The Israeli demand to be recognized as a Jewish state was not only one of the main reasons for the failure of the Annapolis conference, it was one of the most controversial issues of the negotiations. This demand is rejected by Palestinians and all Arab governments. Hence, the support for the Israeli position on this controversial issue by President George W. Bush in his opening speech at Annapolis marked a snub to the Arabs and a failure of their diplomacy.
It is useful to recall that during the good old years of negotiations and agreements between Israel and the PLO this was never an issue. Even during the negotiations on mutual recognition , Israel never demanded to be recognized as anything other than Israel. Nor was the Jewish nature of the state an issue in later peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. It is thus possible to conclude that this change is a result of the radicalization that has gripped Israel over the last seven years since, and because of, the collapse of the peace process after Camp David.
But it is also possible that introducing this impossible demand was an Israeli tactic to avoid the real issues of the conflict. This is consistent with the analysis that the Israeli leadership is interested in a process of negotiations, but cannot afford actual negotiations on final status issues like Jerusalem, refugees and settlements because this is too controversial domestically.
The Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, have many good reasons to reject the concept of Israel as a Jewish state . It is racist, discriminates against Israel s large non-Jewish minority and negates the legal right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland from which they were forced to flee 60 years ago in order to make way for Jews who claimed their ancestors had lived in Palestine two or three thousand years ago.
At best, the Zionist claim that Jews around the world constitute one people, rather than constituting a religious community of different peoples, is controversial even among Jews. In addition, the concept of a Jewish state contradicts the principles of secularism. Secularists, including Jews, find it difficult to accept basing nationalism on religion. The modern concept of statehood is not compatible with a religious state, at least among seculars. In the same way, there has to be strong resistance to the idea of a state for the Muslim people or a state for the Christian people, especially when such states include non-Muslim or non-Christian minorities. It is interesting to note that the only American president who has accepted the concept of a Jewish state is the least secular president in the history of the United States.
Israel, even without counting refugees, is the homeland for a significant minority of non-Jews, Arab Christians and Muslims who constitute 20 percent of the population. Put aside for a moment that these are the indigenous people of the country; their very presence means that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is the embodiment of a racist attitude. According to Israeli human rights organizations, such racism is on the rise in Israel.
There is a strong suspicion among analysts that one of the implicit motives for this Israeli position is simply to prevent Arab countries from raising the issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees. It is a common enough Israeli negotiating tactic: add a new and difficult demand and then bargain that new demand with whatever Israel wants from the Palestinian side. You want us to drop this demand, do not insist on the right of return.
But the Palestinian position is supported by international law and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 that explicitly give Palestinian refugees the right of return and compensation. What is the legal justification for this Israeli demand?
The least reasonable answer to this question was provided by the amateur Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, when she referred to the language of UNGA Resolution 181, which calls for the creation of an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine. Is she suggesting adding that resolution to the terms of reference for the negotiations? In that case, the Palestinian state will comprise far more than the measly 22 percent currently being negotiated over. Or is she just being selective? Can we be selective? Resolution 181 calls the Palestinian state Arab rather than Palestinian. Is Livni suggesting that we start to call for an aliya of all Arabs to Palestine?
Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons.org family of internet publications. He is vice-president of Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning. This article is published by Daily News Egypt in collaboration with BitterLemons.org.
