This double issue on national identity is devoted to a weighty
subject that is crucial for all of us in this region. National
identity is often a force that dominates conflict between peoples,
not least in the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation. Nevertheless,
it can also be a concept that provides meaning and motivation for
people everywhere to conduct an active struggle for the realization
of shared ideas, emotions and values.
While in its modern meaning, national identity emerged only in the
last two hundred years, the concept of nation has been in use for
more than two thousands years. It originated in ancient times,
especially in association with the city-state concept. The word
used in English, "nation," derives from Latin "to be born." Today,
national identity does not only imply self-categorization as a
member of a "nation" or self-identification with a nation. Other
key elements construct (in Benedict Anderson's words) an "imagined
community," including a sense of belonging, unity, loyalty and
solidarity. In addition, national identity implies a whole range of
contents, requirements, and forces that accompany this
social-political phenomenon.
The contents of an identity include all the shared goals, ideas,
narratives, collective memories, societal beliefs, holidays,
commemorations, rituals and myths that give meaning to the notion
of national identity. The requirements refer to the goals set by
national identity that need to be fulfilled through, for example,
the achievement of independence and self¬determination, or the
establishment of a nation-state. When we speak of forces, we refer
to activities that are inherent in the construction of national
identity - among them are mobilization for achievement of national
goals and readiness to make sacrifices for a nation's sake.
Often, two or more national identities collide over
self-determination, territories, narratives, myths, rights and
goals. And sometimes this leads to intractable conflict. In such a
case, one nation constructs a notion that
its own national identity is threatened as long as another national
identity exists. This was so in the case of Jews and Palestinians
who, for many years, negated the existence of each other. Now the
time of denial has passed, and much progress has been made toward
better mutual understanding and recognition. But there are still
many antagonistic elements within each national group that
contribute to perpetuating the conflict, since they assume that the
two sides have totally opposed national goals and contradictory
collective memories.
The core of the conflict is this: Jews have already fulfilled their
goal and established the State of Israel, while the Palestinians
are still struggling to fulfill their aspirations. At present,
Palestinians are living under Israeli occupation and are striving
to realize an objective derived directly from their national
identity - the establishment of a Palestinian state.
This asymmetry in national fulfillment should be a concern to both
nations. Only the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in
the territories that Israel conquered during the 1967 war (the West
Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem) will correct the
asymmetry. More and more people are becoming convinced that
establishing such a state not only serves the interests of the
Palestinian people but also the interests of the Israeli people -
indeed of the entire international community.
First and foremost, the fulfillment of Palestinian national
aspirations will mean an end to the occupation, which by all moral
standards is unjustified, pernicious and brutal. It will also
correct a historical debt, since the Palestinian state was supposed
to have been founded decades ago. It is the only way to ensure the
security to which all Israelis and Palestinians aspire.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict does not have to be of zero sum
nature and irreconcilable, as some leaders and groups on both sides
present it. Such an irreconcilable characteristic, however, is not
inherent in the . conflict; rather, it is constructed by human
beings who do not have the desire to resolve it peacefully by
making the necessary compromises that will satisfy the goals and
needs of both nations. While progress obviously depends on the two
parties, in the present stage of the conflict the Israeli
government holds many more of the political cards than does the
Palestinian National Authority.
No doubt progress in political negotiations would provide hope to
both nations and decrease the violence. Almost invariably,
negotiations between rival nations in the world on reducing
violence in the past decades were carried out under conditions of
violence. Thus, the Israeli government has made unrealistic demands
for "quiet" while its own policies are instigating waves of
violence precisely at a time when a reduction of terror is within
reach. This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the present
Israeli government lacks a sincere desire to offer anything
realistic in its negotiations with the Palestinians. Instead, it is
searching for excuses to avoid serious negotiations that would lead
to the establishment of a viable, sovereign and independent
Palestinian state. However, a state and no less than a state is
what the Palestinian nation merits in order to forge an ultimate
meaning to its national identity.
We call on all peace-loving political forces in the region and in
the world that believe in the necessity of negotiation and dialogue
to help both nations restore their hopes for peace. Otherwise, the
present agonizing cycles of violence and bloodshed would only lead
to a dead end. Peaceful coexistence between two independent
nation-states is the only viable alternative.
<