A response to Haim Gans' aritcle: Arab recognition of a Jewish state,
July 26 2009

By Prof. Ruth Gavison

I  agree with Chaim Gans ("Arab recognition of a Jewish state," July 26) on many points; for example, the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is just. Also, such a state cannot exist without a Jewish majority in the territory of the State of Israel, so it is worthwhile to act to preserve such a majority by, among other measures, rejecting the demand for the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Finally, Arab citizens of the state not only have individual rights, but also collective rights with the exception of the right to use Israel as the state in which they realize their demand for political self-determination.

Nonetheless, I reject Gans' conclusion that demanding Arab and Arab Israeli leaders to recognize the basic justice of the existence of a Jewish state is unjustified. Gans argues that Arab recognition in principle of a Jewish state is welcome, yet for Israel to demand such recognition is unwise and unjust. In his view, the forced pronouncement of such recognition by the leaders will only exacerbate the psychological opposition of the Arab populace, which is supposed to influence the chances of peace between Israel as a nation state and its neighbors and the Arab minority within its borders. According to Gans, to gain popular support, Israel must provide a sound explanation for its Jewishness and follow a just policy, things that Israel is not doing.

Thus, statements by leaders on the legitimacy of a Jewish state do not suffice, yet clear, unequivocal declarations of this sort are vital for the long, difficult process of educating the people in the region to accept Israel in their midst. To my sorrow, I have not found one shred of evidence that opposition to Israel in the consciousness of the Arab peoples - that consciousness which, according to Gans, will be further inflamed by forced statements by their leaders - includes a principled, stable recognition of the justness of a Jewish state, and that this opposition will disappear only if Israel's policy becomes more fair.
Gans criticizes some of Israel's policies and positions. He seeks to encourage a moral and systematic debate on the consequences of the state's Jewishness and the manner those consequences square with democracy and civil rights. Yet he recognizes the principled justness of a Jewish state. Thus, a researcher like Gans should support the clear distinction between such criticism and delegitimization of the very idea of a Jewish state in part of the Land of Israel.

There is no contradiction in principle between recognition of Israel as a state in which the Jewish people realize their right of political self-determination and a determined struggle for equality for the Arab minority living in that state, including recognition of their collective rights and a just solution to the conflict. So why isn't it possible to dovetail the demand for recognition in principle of the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in part of the Land of Israel with an open debate on the extent of that state's Jewishness and the terms of coexistence between Jews and Arabs?

National rights for the Hungarian minority in Slovakia or the Albanian minority in Macedonia are not supposed to negate the fact that these are nation states of majority populations. The dispute is only about the way relations between the majority and minority ought to be conducted.

The Israeli demand for recognition is, at least partially, a response to the Arab leaders' dogged refusal in and outside Israel to accept the premise - which Gans himself agrees with - that the continued existence of a Jewish state is just. In addition, Arab Israelis who have written papers outlining their vision for the future included unequivocal statements depicting the Zionist enterprise as colonialism and which question the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a state if it does not agree to become a binational state. (Alongside a Palestinian state, while it remains unclear if Jews can live in this state, and if so, what status they would have.

In practice, Gans is rationalizing the refusal of the Arab leaders in Israel and abroad to recognize the principle of Jewish self-determination in part of the Land of Israel. In my view, he would have been more consistent in his position if he had demanded from them such recognition while clearly emphasizing that there must be a determined struggle so the Jewish state's policy will be a more just one.

The writer is president of the Metzilah Center, which focuses on Jewish nationalism and its compatibility with universal values.