How "nationalist myth-making" made me an Israeli

It never occurred to us in my first grade Hebrew School class that the Palestinians were actually people. They had become to us more of an idea that could be equated with evil. No complexity accompanied our view of the Palestinians and the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians seemed to us a struggle of good versus evil, black and white. The thing is, though, none of us had ever actually been to Israel. In fact, I doubt any of us were actually descendents of Israelis. As a descendent of Russian and German Jews, I have no familial ties to Israel. Somehow, however, I became Israeli and, though I have since changed my viewpoint, I came to believe the typifications that accompany this identity.
My early childhood demonstrates the power of constructing identity. The collective identity of Jews as Israelis tied together groups of people previously only loosely connected. Jews from different geographic origins had very different traditions, yet somehow they become part of a single entity with the rise of Zionism- if not to themselves, then to those who worked for the creation of a Jewish state. The Jewish identity creates a unique situation in which a religious group is referred to as an ethnicity by many and is equated with a state- Israel. Kaufmann discusses how constructivists believe that identity is fluid and can be created and destroyed, as well as manipulated. The creation of the Jewish and Israeli identity (a single identity as they have been tied together) is a case in point. Ethnicity implies something you are born with as part of some kind of line, but applying this label to a group that incorporates such a variety of people has gained legitimacy to many. To many, Jews are not simply connected by religious ties; they are an ethnic group. Rarely do we refer to Catholics as an ethnic group, yet somehow, in this situation, we’ve equated religion with ethnicity.
What does this kind of identity mean for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Tilly touched on the importance of foreigners in supporting internal ethnic conflicts. The Tamils in Sri Lanka, for example, receive support from ethnic Tamils all over the world in their struggle for independence, which poses challenges to the Sinhalese government. If a good portion of the Jewish population as a whole believes itself to be ethnically connected to the Israeli population, a large and lasting support base is created. It is likely, then, that Israeli claims will be supported and echoed by people all over the world who seem to have little in common, and their demands will remain important for a long time. In addition, because this “ethnic group” is far from contained and has members in every continent, it will be almost impossible for a third power to intervene without either historical biases or local populations playing a biased role.
Another interesting implication of this creation of ethnicity relates to what Kaufmann says about the inclusion of people who otherwise would be indifferent to conflict. Opposing groups can often impose identity on others; thus, a single identity can be imposed by the enemies of Israel on the Jewish population as a whole. Additionally, and equally importantly, ethnic groups can impose identity on those they consider part of an in-group even if these people do not consider themselves part of this identity. That is why I am often considered in the same ethnic group as Israeli Jews even though I feel little connection to them and am aware that, in my own definition of ethnicity, even the population of Israeli Jews contains diverse ethnic groups.
And of course, as the anecdote with which I began demonstrates, the creation of this identity causes widespread dehumanizing of opposing groups among those who do not have the capacity to think for themselves before it is too late. Jewish children all over the world come to see the Palestinians as the opposite of good even though they are, in my view, mostly outsiders to the conflict. Such strong views based on constructed identity will impede progress as an outside support groups for either party in the conflict remains strong and as children, rather than being educated on the issue, are only taught the situation in terms of what is “right” and what is “wrong.”
Kaufmann at varying points also refers to the Israeli-Arab conflict to support his ideas; however, this particular conflict shows that his solution of separating ethnic groups (if we assume both are ethnic groups) is too simplistic. In this case, it is not intolerance of another group that is the only issue at hand. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis at this point will be happy with just any territory, even if it is sufficient to support them. Kaufmann does not consider religious significance and the power it has over such conflicts. He seems to disregard the fact that territory can hold as much significance to an ethnic group as the ethnic group itself. Religious, historical and traditional considerations concerning land are not factored into his analysis of ethnic conflict. If religion was not an important part of this struggle, why would Jews who have never been near Israel care so deeply about holding on to that territory? In fact, why would Jews in other lands come to identify themselves specifically with Israel in the first place?