Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State: Updates

As Arab-Israeli diplomacy revives, it becomes increasingly clear that diplomatic relations with Jerusalem is not the same as accepting Zionism, as I note today in a column, "Accept Israel as the Jewish State?" This weblog entry pursues that theme, starting with mention of a telephone poll of a representative sample of adult Israeli Jews in April 2007 asked this question:

Recently a law was proposed according to which every candidate for the Knesset must commit that he recognizes the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. Are you for or against the proposed law?

In reply, 72 percent favored the law, and 18 percent were against it. The poll has a statistical error of +/- 4.4, was carried out by Teleseker, and published in Ma'ariv on April 13, 2007.

This is also a good place to record that the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947, the one partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine passed exactly sixty years ago today, uses the term Jewish state 27 times in its text and 3 times in the footnotes. And the the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948, mentions Jewish state 5 times, most importantly in the operational passage "we … hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." (November 29, 2007)

Dec. 1, 2007 update: Mahmoud Abbas added his voice today to those who reject Israel as a Jewish state.

From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else.

Comment: Abbas appears willing to recognize that there is a state called Israel that includes Jews in its population, but insists that its nature is undefined.

Dec. 13, 2007 update: Ha'aretz today published details of a 26-page document dating from February 2001,signed by Gilad Sher, bureau chief to then prime minister Ehud Barak, titled, "The Status of the Diplomatic Process with the Palestinians Points to Update the Incoming Prime Minister." As this heading implies, it reviewed the negotiations so that Ariel Sharon would know the state of play on taking office.

Among the differences between the two parties was this: "a disagreement among the Palestinians with regard to formal recognition of the State of Israel as a Jewish state."

And while we are on the subject of old documents, two paragraphs of the so-called "Constitution of the State of Palestine," third draft, dated March 7, 2003, revised on March 25,2003, came to my attention:

Article (2)
Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal, the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.

Article (5)
Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.

Comment: So, Israel should not be a Jewish state but "Palestine" is a Muslim state? How interesting.

Dec. 13, 2007 update: Kenneth W. Stein of Emory University provides some context for the current debate at "Annapolis: Precedents and Transactions, But No Transformations":

For years it was widely held that Sadat's November 1977 visit to Jerusalem broke the psychological barrier between the Arab and Israeli peoples. Having the leader of the most populous Arab state stand before the Israeli parliament in front of a picture of Theodore Herzl and proclaim that "the October War will be the last war" was indeed unprecedented. But neither Sadat, nor American diplomats and Arab leaders undertook to alter basic Arab attitudes toward Israel. In the peace treaties which Israel signed with both Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), there is no mention of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

At Annapolis, by contrast, US President George W. Bush publicly emphasized that the "US would maintain its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state,…[and] to Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people." Similarly Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that the negotiations should conclude with " two states for two peoples, a peace-seeking Palestinian state, a viable, strong, democratic and terror-free state for the Palestinian people; and the state of Israel, Jewish and democratic, living in security and free from the threat of terrorism, the national home of the Jewish people. "

By contrast, at both Annapolis and the subsequent donor's conference, Chairman of the PLO and President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmud Abbas shied away from making a similar statement. Instead, he focused on the Palestinian core demands, achieving " freedom, independence, getting rid of the occupation, establishing the state of independent Palestine within the 1967 borders and guaranteeing the rights of our people's refugees in accordance with resolution 194." To be sure, he categorized Annapolis as " a turning point in a very dangerous and old conflict." However, saying that Annapolis was a turning point and making it so are light years apart.

On November 29, 2007, exactly sixty years after the UN voted to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, the Saudi Arabian paper al-Watan noted that the "Jewishness of the state of Israel will in fact provide the fuel for an eternal conflict between the Arabs and Moslems on the one hand, and the state of Israel on the other."

