The far right ascendancy in Israel continues to reverberate here. It not only threatens the US-Israel relationship, and create tensions between American and Israeli Jews, it is also reshaping the intellectual terrain: how the conflict is being discussed.
For instance, the Washington Post is hosting a forum on the subject: "Israel's real 'existential question' is whether or not to disenfranchise its Arab minority, says Fareed Zakaria in his column this week. Is he right?" Zakaria's question is similar to the questions raised in recent LA Times and Guardian editorials. Zakaria's article "Disowning Israel's Arab Minority" states:
No liberal democracy I know of since World War II has disenfranchised or expelled its own citizens . . . Last week's election has brought the issue into the open. Its
resolution will define the future of Israel as a country, as a Jewish
state, and as a democracy.
There are currently four responses to his column, the most popular (based on comments generated) is Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab's, "Equal Rights For All Israel's Citizens." His response calls out the US and cuts to the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
This particular issue – especially the
description of Israel as a "Jewish state" – almost torpedoed the 2007
Annapolis conference. Palestinians adamantly refused to recognize the
state established on Palestinian land as a Jewish state, because 20% of
that state's citizens are non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs.But former President George Bush would not budge, calling Israel a
"Jewish state" as he spoke in favor of an independent Palestinian state
(which he promised would be realized before his term was up.) While
this was not the first time that a U.S. senior official has referred to
Israel as a religious entity, Bush's insistence on the description
despite Palestinian president Mahmood Abbas's demands that this term
not be used reflected a total U.S. acceptance of the Israeli position.
Calling Israel a Jewish state goes directly against the general U.S.
principle of separating politics from religion and counters the
democratic values that the U.S. is trying to export to the rest of the
world, including the Arab region.After
seeing such support from the U.S., Israeli ideological leaders from
hawks to doves have raised the level of their public propaganda,
pushing for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs who are citizens
of the state of Israel. It started with the foreign minister Tizpi
Livni, who said in a talk to high school students that once the
Palestinian conflict was resolved, citizens of Israel would not be
allowed to talk about their national aspirations. She later backpedaled
from those racist-sounding remarks, but right-wing candidate Avigdor
Lieberman did not. His election campaign, which came as the Gaza
assault was taking place, included a call for Palestinian citizens of
Israel to take a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish state and to serve
in the army or complete some type of public service.As Palestinian citizens of Israel have repeatedly said, they didn't
come to Israel – Israel came to them. Making non-Jewish citizens swear
a loyalty oath to the Jewish state is obviously unacceptable.
Palestinian citizens of Israel are also angry with Lieberman's call for
them to serve in the Israeli army, fighting against their fellow
Palestinians, while Orthodox Jews are exempt from military and other
forms national service.The new Obama administration, as it weighs its position on the upcoming
Durban II conference on racism, will also be forced to take a position
on the rights of the Arab minority in Israel and the undemocratic
demands that are being forced upon them as part of the package of a
two-state solution. Palestinians living in Israel support the
possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the
state of Israel. But they feel that this should not negate their
decision to stay living where they are and to continue demanding rights
equal to those their fellow citizens of Israel enjoy, be they Jews or
followers of any religion or even non-followers of religion.
Kuttab rightly points out how US policy has directly empowered the racist discourse coming to the fore in Israel, and he issues a challenge: how can the US support an ethno-religious state in Israel when that directly contradicts its own values?
This site has continually asked how the Obama administration will respond to the new right wing Israeli polity. One thing that is now clear is that Lieberman's success is erasing the green line in how people understand the conflict. The conflict is not just in the occupied territories but inside Israel as well. Lieberman ran on the belief that a Jewish state cannot accept Palestinian citizens and wide chunk of the Israeli electorate agreed with him leaving these citizens exposed to the very real threat of expulsion. The rights of Palestinians living inside Israel can no longer be ignored and need to be added to the agenda of issues to address in peace negotiations along with the refugees, borders and Jerusalem. The ground has shifted and the Obama administration's efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must shift with it.
Kuttab ends by calling for equal rights for all Israel's citizens. As far as policies go, this sounds as American as apple pie, but of course it is considered a radical position. The Obama administration will have to decide whether it stands for or against equal rights for Israel's citizens. This as an important opportunity for US leadership that will help define Obama's legacy in Israel/Palestine.
