There’s a reason why Benjamin Netanhayu (and we) keeps harping on about Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. It’s because if one reviews the history of Zionism, one finds oneself reviewing, concomitantly, the history of Arab rejectionism.
Before there was the 1947 Partition Plan – which the Arabs rejected – there was the British White Paper of 1939, which they also rejected. Now, the Jews rejected it too, but the Palestinians should have accepted it, because it heavily restricted Jewish immigration – at a time when anyone with two eyes open realized that Jewish immigration from Europe was on the cusp of heavily increasing. In fact, the latter is why the White Paper was called “perfidious” by both Zionist leaders in Palestine and several British members of government, including once prime minister, Lloyd George. Quotas on future immigration of Jews into Palestine after 1944 would be decided by the Palestinian Arab rulers.
So why did the Arab Higher Committee, as the Palestinian leadership was known, reject the White Paper? Like the Jewish Zionists, the local Palestinians had no patience for the ruling British authorities and also lacked belief that the British would ever condone the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
But was there also an element of all or nothing? Was the Palestinian leadership, led by the notorious anti-Semite Amin Al-Husseini, loath to agree to any document that affirmed a Jewish presence in the Holy Land?
Then, of course, came the partition plan, accepted by the Zionists and almost the entire Jewish public, rejected by Palestinians and almost the entire Arab world. Fast-forward to today, when, although the Oslo Accords were signed signaling a de facto recognition of Israel, no Palestinian leader has openly recognized Israel as a Jewish state. And some Palestinian leaders, such as Hamas’, remain staunch in their unwillingness to recognize Israel’s Jewish identity.
So is it a surprise that Israeli leadership is skeptical of Palestinian commitment to co-existing alongside a Jewish Israel?
This is not to say that the Israeli side hasn’t contributed to the dissolution of peace talks. Continued settlement activity, regardless of one’s opinion on settlements themselves, not only fails to create good will among the negotiating partners, it also provides fodder for the anti-Israel crowds and helps solidify passive anti-Israel views. And Netanyahu’s recent talk about changing Israel’s basic law to clearly define that Israel is a nation ‘only of Jews’ should disturb anyone who believes in equality and the richness of multi-ethnic and diverse societies.
And yet, we understand why the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character has become a dealbreaker.
Jimmy Carter has been quoted in the Jerusalem Post, calling the recent unity deal between Fatah and Hamas as an opportunity for peace. True, Israel would be again negotiating with representatives of the entire Palestinian people. There’s only one fundamental problem: Half of that leadership won’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence. Doing so would be crossing a “red line.” Carter’s naïve belief is based on all sorts of ‘what-ifs’. “Were Hamas to recognize Israel’s right exist within its pre-1967 borders…” he says.
Reviewing the past 75 years of Zionist-Arab relations, we fully understand why Israel’s leadership is unwilling to bank on the ‘what-ifs’ that the likes of Carter treat as tangible. At some point, if Israel is to trust the Palestinians, a verbal recognition of what Israel is will have to come.