For many in the Arab and Moslem world and elsewhere, when Israel is recognized as a Jewish state, then Palestinians will no longer sustain the dream of living in portions of what was Israel prior to the 1967 June war. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would mean surrendering a core element in Palestinian national identity; it would mean essentially ending the Arab-Israeli conflict without a complete victory by the Arab side. It would mark an underlying and fundamental transformation, one that has obviously not yet occurred. Hamas refuses unequivocally to abandon that core element. Similarly, Abbas endorses the core. Unlike Hamas but like Sadat, at least thus far, Abbas believes that he can recognize Israel's legitimacy without accepting its Jewish essence.

Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah.

Dec. 19, 2007 update: Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, the Holy Land's top Roman Catholic clergyman since 1987 and an ally of the PLO, has added his voice to the debate, announcing that "If there's a state of one religion, other religions are naturally discriminated against," and advising Israel to abandon its Jewish character in favor of a "political, normal state for Christians, Muslims and Jews. This land cannot be exclusive for anyone."

Jan. 1, 2008 update: Ehud Omert, asked about the views of Mahmoud Abbas on Israel being the Jewish state, replies thus:

My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself. If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.

To remind, a month earlier Abbas publicly had this to say on the subject: "From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else."

Comment: Olmert clearly knows more than we on the outside about the way Abbas thinks, so I defer to him there. But, that hardly matters for, as I wrote back in 1993 (in "Both Sides of Their Mouths[: Arab Leaders' Private vs. Public Statements]"), "Public pronouncements count more than confidential revelations." Here's why:

they predict [an Arab politician's] actions better than private communications. Murmurings from his ear to yours might well reflect a politician's personal views, but the rhetoric is more operational. … Were the views expressed in tête-à-têtes with Western officials operational, the Arab-Israeli conflict would have been resolved long ago.

This pattern, by the way, has an interesting implication:

Insiders attach great value to exclusive and confidential one-to-one conversations with leaders. To understand Middle East politics, however, one is better off reading newspapers and listening to radio broadcasts than talking to politicians in private. Privileged information tends to mislead; what the masses hear counts. This rule of thumb helps explain why distant observers more often get the point than do on-the-spot diplomats and journalists.

Abbas and Olmert provide a textbook example of this phenomenon.

Jan. 1, 2008 update bis: In a letter sent out to a number of people, including myself, Sari Nusseibeh offers his views on the issue of accepting Israel as the Jewish state:

My view, which goes along with the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document … is that (1) we already recognized Israel as a Jewish State by recognizing UN Resolution 181 [of November 29, 1947, the one that created Israel]; and, (2) that whether Israel is Jewish (or Martian) is not/should not be an issue for us: what is and should be an issue (for us) is whether Arab minority rights (culturally and individually) would be safeguarded in the State which we are being asked formally to recognize.

George W. Bush on arrival at Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv.

Jan. 9, 2008 update: Right off the plane at Tel Aviv airport, George W. Bush delivered a statement that included these phrases:

The United States and Israel are strong allies. The source of that strength is a shared belief in the power of human freedom. Our people have built two great democracies under difficult circumstances. We built free economies to unleash the potential of our people. And the alliance between our two nations helps guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state.

As the Associated Press's White House reporter, Terence Hunt, noted: "Bush has referred to Israel as a Jewish state in the past but the reference—here in the region—had special significance." It also has special significance given the Palestinian rejection of this term over the past two months.

Feb. 28, 2008 update: Mahmood Abbas reiterated his unwillingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in an interview yesterday in Ad-Dustur, as translated by Palestinian Media Watch:

The Palestinian President emphasized his rejection of what is described as the Jewishness of the state [of Israel], and said: "We rejected this proposal at the Annapolis conference last November in the USA, and the conference was almost aborted because of it."

