For a long period of time, Israel has been considered as the state with the possibility to unite its Jewish and democratic peculiarities. Many inhabitants of Israel want to believe that the intentions expressed in the hymn of hope to have the Jewish spirit “yearning deep in the heart” and their eyes “turned toward the East, looking toward Zion”1remain to be effective and working all the time. However, the historical evaluation of the situation in Israel and the development of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that led to the Israel war of independence in 1948 and continues today shows that it is not an easy task to be both, a Jewish and a democratic state, due to the existing political, cultural, and social obstacles that took place in the region. In this paper, the idea that it is impossible or, at least, inappropriate to be both, a Jewish and a democratic state will be developed using the Shapira’s findings and evaluations and personal understanding of the situation.
From the very beginning, it is necessary to underline how doubtful and provocative the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel can be. On the one hand, it is created for people to protect their rights and provide the same conditions under which people have to live. In this document, the inhabitants are identified as people with “their spiritual, religious and political identity” and “cultural values of national and universal significance”.2 Besides, it is declared that “the State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration” in order to “foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants” and promote “freedom, justice and peace” and “equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”3 On the other hand, it is an evident fact that such declarations are not created by people. Shapiro tells about the intentions to motivate people using some personal interests and neglect the importance of a certain common idea that may unite people but not divide them. Such contradictions and oppositions between Jewish and Palestinian people on the same land led to the war in 1948.4
The war began as soon as Britain left Palestine, and the Jewish representative wanted to divide the region in regards to the interests of its inhabitants. Palestinians wanted to prove their rights to stay on their native land and follow the traditions that helped to stay free and democratic. The Jewish people found it effective to use their military reorganizations and opportunities to prove the power of their religion on the same territory. In one year, more discussions took place to increase the land of the Jewish people and to diminish the role of the natives of Palestine. In 1964, the Palestinians were able to form their own forces to protect their interests, and more attacks and fight took place. 1977 was the year associated with hopes and alternatives that became available to the participants of the conflict. Peace agreements were defined as the possibility to solve conflicts. In the 1990s, the Declaration was signed. However, it is wrong to forget that all those agreements and conclusions were made at the expense of human lives and happiness. More than 700,000 Palestinians were exiled from the country because of the inability to make any except groundless assumptions and evaluations.5 The reactions of people were full of emotions and free from logics and analysis. People wanted to promote changes without having some clear reasons and explanations and neglected the possibility to alternatives that could be attractive for both, the Jewish representative and the native inhabitants of Palestine.
The lessons that could be taken from the South African Apartheid movement served as a powerful example for many countries of how cultural, political, and religious discontents could influence and determine the quality of a human life. Still, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was an exception. The participants of that conflict did not want to take some lessons and make choices. Instead of defining one power and one solution, the region was divided into two parts: “the land of Zion and Jerusalem”.6 Maybe, for a particular period of time, it was justified to divide the land. Still, it is not the best solution of the problem because it seems that the land is located on a volcano that can relive one day, and the same misunderstandings and contradictions may take place again.
In general, regarding all evaluations and ideas offered, it is possible to say that the State of Israel is not the place for discussions concerning human rights, inequalities, and the roles of minorities in the society. It is the land of hope and forgiveness that can be achieved by any person. If in the Declaration, the idea of Jewish immigrants and anyone, who wants to be free and supported, is supported, it can be justified as by the state as well as by its people.
Bibliography
HaTikvah (The Hope). 2016. Web.
Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2012.
“The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.” Jewish Virtual Library. 2016. Web.
Footnotes
1 – HaTikvah (The Hope), 2016. Web.
2 – “The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel”, Jewish Virtual Library, 2016, Web.
3 – Ibid.
4 – Shapira, Anita, Israel: A History, (Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2012), 156.
5 – Ibid., 157.
6 – HaTikvah (The Hope), 2016, Web.