In order to maintain the cohesion of Israeli Jewish society against the spectre of a “warm peace” with its neighbours, the Zionist state must maintain distrust among Jews towards the Arab nation, emphasize the “European” identity of their state (as distinct from the surrounding “barbarian” states) and engage in provocations whenever the “threat” emerges that a peace may ensue. For this reason, the Zionist state is, by its very nature, a permanent threat to its environment.

 

 It is often assumed that a massive return of Palestinian refugees to locations within the State of Israel – in accordance with international law and human rights – would be contrary to the interests of Israeli Jews and may endanger their physical existence. It cannot be denied that a massive return would significantly change the demographic composition of the population. There is, however, no particular reason to believe that such a return would physically endanger Israeli Jews, if the consequent population movement is properly organized in order to ensure the availability of housing and work opportunities.

However, there is another aspect of the argument for the Palestinian right of return which is often not addressed, namely the desirability of such a return for Israeli Jews. I will briefly explain why this is so.

Zionism, Israel’s official ideology, is predicated upon the necessity for Jews to remain in control of their state. This means that it must at all times and by all means ensure that Jews remain a demographic majority within the state. A situation of “warm peace” between the State of Israel and its neighbours would, however, undermine the Jewish character of the state through a gradual integration of Jews within the Arab (mostly Muslim) Middle East. Economic and cultural intercourse between Israel and its neighbouring Arab states would bring Israelis to Arab capitals and Arab businessmen, tourists, workers and students to Israel. From a Zionist perspective, such a scenario is a threat, as it would dilute the Jewish character of the state, culturally and demographically.

The most effective deterrent against Jewish assimilation in the “diaspora”, apart from self-imposed isolation (which is particularly the case with ultra-orthodox Jews), is anti-Semitism. Zionists are keen to dramatize anti-Semitism or, at times, to give it a helping hand, in order to keep Jews from assimilating or cause them to move to Israel.

In order to maintain the cohesion of Israeli Jewish society against the spectre of a “warm peace” with its neighbours, the Zionist state must maintain distrust among Jews towards the Arab nation, emphasize the “European” identity of their state (as distinct from the surrounding “barbarian” states) and engage in provocations whenever the “threat” emerges that a peace may ensue. For this reason, the Zionist state is, by its very nature, a permanent threat to its environment. While the Zionist state may be able to maintain its provocative existence for a number of years, its aggressive nature will inevitably undermine the moral fabric of its Jewish population and its capacity to sustain itself.

Since World War II, Jews have been living in many predominantly Christian countries as religious minorities with full civil and political rights. There is no reason to believe that Jews cannot live with full rights within predominantly Muslim societies, which have traditionally been less discriminatory towards Jews. If Jews wish to remain living in the Middle East, they will have to gracefully accept that they are a minority in an Arab region and do so in a positive manner.

The return of Palestinian refugees will create for Israeli Jews unique opportunities to demonstrate their will to live in peace and equality with Arabs within a democratic unitary state. Such a vision would accommodate both the interests and aspirations of Palestinians and those of Jews. Such a vision would help liberate Jews from their self-imposed concept of a ghetto-state and end their isolation in the Middle East. The same rationale was pursued successfully by the African National Congress, which provided not only the liberation of the black majority from apartheid, but also the liberation of the white settler community from the role of oppressors from which they could not escape by themselves.

btinternet.co.uk

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.