Another sign of the Obama administration's readiness to put pressure on the Israelis. Akiva Eldar in Haaretz:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that the
Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a
condition for renewing peace talks is unacceptable to the United
States, the State Department said during special envoy George
Mitchell's visits over the weekend to Ramallah and Cairo.
P.S. What does it mean that Haaretz is the go-to-place for non-Zionists around the world? What does it mean that great Jewish journalists are doing more to inform critics of Israel than any other journalists? When the lobby accuses us of anti-Semitism, do they understand how much we respect the tremendous Jewish tradition in journalism?
Related posts:
- What do Palestinians want?? 2/3 say Rockets must stop. 3/5 say Hamas should recognize Israel
- Obama said US must see that Israel is maintained as ‘a Jewish state’
- Obama’s Jewish Video Features Dershowitz on the Glory of Separating Church and State (For Us, Not Palestinians)
- The Israel Nexus: Both Gubernatorial Sex Scandals Have Ties to Jewish State
- Lieberman changes everything: ‘Washington Jewish Week’ takes on ‘tension’ between Jewish state and democracy
{ 16 comments }
Here in the UK, people like Robert Fisk merit Ha'aretz much higher than our own newspapers, which are seen as either blatantly pro-Zionist or at least as shying away from any serious critiquing of Israel.
It means that an Israeli newspaper is the place to get more Israeli news than an American.
Good for Mitchell.
It's not journalists, Phil, it's editors.
Meaning, it's great Jewish editors at Haaretz that are spawning this. People with some balls.
Probably the problem is with Netanyahu's demand being a precondition, not with the demand by itself. Barak already demanded it during Camp David, but kept it low key. Olmert was open about it. Mostly it's still being framed as 'accepting the existence of Israel', while it means accepting that there is no right of return and that the Iraeli Arabs don't belong in Israel.
Whenever claims of Netanyahu or Lieberman are discussed I become a bit fidgety with a knee-jerk reaction of "who are they letting off the hook here?". There was an interview with Van Creveld in a belgian magazine(I'm belgian) and he said that someone from the entourage of Lieberman had proposed to exchange the piece of land with Umm-al-Fahm on it for settlement areas. And Van Creveld approved. That looked a lot like testing the waters for an idea. Sure Lieberman likes the idea but so did Barak in 2000, only he didn't dare to say so openly. How different is Lieberman from the rest?
RE: "When the lobby accuses us of anti-Semitism, do they understand how much we respect the tremendous Jewish tradition in journalism?"
MY COMMENT: All the 'Likud Lobby' cares about is THE LAND, THE LAND, THE LAND!
FROM IMDB: "Gone with the Wind" (1939)
Gerald O'Hara: "Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts."
The US did not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Below is the link to the US document recognizing Israel and signed by Truman. The words "Jewish State" are crossed out and the words "State of Israel" are written in hand by Truman. Click to enlarge:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/recog.jpg
Listening to Mitchell talking alongside Netanyahu last week on the subject of the “Jewish state” was very interesting. Netanyahu wanted the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, but Mitchell was talking about a two state solution comprising a Palestinian state and “the Jewish state of Israel”. It sounds on the surface as if they’re saying the same thing, but it’s not the same thing at all.
When Olmert tried to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the state of the Jewish people” as a precondition for the Annapolis conference, the PLO refused, saying they give Israel the same kind of diplomatic recognition the rest of the world does, i.e. they recognize the state of Israel, but in doing so do not give consent to the idea that “the state of Israel” is tied to a particular ethnic-religious group or preferred demographic balance, which goes beyond the limits of what diplomatic recognition is. The PLO said they would have no problem recognizing “the Jewish State of Israel” (in a titular sense), if this is how Israel wishes to be known, just as they recognize “the Islamic Republic of Iran”, because sovereign states may choose what they wish to be called, and the Palestinians would respect whatever the state of Israel wishes to be called.
Knowing that Olmert already tried the “state of the Jewish people” precondition, and that the PLO countered that diplomatic recognition is not tied to ethnicity or religion, except in a purely titular way, it is interesting to read that the U.S. is now also rejecting that precondition and to hear Mitchell using the title “the Jewish state of Israel”. For the first time in years it sounds as if a U.S. administration actually understands and is grappling with the nuances of what the “Jewish state” issue involves.
Nice point, Steve. More here.
It means we're "free" to shake our fists below the gates of the Lizard People and they are free to give us a "whiff of the grape" whenever it suits them.
Chilly feeling to see recognition of authority for inhabited land given to a political entity without any authority reserved for those inhabitants not represented by the entity.
So does the title, "the Jewish state of Israel," resolve some of Eurosabra's concern? Eurosabra?
"The US did not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Below is the link to the US document recognizing Israel and signed by Truman. The words "Jewish State" are crossed out and the words "State of Israel" are written in hand by Truman. Click to enlarge:"
I have often wondered why US politicians never mention this–will Obama; he can get a copy of
the photo of what Truman recognized anytime, as can any US citizen.
"Palestine", represented by the P.A. is a member of the Arab League which consist of 22 Arab countries which often have significant minorities and in some cases majorities on non Arab populations.
one only need to go to the Organization of Islamic Conference to understand the fusion of religion in state politics."Palestine" is a member.
Thus if the Palestinians can recognize the Arab nations and the fusion of religion/states for hundreds of millions of Arabs it should be able to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
It would, on paper.
The Israeli Islamist Movement, functionally speaking, does not recognize the Jewish nature of the state, except descriptively in personal communications of its representatives, but it does not call for Sharia as the basis of legislation. Its prescriptive position as an organization/institution is thus undefined. As Israelis, they have a vested interest in the nature of the Israeli state that Palestinians would not. As Israelis, their position on the nature of the Israeli state has a relevance that Palestinians' would not.
However, since I think that any Palestinian recognition of Israel will be a Trojan Horse, the issue is fairly moot. Certainly given the popularity of Hamas, Palestine would eventually become an Islamic Republic and would expect recognition on that basis, including other states' acquiescence in the use of Sharia as the primary basis of legislation and hence dhimmi status for its indigenous Christian, Samaritan, Bahai, and Jewish (should any remain) minorities.
Also, given that the main point of contention is that the "Jewish state" idea combines the idea of a lifeboat state/guardianship/negotiorum gestio for/of Jews qua Jews, and the status of Jewish communal institutions as state agencies, the question is whether disestablishing those state agencies would be enough. Certainly the idea of a refuge/lifeboat state would need to be given up, and a move to make all "Israeli" agencies serve Israelis without distinction and a separation between the Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund and the Israel Land Authority would reconfigure the "Jewish" element as a descriptive–"communally-blind state whose majority happens to be Jewish"–rather than prescriptive–"state whose goal is to aid and protect Jewish people, wherever they may be."
Basically, in the case of a hypothetical Arab-Jewish community being held for ransom and Palestinian refugees, a descriptively Jewish state or a communally-blind Israeli state would be asked to accept the Palestinians and their descendants (as some of them would undoubtedly have been born in Israel) and abandon the Jews to whatever fate. It is the abandonment of Herzl's negotiorum gestio that is the major fear of some members of some communities (the Russian, Ethiopian, and Yemenite) whose arrival in Israel is accurately described as "rescue". (Some members of those communities, not those communities in toto.)
If you look at the citizenship provisions of the PLO Charter, you see that they essentially function as the Law of Return plus, jus sanguinis patrilineal citizenship without limitation of place of birth, lapse of time, or limitation due to holding alternative citizenship. Except for Jews, who must be jus solis Palestinians, with the implication of birth before the Mandate required, to qualify.
Comments on this entry are closed.