Washington — As the Obama administration deepens its outreach to the Muslim and Arab world, it faces the difficult task of countering Holocaust denial without reinforcing an increasingly popular anti-Zionist narrative that ties the legitimacy of the State of Israel to Jewish suffering in Europe.
And as discussion of the Holocaust becomes more widespread, so does the argument heard from Tehran to Gaza that while Europeans were responsible for atrocities against Jews, it is the Palestinians who are paying the price.
“Discussing the Holocaust and learning its lessons have become an integral part of global culture, and therefore, to a certain extent, the Arabs feel they are on the defensive,” said Esther Webman, research fellow of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, at Tel Aviv University. “That’s why we see in recent years an increase in Arab rhetoric tying the Holocaust to the Palestinian hardship.”
It was into this minefield that President Obama stepped June 4, when he delivered his anticipated speech to the Muslim world from Cairo.
“America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable,” Obama said in his speech. “It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”
Obama’s seemingly supportive statement was, in the eyes of some pro-Israel activists, insensitive at best, or even biased. “It sounds as if he is buying into the Arab narrative,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
Foxman was quick to issue a statement in which he accused Obama of making an “egregious error which plays into the hands of the most extreme elements of the radical Muslim world.” The error, Foxman said, was in implicitly asserting that Israel’s legitimacy is based on the suffering of the Jewish people’s “tragic history” and not on their historic ties to the Land of Israel. Obama’s choice of words and his decision to mention only the Holocaust as a reason for the creation of the State of Israel “gave fodder to the many in the Arab world who argue against the legitimacy of Israel,” Foxman said.
Researchers believe that viewing the Holocaust as the sole reason for the creation of the State of Israel and the subsequent Nakba — what the Palestinians call their “catastrophe” — date back to the years after Israel’s 1948 independence. As those views have become more prevalent, there also has been a shift in the Arab world, from “hard” Holocaust denial (totally denying the systematic murder of Jews, as done by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to a “soft” denial that questions facts about the Holocaust and argues that the Jews are cynically using its memory to justify the occupation of Palestinian land.
“Historically, this is not true,” said Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, who has written extensively on the issue. “The State of Israel would have come to being even without the Holocaust. It was a result of 30 years of intensive work by the Zionist movement.”
Still, Segev believes that Israel shares some blame for perpetuating the myth of a state that “rose from the ashes of the Holocaust.”
Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum argues that the narrative of tying the creation of Israel to the Holocaust has “certain plausibility,” since international support for the Jewish homeland increased after the end of World War II. But Berenbaum agrees with Segev that Israelis themselves bear some responsibility for helping this notion take root.
“How do they want Obama to deny this narrative when the Israelis have done it themselves?” Berenbaum asked. “The Israelis send warplanes from Jerusalem to fly over Auschwitz, and then they claim there is no relationship between the two?”
The assertion of a causal relationship between the murder of Europe’s Jews and the creation of the Jewish state has sparked a renewed debate in Israel, as well.
“In the heat of debate with Holocaust deniers, sometimes this mistake is repeated,” wrote Eli Eyal, editor of the World Zionist Organization’s Kivunim Chadashim (Hebrew for “New Directions”), a magazine on Zionism and Judaism. He argued that David Ben-Gurion understood the problems that could rise from linking the Jewish national revival to the Holocaust and deliberately chose not to mention the link in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.
Obama’s speech alone did not spark this debate; there has been growing international awareness that the Arab world is the last enclave in which Holocaust denial is on the rise.
A recent poll conducted by Haifa University found that 40% of Israeli Arabs believe the Holocaust never happened. This is a dramatic increase compared with 28% two years ago, and especially notable, since those surveyed were educated in the Israeli system, which puts great emphasis on Shoah studies. “My explanation is that it is completely a political issue,” said Webman, who is also a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. “What stands behind this approach is an attempt to undermine Israel’s legitimacy.”
Obama’s remarks on Holocaust denial — he called it “baseless, ignorant, and hateful” — were widely criticized in Arab blogs. As’ad AbuKhalil, a visiting professor at University of California, Berkley, wrote in his blog, Angry Arab: “What is his point here: That because of Nazi crimes, the Palestinians need to accommodate Zionist crimes on their land?”
The argument that Palestinians are “paying the price” for Jewish suffering during the Holocaust also has been echoed in statements by left-wing groups throughout Europe; some Germans have argued that their nation now carries a moral burden of taking care of the Palestinians, since their suffering has derived from the Nazi-era crimes against Jews.
