Prof. Paul Eidelberg
A group of "right wing" activists, including prominent lawyers, intellectuals, and journalists, has responded enthusiastically to Women in Green's clarion call to get to the "root" of the Israel-Palestinian problem. What precisely is the "root" of that problem? The activists agree with Nadia Matar that "Albeit 45 years late, it's time for the government of Israel to pursue an initiative that would extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, which would include granting the Arab residents in the area Israeli citizenship."
Of course, the right-wing activist entertain the idea that these Arab citizens would pledge their loyalty to the Jewish state—a dubious expectation given the demonstrable fact that these Arabs are so anti-Israel that many used their own children as human bombs to kill Jews.
Given this nasty (but trivialized) fact aside, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose two polls were conducted to ascertain the attitude of these Arabs as to whether they would agree to be citizens of a Jewish state—one poll conducted by an Israeli, the other by an Arab. Inasmuch as the entire world supports the establishment of an independent Arab nation-state in Judea and Samaria, and since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself endorsed the creation of such a state, what do you think would be the response of these Arabs to each of said polls? I leave the reader to answer this question. Have the right-wing activists considered this thought experiment?
Netanyahu wants the Arabs to recognize the Jewish state of Israel. What does this mean? Wouldn't these Arabs, who are Muslims, have to renounce their religion or scriptures? What would happen to a "Palestinian" leader or diplomat who recognized Israel as a Jewish state? How would he be regarded by the rest of the Muslim world? Would he suffer the fate of Anwar Sadat? No less than Yasser Arafat once said he was speaking not merely for the Palestinians. Can you really believe that the PLO-Palestinian Authority, a consortium of terrorist organization, would turn their backs on a 1,400 year history punctuated by politicide and genocide as well as by the most obscene Jew-hatred? Would they turn their swords into plowshares and become bourgeois democrats ala Bibi Netanyahu?
Evident here is not only desperate denial of reality but also a blatant insult to Islam, as Jabotinsky elaborates in The Iron Wall (1923):
To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy … comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.
This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement….
Another point … The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – it's all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs….
Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy….
All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible…. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.
(Part II of this essay will show that the activists mentioned above fail to see that Israel's preoccupation with the territorial issue obscures Israel's paramount issue, which is How to make Israel an authentic Jewish state. Lacking both practical and theoretical knowledge, they do not address the question of how to make Israel more Jewish by means of democratic principles, and how to make Israel more democratic by means of Jewish principles. Therein is the solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Should Israel apply sovereignty over all of Yehuda and Shomron?
The dream of two states for two peoples will not realized in the tiny
parcel of land that lies between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean.
The vision of Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, Yossi Beilin and the EU,
Dennis Ross and Foggy Bottom, Ron Lauder and the "Jewish People Policy
Planning Institute", is unacceptable to the leaders of the Muslim
world, to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and to
global Jihadists.
Events surrounding the 1915-1916 MacMahon-Hussein Correspondence,
outbreaks of violence between 1920-1936, the 1937 Peel commission, the
1939 MacDonald White Paper, the 1947 UN partition plan, Menachem
Begin's autonomy plan, Oslo, Intifadas, roadmaps and various two state
initiatives demonstrate the futility of expecting any Arab leader
coming to terms with Jewish sovereignty over any part of a divided
land. Total Arab rejection of a Jewish State has not changed over the
past 100 years.
PM Netanyahu's generous 2009 Bar Ilan "two-state" offer was stillborn
the moment he required that one of the "two-peoples" recognize the
right of the Jewish people to a Jewish State. As Abu Mazen proclaimed:
"The Palestinian people (sic) will never accept the right of the
Jewish people to their own State. Not for a 1000 years!"
It does not take too much insight to comprehend the consequences of
Israel's various withdrawals from1956 until today. Every time Israel
blinked the Jihadist mission of cleansing the Middle East, first of
Jews and then Christians was encouraged. The day after Israel withdrew
from Gaza, missiles were launched in the expectation that continued
violence would assure further withdrawals from "occupied territories"
that include every bit of land west of the Jordan River. The new Gaza
quickly witnessed the Hamas Jihadist takeover with Fatah "moderates"
ejected from the roofs of six story buildings. Each Israeli concession
or withdrawal bolstered Jihadists with the conviction that further
violence would encourage the Jews in "Palestine" to flee to Europe and
elsewhere.
