Re-Thinking Controversial

There is that in me that spontaneously reacts favourably to social liberalism as opposed to controversial conservatism. Most people make a concentrated effort to attempt fairness, a collaboration between their social-activist outlook and their cleaving to the tried and true, the status quo, the safer, middle ground. Inclusiveness and pluralism, when they can be achieved to the detriment of no one and the social equilibrium of all is the end game.

And that assumes that everyone is desirous of obtaining the same end, of being united in becoming equal partners in the furtherance of a healthy and prosperous, lawful and forward-looking geographic state. That is, when everyone in geographic proximity sharing the lawful protection of an entity-state, its hopes and aspirations for its people, puts aside differences and agree to act in concert, in a societally acceptable, albeit culturally diverse manner.

MK Avigdor Lieberman, right-of-centre in Israeli politics, has an agenda which places the protection of the State of Israel and of its citizens high on the list of priorities. Yes, that's an identical concern of any legislator in any country of the world. Territorial integrity and population security is universal. Fully 20% of Israel's population is represented by Arab-Israelis, and they have Knesset representation, electing their own MKs.

That sounds good on the face of it, for one-fifth of any country's population should be represented in their parliament in a participatory democracy. The trouble here is that Arab-Israelis are torn two ways; by their cultural ties to the larger Arab world, by their political allegiance to the State of Israel. It is their political allegiance that is in question when Arab-Israeli MKs, during a critical time in the country's existence meet with and support the clearly-defined enemies of the state they represent, at a time of war.

Some Arab-Israeli MKS appear to incite against Israel, rather than support the state. While it's true that they represent the interests of those who elected them - Israel's Arab population, and as such they have a right and a duty to bring forward matters of equality under the law, matters of legal fairness which must be addressed - as Members of the Knesset of Israel they should hold firm allegiance to the country as well.

Mr. Lieberman believes that any MK who behaves in a manner consistent with harming the State of Israel, who votes against Israeli interests, should be stripped of citizenship. It's a harsh remedy, but this is a harsh political climate for a country surrounded by enemy states. Can Israel afford to be so high-minded and so wedded to complete egalitarianism among its people that it leaves itself open to a future of harbouring citizens who wish it ill?

Citizenship, according to Mr. Lieberman's proposals, should require an aspirant to sign an oath of loyalty to the Israeli flag and the national anthem. It is, after all, no less than other countries require of their citizenship-aspirants. Would-be citizens should also be prepared to take responsibilities upon themselves, obligations inherent in that status such as military service or the equivalent.

Those refusing to sign a declaration of loyalty might be permitted to live in Israel as permanent residents, without the right to vote. He points out that anywhere in the world where a country exists with two distinct cultures, religions, languages, there results friction and often conflicting ideas about loyalty to the state and its well being. This situation exists universally, and we see it repeated even in Canada.

As a bi-national country Israel is increasingly facing problems which surface as a result of two disparate cultures which don't seem to want to become familiar enough for comfort with one another. Increasingly tensions are arising as dissatisfaction is expressed by Arab-Israelis with their status within the country and as they identify with their brethren ouside the country.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority are trying to find common ground, attempting to come together to discuss their differences, to make compromises, to find solutions to the intractable problems which each face. With a view to eventually (and sooner rather than later) living side by side as independent states, with Palestinians finally securing what they so long for, an autonomous Palestinian state.

Or, as Mr. Lieberman puts it: "How can you talk about a two-state solution that creates one-and-a-half states for one people and one half-state for the other?" His point, a moot one, being that with 20% of the population of Israel currently being Arab, and growing inexorably given their high birth rate Israel faces a demographic threat for the future. His theory is "If Palestinians have the right to a Palestinian state, then the Jewish people have a right to a Jewish state."

While some label this insight as racist, some, like myself, are coming around to thinking it is realistic, given the tensions and pressures presently in existence in the area. Mr. Lieberman suggests that Israel's demographic be altered to reflect its purpose, a geographic refuge for the Jewish people. he suggests that densely populated Arab-Israeli towns geographically contiguous to the future Palestinian state be exchanged for densely populated Jewish settlement blocks in the West Bank.

Again, racist? No, a practical solution to an untenable situation which currently satisfies no one.