The Question of the Fifth Column- Israel's Arab Minority

There are approximately 8000 potential nations in the world

There are approximately 196 states in the world.

Accordingly there are still 7804 nations that are still deserving of their nation-state.

The numbers tell us that the majority of peoples don’t have a state of their own but are minorities in states. Is it then correct to speak of nation-states? Is there indeed a state which has a truly homogeneous make up, its people exclusively being from the same ‘nation’, or at least thinking so?

Iceland is arguably one of the top five homogeneous states in the world yet even Iceland suffers from a minority problem.

Clearly the solution to the mathematical problem above isn’t to create a world of homogeneous nation-states since this would be a never-ending project. Yet we have to appreciate that the current system of governance in much of the world can be seen as acting through a system of tyranny of the majority, the nature of the state being determined by its majority people. (South Africa was a notable case in which the white minority ruled over the black majority, the cause of much international condemnation.) Should the majority indeed be allowed to dictate the direction of the state and its cultural norms, if that is the will of the majority?

But what of the minorities? If all countries have minorities, some larger than others, how are we to guarantee their rights, freedoms, and cultural norms are protected, even celebrated. The French model presents an example of civic nationalism in which citizenship is celebrated, difference is not. Perhaps this is a convincing model that would ensure equal rights and treat everyone as citizens.

Lets take a look at Israel. Any option of making a joint Jewish Arab state would need to contemplate a power sharing model such as consociationalism as used in the Northern Ireland case.  However a bi-national state in which a power-sharing model is in place in my opinion would not work. The two peoples believe that the one land is theirs. Bi-nationalism would not be power sharing but would rather institutionalise the conflict and the deep rooted tensions that go with it. What is preferable then is a two state solution, self determination  for both peoples.

But lets say the Israeli’s and Palestinians do succeed in achieving a peace agreement. The state of Palestine is created alongside the state of Israel. Problem solved, right? Wrong. What of the minorities? Statistics show that over 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian, or as Israel refers to them as, Israeli Arab. What will their status be after a peace deal? Will they be shipped off to the newly created Palestinian state?
Some in the Israeli camp advocate land swaps in which areas with large blocs of Jews over the green line will be annexed into Israel proper and in exchange Palestinian villages in Israel will be annexed to the new Palestinian state. However the report from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government found that 77% of Arabs living in Israel would rather live in Israel than any other country in the world. Do they not have a right to live in Israel?

Jewish nationalists may argue no, the Jewish people need a strong Jewish state and an Arab minority is an existential threat. This, the argument goes, is especially so if the Palestinians have there own state, let the Palestinians go there!

But what about the Jews in America, U.K, France…you get my drift. The world is not made up of homogeneous nation-states and Israel is no exception with its Arab minority who hold Israeli citizenship. This will not change even with the creation of a Palestinian state. So what of their rights as a substantial minority in Israel. Is it right that a Jew cannot marry his fellow Arab Israeli as is currently the case? Is it right that buses do not run on the Sabbath which negatively effects the Arab minority citizens? Should the flag be changed taking away the Jewish symbol of the Star of David and replace it with something more democratic?

The examples of these types of questions are many and are challenging. They present to Israel the apparent inconsistency of being a Jewish Democratic state. Or is it a Jewish and Democratic state? Or even a Jewish state, which within the Jewish framework is democratic, and when the two conflicts Judaism comes out trumps.

Lets say the Jewish state is one, which does prioritise Judaism over democracy when the two collide. Is that necessarily bad? There is only one Jewish state in the world after all; surely every effort should be made to retain its Jewish character. But what of Israel’s pride of being the only true democracy in the Middle East? Surely the Jewish people’s memory isn’t as short term as to forget what it feels like to be a minority people?

I have no solution to this problem. There is no solution to this problem. Different countries deal with it in different ways. France bans the Burqa. In the UK Cameron pushes his ‘Big Society’, and National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. In Israel those who feel threatened by the ‘fifth column’ perpetuate a feeling of ‘us and them’ with acts such as citizenship laws which stops Palestinians who marry Israelis from obtaining Israeli citizenship but granting citizenship to other non Jewish people from outside Israel who marry a Jew. Some see this as racism, others as protecting the Jewish state.

