Should the State of Israel Have Been Founded in the First Place?
After more than fifty years, I think the clear answer is no. Deeply affected by the horrors of the Holocaust, a majority of the United Nations voted to create the state of Israel in 1947. In fact, 33 approved, 13 opposed, and 10 abstained. The turmoil and chaos created by the founding of this state suggest that this decision was a major mistake. The Vatican wisely opposed it, and resisted recognizing the new state. In fact, it only opened diplamatic relations in 1993. When you think about it, anybody who values an authentically conservative political philosophy would come to the same conclusion. After all, what was the state of Israel but an attempt to create an entire culture and society from scratch, a new and improved society, filled with the secular messianism of the Zionist socialists and the theological certainty of those claiming a divine land grant? As with all similar attempts to uproot the prevailing institutions to create a better world in the past (think French and Russian revolutions), it was bound to fail. In this case, it completely ignored the pre-existing Palestinian inhabitants of the region, pushing them further and further into ghettoized second-class citizenship as it invited members of the Jewish religion from all around the world to seek citizenship without limit. Milk and honey for Jews; parched mouths for Palestinians. One does not have to approve of Hamas to see how such a situation would lead to Hamas.
Of course, the very same argument can be used against those extremists today who wish to drive the state of Israel into the sea, as this is also predicated on an unjust and deeply disruptive population movement. So, we are stuck with the secular state of Israel. But we are stuck with many countries and nations. The history of humanity is the history of human wandering, and not always into empty territory. The Boers entered South Africa a few hundred years ago, but then again so did the Bantus– today, both have the right to be called African. The American colonists may have colonized and stolen land unjustly, but their descendants are from that land today. The fluidity of European population movements of late antiquity make a mockery of ancient claims to nationhood.
So, the secular state of Israel has the right to exist, but not unconditionally. It is well-established enough to have its integrity respected, but it also the duty to provide for the welfare of the populations it has dispossessed. It is a secular state; it has no divine mandate. It gets no exemption from the rules simply because its neighbors (justifiably) have major problems with its existence. A rather modest conclusion, no? And yet, I think if you start from the premise that the creation of Israel was a mistake, while holding that it retains the right to exist today, you arrive at a very different conclusion than if you start from the position that the creation of Israel was absolutely correct to begin with. And that is my point.
Comments are closed.
It’s an interesting hypothetical. Supposing that the U.N., instead of proposing a partition, had simply awarded all of Palestine to Jordan. And suppose (what is unlikely) that the Israeli Jews had gone along with this. What would the place look like today?
My guess is that it would look about the same as other Arab states in the region. That is, there would be rampant corruption, poverty, and oppression. Jews would be treated like second class citizens, and in fact many of them would have long since left. Internal violence would be rampant, along the lines of the Lebanon experience. Living standards would probably be better than they currently are in Gaza, but would be far below what they are for Israeli Arabs.
It’s just a guess, of course. History is such an unpredictable thing that it’s hard to say what the world would look like had Israel never been founded. But at the very least it isn’t clear to me that things would look better than they do right now.
I agree with you 100%, but I have also come to the conclusion that the Zionist State is committing suicide through never having struck out for itself, from beneath the shadow of its hegemon, the United States of America.
It is primarily this relationship that has doomed Israel: many Israeli “doves” say the same thing as I–that Israel, but for its ties to the expansionist AMERICAN Zionist elements (Likud, AIPACE et.al.) would have been FORCED by the logic of previous accords with Arab countries, and by the “ticking demographic time bomb” of her own growing Arab-Israeli population to have withdrawn from the conquests of the 67 war and to have desisted from her relentless acquisition of “settlements” which are in constant and explicit violation of Oslo and other accords.
The Zionist State is doomed; it is the responsibility of the Western Jewish diaspora–and, especially, of the Americans who contributed so heavily to its ruination–to provide all possible means of evacuation and resettlement to the innocent Jews who went there from such remote and unfriendly places as the former Soviet Union–thinking that they could live idyllic lives in their “Holy Land,” and ending up being put by land-grabbing politicians into “settlements” that are actually MILITARY outposts of Eretz Israel–so that there may not be a second Shoah when the Muslim Arabs take back what is rightfully theirs.
Next on the table: Should non-Celts have taken over Ireland?
You’re right that a conservative temperment would generally tend to reject the creation of a state such as Israel — and indeed, historically it took 20-30 years for most conservatives to come around and accept Israel as fait accompli.
But then, come to that, why should any given country be what it is?
The difficulty with sentiments such as MM’s and Digby’s is that while seeing the unreasonable elements of Zionist nationalism, they accept as reasonable Palestinian nationalism. So while they see it as a problem that the Zionists wanted to have a state for their Jewish nationality, they don’t see it is a problem that Palestinians insiste of having a specifically Palestinian state.
The realistic and reasonable approach would be to accept that Israel is the state that is in that area — and indeed that it is by far the most free, functional and prosperous state in the region. If you really want to take an approach un-tinged by nationalism, you should advocate that the Palestinians petition for the occupied territories to be incorporated as administrative districts of Israel and their residents allowed to enjoy full Israeli citizenship.
Darwin:
Which territories? A good chuck of Palestine that Israel controls is in violation of international, having been illegally seized and occupied in the 1967 war. Besides, most territories are set on independence and most residents hate Israel. I think as a practical matter Palestine has to be independent, and I think the borders pre-1967 should be the guideline for such a state.
Not to mention Israel doesn’t quite respect the rights of the Palestinians that stayed in Israel, much less the ones in the surrounding territories.
Any impartial consideration of the matter says that MM is right, both about the history and the situation now.
The present horrible situation that has given rise to this discussion may not be as bad as it seems, however. Arguably what has contributed most to the present situation–basically a new war focused on Gaza–is the Bush policy over the past eight years: U.S. failure to take the initiative in trying to make peace in the region (until very recently) coupled with the Iraq fiasco. Obama will no doubt be more proactive, and history has shown that U.S. goodwill efforts in the region can yield very significant results (as in the Carter and Clinton administrations).
We can reasonably hope for things to get better in the Holy Land, I believe, over the next few years. Of course, we have to assume that Hilary will do better at peacemaking than she did at transforming the U.S. health care system. Call me naive, but I have hopes about that too!
Not to mention Israel doesn’t quite respect the rights of the Palestinians that stayed in Israel, much less the ones in the surrounding territories.
I would rather be an Israeli Arab than a Palestinian in Hamas controlled Gaza. For that matter, I would rather be a Palestinian in Israeli occupied Gaza than a Palestinian in Hamas controlled Gaza.
Occupied “illegally” since 1967? I can see how that galls, but honestly: It’s forty years ago. That’s longer than those territories have belonged to any other modern state.
But as you say: The residents of the occupied territories generally hate Israel and don’t want to belong to it. True fact, no question there. But since MM is busy pointing out that there’s no reason other than the desire to have a nation of the Zionists for Israel to exist — one might as well point out that come to that there’s no reason for there to be a Palestinian state either. There’s nothing but their own nationalism keeping them from either being Israelis or Jordanians. And if the nationalism of the Zionists is to be scorned, why not that of the Palestinians as well?
Not to mention the fact that Israel has managed to build itself a free and productive society, while the Palestinians and surrounding countries have done a much poorer job in that department. As MM says, Israel certainly didn’t have to exist, but given their track record they seem like the people most competant to run a country in the region, with the Turks as perhaps a runner up from rather farther afield.
A couple of points.
First, Darwin is mistaken to see my argument as expressing support for Palestinian nationalism. I would have no problem at all with them becoming part of the state of Israel, rather than outcasts- but that of course would dilute the race/religion based concept of the state of Israel, which is a particularly form of nationalism. What I insist on is that the we acknowledge the human dignity of Palestinians, equal to that of Israelis.
Second, much of the admiration of the “achievements” of Israel in the region seems to stem from cultural bias. They look like us, talk like us, act like us, think like us. Arab culture is rather less penetrable, which does not mean it is less valid. For sure, Arab culture has some serious pathologies to deal with, but is this worse than a culture than can coldly drop bombs on civilian centers and refuse even a breathing space for humanitarian aid? Hardly.
Arab culture has some serious pathologies to deal with, but is this worse than a culture than can coldly drop bombs on civilian centers and refuse even a breathing space for humanitarian aid?
Well, Arab culture *is* perfectly comfortable with dropping bombs on civilian centers and refusing a breathing space for humanitarian aid, so unless one wants to maintain that no culture that does this is worse than any other, the claim doesn’t have a leg to stand on (and if one does want to maintain this, then one is committed to thinking that the U.S. and Britain during WWII were no better than the Nazis, a view which again is untenable).
Well, the bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were up there in moral gravity with nazi atrocities, if that is what you are getting at. As I said at the very beginning, it is the refusal of the majority of Americans to recognize the great crimes of the second world war that allows them to turn a blind eye (almost alone in the world) to what Israel is doing. After all, “we are the good guys”….
I cannot begin to tell all of you folks in America how frustrated the Europeans are becoming at your unwillingness to look objectively at the behaviour of the Zionists and see it as the fascism that it is: they are fast losing patience with a country that not only refuses to recognise a genocidal power when it sees one, but also actually FUNDS the genocide.
