The Anniversary

Today is November 29^th, 2014. It is the 67^th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's approval of “Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine.” Included in that resolution was provision for the establishment of “[i]ndependent Arab and Jewish States.” It called for a “Jewish” state. The United Nations General Assembly authorized the formation of a Jewish state.

The Jewish government-in-formation accepted the plan, although there were some who felt that by doing so they gave away some land that should have been part of a new state, since it had been ordained by G-d to be theirs. The “Arab” statesⁱ unanimously rejected any division, with the view that any Jewish state in their region was unacceptable.

For its entire historyⁱⁱ the State of Israel has been under attack by its neighbors, and by the world at large. In 1947 a majority of the UN may have approved the formation of a Jewish state, and in 1949, based in part on a recommendation of the Security Council, it may have admitted Israel to membership,ⁱⁱⁱ but the Arab nations have taught their children that Israel and the Jews are their enemy and that it is their^iv obligation to give their lives to destroy “the sons of pigs and monkeys.” And, benefiting from their numbers and from their oil, they have launched an extensive campaign^v to isolate and destroy Israel. The world has funded this effort with its contribution of billions of dollars, ostensibly for the improvement of the lives of the Palestinian people, but somehow not finding its way into that work.^vi The work the Palestinian officials do is far more important.

It is of interest that there is much concern among the nations that Israel may define itself as what the United Nations sought to form: a Jewish State. According to Wikipedia, “A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.” It lists twenty-one countries as Islamic.^vii There are also several with one variety or other of Christianity defining them or with Buddhism as the state religion, and this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. But Israel's claim is racist and a cause for outrage around the world. One Jewish state is too many.

It doesn't seem likely that there will be resolution of the problem in the near future – if ever. A few million people in a tiny land, however dominant they may be militarily at this time, cannot hope to prevail forever. Even if Israel were to find a substitute for oil^viii it would still have only one vote against dozens of Islamic states, and those states would be courted by the world's nations; and even if Israel could mount an informational campaign to illustrate the falsity of the accusations against it, there would be countless people who would continue to believe and spread the libels. It would take Israel's demise, and that of all Jews, with the world's problems continuing, to make it clear that in reality there are other causes which they are ignoring. But by that time it will be too late, and they will still believe that somehow or other the Jews were the cause of the troubles. Unfortunately, there is no obvious answer. Unless ...

Billions support them. All we need is One.

I        For the most part they are led and peopled by Muslims, but there are a few others as well.

ii       And before. Of course prior to 1948, when the state was declared, the aim of annihilation was directed at the Jews in general – by the Christians and the Muslims. That aim has, since the Holocaust, and since overt anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion, been directed against Israel. At least nominally.

iii      “Admission of Israel to the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), 11 May 1949”

iv       Primarily Muslims.

v        In the media, in public and political fora, on college campuses (including both faculty and students), among church leadership, and in those in whom they recognize the existence or potential for anti-Semitism.

vi       Much of it seems to have disappeared, so Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are seeking additional funding from nations around the world.

vii     The Organisation [sic] of Islamic Cooperation, which considers itself "the collective voice of the Muslim world,” comprises 57 member states. Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Pakistan are officially “Islamic Republics,” and others limit participation in any substantive aspect of public life of any but Muslims.

viii    And I suspect it will. Israel is a modern technological island in the middle of an area focused on the medieval era and its practices.

Here We Go Again

 

Every four years or so the President, whoever he is, makes a well-publicized effort to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. It usually takes place at the beginning of a presidential election cycle and is designed to show determination to solve a problem with which he has either not dealt since the last election, or failed at solving earlier. It is a political move designed to show his involvement in world affairs and his determination to solve one of the world's most heralded crises, and it is a move intended to garner votes for himself and his party. After the election and the inevitable failure of the effort, it becomes of lesser importance.

That is the background for this past weekend's flurry of activity by President Obamaⁱ and the immediate rejection of his stand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The demand by the President, one to which Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot accede, is for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on the 1949 truce borders.ⁱⁱ He fears that such borders would be “indefensible.” During the period that preceded the 1967 war there was constant harassment of Israeli farmers from the Golan as well as incitement from elsewhere.

