Israel's right to exist?
An answer to James M. Inhofe
By
Stuart Yates
Introduction
There have been numerous articles on whether or not Israel has the right to exist. This article examines one of the most carefully reasoned: that of US Senator James M. Inhofe in an address to the US Senate on March 4th, 2002. He argues Israel's right to exist on seven main points and he has received favourable responses to his article. The full text can be found at http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Israels_Right_to_the_Land.asp. I will look at each of these points in turn.
1. ARCHAEOLOGY
The Senator says :
"The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archaeological evidence. All the archaeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.......... The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites."
The Palestinian answer to this, which of course is difficult to prove or disprove, is that they are descended from the Canaanites, who certainly predate the Israelites in Palestine: there is ample evidence that the Canaanite and Israelite cultures both clashed and merged. However, even if the Israelites were first, the Senator's argument can be used to uncomfortable effect with regard to the US: the native Americans certainly predated the European and other settlers and so can, on the above argument of the Senator's, stake a convincing claim to the US. Even if we take into account the scattering of the Jews and argue that they have a right to their "original homeland", this would apply to the English settlers in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. On this logic, their descendants would have a prior claim to English land, above for instance 2nd or 3rd generation Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc. Anyone arguing this type of case is in BNP/Nazi territory.
Arguments based on the "we were first" premise are doomed: there have been too many movements of people and races. "Original homeland" concepts are meaningless over such a period of time. This is somewhat borne out by the fact that the Zionist movement's first choice of a "Jewish homeland" was not Palestine/Israel, but Argentina
2. HISTORY.
The senator's second reason is based on history: "The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land"
An Israel up until the time of the Roman empire: sounds as though the Israelites ruled a land called Israel from 3,000BC until the time of Christ, doesn't it? Washington State University has a different story (see http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/HEBREWS/HEBREWS.HTM.). Until 1050BC the Israelites were just one of many peoples fighting for possession of the land - when the Israelites trekked to the Promised Land from Egypt they found the land already occupied, so they had to fight for it - sounds familiar? Israel, in the sense of an independent state, existed merely 130 years, between 1050BC and 920BC. The kingdom then split into two, with the Israelites based in Samaria (not Jerusalem, which was occupied by the Judeans) and the Israelites were then apparently scattered and lost, totally. Jewish people still survived in the land, but were subject to foreign rule: Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans. In fact the Persians allowed them to return from exile in around 538BC, but they were not self-governing.
So "Israel" as an independent state lasted throughout all that time not much more than twice the length of time that the modern state of Israel has already existed. The historical argument is thin to say the least. The ancestors of modern Israelis certainly had a continuous presence in the land, but so did others.
3. AGRICULTURE
"The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture." says the Senator.
Well, that's OK then. On the basis of this argument the US would have lost any rights to huge areas of the States in the Great Depression, when enormous areas were turned into dust bowls. Let us not forget also that Israel has been able to develop its agriculture (and its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction) because of the enormous aid received from the West. This has hardly been a small nation bravely pulling itself up by its bootstraps.
"The country that receives more overseas aid than any other in the world is Israel, at $212 per head of population per year. Yet Israel's gross national product per capita is $4,500, which makes it richer than 88 other countries. (OECD Development Co-operation 1982 review)" cited in the New Internationalist, September 1985.
Hardly a level playing field: how many other developing countries could have an "unarguable success in its agriculture" if they had received similar aid?.
4. HUMANITARIAN
"The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe during World War Two."
Indeed there were and the holocaust was an appalling period of cold-blooded cruelty and inhumanity. There were indeed many Jewish refugees, along with many more in Europe and in other parts of the world. It is a sad fact that refugees either have to make a home in the country to which they flee or wait until the time is right when they can return to their homeland. What compelling reasons are there to make an exception, an exception which displaces others from their homes? Whilst there was a humanitarian argument for Jewish refugees to seek a new life in Palestine, this should have been overseen by the international community so that all peoples in that land could, and should, work out a way of co-existing. The creation of an exclusively Jewish state, the partition of the land, giving way to the actions of Jewish terrrorists: these are the causes of the continuing misery of the area.
"These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?"
Who indeed? So why should the Palestinians have to cede their land? How can a wrong done to one people be right unless there is sufficient compensation? Fifty years in refugee camps does not seem to me to be sufficient compensation, it seems to be a second wrong. Palestine is not the "homeland" of the vast majority of Israelis: some indeed settled there from Europe after the second World War (genuine refugees) but since then there has been a stream of people who had perfectly reasonable lives elsewhere, but who continue to displace Palestinians in the West Bank, building their fortified settlements, continuing a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.
"They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home state of Oklahoma seven times."
