Israel may build yet another “ground barrier” along its southern border to keep out illegal immigrants, according to an official announcement from 1 November 2009. This is one of several measures to be considered by a Ministerial task force set up by the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It sounds like sensible state policy anywhere – erect a border fence, against illegal immigrants.But is something else about the state of Israel revealed by this decision? According to Netanyahu in a speech on 9 November 2009, “The Jews brought to civilization at least three big ideas: the idea of monotheism, the belief that all people have innate rights that transcend the power of kings, and a prophetic vision of universal peace.”
The speech switches back and forth between references to Israel and the Jewish people. He affirmed his intention to strengthen “Jewish identity” which he saw as the “responsibility of the Jewish State”.  His vision of a Jewish state is one “in which all individuals and all minorities have equal individual rights. Yet our national symbols, our language our culture spring from the heritage of the Jewish people.”
“Any Jew can migrate to Israel”, he said, but Palestinians have to abandon their “fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees” (the demand for a right of return).
So for Netanyahu, all people are equal except on one point – their link to the Jewish state, and in this case it appears a right can flow from their religious or community identity, and not be an “innate” right.
Israel has every right to determine its laws and constitution. It appears that agreeing a constitution though is still unfinished business. Israel is working toward a constitution for many reasons, but one reason cited by an official parliamentary website is the need to “protect Arab Israelis”. Another reason, the website says, is that “Israel is a divided society” where the “potential for violence is high”.
The religious community that Netanyahu says has given the world a “prophetic vision of universal peace” and human rights is now 4,000 years later – by its own admission – in control of a society threatened by violence and competing visions of religious and national identity.
The violence in Israel is not only across religious divides, but also within the Jewish community. Look at the news from Israel this week – debates over historical manufacturing of Jewish national identity; yet another extremist arrested for the murders of fellow Jews he said he committed on the orders of God; and an Israeli court refusing to impose a sentence on a Palestinian youth for throwing rocks because, the judge said, Jewish youths do not get arrested for the same misdemeanour.
I would not envy any democratically elected leader, as Netanyahu is, the task of managing the historical impasse at which Israelis and Palestinians find themselves.  Israel does live in a “violent and radical neighborhood”, to use the Prime Minister’s words. The radicals are not going away and the violence persists. These are tough dilemmas. What signpost should he use?
On 25 September 2008, 78 Palestinian organizations, including terrorist and charitable organizations alike, wrote to President Abbas of Palestine calling on him to uphold the “right of return”, described by them as the foundation of their main grievance against Israel. The letter noted the “retreat of the once principled European position” into one that “conforms to the US policy of total complicity and support for Israel”.
The choice seems clear enough to me: on the one hand, a secular state which explicitly recognizes all of the rights of all people regardless of religion or, on the other, a Jewish state in which some are more equal than others.
The former may be a recipe for peace. The latter can only be a prescription for continued violence and deeper radicalization directed against Europe and the United States as well as against Israel. Which choice would you vote for?