Israel, Palestine, and Democracy. By Eugene Kontorovich.
Israel, Palestine, and Democracy. By Eugene Kontorovich. Commentary, December 17, 2013.
Kontorovich:
Democracy
and demography have become the main arguments for creating a Jew-free Arab
state in Judea and Samaria. Israel’s presence in the territories deprives
Palestinians of their democratic rights, the argument goes, and if Israel does
not give the Palestinians whatever territory they demand, it will have to
choose between its democracy and its Jewishness.
The
“democracy” argument has become the central justification of the diplomatic
process, incessantly invoked by Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli peace
envoy Tzipi Livni. What makes the democracy argument effective is that it plays
on deep-seated Jewish sentiments. Israelis are a fundamentally liberal,
democratic people who desperately do not wish to be put in the role of
overlords.
The
problem with the democracy argument is that it is entirely disconnected from
reality. Israel does not rule the Palestinians. The status quo in no way
impeaches Israel’s democratic identity.
It is
true that the Palestinians are not represented in the Knesset. But Israeli
residents of Judea and Samaria are similarly not represented in the Palestinian
Legislative Council. Simply put, both the Palestinians and Israelis vote for
the legislature that regulates them. That is democracy (though obviously it
does not play out as well in the Palestinian political system).
The
Palestinians have developed an independent, self-regulating government that
controls their lives as well as their foreign policy. Indeed, they have
accumulated all the trappings of independence and have recently been recognized
as an independent state by the United Nations. They have diplomatic relations with
almost as many nations as Israel does. They have their own security forces,
central bank, top-level Internet domain name, and a foreign policy entirely
uncontrolled by Israel.
The
Palestinians govern themselves. To anticipate the inevitable comparison, this
is not an Israeli-puppet “Bantustan.” From their educational curriculum to
their television content to their terrorist pensions, they implement their own
policies by their own lights without any subservience to Israel. They pass
their own legislation, such as the measure prohibiting real estate transactions
with Jews on pain of death. If Israel truly “ruled over” the Palestinians, all
these features of their lives would be quite different. Indeed, the Bantustans
never won international recognition because they were puppets. “The State of
Palestine” just got a nod from the General Assembly because it is not.
Whether
the Palestinian self-government amounts to sovereignty is irrelevant and
distinct from the question of whether Israel is denying them democracy. Indeed,
Israel’s democratic credentials are far stronger than America’s, or
Britain’s–the mother of Parliaments. Puerto Rico and other U.S. controlled
“territories” do not participate in national elections (and this despite Puerto
Rico’s vote last year to end its anomalous status). Nor do British possessions
like Gibraltar and the Falklands. These areas have considerable self-rule, but
all less than the Palestinians, in that their internal legislation can
ultimately be cancelled by Washington or London. The Palestinians are the
ultimate masters of their political future–it is they who choose Fatah or
Hamas.
To be
sure, Israeli security forces operate in the territories under Palestinian
administration. But that has nothing to do with democracy; it is about
security. Democracy does not give one political entity a right to harm others.
And that is why American security forces conduct raids–assassinations, even–in
countries around the world. While many object to America’s aggressive policies
in these countries no one thinks it has anything to do with the democratic
credentials of one side or another. Similarly, the Palestinian military
operates throughout Israel–through rocket and missile strikes from Eilat to
Ashdod. Yet no one suggests Palestinian military activities in Israel–which
determine when there will be school in Beersheva and when not–mean that they
have deprived Israel of democracy.
This is
no longer a dispute about democracy; it is a dispute about territory. The
Palestinians have their own government; now their demand is to increase the
geographic scope of their legislative powers to “Area C,” where 100 percent of
the Jewish settlers live, some 400,000 people, and only 50-75,000 Arabs. The
Palestinians want their “no Jew” law to apply there as well.
Palestinian
self-determination is one of the biggest developments that no one has noticed.
It is important to recall where it came from. It was a result of the Oslo
process, and the withdrawal from Gaza. This created space for truly independent
Palestinian government to arise.
This
has not been costless for Israel. It subjected Israel to an unprecedented
campaign of terror–to its citizens incinerated in buses and cafes–coordinated
by the Palestinian government during the Oslo war. It legitimized the
Palestinians as full-fledged international leaders, vastly facilitating their
diplomatic campaign against Israel. And it has made most of the territories a
Jew-free zone.
Before
Oslo it could truly have been said that Israel ruled the Palestinians. But that
is over. However, that the “international community” still considers Israel as
running the show for the Palestinians is an important warning that the
reputational benefits for the Jewish state of peace agreements are fleeting and
illusory.
Moreover,
the Palestinians rejected full independence and statehood on three separate
occasions in the past twenty years. If it is true that Israel still controls
them, it is a control that they have chosen to perpetuate. As part of their
strategy of winning by losing, they perpetuate their semi-independence to
maximize their diplomatic leverage. But that is not Israeli domination; that is
Palestinian tactics. Imagine if Israel in 1948 refused to declare independence
until all its territorial claims were satisfied and all Arabs expelled, and was
subsequently overrun by the Arab states. Imagine if Jewish leaders stuck to
this position for decades. Would the Arabs be imposing their rule on the Jews,
or would the Jews be imposing the Arab rule on themselves? That such a scenario
is more than far-fetched only underlines the historic uniqueness of the
Palestinian strategy.
Ironically,
those who invoke the democracy argument are also those who say Israel must go
along with the plans the U.S., Europe, and the “family of nations” have for it.
But can Israel be a democracy if its borders, security, and the fate of its
most holy places are determined by the opinions of foreign powers, against the
inclinations of its elected government? Jeffrey Goldberg last week said Israel’s
democratic status is threatened if it does not listen to the dictates of John
Kerry, who was not even elected to lead America.
Ultimately,
the democracy argument proves too much. If Israel truly must give the
Palestinians an offer they will accept to “save its soul,” then the
Palestinians can demand anything, and should get it, assuming even a
micro-state or protectorate is better than an evil one. And this is why the
democracy argument will impede a genuine negotiated resolution. If Israel needs
Palestinian agreement to save itself, why should the Palestinians agree? If
they can impose “non-democracy” on Israel, the longer they wait, the better
deal they get.