Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state gets rough reaction in Europe
The message is starting to filter through. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement at his recent meeting with Barack Obama that the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a specifically Jewish state is now doing the rounds.
Today’s Guardian website, Comment is Free, carries an opinion piece on the subject. Typically, an Israeli of a far-Left disposition (ie. he represents thinking right at the fringes of Israeli society) is thrust into the front line to make the case that this is another example of Israeli obstructionism. The Jewishness of the Israeli state issue raised by Netanyahu is then tied in to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s suggestions about asking Israeli Arabs to swear an oath of loyalty and his proposals that the borders might be redrawn in some areas so that Israeli Arabs unahappy with the Jewish state could become citizens of a prospective Palestinian state whose new borders would embrace their towns and villages.
The author, Dimi Reider asks: “Are we facing the prospect of an ethnic cleansing? To a degree, ethnic cleansing has always been part and parcel of Israeli political life.”
Ah, so that is what the article was all about then. Just another opportunity to bash Israel again. Unfortunately, the premise of the argument is fundamentally flawed.
For one thing, there is nothing new in Netanyahu’s call. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, made the same demand. As the Associated Press reported in November 2007: “The starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians following the Annapolis meeting will be recognition of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people,” Olmert’s office said following talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Jerusalem. “The prime minister made it clear that from Israel’s point of view this issue isn’t subject to either negotiations or discussion.”
So the idea that this is all the product of some new extremist government is simply false.
Also, what on earth is wrong in Israel defining itself as a Jewish state and insisting that as a sign of good faith the Palestinians should recognise it as such? Dozens of states define themselves as Christian or Muslim and no-one seems to mind.
The writer’s mentality, though, is familiar to anyone who follows the political scene here in Europe. A far-Left, defeatest, self-hating multiculturalism has taken hold of the political mainstream. The concept that anyone should feel pride in their identity both eludes and appals the people who run our political culture. But anyone who knows what is going on in Europe these days will know where such sentiments are leading.
In the face of the Islamist challenge, free speech is collapsing. The European supranationalists are destroying democratic principles by ignoring referendum results which go against them. And into the void comes a resurgent far-Right. Just because Europe is on the way down that is no reason for Israel to follow suit.
For the record, then, here is the Guardian op-ed piece in full:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/10/israeli-palestinians-jewish-state
June 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
There’s a subtle point that I think you missed here Robin.
As Dimi Reider says in the article, the subject of how to define the state of Israel is of some debate within Israel itself. Judaism being both a religion and an ethnic group is the root of the problem - there’s no difference in English when using the word Jewish, but there is in Hebrew. Of course Israeli-Arab leaders wants Israel to be defined as a zero-ethnicity bi-national state which will essentially mean the end for the national Jewish homeland idea as defined by the UN at the time (a still-binding document if I remember correctly).
Defining Israel as a Judaist state or Jewish (as in a people) state is a very delicate subject, with a small majority for the former.
This discussion has nothing to do with the (correct) analysis you give here, but might confuse those who are unfamiliar with the term.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
defeatist? self hating? maybe you’re the defeatist one if you’re resorting to such dull rhetoric. Why don’t you just accept other people’s opinions for what they are? Face the argument, not the speaker - or you show your own weakness. If you really care for freedom of speech - don’t tag people just because they think otherwise.
“Just another opportunity to bash Israel again” - again, easy way to not differentiate between the different arguments (”bashings”), nuances..
would you care to pay attention to what people actually say, or are you so afraid that you shut your eyes after 2 sentences and murmur ‘anti semitic islamist multiculturist self hater yada yada yada’.. ?
June 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Naama - I think you missed the point.
Dimi Reider didn’t actually explain why it’s illegitimate to demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state (state of the Jews, for the matter, as I explained in the previous post). He stated that Israel’s self-definition is a somewhat debated issue and then claimed it’s wrong of Netanyahu to demand recognition for Israel as a Jewish state, because there is some debate around it.
The point is that the debate is not whether or not Israel should be an Jewish-ethnic country (although you might object to the idea, the vast majority of the Israeli populace doesn’t), but as for the how Jewish, as in religious vs. secular-ethnic-centric that country will be. And this is where Dimi leaves off and simply bashes Israel for things not related to Netanyahu’s demand. No matter how you look at it, it’s just bashing when the criticism is done using a faulty excuse.