Posted on 12/28/2004 10:12:07 AM PST by anotherview
Delegitimize the debate
By Aluf Benn
"A world without Israel," screams the cover of the new January 2005 issue of the American magazine, Foreign Policy. Imagine that Israel never existed, asks the subheading, would that solve the problems in the Middle East? Would America then be loved by the Muslim world? Not at all, responds the author of the article, Josef Joff, the publisher and editor of the German weekly Die Zeit. The problems of the region, the poverty, ignorance and political oppression, did not come about as a response to Zionism and the establishment of Israel. The Arabs have plenty of problems of their own, unrelated to the Jewish state.
It was Joffe's intention to write a defense of Israel, one that would demolish the claims of its critics. But there is something disturbing, very disturbing, that a debate about Israel's right to exist is being held at all. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is one of the highest prices Israel is paying for the current intifada and the war in Iraq.
Here we are, still arguing about the evacuation of Netzarim and Gush Katif, and in increasingly widening circles in the West, some are already asking whether the establishment of the state wasn't perhaps a mistake, and maybe an end should be put to the whole affair once and for all - for example, by means of soft destruction of Israel, the option being offered by the supporters of a "State of all its citizens" from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
The arguments in the debate are not new. Those who support the elimination of Israel accept the prevalent view in the Arab and Muslim world that the "occupation of Palestine" is the source of the regional outrage against America and the West. In their view, Israel is a rogue satellite state that the West planted by force in a region where it does not belong; and that what was given can be taken away.
The war in Iraq has bolstered their position, because of their belief that a gang of Jews (the "neocons") has shanghaied President Bush and American foreign policy in order to "help the Likud" and humiliate the Arabs. For Israelis, who view their state as an existing fact, the entire debate appears spurious and bizarre. But it is occupying an increasingly important place in the intellectual discourse in the West, in articles with headings such as "Who needs a Jewish state?"
In the political debate in Israel, the call to abolish Zionism appears to strengthen the position of the right, which maintains that the occupation of the territories is not the problem; it is only the pretext. After all, if the very right of Israel to exist is being questioned, the uprooting of the settlements will not resolve anything, and withdrawal from the territories will not only not bring an end to the conflict, it will cause Israel to lose a vital line of defense.
In the international community, the debate reverberates mainly in the declarations by European politicians regarding their support for "Israel's right to exist." An important European ambassador remarked on an article written here in condemnation of these declarations: We are not the ones casting doubt on Israel's existence, said the ambassador. It is your government that brings up the cries from Iran and the Hezbollah to destroy Israel, and we are only making it clear that this is not our position.
The ambassador related that before a visit by his foreign minister, an internal debate was held on whether to raise the matter, and it was decided to express support for the existence of Israel but only in private meetings rather than in public. In any case, this kind of the talk was not heard before the intifada, and Iran and the Hezbollah opposed the existence of Israel then too.
American, Indian and even Egyptian statesmen do not talk about Israel's "right to exist." The prime minister, foreign minister and other Israeli leaders tend to ignore the entire matter, listening politely to their European hosts, wiping the spit off their faces, and continuing the conversation. Perhaps their approach is the right one: If Israel justifies its existence and by doing so becomes a party to the debate, it may legitimize it. But despite the silence, the calls to destroy Israel are not dying out and the debate on them is just growing stronger. The time has come for the government to take note of this problem, and try to come up with appropriate ways to deal with it.
I don't see that as being that disturbing. People have always played the "What if . . .?" game with history. What if the Civil War hadn't happened? What if Hitler had become an accomplished artist? What if Al Gore hadn't said "I invented the internet?" LOL
Seriously, though, I think that it is okay to say "What if Israel didn't exist?" when a person is examining the relationship between the West and the Arab world. Many people believe that the entire conflict is centered around Israel. By taking Israel out of the equation, it becomes easier to prove that the chasm would exist still.
I think you miss the point. There are many in Europe's political elite and some in the U.S. who believe Israel has no right to exist. That the idea that Israel has somehow less right to be than France or Germany is, in and of itself, offensive.
If Israel did not exist, Muslim Arabs would be as useless, hateful, primitive, savage, unproductive, murderous and self-destructive, ugly and ignorant...
The countries are not exactly equatable. France and Germany became political-states centuries ago as tribes of these ethnic groups conquered the lands and set up shop there.
Israel became a political-state because the United States and Great Britain set it up as one in the 1940's.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Israel does not have a right to exist, but those are VERY different circumstances.
The question of support for Israel is one that will continue, Arabs are increasingly teaching hate for the West and Israel in particular to their people. You cannot argue logically with this kind of hate. As for our War in Iraq impacting on the debate, this is again illogical, but understandable. The solution is to wreck more violence on the people who teach this hatred and believe this crap since hate only understands strength. Period.
The problems of the region, the poverty, ignorance and political oppression, did not come about as a response to Zionism and the establishment of Israel. The Arabs have plenty of problems of their own, unrelated to the Jewish state... In the political debate in Israel, the call to abolish Zionism appears to strengthen the position of the right, which maintains that the occupation of the territories is not the problem; it is only the pretext. After all, if the very right of Israel to exist is being questioned, the uprooting of the settlements will not resolve anything, and withdrawal from the territories will not only not bring an end to the conflict, it will cause Israel to lose a vital line of defense.Not sure why anyone with an interest in history would be surprised that "The problems of the region, the poverty, ignorance and political oppression, did not come about as a response to Zionism and the establishment of Israel". :')
FR Lexicon:Posting Guidelines:Excerpt, or Link only?:Ultimate Sidebar Management:Headlines
PDF to HTML translation:Translation page:Wayback Machine:My Links:FreeMail Me
Gods, Graves, Glyphs topic:and group:Books, Magazines, Movies, Music
Incorrect-a-mundo!
Israel became a political state because they kicked the crap out of invading armies that tried to dispute it. Nobody forced the Israelis to stop at their pre-67 borders but the Israelis.
If you look at the world today, you'll find that most "nations" are missing key elements like these that directly impact their long-term viability. In this context, Israel is much closer to what one might call a "statelet" than an actual nation. I believe the term "statelet" was first used to describe some of the remnants of Yugoslavia -- because nobody had any illusions that these would be viable nations in the long term.
So you don't believe that Israel will be viable in the long term? When do you think it will fold?
So you're saying that the United States and Great Britian did not carve out and found the nation of Israel? Give me a break!
Israel became a nation-state somewhere around 1250 BC. There was 1,000 years of Jewish sovereignty, as well as brief periods of Jewish sovereignty in the 2nd century and in the middle ages (dates escape me, too short to be important). There was a continuous Jewish presence throughout despite the best attempts to eliminate it. Jerusalem had a Jewish majority through most of the period of Ottoman rule (1532-1917) and a Jewish plurality for the remaining time.
Jews had to fight the British from 1946-1947 to get our state. See Menachem Begin's book "The Revolt" for some details.
The point I was trying to make is that Jew is short for Judean and Judea (Yehuda in Hebrew) is in Israel. Jewish people are from Israel as much as French people are from France or German people are from Germany.
My father fought in that war. I'm not at all sure we could have pushed too much further if the war had continued beyond the armistice of 1949. If we could have taken Jerusalem (where my father fought to lift the siege) we most certainly would have done.
Israel was not strong in 1948-49 like it is today.
This part I agree with. However, I fail to see where Israel is missing even a single item from your list.
Just like the Sioux are from the "United States"?
Quite so. The seeds of a new Jewish nation were laid under the Ottomans. In World War I the British took the land. The Balfour Declaration had a lot to do with cementing the idea of a modern state of Israel in the British and European governments, but I would say that the 1919 agreement between Chaim Weizmann and King Feisal had a lot to do with it. That agreement invited Zionism to continue and to grow. I tend to think someting similar would have happened had the British not kept control of Palestine.
Further, the British appointment of Haj Amin al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem undermined the promised Jewish state and pretty much launched the current conflict. al-Husseini (Yasser Arafat's uncle) was eventually convicted as a Nazi war criminal. His calls for the destruction of the Jewish people and his repeated claim that the Jews would destroy the al-Aqsa mosque to incite violence are at the root of the 84 years of violence between Palestinian Arabs and Jews.
So, no, I give the British very little credit for the creation of Israel. The U.S. had very little to do with it.
The Sioux never had a nation which controlled all of what we call the United States today. Their population was also decimated. However, the United States DOES recognize territorial claims of various American Indian nations, does it not? They even have limited sovereignty.
Your point, however, is well taken. The United States has far less legitimacy than Israel yet nobody questions its right to exist.
Exactly as Lebanon, Jordan and Syria were "set up"...
What exactly, other than selective amnesia, is your point?
Prior to 1917 there was no Palestine, no Iraq, no Saudi Arabia. The lines of borders in the Middle East were drawn by the French and British with no regard for ethnicity, religious difference, etc... The mess we see in Iraq today is largely because the borders of Iraq really don't make any sense at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.