Activists on the right also point frequently to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as one of those responsible for spreading Holocaust denial in the Arab world. Abbas, in a 1984 research paper written at the Moscow Oriental College, questioned the existence of gas chambers and suggested that the number of Jews murdered was not more than 1 million. After Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization engaged in negotiations, however, Abbas said, “Today I would not have made such remarks.” In a 2003 interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, he added, “The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it.”
Another contentious issue is equating Jewish suffering during the Holocaust with current Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation. In his Cairo speech, Obama spoke emphatically about the need to recognize Nazi crimes against Jews and to fight anti-Jewish stereotypes used in the Arab world. “On the other hand,” he added, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” The term “on the other hand” drew criticism from supporters of Israel, who saw it as equating the Holocaust with the occupation. “How dare Obama compare Arab refugee suffering to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust?” Israeli right-wing lawmaker Aryeh Eldad asked after the speech.
Berenbaum argues that while the debate over “who suffered more” is legitimate, it is not helpful. “What makes suffering suffering is that it is personal,” he said. “Everyone feels his suffering is the worst.”
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
The Mirror in the Mikveh
If Rabbis Are Allowed To Intermarry, Get Ready for the Non-Jewish Rabbi
Top 10 Badass Mah Jongg Jews
You've successfully signed up!
It is becoming tiresome for the wold to see pro Israeli forces harping on that only the Jews have suffered most.And this should absolve Isreal from any accounting of its contnuing war crimes in Palestine and beyond!
Why should the Palestinians hav to pay for the sufferings of jews inflicted by Europe! Some body asked Golda Meir how the Israelis could do such horendous acts when they themselves gon through it! Her reply was because it was done to us so we do now! And they expect Arab world to let them!
The Holocaust was not merely a European event -- it was a global event, involving nations and peoples on several continents. Hitler's intention was to murder the Jews in North Africa and the Middle East as well as across the European continent. And he had allies on several continents, including in North Africa and the Middle East.
The effort to segregate the Holocaust as "European" and thus to say the Arab world pays the price of distant European events won't work. Some in the Arab world were implicated in those events. Some in the Arab world were implicated in the British retreat from Jewish immigration during the Mandate. The existence of a Jewish community in the Middle East before and during the war naturally led to pressures in the wake of the Holocaust to provide a haven and recognize a Jewish state there.
The whole question is not either or -- the Holocaust led to the founding of Israel, the Zionist settlement led to the founding of Israel. Both did.
Palestine,oh,Palestine. Thy missiles ever coming. Landing on our homes and soil, but thats OK,we're not running. Historically,Israel has been in conflict since its beginning with one group of people or another.Terrorists and yes our dear innocent Palestinians seek the total destruction of the Jews. I guess you ,my dear friend are on the side of the poor oppressed Arabs.Not to mention ,oh by the way,Arab,nations live 500 years behind the Israelites in most everything. Israel only wants to live as a nation,IN PEACE. Perhaps,you need to live for one year in both situatons,bet your point of view would change in a week. But God bless you for your concern for all the mistreated Arabs. Hold onto your head though, it could find a pole in some Islamic country.
What war crimes??? Israel has had every peace offering rejected. For unilaterally leaving Gaza, they are rewarded with thousands of rockets launched at their cities. And if you want to quote Golda Meir -- at least give the context of your quote! -- try this one:
We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours. Golda Meir, to Anwar Saddat just before the peace talks.
Now that we have more access to Russian, Polish, and Soviet archives, any discussion of the Holocaust is completely inappropriate unless contextualized by the history of at least the last 150 years of ethnic Ashkenazi financial crimes, sabotage, radical violence, targeted assassinations, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-holocaust-and-ashkenazi.html .
Palestinians were active participants in the Holocaust. Hajj Amin el Husseini organized the Hanjar (Scimitar) divisions of the SS, which directed the extermination of Yugoslav Jewry. When the Nazis failed to convince Bosnian Imams to religiously sanction Jew killing, and they refused, the Nazis had to rely on Palestinian imams for more favorable opinions. The Palestinians are paying the price for their own participation in the Holocaust
Thank you for this article, pointing out what should be obvious. Israel was created pursuant to international law, through the Jewish people's exercise of its right to self-determination as those terms are defined by law. The Holocaust had nothing to do with it. It is a pity that this need be pointed out, but you are correct that many treat the creation of Israel as though it were created as an extra-legal haven for sufferers. Israel may have had that effect, but that is certainly not the reason for Israel.
