In the past few weeks the American and Israeli press, impressed by the extensive travel log of US Secretary of State John Kerry, were moved to conclude that the peace process may have arisen from the dead. They attributed this miraculous event to the announcement that Kerry was preparing to submit to the parties Washington’s own framework for a peace agreement between the parties.
The pundits speculated that the Kerry framework will be based on a quid pro quo: In return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and for Palestinian agreement on Israeli security measures that infringe upon Palestinian sovereignty in the future Palestinian state, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to be ready to accept Palestinian demands for an agreement based on the 1967 lines.
It was also reported that Palestinian negotiators made it clear that Israeli demands were not acceptable. It was also reported that Secretary Kerry was partial to the two Israeli demands: Israeli security measures that infringe upon Palestinian sovereignty; and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This discredits the honest broker role which, is alleged to characterise Washington’s role in the Middle East.
Kerry’s support of the first Israeli demand is not surprising; the security of Israel has been one of the strategic priorities of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Protecting the security of Israel is broadly conceived. It reflects a policy, not of passive defence, but rather one of preemptive strike; with Israeli nuclear power representing a policy of active deterrence. In this context it may be said that American support for Israeli security has usually been described as motivated by a commitment to maintaining the balance of power — political science language for —helping maintain Israeli military superiority and overall hegemonic domination in the region.
Machiavellian approach
What is surprising, however, is the apparent American support for Netanyahu’s demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Even Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, thinks that this demand is ‘unnecessary’; other critics believe that this demand is a ploy to doom the negotiations to failure and blame the Palestinians for it. This is hard to prove, but is not within the realm of the fantastic given what we already know about Netanyahu’s Machiavellian approach to politics.
Whatever Netanyahu’s motivations maybe, it remains an intriguing demand. The Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised the State of Israel’s right to exist in 1993, which led to the Oslo peace accords. There were no demands from then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin for recognition of the Jewishness of the state of Israel. Neither the Norwegians, who brokered the Oslo agreement nor from the Americans who hosted the signing of the agreement in Washington, raised the issue of the Jewishness of the State of Israel.
The Palestinians explain their rejection of this demand by arguing that it would amount to a tacit acceptance of a second class citizenship for the Arab minority living in Israel. It would also amount to an abandonment of the inalienable right of return for the Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their country during the 1947-49 war.
Moreover, Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would amount to acceptance of the discriminatory nature of the foundation law of Israel: The Law of Return. This law grants Jews from around the world automatic political and citizenship rights regardless of their place of birth and state of citizenship. These privileges are denied to the Palestinian Arabs even if they were born in Palestine. That is because Israel is not the country of its citizens, but, uniquely, the country of the “Jewish people”— a concept which clearly equates faith with race. As a concept of public law, the “Jewish people” concept is reinforced by the various Zionist organisations ( the World Zionist Organisation, The Jewish Agency, and The Jewish National Fund) claiming a status of international public law while at the same time dedicated to building one country (Israel), advancing its development, and promoting immigration to it — all on the basis of faith — a discriminatory practice contrary to the provisions of international law.
Kerry should be careful not to venture political support to the faith-based Israeli-Zionist concept of Jewish people. Lest he contradicts his own country’s position. The position of the US State Department was articulated in a letter dated April 20. 1964 addressed to Rabi Elmer Berger. Executive Vice-President of American Council for Judaism. It stated: “The Department of State does not recognise a legal-political relationship based upon the religious identification of American citizens... the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.”
Moreover, in a 1999 court case in New York, the court denied nonprofit registration to an affiliate of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which had argued before the municipal court in Nassau County that its affiliate was eligible for exemption, because it was welfare-related. The Nassau district attorney rejected the claim, saying that: “The JNF was a political, discriminatory and racist arm of the state of Israel...”
For peace in the region to be peace between peoples and not agreements between governments, we should be supporting an inclusive and conciliatory approach. The one currently being promoted is based on fear and exclusiveness — a poor recipe for a just and lasting peace in the region.
Dr Adel Safty is distinguished visiting professor and special adviser to the rector at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.
