By Shlomo Avineri
Ha'aretz (Israel)
August 20, 2009
Prof. Shimon Shamir is right ("Ask Mustafa Khalil," August 17) [see below] in stating that, "It is not our concern if Egypt defines itself as Islamic, Arab, African or pharaonic. We recognize Egypt as a political entity..." Based on this premise, Shamir makes the case that we are not to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Yet the analogy is not valid for a number of reasons.
First, Israel has never called into question the existence of the Egyptian political entity. On the other hand, the Palestinians, through their rejection of the UN Partition Plan, refused to recognize the Jewish state and embarked on a war to destroy it. This is, after all, the root of the conflict. Indeed, the Palestinian narrative is based on the rejection of the existence of a Jewish nation state in any part of the territory they call Palestine.
If you declared war against the Jewish state, does not the signing of a peace treaty with that state obligate you to accept it? This does not mean the Palestinians are asked to accept the Zionist narrative, but it is incumbent upon them to alter their narrative, which rules out the existence of a Jewish state.
This is exactly what Israel did at Camp David and Oslo. Under the terms of binding international agreements, Israel has committed itself to recognizing "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian Arab nation." Menachem Begin was the first to do this. For many Zionists, and not just those who were schooled in the ideological camp of Herut, this was difficult. In contrast to what is thought in extreme rightist circles, this is not tantamount to relinquishing the Zionist narrative, it is a willingness to accept the legitimacy of a competing narrative and to seek a compromise.
We only ask of the Palestinians that which we ourselves have done in the past.
As foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who supported the principle of two nation states for two peoples, always mentioned that this entailed Palestinian recognition of Israel as a state of the Jewish people. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first to broach the idea. It remains uncertain whether he acted wisely in the manner he gave the issue such prominence, but what shocked many Israelis — not just Likud members — was the blunt and vulgar response given by official Palestinian spokespeople.
In their ferociously negative response, Shamir claims that the Palestinians "fell into the trap that those who demanded recognition of a Jewish state had set for them." Yet apparently there was no fall into any rhetorical trap. Rather, this was an expression of a deep, internal ideological truth that to this day refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. Because as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Jews are not a nation, but rather a religious-ethnic group.
Yet the Palestinians must understand that just as Golda Meir claimed that "there is no Palestinian people," the same response applies to their view of the Jewish people. If they define themselves as a nation, then they are a nation.
Shamir is correct in stating that "our existence does not depend on what they say." But their opinion and their position are important. Peace is made between enemies. The Palestinians fought the Jewish state, and if they truly and sincerely wish to forge peace, they must be willing to come to terms with the Jewish state, and to do so explicitly, without stuttering.
Obviously this is not simple, but neither the Partition Plan nor the acceptance of the principle of two states for two peoples is a simple matter for many Jews and Zionists. But this is what is urgently needed.
Showing posts with label recognition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recognition. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Ask Mustafa Khalil
By Shimon Shamir
Ha'aretz (Israel)
August 17, 2009
In Israeli political discourse, the demand that the Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, recognize Israel as a Jewish state or as the state of the Jewish people has been heard more and more recently. The demand is being presented as an ultimatum, ruling out peace agreements with Arabs who reject it. It is a problematic demand.
Defining Israel as Jewish is an ideological decision and a matter for the country's citizens alone to make. In international relations, recognition of states is based on criteria such as sovereignty, independence and control of territory. A state's ideological definition of itself is not a matter for consideration by other countries as long as it doesn't represent an aggressive threat.
It is not our concern, for example, if Egypt defines itself as Islamic, Arab, African or pharaonic. We recognize Egypt as a political entity, but its ideological character is determined only by Egypt's political community. Countries are recognized by other countries without regard to whether they are communist or capitalist, or whether they are national or multinational in character.
Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan without demanding recognition of the state's Jewish character. There was no opportunity nor was it reasonable to extract such a demand from them. I recall that after the peace treaty with Egypt was signed, Egyptian minister Boutros Boutros-Ghali and prime minister Mustafa Khalil came to Tel Aviv University in 1980 to speak with the faculty about relations in the wake of the signing. Khalil said emotionally: "We want relations of friendship and peace with Israel, but I must say in all candor that when we speak about the Jews, we never conceive [of them] as a national entity. Of course, for you in Israel and in the Zionist movement, there is a different outlook, but that is our viewpoint in Egypt, and I must present it to you honestly." Khalil was a devoted supporter of peace with Israel.
The demand for recognition of the state's Jewishness serves two purposes. On the conceptual level, it provides a lifeline for those who have always argued that the Arabs are not willing to make peace, even though they now face an Arab leadership that expresses consent in principle for peace with Israel. The Arab peace initiative, which proposes normal relations and an end of the conflict and makes Palestinian refugees' right of return subject to Israel's consent, is especially disturbing to people of this school of thought. All of this is in return for steps by Israel, most of them no different from those required, for example, by the Americans. Therefore, imposing an additional "test" supports Arab rejectionist reasoning.
On the functional level, the demand eases pressure to renew negotiations, particularly after the Israeli government was dragged into recognizing the principle of two states subject to a condition the Palestinians clearly cannot accept. Acceptance of the condition would require the Palestinians to convert their national narrative to a Zionist narrative, which much of the world community also does not accept - as opposed to recognizing Israel as an existing state. Our existence does not depend on what they say.
The state's definition has ramifications on subjects such as the Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinians and relations between the majority and the Arab minority, as well as the state's language and culture. These, however, are practical problems, some of which should be solved through political negotiations or decision making within the Israeli political process.
The Palestinians fell into the trap that those who demanded recognition of a Jewish state had set for them. Instead of responding that it is not their concern how the Israelis define their state (as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad recently suggested), they coalesced around a position explicitly rejecting the existence of a Jewish state, which is not their right. Their adamant response has created an obstacle to peace that is the counterpart to the demand for recognizing the state as Jewish.
Ha'aretz (Israel)
August 17, 2009
In Israeli political discourse, the demand that the Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, recognize Israel as a Jewish state or as the state of the Jewish people has been heard more and more recently. The demand is being presented as an ultimatum, ruling out peace agreements with Arabs who reject it. It is a problematic demand.
Defining Israel as Jewish is an ideological decision and a matter for the country's citizens alone to make. In international relations, recognition of states is based on criteria such as sovereignty, independence and control of territory. A state's ideological definition of itself is not a matter for consideration by other countries as long as it doesn't represent an aggressive threat.
It is not our concern, for example, if Egypt defines itself as Islamic, Arab, African or pharaonic. We recognize Egypt as a political entity, but its ideological character is determined only by Egypt's political community. Countries are recognized by other countries without regard to whether they are communist or capitalist, or whether they are national or multinational in character.
Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan without demanding recognition of the state's Jewish character. There was no opportunity nor was it reasonable to extract such a demand from them. I recall that after the peace treaty with Egypt was signed, Egyptian minister Boutros Boutros-Ghali and prime minister Mustafa Khalil came to Tel Aviv University in 1980 to speak with the faculty about relations in the wake of the signing. Khalil said emotionally: "We want relations of friendship and peace with Israel, but I must say in all candor that when we speak about the Jews, we never conceive [of them] as a national entity. Of course, for you in Israel and in the Zionist movement, there is a different outlook, but that is our viewpoint in Egypt, and I must present it to you honestly." Khalil was a devoted supporter of peace with Israel.
The demand for recognition of the state's Jewishness serves two purposes. On the conceptual level, it provides a lifeline for those who have always argued that the Arabs are not willing to make peace, even though they now face an Arab leadership that expresses consent in principle for peace with Israel. The Arab peace initiative, which proposes normal relations and an end of the conflict and makes Palestinian refugees' right of return subject to Israel's consent, is especially disturbing to people of this school of thought. All of this is in return for steps by Israel, most of them no different from those required, for example, by the Americans. Therefore, imposing an additional "test" supports Arab rejectionist reasoning.
On the functional level, the demand eases pressure to renew negotiations, particularly after the Israeli government was dragged into recognizing the principle of two states subject to a condition the Palestinians clearly cannot accept. Acceptance of the condition would require the Palestinians to convert their national narrative to a Zionist narrative, which much of the world community also does not accept - as opposed to recognizing Israel as an existing state. Our existence does not depend on what they say.
The state's definition has ramifications on subjects such as the Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinians and relations between the majority and the Arab minority, as well as the state's language and culture. These, however, are practical problems, some of which should be solved through political negotiations or decision making within the Israeli political process.
The Palestinians fell into the trap that those who demanded recognition of a Jewish state had set for them. Instead of responding that it is not their concern how the Israelis define their state (as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad recently suggested), they coalesced around a position explicitly rejecting the existence of a Jewish state, which is not their right. Their adamant response has created an obstacle to peace that is the counterpart to the demand for recognizing the state as Jewish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
