LANDLESS PEOPLE
Zionist ideology as an impediment to democracy in Israel
Author Yarden Sela Supervisor Dr. S. Rezaeiejan Degree Political Science Track International Relations 2018 Bachelor Thesis
Bachelor thesis Landless People Thesis on Zionist ideology as an impediment to democracy in Israel Word count: 11,108 Amsterdam 29/01/2018 Yarden Sela Student number | 10705937 yarden.sela@student.uva.nl Supervisor | Dr. S. Rezaeiejan Second reader | V.C. Marapin MSc University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) Bachelor thesis submitted to receive the degree Bachelor of Science in Political Science, track International Relations Source of cover: MV Media (September 29, 2011) – https://muslimvillage.com/2011/09/29/15171/muslims-in-israel-seeking-jewish-converts/
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 5 II. Theoretical Framework 7 2.1 Democracy 8 2.2 Ethnic Democracy 8 2.3 Zionism 10 2.3.1 History of Zionism 10 2.3.2 Characteristics of Zionism 12 2.3.3 Post-Zionism 13 2.4 External Forces 14 2.4.1 Diaspora 14 2.4.2 The Israel Lobby 15 III. Methodology 17 3.1 Design 17 3.2 Points of Discussion 19 IV. Research 21 4.1 Israeli democracy 21 4.1.1 The proclamation of Israel 21 4.1.2 Structure of the state 22 4.1.3 Israel as an archetype of democracy? 24 4.2 Ethnic democracy 24 4.2.1 Ethnic legislation 25 4.2.2. Ethnic symbolism 30 4.2.3 Israel as an archetype of ethnic democracy? 30 4.3 External interference in Israeli politics 31 4.3.1 America’s motive to aid Israel 31 4.3.2 America’s aid to Israel 32 4.3.3 Implications of U.S.-aid to Israel 33 4.4 Post-Zionism and New Historians 34 4.4.1 Origins of post-Zionism 34 4.4.2 Post-Zionism in practice 35 4.4.3 Legacy of New History 35 V. Conclusion 37 VI. References 39
I. Introduction
Around 1878 the Austrian writer Naftali Herz Imber composed a poem called
‘Tikvatenu’, Our Hope. This complaisant composition gives a detailed description of the
yearning Jewish soul that “gazes onwards to the East” and wishes to “unite its people in the Land of Zion”. A decade later, Tikvatenu was rewritten into what was chosen as the anthem of the First Zionist Congress. This newer version, called ‘Hatikva’, The Hope, once again describes the yearning of a Jewish nation in their ancestral Jerusalem. With the Declaration of Independence of 1948, this ultimately became the Israeli anthem.
However, this anthem could be posed as a pivotal example of the current difficulties in the State of Israel. Since the First Zionist Congress in 1897, there has been a growing wish for an exclusively Jewish State (Eden 2015). This Jewish bastion, however has been raised amidst in a region with multiple ethnicities and religions. This clash between majorly Jewish Zionists and the Palestinian inhabitants resulted in a continuing struggle. For years, politicians and scientists have tried to resolve this ongoing conflict but unfortunately, all have been with no end. Because of the intractable nature of this conflict, the question remains how and even if this conflict can be solved (Bar-Tal 2000; Gayer et al. 2009). November 2017 marks the centenary of the Balfour declaration by which the British government “recognized the collective right of world Jewry to Palestine and the ‘Jewish People’ became an entity in the context of international law” (Friedman 2007: 85). This wish of a Jewish state by the Zionist movement in Europe resulted in the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, which polarized the ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Jewish Israeli’s in the Middle East. Consequentially, Zionism has played a critical role in the creation of this nation state and the nature of the conflict.
Initially, Israel has often been portrayed as the only democracy in the Middle-East. In 2016, Freedom House released a research showing that Israel’s democracy index is significantly higher than its neighbours (Wilner 2017). But while the traditional, Western discourse regarding Israel’s government used to emphasize its democratic character, there has been a shift in semantics regarding Israel’s government (Kimmerling 1999; The Economist Intelligence 2010; Nikolenyi 2013; Freedom House 2017). Scholars such as Sammy Smooha have assigned Israel with a new archetype; Israel as an ethnic democracy where ethnicity secures and impedes political rights and liberties. Other critical scholars, such as Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli political geographer, even label Israel as an ethnocracy,
stating that Israel is neither authoritarian nor democratic (Yiftachel 2000) but rather a synthesis of the former and latter. This thesis will focus on this ongoing debate regarding the origin of the State of Israel. Its aim is to assess in what way Zionism has impeded democratic processes and resulted in inequality between Jewish and non-Jewish ethnicities. This thesis’ research question thus is as follows: To what extent is the Zionist character of the State of Israel an impediment to equality between ethnicities in the Israeli/Palestinian lands? By incorporating the history of Zionism and the Israeli State and linking this to the government’s institution, this research sees Zionism as an evident factor in the Israel-Palestine conflict. By doing so, a contribution is made regarding the scientific debate about Israel and Apartheid, since the aim is to assess what kind of state Israel is. Furthermore, it is important to keep stressing on the necessity of peace in the region, through exposing different impediments in this Palestinian-Israeli conflict of violence, occupation and exclusion. A feeling or actual state of inequality could obstruct negotiations and solutions for peace between the two entities.
Firstly, this thesis will create a critical theoretical framework to explain the difference between democracies and ethnic democracies. Secondly, the importance of Zionism in the creation of the idea and the State of Israel will be discussed, starting from Theodor Herzl’s influential work regarding Zionism in the beginning of the 20th century, until the ideology of post-Zionism during the Oslo Accords. The third concept that will be discussed is external forces. This thesis will then research the implications of the ethnic character of the Israeli state for sustainable peace in the region regarding both Palestinians living in Israel, commonly regarded in Israeli discourse as Arab Israeli’s1, and Palestinians in the Palestine territories. 1 By referring to Palestinians in the Israeli lands as ‘Arab Israeli’s’, there is a connotation of the negation of self-determination of these individuals. Prior to 1948, they were Palestinians and the independence of Israel has resulted in the State of Israel. Consequentially, these Palestinians were referred to as Arab Israeli’s, however they still identify as Palestinians living in Israel.
II. Theoretical Framework
In order to get a better understanding of this thesis’ research, it is necessary to determine from which point of view Israel’s democracy will be further examined. This thesis will be studied from the scheme of critical theory to explain the friction in Israel between ethnicity and democracy for ethnic minorities.
Critical theory is described as a strand of thoughts, rather than theories, that are interconnected and see “the world as a project under construction, as becoming rather than being” (Adler 2005: 11). This meta-physical approach to the subjective world emphasizes on the importance of history and context. Entities do not have fixed interests, rather, these interests are determined in their personal social context and social interactions, as this thesis will set forth in the case of Palestinians and Israeli’s.