May 12, 2008 update: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told an interviewer that

the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. …

the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

Apr. 16, 2009 update: Olmert's gone and Binyamin Netanyahu, his successor as Israeli prime minister, is raising the issue anew, telling U.S. envoy George Mitchell today Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state must precede negotiations over a Palestinian state. An unnamed "senior official in Netanyahu's office" quoted the prime minister telling Mitchell that "Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples." A second unnamed Israeli official said Netanyahu sees Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state as "a crucial element in moving forward with the political dialogue."

Apr. 17, 2009 update: Responding to Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh called his words a "provocation" that could have a "poisonous effect" on the region and accused the new Israeli government of placing obstacles before the two-state solution.

Apr. 19, 2009 update: The demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is, apparently, rejected by George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy. So writes Akiva Eldar in a Ha'aretz article, "U.S.: Palestinians need not recognize Israel as Jewish state before talks."

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.

Eldar also reports that

Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak has not spoken publicly on the issue, his associates said Saturday he is obligated to the party platform, which supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. The platform does not mention Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a precondition for establishing a Palestinian state.

Also, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center published today a survey of Palestinian responses, past and present, to the Israeli demand that the state's Jewish nature be recognized. For example, Saeb Erekat, chief PLO negotiator, said on April 16 that "what Netanyahu is demanding now – that we recognize Israel 's religious background – is unacceptable."

Apr. 20, 2009 update: The Israeli prime minister's media advisor issued this statement today:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is insistent in his approach that recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people is a matter of substance and principle that enjoys wide recognition in the country and around the world, without which it will not be possible to advance the diplomatic process and reach a peace settlement. However, the Prime Minister has never set this as a pre-condition for the opening of negotiations and dialogue with the Palestinians.

Comment: A true correction or a backtracking? If the former, the Ha'aretz story that opened this subject on April 16 was wrong; if the latter, it appears Netanyahu is playing both sides of the issue.

Later in the day, Netanyahu made this statement to his cabinet:

We insist that the Palestinians - in any diplomatic settlement with us - will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. … there is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people but there is doubt and not just doubt, it is clear from the quick check that we carried out that the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish People. Of course, this is completely unacceptable. … there is no doubt that we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. We have never conditioned the start and existence of talks on advance agreement about this but neither can we see progress on a future settlement without their agreement to this condition. Therefore, not only have we not backtracked from it, we stand behind it strongly and I think that in this regard, we reflect a very broad consensus, not only around this table but among the entire nation, a great part of the nation, and rightly so.

Apr. 27, 2009 update: Israel's foreign ministry weighed in today with a statement on this subject that does not address the question of when the Jewish nature of Israel needs to be recognized:

The recognition of Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is an essential and necessary step in the historic process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. The more the Palestinians assimilate this fundamental and substantive fact, the sooner the peace between the two nations will progress toward fruition.

May 4, 2009 update: Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, puts his views just as bluntly, also on April 27:

The "Jewish state." What is a "Jewish state?" We call it, the "State of Israel". You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast... It"s not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don't care.

July 5, 2009 update: For discussion of a parallel topic, see my weblog, "Salam Fayyad Says Yes to Jews Living in a Palestinian State."

July 28, 2009 update: In an article titled "A Jewish and Non-Legitimate State." Mordechai Kedar concludes today that

Recognition of Israel as a legitimate Jewish nation-state has no hope or chance as long as Islam perceives itself – and itself alone – as "the true religion with Allah."

Aug. 10, 2009 update: The political editor of WAFA, the official Palestinian Authority news agency, published an article on July 27 (and reported by Palestinian Media Watch today) arguing that a Jewish state threatens all of humanity. Excerpts:

The Jewish State, or People, or Land is a synonym of the black nightmare of Racism. … The Jewish State is clear in its objectives, even implementation and application. It means eliminating 20 per cent of the Jewish entity's citizens; Arabs and Palestinians. It probably means forcing them out; transferring them. …

A Jewish state endangers not only Palestinians, but also the Arab World, and the global security. It is a call for legitimizing a racist entity, built on pure ethnic and theocratic criteria. They apparently think that they are a race, and they want a racist state!

