Democratic Palestine : 37 (ص 13)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 37 (ص 13)
- المحتوى
-
rather Jews the world over, for the «real Jew» recognizes only
one country - Israel, and Israelis not a reality unless it considers
all Jews in the world as its citizens.
This fabricated view which mixes politics with religion, and
the Torah with the gun, was referred to by Ben Gurion as a mes-
sage of «national salvation;» it emphasizes the relationship bet-
ween Israel and Jews all over the world. Israel is considered the
salvation, and its historical role is to fulfill the Law of Return and
to create an ongoing positive relationship between itself and
Jews around the world, for the purpose of ultimately bringing
them to Palestine. That this is Israel’s intended role needs no
further proof for one simple reason: Israel cannot continue tc
exist without the presence of Jews in it; nor can it maintain its
prestige without fulfilling its role as the moral, political and
religious trustee of the Jews of the world. Since the state of Israel
is a reflection of the «Promised Land» according to the Zionist
conception, then submitting to Israel is in essence submitting to
the willof God.
Israel’s status is determined by the nature of the relationship
existing between it and Jews around the world. As Israel man-
ages to convince more Jews to immigrate, its policy changes in
relationship to the human resources it gains. This is why Israel
rejects geographical restraints, and considers the demographic
clement a determining factor in charting its policy. The Law of
Return cannot be fulfilled in principle or in practice without a
complementary law - «the law of transfer» which determines the
relationship of Palestinians to the Arab world. As more Jews
immigrate to the «Promised Land,» more Palestinians will have
to be expelled to Arab countries. Israeli politicians are espe-
cially interested in Palestinians emigrating in relation to the
«Arab demographic time bomb» because the demographic real-
ity of the Palestinians is a nightmare for Israel. Moreover, the
very existence of non-Jews, in this case Palestinian Arabs, in the
«Promised Land» is an impediment to the creation of an exclu-
sive Jewish state.
Having a «transfer law» for Palestinian Arabs 1s 1n total har-
mony with the Zionists’ logic, for the presence of Palestinian
Arabs threatens the stability of the Jewish society, and stands in
the way of «Greater Israel» and a «pure Jewish state.» There-
fore, expelling Palestinians is viewed as a necessity, and called
for by politicians, political scientists and rabbis in Israel. It was
natural for the Jabotinsky camp (Likud’s predecessor) to prop-
ose «population exchange» after 1948, after Ben Gurion had
hinted at this option in November 1942. Such a project is based
on the premise that the Jews have their country and so do the
Arabs. Accordingly, the future of the Palestinians is an internal
Arab matter and the responsibility of the Arab states. Concur-
rently, Jewish immigration ts an internal Israeli matter. Israel
considers as legitimate all means designed to force Palestinian
Arabs out of Palestine - to their «Arab homeland.» In this way,
Israeli terrorism and repression are also considered an internal
Israeli issue. Zionism is inconceivable without an expulsion pol-
icy, for its absence would undermine the basis of this ideology.
The dialectical relationship between Zionist ideology and
immigration makes this law a constant in the Zionist project, as
has been expressed in the writings of Hertzl, Jabotinsky, Ben
Democratic Palestine, February 1990
Gurion and Begin, and more recently by Sharon, Peres and
Shamir. The emphasis on this law fluctuates in relation to the
particular situation, i.e., the ebb or flow of immigration.
The issue of immigration gained prominence after 1948 and
after the 1967 Arab defeat, and again after the fundamental
changes taking place in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Whenever the conditions are ripe, a new Zionist immigration
proposal is put forth. Meanwhile, Sharon and othe Likud politi-
cians see Jordan as the home of the Palestinians. During the
early forties, there were several proposals to transfer the Pales-
tinians to another place in the Middle East. After 1967, Levi
Eshkol claimed that since Israel had embraced over 600,000
Jews from Arab countries, the latter should absorb the Palesti-
nians. He considered the Arab states’ rejection of this logic as an
obstacle to peace, for pursuing peace requires recognizing the
«right to return» of the «Jews in exile» to the «Promised Land,»
in addition to the recognition of Israel as a state.
According to its own ideology, Israel is a state and a nation-a
state which can realize itself only after the ingathering of all Jews
of the world. Israel cannot exist as a state without its claimed
existence as a nation, due to its peculiarity which necessitates
the Law of Return, and asserts that Israel is the only place in the
world with no relatives in terms of language, origin and religion.
Israel claims to be unique in that it is the only Jewish state in the
world.
In the Zionist rationale, this quality of being an orphan com-
pels Israel to embrace the Jews of the world materially and mor-
ally. This in turn creates an organic relationship between expui-
sion (of Palestinians) and Judaization, because it is assumed that
Jews will not immigrate to Israel unless they find their culture
and national identity there. According to this definition, a «true
Jew» should distinguish between a place and a homeland. Places
are many, but there is only one homeland. A place is for making
a living, but ahomeland ts for belonging.
In reality, there isno confusion in Zionist ideology, because it
negates and rejects peace. Israel cannot accept peace without
repudiating itself - disclaiming the notion of a state and nation,
and the related Law of Return. The decisive question is: How
can Israel be recognized without recognizing the practical and
theoretical principles on which it was founded, including the
Law of Return? How can real peace be achieved while Zionist
ideology defends this law and the «Greater Israel» project?
Perhaps some will want to recognize Israel and not the Law of
Return. In so doing, they are not so much rejecting Israel, as
they are expressing their own dilemma and internal contradic-
tions. Rejecting the Law of Return and criticizing Jewish immig-
ration is futile in the absence of a comprehensive rejection of
Zionism theoretically and practically. - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 37
- تاريخ
- فبراير ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed