Divide the land or divide democracy

The future of the State of Israel lies in the expanse of territory between the post-Zionism of Azmi Bishara MK and the messianic Zionism of Minister Effi Eitam. The accord between ideological and territorial expanses is unique to nation-states. An immigrant or civil state requires clearly-defined borders, but these can expand and contract without affecting its character. Nation-states are obliged to be modest in their territorial ambitions.

The Israel instance is a salient example of this principle. The equation is simple - territorial modesty equals a substantive and stable democracy and a Jewish state. Territorial hunger equals the downfall of democracy or the destruction of the Zionist vision.

The attempt to create an alternative equation gives rise, on the extreme right, to singularly anti-democratic visions - from Rehavam Ze'evi's "transfer" notion, which his son and Benny Elon MK are propagating, through to the old-new idea of "enlightened residency" that Effi Eitam bears on high.

According to Eitam's idea, Israel will be populated with some three million people who have no chance of ever becoming citizens. They will, according to Eitam in an interview with Ha'aretz, be able to secure "dark citizenship in the Arab states" or in the State of Palestine, if and when it is established in Jordan and in the Sinai, but not in their country of residence.

This is a distorted and incorrect interpretation of the democratic idea. It is especially grave when it comes to natives of the land who have lived here for generations. A democracy, it is worth mentioning, has the right to determine entry laws, but it does not have the right to decide which of the country's residents will be enfranchised.

Elon and Eitam are aware of the concerns that their position is stirring, and they are trying to ease them. Elon maintains he is talking about "a voluntary transfer" while Eitam divests himself of the transfer notion because it is not something "that can be swallowed now from a moral point of view."

Eitam, therefore, does not rule out the transfer idea in principle. "And if we are forced into an all-out war," he says, "if they do not meet us half way, if there is no regional solution and the Palestinian offensive continues, the dynamic will shift toward an all-out war that is liable to bring down a tragedy on the Palestinian people." This tragedy has a name - transfer.

Eitam is a master of doublespeak. On one hand, he signs the Kinneret Covenant and promises that he accepts all its principles, including full equality for Israel's Arab citizens; on the other, he declares in Newsweek that "if you don't give the Arabs the right to vote, the demographic problem solves itself."

On one hand, he signs the coalition government's guidelines that are committed to UN Security Council Resolution 242; on the other, he declares that Israeli sovereignty will stretch as far as Jordan and "there will be no partitioning."

This doublespeak is not coincidental, it is essential. It is essential because the Israeli consensus is stuck on the idea of a Jewish and democratic state. Eitam, like Elon and the young Ze'evi, cannot accept the territorial significance of this idea, but make cynical use of it, until the hour of redemption arrives - the moment of the liberating war or the messianic vision.

The territorial perception of the extreme right, which is coming to redeem the Promised Land rather than establish a modern state, gives rise to a willingness to sacrifice democracy on the altar of the territories. Hence, Eitam and Elon's obligation to democracy, like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's obligation to peace, is no more than a word-game designed to curry favor with the public.

No one in Israel yet dares to speak ill of democracy, but more and more people are tailoring the democratic notion to suit their territorial objectives. Instead of proposing a division of the country, they are suggesting splitting the idea of democracy. This approach would leave the Land of Israel whole, but its democracy would be divided into districts - the district of the Jews, the district of the Arab citizens of the state, and the district of the residents.

The inhabitants of each district would have different rights, based on their ethnicity and national belonging. A Hebrew name has yet to be found for such an idea. In other places it was known as apartheid.

The State of Israel can still retreat to districts that would allow it to remain democratic and Jewish. The path of political Zionism, territorial compromise and civil equality can still be followed. To achieve this objective, there is a need to tackle any attempt to alter the definition of democracy or impose it in a selective manner.

A Jewish and democratic state will not arise in all of the territory of the Land of Israel. Therefore, the division of the land must take precedence over the division of the idea.

Yuli Tamir is a professor at the Philosophy Department of Tel Aviv University.