All of this doesn't end with the Palestinian issue; it becomes a general [international] matter, which raises the question: Will the present international system, with its modernity and development, and after banishing the racist entities, allow the development of a theocratic regime, successor of racist regimes that have disappeared, where anyone who does not recognize it cannot live there?"

Aug. 18, 2009 update: "Did Netanyahu drop demand for recognition of Israel as 'Jewish state'?" asks Akiva Eldar in Ha'aretz and the answer is unclear. He begins by noting the absence of mention of "the Jewish people" in an important statement by Binyamin Netanyahu on August 16. Promising not to repeat Ariel Sharon's mistake of unilateral withdrawal in 2005, Eldar recounts, Netanyahu said

his government would strive to arrive at bilateral agreements that will include two basic elements that were missing in the case of the evacuation of Gaza. In second place: "Security arrangements, the honoring and enforcement of which will be ensured." And in first place: "The genuine recognition of the state of Israel." And thereafter: "If there is a turn towards peace by the more moderate Palestinians, we will insist on the following components: Recognition and genuine demilitarization will find expression in, and be integral parts of, the peace arrangements."

"Genuine recognition of the state of Israel?" Check. "Recognition and genuine demilitarization?" Check. "The state of the Jewish people?" Nope. This is also documented in the spokesman's statement on the prime minister's bureau Web site.

Nir Hefetz, Netanyahu's media advisor, says that no special significance should be attributed to the fact that "the Jewish people" is absent from the prime minister's remarks. The boss is continuing to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. His heart filled with sorrow when it it was brought to his attention that the matter was missing from his remarks at the government meeting.

However, "the Jewish people" may not have simply slipped the prime minister's mind for no reason. Foreign diplomats have reported to their capitals that people in the prime minister's bureau had phoned some of their colleagues to draw their attention to the striking absence from the statement. Leaders in those capitals, among them U.S. President Barack Obama, were able to note that Netanyahu had removed one of the major stumbling blocks in the path to negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian track.

Sep. 23, 2009 update: Addressing the United Nations today, Barack Obama called for the re-launch of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations

that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.

Mar. 4, 2010 update: In "The Prerequisite for Peace in the Middle East: Arab Recognition of the Legitimacy of Israel," out today from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Kenneth J. Bialkin emphasizes the centrality of this topic, concluding that

The US should lead the international community to correct a long-term injustice: Arab lack of respect for the legitimacy of the State of Israel and for the historical contributions and rights of the Jewish people. This is the most important prerequisite for peace.

May 10, 2010 update: I provide survey information today of Arab opinion on the idea of Jewish state at "Accepting Israel as the Jewish State." Highlights:

26 percent of Egyptians and 9 percent of urban Saudi subjects answered (in November 2009) in the affirmative, as did 9 percent of Jordanians and 5 percent of Lebanese (in April 2010). …

weighting these responses by the size of their populations (respectively, 79, 29, 6, and 4 million) translates into an overall average of 20 percent acceptance of Israel's Jewishness – neatly confirming the existing percentage. Although 20 percent constitutes a small minority, its consistency over time and place offers encouragement.

May 11, 2010 update: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of Nov. 29, 1947, which called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into two states, uses the term "Jewish State," notes a reader, Geoff D. Bloch of Melbourne, Australia. Indeed, the resolution refers thirty times to an as-yet-unnamed "Jewish State." For example:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

Comments: (1) Being a "Jewish state" is not just an Israeli whim but the legal reason for this polity coming into existence. (2) The unnamed "Arab State" is just that - Arab, not Muslim. Hamas has different ideas.

