But should not the establishment of such a state--which the Europeans so strongly promote--adhere to the European Union's 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, "Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities"?
Not unless Palestine is applying for membership in the EU, no. This has been my edition of simple answers to
The idea that political rights are something you "earn" through sufficient social advancement is an idea we discredited not one but two centuries ago. Recognition of one's rights should never be considered an "unreasonable" demand to make. It is something that should come with the territory, if you will. I find it a moral violation when Palestinian and Arab states refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as constituted by its citizens (that is, as a Jewish state). But I have no grounds to assert the wrongness of that belief if I am not willing to affirm that claim equally for the Palestinians: that Palestine has a right -- a right just as unconditional as Israel's -- to exist. You can affirm that and still say that we need to negotiate our way to a settlement (though I support unilateral disengagement and recognition, with negotiations proceeding from there -- I'd prefer this dispute to be one of borders between nations). But you have to affirm the basic right.
And this puts me in a quandary, because right now the Israeli Prime Minister (in contrast to the opposition) does not recognize this right. He flatly opposes a Palestinian state. Not that the time isn't ripe, not that "we can't do it now". He rejects Palestine's right to exist. That's wrong. And unless you're willing to say it is wrong, you don't have grounds to complain when the Palestinian Authority takes the same position.
Doron, for his part, vacillates between opposing a Palestinian state flatly and implying, as he does above, that they need to meet requisite standards of political maturity before it is established. They are different positions, but it doesn't really matter. There is a name for putting a people under the occupation and political control of an external sovereign, of whom they are not citizens and have limited political, social, and legal rights, until such time as they are deemed enlightened enough to be worthy of self-governance. Its name is colonialism, and its track record is not good. Doron seems to specifically want Israel to be a colonial power.
Remind me what pro-Israel means again?
20 comments:
I find it a moral violation when Palestinian and Arab states refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as constituted by its citizens (that is, as a Jewish state).I think it would be better to say "by most of its citizens"; phrasing it as you do effectively erases the majority of Arab Israelis, most of whom don't think Israel should be a "Jewish" state. (Disturbingly, 40% are holocaust deniers.)
At least as regards the particulars of the Israel/Palestine situation, I agree that both parties have a right to a state, and it would be better if leaders on all sides recognized the other state's right to existence unconditionally. However, I despise anyone on either side who uses this issue as an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table.
In a democratic polity, a state is constituted with reference to how the majority wishes it to be constituted. In Israel, that takes the form of a Jewish state. Minority positions lose in democracies, but that isn't the same thing as them being "erased".
Palestinian negotiators are currently rejected Israeli demands that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Their argument is that it is up to the citizens of Israel to determine what their state is, and that they have no business whether Israel identifies as "a Jewish state" or a "people's collective republic". There's a grain of truth to that, but it skirts the importance of recognition as (what I believe to be) the true critical issue in the conflict.
The reason I chose my phrasing the way I did (rather than the more standard "recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state") is a nod to that argument, leaving open the possibility that, one day in the future, Israelis will decide they want a different identification, and that recognition would accord equally to "The Jewish State of Israel" as it would to "The People's Collective of Israel".
In a democratic polity, a state is constituted with reference to how the majority wishes it to be constituted.The US isn't a Christian nation, not even if a majority of Americans wishes it to be constituted that way. And imo, that's the way it should be. Majority rule shouldn't extend to the right to make minorities less than full and equal citizens. As Jews living in a majority-Christian nation, we of all people should appreciate that.
Israel is said to be a Jewish state in its declaration of independence -- but that wasn't voted for by the citizens, and is not legally binding. The Knesset could vote to amend the Basic Law to declare Israel a Jewish state, but it hasn't done so yet, afaik.
In any case, even if a majority of the elected legislature votes for something, that doesn't automatically mean the majority of citizens agrees with it.
So I'm not sure you have any real grounds for your claim that Israel is a Jewish nation because that's what a majority of Israelis want. Israel doesn't decide these things by polling its citizens, and the way it does decide its laws -- through the legislature -- doesn't always represent the majority's view.
Do you object to acknowledging that a significant number of Israelis don't want Israel to be a Jewish nation? I assume you don't.
* * *
Back to the point, I don't see Palestinian acknowledgment of Israel as a Jewish state as a point worth losing lives over. Neither the treaty with Jordon, nor the treaty with Egypt, contains such a requirement, yet both of them have been effective peace treaties which have benefited Israel. Why is that not a reasonable way to fashion a peace treaty today?