This "The error, Foxman said, was in implicitly asserting that Israel’s legitimacy is based on the suffering of the Jewish people’s “tragic history” and not on their historic ties to the Land of Israel." is an extraordinarily subtle point that is difficult for those outside the debate to grasp. I must confess I had not thought of it. It is not surprising that those who crafted Obama's speech might not have either. My thought is that understanding of the holocaust is important for Arab understanding of the founding of Israel, but, of course, the point is well taken that where, if not Palestine, a Jewish homeland could be?
I was reading the other day that the Nazis had prepared einsatzgruppe departments for the UK and for Africa. The einsaztgruppen were special groups that followed just behind the Wehrmacht in the initial Russian Campaign, tasked with liquidating as many Jews as possible. They killed 1.5 million people Jews before the idea of a death camp was conceived. Einsatzgruppe Africa was an administrative unit tasked with organizing plans for the liquidation of Jewish communities in Egypt & Palestine, following close upon Rommels forces, in their expected imminent conquest of Cairo and Jerusalem.
My point, echoing Ken's comment, is that the Holocaust was global Jewish tragedy. People who say Israel would not exist without WWII (and therefore the Palestinians tragedy would not have happened) miss the greater point that Israel almost *didn't* happen because of WWII. Had the Holocaust not happened, Israel would still have been created, albeit not as soon. As a fair exchange, I would rather have Israel's birth delayed by 10 years, but have the 6 million murdered still living - both Israel and the global Jewish community would be in much better circumstances.
Incidentally, much of Palestinians is inflicted on them by the UN and uncaring Arab host countries, who would prefer to attack Israel rather than take care of the refugees.
The state of Israel's legitimacy rests in natural rights doctrine: Jews have a right to govern themselves no more no less than any other people. Israel requires no more justification than any other state, in that philosophical sense. It is a mark of the double-standard to which both Jews and non-Jews hold Israel that the Jewish right to self-government is so often ignored, minimized, or opposed.
Our Community Organizer-In-Chief, Obama, may be more eloquent that his predecessor but his mis-statements of historical fact are becoming distrubingly frequent.
In the recent Cairo speech, Obama's historical allusions were even more suspect. Almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete. He suggested that today's Middle East tension was fed by the legacy of European colonialism and the Cold War that had reduced nations to proxies.
But the great colonizers of the Middle East were the Ottoman Muslims, who for centuries ruled with an iron fist. The 20th-century movements of Baathism, Pan-Arabism and Nasserism — largely homegrown totalitarian ideologies — did far more damage over the last half-century to the Middle East than the legacy of European colonialism.
Obama also claimed that "Islam … carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." While medieval Islamic culture was impressive and ensured the survival of a few classical texts — often through the agency of Arabic-speaking Christians — it had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values. Europeans, Chinese and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation.
Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects of Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe
Obama also insisted that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition." Yet the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; by then Cordoba had long been re-conquered by Spanish Christians, and was governed as a staunchly Christian city.
In reference to Iraq, President Obama promised that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." Is he unaware of how the United States imposed democracies after World War II?
After the defeat of German Nazism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism, Americans — by force — insisted that these nations adopt democratic governments, for their own sakes and the world's. Indeed, it is hard to think of too many democratic governments that did not emerge from violence — including our own.
Obama also stated: "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights."
With all due respect to our president, this assertion is again not fully accurate. The only thing that ended slavery in the United States was the Civil War, which saw some 600,000 Americans — the vast majority of them white — lost in a violent struggle to ensure that nearly half the country would not remain a slave-owning society. Also, the massive urban riots of the 1960s and 1970s were certainly violent.
This list of distortions could be easily expanded. President Obama, in elegant fashion, may casually invoke the means of politically correct history for the higher ends of contemporary reconciliation. But it is a bad habit. Eloquence and good intentions exempt no one from the truth of the past — President Obama included.
Zionists were the first to exploit the Holocaust (while treating its survivors with disdain and contempt) in order to further their own agenda, namely the founding of a Jewish State in Mandatory Palestine. They started during the war and haven't stopped yet, but are quite willing to deny they are doing anything at all when it suits them.
