By Hagai El-Ad
The two-state solution? Instead of an end to the occupation, September might bring us not just more of the same, but worse: an occupied pseudo-State of Palestine, alongside a deteriorating pseudo-democracy in Israel
The expected UN General Assembly decision on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state was perhaps supposed to usher in a new spirit of optimism among advocates of human rights and democracy. Self-determination for Palestinians and an end to the Occupation ought not only to have heralded a dramatic improvement in the human rights situation in the territories; it could also shift resources previously channeled into the Occupation towards Israel itself, boost efforts to reduce socioeconomic disparities, rally investments for equal opportunity in education and employment, strengthen the legal system, advance full civic equality, and promote progress toward numerous other life-affirming goals and objectives. For all those crucial goals and objectives that have been mired in the swamp of the Occupation, this was to be their hour.
A new spirit of optimism? Not exactly.
The scenario that now seems to be emerging turns out not to be one that will end the occupation of the Palestinians or revive Israeli democracy. On the contrary. In the territories – we can expect to see no end to occupation, but a pseudo-state under the further prolonged state of occupation. In Israel – it looks like there not to be a revival of democracy or improvements in civic equality, but further and even accelerated deterioration towards a pseudo-democracy. The result will be a pseudo-state there and a pseudo-democracy here.
In the territories, even if 150 or more nations vote in September at the UN for the declaration of a Palestinian State, this by itself will end neither the occupation nor the human rights violations to which the occupation, by its nature, necessarily gives rise. In fact, at least in the short run, such a step may intensify the violence and lead to even broader human rights violations than hitherto, including harsher limits on freedom of movement for Palestinians in their state under occupation, and further entrenchment of the separate and unequal legal and administrative systems to which Palestinians and Israeli citizens living in this new “state” will be subject. In the occupied Palestinian state, the new, internationally recognized sovereign will have pseudo-control, while the actual sovereign will continue its reign well into a fifth decade.
Inside Israel, the process that is already underway – whereby the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel are being limited as if to levy an advance payment for the future Palestinian State – is liable to accelerate and intensify. The political logic subscribed to by a wide range of parties, from Kadima to Likud to Yisrael Beytenu and National Unity (Ichud Leumi), holds that as Israel is confronted by the “future Palestinian State,” it must move immediately to strengthen its “Jewish identity” – identity in a sense that is both demographic and anti-democratic. That means solidifying demography at the price of democracy.
Hence the government is considering bills such as “no loyalty, no citizenship” and legalizing communities’ rights to reject those found to be “unsuitable” (read: Arabs); hence expressions of Palestinian national identity within Israel must be silenced, extra rights for Jews must be legislated, and a drive to boost Jewish-nationalist education is being launched; hence the Bedouins should forget about justice for their villages, and hence the moves to ensure that those pests at the Supreme Court and in human rights organizations can’t be too much of a nuisance. In the Israel that the current policies are shaping, all that will remain of democratic governance will be a barely discernible shadow, as the experiment in creating a “democracy for the Jews” collapses from the weight of its own internal structural contradictions.
Here are the public opinion data: On the one hand, a huge majority of Israelis (80 percent, according to the Israel Democracy Index) prefers “democracy” to any other form of government. Democracy – but what kind of “democracy” do they mean? Without freedom of speech (50 percent believe that there is “too much” of it, according to a 2010 survey by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University); without freedom of action for human rights organizations (58 percent favor restricting organizations that “expose immoral acts by the State,” in Bar Tal’s survey); without equality for Arabs (46 percent of Jewish youth would deny Arabs the right to hold public office (in a 2010 survey by Maagar Mochot). Democracy? Pseudo-democracy.
* * *
Is there an alternative to this double-pseudo scenario? Israelis who desire a less hollow future must now stand up for two principles. First, internalize the fact that the world will not end the occupation for us: this is a struggle that must be led by Palestinians and Israelis, and this struggle will not end in September with the UN decision. Secondly, within Israel, standing up for the rights of Palestinian citizens is not a matter solely for the Supreme Court or for Palestinian citizens themselves. In Israel within the Green Line there has been and will be a large national minority, with individual rights and with collective rights. The protection of those rights must not be conditional on external negotiations over a future diplomatic solution. But alas – at present, even in the absence of negotiations, the rights of Israel’s Palestinian minority are already being eroded.
Today, only a minority of Israelis is prepared for the complex process required if we are to deal with the core issues of ending the occupation and delivering equality for the Palestinian minority in Israel. This creates a situation in which, step-by-step, our lives are being emptied of the accepted moral foundation for running democratic states, with the principle of equality the first to go.
On the day after May 15, 2011, the Knesset was addressed by the “leader of the opposition” (who did not even bother to show up to vote against the Acceptance to Communities Law or the Nakba Law or the “Transparency” Law or the Slavery Law or the Annulment of Citizenship Law): “These [Palestinian] children, who are wearing those keys around their necks, must understand that the door their key will unlock is no longer in the State of Israel.” Heartfelt imagery – but to what end? What of the keys we are missing? What is the key that will enable us to deal with the challenges that most of us are avoiding? What of the key around our own necks, the key within our hearts and embodied in our deeds, the key that will open the door to our future here?
Hagai El-Ad is the Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. This is the English version of a Hebrew op-ed originally published earlier in Israel on Haokets.
————————
+972 magazine needs your support. Check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going
