Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that Israel be recognized as a “Jewish state” is unprecedented in the history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Rooted in a nineteenth century European-nationalist worldview, the concept has been officially opposed by the United States, and with good reason—it goes against basic principles of international law and has served to undermine efforts to negotiate a lasting Middle East peace.
Jack Ross, last updated: May 31, 2011
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s newest tactic in advancing the Likud Party’s hawkish approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is his demand, first enunciated in his response to Barack Obama’s June 2009 Cairo Speech and now an ubiquitous talking point, that Israel be recognized by the Palestinians and other adversaries as either “the nation-state of the Jewish people” or “the national home of the Jewish people.” This demand is unprecedented in the history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and the United States has, to its credit, rejected the framing. Indeed, how could such a concept—that a nation-state belongs not necessarily to its own citizens or even an exclusive subset of its citizens, but to an abstract if not fictitious transnational entity—serve as a principle of international law?
In the wake of Obama’s May 2011 speech on Middle East policy and Netanyahu’s exaggerated response to it, this precondition requires additional scrutiny because of its growing prevalence in hawkish discourse on the so-called peace process. The demand to grant official recognition to the Jewish nationalist narrative is now a regular neoconservative talking point, particularly at Commentary magazine’s “Contentions” blog. It has also been adopted by Obama administration allies like J Street, which seems to invoke the slogans of Jewish “nationhood” in order to remain kosher in the eyes of the American Jewish establishment.
Origins and Opposition
Israel has always held that it is a state not merely of its own people but a transnational entity called “the Jewish people.” In his June 2010 book, The Invention of the Jewish People, the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand chronicled how this concept was created in the nationalist ferment of nineteenth century Europe and owes more to the historic doctrines of modern nationalism than to historical Judaism. Sand provocatively begins his book by illustrating that as far as the Israeli government is concerned, there is no such nationality as “Israeli”—only the universal “Jewish.”
The most provocative instance of Israel employing force on the world stage in the name of “the Jewish people” was in 1961, when it took it upon itself to capture, try, convict, and execute the Nazi fugitive Adolf Eichmann. This took place in defiance of a broad U.S. and international consensus that an international tribunal should have tried Eichmann. In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Study in the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt famously criticized the trial for being a gratuitous exercise in Israeli nationalist propaganda. Time magazine editorialized at the time: “In his justifiable determination to see Eichmann punished for his monstrous past, Ben-Gurion seemed to be unaware of the inverse racism in his claim that Israel, as ‘the only sovereign authority in Jewry,’ had the right to seek out criminals guilty of offenses against ‘the Jewish people’ anywhere it could find them.”
The Eichmann case spurred Rabbi Elmer Berger, leader of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, to seek a clarification from the State Department—which opposed the unilateral Israeli capture of Eichmann—as to whether it recognized the concept of “the Jewish people” as a valid concept of international law. With the collaboration of William Thomas Mallison, an international law expert, a forty-one page brief was presented to the State Department and was also published in the George Washington University Law Review.
On April 20, 1964, Assistant Secretary of State Phillip Talbot sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the brief, detailing the State Department’s official position:
“The Department of State recognizes the State of Israel as a sovereign state and citizenship in the State of Israel. It recognizes no other citizenship or sovereignty in connection therewith. It does not recognize a legal-political relationship based on the religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of their religion. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the ‘Jewish people’ concept as a concept of international law.”
Though seemingly mundane, the Israeli embassy reportedly pressured the State Department to retract the letter for many years. However strange it may seem as abstract legal theory, the letter has important real-world implications. It lays out a position directly contrary to the Balfour Declaration, the British imperial edict that gave blessing, at least in principle, to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in its assumption that a transnational “Jewish people” was a valid concept in international law. The 1947 UN partition plan of Palestine also relied on the same assumption.
In recent years, the Israel lobby’s increasingly strident and erratic demands have chipped away at the policy outlined in the Talbot letter. In a 2008 column, for instance, Charles Krauthammer unambiguously urged the United States to declare itself bound to defend Israel against Iran out of the duty to prevent another Holocaust, or “crimes against the Jewish people.” John McCain endorsed this principle in his 2008 presidential election debates with Barack Obama. Groups like John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel have relied on the concept in their advocacy on behalf of a Greater Israel Project.
In direct conflict with the Talbot letter, last March, the Colorado legislature issued a joint resolution resolving to “recognize the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people,” which followed an address by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren.
The significance of the Talbot letter also appears to have been undermined by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which has been under pressure to overturn its long-standing policy of not covering religion under their mandate. The commission now includes “religious groups perceived to share ethnic characteristics,” a formulation that seems designed to label criticism of Israel and Zionism as a violation of Jewish students civil rights.
Relevance to Middle East Peace
This history is important in understanding Israel’s precondition that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a “Jewish homeland.” Furthermore, Netanyahu’s demand makes clear that Israel should be allowed to wage war against Iran and potentially other countries in defense of the transnational “Jewish people.” The idea is controversial both diplomatically but also among Jews themselves. With the increasing influence and popularity of works by authors like Shlomo Sand, there is an increasing awareness that Judaism does not necessarily equate with the nineteenth century romantic nationalist construct called “the Jewish people.” As Rabbi Elmer Berger explained in an essay in the 1980s:
“Recognition of this ‘Jewish people’ nationality concept is the first priority of Zionism’s diplomacy. It is the cornerstone of the Zionist state’s system of nationality rights and obligations. Appreciation of the centrality of this factor is indispensable to any assessment of Israel’s long-range adaptability to the Middle East. It is therefore indispensable to any formula touted to solve the Palestinian problem with the desired ‘just and enduring peace.’”
Jack Ross is a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/) and the author of Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism.
Charles Krauthammer, "The Holocaust Declaration," RealClearPolitics, April 11, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/deterrence_to_defend_israel.html.
Philip Weiss, "Israeli flag is dropped off at Colorado legislator's office in the nick of time," Mondoweiss, March 18, 2011, http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/israeli-flag-is-dropped-off-at-colo-legislators-office-in-the-nick-of-time.html.
Jonathan Tobin, "The Reality of Campus Anti-Semitism," Commentary, April 22, 2011, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/22/reality-of-campus-antisemitism/.
During a recent panel discussion at the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security argued that Iran “continues to dissemble and stonewall the [nuclear] inspectors” and that “without a fundamental shift in Iran’s views on safeguards and verification, the prospect of obtaining adequate verification measures fades.” Albright’s remarks were delivered shortly after a widely lauded framework agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 and despite the Obama administration’s insistence that Iran has lived up to its commitments under the November 2013 Geneva interim nuclear deal.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the hardline “pro-Israel” lobbying outfit supported by Sheldon Adelson, has seen its fundraising efforts achieve “record sums.” RJC executive director Matthew Brooks has attributed the surge in contributions to the Obama administration’s recent spat with Israel over Iran, stating: “There are a lot of folks who are deeply troubled by the actions of this administration and the undermining of the relationship with Israel and with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and as a result, I think, they are engaged and energized in a way I have never seen before.”
Ali Alfoneh is a senior fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies who claims the Obama administration failed to reach a “good deal” on Iran’s nuclear program because it didn’t pursue additional “financial pressure” during negotiations—even though most observers agree such pressure would have effectively ended talks. In a recent interview, he said: “What I think the U.S. voters should be concerned about and disappointed about is that the U.S. government has done such a poor job of bargaining in the Middle Eastern market.”
Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating aggressive U.S. foreign policies, particularly with respect to the Middle East. Described by Glenn Greenwald as a “neocon/pro-Israel” writer, Lake’s record includes supporting the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, attacking public figures who criticize Israel, and promoting a hardline on Iran. One commentator has quipped that Lake has a “career pattern of credulously planting dubious stories from sources with strong political agendas.”
Former Dick Cheney adviser John Hannah, a fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been named as a foreign policy adviser for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Jeb Bush, joining a list of other hawkish advisers who previously worked for Bush’s brother or father. Hannah has denounced the nuclear framework agreement recently reached between Iran and the P5+1, saying that “if we take this agreement at face value, I think it looks very dangerous, very risky.” In January, Hannah wrote a piece for Foreign Policy explicitly calling for a regime change policy against Iran.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
April 20, 2015
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently spoke bluntly about his aim to rely on “pro-Israel” funding to support his potential run for president.
April 18, 2015
Prominent neoconservatives like Bill Kristol are upset over the watered-down Corker-Menendez bill on the Iranian nuclear negotiations, which President Obama has said he will not veto.
April 14, 2015
United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), the secretive neoconservative group, is apparently intent on distancing itself from the comments of its own president, Gary Samore, who has spoken favorably of the framework agreement reached with Iran.
April 08, 2015
Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, a major Republican donor and “pro-Israel” hawk, has recently been sounding the alarm about the alleged threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack.
April 07, 2015
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has stated that critics of a nuclear deal do not want a war with Iran, even as a long list of individuals associated with AIPAC have explicitly called for war with Iran.
April 07, 2015
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a major recipient of funding from prominent hawkish donors and AIPAC-aligned political action committees.
April 03, 2015
Now that a final nuclear deal with Iran is on the horizon, Republicans in Congress will have a harder time convincing their Democratic counterparts to sign on to potentially damaging bills.