May 12, 2010 update: David Gerstman, aka "Soccer Dad," writes me to point out that the 20th article of the Palestinian National Charter, which asserts that there are no historical ties between Jews and the land of Israel, is "a major stumbling block to the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state." While peace-processor types generally ignore this document, Gerstman notes that "there's been no new charter that supercedes those clauses" and concludes that "perhaps its time to require a wholesale rewriting of the Palestinian National Charter as a first step towards these changes." Comment: Makes good sense to me.

May 27, 2010 update: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the phrase "Jewish state" twice in remarks today:

If Israel is to remain a democratic Jewish state, then they have to come to grips with their own Arab citizens as well. And if they're going to remain a secure, democratic Jewish state, they've got to come to grips with the technology that is advancing as we speak that will make every part of Israel less secure unless they have some kind of resolution.

June 10, 2010 update: JTA reports that Mahmoud Abbas met yesterday "with an array of the national Jewish leadership under the auspices of the Center for Middle East Peace" and told them what they came to hear:

Jewish leaders also pressed him on reaching out to Israelis to reassure them of Palestinian intentions. On that score, Abbas said he recognized the ancient Jewish claims to Israel, and recognized west Jerusalem as Israel's capital, adding that the Palestinians had an equal claim to eastern Jerusalem as their capital.

Comment: Let's wait for Abbas to say this in Arabic in Ramallah.

Sep. 1, 2010 update: Joshua Teitelbaum, principal research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, argues that "The recognition of the right of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland is not a new idea. It actually has long historical roots which, unfortunately, have been forgotten in much of the public discourse on the Arab-Israeli conflict." He then provides some of that background in "Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: From the San Remo Conference (1920) to the Netanyahu-Abbas Talks." The most novel part concerns developments in the complex diplomacy of the immediate post-World War I period.

The significance of what transpired at [the conference of] San Remo on April 24-25, 1920, has not always received the attention it deserves, for in a sense, it was at San Remo that Israel was born. … The San Remo language gave detailed content to the general provisions regarding the mandate system as formulated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations [which recognized the mandate system of "tutelage"]. The operative paragraph reads:

"The mandatory power will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8^th [2^nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

He then interprets this document:

The language with respect to Palestine adopted at San Remo is remarkable for several reasons. First, it established recognition by the Great Powers of the principle of Jewish national self-determination. As such, it was a triumph for Zionism, which saw a national solution to the problem of the Jews, as opposed to other proposed solutions, such as assimilation. It recognized the existence of the Jews as more than individuals who subscribed to a certain religion - Judaism - but rather as a corporate group deserving of national expression, in this case in the form of a national home. And this home was to be in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews. Interestingly, the rights of the Arabs ("non-Jewish communities") in Palestine did not include national, but only civil and religious rights.

The language is a verbatim repetition of the Balfour Declaration, with one significant change. Whereas in the Balfour Declaration, Great Britain promised to "use their best endeavours to facilitate" a Jewish national home in Palestine, at San Remo this became an operative obligation. As the mandatory power, Britain was directly charged with "putting [the Balfour Declaration] into effect."

This document had great significance:

The language agreed upon at San Remo was, as Lord Curzon put it, "the Magna Carta of the Zionists." It was clear at the time that the term "national home" really meant a state. Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: "My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state." U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference had the same impression: "It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact."

Note the multiple mentions of the "Jewish state" in the above paragraph. These agreements have lasting import:

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine is a key document that underscores the international legitimacy of the right of Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel, or Palestine. According to Howard Grief, this can be seen in the three "recitals" occurring in the Preamble. … perhaps the most important recital in the Preamble recalls and notes that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine"; it further stresses that this was "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Teitelbaum ends this account noting the irony of what transpired:

It should be clear from the above that Jewish self-determination was part of a process that ended up decolonizing the Middle East, if not entirely by design. This effort led to Jewish as well as Arab independence. Repeated recent associations of Israel with colonialism - an ahistorical canard that erases the millennia-long association of Jews with the Land of Israel as an indigenous people - ignores the benefit (even if ironic) that Zionism actually brought to the Arabs through the process of decolonization.