In this approach, ideas of post-colonialism criticise the colonial history of the world and their implications. Post-colonialism tries to uncover a frame that is taken as an objective aspect of social interactions. The main focus lies in treating entities as objects with agency, instead of accepting the status quo as it is and thus the implications (Müge Göçek 2012). This historic approach to events in the social world is useful in the sense that it provides a broad perspective, instead of giving limited insights about the current state of mind. It bears in mind that some modern societies are stained with their colonial history and that some of these theories and policies are embedded with the idea that “the (strong) Self sets the rules of the game for the (weak) Other to play” (Agathangelou & Ling 2009: 15). The following analysis of concepts will incorporate this colonialist history of the region and conflict in the analysis of the structure of the state of Israel. Firstly, democracy will be explained to set as a baseline for the further concepts, with a special focus on liberal democracy, to emphasize on the importance of liberal duties and rights. To differentiate from the idea of democracy and with the ideas of Smooha, ethnic democracy will be defined secondly to interpret the case of Israel. Thirdly, the importance of Zionism will be taken in consideration; this historic ideology has played a great part in the distribution of the idea of a Jewish state and the manifestation of this physical nation state. Consequentially, the fourth discussed concept will be diaspora. The Jewish diaspora has influenced the spread of Zionism from Europe to the United States (U.S.). The U.S. in its turn, has been of great importance in funding and supporting Israel from 1948.
2.1 Democracy
The concept of democracy has been discussed broadly over the years. Interpretations of the concept differ and emphasize changeably on legitimacy, institutionalism and responsiveness (Dahrendorf 2001; Mueller 1992; Schumpeter 1942). Nowadays, liberal democracies are mostly seen in the European Union (EU) and the U.S., even though these entities differ much from each other. This implies that the concept of democracy has no ‘pure’ or ‘ideal’ form. Rather, the idea of democracy has to be based on necessary principles. These principles measurably include: (a) periodic and free elections which include the possibility of changing the ruling political elites or parties, (b) sovereignty of the people exercised through a legislative system constructed by parliament, according to which the judicial system operates and where no independent or parallel legislation and judicial system can be compelled by the state, (c) equal and inclusive citizenship and civil rights, and (d) universal suffrage where every vote is equal (Kimmerling 1999: 339). The idea of democracy is relevant to Israel since the State is generally regarded as a liberal democracy and pursues to be one. These wishes are expressed in its Declaration of Independence, which states that Israel “will be based on the principles of liberty, justice and peace as conceived by the prophets of Israel; it will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture” (Yonah 1999: 412). As such, this thesis defines democracy as a political system with free and fair elections with protection of civic life and human rights through the application of the rule of law (Diamond 2005). According to some scholars however, the young State does not live up to these promises and cannot be considered as a type of democracy (Kimmerling 1999; Nikolenyi 2013). 2.2 Ethnic Democracy
Traditionally, Israel is being regarded as a democracy. However, it’s fundamental legislation is possibly flawed in crucial aspects; it leaves out critical rights to ensure equality of all its citizens. Furthermore, the Israeli legislation allegedly “does not include a wide array of social rights such as the right to decent human existence, health welfare and education” for all of its citizens (Idem: 413). This means that Israel cannot be placed among liberal democracies but has to be categorized differently.
In some studies, Israel has been described as an ethnocracy. According to Yiftachel, ethnocracy is “a specific expression of nationalism” that deprives some citizens of their most fundamental rights (Yiftachel 2000: 730). These types of states are neither democracies nor authoritarian regimes, but rather a new form states, so called ethnocracies. The most evident part of this typology is that there is a very strong, localized core of power within a state, consisting of the will of the dominant ethnicity within a nation. These regime types have positioned themselves “politically, culturally and geographically so as to absorb, contain, or ignore the challenge emerging from its peripheries, thereby trapping them in their respective predicaments” (Idem: 728). In ethnocracies, fundamental rights are determined by ethnic characteristics and not by universal citizenship. These regimes see the dominant ethnic group as the source of legitimacy of the state and not its citizens, the demos. In terms of post-colonialist theory, tensions between the core ethnicity and minorities can be seen as parallels to the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class, colonizer and colonized, the Self and the Other.
Smooha argues that categorizing Israel as ethnocracy is too rigid and one-sided. Ethnocracies present both hegemonic ethnic class and minorities as static and cannot accurately detect changes in its power dynamics. This regime type regards protest of the minority group as ineffective since the dominant group is powerful enough to counteract any kind of protest. Smooha’s biggest concern with Yiftachel’s typology is that the model has a quixotic conception of democracy. Smooha states that “a regime that is not civic in nature does not provide full equality to all citizens and ethnic groups is deemed non-democratic” (Smooha 2001: 23). Any component of democracy in Israel (e.g. fair elections, universal suffrage, non-violent struggle by non-dominant groups) is disregarded as “trivial and deceptive” (ibid.).
Thus while Israel has democratic processes and institutions, it arguably neglects some of its democratic duties. Categorizing Israel as an ethnocracy is a limited observation since it fully disregards the state’s democratic principles. Instead, the typology of ethnic democracy is possibly more accurate to describe the current structure of the State of Israel. Ethnic democracies are a type of system that “hold a system in which two contradictory principles operate: the democratic principle, making for equal rights and equal treatment of all citizens, and the ethnic principle, making for fashioning a homogenous nationstate and privileging the ethnic majority” (Smooha 1997: 200).
Ethnic democracies are rooted in the idea of ethnic nationalism that “declares a certain population as an ethnic nation sharing common descent (blood ties), a common language and a common culture” (Smooha 2002: 477). It is this ethnicity, and not the citizens within the nation state, that shapes “the symbols, laws and policies of the state for the benefit of the majority (ibid.). Equality of citizens is not the basic ideology within these types of states, but ethnicity. The non-members of these specific ethnic groups are not only regarded as inferior to the inner group, but also perceived and framed as a serious threat that could harm the core group (Ghanem 1998).
The political institutions and processes in these states are seemingly democratic. These processes include social political rights that correspond with rights of liberal democracies. However, the rights of the non-member citizens are diminished by the absence of equality between all citizens, regarded their ethnicity (Masalha 2011). The rule of law is reduced by the dominant ethnic group and the non-dominant group is perceived as a threat to them. These types of democracies are defined as defensive and “designed to deter and to outlaw highly menacing groups” (Barak 2000: 182).
This thesis’ research will accordingly examine to what extent this alleged ethnic character of the State impedes equality of citizens in the Israeli democracy between Israeli’s and Palestinians. The ethnic nature, as this thesis argues, is being enforced by its colonial, Zionist heritage. To understand this legacy, the following paragraph will put forth some critical elements of the ideology of Zionism.
2.3 Zionism
In the succeeding paragraphs the history of Zionism will be expounded. From this foundation, the intention exists to identify the characteristics of the concerning ideology. By doing so, the analysis can be used to construct the intentions of this ideology in the creation of the Jewish state. The last paragraph poses an introductory debate in an attempt to counterweight the hegemonic discourse of Zionism in Israel. 2.3.1 History of Zionism As aforementioned, Zionism has played an important role in the creation of the State of Israel and has served as a foundation for legislation in the country for both Jews living in Israel as well as abroad. This ideology became important in the 19th century in Eastern
Europe, where pogroms were often held to exile Jewish citizens. Theodor Herzl describes the failure of Jewish citizenry in Europe as the outcome of the Jewish diaspora and the absence of Jewish emancipation in the 19th century. In Der Judenstaat (1896), Herzl defines a solution for the Jewish question in Europe; the creation of a new, Jewish state in Palestine. This pamphlet symbolizes the organisation of Jewish citizens in Europe and their will to emigrate to a Jewish state. Herzl propounded that the Jews are not merely a religious denomination, but also an ethnic nationality and thus deserve “to return to their rightful homeland” (Herzl 2007: 51). Zionism in the 19th century had a colonial legacy of the British empire since the Jewish citizenry relied broadly on their influence in the Middle East. This legacy calls for an uneven distribution of power between Jewish immigrants and Palestinians in Palestine (Braiterman 2007: 612). In April 1917, Zionists were actively trying to influence American politics in Washington, ultimately “reversing Woodrow Wilson’s initial veto of the Balfour Declaration” (Cohen 2017: 873). Britain’s interest in the Middle East was seemingly urgent due to military and strategic interest. Endorsing a Jewish state in Palestine would secure Britain’s interest in the region and on the second of November 1917, British Prime-Minister Arthur Balfour declared his sympathy for this state.
At this point, Zionists in Europe such as Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist Movement leader, succeeded in mobilizing a substantive number of European Jews in believing in the Zionist cause and a Jewish state in Palestine. Between 1882 and 1903 a first, major wave of Jews migrated to Palestine. In the early 1920s, a second substantial wave migration from Europe to Palestine caused tensions between the indigenous and the new migrants. This new wave of migration marks the beginning of Zionist meddling in Palestine; Zionist believed they had the right to create a Jewish state with British support while the Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine did not want their region to be shifted into a Jewish state.
The impact of the Holocaust was great on Zionism; many European Jews were determined to leave Europe and were agreeing on the necessity of a Jewish state. The United Nations (UN) decided to partition Palestine into an Arab and Jewish state, which unilaterally met with the Zionist goals. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was declared by David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel. Israel’s independence signified the Zionist accomplishment of their principal goal. Since the Zionist Organisation was primarily concerned with the creation of a Jewish State, their institutions were organised
and became government institutions. From this point and on, Zionism was structurally embedded in the new, Israeli government. 2.3.2 Characteristics of Zionism The classification of the features of Zionism helps to understand its goals within the framework of the creation of a Jewish, Israeli state. As such, the most pending claim of Zionism is this creation of a Jewish state in the region of Palestine. By doing so, Jews from over the world can immigrate to this new, Jewish country. The second claim is the wish of a citizenry of Jewish majority in this Jewish State. For Herzl (2007), anti-Semitism is caused by competition between Jewish minorities and Christian majorities in European cities. By creating a Jewish majority, Zionism hopes to minimalize anti-Semitism. To invigorate this claim, Zionists refer to the negation of the Jewish diaspora in Europe. This conception of Zionism encourages Jewish migration to the Jewish land and is used to deny the feasibility of Jewish emancipation in mostly European countries. Founder of the Revisionist Zionism, Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1937) summarized this conception as follows: “eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you”.
Jewish immigration (i.e. Aliyah) to Palestine was used as a strategy to increase Jewish citizenry in the region. Anti-Semitism was mainly a reoccurring problem in Europe, causing immigration to flow primarily from this continent. From 1948, Aliyah from Arab countries, Ethiopia and Latin America was being promoted by the Israeli government.
Zionism draws on the Tanakh, the primary Jewish sacred text, as a source for religious legitimacy for a Jewish state. According to the Tanakh, Jews were given the Promised Land by God. Interpretations of this religious texts indicate that this land is situated around the Levant. This religious referencing allows Zionism to attract more orthodox Jewish citizens to believe in the ideology of Zionism.
Also, as an act of preserving the Jewish identity, Zionists sought to cultivate the Jewish traditions through education and symbolism. In this sense, the ideology of Zionism seeks to focus on the commonalities between the Jewish immigrants from different nations.
The revival of the Hebrew language likewise contributed greatly to the sense of a common identity among Jewish immigrants in Palestine. The process of Modern Hebrew however is extremely unique; there are no other examples of languages that have evolved into a national language without historical developments. In this sense, Zionists used Modern Hebrew as a lingua franca so new immigrants could communicate with each other, regardless of their nation of origin. This ultimately led to a feeling of solidarity, as Herzl (2007) formulated: “we are a people – one people”.
The final characteristic of Zionism revolves about the protection of Jews throughout the world. Zionism aims to not only protect the Jewish citizenry in the Jewish land of Israel, but also abroad.
Concluding, the ideology of Zionism as described resembles an ethnic form of nationalism; “a member of the Jewish people cannot be a member of a non-Judaic religion” (Smooha 2002: 485). In modern nation states, equality of citizens is based on the civic aspect of humanity meaning that humans are equal since they are all alike. Ethnic nationalism however, is based on the idea of a common heritage between a people with a history of settlement, religion, customs and history with political nations, composted of politically aware citizens (Schulman 2002: 556). Ethnic nationalism focuses on the similarities within the inner group and does not perceive the outer group as equal. Its foundations rest on ancestry and race, by which membership in the nation is guaranteed and defined. Threats to the ethnic nation are being perceived as such that other interests are no longer as relevant as the threat. These kind of threats “delegitimize the dissent of those challengers who attempt to appeal to members of the relevant group as individuals or who appeal to identities other than the ‘legitimate’ identity in a ‘legitimate’ way” (Gagnon 1995: 137). The ideology of Zionism is greatly in line with the concepts of ethnic nationalism. The dichotomies between the Jewish immigrants of the Aliyah and the native citizens of Palestine created a schism where members of the Jewish community were privileged over native Palestinians by the British forces during the mandate period and by the Israeli government after 1948, as this thesis will show. 2.3.3 Post-Zionism Post-Zionism represents the counter ideology that emerged in the 1990s during the Oslo peace process. The ideas of post-Zionism are based on the critical reaction of historians
and sociologists (i.e. writers from the journal Teoria u-vikoret, meaning ‘Theory and Criticism’ in Hebrew) regarding the narrative, values and institutions of the State of Israel and their Zionist roots. To them, “the social, political and cultural problems Israelis and Jews abroad face cannot be tackled within the Zionist discourse and cannot be solved through the current Zionist political and ideological agenda” (Ofir 2001: 257). Post-Zionism questions the possibility of a both Jewish and democratic state. To them, Israel should include more diverse cultural and political characteristics of the different ethnic minority it shelters (Ottolenghi 2005).
The main contribution of post-Zionists has been “to introduce anti-essentialism into discussions of Israeli and Jewish identity, embracing the Foucauldian thesis that subjectivity does not simply exist in isolation from historical process and systems of power” (Braiterman 2007: 620). Post-Zionism critically countered the hegemonic discourse regarding Israel’s right to exist, causing tension in the (inter)national debates regarding Israel. This duality between Zionism and post-Zionism is a cause for debate and conflict and continues to play a significant role in both national and international Israeli politics. 2.4 External Forces External forces concern those entities that are based outside the State of Israel but do intervene in Israeli affairs and politics. The Jewish diaspora plays a crucial role in the spread of Judaism throughout the world and should be further explained. Especially in the U.S., the Jewish diaspora caused its religious community to be extremely concerned with the Israeli state. As the following paragraphs will show, the Israeli lobby in the U.S. does an effective job at influencing the Israeli politics through binational relations. 2.4.1 Diaspora The diaspora of Israelites, Judaism and Jews refers to the dispersion of these ethno religious groups throughout the world. Historically, these groups came up in the region of the ancient Near East. Referring to this region in modern terms as Palestine or the Land of Israel draws claims to the legitimacy of a Jewish Diaspora. To a certain extent, the ancient Near East describes merely the geographical location of the region by referring to the first description of the prehistorical period of this region.
Judaism then spread from the ancient New East to different parts of the world, mostly focusing itself in Europe, North Africa and Mesopotamia. By doing so, Judaism and thus Jewish citizens developed in different ways, depending on the region where they were situated. Especially in Europe, antisemitism manifested itself in various regions of this continent. As aforementioned, the feeling of animosity caused by antisemitism is a central assumption in Zionism and the creation of a Jewish State, caused by ethnic nationalism that “fought for national rights of the Jewish people in the diaspora (Dieckhoff 2017: 275). To influence this idea of national rights for the Jewish citizenry, the Jewish political elite constructed a political imagination to “motivate individuals and create social cohesiveness” as a tool for identity construction of a Jewish nation (Burla 2015: 607). To employ this concept of identity construction, Tölölyan (2000) argues that “a connection to a certain territory is necessary”. Consequentially, the political elite of the Jewish diaspora in Europe assigned themselves with Palestine as a land to form upon their ideas of a Jewish nation state.
2.4.2 The Israel Lobby
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a pro-Israel organisation and lobbying group in America. Grounded in the origins of the American Zionist Council (1949), AIPAC states that it supports the interests of Jews in the U.S. and Israel. AIPAC has assisted Israel with financial support but has gradually also incorporated promotion of Israeli legitimacy in their support policy. A 2010 conference report showed that AIPAC has interests to promote Israel’s legitimacy and to secure their membership in international organisations like an Israeli seat on the UN Security Council. Pragmatically, such an element makes sure that “there will be consequences for states failing to recognize Israel” (Thouin 2010: 67).
Internationally, AIPAC has been greatly criticised for their strategies towards Israel. Especially their promotion of Israeli policies that are opposed to international law are put forth. AIPAC works as a de facto agent for the Israeli government accusing the media, think thanks and academia of anti-Semitism for taking critical stands regarding the Israeli government (Pilkington 2007; Smith 2016; Tibon 2017).
III. Methodology
In order to answer the aforementioned research question, this study has focused on the method of qualitative research. Similar to quantitative research, qualitative research aims to contribute to academic debates by providing research through various research methods that include multiple academic disciplines (Bogdan & Taylor 1990). However, qualitative research can be used to “question the possibility of ever reaching the truth, arguing that all knowledge is necessarily situated (Alasuutari 2010: 146). By doing so, this type of qualitative research questions the idea that social sciences can provide objective facts. This ultimately means that subjectivity is always included in these types of research and should thus be remarked, assuring that social sciences are about “the imaginary of making or constructing” instead of discovering or finding (ibid.). Consequentially, this methodology chapter ultimately tries to set forth the qualitative methods used to construct the Zionist mechanisms that have contributed to ethnic inequalities in the Israeli and Palestinian lands. 3.1 Design The aim of this thesis’ research is to evaluate the Zionist character of the Israeli state and to consider if this serves as an impediment to equality between ethnic groups. By doing so, this research serves as a case study on equality in the State of Israel. To examine the research question fully, it is necessary to deconstruct the research into multiple parts. This has been done through both content- and secondary analysis of the concepts mentioned in the theoretical framework.The first part of the research will analyse democracy in terms of its governmental institutions. These institutions have been found through the official channels of the Israeli government the Ministry of Foreign affairs. In addition to the democratic structure of the state, this research will examine the principles of the Israeli Proclamation of Independence since this serves as Israel’s democratic and legal origins since their independence in 1948. This thesis’ conception of democracy as stated in the theoretical framework will thus be evaluated by means of the Israeli governmental institutions and its aims as states in their declaration of independence. Displayed with an overview of the Israeli political landscape, this research creates a democratic base from which it sets of to explore its ethnic dimensions in Israeli legislation.
To audit Smooha’s allegation that Israel can be perceived as an ethnic democracy, the Israeli, democratic system has to be questioned. To inquire the extent to which Israel complies to the hybrid form of an ethnic democracy, this research utilizes the legal database of the Adalah legal centre for Arab minority rights in Israel. Adalah is an independent, non-governmental organisation that is concerned with the promotion of human rights in Israel for its Palestinian minority. This organisation has created a database with discriminatory legislation and policy from which 63 laws have been subtracted that include aspects which impede ethnic equality. These laws create the core of this thesis’ research; through the qualitative content analysis of these 63 discriminatory laws, this thesis has ultimately categorized ten areas which have been influenced by ethnic legislation. The characteristics of these laws create the foundations for unequal treatment of citizens in Israel, based on their ethnicity. This second paragraph of the research thus aims to explore differences between ethnic groups in Israel based on legislation.
In addition to the analysis of these discriminatory legislation, the research continuous to deepen by examining the external influence of the U.S. on the maintenance of this ethnic dimension of the Jewish state. America’s contribution will be set forth by analysing both the motives and implication of the U.S.-Israel lobby. These motives have been analysed through literature review of case studies on multiple Israel lobbies of which the most notable is ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ by J. Mearsheimer and S. Walt (2007). Following the U.S. motives for aiding Israel, this thesis’ research concretises the U.S. aid by constructing an empirical overview of American financial aid to Israel through official data by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The final chapter of this research aims to display a national counterbalance for Zionist ideology within its borders. Several Israeli and Palestinian scholars have critically expressed themselves with regards to the nature of the Jewish, Israeli state. The last part of the research adduces these New Historians, that challenge the status quo through poetry, cinematography and most effectively, academic research and debates. Multiple scholars like Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappe and Edward Said have been used to expound the post-Zionist movement in Israel that aims to change and improve the nature of the Israeli state and the living conditions for its multi-ethnic citizenry.
3.2 Points of Discussion
The main focus of this thesis’ research lies in the analysis of the ethnic and Zionist character of the Israeli state. The idea behind this focus is that historically, antisemitism has created a consensus among Jewish citizenry in Europe that they were not safe there anymore. Through this feeling of unsafety, a wish for self-determination and a Jewish State emerged. The Zionist Congress was established ultimately to channel these Jewish wishes into an affirmative action plan. The creation of a Jewish State was framed with the believe that “Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country” (Garfinkle 1991; Khalidi 1997). This widely used statement embodies the conflict between Zionist and anti-/post-Zionists within the debate regarding Israel; a state that implies to benefit its Jewish citizenry (i.e. calling itself a Jewish State), cannot be inclusive for its ethnic minorities. This thesis tries to contribute to this specific debate by examining both the origins and implications of ethnic legislation in Israel regarding ethnic minorities. The Zionist character of the State is this research’s main focus. It does not, imply that the Israeli State is exclusively based on ethnic inequalities. Legislation that promotes inclusiveness and equality could be possibly found in Israel’s judicial foundations; this was however not the goal of this thesis. Rather, the focus of Israel’s Zionist foundations is being portrayed.
IV. Research
The structure of this research is based on the concepts in the theoretical framework. This thesis’ research question entails the character of the Israeli democracy as an impediment to equality of ethnic minorities in Israel. To understand this relationship, it is firstly necessary to determine the Israeli democracy. As such, the first paragraph of this research chapter will clarify the democratic origins and structures of the young state, focusing on the Declaration of Independence and the structure of the Israeli state regarding. The second paragraph will look deeper into Smooha’s claim of ethnic democracy, focusing on ethnic legislation and symbolism that differentiates between ethnic groups within the state. The third paragraph will examine the influence of the Zionist legacy on Israel and the implications it has had and continues to have in the past and present. The fourth paragraph will examine the influence of external forces on ethnic legislation, focusing on the aid of the Israel Lobby in America. The last paragraph of this research chapter will focus on the origins and influences of the post-Zionist movement in Israel as a way to counterbalance the Zionist foundation in the Israeli state. 4.1 Israeli democracy
The Jewish state has a relatively young history of democracy. The Declaration of Independence of 1948 marked the institutionalized beginning of Israel. Due to its British origins, its institutions and governmental ideas are based on the British system. This chapter investigates both the implications of this British derivation and its consequences for the Israeli democracy.
4.1.1 The proclamation of Israel
On the 14th of May 1948, former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of the State of Israel by the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The declaration draws historical links between the Jewish citizenry and Eretz Israel (i.e. the religious connotation for the land of Israel). Furthermore, Ben-Gurion explicitly refers to Jews as an ethnic group as opposed to a religious denomination after which the Holocaust is then used to portray the justification of the Jewish State (Shapiro 1993: 72-76). According to the declaration, the Jewish State of Israel should be open to all forms of
Jewish migration and the Arab citizens of Eretz Israel are asked to “preserve peace and participate in the up building of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship” (Ben-Gurion 1948). Moreover, Ben-Gurion speaks of a constitution that has to be adopted the same year, in which the mentioned fundamental rights will be documented. However, due to religious controversy regarding a draft version of the constitution, this was never ratified.
4.1.2 Structure of the state
Following Ben-Gurion’s statements in the declaration, the commitment to equality of social and political rights should be translated in to the structure of institutional arrangements of the state. Institutionally, Israel is assembled as a democracy. According to the abovementioned literature, the division between the judicial, executive and legislative powers should be present with free elections of officials within these powers (Kimmerling 1999). The following scheme structures the Israeli political system with the explicit division of powers.
Scheme 1: schematic display of the Israeli democratic institutions (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Head of State: President
Legislature Speaker Knesset Committees Mayors and Council Heads Local Council Executive Prime Minister Government Ministeries State Comptroller Ombudsman Judiciary Court System Attorney General Electorate
When looking deeper into these divisions and semantics, it becomes clear that the Israeli structure does not completely resemble the equality of citizens of different religious denominations as stated in the declaration of 1948 (Shapiro 1993: 65-78). The head of the Israeli state is the President with the appointed title of nasī, which refers back to the supreme legislative and judicial body of the Jewish people in the religious Jewish texts that refer to the Land of Israel and its leaders. In addition, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is also named after a religious text of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Tanakh, in which a purified Jewish community is being made. Although there are nowadays members of the Knesset (MK) from different ethnic backgrounds, this referral to an ancient Jewish history only emphasizes the Jewish history of the State of Israel (Louvish 1963: 15). The Judicial branch in Israel consists of judges that are appointed by the President. This court exercises its jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases. When it comes to matters of personal status however (e.g. divorce and adoption), the ultimate jurisdiction is bestowed in the judicial entities of the religious communities such as the Rabbinical Court and the Shari’a courts (Shava 1999). Due to Israel’s colonial heritage of the United Kingdom (UK), it has adopted its governmental and judicial institutions. As such, Israel does not have a codified constitution, unlike the majority of the countries in the world. The UK has had social and political revolutions throughout the Middle Ages and Enlightenment. Popular revolts and civil wars caused the Kingdom to draught legislation to ensure principal rights for citizens within countries in the hope of returning stability to their region. The difference however, is that the Israeli state is relatively young and does not have a stable history of independence. The absence of a history of social and political developments and thus a stable legislative system inhibits the luxury of the non-existence of a constitution in which principal rights are proclaimed. Instead, the Israeli judicial system is based on a set of ‘basic laws’ that are adopted by the Knesset like all other legislation (Bogdanor 1993: 84). They differ from regular legislation in the sense that these basic laws are focused on social and political affairs on the origin of the Israeli state such as the status of Jerusalem and human dignity and liberty (Lahav 1993: 129-146). These basic laws however, are voted in by the Knesset, making them politically coloured and subjective to the ideology of political parties (Meydani 2014: 29-38).
