Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Of Declarations and Independence On 5 lyar, in the year 5708 - May 14, 1948 - David Ben-Gurion stood in Tel Aviv and read a historic document to a packed hall. It was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, its Declaration of Independence. In it the State of Israel pledged that "It will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex." It also stated: "We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship. ...” It would be pleasant to think that the Arab and Jew can share full and equal citizenship in a Jewish State of Israel. But it is infinitely more important just to think, clearly and honestly; for the Jewish state that was established by the Declaration of Independence makes that document a model of schizophrenia, correctly mirroring the ideologically confused people who wrote it. Consider the other parts of the declaration, its opening, major, and moving paragraphs. "Eretz Yisrael was the birthplace of the Jewish people. ... After being forcibly exiled from their land the people kept faith with it throughout their dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. ... "In the year 5657 [1897] ... the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. ... "On the 29th November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish People to establish their state is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state. "Accordingly we, members of the People's Council ... hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael to be known as the State of Israel. "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles. ...” 38 Note the innumerable clear statements of what Israel is meant to be. The land is "the birthplace of the Jewish people." The first words of the declaration of the state set the tone. It is the birthplace of the Jew -- not the Arab -- and it is the Jews who were "exiled from their land"; it is the Jews "who kept faith with it" and "never ceased to pray and hope for their return." Can we seriously expect the Arab to feel equal or to have a share in such a state? A declaration of independence that he is expected to see as his own begins by speaking of the land as the birthplace of the Jewish people. But he is not a Jew. The declaration speaks of an exile and a dream of return, but the Arab was not exiled, and if anything the dream of return of the Jew was the hope of making the Arab a minority. For the Arab who dreamed of Jews not returning, the Jewish dream is a nightmare! When the Israeli Arab is told to rise for "his" national anthem, "Hatikvah" (the "hope"), and sing of "the Jewish soul yearning" and "the hope of 2,000 years," can he be expected to feel empathy? Indeed, Israel's resident self-hater, Uri Avnery, proposed in 1975 to change the anthem. His reason made eminently good sense -- if you were an anti-Zionist: the song's motif of Jewish longing for Israel is not acceptable to Israel's Arabs. When the Israeli Arab looks upon the happy revelers on Israeli Independence Day, celebrating, in effect, the Arab defeat and the displacement of an Arab majority of Palestine by a Jewish majority of Israel, can he be seriously expected to join in? When, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the Law of Return opens the gates "for Jewish immigration" and not Arab influx, for the cousins of the residents of Tel Aviv but not those of Nazareth, is it surprising that the Arab feels alienated from the state? The concept "Jewish" is dinned into the Arab's angry head every day. Well, he is no? Jewish, and what perverse madness prevents us from understanding his alienation and rage? Has it never occurred to anyone that the very existence of a Jewish state in the land where the Arab was once the majority makes him uncomfortable and that that is unacceptable to him? The State of Israel came into being as the Jewish state, the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people. The State of Israel is the goal of Zionism, the movement of Jewish longing for a return to their homeland, a longing that began, not with Herzl in 1897, but with his great-great-ancestor, who wept as the Second Temple was destroyed in the year 70. The State of Israel is that homeland for which Jews pray three times daily, turning their faces, not toward Mecca or Rome, but toward Jerusalem. The State of Israel is the dream, vision, hope, tears, yearning of a Jewish people that
suffered humiliation, exile, agony, poverty, robbery, rape, burning, drowning, gassing, pogroms. Crusades, Inquisitions, and Auschwitzes from its varied hosts throughout the world. The State of Israel is the Jewish conviction that "Never Again!" is a concept that can be realized only in a land where Jews control their own destiny, their own police and armed forces, their own guns to guarantee the kind of respect the Zhid, Kike, Yahud, and Yevrei never quite received from the mouths, fists, and boots of the majority culture where he resided in nervous insecurity. The State of Israel is the Jewish demand for a land in which Jews can preserve and create their own specific tradition and way of life free of the spiritual and social assimilation of foreign abrasive culture. The State of Israel is the Jewish demand for what every other people sees as its natural right. The State of Israel is not a request, a plan, or a petition. It is not a favor sought while crouching like some pauper at the back door of the nobleman's mansion. The State of Israel is the Jewish demand and affirmation of right to the land. What the Arab state of Syria is to the Syrians, and the Polish state to the Poles and Burundi to Burundians and Muslim Pakistan to Muslim Pakistanis and Papua to Papuans, so is the Jewish state -- at least" to the Jews. There is nothing to be ashamed of. There is no need to grow defensive about this. There is no place for apologies. The land is ours, the state is ours; let us be proud, let us be joyful, and, above all, let us be convinced. Israel: the one land that the Jewish people have the right -- and the obligation -- to demand. Israel: the sovereign Jewish state, owned and controlled by and for the Jewish people. This is Zionism; this is Judaism; this is normalcy. But having said all this, let us know what this means for an Arab living in the state, and let us stop treating him with the contempt that we reserve for some backward idiot. If all that the Declaration of Independence says and implies is indeed true, the Arab is not equal. The Arab of Israel can enjoy full religious and cultural freedoms, can say and write what he feels, can exercise political rights in the sense of voting for the party of his choice, just like a Jew. But to think that this makes the Arab of Israel feel that the state is his and that his national destiny there is the same as that of the Jews is to fail to understand the reality of being an Arab in what is de jure a Jewish state. It is to fail to understand that not by bread alone does the Arab live, and that a man needs to dwell in and feel part of his own land, where the state represents his national and cultural aspirations, where the majority
of the people -- those who control the state -- are his people. But when "his" state is one whose national roots, majority, language, religion, culture, holidays, and very destiny are different from his -- what do we expect of the Arabs? What do we think? That he is a fool who does not understand, or worse, a knave who can be bought with social and economic progress? How else can we explain the following Israeli "information"? In 1975, the Israeli embassy in Washington issued a series of position papers and essays under the general heading "Background on Zionism." One was written by Professor Joseph Dan, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In it, we (and the Arabs) find: "The Jewish people can continue to exist only if it has an independent state in its one and only homeland, the Land of Israel. There is nothing more to add to that basic definition of Zionism: Jewish independence in the Land of Israel.” Fair enough and certainly straightforward. Zionism is Jewish independence in a Jewish state in the land of the Jews. Now consider the second paper, issued by the government of Israel to explain Zionism and Israel. It is an excerpt of remarks by Chaim Herzog, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. After describing Zionism as the Jewish demand for "revived freedom and nationhood in its ancient homeland" and the Land of Israel as "the center of its national existence," Herzog stated that "Arabs are free and equal citizens in our state.” Free and equal in a state that is irrevocably Jewish? Does "free" mean free to work toward an Arab majority in Israel? Does "free" mean free to have many, many babies who in due time will be free to vote an Arab majority into the Knesset? Does "equal" mean equal rights for an Arab Knesset majority that could vote to change the name of the state to "Palestine" and abolish the Law of Return that today gives Jews and not Arabs automatic entry and citizenship? In a word, are the Arabs of the Jewish state for which Mr. Herzog's ancestors yearned for 2,000 years free and equal to go quietly, calmly, peacefully, democratically, to the polls and, by majority rule, vote an end to Zionism and that Jewish state? And when yet another Israeli luminary, Michael Comay, former ambassador to Canada, writes to the Jerusalem Post (June 11, 1976), "I want an Israel which will remain both Jewish and democratic," what does he say to the equal Arab citizen of this Jewish democracy [sic] who asks him: If I have enough babies, do I have a right to want a Palestine that is both Arab and democratic ...? 41 I do not feel sorry for the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael, no matter how much they feel that the land is theirs. I do not feel for them because I know that the land is noHheirs, that it is Jewish. It is the one and only land that we have, whereas the Arab of Eretz Yisrael can find a home in any one of more than the twenty lands of his 100 million fellow Arabs. I feel no pain for one who robbed me of my land, no matter how loud his false claim to it. But as I feel neither pain nor guilt, I can understand this Arab and know the stupidity of the deception practiced on him. It is a deception that does not deceive; for the Arab of Eretz Yisrael may be a robber and murderer of Jews, but he is not a fool. Indeed, when the "moderate" and the "dovish" Jewish leaders of Israel, those who gladden liberal hearts by calling for the return of the "occupied territories," do so because of "the need to retain a Jewish majority" and warn against "too many Arabs" (one recalls wryly Golda Meir's attack on me for "offending the sensibilities" of the Arabs, followed sometime later by the classic speech in which she spoke of the need to give up land because "I do not want to awaken each morning worrying about how many Arabs were born the previous night") -- then think how "equal" the Arab of Israel feels. The most outrageous offense against Arab sensibilities comes from all the liberals and leftists who grow livid with anger if certain people call for the transfer of Israeli Arabs from the country. But those who call for Arab transfer do so out of respect for the sincerity of the Arab belief that the land was stolen from him and out of knowledge that the Arab cannot feel love and empathy for a Jewisli state. Because of this, they understand that there can never be peace or coexistence between Jew and Arab. This infuriates the "moralists." Yet it is these "moralists" who then proceed to warn against annexing land lest, G-d forbid, we import too many Arabs into our midst. What in the world does an Israeli Arab think when Israeli leaders, who swear that he is an equal, proceed to say the following: "Do you want to have ... a Jewish state in the whole of Eretz Yisrael? ... Do you want to have democracy in that state? How then will it be a Jewisli state? We want a Jewish state, even if it is not in the whole of the country" (David Ben-Gurion, Knesset debate, April 4, 1949). Did Ben-Gurion ever think what the "equal" Arabs of the Jewish Israel who live in the state that is "not in the whole of the country" felt on hearing those words? Or consider the thoughts of Abba Eban, whose ability to speak twelve languages had made him the darling of Jewish Centers and Hadassah groups in the Western world. He warns against annexing Judea-Samaria
