A Deafening Silence

There was a brief headline out of Jerusalem several weeks ago about Israel's foreign minister that, amazingly, passed by without any fanfare or attention whatever. Ms. Livni voiced her continued support for a Palestinian state, but then announced that she does not see any future for Israeli Arabs in Israel either! Livni explained that the national destiny of Israeli Arabs (who do not just live in Israel, but are citizens there) lies with the Palestinian state she hopes to birth as the culmination of the "peace process."

In response to the only and faint reactions these comments elicited, the FM clarified that she would not forcibly remove Israeli Arabs out of the country, but that she does feel such an exodus would be in order. Further, she pointed out that such a movement should be viewed as an exchange for the Jewish populations that left Arab countries to Israel in 1948.

Now a bit of history is necessary to fully appreciate the significance of the absence of any serious reaction to Ms. Livni's remarks. The position this darling-of-Israel's Leftist establishment assumed happens to be the total and complete opposite of the defining characteristic of the Israeli secular-Zionist Left since before the establishment of the state itself. From the beginning, everyone across the political spectrum knew the Arabs of Israel itself would have to be addressed; either by expelling them from the country, by trying some sort of (hopefully peaceful) coexistence with a sizable second class citizenry, or by attempting assimilation through extending full citizenship to these Arabs, and hoping they could come to accept an Israeli identity and Israel.

The Israeli Left's Western-Democratic ideology demanded of course that this last course, that of extending full citizenship to the Arabs of Israel, be adopted and that the Arabs be full and equal members of Israeli democracy. This was the central tenant of secular-Herzlian-Zionism. Namely that the Israeli-Arab was just as much an Israeli as the Jew in Israel. This was a critical point, because the answer to this question of citizenry did more than just address the problem of the sizable Israeli-Arab population in Israel. The answer to this question defined who the citizen of Israel was, and by extension the State of Israel itself, its philosophy and character as a politically organized society.

Was this a Jewish country, which would mean Jewish values and restrictions, i.e. Torah? Or was the state simply a country of Jews, really Israelis, where every citizen of any religious hue shared equally in the state, a traditional western democracy, a true state of its citizens - all of them?

Israel's own declaration of independence (what has served as a constitution since the original provisional government failed to draft one) straddles the fence on this issue, simultaneously claiming that Israel is a Jewish state and homeland (with a law of return for Jews only) and that it is a state of all its citizens. The contradiction is more than theoretical however, because Israel is a democracy. And so the question arises whether the Arabs of Israel have a right to legally, peacefully - democratically, become a majority and resolve the contradiction by removing the Jewish character of the "State of Israel"?

This issue was the essence of the Kahane phenomenon; why he was such a divisive and controversial figure, why he evoked such hate. It had nothing to do with his policies regarding the Arabs. Everyone knew that eventually the situation of Israel's Arabs, as inherently unstable, would have to be addressed. The fantastical notions of the Leftist party line that interaction, tolerance, and education could solve the Jewish/Israeli-Arab divide were never serious - though God help the one who pointed out this naked emperor. No, the reason Kahane was Kahane was that his policy towards this obvious problem (which was always the only real policy) did not just solve the geopolitical problem of Israel's Arabs. His whole approach constituted a rebellion against Herzl's secular-nationalist-Zionism in favor of Abrahamic-Torah ordered Zionism.

Jabotinsky could never have been Kahane, just as Beigin wasn't. Kahane was not "throw out the Arabs." That was just common sense rendered taboo by a naked emperor. Kahane was a rabbi-politician, and as such the arch foe of the secular-Zionist establishment of the state itself.

Isn't is remarkable that the same Left that so decried the population transfer of Arabs from the "West Bank" to Jordan (which is nothing if not the very Palestine Oslo & Co. are so desperate to establish) had no problem expelling their own countrymen from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip, just as it has no problem with expelling the Jews of the "West Bank" and "Eastern" Jerusalem?! The only difference between the policies of the Leftist establishment that so vilified that "fascist-racist" and Kahane himself, is who they would apply their policies to.

By actually stating that the Arab has no place in Israel, and not having such a thing instantly shouted down and lynched by the Left, Livni demonstrated that the Left has finally achieved a thorough enough influence on the State that they no longer need the all inclusive definition of "any citizen" (which includes the mess of "Arab-Israelis") to secure their secular-Zionist ideology as the character of the State of Israel. However, the extent of the turnaround on such a defining feature of the Israeli Left without any outrage or even notice at all, truly constitutes the most deafening of silences for those with the sensitivity and memory enough to recall with sad irony what the barn door actually used to say.