4.1.3 Israel as an archetype of democracy?
The Israeli State naturally does operate through the structural basics of democracy being the division of powers and free elections, although the embellishment of these powers may not hold democratic values of equality of social and political rights, as mentioned in the Declaration of 1948 (Louvish 1963: 23). Kimmerling’s (1999) principle of democracy include more than solely democratic processes. Complete equality and inclusiveness of citizenship have not been assessed yet through the analysis of the democratic institutions of Israel; this will thus be examined consequentially. In the following part of this research, Israel will be examined as a hybrid form of democracy through the framework of ethnic democracies.
4.2 Ethnic democracy
Ethnic democracies have political institutions that are based on the foundations of democracy. The previous paragraph has shown that the Israeli government indeed holds democratic principles. However, Israeli rule of law differentiates between people, resulting in an absence of equality for all (Smooha 1997; Barak 2000; Smooha 2002; Masalha 2011). The following subparagraphs will assess the differences in legislation, policy and symbolism between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority groups, based on the abrupt creation of Israel in 1948.
As displayed in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the Israeli state was envisioned and designed as a Jewish State. A Jewish state differs from the more usual form of states in the sense that is not originated from nations and nationalism. European states developed within a framework from religious states to nation states whereas the Israeli foundations lie in “the traditional world view of Judaism” (Shapiro 1993: 66). The separation of religion and state has not succeeded in Israel, causing the Declaration of Independence to focus majorly on its Jewish citizenry. This has resulted in friction in a state where there are factually more than just Jewish citizens. The “nationalist ethos in modern Israel” is based on the prevailing position of the Jewish majority over the non-Jewish minorities in terms of their social, political and legal status (Ezrahi 1993:258-259).
4.2.1 Ethnic legislation
Evidence of ethnic legislation in Israel can be found starting from the period even before the establishment of the country in 1948. The Trading with the Enemy Act (1939) inhibited Arab influences such as literature and cultural objects to enter the British Mandate. However, over the years ethnic legislation has influenced multiple aspects of ethnic groups in Israel, preventing these ethnic minorities to manifest their cultural differences in the State. The following graph will show an overview of the spheres which have been penetrated by ethnic legislation from the period of 1948 until 2016. Nowadays, there are ten spheres of life where legislation has had implications in Israel for ethnic minorities. The following paragraphs will distinguish between ethnic policy2 and ethnic symbolism3 in Israel, explaining and clarifying ethnic legislation in these two areas further.
Law and Planning Rights
The first sphere that is addressed in legislation regarding ethnic minorities were Land and Planning Rights, since the Israeli government wanted to create a Jewish Land. After 1947, the Absentees’ Property law of 1950 made it possible for former Palestinian property to be annexed by the Israeli state. This transferral implicated a decrease in Palestinian land from around 48% in 1948 to around 3% in 2016. The Jewish National Fund (JNF) played and continues to play a key role in the purchasing of land, since they are allocated around half of the seats in the Israel Land Administration’s council that determines land policy. The JNF was founded in 1901 in Basel at the Fifth Zionist Congress and inhibits the transfer of Israeli lands in any matter outside the Israeli parameters – the state, the JNF and the Development Authority. This law is also co-opted in the Basic Laws of the State. Consequently, the National Planning and Building Law of 1965 requires for Jewish organisations and groups to be included in the legislation regarding planning and building but does not require the same of its Palestinian citizens residing in Israel. When these planning policies ultimately did not meet with the wishes of the ethnic minorities, the Public Lands Law (1981) secured the legitimization of eviction of squatters and illegal settlements such as Bedouin villages in the Negev desert or Arab villages in the Wadi Ara 2 Ethnic policy entails legislation regarding the spheres of 1) land and planning rights, 2) criminal law, 3) political participation, 4) civil and political rights, 5) citizenship, 6) economic rights, 7) education and 8) sources of law.
region by the Israeli authority. In the early 80s, the Israeli state has secured itself with a solid base of ethnic discriminatory base of legislation to fortify Jewish settlements throughout Israel. Under the thirty-second government in the period from 2009 until 2013, the Minister of Justice Yaakov Neeman, who is a proponent of turning Israel into a religious, Halakhic state, implemented several amendments to previous Land and Planning Rights that furthered privatization of land to the JNF, mostly from Palestinian citizens in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (Ettinger 2009). In addition, an income tax ordinance that was implemented in 2012 grants tax exemptions to organisations that promote illegal – under international law – settlements in territories such as the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Ultimately, this has resulted in a geographical situation wherein pro-Jewish organisations and ideologies are favoured and institutionally aided, whereas ethnic minorities are structurally contained; both Bedouin and Palestinians living under Israeli forces are pushed back and removed from their locus, as a mean to magnify Jewish citizenry’s land. Criminal Law and Procedures The second sphere of ethnic legislation is Criminal Law and Procedures. Being also co-opted as Basic Laws (1992), the Government is appointed with exceptional powers in times of emergency. The permanent state of emergency has been used as a way to usurp measurements by the Knesset that concern Palestinians within Israeli and Palestinian borders. These measurements include the ability to administratively detain individuals up to six months for questioning, criminal offences against individuals that are a member of a by Israel defined terrorist organisation, travel bans for individuals within Israeli and Palestinian borders and an expansion of police enforcement power to stop and frisk individuals without reasonable suspicion. Especially the procedures for detainees have worsened since the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005. This deteriorated the rights of security detainees whom were mostly Palestinians such as the exemption of audio and video documentation of interrogations or the denial of access to a lawyer for up to 21 days. Moreover, further amendments have resulted in fines for parents of stone-throwers, most of which are Palestinian youngsters. This however, goes against the basic principle of criminal law of vicarious liability by which punishment can solely by applicable to the person who committed the crime (Laski 1916). Concluding, Criminal Laws and procedures have resulted in the expansion of powers for Israeli security services with
regards to security detainees. These mostly are young, Arab men that are being incarcerated under the ‘temporary order’ of the state of emergency by the Knesset, which has been renewed 66 times since 1948, making it a permanent state of emergency so disproportionally measurements can be taken against security detainees (MEMO 2014).