I’m hearing works over here like “racist,” “neo-Nazi,” “apartheid”–and from ORDINARY Germans–not folks who are extremely politicized.
“The Vatican wisely opposed it, and resisted recognizing the new state. In fact, it only opened diplamatic relations in 1993. ”
Hisotry is a tad more complex than it appears. Did the the Vatican really oppose the creation of Israel. By the time of the 1947 United Nations vote on the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, the Vatican had quietly dropped its opposition to the creation of Israel as a independent State and was in essence a defacto supporter. As has been pointed out in many cases the fact that so many Latin American countries, where the Vatican had huge influence m did not oppose Israel’s creation is important
Further as to diplomatic relations as Vatican diplomatics have been at pains to say over the decades diplomatic relations and the right of Israel to exist has always been two seperate issues.
As to Divine mandate and God’s plan that is still up in the air and Catholics can disagree. The Church observes the signs of the times and the views are varied even with the high Councils of the Church. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn is a prime example of this that sees the the modern state of Israel as a part of Bbilcal prophecy
I am not sure Israels neighbors have much of justifiable complaint agiant Israel’s existance. It should be pointed out that tow of their importnat neighbors do not have such complaints.
The Issue of Israel is complex because people wish to put people in the big either/or. Either you support Israel 100 percent or you oppose it 100 percent. I am generally very pro-Israel but I still do not give them a blank check on everything. On the whole though I see the creation of Israel as a postive.
Chiesa had a good article today on the Israel and the Vatican and the current conflict. It showed and I agree with it that the Vatican stance on this conflict has not always been helpful. It does get tiresome to me that the Vatican seems only to speak up when ISrael has to react and does not speak up in Israels defense in the various stages where Israel is threatened which often leads to the Israeli reaction.
That being said Israel does not help matters with the various intrigues it engages in (often of a local poltical nature) that hurts Catholic interest.
MM,
Two elements here you can’t seem to wrap your mind around:
1) Unquestionably we must (and around here so far as I can tell everyone does) acknowledge the human dignity of the Palestinians as being equal to the Israelis — but it we take it that this acknowledgement of human dignity means necessarily supporting the demand that there must be a specifically Palestinian state and that it must be exactly where the occupied territories are (or perhaps even more to their taste exactly where Israel as a whole is) then there becomes no difference between “respecting human dignity” and Palestinian nationalism. Clearly, one must be able to acknowledge and respect the human dignity of the Palestinians without endorsing their nationalistic agenda. And yet that is exactly what the European view of the situation being expressed by you and Dibgy falls into — perhaps not surprising as modern nationalism tied to race and region is very much more a European phenomena than an American one.
2) Clearly, there must be a difference between seeing one side as unmitigated “good guys” and still prefering them in a given situation. Even taking your claim, for the sake of argument, that Allied war attrocities (Desden, Tokyo, abombs, etc.) in WW2 were “up there in moral gravity with nazi attrocities”, it does not follow that it would therefore be a matter of moral indifference whether the Nazis or Allies won. Similarly, that Israel has been known, repeatedly, to use war methods that we might morally frown on does not change the fact that any reasonable person would find it vastly preferable to live in Israel under their culture and system of government than to live in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran or Egypt, much less under Hamas or the Fatah government — with the main motivating factor against living in Israel being the likelihood of being blown up by a Palestinian militant, something from which one is safe in those other countries. That most impartial people consider the Israeli’s to be the “good guys” in the region in that one would far rather live under their government than the others available does not imply endorsement of everything Israel does, but it does incline people towards wanting to see Israel survive and succeed, which sadly puts one in opposition to the sentiments of many Arabs — and at least according to Digby many Europeans.
A chiesa article on in part the topic at hand referred to by JH:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/213171?eng=y
Similarly, that Israel has been known, repeatedly, to use war methods that we might morally frown on does not change the fact that any reasonable person would find it vastly preferable to live in Israel under their culture and system of government than to live in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran or Egypt, much less under Hamas or the Fatah government . . .
It seems to me that any “reasonable person” would also prefer to live in the United States (or any number of other countries) to living in Israel. If the Israeli’s would just be “reasonable,” even if they insisted on a homeland, they would be willing to set it up in a different geographic location somewhere outside the Middle East. I do not intend this so much as a criticism as just an observation that reason has little to do with what the Israelis or the Palestinians want.
Again, I see implicit in much of the debate the same kind of cultural and historical blindness that drove so many Americans to support the Iraq war: if they could only have a chance at western-style democracy and free market capitalism, then they will prosper and be happy. So when you say “any reasonable person” would prefer to live in Israel than in any other country in the region, you display precisely this blinkered way of thinking. Have you been to these countries? I have (bar Iran). And if you asked me to choose one to live in, I would most certainly choose Lebanon above Israel.
As the the Magister article– I’m a bit puzzled. He seems to be simply mouthing the standard neo-con line about the European and Vatican position on Israel, ignoring the very real grievances of the Palestinians (settlements, anyone?) that prompt the Vatican to take an appropriately balanced position.
MM,
Once upon a time I would have agreed with you about Lebanon, but all my Lebanese friends at church assure my that it is really not a good idea to live there anymore.
David,
Interestingly, when the Zionist movement was getting going in the late 1800s, there were originally two suggestions for finding a Jewish homeland: Moving to Palestine or moving to a fairly unpopulated region of Argentina. Palestine was chosen because of its historical resonance, but it would certainly be interesting to know what would have happened if the movement had decided to press for a Jewish homeland in the New World instead.
After a brief perusal of some comparative statistics, it’s hard to find a measure on which Lebanon outperforms Israel. To the extent that it has any appeal over its neighbor to the south, the appeal (at least in my case) seems to be largely a matter of religion.
I wonder if Lebanon’s infrastructure’s being pounded militarily so often during the last few decades has something to do with its statistical disparities.
This article is profoundly naive and its impulse, deeply immoral.
Jewish people had an ancestral homelad that was taken forcibly from them. We all know the story. The place remained largely uninhabited,with no “indigenous Palestinians” (there never has been such a nation) because the people were nomadic.
Israel finally got a modern state. Its by-now Islamic neighbors, however, with a culture vitiated to the core with religiously-sanctioned Jew-hatred, tried to wipe them out. Many Muslims from Jordan and Egypt waited on the sidelines for the spoils, but Israel prevailed.
Israel then opened up its country to Arabs: as noted above, there are now a million or so Arab Israelis. They are full citizens. They have seats in the Knesset. This, despite nearly every Jew being expelled from every other state in the region.
But no, these overtures of peace — like every other overture since — were not enough. After the alleged mistake of its founding (Muslims call it the ‘naqba’ or ‘catastrophe’), other states in the region decided that Israel had to be destroyed by war. They failed; and what we have now seen is a long, drawn-out proxy war fought by “Palestinians” and other jihadist organizations. This is what causes the “turmoil” over these past fifty years, not the creation of the state of Israel. This proxy war is plainly a jihad, whether you like it or not, and it has been waged off and on, with good cop/bad cop manipulations, for decades.
Now that Israel has once again decided to defend itself, you are all calling for its extinction. Whose side are you on? I am a faithful Roman Catholic, and I see this article as part of the treatment to which our elder brothers and sisters in faith have been subjected for millennia. Every other people can have a state, apparently, except the Jews. No matter what the Jews do, they are always guilty. Let the wander. Etc.
Shame on you for holding this position. As Christians, you are capable of more justice.
The solution to this problem is to demand that Jordan, Egypt, and other ME states take the people who do not want to become citizens of Israel. But they won’t do that. Why? Because those states want to destroy Israel, and the Jews. The “Palestinians” are the means to this outrageous end.
Justin:
You are off the mark in so many different ways. First, I am not calling for Israel’s extinction. I argue precisely the opposite, suggesting you are reading from your own preconceptions.
Second, “Jewish people had an ancestral homelad that was taken forcibly from them”. Well, yes, and — as I noted– that is simply the nature of human existence. Human history is the history of migration, often forceful. There were people in the land of Israel before the Jewish people arrived. Where do you want to take this? Should the native Americans regain control over the American continent? How do you account for the waves of migrations through Europe over the millenia?
No, you seem to have bought into a dubious theology that the Jewish people deserve their own secular state. Here’s some news for you: orthodox Judaism holds only God, no secular movement, can restore the Promised Land. And Catholic theology rejects the notion of a divine land grant as the followers of Christ became the new Israel.
Actually, the more I read your comment, the more I am appalled. Israel did “open up its country to the Arabs”– it retains a small Arab minority, and yet refuses to grant Palestinians citizenship and patently refuses to allow a Palestinian “right of return” to the lands from which they were evicted by the Israelis. They continue to encroach on Palestinian territitory with “settlements”. I cannot believe you can sit back and claim that the actions of Israel have nothing to do with Palestinian resistance. Talk about a blinkered outlook. I recently heard a bishop note that many young Americans arrive in Israel and Palestine with views like yours, helping out with Church missionary activity. As soon as they see the situation on the ground, they become very pro-Palestinian. Maybe such a trip would do you some good.
This is a very interesting discussion on all sides. I agree with the original post that Israel should never have been founded in the first place (at least in the location and manner that it was). The fact that Israel is a prosperous democracy and that “most people” would prefer to live there than in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a mistake, because those positives are overwhelmed by the all negative consequences flowing from Israel’s founding, such as decades of terrorism affecting countries all over the world, the very real possibility of nuclear terrorism in the not-too-distant future, the fear in which ordinary Israelis live day-to-day, decades of unnecessary wars, and last but certainly not least, the low quality of life that Palestinians suffer. The fact that these negative consequences would not have accrued if Palestinians had just accepted their forced migration after World War II is not persuasive to me. I do consider the attachment that some peoples have to their particular spot of land to be technically “irrational,” but it exists, it’s part of human nature, and it should not have taken anyone by surprise. Apparently it did though. The first prime minister of Israel is on record saying things like this, which it retrospect seems overly casual and naive:
“Zionism is a transfer of the Jews. Regarding the transfer of the Arabs, this is much easier than any other transfer. There are Arab states in the vicinity, … and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed [to those states], this will improve their condition and not the contrary.” — David Ben-Gurion, May 7, 1944, as quoted on page 192 of ISBN 978-0887282355.
I think that history has proven him wrong. The “transfer of the Arabs” was not easy; it was difficult and painful (and not even complete). The Palestinian refugees were not welcomed eagerly by neighboring Arab states, and they exist as displaced peoples to the present day. To give context, the founding of Israel was very aggressively pushed by both Jews and non-Jews and is part of a pattern the West had around that time of drawing lines on a map without fully taking into account the cultures of the people affected by them. (The creation of Iraq after World War I is another example.)
But the claim that Israel should not have been founded does not imply that Israel should now be eliminated. The same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that Israel was a mistake also leads to the conclusion that the elimination of it now would be a mistake. At this point, Israel should continue to exist, and if it’s going to exist, its people should be safe and free from fear. However, something has to be done for the Palestinians to make up for this mistake. This is exactly the point at which the original post stops, saying just that this reasoning brings you to “a very different conclusion than if you start from the position that the creation of Israel was absolutely correct to begin with.” But this point is exactly where we need ideas. I’ll throw one on the table, and leave it to others to judge whether it’s practical:
The Unites States and other countries are expending tremendous sums of money to counter the effects of terrorism, and one of the primary engines of terrorism is the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Just on a purely economic basis, it seems like these resources could be channeled directly to Palestinians and Israelis as “incentives” to work out their “problems”, and everyone would be better off. It could be something as direct (some would say crass) as the Palestinians will start getting enormous sums of financial aid, but the sum will be reduced by X amount for every violent action undertaken by Hamas, etc., against Israel. If the level of violence is not substantially decreased, the net financial aid to them would be no greater than it is now. Every school that exists to teach hatred and violence against Jews would also cause a decrease in aid by some amount Y. But if the Palestinians substantially decrease the violence and anti-Jewish propaganda, the financial aid would be great enough to totally transform their quality of life to what would be, relative to their current circumstances, a near utopia. The same needs to be done with Israel. Aid to Israel should be increased, but also directly tied to their withdrawing from some of their settlements and other concrete and specific steps. If they do not withdraw from certain territories within a certain time frame, their net financial aid would be much less than it is now. The money would need to be paid into accounts each year and dispersed over time, because there must be the ability to “claw back” funds if either side takes one step forward followed a year later by two steps back. If other parties (banks and other lenders) see a sincere effort by Palestinians and Israelis to improve the situation, they would be willing to lend money immediately against these funds, and the lenders would have their own incentives to make sure their judgment of peaceful intentions are accurate, because if they’re not, the collateral for those loans would be clawed back and the loans likely defaulted upon. When the funds are dispersed, they should be either directly to humanitarian organizations or else monitored extremely carefully. We could not allow the funds to be diverted to military uses. If either side is found to be doing that, funds would have to be clawed back and the other side compensated militarily to bring it back to parity. One benefit of this idea (besides the most important one that it incentivizes each side to move toward peace) is that it’s something the United States and other countries could do with very little upfront cooperation from Israel or the Palestinians. Crucially, neither side would have to agree with the other on any central issue.
If anyone thinks this idea is impractical or objectionable, I would ask them to put their own ideas on the table. And ideally their ideas should be able to be put in place without requiring the Israelis and Palestinians to come to agreement on central issues first, since this is precisely what they appear unable or unwilling to do.