Letter to an Israeli friend
We greatly enjoyed our dinner with you and your friends, but I feel I have to write to express my astonishment at some of their views and to clarify some points. I don't want to get into an exchange over this, but I want to state as succinctly as I can what I thought was wrong with their views:
1. Socialism: Most of your friends were socialists. One of them expressed the view that capitalism is "repressive." In fact, a great deal of experience has shown that socialism does not work, for two reasons, first it leads to very repressive societies, witness the USSR, China (which has had to re-invent capitalism), Cuba, etc. Even the so-called "democratic socialist economies," like the Scandinavian countries and India, have long since dropped the pretense of being socialist. Similarly the kibbutzim in Israel are an economic failure, and most have turned over completely to capitalism. I thought of myself as a socialist when I was young, but like most of the world I grew up. To read an excellent book that explains why liberal democracy with a free market economy is the model now for most of the world, read, "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama.
2. Borders: I was surprised that you did not realize that the borders of Gaza and the West Bank are not internationally recognized borders but are ceasefire lines from 1948, only the borders with Egypt, and Jordan have been recognized as international borders in the peace treaties with them. Also, the UN recognized the Lebanon border after Israel withdrew. Repeated statements that there were so many plans (the Peel Commission, the UN Partition Plan, etc.) that gave the "same" borders that they are therefore "recognized" is nonsense, since none of those plans were ever ratified or accepted. Even UN resolutions have no validity if they are General Assembly resolutions because they are non-binding. Only UN Security Council resolutions are binding, and those that refer to the Israel-Palestine conflict require negotiations and agreement by both sides.
3. West Bank: The WB is considered in international law to be "disputed territory." It is incorrect to call it "Arab" or "Palestinian territory." This pre-judges the outcome of negotiations and accepts the media designation. Everyone realizes that a line must be drawn within the WB, but where remains to be seen. You were surprised that Israel had any claim to this land. The Israeli claim on this territory is based on the fact that Britain was given the Mandate in order to establish a Jewish Homeland under the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and there was no distinction made between different parts of Palestine. Although the WB was controlled by Jordan from 1948-1967, this was not recognized by the UN (only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the WB). You may say well this is all old history, lets ignore it and divide the land up now, but the question is how to divide it? Just because a majority of Arabs live in certain areas does not ipso facto make it theirs (although it might become theirs). If that were the only criterion, California should be ceded back to Mexico, northern Romania should be part of Hungary, etc., etc.
4. Blame: Several friends expressed a view that blamed Israel almost entirely for the plight of the Palestinians. This is ridiculous. Both sides no doubt have responsibility, but more and more people are realizing that the vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs do not want to come to terms with Israel. They want to continue their "armed struggle" using terrorism (80% in 2000, 60% in 2005). That is why Sharon was elected, and that is why he chose to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (that I supported). It has become the majority Israeli view that we cannot deal with them so we must separate ourselves from them, hence the success of Kadima in the polls.
6. Military solution: People say "there is no military solution to the conflict!" That is not true, there is a military solution, but Israel is not prepared to use it. In a war the object is to defeat the enemy and in order to do so it is necessary to kill more of them than they kill of us. We are in a war, but we are not fighting as if we are. In Gaza we are bombarding empty fields. Is this effective?
7. Identification: Too many of our people are giving the enemy hope by identifying with their cause more than our own. One of your friends expressed great sympathy for the "poor" Palestinians, and I found this sickening, in that she prefers the Palestinians to her own people. Her description of the way "settlements" were "choking" one small Arab village, was pathetic. This was very similar to the attitude of the German Jews who preferred the anti-Semitic Germans to the Eastern European Jews. She should read a recent book entitled "The Oslo Syndrome: delusions of a people under siege," by Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychologist, where he shows that the historical tendency of Jews to identify with their persecutors (the Stockholm syndrome), has rolled over into Israeli dealings with the Palestinians (the Oslo Syndrome). By the way, I found her comment before we left that I'm a "good Jew" condescending, in that case I could equally conclude that she is not a good Jew because she identifies more with the Palestinians than with her own people.