Correction to my previous comment: According to this article, there is a reference to Israel as a Jewish state in the Basic Law:
The reference to the Jewish State in Israeli law is in "the Basic Law: The Knesset" which states that political parties or individuals who do not recognize Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" cannot run in elections. .
Relevant to this discussion, the writer also says:
THERE ARE TWO substantive reasons why the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians have not received from Israel any clear answer regarding the status of more than one million Palestinians in Israel should Israel be recognized by them as a Jewish state. Palestinians fear that they would be paving the road that would be used by Israel to transfer the Palestinian citizens of Israel to the Palestinian state. That fear is substantiated by the stated policies of Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs and the plans that Avigdor Lieberman has developed for moving the border between the two state where there are large clusters of Palestinian-Israeli citizens, like Um el Fahem. The second substantive reason is that in their view it will a priori remove the discussion of the rights of Palestinian refugees from the negotiations table even before they have the chance to raise their claims and demands..
"The US isn't a Christian nation, not even if a majority of Americans wishes it to be constituted that way."
If a series of super-majorities want it to be a Christian nation, it can be -- just amend the various federal and state constitutions that say otherwise.
True! And in that alternative US, I'd feel much less comfortable living in the US and being an American.
But would you support non-recognition of the United States on that ground? I'd be unhappy if Congress passed a resolution declaring us to be a "Christian nation" -- but I wouldn't want the rest of the world to shun us for it.
I like that the US is not officially a Christian nation, but that's because I'm a pluralist and think the US is doing a pretty good job filling the niche of non-sectarian polyglot democratic state. If you want to live in an officially Christian nation, there are choices available for you (primarily in Europe), and Jews still tend to do okay there.
But if there was no Christian state anywhere, and Christians were a vulnerable and scattered minority, and they wanted to declare, say, Austria as a "Christian nation" that would be a place where they are the norm and not the other and could serve as a haven for Christians worldwide fleeing oppression, I wouldn't object -- though I'd insist that the state nonetheless observe principles of religious freedom and other standards of a liberal democracy. Of course, the differential status between global Judaism and global Christiandom makes this counterfactual quite absurd.
And of course there are all the countries that declare themselves to be Muslim nations and expect to be recognized as such -- should the U.S. cease to do so?
But would you support non-recognition of the United States on that ground? I'd be unhappy if Congress passed a resolution declaring us to be a "Christian nation" -- but I wouldn't want the rest of the world to shun us for it.I wouldn't support non-recognition on that ground.
Neither, however, would I support Americans who made the recognition as a "Christian state" a precondition for negotiation. Especially not in a situation where every day negotiations are put off, is a day that more people die. Would you support Americans who made that a precondition of negotiations?
I wanted to mention, despite my nit-picking, I agree with the main thrust of your orignal post. It's only the areas I disagree with, that I tend to talk about.
In your post, you said "I find it a moral violation when Palestinian and Arab states refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as constituted by its citizens (that is, as a Jewish state)." As I mentioned, the treaties with Egypt and Jordon both recognize Israel's right to exist, but make no comment on the "Jewish state" issue one way or the other. Do you find those treaties to be a "moral violation"? Is it a severe enough moral violation that, in your view, Israel would have been right to refuse to sign those peace treaties at all?
In a later comment, you wrote "If you want to live in an officially Christian nation, there are choices available for you (primarily in Europe), and Jews still tend to do okay there." It seems to me that Jews in Europe, in fact, face a lot more antisemitism than Jews in the US do, and the antisemitism there is more likely to be violent or threatening. (Which isn't to say that there's never any violent or threatening antisemitism in the US, just that it's significantly less frequent).
I think the European example rather proves my point, which is that religious minorities are better off living in a country that's officially pluralistic than one that has a state religion.
Discrimination against non-Jewish Israelis is a serious problem within Israel. I don't think the costs to Israeli minorities of making Israel a "Jewish state" are negligible.
Depends. Are we in my hypothetical "America is a tiny country and Christians are small and widely despised minority and this is the only potential Christian state in the world"? Because I do think that affects the analysis.
This whole preconditions thing is a bit of charade. Everybody has preconditions -- Bibi will enter into negotiations, he just doesn't want to say the words "Palestinian state" (sub: "self-rule" and "economic peace"). It's not true that negotiations without recognition of a future Palestine will necessarily be fruitless -- they could still do things to alleviate the pain and suffering and oppression going on now -- but nonetheless I certainly understand why the PA doesn't feel like taking part, even if their refusal has the effect of prolonging the conflict. It isn't up to us to tell each side what their redlines are (at least so long as those lines aren't inherently in tension with justice for the other party -- which is not true of either "Jewish state" or "Palestinian state").
