Believers in the idea of a Greater Israel have what they think is an irrefutable response to demands for a settlement construction freeze and putting the two-state solution into practice. "Go back to the sources," they preach, arguing that the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate for Palestine are historical and judicial justifications for their opposition to the partition of the land and their determination to continue the settlement enterprise.

But the right wing's reliance on history is partial, ignoring the decisions of the United Nations, the heir of the League of Nations, such as the partition decision of November 1947. Based on this resolution, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel. But mainly, the right simply ignores the previous conditions laid down for the realization of the international commitment to establish a Jewish national home. Adopting the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate's provisions would contradict and cancel out the Zionist movement's defining goal: a state for the Jewish people.

The most reasonable interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, which was issued 92 years ago today, is that it calls for a Jewish national home in the whole of Palestine. But we cannot ignore the proviso that follows: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Meanwhile, the Mandate, which the League of Nations awarded to Britain in 1922, called for the creation of political, administrative and economic conditions that would ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home. The document did not mention another national home for the Arabs living in Palestine, but it repeated the commitment that the civil and religious rights of all the country's inhabitants would be preserved.

Anyone who today wants there to be only one state in the Land of Israel, or Palestine, cannot simply nullify the provisions that promise civil rights for the non-Jewish majority living here. The sincerity of these people is not to be doubted, as some of them have even declared that they prefer the "wife" - the Land of Israel - to the "maidservant" - the State of Israel.

Preferring the land to the state undermines Herzl's Zionist idea. In "The Jewish State" he pleaded that the Jews be given sovereignty in any patch of land sufficient for the needs of our people. In his view, the Land of Israel was indeed the best place to build the Jewish national home because of the historical link between the people and the land. But the solution to "the Jewish question" was a state; its location was of secondary importance. And in fact, the Zionist movement realized all its goals in the 1967 borders.

The right's anti-Zionist attitude overlooks the rule that in a democratic regime it is the majority that determines the nature of the state and its symbols. A Jewish minority in a democratic state would not be able to realize a national home as defined in the Mandate by facilitating the migration of the Jewish masses to Palestine to let them shape their destiny and build a homeland. It would undermine Chaim Weizmann's belief that justice requires there to be one place in the world where we Jews can live our lives and express our essence in accordance with our nature. Then perhaps, Weizmann wrote, our spirit will be better understood and our relations with the world's nations normal.

It was against this background that Ben-Gurion summed up the War of Independence with a clear statement: "The Israel Defense Forces can conquer all the land between the Jordan and the sea. But what kind of a state would we have with an Arab majority in the Knesset? Between a whole land or a Jewish state, we have chosen a Jewish state."

The two-state solution that ensures a Jewish majority will also ensure the realization of the Zionist vision. Those who seek another way may well wish to live in the land of our forefathers under a flag that is not blue and white, with the status of residents. Palestinian leaders have said recently that they would make this possible in a final-status agreement with Israel.

The writer is a board member at the Council for Peace and Security and was one of the architects of the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125263.html

© Copyright 2009 Haaretz. All rights reserved