You may dismiss my views as "right-wing" but you cannot dismiss the facts upon which these views are based. At any rate its good that we live in a democracy where all kinds of views are tolerated.
1. Socialism: Most of your friends were socialists. One of them expressed the view that capitalism is "repressive." In fact, a great deal of experience has shown that socialism does not work, for two reasons, first it leads to very repressive societies, witness the USSR, China (which has had to re-invent capitalism), Cuba, etc. Even the so-called "democratic socialist economies," like the Scandinavian countries and India, have long since dropped the pretense of being socialist. Similarly the kibbutzim in Israel are an economic failure, and most have turned over completely to capitalism. I thought of myself as a socialist when I was young, but like most of the world I grew up. To read an excellent book that explains why liberal democracy with a free market economy is the model now for most of the world, read, "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama.
2. Borders: I was surprised that you did not realize that the borders of Gaza and the West Bank are not internationally recognized borders but are ceasefire lines from 1948, only the borders with Egypt, and Jordan have been recognized as international borders in the peace treaties with them. Also, the UN recognized the Lebanon border after Israel withdrew. Repeated statements that there were so many plans (the Peel Commission, the UN Partition Plan, etc.) that gave the "same" borders that they are therefore "recognized" is nonsense, since none of those plans were ever ratified or accepted. Even UN resolutions have no validity if they are General Assembly resolutions because they are non-binding. Only UN Security Council resolutions are binding, and those that refer to the Israel-Palestine conflict require negotiations and agreement by both sides.
3. West Bank: The WB is considered in international law to be "disputed territory." It is incorrect to call it "Arab" or "Palestinian territory." This pre-judges the outcome of negotiations and accepts the media designation. Everyone realizes that a line must be drawn within the WB, but where remains to be seen. You were surprised that Israel had any claim to this land. The Israeli claim on this territory is based on the fact that Britain was given the Mandate in order to establish a Jewish Homeland under the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and there was no distinction made between different parts of Palestine. Although the WB was controlled by Jordan from 1948-1967, this was not recognized by the UN (only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the WB). You may say well this is all old history, lets ignore it and divide the land up now, but the question is how to divide it? Just because a majority of Arabs live in certain areas does not ipso facto make it theirs (although it might become theirs). If that were the only criterion, California should be ceded back to Mexico, northern Romania should be part of Hungary, etc., etc.
4. Blame: Several friends expressed a view that blamed Israel almost entirely for the plight of the Palestinians. This is ridiculous. Both sides no doubt have responsibility, but more and more people are realizing that the vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs do not want to come to terms with Israel. They want to continue their "armed struggle" using terrorism (80% in 2000, 60% in 2005). That is why Sharon was elected, and that is why he chose to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (that I supported). It has become the majority Israeli view that we cannot deal with them so we must separate ourselves from them, hence the success of Kadima in the polls.
6. Military solution: People say "there is no military solution to the conflict!" That is not true, there is a military solution, but Israel is not prepared to use it. In a war the object is to defeat the enemy and in order to do so it is necessary to kill more of them than they kill of us. We are in a war, but we are not fighting as if we are. In Gaza we are bombarding empty fields. Is this effective?
7. Identification: Too many of our people are giving the enemy hope by identifying with their cause more than our own. One of your friends expressed great sympathy for the "poor" Palestinians, and I found this sickening, in that she prefers the Palestinians to her own people. Her description of the way "settlements" were "choking" one small Arab village, was pathetic. This was very similar to the attitude of the German Jews who preferred the anti-Semitic Germans to the Eastern European Jews. She should read a recent book entitled "The Oslo Syndrome: delusions of a people under siege," by Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychologist, where he shows that the historical tendency of Jews to identify with their persecutors (the Stockholm syndrome), has rolled over into Israeli dealings with the Palestinians (the Oslo Syndrome). By the way, I found her comment before we left that I'm a "good Jew" condescending, in that case I could equally conclude that she is not a good Jew because she identifies more with the Palestinians than with her own people.
You may dismiss my views as "right-wing" but you cannot dismiss the facts upon which these views are based. At any rate its good that we live in a democracy where all kinds of views are tolerated.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home