Political Participation
Political participation is thirdly harmed by Israeli discriminatory legislation. In 1985 the Basic Law regarding the Knesset was amended and Section 7 was added in which this Basic Law states that “a list of candidates shall not participate in the elections for the Knesset if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication, point to one of the following: (a) denial of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (b) denial of the democratic nature of the state; and (c) support for armed struggle by a hostile state or terrorist organisation against the State of Israel” (Basic Law The Knesset, 1958). By doing so, this Basic Law impedes the candidacy of individuals and the establishment of political parties that are openly critical against the nature of the State of Israel. Serving MKs can also be suspended on the grounds of these beliefs and the vocalisation of them. In addition, a 2008 amendment on this same Basic Law denies individuals to stand as a candidate for the Knesset if they have visited an Arab or Muslim state that is regarded by Israel as an ‘enemy state’ – such as Syria, Lebanon or Iran. Civil and Political Rights
Some civil and political rights are also harmed within the Israeli legal framework. Especially non-governmental organisations (NGO) are targeted by these laws. Starting in 2011, Israeli legislation has imposed extensive reporting requirements for NGOs regarding their goals and public funding. NGOs with funding of over 50% by foreign governments are expected to repeatedly publish their foreign support for research against the status quo. Also, NGOs that are critical regarding the existence of Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ are reduced in Israeli state funding. Moreover, Jewish settler groups that mostly receive private funding are not required to publish their funding, causing right-winged private funding to become less transparent. Exempted from this law on the disclosure requirements for recipients of support is the World Zionist Organisation (WZO), the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAI), the United Israel Appeal and the JNF, all of which
are based in Zionist beliefs of the Jewish State of Israel. Also started in 2011 is the ‘anti-boycott’ law which prohibits public promotion of boycotting Israel in academic, economic and cultural spheres. This law enables civil lawsuits of individuals that promote the boycott of Israeli products and services, resulting in compensation of the concerned organisation and the lifting of state-sponsorships for organisations that publicly promote this type of boycott.
Citizenship
The most prominent legislation regarding citizenship is the Law of Return. Drafted in 1950, this law states that any Jewish person and its first-degree relatives can immigrate to the State of Israel and become an Israeli citizen. Entry for Jewish non-citizens into Israel was eased under the Law of Return and they were granted legislative status as though they were Israeli citizens. This law directly deprives Palestinian citizens of returning to their homes as was constructed in the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948 that states that “Palestinian refugees should be repatriated and be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property” (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). Israeli citizenship became a control mechanism for the state to ensure that all its citizens will submit to ‘Israeli’ norms and values; Palestinian melancholy was being regarded as state security (Ben Amos & Bar-Tal 2004; Jamal 2017). This resolution however, is only recommendatory and not binding under international law. Palestinians that moved out of the Israeli territory have neither been replaced back to their original location of living nor compensated for the loss of property. By doing so, family unification is made extremely difficult in cases where some members live as Palestinians in the State of Israel and other members in the Palestinian territories. Furthermore, the Citizenship Law made it possible for citizenship to be revoked in the case of acts of terrorism or sympathy for these acts (Sultany 2017: 206). This revocation degrades an individual from the status of citizenship to residency status, which severely restricts an individual’s right to participation in society and in political terms (Nationality Law, 1953, art. 11). Economic Legislation
Economic legislation targeting ethnic minorities is not as common as the previous subjects of law. These economic sanctions are mainly aimed against individuals that are accused of cooperation with or aiding an organisation that is regarded as a threat to
national security. MKs can be stripped of their payments due to allegations of criminal behaviour and child allowances can be restricted when involved in a criminal activity or organisation. Education Israel’s educational system is divided in schools for different ethnic groups. In comparison to Jewish education, a UN report in 2001 ascertained that “government investment per Palestinian Arab pupil was about 60 percent of its investment per Jewish pupil” (HRW 2001). In 2010, the education Ministry created booklets with renewed policy of Israeli education to be handed out to schools as future guidelines; these goals included reinforcement of Jewish and Zionist values (Kashti 2011). By doing so, the Israeli state can both “remove responsibility and liability for achieving substantial improvement for Arab education and at the same time strengthen the long-standing practices of control against it (Agbaria 2017: 301). In addition to this gap between educational institutions in the region, discharged soldiers are granted educational benefits such as housing benefits or free preparatory academic education. Discharged soldiers, living in National Priority Area’s4 (NPAs) are compensated even further. Palestinians living in Israel however, are exempted from military service thus excluded from these educational benefits, furthering the academics gap between Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Sources of Law The last sphere of ethnic legislation is sources of law. According to the Foundations of Law Act (1980), Jewish framework of legislation prevails over every other form of ethnicity. Whenever there is no suited answer in a law case or by analogy, a decision will be filed “in the light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel’s heritage” (Foundations of Law 1948-1989). In addition to this, Hebrew versions of legislation guide over Arabic translations of the same laws, referencing Hebrew over Arabic, whereas both are theoretically regarded as official language to the State. 4 These NPAs include regions such as, but not limited to, the Negev, the Galilee, Jewish settlements in
4.2.2. Ethnic symbolism Ethnic symbolism unfolds through two ways within the Israeli legislative system. The first and most influenced field of ethnic symbolism are cultural laws. In the early days of the establishment of the Israeli state, laws characterized the State of Israel with Jewish symbols such as the flag of Israel with a combination of a Jewish prayer scarf and the Shield of David, the candelabrum as the emblem of the State of Israel, the Hebrew calendar on national broadcasting with an absence of the Christian and Islamic calendar and a national anthem that only refers to the Jewish history and goals of the Israeli state. Apart from these literal symbols, the WZO and JAI were shortly after integrated as quasi-governmental bodies to further realise the objectives of Zionist movements. This Jewish normalisation in Israel created a framework from which many Israeli’s conceived their personal norm. Jewish identity was broadly defined as the norm and ethnic minorities that did not, and still do not, resemble these commonalities can barely identify with the Jewish character of Israel. The second and ultimate field of ethnic influence in Israel is religious legislation. In the 1948 Law and Government Ordinance, official state holidays are included, all of which are holy days solely to Judaism. The only additional official holiday is the day on which the State of Israel was proclaimed. Controversially, in Hebrew this day is called Yom Ha’atzmaut (lit. ‘Day of Independence’) whereas in Arabic this day is being referred to as Yawm an-Nakba (lit. ‘Day of the Catastrophe). Ultimately, this day is adopted in official legislation and nationally celebrated as ‘Day of Independence’. Religious symbolism was extended after the Six-Day war declaring over one hundred Jewish sites as holy whereas none have been declared in terms of Islam, Christian, Baha’i or other religious denominations.
4.2.3 Israel as an archetype of ethnic democracy?
In the previous paragraphs, Israel has been tested both as a democracy and as an ethnic democracy. The state of Israel however, can be positively categorized as an ethnic democracy. While the State factually holds the democratic principle in its institutions, it also carries the ethnic principle of a nation state with a privileged inner group. The division between Jewish and non-Jewish citizenry, and in particular its Palestinian minority, has been analysed in various spheres of legislation and symbolism. While in its
core democratic and resonating equal rights, its legal consequences are proven to differentiate between various ethnic groups. The concept of a Jewish state, based on the foundations of Zionism, has implicated three practical conditions to occur in modern Israel; a Zionist praxis with a substantial legislative base resulting in racial segregation and exclusiveness against ethnic minorities where the Jewish majority holds racial supremacy (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2017).