But that was more than four decades ago. Weapons are better now – both military arms and political propaganda – and harassment and incitement have turned to aggression and murder. There is constant rocket attack from Gaza, which Israel gave to the Palestinians in the hope of peace – a hope that was quickly discredited. There is the likelihood that the Palestinians will secure from an ineffectual and fearful UN a declaration of “statehood.” It will be the statehood of a power sworn to destroy another UN member.

And, not surprisingly, there is now a threat from Egypt that its new government will scrap an existing treaty with Israel – a “peace” treaty for which Israel gave up the Sinai and its oil fields. The abrogation of treaties, however, is not new to Islam, dating back to 630 when Muhammad attacked and took Medina in violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he had made with the Quraysh in 628. There is a religious rationalization of this position since it is based on a general Islamic concept of Taqiya, lying to those whom you consider your enemies, and there is also a lesser form, Kitman, in which deception involves telling only part of the truth. Thus Israel is wary since it is, at best, risky to enter into any agreement with those who hold such beliefs, and even more so to do so when your “partners in peace” refuse to recognize you and vow your destruction.

That, however, is what President Obama asks Israel to do.ⁱⁱⁱ He feels that Israel should take some “risks” for peace. Use the old borders for a start and trust the Palestinians to agree to a fair bargain and a mutually acceptable two state solution. The President is intent on showing America's respect for Islam and the Arab countries, even though those nations don't trust the United States and would be happy to see our country's power and culture crushed. The contention is often made that you must negotiate and conclude peace agreements with your enemies, not your friends, but doing so – loving your enemy – is not synonymous with hating and sacrificing your friends.

The world calls for a two state solution in the Middle East, one that would include a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Indeed, from the perspective of international powers bent on accommodation of the Palestinians, division of Jerusalem – Ir Shalom, the City of Peace – makes sense – at least the public demand for it. I wonder, however, how successful the world's experience has been with divided cities. My recollection of places like Berlin, and of Jerusalem during the time of its division suggests that this is a sure road to failure. And has there ever been a city that was the capital of two different – and warring – nations?^iv If so, how did that work out? We are cautioned to remember history, and not to repeat its mistakes. The Middle East is no place to experiment, especially in the name of cynical politics.

There are those who would eliminate Israel; many who deny the occurrence of the Holocaust; and some who disingenuously deny any relationship between the Jews and Jerusalem (or "Palestine"). There are those who hold the Jews (Israel) responsible for all the problems in the Middle East, or even the world. Some claim anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. That's true in theory, but most "anti-Zionists" use that label as a justification for anti-Semitism.

The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the upcoming Durban clone^v are certain to attract the attention of the media and, through them, the public. As to whether the questions raised are themselves legitimate, there can be much debate. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention paid to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights.^vi There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Syria should exist. Like Israel it is a creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself. But there is a dearth of critical thinking and discussion by other countries; no criticism of those neighbors as the real causes of unrest in the area. Only the rush to blame it all on Israel.

And that is basis for the current situation. Sadly, rather than take a firm stand based on America's principles, President Obama is using his “bully pulpit” to give the appearance of strength as he demonstrates his weakness. Like so many other nations he is yielding to the demands of the region's tyrannies. Perhaps he views it as being in America's interests. Perhaps he considers it good politics. But, as the saying goes, it's bad policy. It's a sure recipe for the distrust of any nation with which we have a treaty.

Presidential politics can take a terrible toll.

 

i     That and the current turmoil in the Middle East. The turmoil, in many nations, demonstrates that the causative problems have nothing to do with Israel – only to the difficulties in those countries themselves. All of the accusations that Zionism is responsible for all their problems was meant to distract their own citizens from the tyrannies that controlled them and the deplorable conditions which they had to suffer.

ii    They are described as the 1967 borders to make them sound more contemporary and to suggest that the 1967 War is the source of all the current disagreements.

iii    Israel is certain to mistrust the Arab nations and anticipate violation of any agreement with them. But it is sad that she cannot rely on a commitment of the United States. In 2004 President Bush stated that the truce lines now being promoted could not serve as the basis for any peace negotiations. If America renounces her commitment not to use “the armistice lines of 1949” as a basis for such negotiations – a position supported by then Senator Hillary Clinton – how can Israel rely on any other nation to honor any promises to her? After all, if the United States, a “friend,” doesn't have to live up to commitments to Israel, why should anyone else. And, for that matter, why should anyone live up to any commitments to the United States?