Sep. 8, 2009 update:Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated his rejection of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. "We're not talking about a Jewish state and we won't talk about one. For us, there is the state of Israel and we won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want. But [I told them] you can't expect us to accept this." Abbas added that raising this issue amounts to "stripping" Israeli-Arabs of their rights and turn them into illegal citizens.

Oct. 6, 2010 update: More sweet talk from Mahmoud Abbas, this time to American Jewish leaders assembled in Washington, writes Natasha Mozgovaya in Ha'aretz: "I would never deny [the] Jewish right to the land of Israel."

Oct. 7, 2010 update: Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday added the phrase "a Jewish and democratic state" to the loyalty oath taken by those aspiring to become Israeli citizens: "I promise to honor the laws of the State." He explained his purpose:

The State of Israel the national state of the Jewish People. This principle guides Government policy, both foreign and domestic, and is a foundation of Israeli law. This principle finds expression in the phrase "a Jewish and democratic State." It is fitting that this principle should also appear in the loyalty oath taken by those seeking to become naturalized Israeli citizens. Israel is the Jewish national state in its nature, Government, symbols, holidays and language, and it is proper that it be so in its citizenship law as well. Israel is a democratic state that gives full civil equality to all its citizens. We uphold this in our foreign and domestic policy, and in the peace negotiations.

Oct. 12, 2010 update: It's comical when a spokesman does not know what to say about an issue. An illustration of this came today when the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, was asked "Is the U.S. want[ing] the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?" Here, as officially transcribed, is the unedited reply:

We have, you know, recognized the—the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well.

Philip J. Crowley hacks away at U.S. policy toward the "Jewish state" issue.

But, you know, this is the aspiration of the—you know, what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is in essence, you know, the—the—a core demand of the Israeli government, which we support, is a recognition that Israel is a part of the region, acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. And that is what they want to see through this negotiation.

We understand, you know, this aspiration. And the prime minister was talking yesterday about the fact that, you know, just as they aspire to a state, you know, for the Jewish people in the Middle East, they understand the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own now.

So the prime minister has put forward his ideas on what he believes his people need to hear so that they can—they can make the commitment that we're seeking to stay in this process and to reach a successful conclusion.

This is not—this is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street. You know, the prime minister is offering something and asking for something. It is perfectly within the rights of the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas to say, you know, "There's something I need and there's something I'm willing to give."

This is—this is the essence of the negotiation that is ongoing and the essence of the negotiation that we want to see continue.

Nov. 28, 2010 update: The Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah with a stout refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state: "The council affirms its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal. The council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions."

Dec. 16, 2010 update: According to a poll of 600 Arab citizens of Israel conducted by the University of Maryland and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy,

Almost 50% of Israeli Arabs said they would not accept Israel as a Jewish state "under any conditions." Another 32% said they would accept Israel as Jewish only if a PA state were established.

Feb. 1, 2011 update: Tal Becker has written the first study of this topic, The Claim for Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State: A Reassessment, a 26-page analysis with appendices, for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He comes down squarely demanding Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state:

obfuscating or circumventing the recog­nition issue will be seen by many as failing to draw the parties toward the genuine and permanent recon­ciliation that a two-state solution aspires to represent, and may fail to attract the public support, particu­larly on the Israeli side, necessary to make an agree­ment politically feasible.

Mar. 23, 2011 update: The spring 2011 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies contains an article by Raef Zreik, "Why the Jewish State Now?" that presents, from Palestinian Authority point of view, the reasons for the new Israeli emphasis on a Jewish state. Needless to say, they differ from the reasons offered by me.

Apr. 19, 2011 update: Prime Minister Netanyahu has reiterated that

the core of the conflict has always been the persistent refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognize the Jewish state in any borders. That is why this conflict raged for nearly 50 years before 1967, before there was a single settlement in the West Bank. … Why don't the Palestinians do something so simple as recognizing the Jewish state? After all, we are prepared to recognize a Palestinian state. Why can't they reciprocate if they really want peace?

May 19, 2011 update: In a major speech on the Middle East, "Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa," Barack Obama referred twice to a "Jewish state."

• "The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."
• "a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people."

May 22, 2011 update: In a second major speech in three days, this one focused on Israel, "Remarks by the President at the AIPAC Policy Conference 2011," Obama used the term "Jewish state" no less than five times:

• "as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the Jewish people."
• "the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder -- without a peace deal -- to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state."
• "The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people."
• "Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed."
• "a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people."

May 23, 2011 update: In his speech to AIPAC, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu put great emphasis on the need for Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state:

We want peace because we know the blessings peace could bring - what it could bring to us and to our Palestinian neighbors. But if we hope to advance peace with the Palestinians, then it's time that we admitted another truth. This conflict has raged for nearly a century because the Palestinians refuse to end it. They refuse to accept the Jewish state. Now, this is what this conflict has always been about. There are many issues linked to this conflict that must be resolved between Israelis and Palestinians. We can, we must, resolve them. But I repeat: We can only make peace with the Palestinians if they're prepared to make peace with the Jewish State.

May 23, 2011 bis update:The Palestinian Authority again rejected recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The Associated Press reports Nabil Shaath saying that Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist, without any reference to its character, should suffice: "We recognize Israel as a state. It's a recognition of a state to a state."

May 25, 2011 update: A poll of American Jews by Luntz Global on behalf of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) finds that 90 percent of respondents find Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state to be "necessary" for a peace agreement to follow.

May 30, 2011 update: Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs, picked up on Netanyahu's mention of the Jewish state and placed great emphasis on it in an oped for Yedi'ot Aharonot. Excerpts:

The key sentence in the prime minister's speech before Congress made it clear that the main reason for the failure of all attempts to secure Israel-Palestinian peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State; that is, to recognize the Jewish people's right to maintain a Jewish nation-state, the State of Israel, on the land of its forefathers.

Israel's Palestinian dialogue partner in peace talks is the PLO; all members of this umbrella organization, including Fatah, reject Israel's right to exist, while accepting it (because of the IDF's military power) on the condition that it would be an entity that lacks an ethnic identity – that is, that it will not be the Jewish people's nation-state. …

The heart of the conflict with the Palestinians is existential and not just territorial, as proven by Nakba Day events and as the prime minister made clear in his speech. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the occupation started in 1948 and not in 1967. Hence, Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish people's nation-state is a required condition for viable peace with the Palestinians.

June 23, 2011 update: The the Journal of Palestine Studies, edited by Rashid Khalidi, cannot get enough of this topic. The spring 2011 issue ran an article on "Why the Jewish State Now?" and now the summer issue published Ahmad Samih Khalidi's "Why Can't the Palestinians Recognize the Jewish State?" It presents "the moral and practical reasons" why they "cannot accede to this demand, or even accept Israel's self-definition as a matter of exclusive Israeli concern."

July 13, 2011 update: Nabil Shaath is unequivocal in rejecting the Jewish state concept:

[The French initiative] reshaped the issue of the "Jewish state" into a formula that is also unacceptable to us – two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of "two states for two peoples" means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this.

Aug. 28, 2011 update: Mahmoud Abbas told the powers to back off: "Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it."

Sep. 2, 2011 update: Hassan Jabareen, founder and general director of Adalah, an Israeli-Arab organization explains today "Why Palestinians can't recognize a 'Jewish state'."

For the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is to declare their surrender, meaning, to waive their group dignity by negating their historical narrative and national identity. … we would accept the rationale of the [Jewish] Law of Return, and as a result, we would waive our right to return, even in principle.

Sep. 30, 2011 update: Sari Nusseibeh, professor of philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem (and who I knew as a graduate student in the 1970s) writes explains "Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'" for aljazeera.com, arguing that "the idea of a 'Jewish State' is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications."