Would the Senator ever have asked a seventh of the people he represents to give up their homes, to move elsewhere, on the grounds he has set out in his address? More particularly, would he have asked if the people wanting to settle were backing their aims with terror tactics?
5. STRATEGIC ALLY
"The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region."
This is a circular argument. Israel is an ally because she is largely the creation of the US. History may prove her to be another US puppet, in spite of her apparent independence: Eisenhower certainly brought her into line. Other states' hostility to the US is partly because of the existence of Israel: creating Israel was at the expense and at the continuing expense of Palestinians. Palestinians have lived for over five decades in refugee camps, having been ethnically cleansed by Israel, because the West, having maintained Israel, reneged on the promise to create and support an independent Palestinian state. No wonder other Middle Eastern states are aggrieved. The Israel/Palestinian issue is the most glaring example of the West's double standards.
The reason for the other part of this argument, hostility to the US, lies in the phrase: "hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world" . Really? I suppose this attitude is common to all imperialist powers: Roman, British etc. The consolation is that empires decay and fall away, but in the meantime, like all imperial powers, the US is feared, distrusted and resented for the power that she wields over other nations.
"If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region."
Just who "they" are and which areas in the region other than Israel "they" would overrun is not clear. Equally it is not clear which states in the region are defended by Israel: so far Israel has attacked every single one of its neighbours and occupied their lands.
6. ROADBLOCK TO TERRORISM
"Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores."
This is another circular argument. "Middle East" terrorism is almost wholly directed against Israel and the US and UK's uncritical support of Israel. It is not so much Israel's existence that foments terrorism: it is the inhuman treatment of the Palestinians (refugees in their "own" land). It is the missile attacks on crowds of civilians, the demolition of houses of families of suicide bombers (since when were families of criminals themselves treated as criminals and without trial in any decent society). It is the wanton destruction of the civilian infrastructure and most of all, the continual extension of fortified settlements on land that was never ceded to Israel, the building of roads outside Israel solely for Israelis, the shooting of Palestinians when they try to harvest their olives. That is Middle Eastern terrorism and the suicide bombers, horrific though their crimes against civilans are, form the desperate response of an abused people. Do not just take my word for it, read Amnesty International's report on the Jenin "incursion": http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151432002!Open
It is not clear how Israel can be a "roadblock to terrorism". As we know, international terrorism (and Middle Eastern terrorism is very parochial in nature) is not deterred by national boundaries. The existence of a small 'friendly' country in the midst of 'enemies' is incidental.
"Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai campaign, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars."
Well, the 1948 war of independence can be viewed rather differently as a terrorist campaign: I am old enough to remember the pictures of British soldiers being strung up, but perhaps Americans are rather more sanguine about justice Boot Hill style. At this time also Jewish terrorists were rather active with letter bombs and assassinations.
The 1956 "Sinai campaign" - is this the same campaign which saw an eight year old state attacking Egypt with British and French forces? I wonder how such a young state obtained such weaponry such as the latest French Mystere jets? Not solely from its own resources.
The Senator omits to mention the extended Israeli incursion into Lebanon, which included the Sabra and Chatila massacres in which the present Israeli head of state, Ariel Sharon, was involved.
"Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2-to-1.."
Well, I suppose sending F-16s in against Palestinians armed only with hand weapons is the exception which proves the Senator's rule.
7. BIBLICAL RIGHT
"Israel ......has a right to the land, because God said so. ..... God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. ..... It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."
The difficulty with this is whether or not the founding of the modern state of Israel accords with the will of God. The Talmud in Tracte Kesubos teaches that no Jewish state should be founded before the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah). God did indeed give the land to Abram and his seed for ever, but the Israelites were disobedient, resulting in exile. This exile cannot be ended by human acts or desires, only by the will and action of God. The absence of a Messiah turns the "will of God" into the "will of men". Certainly the actions of those who have been in charge of modern Israel are more in keeping with human politics than of those carrying out the will of God.
Conclusion
I do not believe that the Senator's seven points make a convincing argument for the existence of Israel as such, certainly not the right to exist: I wonder if any state, at any time, has an absolute right to exist. For instance, Yugoslavia existed as a federal state: I believe President Milosovic, by directing Serbia's lethal actions against Croatia, Bosnia etc, forfeited the right of Serbia to run such a federal state.
So Israel may not have the right to exist, but this does not mean that Israel should not exist. There have been Jewish people living there for centuries. If a multi-cultural country bounded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt is not possible, then what is needed is a way that enables all people in that area to belong to independent, autonomous states that are viable, which have the support of the UN and which respect each others' boundaries.
To achieve this means abandoning the black and white, right/wrong absolutist arguments. It means that the West has to look at Israel's faults as well as Palestinian faults. The power lies with Israel and the West: when you have power you have to exercise the resulting responsibility wisely.
~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum