By Azmi Bishara *
Israeli politics is regulated by democratic principles based on Zionist
ideological tenets. The most important of these tenets are: The Jewishness of
the state, Aliya or the absorption of Diaspora Jews and Israeli citizenship
based on such values as military service, settlement and integration. It is
unmistakable that this structure is full of contradictions that strain
present-day Israeli political culture.
The relative modernity of this structure is at odds with the impossibility of
separating state and religion, because it is simply not possible to separate
between the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation, as well as between the right
of citizenship and affiliation to a religion because of the "(Jewish) right
of return." Historically, this type of Jewish democracy was built on the
vestiges of the Palestinian people and its social order, and is still held
captive by this paradox. Moreover, the paradox has been inflamed by Israel's
involvement in an occupation that forcibly abrogates a people's right to
self-determination on its native land.
These two paradoxes tie in with a third which is the main subject of this
article between the Zionism of the state on the one hand, and the proliferation
of democracy and equality to cover 20 percent of Arab citizens hailing from the
country's indigenous people and who stayed on after the Nakba (or 1948
catastrophe).
In terms of Western liberal democratic values, such a paradox is more harmful to
the democratic makeup of the state than the fact of occupying another people.
After all, most European democracies went through colonial periods that didn't
fundamentally affect the structures of their political systems.
While we beg to differ with this view, and even with such an analogy being made,
a democratic consensus has formed on the importance of equal citizenship as the
sine qua non of democracy, as well as the importance and sensitivity of the
issue of minority rights.
Issues such as these have no acceptable solutions in a situation where the state
is defined both as a Jewish state and as a state for Jews (not for its citizens)
at the same time.
That is why Israel has always tried hard to strike a balance between built-in
racial discrimination against Arab citizens on the one hand, and her need to
avoid appearing as an apartheid state within her international borders on the
other.
This balance was disturbed on several occasions, but was usually regained to the
advantage of Arab citizens who have benefited from an ever expanding margin of
rights. Arab citizens have on the whole been enjoying improving rights in the
Jewish state for a number of reasons, among which are the increasing power of
the Israeli ruling establishment, rising economic prosperity, and social
progress within the Arab community itself which has been increasingly vociferous
in its rejection of the gap separating its conditions from those of the Jewish
majority.
Nevertheless, and despite the enhancement of Arab rights compared to previously,
particularly when Arabs were subjected to direct military rule, the gap
separating the development of Arab and Jewish citizens has been widening. Nor
has the issue of racial discrimination been addressed.
Moreover, contradictions between the Arab citizens and state policies have been
increasing as a result of the amplification of national awareness amongst Arab
citizens for a variety of reasons we need not dwell upon here.
Israel did not engender an "Israeli nation" because it chose to
underscore the state's Jewish identity. At the same time, the wager on a crisis
of identity fragmenting the Arab citizens, marginalizing them and preventing
them from organizing themselves as a national group belonging to the Arab nation
and the Palestinian people proved misplaced.
Jewish democracy can tolerate Arab citizens as guests so long as they respect
the rules of hospitality. In other words, Israel can tolerate the presence of
those Israeli-Arabs who agree to remain on the margins of both Arab society and
Israeli society. She has no problems with co-opting those Arab citizens who
agree to transform themselves into half-Israeli, half-Arab hybrids
chameleon-like opportunists with no clearly defined cultural identity who try to
please both Israelis and Arabs at will; pathetically trying to win all worlds
after they have lost their own souls.
As a response to this phenomenon (which was gaining in strength and was on the
verge of pervading the mainstream), we have been trying to propose a democratic
ideological alternative that asserts a Palestinian Arab identity of different
hues of course, but not half-Arab.
Our proposal insists that full citizenship is a precondition for equality, and
there is a contradiction between full equality and the state's Zionist identity.
This contradiction is no reason for us to abandon our calls for equality; it
only stresses the fact that equality is at odds with Zionism. This is a problem
with Zionism, not with equality.
This liberal democratic thesis is seen in Israel as being so radical as to
almost violate the legal guidelines imposed on any ticket competing in
parliamentary elections. Since this message was adopted in the shape of a
political party running for parliamentary mandates, a new type of rivalry has
developed within the Arab community demanding more forceful assertion of its
Palestinian/Arab identity and total equality.
A campaign targeting Arab members of the Knesset (and Arabs generally), citing
their political positions vis-a-vis the Palestinian cause, has been escalating
ever since Benjamin Netanyahu came to office (in 1996). The objective has been
to de-legitimize Arab MPs on the pretext that their political loyalties clash
with their citizenship.
Incitement against Arab MPs within the Knesset reached a crescendo during the Intifada
by exploiting the contrived atmosphere of hostilities as well as the chauvinist
hysteria that overwhelmed and dominated public life in Israel.
