As the debate over the nation-state law continues, a new-old argument is gradually reappearing and gaining the support of some of the members of the dwindling democracy: that the nation-state law will hamper or even prevent the possibility of enacting the vision of two states for two peoples.
In 2014, the last time the question of Israel's nationality was up for debate, then-South African President Jacob Zuma declared that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's support for the nation-state bill showed that Israel refused to find a solution to its conflict with the Palestinians. Now, the Turkish Foreign Ministry is saying that "the promotion of the settlements in the law … can never be acceptable." Jordan's communications minister issued a statement that accused "the new Israeli law" of "perpetuating Israeli apartheid in the occupied territories [and] puts off the possibility of just peace in the region." European Union Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini expressed concerned that the law would "make it difficult to implement the two-state plan."
Professor Oren Yiftachel, an expert in political geography and urban planning at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, is trying to strengthen this argument through rhetorical figure eights. Before we get to his maneuvers, let's review the wording of the law and distinguish between the articles "(a) The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established; (b) The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people … (c) The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
It is clear to everyone that the law doesn't mean enacting that exclusive right throughout the historical land of Israel, but only in the modern-day State of Israel.
And how does Yiftachel present it? "The law opens with the declaration 'The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people,' where the people in their country realize their 'historical right' to self-determination. The link the law creates between history and geography is clear: Jews, and only Jews, have the right to self-determination in the land in question."
Yiftachel combines the three articles as if they were one, despite the law stating explicitly that our unique right is implemented in the "State of Israel." The law says "state" whereas Yiftachel refers to "land." He follows by presenting the article on settlement and from there on out it's supposed to be clear that the law is to be enacted in Judea and Samaria.
Freedom of opinion gives everyone the right to think that the two-state solution is possible (although, in my opinion, it would be a disaster). It's legitimate to believe that the settlements should not be expanded so that the solution can remain feasible.
But none of that has anything to do with the nation-state law, which clearly and explicitly defines the State of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people – not the land of Israel, which is cast as the people's historic homeland. The opponents of the law keep objecting to it based on things it does not include. It's possible that some of the people who believe that there is a chance of putting the two-state solution in place in the near future are afraid that the nation-state law will somehow be applied to Judea and Samaria. For example, using it to justify the Outpost Regulation Law, or to take it further – using it to expand settlement in Judea and Samaria.
If this is what some of the supporters of the law happen to think, they should be warned: The Outpost Regulation Law does not require the nation-state law; it is strong enough without it. Attempts to implement the nation-state law in Judea and Samaria will only result in serious harm to the consensus status of the law (which it enjoys among the Zionist Left, as well).
Using the nation-state law for that would give those near and far who wish us ill proof of the claim that they are already throwing about with the sole purpose of undermining our right to self-determination as a nation in the State of Israel. Be careful – the nation-state bill, which concerns the State of Israel, must not be used in the fight for the land of Israel. Both (the state and the struggle for the land) could wind up suffering.