and the other liberated lands and asks: "Do we aspire to be a Jewish democracy [sic], or does our vision include a million Arab noncitizens held in an unwanted union with us forever?" (Jerusalem Posf, April 23, 1976). Even as the applause of the nonthinkers rises in a crescendo, the more perceptive may ask: A Jewish democracy? How in the world can the Israeli Arab think of that? Mr. Eban intones: "We cannot hold a million Arabs as noncitizens." In that case, asks the Israeli Arab, why not make them citizens? The answer that Mr. Eban would give would be that we do not want them because they are Arabs and not Jews. But, of course, Mr. Eban detests the extremists who call for emigration of the Arabs. They are clearly racists. And will Mr. Eban go to Nazareth tomorrow to repeat to his happy, equal Arabs of Israel the following words he once coined? "Israel's nationalism is more than a political movement. It is a faith, a religion, a culture, a civilization, a journey together of people across generations of martyrdom.” Dear Mr. Eban, do share those noble thoughts with Israel's Arabs. What tears of joy and empathy will flow in Nazareth square, or in Umm Al-Fahm or Sakhnin or all the equal villages of equal Arab citizens who presumably commemorated the fast of Tisha B'Av with us for 2,500 years as they mourned the destruction of the Jewish Holy Temple "across generations of martyrdom.” The Arab of Israel sits in a land in which he was once the majority, which he controlled, which was Arab, which was his. The Jew came -- from Russia, Poland, Morocco, and Brooklyn -- and took it from him. That is how the Arab sees it. That is his reality. How do we expect him to feel and react, this man who feels robbed and bitter and alienated? That is the source of the problem, and it is insoluble. The points I raise are so brutally plain and painful that people shrink from them. Better, for them, sugary delusions than bitter reality. And so, during all the years of the existence of Israel, and for all the decades of pre-lsrael political Zionism, Zionist leaders eagerly, desperately, clung to a myth, which they fed, as an article of faith, to the Jewish masses. That myth proclaimed: The way to peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew in the Land of Israel is to raise the standard of living and to create a new generation of educated Arabs -- the "head-and-stomach" policy of clever Israelis. ... 43 say it again: All those who say this hold the Israeli Arab in nothing but contempt. It should be obvious by now, as the result of scores of examples in other countries, that one does not buy the national aspirations of a people with indoor toilets. The Arabs of Israel, a minority who possess national aspirations, will not be bought off with material goods, electricity, or higher education. Indeed, it is clear that the more social, economic, and political progress is made and the more educated the Arabs become, the less satisfied they will be and the more extreme, nationalistic, and antangonistic to the Jewish state. The question of higher living standards, more integration and opportunities, and greater education are not the ultimate issues for the Arabs. The Jewish-Arab conflict in Israel is not a social or economic or political one. It is much deeper than that; it has to do with the very definition and basis of the state. As long as Israel persists in defining itself de jure, officially, as the Jewish state, as long as it adheres to the Zionist and Judaistic credo of the land as belonging to the Jewish people, there will be hatred, conflict, blood, war. But the leaders of Israel do not have the courage to say this. They persist in their ultimately catastrophic delusion that the solution to the Arab problem in Israel is greater progress toward social and economic equality, integration, and "goodwill.” And so, on June 19, 1976, the prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, Defense Minister Shimon Peres, former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a large gathering of Israeli top leadership, and hand-picked "loyal" Israeli Arabs met for a day-long symposium on the "Arab problem." It was less than three months after the Land Day Rebellion, and the shaken country had seen debates, articles, government meetings, studies, speeches, symposiums - all devoted to dissecting the "suddenly" angry Israeli Arab. The question on the lips of all worried Jews was: What makes Ahmed suddenly run wild? And, more important: How can we stop him? Just a few years earlier, the frantic questions would not even have been raised. A fascinating example of the almost unbelievable Israeli delusion is to be found in an article written by Edwin Samuel in the May 1955 issue of the then prestigious Commentary maganne. Samuel, son of Viscount Herbert Samuel, the first British high commissioner for Palestine, wrote as an Israeli citizen and expert on Arab affairs. What did an Israeli expert write in those halcyon days when, like all good Arabs, the Israeli ones were seen, here and there, but seldom heard?