A basic tenet of Islam is Jihad: the struggle for Islam's global
ascendancy by any possible means. As interpreted by authoritative
teachings cited by Imam and scholar alike, that primary Jihadist
obligation is legally and morally suspended only in times or in places
where the chance of Jihadist success is minimal. Thus weakness or
compromise by those defending themselves against Jihad is viewed as
submission and a signal that Jihadist ventures can resume. It is
understandable, therefore, that the history of "salami" concessions
designed in good faith by leaders schooled in Western thought and
culture to encourage and bring about a "two-states for two peoples"
resolution only increases instability and conflict by signaling the
Jihadists that the time is ripe to return to violence to destroy the
Jewish State.
So why do so many well meaning people such as Tzipi Livni (former
foreign minister and Prime Minister wannabe), Ehud Olmert from the
witness stand, the editors of the NY Times, Haaretz, Manchester
Guardian, Professors in Haifa and Ben Gurion not to mention Tel Aviv
and Hebrew Universities continue to promote, preach, and struggle for
a new Middle East with Arabs and Jews living, working, and prospering
together? The Pollyannaish solution to the "Arab-Israeli" conflict is
captivating. It is a function of the Western bias that all Peoples and
their leaders want what our culture dictates to be desirable and that
any conflict can be resolved by reason and good will.
They argue moreover that two states for two peoples is the only way to
preserve Israel as a Jewish democratic state. This conclusion is based
on faulty demographic arguments and faulty predictions of behavior
patterns. It would lead to the opposite result: the creation of a
Jihadist state in Israel's backyard which will guarantee the
disappearance of the Jewish state!
For the time being, let us leave Gaza to its own devices. It may
remain a "free and independent" Islamic entity, it may revert back to
Egyptian domination, or maybe a new Turkish flotilla will reassert
Ottoman control. But it should not be the concern of Israel. Indeed,
the Arabs of Israel and Yehuda and Shomron (widely known as the former
West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan) have little kinship
and little interest in the Arab population of Gaza.
As to the intellectual proposition that a "two state solution" is
necessary for Israel to continue as a "Jewish democratic state", it is
now well established since the groundbreaking 2005 demographic studies
and projections of Zimmerman, Seid and Wise issued by the American
Israel Demographic Research Group that the demographic facts and
trends do not require the artificial exclusion of people and territory
from Israel sovereignty. Until that study was digested by impartial
academics, professors of Demography and Geography told the world and
told Israelis and Israeli policy makers that there was an Arab
majority between the River and the Sea and as a consequence,
separation and creation of a Palestinian "State" was the only way to
preserve Israel as a Jewish State.
But that mantra, the two-state "solution", is based on faulty data,
logic, and perception. It is also falsely based on security,
demographic, political, economic, electoral, societal considerations
on many levels.
Currently the Jewish population of green line Israel, Yehuda and
Shomron is 67% Jewish.
The last 20 years of birth data combined with migration data have
established that there is positive Jewish demographic momentum and if
Israel does not pursue policies that encourage Jihadists that 67%
majority is expected to grow.
Ask yourself and your friends and neighbors the difficult question:
What percent minority population would allow Israel to maintain its
character as a Jewish State? (By the way, there is nothing to be
embarrassed about living in a Jewish State. The Organization of the
Islamic Cooperation has 57 members, 56 of which are members of the
United Nations.) The answers will vary from zero percent Arabs (the
extreme left in Israel oddly enough now want no Arabs and a very high
fence!!) all the way to "it does not matter" (we want "a state of all
its citizens").
Will Israel with a one-third non-Jewish minority lose its character as
a Jewish State?
Will the two-thirds Jewish majority prosper in Israel? The conclusion
that there is positive Jewish demographic momentum changes many of the
previously held beliefs about the future of the Jewish State. Indeed,
demographic considerations have impacted policy, strategy, and
planning from the first Zionist Congress until today. The Mandate for
Palestine which was approved unanimously on July 24, 1922 by the
League of Nations and separately by the US Congress, formally
legalized for all time the Jewish right to Palestine. The Mandate
understood that a Jewish State could not be practically declared until
there were more Jews in the Land. The Mandate formally called for the
Jews of the world to support and encourage re-population of Palestine.
Jews were encouraged to immigrate and support financially, physically
and spiritually the growth of a Jewish majority in the Land. Once that
majority was achieved, a Jewish State could be declared and the
trusteeship could end.
Distinguished historians, political scientists and sociologists preach
that in all cases once a minority community reached 20% or possibly
30% and certainly 33% of the total population, the character of a
state changes. The majority cultural group loses its integrity and a
new creation is morphed into reality. Conversely, a less than 20%
minority group quickly assimilates and becomes absorbed by the
dominant 80% majority population.
Both of these propositions seem shaky as they relate to the internal
dynamics of Israel.
Where and how was the "scientific" conclusion reached? By observing
multiple societies around the world. Can these theories account for
the history and integrity of the Jewish people through their almost
2,000 year Diaspora? No.
The survival of the Jewish people as distinct minorities in multiple
societies suggests that Jewish society is a remarkable exception to
conventional sociological thinking. Jewish minorities of 1-5% have
prospered and grown in remarkably diverse environments, both
economically, culturally, and demographically (sans pogroms and
inquisitions) over a period of 2,500 years since the destruction of
the First Temple. The Jews in Babylonia as well as in Lithuania, the
Ukraine and Poland succeeded and violated all the accepted norms about
assimilation and acculturation. Societies where the Jewish minority
never even exceeded 5% exhibited extraordinary Jewish involvement in
the highest levels of society and administrative infra-structure. We
will not go into the causes and explanations, but there are many
unique factors that contributed to their success. One need not explain
the phenomenon to observe it as proven fact.
Now imagine a country that is 67% Jewish, with a strong Jewish
participation in all segments from Arts and Science, Politics,
Medicine, Law, Security and Foreign Policy, Business and Finance, High
Tech and Agriculture etc. Will that society lose its Jewish character?
Per Israel's Declaration as an independent democratic Jewish State,
the rights of minority communities and individuals must be preserved.
But those minorities must uphold the Law of the Land and cannot be
permitted to act inimically to the welfare of the country.
The fears of a fifth column are legitimate but are clouded by the
current political environment. Israeli Arabs have been told by Israeli
politicians and media for 20 years that there will be a hostile Arab
state created in Israel's backyard. That is a guaranteed formula to
foster an extremely hostile internal population. Once that proposition
is laid to rest, the benefits of remaining or becoming part of
Israel's success will become paramount for the vast majority of the
Arab population. Recent events surrounding the "Arab Spring" have made
it clear to the fortunate Arabs living in Israel and Yehuda and
Shomron that a blue Israel Identity card is a treasured asset. Very
few Israeli Arabs have sought refuge under the PA or have fled to Gaza
or Syria.
Of course, the tragedies of the past century led to a fear that should
the Jewish population of Israel drop to 66% majority, terrible
catastrophes would emerge. But the fears do not take into account the
experience and logic of Jewish sovereignty.
I am working on a study that analyzes the risks and benefits of a
Jewish state with a one-third (and diminishing) Arab minority. The
concerns that people express with regard to a large minority
community, are generally very visceral and not well conceived. Those
fears and phobias arise from multiple issues including (in no
particular order): security, social, prejudice, political, economic,
global reactions, character of a Jewish state, character of a
democratic state, religious, inter-marriage, conversion, impact on
aliyah and yeridah,
government budgets, electoral, districting and representation, paths
and criteria for citizenship, etc. Each of these "threats" must be
analyzed, quantified and put into proper perspective using game
theoretic disciplines.
How should Israel sovereignty over Yehuda and Shomron be implemented?
Different annexation paths have been proposed. Phased in or partial
annexation, districting, electoral reform and representation in the
Knesset, various criteria for the changed legal status of the new
residents of Israel, etc. Many possible paths were analyzed almost ten
There is no quick, assured or ideal resolution to a conflict that has
more than a 100 year history. Nonetheless, it has become increasingly
clear that complete annexation of Yehuda and Shomron offers the best
opportunity for security, peace and prosperity for all the residents
of Israel.
