he would be required to obey the laws of the land and would be able to work, but he would be unable to vote or voice otherwise justifiable complaints that he is a second-class citizen. Should this political goal be realized, it would, I believe, effect a giant change and debate among Israelis, as well as a change towards Israel’s chances for survival in the region. However, the mentality in Israel today is such that everyone speaks of the Palestinian people in the West Bank as a problem, while ignoring the core issue of a million Israeli Arabs who carry Israeli identity cards, yet do not see themselves as part of the Israeli nation.
Political recognition must also be given to the Palestinian people. Their political identity has developed throughout the years and has been shaped without question and with Israel’s help.
The Palestinian problem has to be faced squarely and realistically. There is a Palestinian people! I see no reason to continue claiming that there is no such people In the long run, the Palestinians and the Israelis will have to develop the best of relations and cooperation because of the geopolitics of the area. This will lead to the promise of a better future for both nations and to the potential prosperity of the region.
The material presented here as a suggestion for a different Israel must be initiated by the Israeli Government. Before this can happen, however, some major political changes will have to occur in the State of Israel. Among them are the following:
- A separation between Religion and Nationality. This distinction would, on one side, strengthen respect for religion and religious people and enable religion to be a moral driving force behind Israeli society. On the other side, a constitution separated from religious biases would set the foundation for a workable solution to the question of Israeli nationals, a group to include anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who desires to swear loyalty to Israel.
- The abolition of the Law of Return. This act would serve to diminish further Yerida, as it would finally amend Israel’s discriminatory attitude toward its own citizens. The rescinding of the Law of Return does not mean that Israel would turn its back upon persecuted Jews. But is would mean recognition of the idea that fifty years is a long enough period of time for Jews so desiring to have returned to Israel. All laws of immigration must be reexamined and modernized in their approach. Clearly, however, in any case where Jews are in physical danger, the State of Israel would as policy do anything possible to extend aid, bringing outside victims to Israel only if they should so desire. To promote Aliyah and condemn Yerida would no longer be a matter of the State. Jews of all nations and Israelis would be free to choose where they want to reside.
- A change in the role of the Zionist movement, which would hence come to recognize the State of Israel as a political and sovereign entity. The Zionist movement might then be replaced by a new body, if such is desired, which might be called, for example, “Friends of Israel.” This organization would not be involved in Israeli politics and could perhaps carry out a more constructive role by undertaking various sorts of social work or cultural projects in Israel. It might also serve as a friendly ambassador for the State of Israel among Jews and non-Jews living outside the State.