"With an overwhelming Jewish majority, it is extremely doubtful whether a separate Arab culture can be maintained. It seems more probable - even if the Arab population reaches 250,000 [sic] - that it will become rapidly assimilated to the prevailing Jewish culture. ... In Israel the Arab has little chance of maintaining his identity.” It seems incredible that Israelis once really believed that. By 1967 it was clear that the Arab was not going to fade away, but he was still not a "problem" to the average Israeli. Nor, for that matter, was he a problem to the "nonaverage" one, the intellectual who always has so much to say on subjects whether they are within his field of expertise or not. Not only was the myth of the quiescent Arab still prevalent, but Israelis were certain that Ishmael was content. A few months after the Six-Day War, Midstream magazine, a house organ for the Jewish Agency in New York, carried a symposium on "Prospects for Peace." Among the participants was Professor Ephraim Urbach, Talmudic researcher and archdove, once nominated by the National Religious Party to be its candidate for president of Israel. His comments prove that a candidate for the presidency of Israel can be just as obtuse as mere mortals. Said Urbach: "I am referring to the question of the Arabs in Israel -- an area where we have already done a great deal. ... What we have managed to accomplish for the Arab minority in terms of human rights and social, cultural, and economic conditions -- what we have done has never been done before in the world. This has been a human and cultural enterprise of the first magnitude. Without any desire to assimilate this minority we have given it economic, social, and cultural conditions enabling it to prosper, conditions which the Arabs in neighboring lands still do not enjoy. ... But for some reason this great human enterprise has been played down. "Ultimately one has to admit that the Arabs in Israel have to a degree become reconciled to their situation. “ Professor Urbach notwithstanding, the Arabs began to show disturbing evidence of nonreconciliation. By 1971 there was a troublesome rise in the number of Israeli Arabs who were found to be participating in terrorist groups and in terrorist activities. (Until the SixDay War there had not been a single recorded instance of an Israeli Arab joining a terrorist group.) After a booby-trapped hand grenade exploded in Tel Aviv and the perpetrators were traced to the Israeli Arab village of Tira, Israelis grew upset. "Not to worry," said Shmuel Toledano. Toledano was the expert's expert on Arabs, having served since 1966 as
adviser to the prime minister on Arab affairs (he remained in that capacity until 1977). His job was to chart Arab policy. The following is from a brief biography (1974): "This period (from 1966) is considered to be a period of liberalization. ... During this period, military rule [for Arab areas] as well as closed areas have been abolished. Free and untrammeled movements have been given to all Arab citizens. Land restrictions have been set aside. Large sums of money have been invested in the development of Arab and Druze villages. The Arabs of Israel have reached an impressive standard of living. ...” Toledano was the man who for more than a decade became the symbol of Israel's "goodwill, head-and-stomach" policy toward the Arabs. Under him the state exuded untold amounts of goodwill, devoted itself to feeding Arab stomachs and educating Arab heads, and raised high the magic banner of integration. Yet, to everyone's dismay, the fuller the stomach and head, the fatter the pocket, and the greater the Israeli goodwill, the more "difficult" the once quiet and "reconciled" Arabs became. Not to worry, repeated Toledano. "If we will treat the Arabs fairly we will keep them from the frustrations that occasionally lead to extremism" (Yediot Aharonot, December 3, 1971). And as Arab frustration led, despite everything else, to more discontent and "radicalization," Toledano wrote: "They [the young Arabs] are a perplexed national minority struggling to find their way in a very complicated situation. Sometimes, when the tension as to where he belongs is overwhelming, the young Arab feels he is torn in two" (The Israeli Arabs, 1974). And the solution? Toledano concluded: "Israeli society must weaken the barriers [between Jews and Arabs], increase socio-economic intermingling, and create a mutual sense of respect" (ibid.). What Toledano was saying was that the policy of "goodwill, head-and-stomach" has not failed. We simply have not given the Arabs enough of it. Other head-and-stomach experts pushed Toledano's myth of the "torn Arab." Thus, Dr. Yitzhak Ben Gad, Israeli columnist for the Philadelphia Jewish establishment weekly Exponent, wrote (December 26, 1975) "The overwhelming majority of Israel's Arab population has altered its standard of living beyond recognition. A traditionally closed Arab society has been transformed, through mechanization and technology, into a modern and developed one. As equal citizens in a democratic society, Israeli Arabs share with their Jewish compatriots the progress and benefits of Israel's

economy. ... On the one hand they are active and loyal citizens to their state of domicile -- Israel. On the other hand, they cannot disavow their neighboring Arab brethren. ... This conflict of dual loyalty is the greatest problem of Israeli Palestinians. ... Only peace can normalize the situation of Israel's Arab citizen, when they can proudly affirm that they are Israeli and Arabs, both, without contradiction.” Of course this is nonsense, and the only frustration the young Arab feels is his inability to change "Israel" into "Palestine." There is no conflict of dual loyalty, only one of dual authority. On the one hand there is the Arab Palestinian authority to which he would willingly submit. On the other hand, there is the hated Jewish one he cannot -- at present -- escape. It is, however, more comfortable to think that the Arab attitude is not one of hate but of confusion. But if the latter exists, it is no? within the Arab camp. This brand of foolishness continued to be the typical, standard fare for Israelis. The Arab was equal; the Arab lived better than he had ever dreamed he could; the Arab was a loyal citizen -- with a few problems, none of which could not be solved by the eternal materialistic solution: more. The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a pamphlet in October 1973 entitled Minorities in Israel: Again the myth of equality: "The principle of equal rights for the Arabs of Israel has always been integral to the Zionist philosophy. ... Israel's Proclamation of Independence (14 May 1948) affirms the principle. ...” Again the "head-and-stomach" irrelevancy: "The perplexed and impotent Arab of 1948 is gone. Today, a prideful, loyal Israeli Arab assesses his future soberly. The fellahin ["peasant farmers"] have become farmers versed in the most modern methods. ... It is a magical metamorphosis. ... The educated young generation are unrecognizably unlike their parents. ... The roll of minority academics is steadily lengthening. ...” Again the myth of "confusion": "In the political conjuncture of the Middle East, they often face a 'loyalty crisis.' Does civic loyalty to Israel clash with their national consciousness?” Above all, again the destructive myth: "All the same, there is a gradualness of integration, and year by year the tempo quickens a little.

