Israel Analysis: Understanding Netanyahu's Rhetoric of "Our Good Jewish State, Their Threat"

Let's go back to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in the Knesset on Monday, looking beyond his offer of an extended freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank in return for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by the Palestinian Authority.

The Background of the Speech: Historical Roots of Our Belief

Netanyahu's introduction:

It is not by chance that the portrait of the State visionary, Benjamin Zeev Herzl, hangs here, on the wall of the Israeli Knesset.  In 1896, Herzl wrote in his book, The Jewish State: “The Jews who are seeking a state will have a state.  Finally, we will live as free people on our own land.”

In 1947, 51 years after Herzl, on the eve of the establishment of the State of Israel, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: “The state that will be established will be Jewish in its purpose, designation and objective; not a state of those Jews who reside in the country but a state for the Jews, for the Jewish People.”

In 1992, in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the Knesset determined the following: “The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Israel's Legitimate Case I: Our Demands Are Already Embedded in Our Importance and Uniqueness

Then the Prime Minister takes on the task of define who "We" are and what makes "Us" different from "Others" in the region:

The State of Israel is, therefore, both the nation-state of the Jewish people and a democratic country for all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, enjoying full equal rights.

There is no country in our region that protects the individual rights of its citizens and the rights of their minorities like Israel’s democracy does.

There is no other democracy in the Middle East, and there is no other Jewish state in the world.

The combination of these two values --- a Jewish state and a democratic state --- expresses the foundation of our existence and the essence of the State of Israel.

For Netanyahu,  the word "nation" is defined not merely through ethnicity but also through a broader conception which includes religion. In that conception, Israel is "the best nation-state" in terms of individual and minority rights. So, given that Israel is the best, there is no possibility that a "Jewish state" will fail to support the framework of democracy.

To show how Israel is already a "just" state taking minorities into consideration, Netanyahu puts economic data on the table:

At the same time, we will begin investing in developing infrastructure in the non-Jewish sector, investing an overall amount of NIS 800 million.  We will invest an additional NIS 250 million in order to create special programs encouraging the non-Jewish sector to acquire higher educations.

The next step is to show sacrifice and goodwill for peace. It was Israel, "with a heavy heart", that took an "unprecedented" decision to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank. This was the "sacrifice". Although the Palestinians did not respond during this period, "we" are ready to show "our goodwill" by extending the freeze for another fixed term.

This is who "we" are: "For over one hundred years, we built...with sweat and blood, and we established a magnificent country."

Israel's Legitimate Case II: Our Demands Are Already Embedded in the Threat's Importance and Uniqueness

There is a two-fold threat: the Palestinians refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state and terror/military bases that could include today's West Bank: 

From the first day of the Government’s tenure, I called on the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to enter into direct peace talks with us without preconditions. In my speech at Bar-Ilan University, I outlined the principles for a peace agreement with the Palestinians: a demilitarized Palestinian state which recognizes the state of the Jewish people and lives beside it in peace.

I believe that under the right conditions, the establishment of a Palestinian state could bring about peace, but if it is done in an irresponsible manner, the establishment of a Palestinian state could also be the cause for a worsening of the conflict and an increase in terror.

In order for the compromise to lead to peace and not war, it must be accompanied by two fundamental components: recognition, and security arrangements.

For Netanyahu, Israel's insistence on the recognition of its Jewishness is a response to a Palestinian"hidden agenda": "For 100 years, the Palestinians have taught entire generations to believe that there is no Jewish people, that this land is their homeland alone."

The future Palestinian state must be demilitarised. It must always be so because of Israel's unique geographic characteristics: 

We live in a small country –-- very small.  Our small dimensions pose existential security problems –-- problems that are unique to Israel. We must not take these security problems too lightly, and we must not allow ourselves to be tempted by the illusion that a peace agreement, in and of itself, will resolve them.

There are four additional reasons why Israel needs a "secured peace". First, there is Iran! Second, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, both of which are filled with "terror". Third, even though the new Palestinian state does not commit itself to terror, "We" cannot be sure because "We" have seen cases in history of countries "aligning...with the radical powers of the region":

We once had peaceful, normal relations, relations which included exchanges of delegations, contact between leaders, trade relations, especially of petroleum, with an important country.  That country is called Iran.

We also had wonderful, friendly relations with another country, with military cooperation, with full diplomatic relations, with visits by heads of state, with 400,000 Israeli visitors to that country.  That country is called Turkey. 

Finally, for those advocating an international force to secure Israel, Netanyahu answered:

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from the end of the Second Lebanon War, withdrawal from the Philadelphi Route after the Disengagement, the positioning of international forces in the North and the South – none of these things prevented the firing of thousands of missiles at Israel, and the smuggling of tens of thousands of additional missiles by Iran into hostile territory surrounding us.

Israel's Legitimate Case III: Our Goodness Against the Threat Must Be Embedded in a Secured Peace

Netanyahu defined the peace once again:

Therefore we must insist on strong security arrangements in the field, with determination and without fear, in order to ensure that the peace will be upheld in practice, and also in order to defend our existence in the unfortunate but possible case that the peace is violated.

Peace and security are interwoven, and they are the principles which guide me.  I firmly insist on the need for both of them, and I see that an understanding of our security needs has finally begun to penetrate international debate, beyond general statements.  I speak of our specific needs.  I believe, Members of Knesset, that if we stand together on this front, united around these principles, I am convinced it will help us achieve a peace agreement. I believe that the unity surrounding these principles, which are so basic, so important and so real, can greatly advance our ability to achieve a peace agreement.

The Scapegoat: Palestinians Are Time Wasters

Returning his vision to the negotiating table, Netanyahu accused Palestinians of wasting time during the moratorium on settlement construction, carrying out their hidden agenda by teaching their children that there is no Jewish state. However, Israel extends its hand once more:

There is no doubt that such a move by the Palestinian Authority [acknowledging the Jewish state] would serve as a trust-building step, one thatwould open up a new horizon of hope and trust among broad sections of the Israeli public who, in light of the events of the past decade, have lost their confidence in the Palestinian’s desire to end the conflict.