At the end of the day over 20% of Israelis are Arab. Israel still needs to find a way of going beyond being technically democratic but actually suspicious of its minority. Should this be with compulsory national service in place of army service for the Arab citizens? Should it be by changing the Israeli national anthem which many of the left propose?

Let the people decide… or can we? 

Can State and Religion Work in the Jewish State? The question of the Hareidim and the hill top youth

Israel is known for its ongoing conflict. But it is not the Arab Israeli one that I am concerned with today. Rather, there is an ongoing internal conflict within the Jewish state that is intrinsic in many new states but more so, I believe, within the Jewish one.

Clifford Geertz in his book The Interpretation of Cultures makes an interesting point regarding new nations that I think is particularly relevant to the case of Israel. Geertz argues that new states are susceptible to disaffection within the peoples of the new state. This is so as the new state is created, cultural groups contend with the other, over the new political space that previously didn’t exist. Through the history of nation-state formations this has had bloody consequences. Examples are numerous and include modern cultural tensions today such as the Basque country in Spain, Belgium’s Flemish and French speakers and Cyprus. Different conflict resolution techniques have often been employed to address tensions and cultural difference such as consociationalism in Northern Ireland and Bosnia as well as ongoing, unresolved conflicts such as China’s persecution of the Tibetans.

In Israel however, the internal conflict plays out in a highly different way. As well as tensions with Israel’s Israeli-Arab minority (tensions that would be expected), Israel has an internal conflict within its Jewish citizens. As per Geertz’s cultural primordialism, in the Jewish case, it was after the creation of the modern State of Israel that different factions of the Jewish nation came face to face with each other for the first time. What then occurred, was a battle for recognition between each sub-group within their state. The battle took different forms, and continues today to do so.

Essentially it comes down to two crucial questions;

1.Who is a Jew?

2.What should a Jewish State look like?

This quandary was articulated by David Ben Gurion, who was deciding how to form Israel’s citizenship laws. Ben Gurion wrote to a number of Rabbis, philosophers, professors, scientists, historians and politicians on the question of ‘Who is a Jew’ of which the fascinating responses can be found in Eliezer Ben Rafael’s book ‘Jewish Identities: fifty intellectuals answer Ben Gurion’.

And so Geertz’s cultural primordialist theory takes effect. Different groups, part of the same Jewish nation, fight over the new Jewish State. What occurs is to some extent ‘subnationalism’s’ within the Jewish state. Different cultural and religious groups fighting to dictate how the Jewish state should be Jewish , or not, or indeed what type of Jewish.

An example of the battle over Jewish identity can be seen in the fact that civil marriage is not an option in Israel, the Religious Orthodox courts having a monopoly on religion. This is being continuously challenged, many choosing to marry outside Israel rather than marry Orthodox.

At the heart of the issue is assessing to what extent does religion need to be expressed in order to retain the Jewish nature of the Jewish State?

Many think it need be only a cultural Jewish state.                                                     
Others seek a state that is in accord with Biblical Judaism, not satisfied until the entire ancient Israel is redeemed.                                                                                  
Others oppose the secular nature of the state, and will not be satisfied until all of Israel, and its people, behave according to a strict level of Orthodoxy.              
 Others still, seek total secularization of Israel, separation between state and religion and some even bi-nationalism with the Palestinians.

This struggle is ripping Israel apart from within. Most recently, Israel has had its first Jewish citizen that has been able to register as being without religion.

More dramatically two groups have turned to violence and antagonism in their battle to define the Jewish state.

The infamous ‘hill top youth’ have most recently enacted violence on the Israeli Defence Force in their frustration over settlement policy. They will not be happy until the whole of ‘biblical Israel’ is free.

Sections of the Ultra Orthodox community have turned to violence in their frustration over a number of religious and cultural issues. They will not be happy until the whole of Israel is run in accordance with Ultra Orthodox law.

Religion is a doctrine, which in nature can be exclusive and Universalist.      
Modern nationalism generally is inclusive and particularistic.                                    
To reconcile the two can and has proven particularly difficult.

We have seen in different sections of the world, that religion and politics can’t mix. In Israel there are signs of this strain.

That a Jewish State needs to exist is not a matter of discussion. What needs to be discussed is how to deal with religion within a liberal democratic state. What is for sure is that the maximalist actions of the hill top youth and the Ultra Orthodox extremist’s needs to be circumvented. Arrests only go so far. It is with the leaders of the groups, their education systems and within a strong civil society that these topics can be addressed.

The rule of law needs to come before religion. Even, and especially in a state defined by religion, race or ethnicity. Within Israel’s coalition system, seats and a majority can no longer be exchanged for autonomy for a particular cultural or religious group.

As long as different cultural groups are pitched against each other for the power to dominate society, Israel will remain heavily fragmented.

Working on creating a strong civil society which includes all elements of Israeli society is a first step. Changing the coalition system is a second. 

Are Diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews part of the same nation?

Recently the Israeli government sponsored 3 advertisements encouraging Israelis that have moved to the Diaspora to return to Israel.  The ads make assumptions about culture as being the basis of nationhood.  One of the ads sees a granddaughter horrifying her grandparents by exclaiming that the festival of the day, is Christmas as apposed to the expected answer; Hanukkah. Another sees a boyfriend mistaking a memorial candle for Israel Remembrance Day as a romantic gesture, again, implying that Israeli culture and U.S culture are out of sync.

            A distinction needs to be made between the two scenarios. The first scenario (Hanukkah = Israel - Christmas = U.S) focuses on a Jewish holiday commemorating the Maccabees revolt in Second Temple time.  The commemoration of this holiday has been celebrated in the Diaspora well before the thought of a modern state of Israel ever entered anyone’s mind. What comes to mind are the famous pictures of Jews in the ghetto huddling around a single menorah during the holocaust, the message being that if you want to commemorate, you’ll be able to do it anywhere. This is especially so in the land of the free where last week President Obama and his family celebrated Hanukkah. You don’t even need to go to your local Kosher bakery to buy your Kosher doughnuts for Hanukkah since many Dunkin Doughnuts hold the OU Kosher stamp. Jewish life in America is extremely vibrant and secular Jews don’t need to go so far to find Jewish culture staring at them in the face.

However, the girl whose knee jerk reaction is Christmas and not Hanukkah would probably not have said so had she been in Israel.

And so now what?

Do all Jews in the Diaspora, if they want to feel part of the Jewish nation, need to live in Israel? Well no, since Jewish life is vibrant in the US.

So should secular Jews then move to Israel in order to be part of the nation? Well only if they want to feel part of the nation, in which case they can get that in the US too.

The only ones who would really benefit from moving back are those who don’t care enough to educate their children about Judaism, but would be happy if they would be in a society where it makes up the dominant culture.

Do such people exist? Well probably, but the point brings up an interesting question;

Diaspora secular Jews who have no Jewish culture, are they really part of the Jewish nation? Well, as Judaism defines nationhood genetically maybe it would be better to ask do they have a Jewish national identity?

We’ll come back to that question but now onto the second video, the commemoration of fallen Israeli soldiers gone wrong. Obviously this commemoration was not celebrated before the creation of the state of Israel. Judaism has a day dedicated to mourning; Tisha ba’av, the fast on the 9^th of the Jewish month of Av, in which Jewish tragedies are commemorated all on one day.

However Yom Hazikaron, (Israeli remembrance day) is a day just to commemorate fallen soldiers and victims of terror, a day directly linked to the modern State of Israel, it’s connection deepened due to the fact that it falls the day before Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel Independence day.

This theme is very different than theme number one. As appose to Hanukkah, Yom Hazikaron is much more likely to not be known about in the Diaspora. In the North West London Jewish community for example Yom Hazikaron is only commemorated by self-declared Zionists and even within those Zionists, probably only the more ardent end of the Zionist spectrum. Hannukah however, tends to be celebrated across the Jewish spectrum from traditional non-orthodox Jews to the ultra orthodox Hassidim, give or take.

In short, the video about Hannukah is an appeal about Jewish culture, the one about Israel Remembrance Day, about Israeli culture.

So with this in mind, let’s address the question again;

Diaspora secular Jews who have no Jewish culture, can they really have a Jewish national identity?

The creation of the state of Israel created an interesting situation. Jews living in Israel started going through a process of nation building, in obvious ways such a standardized state run education system, and some more subtle, such as the creation of Israeli culture through the media. Either way in Israel, a people were being united in ways that previously never occurred. The degree to which this has been successful is a matter of debate (something that I plan to cover in a future blog), however what is clear is that Israelis are a distinct people.

The fact that a Jewish people were able to identify enough to move to a new Jewish state is itself indicative of the fact that there were people who identified themselves as the Jewish nation before the state of Israel. However a process of nation building needed to occur to ensure the success of the new state. Jews living throughout the Diaspora were now to live together on one strip of land, each group bringing its own culture, set of belief and affinities. It is the job of the nationalist to solidify a nation. Eliezer Ben Yehuda for example, was known as the reviver of the Hebrew language and the author of the first Modern Hebrew dictionary. So as Jews now living in Israel were learning the revived language of the ancient Jews, Jews in the Diaspora carried on conversing in the vernacular of their state.

Over 60 years on and we find a people living in Israel who have bonded as a people using Judaism as a defining culture, and have also created over time a unique Israeli culture consisting of unique film, music, theatre and of course the (in)famous Israeli mentality(anyone who has been in an Israeli taxi or queued at the Misrad Hapnim –Ministry of the interior, will know what I’m referring to).

In this respect, a Jew from the Diaspora coming to the holy land could either

A.     Relate to Israeli’s because of their common Jewish culture,

B.      Not relate to them because they have no Jewish culture, or

C.      Not relate to them even with their Jewish culture since their dominant culture is more Diaspora than Jewish, or the Israeli more Israeli than Jewish.

To some degree, as Benedict Anderson argues, a nation exists in the minds of the nation, and so if you will it, it is no dream (T. Herzl). Accordingly in the Diaspora a Jew who wants to identify themselves as a Jew can, and has much to draw on. From the perennial sense of ‘the other’, to common Jewish culture such as lighting the Menorah on Hanukkah. Walker Conner in his book ‘Ethnonationalism’ cites Sigmund Freud, who was a totally secular Jew living in the Diaspora who yet felt an ‘irresistible’ perennial feeling, nothing to do with Jewish or national pride, but rather

“many obscure and emotional forces, which were the more powerful the less they could be expressed in words, as well as a clear consciousness of inner identity, a deep realization of sharing the same psychic structure.”

This perennial feeling of course can be extended to the Jews living in Israel. However that is not to assume that a Diaspora Jew can easily leave the Diaspora and emigrate to Israel, as much as a Jew living in France say, can pick up and live in a Jewish community in the U.S. The Jewish people may have a perennial connection but that is not to take away from the culture that they take from their host countries. The call for Israeli’s to move back to Israel is one based on culture, some of it Jewish, some Israeli.

Israel’s right of return means that any Jew around the world has a homeland in the State of Israel. Is the future of the Jewish nation in Israel? Not necessarily. Do Diaspora Jews feel a national identity with Jews in Israel? Not necessarily. Is that a problem?...

Chanukkah video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAkXBULjUCk

Yom Hazikaron video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXpkYQZHlo

Why Gingrich and Sand are both wrong

Last Friday Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told The Jewish Channel -a little known cable television channel in the U.S- how he sees the Palestinian people as invented and that they are really Arabs part of the wider Arab community. Cries of outrage followed and many called on Gingrich to look at Shlomo Sand’s book ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’. However the request is fairly dubious; is it to prove that it is not the Palestinians but the Jews who are an invented people, or is it to show how the Jews are also an invented people.

There are a myriad of opinions of how to define what a nation is. Claiming that one people constitute a nation and the other not can be problematic.

For example, Modernist thinkers claim that all nations are invented, products of modernity originating in the late 18^th Century and the result of urbanisation, the printing press, industrialization together with other factors. Within this argument, each nation is as invented as the other and one national claim is no stronger than another’s. Sand’s argument that the Jews are an invented people is based on such modernist arguments. Sand is open about this fact drawing his main arguments from such modernist thinkers as Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson amongst others. If this were so then Sand’s claim that the Jewish people are ‘invented’ would be no big discovery since it would be the natural conclusion of Modernist scholars that this is so.

The fact that Sand picks out the Jewish case to question whether it has ancient roots is in itself antithetical. On the one hand, by rejecting the Jewish case as a legitimate example of a primordial nation, he is assuming that nations can be primordial (with ancient roots).  On the other hand, by using modernist claims to show the Jewish nation is invented, he is acknowledging that all nations are invented not just the Jewish one. This is a tactic that seems to prove that the Jews are an invented people, but blurs modernist and primordialist arguments making it seem that the Jewish case specifically is invented, rather than all cases of nations were invented.  It would be more fitting to call his book ‘The invention of peoples’ rather than the ‘The invention of the Jewish people’.

This brings me on to the second flawed claim, that of Newt Gingrich arguing that Palestinians are an invented people. Firstly I would love to ask the Republican candidate about the origins of the nation of the United States? The fact is, the U.S is as an invented nation as they come and the strong sense of national identity comes more from its focus on civic bonding through the excessive pledges of allegiance, prominence of the national flag and of course the continuous sense of the ‘other’. When Gingrich calls Palestinians an invented nation, what he is assuming is that there are such things as non-invented nations, or primordial nations. However by referring to the Palestinians as part of a wider Arab community, what he is in fact doing is claiming that nations should rather be regarded as part of their status before nations existed, in a world of civilizations. This thought process is similar to that of Samuel Huntington who splits up the world into civilizations based on culture, in which it is a civilization’s culture that is the most important contributor of identity, and thus the defining factor within the world order. If this were so it would be more correct to see Israel as part of ‘the West’ and the Palestinians part of the ‘Arab population’. Doing so denies Israel as much as Palestine with the status of ‘nation’. To argue that one is a nation and independent of civilization and the other not is an inconsistent logic.

Both Sand and Gingrich’s arguments are based on flawed logics that manipulate theories of nations and nationalism to support their political views. For Sand this became clear to me when I heard him speak in SOAS last year on the topic. At the conclusion of his lecture he ended not by saying ‘that is why claims of a Jewish people in antiquity are flawed’ but rather appealed; ‘and so you should all try and boycott Israel’. Sand is no Jewish historian, he is a critic of the modern state of Israel and his book is an attempt to justify his political criticisms with claims that the Jewish people are in fact not a people, and thus have no real claim to nationhood. He projects his political beliefs back into history in order to support his views today.

Gingrich too in his effort to secure Jewish votes, makes a stark claim that questions the Palestinians as a nation. I doubt whether Gingrich has considered what constitutes a nation and whether the Palestinians are any less a nation than that of the American case, for example. Like Sand, in order to further his political aspirations, Gingrich makes a claim that is empty and invalid. This point is even starker when in supporting his claim at the GOP primary debate he asserted, “These people are terrorists.” His claim that the Palestinian people are not a nation is not a historical argument, but a politically loaded outburst that is void of any substance.

The fact is, is that there are two nations staking a claim in one land. Maximalist claims denying the existence of either of these nations are dangerous and unhelpful. Maximalist claims frame the conflict as a zero-sum game and will only continue to damage both nations, or invented nations, depending on whom you ask.