Given that facts are stubborn things it is small wonder that Palestinians might be asking just what in God's name did we have to do with it? If indeed one is to take the position, as some do on this post, that the Palestinians are only reaping what a few of them sowed, then one must also apply the same reasoning to the Zionists who shamelessly collaborated with the Third Reich from 1933 to 1941, subverting the worldwide anti-Nazi boycott and thus saving Hitler's goose (Read "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black), openly siding with the Nazis against the British while the war was still in question, to say nothing of their scuttling every rescue attempt that did not lead straight to Palestine, and the betrayal of the Hungarian Jews. If the Palestinians must pay continue to pay for the sins of el Husseini against the Jews then what must the Zionists pay for their own far greater crimes against their co-religionists?
More important than the argument of historical ties or a requital for suffering is the religious belief that G-d granted Israel to the Jewish people, as we learn from the Bible. This is our faith, for the devout and those who relate to Jewishness from a completely secular perspective. We assert our belief that we are entitled to this patch of land in the Middle East, including Jerusalem, just as Moslems refer to their religion in denying our right. As an old New York Mets slogan used to say, you just gotta believe.
"Palestinians were active participants in the Holocaust. Hajj Amin el Husseini organized the Hanjar (Scimitar) divisions of the SS, which directed the extermination of Yugoslav Jewry. The Palestinians are paying the price for their own participation in the Holocaust"
Also Americans such as Prescott Bush or Thomas Watson were active participants in the Holocaust. In fact, America sent boats back to concentration camps. Do you think that does justify killing American children today or is there a different standard for Americans?
When discussing the problems of the Palestinians, why is it never mentioned that the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, called for the establishment of two states in Palestine--one Jewish (Israel) and one Palestinian. Had these Palestinian Arab leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the UN resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place. They left their homes to push the Jews into the sea. The Arab states fighting Israel promised the Palestinian people they would be able to return to their homes in a few days once Israel was defeated.
During the Lebanon War of 2006, when Congress wanted to show support for Israel's overwhelming use of force, Rep. Gary Ackerman began his floor speech with talk about the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. When talk turns to Iran, or any number of other Israeli adversaries there is always talk of the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. Every foreign dignitary that passes through Jerusalem seems to pay respects at Yad Vashem in a photo op ceremony with Israeli officials. Plainly, the Holocaust is always put front and center when looking for allies, so to complain when it doesn't quite fit the script is rather disengenuous.
If "natural rights", or "historic ties", or "self determination" is the issue, there is also the issue of others living in the Jewish homeland whose homeland it is too. But when push comes to shove, it is always the Holocaust because everything else opens a can of worms.
It's Israel's fault that it's legitimacy is constantly being questioned because it never refers to the decision of the Council of League of Nations in 1920, implemented by the Mandate in 1922, that ruled that the Jewish National Home is in Palestine, and which gave Jews the RIGHT to return and settle "wastelands" and former Ottoman state lands, as well as any private lands sold to the Zionist land purchasing agencies, e.g., the Jewish National Fund. It is unfortunate that relatively few Jews took advantage and immigrated during the interwar years, and that Arab population exploded in the interim, thanks in part of the improved health and investments in the country. It is unfortunate that it took a Holocaust to prove to many skeptical Jews that they could not count on most host nations or the kindness of strangers to shield them from harm. Thankfully, Nazi armies never made it to the shores of America, because I doubt American Jews would have fared any better under such circumstances. Israel needs to promote a world wide education program that fully elaborates the LEGAL basis of the Jewish state, rather than this constantly morbid reference to the Great Jewish Massacre to justify its existence. The Holocaust is not the reason why the State of Israel exists, rather proof that Jews cannot really call any other place home. Because more often than not, it proves to be self-delusory.
The Biblical argument always makes me cringe, reminding me of some pro-lifer insisting the fetus is a human being. It makes me wonder what the Canananite God El might have thought, had his people not been eradicated. It makes me think that perhaps the people of Ai need a holocaust museum in remembrance of Joshua's genocide. To me, morally, the holocaust was a necessary if not sufficient precondition for Israel's success, and remains so today. As an old line Zionist going back to the Stern gang and Irgun, I'm more than proud that the land of Israel was won by Jewish arms. Were Israel's existence threatened, I would go and fight myself. Yet I believe this involves 2 wrongs. Arabs have a very authentic case for Palestine being Arab land. 13 centuries is not to be sneezed at. My choice of wrongs is clear. Israel is there. I will fight to keep it there. Yet I fear there will never be peace. Historical memory in the Middle East lasts a long, long time. So be it.
