The single new development which Israel and the United States
managed to extract from the Annapolis meeting consists of
redefining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in baffling terms.
Those terms invite positing the central issue to be addressed as
the suffering not of the Palestinian but of the Israeli, and the
national rights to be rescued and internationally safeguarded as
not those of the oppressed native Palestinian people but rather
those of the Israeli oppressors. Beyond oppressing the Palestinians
and occupying their land, Israel managed, under the auspices of
this latest U.S. peace initiative, to strip the Palestinians even
of their position as victim and to appropriate that very position
as well.
In this way, Annapolis sought to establish the hegemony of the
Israeli demographic narrative over the geographic narrative. It
enabled the demographic project of the "Jewish character" of the
Israeli state to supersede the expansionist geographic project of
"Greater Israel" and to force it into obsolescence. The triumph of
the demographic narrative served, furthermore, to place the
national Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel in the eye of the
storm.
Extracting Legitimacy for Demography
Israel's primary preoccupation has now become wresting
international, Arab and Palestinian recognition of the Zionist
project for a racially Jewish state, and giving international
legitimacy to this "coup" against international legitimacy, which
is far more serious than the Hamas takeover of Gaza. Furthermore,
this shift in focus will transform the issue of implementing the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the
safeguarding of their security and presence on their land, which
are being constantly threatened and violated by 60 years of
occupation. Instead, it will become an issue of expanding the right
to self-determination practiced by Israel to fit within the
parameters of Zionist ideological concepts. Ensuring Israel's
security and its Jewish character will not be carried out through
ensuring the security of the Palestinian people. Rather, in return
for giving up their rights, the Palestinians will be allowed to see
an improvement in their living conditions under siege, in the
shadow of a choking dependency on the Israeli occupation, and at
the expense of their national rights.
By overturning the concepts, giving prominence to the demographic
discourse and tying the political process to squeezing out a
Palestinian recognition of the "Jewishness" of Israel, Israel is
setting out to get even more than two birds with one stone. One aim
is to scrap the right of return for Palestinian refugees according
to legitimate international resolutions, and to divest Israel of
the responsibility for causing the Nakba, under the pretext that a
return would disrupt the Jewish character of the state and its
demography. Another intention is to abort the fight of the Arab
national minority in Israel to stay in their homeland, since it is
the only one they have, and to frustrate their dogged struggle to
obtain equal civil and national rights inside Israel, as well as to
deny them the legitimacy of citizenship status. The Arab citizens
of Israel will, thus, be hindered from joining the democratic and
peace forces in Israel and will be subjected to the dangers of
population transfer and swap projects.
The focus of Israel and the dominant groups within it on the
concept of the Jewish character of the state at a time when the
historic guarantees for this concept have collapsed, and the
pioneering ethos informing Hebrew labor in agricultural, social
solidarity, and the kibbutzim has disappeared, betrays the racist
content of Israel's objectives behind this slogan. One of the
notable expressions of this policy has been the exclusion of the
Arab citizens of Israel from the sphere of direction-shaping or
influence-wielding, and the political and democratic game that
Israel professes to uphold.
Two States for Two Peoples
Israel relies on flimsy arguments when it tries to bolster its
discourse about the Jewish character of the state by basing its
legitimacy on the UN Partition Plan resolution of November 29,
1947. The Partition Plan affirmed the principle of
self-determination in the concept of two states for two peoples. We
historically have adopted its principles and still do, according to
our own understanding: The Partition Plan means primarily that the
legitimacy of Israel remains incomplete without the enactment of
the other half, i.e., the attainment by the Arab Palestinian people
of their legitimate right to self-determination in their own
independent, free and sovereign state.
The Partition Plan did not only not talk about a Jewish state in
its ethnic sense, but also about a Jewish state with a Jewish
majority, with 40% of its citizens Arab Palestinians, alongside an
Arab Palestinian state. Israel, in our understanding, was never,
and will never be, only a Jewish state - not according to
international legitimacy, including the Partition Plan, and not
according to the reality on the ground that has arisen throughout
the 60 years of Israel's attempts to bury the national rights of
the Palestinian people. Israel, which was created within the
framework of a UN resolution ending British colonization and
stipulating the right to self-determination for two peoples - Arab
and Jewish - in two states in Palestine, is today also a state with
a Jewish majority that has a large ethnic Arab minority. And that
Arab minority is determined to remain in its homeland and to pull
its weight and use its influence. This minority is also intent on
achieving equality in civil and national rights inside Israel, and
not in a Palestinian state. It is not a national minority that has
descended upon Israel; it is a minority in its own homeland. It is
Israel that has descended upon it.
Using Demographics to Dodge Responsibility
Israel's continued preoccupation with the mentality of averting a
demographic danger to the Jewish character of the state has become
a threat to peace, equality and human rights in Israel itself and
in the region as a whole. Israel is placing the responsibility of
ensuring the Jewishness of the state for the future upon the
shoulders of its Arab citizens, who are victims of a policy of
racial discrimination and national persecution. It is exposing 20%
of its Arab citizens to projects of population swaps with occupying
settlers, to population transfers, to deportation and to the
revocation of their legitimate rights. These developments are a
clear indicator of the extent of the collapse of the democracy that
Israel vaunts, and of depths to which have sunk Israel's regard for
peace, equality and human rights. It underscores the fact that
confronting Israel's insistence in maintaining the Jewish character
of the state and its concern about the demographic threat is not
the responsibility of the Arab minority of Israel alone, but has
become the duty of all believers in democracy and peace
worldwide.
Israel's choice, backed by the U.S., to overturn at the Annapolis
conference the agreed-upon understanding of the conflict and to
extract from the international community a recognition of the
demographic dimension of the conflict was not a spontaneous choice
- neither in venue nor in timing. The official Israel that is now
governed by a racist demographic discourse is attempting to find a
legitimate and recognized place for it within a U.S.-led world
order. It does not proceed from the right of the people to
self-determination, liberation and state-building; instead, it is
based upon the concept of the displacement of peoples, the
fragmentation of states, and the establishment of suspect ethnic,
religious or sectarian entities. These phenomena can be seen in
various regions, from the former Yugoslavia to Iraq and Lebanon,
from Afghanistan to Central Asia, and even from Darfur to the East
African states. The inclusion by Israel of the demographic solution
and the Jewish character of the state into the negotiation process
with the Palestinians will only result in the complete
disintegration of the political process.
A 'New' Solution to a 'New' Issue
Israel is using the issue of demographics and the Jewishness of the
state as a scare tactic in order to block the road to the
conclusion of a just peace and a fair solution to the problem of
the Palestinian refugees. Israel has refused to recognize the
rights of a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees who are
citizens of Israel and who are refugees in their own homeland, and
it has forbidden them to use their lands and their destroyed
villages. Such policies reveal that the state's apprehension is not
confined only to its fear of demographic imbalance: The refugees in
Israel are Israeli citizens, and therefore, restoring their rights
to them does not provoke any demographic imbalance. What Israel is
actually concerned about is its refusal to recognize its
responsibility for the Nakba of the Palestinian people and for
their national rights. Giving prominence to the demographic threat
allows it to justify its rejectionist stance towards endeavors at
peace-making.
The Israeli leadership, in consonance with the American
administration, is trying to build up an erroneous new concept for
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in order to enable it to draw up
an equally erroneous new solution to it - a solution that lies
outside international legitimacy and far from the concepts of
national liberation, independence and the rights of nations. Within
this framework, the 1967 borders are not the crux of the conflict
but the key to solving it. They do not reflect the intricacies of
this complex struggle, but offer a practical opportunity to
circumvent it.