Behind the Headlines Israel Faces Fundamental Problems Concerning Definition of State

It is commonplace that Israel’s situation in the world today is unique in that its very existence as a state is still under question. But it is equally true, though less commonly recognized, that Israel’s other problems–beyond that of existence–are also the most fundamental and basic kind, the kind that affect the very fiber of a nation.

The country today, 28 years after its establishment, is still facing fundamental challenges in each of the main facets of its national life. The government of Premier Yitzhak Rabin, beset by its own inner weaknesses and disunity, must cope with gut issues that have never been effectively tackled, and which show no signs of coping with themselves unaided.

The Yom Kippur War, of course, highlighted a number of these latent problems and difficulties that had never been adequately confronted by the founders of the State. It is too early yet to evaluate David Ben Gurion’s overall role in the molding of Israeli society. But there can be no doubt that the Rabin Cabinet must reap some of the bitter fruits that were sown by its predecessors.

The 1973 war had a considerable impact upon the nation’s awareness of its natural size and real strength. To a certain extent, the war was “a moment of truth.” It removed the veil of deception and illusion that had been blurring Israeli reality. The consequences of the Yom Kippur War–economically, politically and morally–have continued this process of national sobering up.

Thus, Israelis nowadays find themselves forced to face up to issues which were swept under the carpet for many years: the definition of the nation the boundaries of the State and the relationship between the State of Israel and the Jewish diaspora Ostensibly, all these issues were resolved many years ago, but the events of the last two years have demonstrated that past solutions were insufficient: a new approach is badly needed.

DEFINITION OF NATION

It was only by chance that the Jewish State was called “the State of Israel.” In 1948 there were voices urging that the new-born country be called “Judea” (Yehuda). Had that name been adopted, the citizens of the State would have been called “Jews” (Yehudim) and not “Israelis.” Thus the Arab inhabitants of the country who became its citizens would have had to be called “Jews” or “Arab-Jews.”

This is mentioned in order to demonstrate the complexity of problems of coexistence between Jews and Arabs in the same state. Israel was created to enable the Jews to have their own independent state where they would implement the Zionist vision of a restoration of sovereign national life. But relations between the Arab inhabitants and the Jews living in and immigrating to Israel were never sufficiently defined and clarified. Indeed, the current tensions between the government and the Arab minority reflect the weaknesses of the arrangements established in 1948.

In explaining the recent agitation among Israeli Arabs, some critics tend to blame government policy towards the Arabs. These critics claim that Israeli governments over the years paid too much attention to raising the standard of living of the Arab population, and consequently neglected or ignored the Arabs’ national emotions and spiritual needs.

But, though the policies employed by all the Israeli governments vis-a-vis the Arab citizens can be rightly criticized on these grounds. it must remain doubtful whether different policies would have brought different results. The real problem, after all, is rooted in the very definition of the State as a Jewish country which allows the Arab minority to have its own life. Relations between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority cannot be described in the same terms as relations between the Anglophone Canadians and their French minority (and even they have quite severe problems). Relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel are complicated because the majority represents a unique entity that embodies a religion and a nationhood while the minority belongs to a larger, supra-national entity, which exists, in different national forms, along the borders of Israel. A new definition of the Israeli nation is needed.

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE

A new definition of the Israeli nation would logically have to be followed by a decision about its size. The borders of Israel were established in 1949 as a result of the War of Independence. The Six-Day War officially changed the border vis-a-vis Jerusalem only, but in practice other changes have taken place as a result of the erection of new settlements in the administered territories. The final borders will be established in the light of a political settlement to be achieved between Israel and its neighbors. The decision about the borders will have to be shaped by the location of the Arab minority and the new definition of the Israeli nation (will Israel be a binational state; a Jewish homogeneous country, or “the country of the Israelis”–both Arabs and Jews–who will have to share the same rights and duties, including the army service?).

RELATIONS WITH DIASPORA

A new definition is needed in this area too. The Jewish people; as a whole, must ask itself whether the existence of a Jewish independent State is an important value which deserves a personal sacrifice. Since its birth. Israel has increased its Jewish population from 600,000 to three million. Yet, in order to guarantee the future of the Jewish State, a wider populating basis is needed.

Israel is facing difficult issues nowadays; some of them “normal” problems that every country has; some basic issues stemming from the fact that Israel is still in the process of molding its shape and character.