iv    A period when the destruction of synagogues may have been important, but none of the Arab powers gave any thought to the city as capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, no interest was even displayed in the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Arabs held large parts of the country, including much of Jerusalem. Only when Israel ruled the area did they discover that there was a Palestinian people and a land they should rule.

v     Scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York. It's nominally a conference on “racism” but, like the UN in general, it seems to have as its main goal the discrediting of Israel.

vi    These are usually passed off as internal affairs which should be of no concern to “outsiders.” Israel, on the other hand, …

International Politics As Usual

 

There's no such thing as Right and Wrong in politics. It's always been that way. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

There is no place for morality. The accomplishment of particular ends, the achievement of specific goals, has always superseded any consideration of means. Truth gives way to philosophy. That's the more important criterion. Fact yields to spin; information to innuendo; criticism to cynicism. Whatever it takes. It's not how you play the game – it's whether you win or lose. There is no middle ground. Ideological purity is more important than agreement.

There was a time when compromise was viewed as a method for reaching a reasonable and satisfactory result – one which gave all those with different views the opportunity to claim victory. Politics was described as “the art of the possible.” We now live in an age of extreme sports and, sadly, politics has become the most extreme of the blood sports. Sometimes compromises are reached, but only after cut-throat bargaining. Cooperative give and take has evolved into brinkmanship and campaigning. Too often parties enter into negotiations with a goal not of solving a problem for their constituents, but of claiming a position, and creating an issue for the next election.

Not only is all fair in love and war,ⁱ but the same is true in politics. Rumor, spying, and “dirty tricks” have become staples of the form. Winning is everything. It's not hypocrisy; it's hardball.

If local and national politics are savage, however, the international form of the art is even rougher. Diplomatic cocktail parties may have all the trappings of civility, but international law is merely the law of the jungle in tails and striped pants. Reality yields to realpolitik. The survival of the fittest is the rule that governs decisions. And nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the Middle East – in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel.

The arguments for and against Israel are coming to an end. We're reaching the end game. The Muslim world, indeed the world, supports a Palestinian state, and it is likely to be declared by the UN in September. Israel may not survive, but that is not the primary consideration. The UN giveth, the UN taketh away. No negotiations. No compromises. No concessions by the Palestinians, only by Israel.

There are about 1.7 billion Muslims alive and only about 14 million Jews – many of whom choose not to identify with Judaism – in an already antisemitic world. And the birth rate is much higher among the Muslims than the Jews. According to Muslims, the Jews, less than one tenth of one percent of their numbers, somehow are dominating them. Right, wrong, and logic are irrelevant. Everyone loves a winner, and if numbers, and control of oil, are the marks of a winner, the Muslims are way ahead. No matter what concessions Israel makes, they will not be enough. They will only be starting points. The Palestinians will demand an unprecedented “right of return” recognizing that this would certainly end the viability of a Jewish state.ⁱⁱ The world's politicians are smart enough to know this, so arguing the point is silly. The nations claim that they are simply demanding fair treatment for the weak, without acknowledging that the Palestinians and the Muslims are not weak, except to the degree that their condition is caused by their fellows. The nations actually favor the strong, using the “weak” as a smokescreen. They expect the Muslims to be the ultimate winners and they want to be on the winning side.

But there's more to it than that. Much as Israel's enemies claim that anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism, their argument is unconvincing. Many of their justifications center on the claimed flaws of “the Jews.” And those who disagree with them are usually accused of playing the “antisemitism card.”

