Print
PDF FormatTo the Editors:
In “Miracle on the Sea of Galilee,” AZURE’s editors offer a defense of the Kineret Declaration, which was signed by members of the Israeli-Jewish elite representing the entire ideological spectrum. The editors highlight what they view as the positive aspects of the declaration: Jewish sovereignty in Israel; national unity; and even an affirmation of solidarity with the legacy of Israel and the Bible. They conclude that this is a “valuable precedent” and “no small achievement,” and are moreover pleased that not one of the declaration’s utterances “represent[s] a major departure from the beliefs of classical Zionism.”
Three cheers, then, appear to be in order. However, the full text of the declaration makes clear that it is indeed “no small achievement”—of the extreme Left, that is. In fact, it is one of their most remarkable victories in recent years. Ironically, my claim is best supported by the essay “The End of Zionism?” (AZURE 1, Summer 1996) by Yoram Hazony, former president of the Shalem Center and a Kineret Declaration signatory. There, Hazony reminds us that Zionism was originally based on the idea that the land of Israel is the historical legacy of the Jewish people; and that all Israeli governments prior to 1993 had taken the position that “the Arabs, having secured self-expression in twenty Arab national states, do not need one more.”
Hazony was thus rightly disturbed that, in signing the Oslo accords, the government of Israel had recognized the “mutual legitimate and political rights” of the PLO and Israel, a phrase which implies Arab national rights to the land of Israel that are equivalent to the rights of the Jewish people. In his opinion, “The recognition of such an Arab national right to the land of Israel is a flagrantly post-Zionist proposition. It means that the PLO’s carnival of carnage spanning three decades was a perhaps distasteful, but nevertheless justified war of resistance.”
And yet, in the space of a few short years, Hazony has himself become one of the drafters of that very same sort of cultural dynamite that he once warned so vehemently against. Indeed, Article 6 of the declaration is an almost word-for-word copy of the best of post-Zionist philosophy:
Israel is prepared, therefore, to recognize the legitimate rights of the neighboring Palestinian people, on condition that it recognize the legitimate rights of the Jewish people. Israel has no wish to rule over another people, but it insists that no people and no state try to bring about its destruction as a Jewish state. Israel sees the principle of self-determination and its expression within the framework of national states, as well as a readiness for compromise on the part of both sides, as the basis for the resolution of the conflict.
While there is a certain comfort to be taken from the neologism “the legitimate rights of the Jewish people,” which appeared nowhere in the Camp David or Oslo accords, the above statement is in direct contradiction to the sentiments expressed in another of Hazony’s articles, “New God of Palestine” (Editorial, AZURE 2, Spring 1997), in which he deprecates the PLO’s determination to create “a new ‘Palestinian’ nation” by creating facts that are “historically without basis” and “fabricating national memories.”
The declaration goes even further with Article 5, which sounds as if it might have been lifted directly from the platform of one of Israel’s Arab parties. Indeed, it calls for the eradication of the Jewish-Zionist character of the state: “Israel will ensure the right of the Arab minority to maintain its linguistic, cultural, and national identity.” In much the same way, the National Democratic Assembly, under the leadership of Azmi Bishara, wants to recognize “Arab citizens as a national minority with the right to self-determination in matters of culture that distinguish them from other citizens.” One has to wonder why the authors felt it necessary to include this statement as a separate clause, since civil equality without distinction of religion, race, origin, and so forth is already guaranteed in Article 2.
Whereas we might expect Ariel Sharon to use the flimsy excuse of political and coalition pressures, not so AZURE. How can it be that a journal founded on the recognition of those classical Zionistic values so necessary for the preservation of the Jewish state has turned them into a bargaining chip? The declaration is, in essence, saying: “Give me a commitment to the Jews in the diaspora, and take self-determination for Israel’s Arabs in return.”
It is particularly disappointing that at the very moment in which the Left has found itself battered, bruised, and in disarray, some of the nation’s best and brightest have allowed themselves to be suckered into the honey trap of the radical Left.
Aryeh Perlman
Jerusalem
To the Editors:
The Kineret Declaration gives us reason for both celebration and deep concern: Celebration, because it codifies the principles by which the State of Israel should be governed, foremost among them the affirmation of its Jewish and democratic character. Concern, because the declaration is, at heart, no more than an updated version of Israel’s Declaration of Independence—something that should, after 54 years, have already been deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of every Israeli citizen.
As someone who agrees with the declaration’s principles, I find it useful to justify them, oddly enough, in terms of the claims of its detractors—namely, in terms of the argument that, because Israel’s Arab citizens took no part in the formulation of the declaration, its democratic quality is somehow diminished. These critics would rather the declaration have included Arab signatories, and therefore stated definitively that Israel must be a “state of all its citizens.” But a “state of all its citizens” is not, in fact, a progressive democratic concept, but rather one that turns the clock back about 200 years. Why? Because in light of Israel’s demographics, a state “of all its citizens” will eventually lead (at best) to the emancipation of the Jews in the land of Israel: When the Jews become the minority, at least they will still maintain their religious and cultural independence.
The declaration is lacking in two essential respects: First, it does not reach a consensus on a constructive definition of “who is a Jew.” If this definition is not grounded in religion—whether as a matter of faith or as a concession to the idea that religion is a framework for unity—then Israel will surely cease to be the Jewish state. Religion, it is important to note, need not be solely equated with halacha, or Jewish law. Religion can also be a term that embraces history, culture, and common ethnicity. At the end of the day, however, it is only the religious ingredient that will sustain our Jewish identity. Therefore the uniqueness of the Jewish religion is indeed significant—not just for the sake of an internal identity, but also because of the need for international recognition of why the continued existence of the Jewish state is so important.
Second, there is no final decision in the declaration regarding the state’s borders. It is obvious to most of us today that the borders of the state are not only a security or a moral issue, but also a demographic one. If we were to become a Jewish minority in Israel, the ground would be pulled from under us were we then to continue demanding that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state.
The Kineret Declaration is nonetheless a meaningful step forward. Now what remains is to chart the course we want to follow.
Avi Shilon
Tel Aviv
