http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
I was wrong. I think bloggers ought to admit this when it happens because it shows maturity, like Andrew Sullivan did, admitting he was wrong to support the Iraq War, thinking there were weapons of mass destruction, when there ended up not really being those weapons. I was wrong, not, I think, from intent, but just from not enough information, and my natural "moderate" instincts. That is, in most political issues I try to see a "centrist" path. There are some issues, however, in which there is not a "centrist" path, it is one or the other (e.g. slavery is wrong, and the compromises of the 1850's did not see its inherent wrong-headedness). I was wrong to at first support a so-called "two state solution" for Israel and Palestine. I am naturally a "centrist" sort of fellow, so, not knowing much about the situation, figured, hey, split the baby, no harm done. So long as the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank were preserved, so long as the Golan Heights near Lebanon were preserved, so long as there was some sort of guarantee from the Palestinian Authority about Israel's security, I figured, what the heck, if the PA wants the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem (part of the West Bank) what the heck, no big deal. A reasonable enough position I thought at the time, but not one well informed I understand now, both from history and international law.
I did not like this emotively, since emotively, I thought and still do, that for historical reasons, the entire land west of the Jordan belongs to the descendants of Abraham forever (or until the earth falls into the sun, anyway, ha). I am not (then or now) religious, at least not insofar as that relates to supernatural beliefs, but religion to one side, it seemed then and now very clear that Israel has a natural historic right to that "brave and ancient land." However, for pragmatic reasons, I was willing to entertain the idea of a "two state solution", including a divided Jerusalem, however unsettling that might be, for the sake of peace.
I understand this differently now. Peace is STILL POSSIBLE but the Neville Chamberlain sort of "peace in our time" which a "two state solution" would be, is no peace. Chamberlain failed to understand that Germany at the time was evil, and evil does not get satisfied with half the pie, it wants it all. Evil does not exist per ce, it exists only as a negation of the light. So, giving Evil half-measures, will not satiate it, it will simply want more. Thus, giving Germany half of Czechoslovakia which Chamberlain hoped would satiate it, did not work, it wanted more, world war resulted, and to the eternal shame of humankind, this world war resulted in not just battlefield casualties but civilian ones as well, including the Shoah, the worst thing that has ever happened, before or since.
A "two state solution" is wrong, for historical reasons (which I understood always) but now I understand a few more things which makes me not support that. It will not work, it will be Chamberlain part two. The Arab fanatics will not be satisfied with it, because they want the end of Israel, because they hate the good, which Israel represents. They hate democracy. Israel is unique, because it has both a strong spiritual heritage, but also it has a strong secular, democratic heritage, both things of which the Arabs in the region despise. They hate secular democracy, and they hate also the Jewish spiritual tradition. Personally, I am more "secular" or "skeptic" and I make no apology for that, but whether one is more spiritual or secular, one can agree that Israel represents that which is good in man. Russell Crow has a great quote in the "Gladiator" movie, he says something to the effect that he has been around the world and has seen the darkness in man, but that Rome is the light. Well, comparatively speaking with its neighbors, she certainly was. But Israel was and is a deeper and more permanent light in all the chaos and misery of history, and those, like Hamas, who like chaos and misery, will always hate the light, no matter how many "bones" like the "two state solution" we throw at it. Please understand I am talking about the hateful ideology unfortunately prevalent in Arab cultures, I am not talking about Arabs themselves, to a man. "Anyone who judges by the group is a peewit" as a Union soldier says in the movie "Gettsyburg" and I do not wish to go down that road. I am saying, matter of factly, that much of the leadership in the West Bank and Gaza are driven by hateful ideologies, and that is just a fact, although there certainly are plenty of good people who are Arabs. It is just that unfortunately, right now and for the past however many years, the hate has drowned out the good in those regions. So just as a caveat there. But, bottom line, a "two state solution" will not work, because of the fact that, as the theologian Karl Barth remarked, evil never exists as a positive entity, that is, an entity in and of itself, it only "exists" as a negation of the good. One cannot bargain with such a negation. One must only resist that.
