Demography and racism, Hassan A. Barari

Aljazeerah Info Center needs your support

Send donations by check to: Al-Jazeerah Info Center, P.O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30722-0724, USA.

THREE ANNUAL conferences convened in Herzliya over the last three years. The main theme was to confirm the definition of Israel as a Jewish state. The Jewishness of the state, and here is the crux of the matter, represents the ultimate national interest on which Israeli leaders — regardless of their political and ideological orientations — concur.

This objective remains, however, the bone of contention between different political forces in Israel. Immediately after the Six-Day War, some Israeli politicians from the ruling Labour Party suggested that Israel should concern itself with this issue. Therefore, doves within Labour suggested that in order to maintain a Jewish and democratic state, Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories and confine its borders to the pre-1967 war. Driven by this reasoning, many within Labour made the case that a peace settlement based on territorial compromise would help realise that end. However, Labour failed to lead Israel towards this goal.

In due time, the number of settlers increased. What made matters worse was the fact that building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza was a conscious policy on the part of Likud to achieve two main objectives: create “irreversible” facts on the ground and foreclose any peace settlement that entails Israeli withdrawal. By all yardsticks, the leaders of Likud managed to realise both objectives.

Despite Likud's success in dictating the national agenda in Israel over the last 25 years, its leaders have been characterised by what might be called strategic shortsightedness. To date, they have failed to reconcile their desire to control the maximum amount of land with maintaining the Jewishness of Israel. If a two-state solution becomes impossible, Israel will be a bi-national state with a clear Palestinian majority.

Interestingly, the demographic bomb, to use the Israeli parlance, became the convincing argument for those who were previously opposed to any withdrawal from the West Bank. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's speech at Herzliya conference about unilateral disengagement should be seen in this way.

Much troubling still is the fact that the Palestinian Arabs who were not expelled from their homes in the 1948 war are constituting around 20 per cent of the total population of Israel. This figure, according to some Israeli projections, is going to reach as high as 35 per cent in around 20 years. Many politicians and demographers are wary of the far-fetched consequences of such a development on the Jewishness of the state.

Benjamin Netanyahu's statement at the Herzliya conference, and later the extremist minister Avigdor Lieberman's, regarding the Arabs in Israel should be seen against this backdrop. Apart from the racist nature of these statements, it remains to be seen how Israel will contend with the demographic development within Israel, over and above that of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

It should be emphasised that Zionism wanted to create a state for the Jews. The current demographic dilemma is caused by the folly of the founding fathers of Israel who insisted on incorporating as much land as possible, thus including a large community of Palestinians. Had Israel confined its territorial demands and ambition to those stated in the Partition Plan of 1947, Israel would have known no such demographic threat.

Even if Israel arrives at a peace settlement with the Palestinians without granting the latter the right to return, time is approaching when Israel will be a bi-national state. Extreme solutions, such as transfer or ethnic cleansing, are anachronistic and will not be tolerated in a world that is becoming increasingly globalised and where the future of the nation-state is uncertain. Therefore, instead of the racist remarks made by top politicians, Israel needs to radically change its policies vis-?-vis its Arab minority.