The socioeconomic gap narrows all the time. Reciprocity of suspicion is disappearing. The omens are not inauspicious.” This is the Israeli Establishment's version of the opiate of the masses. Is it, perhaps, those Israeli materialists whose own reflexes are so conditioned by material benefits who thus assume that the Israeli Arab marches on his stomach? And so, as late as November 15, 1974, Education Minister Aharon Yadlin could tell a group of Israeli Arabs: "The State of Israel expects its Arab citizens to be ambassadors of peace between Israel and her neighbors. ... Israel is the example of how Jews, Muslims, and Christians can live together in mutual respect.” And then came Land Day and what should have been perceived as the bursting of the ballooning myth. But no. With every fiber of the state crying out the bitter failure and bankruptcy of Israeli policy vis-a-vis its Arabs, Toledano, on April 9, 1976, analyzed the problem for the Jerusalem Post, saying: "There is no alternative to a policy of a more fargoing integration of the Arab minority into Israel. ... It means primarily the opening of the dominant Jewish Israeli society, economy and policy to Arabs who wish to integrate and lead full and fulfilling lives in Israel.” The government, of course, agreed, a "senior cabinet minister" telling the press (April 5, 1976) that "government policy toward Israel's Arab community requires no revision." He insisted that "everyone recognized the need for speedier implementation of programs to give the Arab citizen a wider role in the life of the state. Educated Arab citizens have to be integrated into the national endeavor.” And indeed, on May 23, 1976, the cabinet set up a ministerial committee to study and implement proposals introduced by Toledano and super-dove Moshe Kol, minister of tourism. The proposals called for solving the Israeli Arab ferment by "stepped-up integration of especially young intellectuals in employment, education, governmental and public services, and other facets of Israeli life." Kol also called for the establishment of a public council "for the fostering of Arab-Jewish relations.” Reaction by the "head-and-stomach" people was, predictably, favorable. Since it is simpler to feel that Arabs who throw firebombs at soldiers and shout "The Galilee is Arab" do so out of "frustration" over lack of integration rather than because they are Arabs and the state is Jewish, the simpletons and simplistic ones approved. Thus, the Jerusalem Post editorialized: "Israelis may quiver with rage at the inroads 'Fatah'

slogans have made into the minds of many young Israeli Arabs, but it must be admitted that part of the fault lies in Israel's failure to provide suitable alternative channels of expression to his new force. ... "The key word that has been bruited about since the dramatic occurrences of March 30, is integration. ... It is essential that the dominant Jewish society, economy and policy be opened to welcome Arab Israelis who seek fuller personal and communal integration into Israel.” It is interesting to note the difference between deluded Jewish reaction and that of even a "moderate" Israeli Arab. Mahmoud Abassi, Arab adviser to the Ministry of Education, is clearly a moderate, cautious Establishment Arab. He is a "good" Arab and his job guarantees this. He also approved the May 23, 1976 proposals but added a most pertinent comment to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "We want to be treated as equals just as you expect Jews in the Diaspora to be treated as equals” Before the knee-jerk, reflexive approval, consider very carefully what Abassi said: He wants equality of the kind Jews have in the Diaspora, say, Canada or the United States. But the United States is not a state founded by and for a particular national or religious group. The United States was not founded as the home of the Swedes or Germans or Italians. It was certainly not founded as the sovereign state of a particular religion. Canada does not have a Declaration of Independence declaring it a Christian country or that the Anglo-Saxons have a right to "their state." The United States does not have a "Law of Return" granting automatic entry and citizenship to one people and not to others. In theory it makes no difference if Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Bulgarians, or Greeks are the majority in the United States, since all are Americans. But Israel nourishes itself, not from its "Israeliness" but from its Jewishness. Its very right to exist is based on that Jewishness. It was because of the Jewish people's ancient claim to the land that the existence of a majority of Arabs was rightly termed irrelevant. It was because of a Jewish claim that Lord Balfour and the British government issued the proclamation supporting a Jewish national home in Palestine. It is because of its Jewishness that world Jewry supports Israel. How much money would world Jewry give to a United Appeal that raised money for an "Israel" whose Arab population was the majority and whose entire identity had changed overnight? Of course Israeli Arabs were demanding "integration." Of course they wanted "more." Of course they wanted social and economic benefits. But not because that would satisfy them, not because that was all they wanted. 49 They wanted to be exactly like the Jews, including having the right to create an Arab "Zionist" state when they become a majority, just as the Jews imposed their Zionism on them. But how does one get through the head of a Teddy Koliek that his demand for water, electricity, and phone service for the Arabs of East Jerusalem may win him Arab votes but is irrelevant to the fact that they mock and hiss at his pathetic insistence that Jerusalem is "one unified city"? How does one persuade Koliek that his plan to "satisfy" the Arabs of Jerusalem by establishing a system of "boroughs" that will give them autonomy will only whet their appetite for full independence, jeopardize Jewish tourists in the "autonomous" areas of Jerusalem, and convince the Arabs of Jewish weakness? To understand fully the mind of Teddy Koliek and his compatriots, one must consider an "event" that Koliek conceived of and carried out in April 1980. Fully aware of the emptiness of his "one Jerusalem" claim, Koliek, in conjunction with the American Jewish Congress, conceived of a "conference" of mayors from multi-ethnic American cities. Clearly, Koliek wished to tell the world: We have invited the mayors of Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other cities to Jerusalem, because we all have a common problem. We all have people of different backgrounds and there is always a certain amount of friction. But just as Pittsburgh and Chicago solve their ethnic problems, so can Jerusalem, because our problems are similar. The deception is so palpable that even former Deputy Mayor Miron Benvenisti was forced to demur. Benvenisti wrote: "The conference sponsors overlooked one little thing. The basis for their discussions was absolutely invalid. There is no comparison at all between Jerusalem's problems and those of American mixed cities. The minority leaders in America do not deny the legitimacy of the government and refuse to participate in its operations. To the contrary, they fight to integrate into the ruling apparatus ... they seek a bigger slice of the American national cake. ... The communal tension in Jerusalem stems from the fact that the Arab minority does not recognize the legitimacy of the government that was imposed on it. ... While the minorities in U.S. cities seek 'good government,' the Arab minority seeks 'self-government'" (Kol Hair, April 25, 1980). It would be comforting to think that the nonsense is limited to the L.L.L. (Labor, Left, Liberal) of Israel. Alas, Begin, the Likud (a block of political parties in alignment with Begin), and the "nationalists" all share, to varying degrees, "the Myth." Thus, despite riots, demonstrations,

clashes, Land Days, polls that show Israeli Arabs denying the legitimacy of Israel, university students openly supporting the PLO on campus, and the election of a mayor of Nazareth who backs the PLO, Mr. Begin's new adviser on Arab affairs, Binyamin Gur-Arye, could calmly declare (April 25, 1980): "All the talk about radicalization of Israeli Arabs in their relation to the State of Israel is baseless.” Mr. Begin's old adviser on Arab affairs, Moshe Sharon, in an interview with Maariv (February 2, 1979), told the following anecdote to illustrate the prime minister's view of solving the problem: "Mr. Begin, as told you, is a liberal. I often heard him chastise a minister: 'What!? Your ministry discriminates against Israeli Arabs!?'“ Moshe Sharon himself is a classic example of the frustrations that make strong men weep and throw up their hands in despair. In the same interview he made the following explosive points: "A young Arab, intellectual and law-abiding, told me openly: 'When an Egyptian MIG is shot down, no Israeli Arab rejoices. When an Israeli Phantom falls - no Arab is sad.' That, to put it mildly, describes the hostile attitude of Israeli Arabs to the state.” And again: "The Arab is tied intimately to the Arab world that surrounds him - in language, culture, religion, family, nation, and politics. Does this minority identify with Israel? Absolutely not! And we dare not expect him to.” Finally. Finally, one hears plain, honest truth. Finally, one expects to hear plain, honest solutions. Sharon continues: "Once and for all we must begin a serious, deep, and ongoing approach to solving the cardinal problems of the Israeli Arabs." Dare we hope? "The objective is to educate an Arab citizen who is law-abiding, proud of his culture, and able to be absorbed into Israeli society. We must teach the Arab youngster more Hebrew so as to be absorbed into a position. We must develop in him a positive attitude toward creative work. ...” One hardly knows whether to laugh or to cry. There is hardly any difference between Labor and Likud. Begin's new deputy prime minister, Simha Eriich, set off on January 4, 1980, to meet the Arabs of the Jewish state. In Nazareth, heart of the Arab Rakah (Communist Party) and PLO forces in Israel, he told his audience: "I promise you that the government sees in you a dear, loyal, and important community for the State of Israel." He proved this at a symposium in Tel Aviv on March 20, 1980, on the subject of the "developing Arab village,"

proudly boasting: "Within one and a half years all the Arab villages in Israel will be connected to the electric grid.” Perhaps the most depressing statement of all was the one made by the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Moshe Arens, a staunch member of Begin's Herut Party, who told a seminar (June 5, 1980) of his views on Jewish-Arab coexistence. "We must," he said, "develop a properly pluralistic society where Jew and Arab are equal in every respect, including career opportunities. Life in Israel's democracy should be made sufficiently attractive to deter the Arabs from wanting to secede." It seemed that the madness of blindness had struck down even one of the brighter Israeli figures. Labor, Likud; there is little difference. If whom G-d would destroy He first makes mad, the Alm-ghty must be exceedingly angry with His people. The frantic and frenetic search for a "solution" to a problem that is indeed a cancer in our body politic leads to suggestions and comments that future generations will surely marvel at with a mixture of total astonishment and uncontrollable laughter. President Yitzhak Navon is upset over the serious Arab agitation in the Galilee. He is aware of the fact that from the Jewish standpoint there is a desperate need to settle Jews in that strategic northern region, where they are already a minority. This has led to a government program to "Judaize the Galilee." On September 13, 1978, while on a visit there, he noted that the phrase is offensive to the Arabs. "It is preferable," he said, "to use the term 'Jewish settlement of the Galilee.' It is more correct and also politically better." Of course. It is obvious that thatmW soothe the Arabs and prevent future Land Days in the Galilee. ... Then Foreign Minister Yigal Allon was wont to hold an annual "Spring Jewish-Arab Gathering" at which - in the manner of some British colonial raja or pukka - he would speak to the assembled. On May 26, 1976, Allon said: "History decreed that Jews and Arabs should forever live side by side ... always, within the independent State of Israel itself, there will be Jews, Muslims, Druzes, and Christians, living together as citizens with equal rights. ... "I believe that, in the future as in the past, the Jewish majority and the Arab minority will be able to live in understanding, cooperation, and mutual respect in the State of Israel, which arose to solve the national problem of the Jewish people. ... "To the extent that misunderstandings arise, it is necessary, and possible, to resolve them peacefully, in a spirit of understanding and

