Haaretz
Nisan 29, 5765
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
recently expressed his disappointment over the peace between Israel and
some of its Arab neighbors: "Let's look at the relations," he said in an
interview to Haaretz on the eve of Passover. "The peace that exists today
is a peace between leaders. The people are boycotting it. In Egypt, the
academic and commercial circles and the trade unions are boycotting Israel
... It's the same in Jordan."
The aspiration for peace with the
Arab people is surely desirable, but given the relations between Israel
and the Palestinians, there is perhaps an additional Israeli interest in
peace between the peoples and not only between the leaders: Such a peace
would isolate the Palestinians and make it easier for Israel to shape its
relations with them as it pleases.
Perhaps, for this reason, too,
the Arab people refuse to conduct peaceful relations with Israel, thus
keeping the pressure on the leaders. In so doing, they are providing
support to the Palestinians in shaping their relations with Israel. To
Israel, which sees itself as guardian of the welfare of Jews everywhere,
it should come as no surprise that in Arab countries people also feel
committed to the interests of the Palestinians in the territories and in
Israel.
The amendment to the Citizenship Law - which prevents an
Israeli citizen, and particularly an Arab Israeli, from marrying someone
who was born in the occupied territories and from living with that person
in Israel - is a source of harsh discrimination and will exacerbate the
boycotting of Israel by the Arab public. A similar decree, if imposed on
Jews in any country, would have elicited a harsh Israeli reaction, and
justifiably so.
Israel must not be a Jewish state that is not
democratic. This would mean the failure of Zionism. Israel must make every
effort to ensure that it has a Jewish majority, and at the same time it
must also ensure that all its citizens enjoy equal rights. Ostensibly, the
amendment to the Citizenship Law is egalitarian. It prevents a young man
from Haifa from marrying a young woman from Ramallah and living with her
in Haifa, be he a Jew or an Arab. But it is clear that it is not
egalitarian: Jewish men hardly ever marry Palestinian women, and if such
marriages did occur, they would be in very small numbers. The amendment to
the law therefore constitutes harsh discrimination and a violation of the
civil rights of Israeli Arabs, for whom the natural reservoir of possible
marriage partners includes Palestinians in the territories.
When
the amendment was first legislated, its supporters argued that it was
meant to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel under the
cover of marriage. This is a shoddy argument: The responsibility of the
Shin Bet security service for preventing the infiltration of terrorists
requires specific and not sweeping action, and the Shin Bet should guard
civil rights in Israel - not harm them. Moreover, this is a false
contention: Hardly any incidents of terror would have been prevented had
the law always been in effect.
With the government and the Knesset
about to extend the applicability of the law and to formulate it in such a
way as to increase its chances of standing up to scrutiny in the High
Court of Justice, the cat has been let out of the bag: It is not
prevention of terror that serves as the driving force behind the
legislation, but rather prevention of the entry of Palestinians into
Israel so that the demographic balance between the Jews and the Arabs will
not be upset.
The proponents of the law have pointed to
legislative amendments that were passed recently in Denmark and Holland.
In Denmark, the amendment to the law prevents anyone who does not have a
deep connection to Denmark from becoming a citizen of the country or even
living there, and this affects mainly, but not only, Muslims. In Holland,
the amendment denies naturalization or permanent residency to anyone who
is not steeped in the Dutch culture and way of life. There, too, the main
aim of the law is the prevention of the naturalization of Muslims in the
framework of family reunification, although the legislation applies to
others as well. In both cases this new legislation is likely to prevent
Danish or Dutch citizens from bringing their spouses who are not Danish or
Dutch to live with them in their country.
Israelis like to equate
themselves with "the more civilized countries of the world" and to forgo
critical examination of their conduct. Which country is more civilized
than those two? Of course, if it is good for them, then it is definitely
good for us. But there is something completely different that Israel
should learn from the citizenship and residency policies of Denmark and
Holland. Unlike these two countries, Israel has a mission, and the prime
minister defined it well: peace between the peoples, not only between the
leaders. This should be the goal in our relations with the Arab countries
and with the Palestinians - and no less in our relations with Israeli
Arabs.
What greater peace can there be between the peoples than
thousands of Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian students at universities
in Israel, and thousands of Israeli students at universities in the Arab
states and in Palestine? And what greater peace can there be between the
peoples than what is likely to ensue from this: marriages between young
Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, and young people from the neighboring
countries and from Palestine?
Embedded in the aspiration for peace
is a real interest that the Israeli Arabs become an integral and involved
part of Israeli society (and not a "sector"), and that Palestinians,
Egyptians and Jordanians live in Israel. This can be within Arab families,
but even mixed families (one partner Jewish and one partner Arab) should
not be ruled out, and Israelis perhaps could live in a similar way in
Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and any Arab country with which we sign a peace
agreement.
The preservation of a Jewish majority in Israel will
necessitate drawing a distinction between citizenship and residency.
However, anyone who truly aspires to peace between the peoples must look
at the model of Denmark and Holland within the context of their membership
in the European Union. Citizens of the EU countries can live and work in
any of the member countries. Spouses from different countries in the EU
can marry and live together with their partners in whichever of the member
countries they choose. The citizenship of each of the spouses remains, or
can remain, that of the country of which he or she was a citizen prior to
the marriage.
Anyone who aspires to peace between us and the
Palestinians and the Arab people must understand that this, to a large
extent, is the meaning of such a peace. The amendment to the Citizenship
Law is discriminatory, undemocratic and it turns Israel into an apartheid
state. It also undermines the aspiration to establish this kind of peace
between Jews and Arabs in Israel, and between us and the Palestinians and
the Arab peoples of the region. Above all, it raises the question of
whether Israel truly wants the type of peace of which the prime minister
has spoken.