The conventional wisdom I've been hearing is against the bit-by-bit, "confidence building" negotiations that leave all the hard issues to the end. I'm not a diplomacy expert, so I don't know if that's right or not. It's counter-intuitive to me, because I really want to see some (any!) progress made. But if they're right there is good reason to try and slam through the difficult concessions early (Jerusalem, right of return, "Jewish state", settlement blocs), so they don't lurk in the tall grass to eat up all the progress made.
PG wrote, "And of course there are all the countries that declare themselves to be Muslim nations and expect to be recognized as such -- should the U.S. cease to do so?"
What does this mean, in practice? What does the US actually do to recognize them as Muslim nations? Is there a piece of paper somewhere signed by the Secretary of State?
If the situation were negotiating a peace treaty, then I think the US should recognize them as a "Muslim nation" -- maintaining peace is generally more important than a symbolic issue. (Similarly, I'd say it would be better for the Muslim nation in question to not make that a sticking point, if it might prevent peaceful negotiations from proceeding).
With a real-life example, though, there may be further complications. I think the Palestinian concerns about recognizing Israel as a "Jewish nation" without negotiation are reasonable, because they're based not in symbolism but in concern for the day-to-day realities of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, and concern for what that does to the "right of return." That doesn't mean that Palestine shouldn't ever recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" -- but it should happen in a context of negotiation, so that these legitimate concerns can be addressed.
Also, I'd note it takes two to tango: We can say "Israel shouldn't hinge negotiations on recognition as it is currently constituted", but we could as easily say "Palestine shouldn't block negotiations by refusing to recognize Israel as currently constituted".
Regarding your "two to tango" claim, as regards this particular, narrow point, I disagree. "I will not agree to X without negotiation" and "I will not negotiate unless you first agree to X" are not morally equivalent positions.
Regarding the "conventional wisdom," I think there is a large space between "refuse to negotiate entirely unless you get a symbolic point that the other side can't agree to as a precondition," and "gradual, step by step, leave all the big issues to the very end many years from now." It is that space between that I think should be explored.
Why do I say Palestine's leaders can't agree to that precondition? From everything I've read from a Palestinian viewpoint, as a matter of political reality, no Palestinian leader can agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, while getting nothing in return, and expect to stay in power. It is an politically impossible demand, and Israel's government knows it; the purpose of the demand is to prevent negotiations.
For the third time, I'll ask you: Do you believe that the Egypt and Jordon peace treaties have been harmful to Israel's overall interests because they don't contain the phrase "Jewish state"? If signing major treaties that recognize Israel, but lack the phrase "Jewish state,' didn't destroy Israel, then surely agreeing to negotiate without that agreed to as a precondition won't destroy Israel either.
* * *
In general, I think the basic problem is that the internal politics of both cultures tend to punish sincere attempts at negotiations and concessions, and reward leaders who demonstrate "toughness" and inflexibility. The only real way to alter that balance is for the allies on both sides -- the Arab states for the Palestinians, the US for Israel -- to put strong pressure on both parties to negotiate and make concessions. Nothing will happen otherwise, because the internal political conditions of both countries forbid it.
As I said, I think it is up to the Israelis to determine what they need out of treaty with Egypt, Jordan, or Palestine (or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or...). The situation isn't the same as it was in the 1970s, and since the nature of Israel's quarrel with Egypt and Jordan is qualitatively different than that with Palestine (with the legitimacy of the state itself implicated to a far greater degree), I think the scenarios aren't analogous.
I also don't think your 2-to-tango response is on target -- particularly since the Palestinian position at the moment isn't "Jewish state up for negotiation, but it won't come free" but "we won't recognize it, full stop." Now, maybe that position can be modified in negotiations -- but you could say the same about Bibi's "no Palestinian state". The point is, both sides have words they want to hear the other say before negotiations commence. We can shake our fist at them for being unreasonable, but our crotchety-old-manness can't be directed only at one of the kids on the lawn.
I'm not going to say that it is Abbas' problem that he can't stay in power if he recognizes Israel as a Jewish state; only that if "political realities" are a legitimate argument, then it goes to both sides: what do you think Israeli voters will do if Israel makes yet another land for "peace" deal that just expands the area that Hamas can fire rockets at?*
* Maybe they won't, but maybe recognition of Israel as a Jewish state won't have calamitous effects on Palestinian rights -- we're talking about political perceptions here, and throws logic and probability out the window.
"Now, maybe that position can be modified in negotiations -- but you could say the same about Bibi's "no Palestinian state"."
Yes, I agree, the situations are parallel. But that's because neither side has said that it's something that they're not willing to have discussed, or that a concession on this is a precondition before negotiations can even begin.
In contrast, Israel -- out of what I see as a cynical desire to avoid negotiations -- has set the absurd and unneeded "Jewish state" precondition.[*] If that's something they need, then they should negotiate for it. To do otherwise while the carnage and torture and oppression continue is inexcusable.
[*]Note that there's a difference between saying that something is unneeded, full stop, and saying something is unneeded as a precondition.
I think you've got a poor memory of the conflict with Egypt, if you think recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation wasn't a major point back then.
You write, "if "political realities" are a legitimate argument, then it goes to both sides: what do you think Israeli voters will do if Israel makes yet another land for "peace" deal that just expands the area that Hamas can fire rockets at?*"
As I said, I thought clearly, I think political realities are strongly constraining both sides, which is why pressure from outsiders will be necessary on both sides.
I certainly agree that many Israelis (like many Americans) have accepted a racist narrative in which innocent, saintly Israel tried in good faith to give those mean brown people everything they wanted, and got rockets for their trouble, so there's no point in even negotiating with them anymore. It is because that narrative has such widespread acceptance that outside pressure on Israel will be necessary.
(And just to be clear, this is of course an area where there really are two tangoing; antisemitic narratives among Palestinians are also commonplace, and a serious barrier to any peace.)
The PA has said, I believe, that it does not believe it has a negotiating partner in Bibi because he won't recognize a Palestinian state -- that's preconditional, not "on the table".
It's entirely possible I'm misremembering Egypt: I was -9 years old at the time of Camp David. But I didn't say Israel's existence wasn't at issue in the conflict with Egypt, I said it was implicated to the same degree, which I think is true.
I also have to call out this: "I certainly agree that many Israelis (like many Americans) have accepted a racist narrative in which innocent, saintly Israel tried in good faith to give those mean brown people everything they wanted...."Regardless of how Americans see the conflict, I don't like how you're erasing the non-Ashkenazi Jewish population of Israel (the plurality, in fact) in this framing -- I doubt Israelis themselves are under any delusions about the presence of brown folks on both sides. I also think you understate the degree to which the Lebanon experience, post-withdrawal, really shook Israel's confidence (even more than Gaza did). There is no blur about "full withdrawal" (the UN agrees with Israel on Shebaa Farms, and the UN never agrees with Israel on anything), or blockades, or anything of the sort. And yet ... rockets. It's unfair to dismiss that experience as cavalierly as you do.
In any event, I certainly agree that we need American pressure to get folks to the negotiating table. The early rhetoric from the Obama admin has been pretty positive; I'll also be interested to hear what he says in Cairo.
"What does this mean, in practice? What does the US actually do to recognize them as Muslim nations? Is there a piece of paper somewhere signed by the Secretary of State?"
At minimum, it would include using for them the names they prefer that include references to being Muslim nations (for example, the U.S. embassies in Pakistan refer to it as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). Contrast America's shift from calling Taiwan the "Republic of China" (which is what the Taiwanese insist it is). It might seem like basic politeness to call a nation what its government says it is called, but that's not always how it goes when there's significance to the choice of name. (See also our insistence that what the military junta called Myanmar is still Burma.)
"Regardless of how Americans see the conflict, I don't like how you're erasing the non-Ashkenazi Jewish population of Israel (the plurality, in fact) in this framing -- I doubt Israelis themselves are under any delusions about the presence of brown folks on both sides".
.
I didn't refer to Israel's population, or even Israel's Jewish population, as white. Your parsing of my statement only makes sense if you assume that non-white Israelis are incapable of being racist against non-white Palestinians -- an assumption I doubt you make.
I could have been clearer, admittedly, but it seems to me you're inferring something I never said or implied -- that all Israeli Jews are white. Meanwhile, my point -- which is that racist narratives about Arabs and Palestnians affect how the viability of negotiation is perceived -- was completely ignored.
I don't think fellow brown Israelis are likely to see the problem with the Palestinians as being their brownness. Your implication was rather clearly to dichotomize the conflict into "brown" Palestinians and non-brown (purple?) Israelis, and I took exception to that. It locates the axis of the dispute along a plane that I think doesn't do justice to the competing claims and interests here, and flattens Israeli society to a degree that isn't really warranted (and one that supervenes on a stereotype of Israeli hyper-westernness that is erasing to a large chunk of its population, Jewish and otherwise).
Post a Comment