During that period, the decision was taken to declare open war against Arab MPs.
I myself was shot in the shoulder by Israeli police in June 1999 while taking
part in a march to protest Israel's demolition of Arab homes in Lydda. The case,
however, was closed "for lack of evidence." Also, hundreds of Jewish
extremists attacked my house last October.
Again, no arrests were made, despite the presence of police at the time. In
fact, police assaults on Arab MPs became almost routine. There was no
"immunity" as such, save for the symbolic one preventing the state
from committing Arab MPs to trial.
For the first time in the history of the Knesset in which a member of Parliament
is stripped of his/her immunity for political statements he/she made, the
Israeli legislature recently stripped me of my parliamentary immunity. I was
indicted on two counts:
1. Accusations relating to statements I made on two occasions: in a protest
meeting held last June 5 at the village of Umm al-Fahm in which I expressed
sympathy with the Lebanese Hizbullah and appreciation for its role in rolling
back the Israeli occupation. The indictment states that these statements are
tantamount to terrorism. The second occasion was on the first anniversary of the
death of president Hafez Assad of Syria, in which I called on the Arab world to
support the Palestinian Intifada. The indictment says that this statement was a
call for using violence against the state.
2. Accusations relating to my interceding with the Syrian authorities in order
to enable some elderly Arab citizens to visit with their relatives living in
Palestinian refugee camps in Syria for the first time in 53 years. In a
humanitarian gesture that was much appreciated by Arabs in Israel, Syria agreed
to this request. Israel, meanwhile, didn't dare prosecute elderly people for the
"crime" of meeting with their relatives possibly for the last time. So
they prosecuted Azmi Bishara for "organizing visits to hostile countries
without the permission of the Israeli government."
Despite the fact that my colleagues and I have to deal with these indictments
seriously, and prepare a robust defense in order to prove my innocence, we
realize that the accusations leveled against me are political in nature with
political motives and political objectives.
The accusations are political in essence because they are based on Israel's
political viewpoint which considers legitimate resistance to be a form of
terrorism. The political motive is based on a right-wing Zionist conviction that
democratic pluralism must be limited by allegiance to the Israeli/Zionist state.
Israel's political objective is to undermine the Democratic National Assembly (Balad)
by prosecuting its leadership, and by terrorizing Arab citizens into withholding
their support.
That is why our trial must be met with a widespread public reaction that
expresses support for Balad's objectives and shows Israel that Arabs cannot be
cowed into submission. The trial must also be accompanied by a political debate
about the distinction between legitimate resistance and terrorism.
We consider occupation to be a form of political violence directed against
innocent people. It is, in other words, a form of terrorism. Similarly, we
consider resistance to occupation within certain political and moral constraints
to be part of the fight against terrorism.
Israel will try to project my case to liberal opinion in the West as "a
democracy defending its existence." Besides my avowed position about how
democratic the state of Israel really is, I maintain that the claim is invalid
in my case in fact it is turned on its head.
It is we who represent democracy fighting for survival against an assault
launched by forces that are by definition anti-democratic. The majority which
voted in the Knesset to lift my parliamentary immunity was constituted of
movements and forces that are neither liberal nor democratic. Among those
movements were extreme right-wing parties and ultra-orthodox parties.
Democracies usually fight for their survival against such parties. The upcoming
trial, therefore, presents a rare opportunity to discuss how democratic a
country Israel really is.
In this saga, the so-called Zionist left has shown not only how impotent it is,
but also its moral bankruptcy. To prove that their party is no less patriotic
than the Likud, many Labor MPs voted for lifting immunity. Those lawmakers who
voted against (such as MP Yossi Sarid), meanwhile, justified their position by
saying that they voted for freedom of expression after launching a bitter
campaign of lies and slander against me worse than any of the right ever
attempted.
The Israeli left distorts our positions, incites public opinion against us, then
tries to prove its moral superiority by defending the "freedom of
expression in Israeli society." The battle is not over freedom of
expression, nor is the Israeli left a believer in the principles of Voltaire. My
statements would not have been noticed nor would we have been indicted if we
didn't represent a genuine political force, and had there not been a decision to
undermine Arab political representation.
The battle, therefore, is over Arab representation. It is about our right as
Arabs to organize, about our right to interact with our people suffering under
Israeli occupation, and, finally, about the compatibility of Zionism with
democracy and equality.
* Member of Knesset and the leader of the National Democratic
Coalition. Bishara was stripped of his parliamentary immunity by the Israeli
legislature two weeks ago.
Post Your Comment
*It should be NOTED that your email address won't be shared, and all communications between members will be routed via the website's mail server.