The Warped Mirror: It's not about equality

Earlier this year, when Israel marked its 60th anniversary, Judea Pearl published an article in the Jewish Journal under the title "Confronting Denial".  Pearl's article is certainly a must-read, but I was somewhat startled to see that an almost identical version (with some minor but interesting changes) was again published last week by Ha'aretz under the title "The Down with Israel Syndrome." This is actually a better title than the original one, particularly in view of the reason why Pearl's piece is currently again so very topical: the debate about the so-called "one-state solution" is clearly back in fashion.  

As Pearl points out, the talk about a "one-state solution" is really just a euphemism for the elimination of Israel. It is very revealing how Sari Nusseibeh recently put it when he acknowledged that the renewed debate about the "one-state solution" is "an ultimatum", but he added, referring to the current negotiations: "Unless a major breakthrough happens by the end of this year, in my opinion we should start trying to strive for equality."  

The "equality" Nusseibeh wants his compatriots to strive for means that the Palestinians should give up any ambitions to have a state of their own alongside Israel; instead, they should aspire to become Israeli citizens. However, "equality" is obviously an appealing term: it evokes associations with the US civil rights movement or the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa  -  and thus is perfectly suited to accomplish two things at the same time: it suggests a comparison between Israel and white supremacists, and thereby helps to conceal that the demand for "equality" requires Israeli Jews to give up their right to self-determination. After all, the Palestinians don't want equal rights as citizens of Israel as a Jewish state, but they want equal rights as citizens of a bi-national and supposedly secular democratic state.

As far as western progressive circles are concerned, this is clearly a clever marketing strategy for the Palestinian cause: it paints Israel as anachronistically attached to an ethnic and religious identity and casts doubt on the Jewish state's democratic credentials, while the Palestinians appear forward-looking, willing to co-exist peacefully in a bi-national state where religion is confined to the private sphere.

But if this is what Palestinians want, how come that an Islamic party like Hamas did so well in the elections? How come that a movement like Hizb ut-Tahrir that advocates the establishment of a world-wide caliphate is drawing big crowds in the West Bank? How is it that official Palestinian documents insist that the Palestinians are "part of the Arab and Islamic nations", that Islam is the official religion of the Palestinian state, and that Islamic sharia law must provide a "major source for legislation"?

And, most importantly: how come these questions are never even asked, let alone answered, by the "one-state" enthusiasts?

It's of course easy enough to answer this last question: the "one-state solution" is attractive for one reason, and one reason only: it would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. All the empty progressive rhetoric about equality, democracy and secularism cannot conceal that ultimately, the goal is to return the Jews to the status of a vulnerable minority in their ancient homeland.