COLUMN: No solution in sight

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Israel's founding as a Biblical and JewishFrom Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Israel's founding as a Biblical and Jewishdemocracy has always posed problems.From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Israel's founding as a Biblical and Jewishdemocracy has always posed problems.Now, the politicians must let the peopleFrom Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Israel's founding as a Biblical and Jewishdemocracy has always posed problems.Now, the politicians must let the peopledecide the country's future. From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Israel's founding as a Biblical and Jewishdemocracy has always posed problems.Now, the politicians must let the peopledecide the country's future.The past few months have seen the nation of Israel in the headlines on more occasions than many would like. The wave of terror and violence perpetrated by individuals convinced of their higher purpose has brought the harsh realities of Israel's security problems to the eyes of the world. Debate over the future of Israel's reconciliation with her neighbors has begun anew; the elections that seemed entirely within the grasp of the ruling Labor party are now up for grabs. The pro-Israel community, as many who feel strongly about the importance of Israel choose to call themselves, is harmed by the propagation of these views, which mix deserved fear about the present state of affairs with righteous anger and name-calling. Perhaps a more thorough examination is required to add context to declarations of the correctness of one point of view. Israel was founded upon three highly discordant principles, reflecting the perfect society envisioned by the ambitious individuals who brought the state into being. The founders insisted that the state be democratic, be located in the biblical land of Israel and be in some way a Jewish state. The war directly preceding -- and continuing after -- Israel's formal declaration of independence in 1948 made it clear that the modern state was not to rule all of the biblical lands of Israel. Many did not accept this reality, and later worked to make permanent the temporary occupation of these lands after the war of 1967. The granting of self-determination to the residents of the West Bank and Gaza, or Judea and Samaria as we read in the Torah, has been enacted due to Israel's democratic nature. The political system devised by Israel's founders was a representative democracy; every citizen of the nation has the right to vote, including Muslims, Christians and members of other religious minorities. Israel could have simply annexed Judea and Samaria, making their residents full citizens with appropriate rights accorded under Israeli law. But this would have diluted the Jewish character of the state, the third principle of Israel's ideological foundation, for the nation would have been comprised of roughly equal numbers of Arabs and Jews, for the most part geographically separate. The insistence on maintaining some kind of Jewish character within Israel is the most controversial of the state's three founding ideals. Debate over the exact form this preservation should take has been never-ending. Almost all agree that at the very least, to meet this criterion there must be a Jewish majority within the boundaries of Israel, no matter what they may be. There was and is no easy resolution to this dilemma, no solution that will adequately meet all three principles of statehood. The two sides of the political spectrum have communicated vastly different messages. One side insisted that there was no problem, that changes need not be made to the status quo. The other declared that no matter how upsetting the prospect, in the name of democracy and of maintaining the Jewish character of the state, parts of the historical land of Israel must be ceded to their residents. Also important were the obvious humanitarian and moral reasons behind these actions, for it became increasingly clear that the continued Israeli rule of the Arab inhabitants of these lands could not be benevolent. For many proponents of these more radical solutions, the Jewish character of the State of Israel is not an important factor. Those insisting no changes be made are failing to consider the full ramifications of these disastrous policies on the elementary ideals of the state -- policies conceived and carried out by both sides of the political debate. That being said, both of Israel's leading political parties have made mistakes, and when in power have treated the opposition like the enemy. Upon the more conservative Likud bloc's ascension to power in the late 1970s, many social democrats from the Labor party spoke rash words, publically decrying the state of affairs that was certain to ensue under the new leadership. And over the past few years, the political right has declared the policies of the Labor government traitorous, while numerous fringe groups have declared the veritable unholiness of the government. This page is not a place for the continued exchange of mindless rhetoric, which occurs on both sides and is connected by very thin threads to actual policies. Israel has its share of media problems; we must not further tarnish its image by propagating half-truths. The final word on the processes of peace will be had not by sideline commentators like me, but will be decided by the Israeli electorate's choice of leaders. The peace plan will, if Labor is re-elected to the Knesset, be further subjected to a popular referendum. Curiously, the idea of letting the people directly decide the outcome via referendum is not supported by the current opposition. It seems obvious to suggest that we cannot all come to an agreement on the proper course of action.There are few other issues on which there is less open-mindedness than what the future of Israel should look like. Scholars call this la difference. The space between the two sides is great, and a compromise simply cannot be reached because the issue is too important to all of those involved. We can only hope that the minority, whatever side that is, will accept the decisions of the victorious majority in both the elections and the referendum. Otherwise, the democratic foundations of Israel will be in jeopardy.