Past, Present, And Future

Arnold Toynbee, British historian (and well-known anti-semite: his most notable views expressed after the Holocaust were condemnations of Zionism and Israel for “the vicious disease of nationalism” and for committing atrocities on the Arabs, in addition to numerous references to “Judaic zealotry”) amazed by the longevity of the Jewish People, viewed it as anomalous. In volume 1 of A Study of History (1934), he wrote:

“There remains the case where victims of religious discrimination represent an extinct society which only survives as a fossil. .... by far the most notable is one of the fossil remnants of the Syriac Society, the Jews."

“Fossil” was one of the less pejorative terms Toynbee used, but Ezekial's prophecy was more accurate than Toynbee's history:

“I prophesied as I was commanded and the spirit entered them [the bones which represented Israel] and they revived. They rose on their feet, a very great multitude.”

That spirit has reentered the Jewish People, but the world is not happy about it.

Toynbee's bias, though shared by much of the world, was not universal. Eric Hoffer wrote,

“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Earlier, Mark Twain had written

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.”

“The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all [and] survived them all.”

And even earlier, our first (and arguably our greatest) President wrote of the Jew

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

But I am afraid.

Since its founding, the United States has had what can only be viewed as a sympathetic relationship with the State of Israel, and one that is mutually beneficial. And there has been a great deal of identification with Israel by the American public. In Gallup Polls, there has been a consistent preference shown by our citizens for Israel over the Palestinians, with the edge shown in 2013 as 64% to 12%.

Foreign policy, however, reflects the preferences of the President, rather than the people. During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration denied Jews on the St. Louis the opportunity to save their lives by entering the United States, and Roosevelt refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz – another course that would have saved Jewish Lives. On the other had, his successor, Harry Truman, recognized the State of Israel only a few minutes after it was proclaimed.

When Israel, in response to the request of Britain and France, joined in the effort to retake the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it, President Eisenhower threatened sanctions. But more recent Presidents have been increasingly sympathetic to Israel and have supported it. As Lord Palmerston said, however, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” In our country, those “interests” are decided on by the President, and our current President has decided that it is in our interest to side with Israel's enemies. As the President's Secretary of State put it, "We are gathered here because our leaders made a courageous decision to stop being prisoners of history." He spoke of Cuba, but it has been a hallmark of this administration to ignore past principles and seek “courageous decisions” which the President hopes will form a heritage for him. Agreements with Iran and other tyrannies in the Middle East, he feels, are among the “permanent interests” of our country. Our people's views and our history are irrelevant. Whether or not that history is principled, it is now inconvenient.

Perhaps the policy reflects his personal worldview, or perhaps it reflects a changing world – one in which the Muslim population, already very large, is increasing faster than others, a world in which there is extensive anti-Israel sentiment everywhere (especially among academics and their students), where antisemitism, one the world's few constants, is increasing in strength, as is the need for oil.

Our adherence to Palmerston's philosophy, however, is likely to make our other “friends” and “allies” nervous, since we have demonstrated that we place expedience over principle; we can't be trusted. And if Israel cannot rely on its most trusted ally, I am worried.

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.