4.3 External interference in Israeli politics
Globally, Israel has been the recipient the largest amount of foreign assistance by the U.S. since the Second World War (WWII). To date, the U.S. government has aided Israel with over 118 billion U.S. dollars (CRS 2013). This American aid however, has had implications within the spectrum of the Israeli politics. The following paragraph will try to examine both U.S. motives as well as the implications of America’s support for the Israeli government.
4.3.1 America’s motive to aid Israel
As recognized in the theoretical framework, the Jewish diaspora has had its implications throughout the EU and U.S.; anti-Semitism took an incontrollable path in the beginning of the 20th century in Europe. Jewish migration to the U.S. increased, leading to a Jewish population of around 6.8 million individuals in the U.S. (Steinhardt Social Research Institute 2012).
However, after the WWII relatively few Americans immigrated to Israel (OIS 2013). Yet the Israeli narrative of a “flower that revealed itself in a desert” was one that many Jewish Americans felt strongly about and so this narrative became assimilated in Jewish-American identity (Waxman 1992: 140). This growing cohesion resulted in a wide array of civic and beneficiary organisations that vowed to ensure that “Israel’s safety is America’s safety as well” (AIPAC 2015). The main organisations that enterprise this American-Israeli relation are AIPAC, the American Jewish Congress, Zionist Organisation of America, the Israel policy forum the American Jewish committee, the ADL, the religious action centre of reform Judaism, Americans for a safe Israel, American friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA and Hadassah, all of which are mainly devoted to Zionist and pro-Israel activities (Waxman 1992). Moreover,
the Israel lobby is also invested in think tanks and even at universities, promoting pro-Israel ideology that is based on the Zionist believe that Jews deserve the State of Israel and thus should take ownership of it in any way (Little 2008: 153). Eventually, the lobby submerged in American politics causing Evangelic Christians and neoconservatives to rally behind the same Zionist cause (Mearsheimer & Walt 2006: 128-131).
American Jewish citizenry created a base for Israeli support in the U.S. that originated in strategic values and moral principles. It is based on the Zionist belief that the Israeli state has to be a “homeland for the Jewish people” and that Jewish citizens have the right to claim this State as theirs (Safran 1991). This belief has been articulated in America’s support for Israel on both strategic and moral grounds (Clarke 1995; Telhami 2002; AGPD 2003; Levey 2004). This strategic value however, has been declining since America’s unconditional support for Israel impedes unbiased peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and obstructs other diplomatic relations with alternative countries that oppose the Israeli state. The alternative claim to U.S.’s support for Israel is the moral funding of democracy and human rights in the world; in Western discourse, this democratic vision has been debated as ‘Responsibility 2 Protect’ (Stamnes 2012). However, this unconditional American support to protect the ‘democratic David’ from its ‘antagonistic Arab Goliath’ provides ungrounded authorization for the U.S. government to aid Israel in any policy (Chomsky 2015). 4.3.2 America’s aid to Israel What does this alleged aid to the Israeli state factually include? American aid to the Jewish State unfolds through different passages. America’s main channel of aid for Israel is through fiscal aid. On average, the U.S. subsidizes Israeli citizens with around 500 U.S. dollars per capita (Mearsheimer & Walt 2006: 31). Since the Oslo Accords only, Israel has been receiving between 2,5 and 4 billion U.S. dollars annually (graph 2). Apart from this financial aid, the U.S. has supported Israel in the nuclear proliferation and diplomatic affairs (Hersh 1991; Cohen 1999).
Graph 2: U.S. aid in billions of dollars to Israel from 1997 – 2016 (source: US Aid)
However, in particular the constant money flow from Capitol Hill to the Israeli government has to be further questioned. Compared to other states in the world, Israel is the only country that is not held accountable for how the aid is spent (Mearsheimer & Walt 2006). This lack of accountability however, makes it nearly impossible to investigate how this money is spent. Yet the following remark is a central view for the U.S.-Israeli relation: “No matter how bad the relationship between the two countries’ top leaders, no matter who gets elected to the White House, no matter how loudly some voters voice their opposition or how charged the underlying ideological debate: The United States has pragmatic reasons to keep providing large sums of money for Israel’s military” (Green 2016).
AIPAC has been repeatedly mentioned in this debate. Their main goal is to “educate Americans” to create a consensus that Israel’s security is an American priority for everyone (AIPAC 2015). This eventually aligns with America’s constant financial support for the Jewish state. 4.3.3 Implications of U.S.-aid to Israel To relate this American aid back to the discussion regarding the ethnic character of the Israeli state, it becomes clear that this American aid is being offered to a state with a Zionist ideology. Instead of advocating better political and human rights for Palestinians in Israel and abroad, the U.S. maintains to support a state that believes in their ultimate right to defend the belief of Jewish self-determination at all costs. Apart from the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, the U.S. has been involved in every peace process between Israel 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
and the PA. However, with an Israel lobby that influences both the U.S. and Israel in a substantive manner, based on Zionist believes to secure a Jewish state, the question can be posed to what extent these U.S. supported peace talks can contribute to a rightful and peaceful solution between Israeli’s and Palestinians in the region (Shalom 2010). 4.4 Post-Zionism and New Historians A group of scholars who tried to change this Zionist status quo over the years are those who see themselves as post-Zionists. This term became mainstream during the 90s and caused multiple disciplines within academia to question the current state of Israel. These post-Zionist scholars who are called New Historians, have tried and continue to try to re-evaluate Israel’s history and include a more multi-ethnic approach to the country’s past. The following paragraph will assess the origins and goals of post-Zionism and evaluate its efficiency within the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. 4.4.1 Origins of post-Zionism As abovementioned, Israel was founded in a sudden moment in the severe aftermath of the Second World War. The aforementioned events, combined with the great force of Zionism that presented itself in the beginning of the 20th century created great Jewish cohesion under the Israeli citizens. All three wars (i.e. 1948 Palestine war, Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War) were greatly supported by the Israeli citizenry. Although with the commencement of the 1982 Lebanon War, doubts regarding Israel’s legitimacy in its actions arose among mainly intellectuals (Kimmerling 1983; Shapira 1984).
From this initial doubt, mainly sociologists from the Haifa University started to create awareness about Zionism from within Israel. This element explicitly distinguishes post-Zionism from other forms of critique on Zionism and the Israeli state. Originally, these criticisms came from either Palestinian or international groups that tried to pressure Israel to re-examine its history and motives. These relatively new scholars were initiating a “welcome movement of self-critique on what was wrong and dangerous about Zionism and Israel in the past and present” (Said 1998).
