| << Prev || עברית || Français || Русский || Next >> |
Part Seven - The Diplomatic Plan - Making Israel a Jewish State
Background to the Diplomatic Plan (2/2)
The purpose of the Oslo Plan and its derivatives
Well, if it is neither "peace" nor "security", neither the "demography" nor the "Palestinian nationalism," not the international pressure and not the economy – what is the purpose for which we seek a political plan? The real and profound answer is that we seek legitimacy for Israeli identity.
This was explained by none other than the architect of Oslo – Dr. Ron Pundak, who has since passed away:[2]
"I want peace so that there will be 'Israeliness.' Peace is not an end in itself, it is a means of transferring Israel from one era to another, into an era of what I consider a normal state. 'Israelization' of society instead of its 'Judaization' will enable the integration of Jewish nationalism, the flourishing of Israeli culture, the separation of religion and state and full equality for the Arab minority in Israel."
We, the Israelis, want to define ourselves through our neighbors. We aspire to a situation in which our neighbors will accept our existence in the region, and from this the world will adopt us into the family of nations. We strive to find our place among the nations[3]; we strive to become "a nation like all the other nations" – in short, we aspire to create for the Jews an ordinary national identity, an identity that comes as it does for other nations, out of sovereignty in their own country, instead of the identity which is distinct from all the nations, which stems from the ancient covenant engraved in their flesh.
Simply put, we aspire to Israeliness instead of Judaism: to define ourselves on the basis of citizenship instead of on the basis of nationalism. As long as our neighbors fight us and do not accept this new Israeliness as legitimate, we are thrown back to the Jewish point of departure from which we left, or fled. Therefore, we need an agreement with the Arabs. Not because of all the security, demographic and other excuses, we need an agreement with them at any cost in order to realize the dream of Israeli normalcy. The Jews need the cooperation of the Arabs, in order to be Israelis, or if you like – the Israeli needs the Arab in order to forget that he is a Jew.
The thousands of victims of terror, the handing over of parts of the homeland, the uprooting of settlements on their inhabitants, missiles in the skies of Tel Aviv, the loss of existential legitimacy, the loss of more than 10 percent of the state budget each year – these are not the price of "Peace" or a solution to the demographic "problem", but rather the price to be paid in the framework of the internal struggle over the identity of the state.
When the war does not end, peace does not begin
The basic position of inferiority, which conditions Israeli identity on our neighbors, channels us into a zero-sum game, which is expressed precisely in the slogan "land for peace."
Throughout history, it has always been the winning side in a war who offers peace in exchange for the assets of the opponent. But here we have a unique situation in which we have handed over to an enemy who is weaker than us – militarily and economically – the most important asset of all: the keys to Israeli identity. This possession is not dependent on the outcome of a war. On the contrary, if, theoretically, the enemy were to be destroyed completely, we would again find ourselves as a "nation living alone" – alone with our Jewish identity. Therefore, we must not really win – and indeed, we never have really won. Not a single one of Israel's wars ended with an unconditional surrender, as is customary in existential wars between nations that end in the total defeat of one side on the battlefield.
Our internal identity crisis leads to the fact that the term "victory' is not found in our lexicon at all. Even when the IDF destroys the enemy's armies, heroically and with great skill, it doesn't even occur to us to take the final step and lead the enemy states to an explicit political surrender, because then there will be no one to with whom to make peace and from whom to receive recognition. Our enemies will always find new weaponry and fresh soldiers, and when the concept of "victory" is not available, the war never really ends and peace can never really begin.
Anyone perceptive understands that the process we are witnessing is not a peace process, but a continuation of war by other means. The outcome of the process is parallel to the outcome of a successful military campaign for the enemy: we experience loss of territory and legitimacy, economic damage and internal demoralization. Recognition of "Palestinian" justice in the framework of the Oslo Accords, and their right to the Land of Israel and the territorial concessions that followed, did not lead to a complete acceptance of Israel's existence, but rather the opposite: to a serious process of delegitimization in the West. The price is a lot more than we paid before the "peace process" – the economic price is enormous, but the most serious of all is the delegitimization in the consciousness of the new Israeli generation. The young Israeli who first formed his views after the beginning of the political process (30-40 years) no longer sees himself as a native of the country, but as a guest in his country. The salt of the earth and the rock of its existence is the Arab man. The expulsion of Jews from their homes has become legitimate, but no one would ever think of such action against Arabs. It is therefore possible to say explicitly that the enemy is succeeding in defeating us by "peace" and slowly achieving what he wanted to achieve but failed to in war.
The Israeli who already understands that he will not get peace, hopes that at least by means of a "bribe" in the form of land "stolen" from the Arab in 1967, the Arabs will be willing to ignore the "Theft of 1948." However, the retreat from legitimacy has long since crossed the 1948 lines. The "original sin" in the prestigious universities in the West is no longer the 1967 conquests, nor even the partition plan in 1947. The "original sin" is the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in other words, the very opening of the door to the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel in any area.
"We have established a state for you ... We dreamed of a place where the new book of books will be written for the redemption of the world, because you are the chosen people," British intellectuals explained to Professor Ze'ev Tzahor their anger at Israel. "The world had expectations and see what you did."
–From an interview given by Tzahor to Meir Uziel in Makor Rishon
All the political programs offered to the Israeli public by the political spectrum in all its forms come out of a concept of "Israelization" of society rather than its "Judaization" – as Ron Pundak puts it. Their prospect is not the realization of Jewish identity in the national dimension, but rather the exact opposite. The plans all assume that the conflict is territorial, and therefore giving up territory will lead to peace that will allow us to be accepted as a normal people among our neighbors from near and far.
But the escape from identity blocks any hope for peace. If we need peace in order to receive recognition of the new "Israelization" we have invented for ourselves, and as a result the enemy receives an insurance policy, and we can't charge him more than he's able to meet – why should he give us peace? Why shouldn't he demand more and more payments as he is actually doing? Why shouldn't he keep going and resolve the struggle by means of the "peace process"?
An alternative program can therefore succeed only if it serves a completely opposite strategic goal. Not "Israelization" of the state but rather its "Judaization"[4].
[2] https://www.crisisgroup.org/en/file/1239/download?token=33KVS3AB, p. 35, note 225.
[3] Let us note the original name of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main book: "A Place Among the Nations".
[4] This is not the place to go deeper and explain that the Arabs are truly prepared for the peace of our people, but only for those who respect the identities and cultures of the region. The Arab is ready for peace with the Jew – but not with a European colonialist who forces his identity on him. When the Jew comes with an Israeli mask, the Arab wears a Palestinian mask and peace becomes impossible.
| << Prev || עברית || Français || Русский || Next >> |