Unfortunately, antisemitism is a large part of the equation. In ancient times people looked forward to a time when nation would not lift up sword against nation. At that time the battles were between nations.ⁱⁱⁱ With the development of Christianity, and the need of new Christians to distance themselves from their former heritage, it became useful to scorn and denigrate that heritage – to defame Judaism itself. And antisemitism was born. In recent years there has been an effort on the part of many Christians to atone for this sin – to honor that heritage even if they expect someday to replace it – but the cudgel was taken up by the Muslims and has been magnified greatly in recent years. Indeed, there are some Muslims who goad Christians by claiming that the Jews have caused great harm to Christianity and that an alliance between Muslims and Christians against the Jews is justified.^iv So if there are problems in the world – and there are – the Jews must be to blame. That has been the claim for many years concerning every crisis in the Middle East. If it was not caused directly by Israel (read: the Jews), it resulted from the resentment of the humiliation and oppression that Israel imposed on the Palestinians. Turmoil around the world in recent years, especially that in the Middle East, is of no concern to the world's diplomats unless a way can be found to fault Israel. They close their eyes to anything else. If genocides occur among Christians, Animists, or Muslims, they are of no import if they cannot be blamed on Israel.

And who can blame them? It is their job, and possibly their passion, to look to the best interests of their homelands. Morality is not an issue. As Lord Palmerston said, “There are neither eternal allies nor eternal enemies. Only interests are eternal.” The interests of the nations are on their own survival and their ability to provide for their own people – the voters in the case of democracies.^v Times change and, perhaps, over time, eternal interests will be seen differently, when oil, numbers, bribery, and threats carry less weight. But not now. And it's time Israel recognized this and dealt with it.

One of the important threads in Judaism is faith. Have trust in G-d. He will save the Jews. It will all work out in the end, when the Messiah comes.^vi But not everyone is content to suffer injustice while waiting.

There is another view in tension with the wait and see attitude. According to the Talmud, “We do not rely on a miracle.”^vii Whatever will happen in the future, we must deal with the present. And perhaps there is still time. While the world is too embarrassed to abandon Israel entirely, a treaty is advisable. Maybe even possible. So the solution for Israel? Cop a plea. Deal while you can. It won't be easy, but the conditions can be limited and presented as a final offer – not as a starting point for further negotiations. Give^viii the Palestinians Judea and Samaria; build an island in the Mediterranean for them with an airport and a sea port off Gaza – perhaps in exchange for some land like cities built in the land being surrendered; allow the establishment of a Palestinian capital in some Arab neighborhoods outside the Old City. But in exchange there should be an end to the claim of a “right of return” that would turn Israel into another Palestinian state, and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Although as many Jews as Muslims were displaced in 1948, the likelihood of the Jews receiving any compensation is nil, but they should not lose their new country after being expelled from the old. And security should be assured. Indeed, if Israel is attacked again by the Palestinians or one of their surrogates, any treaty would be invalidated, and if Israel prevails there should be no expectation of easy or quick return of captured land without significant concessions.

Of course a treaty is only a sheet of paper and it wouldn't be a surprise if it is broken,^ix so preparations for the next round would have to begin immediately. It's not inevitable, but it's likely. So Israel will have to accept a treaty even though they must prepare for even worse problems. Not because it is fair. It isn't. Not because it is just. That's certainly not the case. But because it is possible, or it may be possible, to win a few years of normalcy. And politics – local or international – is the art of the possible. There is little choice. All Israel can do is have faith, but she can't wait for miracles.

And she should pray.

Next episode: "Two For The Price Of One?" – Multitasking and chewing gum.

i      Helen, Paris, and their horse attest to that.

ii     It is the goal of the Muslims, openly expressed, that Israel not exist. Hamas has been the loudest advocate of this point of view, but there is a widespread view that any Jewish State on “Muslim land” is intolerable.

iii    It was a national, not a religious issue.

iv    Such an alliance, however, should leave the Muslims in charge and the Christians as tolerated subjects.

v     And, of course, the interests of national leaders and of politicians at all levels, are in themselves – in power, their egos, their legacies, and the more mundane benefits of office.

vi    The Naturei Karta, and similar groups, are Jews who oppose the State of Israel and believe that until that time – when the Messiah comes – there should not be such a state.

vii    Pesachim, 64b. Statement of Raba.

viii    Not return. It's really part of Israel.

ix    More likely, it won't even be accepted. As much as the Arab states claim they want peace, the presence of a Jewish state in their midst is an affront which they will probably not countenance. Hamas has certainly taken this position publicly, and the possibility of the approval of a treaty by the Palestinian Authority is remote. Yassar Arafat denied any connection of Jews with the land and that is hardly a confidence-building start.