goodwill, without deviating from the progressive democratic laws which prevail in our country” It is almost beyond comprehension that a foreign minister could have made such statements. One is faced with an agonizing choice: either he sincerely meant what he said and thus was both incompetent and bewildered, or he understood the nonsense he was saying and his contempt for Arab intelligence was profound. " The Jewish majority and the Arab minority will be able to live in understanding. ..." Note the assumption: that there will always be a Jewish majority in the state that arose to solve the Jewish "national problem." And what if through the peaceful cooperation, mutual respect, and understanding that Allon called for the Arabs quietly and with many babies become the majority in "the state which arose to solve the Jewish national problem"? Would Israel then deviate from its "progressive democratic laws"? Would Mr. Allon then have advised the now Jewish minority to adopt the same acceptance of their status that he so eloquently preached to his Arab minority? Either the foreign minister of Israel was hopelessly confused or a practitioner of deception. There is no guarantee of a Jewish majority in a democracy - especially with a prolific Arab minority. Was Allon prepared to accept minority status graciously and come each year to the home of the Arab foreign minister of the new State of Palestine? As the Arabs of Israel move steadily toward "radicalization" (an absurd term that attempts to deform their long-suppressed natural feelings), we keep hearing more and more pained Jewish reactions. The pain is always based on the premise that if only there would be goodwill, understanding, and mutual trust, all would be well (and Jews could continue to enjoy the fruits of majority rule over the Arabs in safety). One of the most dangerous offenders in this connection is the Jerusalem Post, proponent of a confused and -- from the Arab's point of view -- absurd policy that is neither meat nor milk, fish nor fowl. In one of its rather typical editorials, the Post professed "pained surprise" over the January 1979 declaration of support for the PLO by the heads of the Arab councils in Israel. Since that body was touted, for years, by Post men and those who think like them as the "moderate leadership of the Arab community," the editorial (January 23, 1979) stated that such a statement could only undo "the rudiments of mutual trust that have been built up so painstakingly over the years by men and women of goodwill in both communities. ... What is needed on the Arab side is a return to sanity by the upcoming generation of its central leadership.” 53 The Post and those it represents can never, of course, believe that to the average Arab, statements of support for the PLO are the height of sanity. They will eternally refuse to believe that "goodwill" is nonsense when the Arab believes that he, who was once the majority in the land and is now a minority in a Jewish state, has been robbed. The Post men and their Hebrew counterparts in Israel cannot believe this because to do so is to admit that the very basis for their beliefs of a lifetime is a sham. Shimon Peres, leader of the Labor Party, is also, of course, a "goodwill, head-and-stomach" man, but he differs with the supporters of total integration. "We have failed, for twenty-eight years" -- this in an interview with Maariv, March 26, 1976 -- "in regard to our Arab minority." And his prescription for Arab contentment and acceptance of Israel? Separate Arab development. Encourage and aid them to set up their own political parties. "Because we did not encourage them in this, they were forced to find expression in hostile political parties.” Ah, that’s the source of the problem. Not Zionism, not the fact that the Arab feels nothing but hatred for the state that took away "his" land and made his people a minority in a foreign Jewish state. All we need do is allow him to establish his own framework. Question: Who prevented him from doing so all these years? Question: Will this separate party be less hostile to Israel than the present "hostile" parties to which he has gravitated? Question: How does separate existence breed love for the Jew? Will not a separate Arab party be based logically on a demand for separate existence and separation from Israel? Answer: Peres has not the slightest idea. His is one other side of the Israeli Coin of Confusion. The Peres idea was the subject of two articles in the Jerusalem Post, which merely proved the inflationary character of the Coin. Said Moses Ater, Labor Party member, (July 12, 1976): "A precondition to peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs is ... deliberate segregation, confining joint activity to essentials of mutual benefit.” But it was the second article by one Melvin Moguloff that surely is a candidate for the most fascinating political psychology article in many a day. Moguloff, described as a "social planner at one of the country's major public agencies," in an April 9, 1978, article, called for separate but very equal facilities. Economic and social conditions are the key for Moguloff, as befits a social welfare planner. Therefore, if we make sure that the Arab stomach is full and his head filled exactly like those of the Jews, it will be good. But, if not, "a large and articulate Arab community, in a democratic state, could not long accept second-class economic status.”

What makes the Moguloff article fascinating, in a hideous way, is the ending: "Current government policies, if successful, seem likely to lead to the Arab community becoming the majority in Israel [italics added]. Thus, an aggressive concern for equity between Arabs and Jews might be seen as insurance against the time when the Jews no longer enjoy majority status in Israel.” Three facts stand out as we read these lines - for perhaps the tenth time to be certain they really say what they do. One is the coolness and calm detachment with which the possibility - nay, probability - of the end of the Jewish state is discussed. Second is the numbing postulate that we should be careful to treat the Arabs well in the hope that when they become masters here they will reciprocate. The third is the hideous part: How many other Jews in Israel, consciously or subconsciously, consider the ultimate end of the Jewish state and an Arab majority very likely and probable? How many who contemplate that likelihood with calm fatalism and dispassion would take to the barricades to prevent any effort to preserve the Jewish state by removal of the Arabs? How many would allow Zionism and the Jewish state to be sacrificed on the altar of democracy? For more than three decades, Jews in Israel, led by the "shepherds who do feed themselves," have lived with delusions, fed by fear and a sense of hopelessness. And so they put their faith in the myth. It took the Arabs to give the cleverest answer to it. On July 4, 1974, Shmuel Toledano warned of problems ahead, "unless the Arab minority is totally accepted by the Jewish majority as an integral part of the state.” Three days later, in a most ungracious response to the benevolent Toledano, the Lebanese newspaper Al Muhrar rejected the Israeli liberal's largess. The gist of the article, titled "Not by Bread Alone Does Man Live," was: Even if there were an opportunity to integrate the Arabs into Israeli society, this would not solve the problem, since man does not live by bread alone. He has other needs, and among them is to live in honor in his own homeland. Of course, the Arabs are correct. British colonialists used to scratch their heads in puzzlement over "native" rebellions. "What do they want?" used to be the Whitehall plaint. "When we came we found a jungle. They ate each other; they fought each other; they died young; they were poverty-stricken. We found a jungle
and turned it into civilization." Of course, the reply of the "natives" was: "Yes, but it was oarjungle, and now it is your civilization.” One would have hoped that Prime Minister Rabin, as he mounted the rostrum on that June day in 1976 to give his views on the Israeli Arab problem, understood that the heart of the Jewish-Arab problem in Israel is the same as that of the dispute between Israel and the Arab states. All Arabs, including those in Israel, believe that the Jews are thieves, robbers who came to an Arab Middle East and stole a part of it. It does little good to bemoan the fact that the Arab will not "compromise" or accept the arguments given by Jews (the bad as well as the very good). He is not interested in a British promise to Jews as embodied in the Balfour Declaration ("Who were the British to promise 'our' land?"); he is not moved by tales of Jewish suffering under the Germans or other Europeans ("Let them compensate Jews by giving them part of their countries"); and he is not even swayed by the oft-heard boast that the Jews turned a desert into a garden ("Yes, but it was oar desert, and now it is yoar garden"). Even to begin to believe, in our time, that it is possible for two large nations to occupy the same land in peaceful coexistence when they differ in every possible aspect is an illusion of the first magnitude. When you add the fact that the present minority was once a majority, the hopelessness of the situation becomes even more apparent. And when the minority knows that it has massive support from brother Arab states with potential and power to "free" it; and when it sees a vast majority of the nations of the world supporting its cause; and when it knows that all but one of the superpowers are sympathetic and that the one supposed ally of Israel is slowly but surely moving to pressure and to weaken her fatally; when the knowledge that a "Palestine" will sooner or later exist alongside the Israel that the minority is struggling against, the hope of "liberation" becomes more and more a certainty in the breast of that minority. The Declaration of Independence of Israel is not relevant to the Arabs of the Jewish state. Let the Jews have their declaration, they say; give us our independence.