• What about ethnic Jews who are atheists?
• The modern nation-state is a temporal and civic institution that cannot be religiously homogenous. Anyway, 20 per cent of the Israeli population is Muslim, Christian, Druze or Baha'i.
• It implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy or an apartheid state or both, ending Israel's democracy.
• It disenfranchises Palestinians while enfranchising Jews living outside Israel.
• 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora would give up their rights to repatriation or compensation.
• It ignores the fact that "Jerusalem is as holy to 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, as it is to 15-20 million Jews worldwide."
• The Bible's "sword verses" mean that Palestinians justifiably feel "a little trepidation" as regards what a "Jewish State" means for them, so "recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish State' in Israel is not the same as, say, recognition of Greece today as a "Christian State."

Nusesibeh offers advice to Israelis: "ask instead that Palestinians recognise Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish," calling this "a reasonable demand."

Oct. 11, 2011 update: Efraim Karsh, my colleague at the Middle East Forum, replies to Nusseibeh today in the Jerusalem Post, noting that "the supposedly moderate president of al-Quds University goes to great lengths to explain why Jews, unlike any other nation on earth, are undeserving of statehood."

Nusseibeh claims that a Jewish state must by definition be either a theocracy or an apartheid state, and that its Jewish nature opens the door to legally reducing its substantial non-Jewish minority … "to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights)." This … flies in the face of Israel's 63-year history, where Arabs have enjoyed full equality before the law, and have been endowed with the full spectrum of democratic rights – including the right to vote for and serve in all state institutions.

In fact, from the designation of Arabic as an official language, to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal resting days for their respective communities, to the granting of educational, cultural, judicial, and religious autonomy, Arabs in Israel enjoy more formal prerogatives than ethnic minorities anywhere in the democratic world. …

instead of insisting on being accepted for what it has been for 63 years, or what the UN partition resolution envisaged it to be, Israel should shed its Jewish identity and become "a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism" like many of its Arab neighbors which have Islam as their official religion "but grant equal civil rights to all citizens."

This of course is the complete inverse of the truth.

The Jewish state is a civil, democratic and pluralistic society, something that none of its Arab neighbors can stake a claim to. On the contrary, precisely because Islam is enshrined as state religion throughout the Middle East, the non-Muslim minorities have been denied "equal civil rights" and have instead been reduced to the historic dhimmi status whereby they can at best enjoy certain religious freedoms in return for a distinctly inferior existence, and at worst suffer from systematic persecution and oppression.

And this is the "one-state paradigm" offered by Nusseibeh to Israel's Jewish citizens.

Nov. 1, 2011 update: In an important 9-page article, "The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism: Why the PA Must Recognize a Jewish State," Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner, both high-ranking officials in the Israeli government, argue in Foreign Affairs that

The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state stands at the root of the struggle and behind every so-called core issue, from determining borders to resolving the dispute over Palestinian refugees. Genuine reconciliation can be achieved, then, only once the Palestinians come to terms with Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

Feb. 13, 2012 update: In an major statement, addressing Arab League foreign ministers, Mahmoud Abbas restated the position that Palestinians will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state while adding two new elements, as reported by Israel Hayom: "were the Palestinians to agree to this requirement, Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to Israel as part of a future agreement, and some million and a half Arab citizens of Israel would have little say in shaping the country's affairs." Actually, Abbas used stronger language than this report suggests, stating that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would render its Arab citizens "worthless" (la-qima).

Feb. 27, 2012 update: Well, one prominent Israeli takes the Palestinian side on this issue; former Mossad head Efraim Halevy says that any agreement signed with Israel is tantamount to recognition, meaning the government need not insist on Palestinians overtly recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. "Our Jewishness does not depend on [those who reject this]."

Related Topics:  Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Israel & Zionism receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.