Another issue must be addressed here. The far-left always complains about the "plight" of the Palestinian populations. Well, prior to 1948, there were not very many Arab natives at all around that region, and it was perfectly palatable for a Jewish state to be established there, without some sort of humanitarian catastrophe that the far-left today drones on about. What happened was that surrounding countries sent in people to the region, in order to create a population problem when there had not been that problem before. Jewish people and Arab people have lived there, long before 1948, for, in fact thousands of years. There is no reason why a single Jewish state of Israel, that includes the contested regions of Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), the Gaza strip, and the Golan heights, cannot accommodate the Arab populations as well. The counter-argument to that, which I once found credible, but now see it more as a challenge but not insurmountable, was that if there is a single Jewish state, but if also there is a large amount of Arab populations there as well, then, over time, the state will start looking less and less like a Jewish state. This is a fair argument, and one I once thought to be the strongest argument in favor of a "two state" solution. I now see this as easily surmounted. In a single state of Israel, one can have immigration policies that allow only those of Jewish heritage (either by ethnicity or by religious or cultural identification) to immigrate to Israel. Then one could provide tax incentives or some sort of incentives to increase Jewish immigration to the country. One could even (as Japan has) provide tax incentives to have more children. In such ways, Israel could certainly make sure that it remains a Jewish homeland, which is its historic right, without depriving the Palestinians of their fundamental freedoms. To channel an old hippie phrase: "why can't we all just get along". That is certainly possible in a Greater Israel (i.e. an Israel that includes that entire region). It is up to the Arab population as to whether they want to live in brotherhood with their Jewish neighbors or not. For a long time prior to 1948, Jewish people and Arab people lived side by side and there were not too many problems. It was only after that, when the historic right of the Jewish people to have a homeland there was recognized by the UN, when all of a sudden it became a "problem", a "problem" incited not so much by the local Arab populations, and more incited by surrounding Arab countries. It is a made-up problem created by surrounding countries, not an inherent problem. The situation today in the 21st century presents problems not of Israel's making, but rather, it is the work of the surrounding region. This fact does not get much reported, but it is true. So the "refugee" issue which the far-left drones on about, is an Arab-created issue, and it is their problem. There would not be this problem other than the fact that when Israel was created, the surrounding countries created so much fear and hate, that many Palestinians left on their own accord. There was, and to this day still is, lots of open country in Israel, plenty of room for more apartment complexes, and so forth. There would have been more than enough land for the Jewish people and the Palestinians who were there. The surrounding Arab countries would have none of that, and so created a problem when there need not have been one. The mess we have today is not of Israel's doing, an inconvenient truth perhaps for the left, but a truth nonetheless.
The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Belford, the UK equivalent of the US "Secretary of State" (the current UK Foreign Secretary, incidentally, is William Hague whom I personally had the honor of meeting, during a campaign rally in 2001 when he was standing for PM against then-PM Tony Blair) issued in 1917 what is now known as the "Balfour Declaration" (which I linked to in wikipedia above), formally promising Palestine as a Jewish homeland. This was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, and was part of the UN charter upon the founding of the UN.
This is a vastly important point. Always, I emotively wanted a "Greater Israel", i.e., a one state of Israel, not this "divided Jerusalem" crap people are talking about now. However, I unashamedly am a fan of the notion of international law, for I feel that the concept of international law, including things like the International Criminal Court, and the like, help to keep dictators in check, by showing that however important national sovereignty is, it is not as important as fundamental human rights. So I believe in international law, and I believe in the United Nations (and earnestly hope and trust that the US will block the attempt this autumn to create a Palestinian "state", which would be a violation not only of history, but of international law). I was concerned that not having a two-state solution might run afoul of international law, and that was my basic concern, even though emotively I did not like such a "solution". I now know differently.
In the 1920's, the British Mandate in "Palestine" existed as a result of WWI. "Palestine" (what is now Israel and the "West Bank", a nice, p.c. term for freaking Samaria and Hebron, the capital of King David, by the way) had in mind a future Jewish state. The Ottoman Empire controlled that area and was defeated in WWI, so the British had to control that area to maintain order, but never intended to be there indefinitely. It was the original intent to control law and order there, and eventually hand it over to the Jewish people, as the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (ratified by the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN in 1922) indicated, among other documented "paper trails" to that effect. The "Palestinian State" talked about today is a legal fiction created by Islamists who want to turn Israel, the United States, and the world, into some sort of Islamic tyranny. They hate Israel because she is a democracy, because she is for freedom, and the Islamists are against it. Simple as that. I am not trying to get on a "soap box" but I am trying to say that not only is there an historical argument, or a moral argument to be made for Greater Yisrael, but international law backs that up as well. If you like, the British Empire backs that up, or, at least, originally did, prior to the deplorable anti-Semitism that arose in the 1930's, where even Britain "backed off" from their original commitments due to the toxic climate of the times.
