Daniel Pipes Blog  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  |  Entries by Topic  |  

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State: Updates

by Daniel Pipes
Thu, 29 Nov 2007
updated Thu, 28 Feb 2008

Print

Send

Comment

RSS

Share:

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. (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."

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.

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:

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

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.

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."

Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/806/a559e/733

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Comment on this weblog entry

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage