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?