Now, one might say, legal arguments, or even historical or moral arguments, are well and good, but the reality of our times is that the faux concept of a "Palestinian" state is a reality and we just have to live with that. Well, for now, perhaps. But there are things to be done. Peacefully, through political discourse, this dynamic can be changed. Within Israel, pressure must be exerted upon Likud, Prime Minster Netenyahu's party, to continue their historic support for a Greater Israel. In the US, we need to hold politicians accountable, and that includes the President, whom I incidentally have much respect for. I might disagree with him on some fiscal issues, but he is a good person I think, and not deserving of some of the "flack" he gets, however, he was wrong about Israel, and he needs to be held accountable. I am almost at the point of voting for Gov. Palin, whom I have respectful disagreements with about some fiscal issues (that is, I think she might go too far sometimes albeit I do agree with balanced budgets and so forth), but some respectful disagreements aside, Gov. Palin at least supports Israel, and the current President does not really "get it". I do not think he is anti-Semitic, but he just does not really "get" international law very well. He is misinformed. He is not a bigot, I don't think, because I like to think the best in folks, but I do think he is misinformed. He has not bothered to freaking do a 10 minute wikipedia search about the Balfour Agreement, and things like that. If he had, he would realize that international law can make a strong case for a unified Israel, and not a fictional "two state solution". I get it, I was there, I supported Israel emotively, but wondered about the international law issue, and now I have evolved, and I now know better. One need not be "religious" in any way to understand Israel has an historic and legal right to all her lands, including the "West Bank" and Gaza. These are the facts. So, in Israel, pressure on politicians must be made to support the so-called "settlements" in the West Bank, which is really just Israel claiming her basic rights, and in the US, we need to support politicians, of any party, who recognize this. I freely admit I am sort of a "centrist Democrat" and so am not a natural Palin supporter, but, frankly, some things are more important than tax or spending bills, which reasonable folks can have respectful disagreements upon, and one of those things is Israel, and even though I still consider myself a Democrat, honestly, I think Gov. Palin has more understanding about this issue than the current President, whom, I emphasize, is not a bad person, but perhaps is a bit misinformed. We need to peacefully and through political means, in both Israel and here in the US, to get the notion across that this concept of a "Palestinian state" is not only an affront to history, but is, if that were not bad enough, in violation of the League of Nations, of international law, despite what the misinformed media might tell one.
There is more to be said, in terms of practical, real-world ways to move the ball forward here, but this is already a rather lengthy post, and here I simply wanted to push back against the legal fiction of a "Palestinian state" the media has created. There are humanitarian issues here, of course, and I certainly do not condone, say, exiling Palestinian folks to other countries. There are rational solutions here, in an albeit difficult conundrum. I will hopefully follow up with some ideas there, to balance the need for a Jewish state, with a just and fair and humanitarian approach. Right now, I want to convey the notion that the so-called "two-state solution" is a legal fiction and this has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with history and international law.
For fun, and to close, here is the immortal Barbara Streisand singing Hatikvah, (the Israeli national anthem, the Hebrew word for "Hope"):
Lyrics:
Kol od balevav p'nimah
Nefesh Yehudi homiyah
Ulfa'atey mizrach kadimah
Ayin l'tzion tzofiyah
Od lo avdah tikvatenu
Hatikvah bat shnot alpayim
L'hiyot am chofshi b'artzenu
Eretz Tzion v'Yerushalayim
(In English:
As long as deep in the heart,
The soul of a Jew yearns,
And forward to the East
To Zion, an eye looks
Our hope will not be lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem. )
If we want peace in the middle east, we need to stick with what is right. As John Wayne says, "There is right and there is wrong. Ya gotta do one or the other." I will leave it there for now. Shalom.
0 comments:
Post a Comment