During the Lebanon War of 2006, when Congress wanted to show support for Israel's overwhelming use of force, Rep. Gary Ackerman began his floor speech with talk about the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. When talk turns to Iran, or any number of other Israeli adversaries there is always talk of the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. Every foreign dignitary that passes through Jerusalem seems to pay respects at Yad Vashem in a photo op ceremony with Israeli officials. Plainly, the Holocaust is always put front and center when looking for allies, so to complain when it doesn't quite fit the script is rather disengenuous.
If "natural rights", or "historic ties", or "self determination" is the issue, there is also the issue of others living in the Jewish homeland whose homeland it is too. But when push comes to shove, it is always the Holocaust because everything else opens a can of worms.
During the Lebanon War of 2006, when Congress wanted to show support for Israel's overwhelming use of force, Rep. Gary Ackerman began his floor speech with talk about the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. When talk turns to Iran, or any number of other Israeli adversaries there is always talk of the Holocaust past and a holocaust future. Every foreign dignitary that passes through Jerusalem seems to pay respects at Yad Vashem in a photo op ceremony with Israeli officials. Plainly, the Holocaust is always put front and center when looking for allies, so to complain when it doesn't quite fit the script is rather disengenuous.
If "natural rights", or "historic ties", or "self determination" is the issue, there is also the issue of others living in the Jewish homeland whose homeland it is too. But when push comes to shove, it is always the Holocaust because everything else opens a can of worms.
Alan Goldstein claims that it is disingenuous to point out that Israel is the result of the exercise of rights under international law -- in particular, article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- and not of the Holocaust, on the grounds that there exist people who refer to the Holocaust "when looking for allies". This argument is both illogical and confused. Among other things, it confuses legality with marketing.
The same confusion is present among those who assert a Torah origin for the State of Israel. It is certainly true that Jews, as a group, have our own beliefs and opinions as to our history and culture, and even our own system of law. The same is true of many other groups, be they the Armenians, the Han Chinese, the Greeks, and so forth. The myths of all of these groups, including us as Jews, is surely what motivates us to take up our right as a people. Yet the right we take up in the international community is not that granted us by Jewish law -- which is only what motivates us and binds us as amongst ourselves -- but, rather that granted by international law. That is why the Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel) should not be mistaken for Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel). The former is a modern nation-state. The latter is the land of our historical memory. The two coexist as utterly separate concepts, except among those unable to grasp the distinction between them.
Alan Goldman adds that, if "self determination" is the issue -- "historic ties" goes to the location in which self-determination is to be exercised; "natural rights" is a silly theory which motivates some who analyze the international law providing for self-determination -- there is also the issue of others living in the Jewish homeland whose homeland it is too.
Indeed. This is common of most nation-states, from Kyrgyzstan to Korea to Ireland to Iran. However, it is perverse to think that, uniquely in Israel's case, the issue of the collective rights of national minorities should somehow throw into question Israel's existence in a way it does not do for Poland, Portugal, Egypt or East Timor.
Politicization and particularization of the Holocaust into the private cover over the EYES OF MANKIND so Israelis can exterminate from the air the Palestinians as if vermin, using their expensive and lethal war toys provided as "a gift of the American people," is criminal because it takes a precious nightmare in history that belongs to us all, for we are all guilty of letting it happen-- including the Zionists, some of whom had a marriage of convenience (in some cases even admiration for) with the Nazis and also the American Jews who were self-serving silent when FDR send German Jews back to Hitler. The Holocaust is a lesson to mankind which we still cannot fully appreciate in terms of what it sais about ALL OF US because it has been appropriated by the Holocaust Industry, producing a darkening of the lessons so Israel can feel free to expand through firepower in the dark. Israel's legitimacy, nevertheless, is not in question. A generation or two of Sabras were born there and know no other homeland. But the myth that because of the Holocaust Jews must have a homeland is absurd since most Jews are Diasporics who think Israel a nice place to visit but wouldn't want to live there. Sharon's insistence that all Jews who do not return in a Great Aliyah by 2020 will lose their Jewish souls fell flat, as can be seen from his surrender of Gaza to avoid a "demographic problem." I think it would be far better to make Israel a smaller and safer Jewish nation for Israelis and, though smaller that the originally intended massive spread, it will integrate into the Middle East and will lead the Arabs from their banana republic one crop economic misery into sci/tech modernization, guided by the Israelis, then staying in the Mideast instead of moving to Los Angeles. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT THE ISRAELIS WILL ACHIEVE THE ADMONITION OF THE ZIONIST FOUNDING FATHERS: BE A LIGHT ONTO THE [ARAB] NATIONS!
The Kurds didn't get a state. The Tamil hopes for a state were just crushed by the Sri Lankan army along with thousands of civilians. The Lakota sioux decared independence in 2007 and have issued their own passports. The Basques and Baluchis struggle for their own states. EVen the Puerto Ricans don't have their own independent state. I don't see where the "Palestinians" have any greater claim for independent statehood than those and many other groups striving for national independence. However, in exchange for FULL recognition by the entire Muslim world of the right of the JEWISH STATE to exist, I might cede them a limited degree of statehood provided that that state is 100% democratic, demilitarized and cooperative. The Jewish nation strived for a very long time, and through legal channels, to finally get recognition by the League as a national group deserving its National Home. But the Arab side has only used war, force, terror, boycotts, blockades and intimidation, not so much to gain their own state, but to eliminate Israel by hook or crook. This behavior must not be rewarded by anymore unilateral concessions. Israel won the wars, and Israel must dictate the peace, and not America or the UN or anyone else.
Actually I always through it was the Jews who inherited an Arab problem. Let's just solve this once and for all and everybody go back to where they came from! Arabs go back to Arabia, and all you Jews go back to Judea. Problem solved.
To suggest that Israel came into being vis-à-vis the Holocaust is propagandistic and revisionist. The Yeshuv (Jews returning to Israel) began in the 1880's, a full 60 years before the Holocaust even began -- that's an entire lifetime. Just yesterday I had a conversation with an elderly woman in Los Angeles whose family had lived in Israel for six generation, going back to 1820. It was always the dream of the Jews to return to their homeland of Judea since their exile by the Roman empire. And Jews were never exiled from the city of Tzfat (Safad) in northern Israel. There has always been a Jewish presence in what is now called the land of Israel, however small that presence may have been.
One could argue that talk about the Roman Empire is moot, that too much time has passed for claims to the land to persist. But those Berkley liberals who would not support a Jew’s claim to live in Judea because too much time has passed will go to rallies to return the Tibetans to Tibet. For how many years does the Chinese government need to keep Tibetans out of Tibet before the Tibetan’s claim on the land of Tibet expires; I’m sure the Chinese government would love to know. If the Tibetans are forcibly evicted from their lands for a thousand years, it does not change the fact that Tibetans came from Tibet, and that Tibet is still their homeland. Only in Tibet will Tibetans not be foreigners, only in a Tibet ruled by Tibetans will those people have the full protection of their own government. Would you suggest that the Germans should not be ruled in Germany by Germans? Of course the French demand to be ruled in France by French people, the British in Britain by British. Similarly the Tibetan’s have the natural right to be ruled in Tibet by Tibetans and the Jews have the natural right to be ruled in Judea by Jews. Thusly, Jews have a profound, historical, and essential claim to Judea. And the Holocaust has nothing to do with it.
The question then is not whether the Jews have a right to live in Judea, but rather, how does one justly return to one’s homeland when for 1200 years another people have established residence there.
To frame the conversation in the modern era, when the Halutzim returned to their homeland they BOUGHT their property from the now resident Arabs. A thousand years prior, when Islam moved into the emptied land of Judea they did not legally determine that the Jews had abandoned their claim to that land. Would you move into an empty house before checking to see if anyone owned claim to it. It is not as if Jews did not publicly and loudly state every day in their prayer service that they wanted to return to Judea. The Muslim caliphate of that era did not check with the Jewish Community of Europe to see if they had abandoned their claim to Judea; to see if Judea was available. And this was not a mistake or slight oversight. Islam is a religion of law, with a strong sense of people-hood and religious community and a very VERY long memory. Religious logic would dictate that one community gain right of ownership from another before occupying, annexing, or laying claim to land that was forcibly vacated. Islam did not do this – and again, the most cursory glance at the Jewish liturgical service would have showed them that the Jews had not released their historical claim to Judea. Instead, Islam unilaterally declared that Judea was now part of Arabia's religion, was now part of Islam.
Flash forward to today and what we have is two peoples -- Jews who are the aboriginal tenants of the land, and Muslims who have been residents there for 1200 years -- who both have fully legitimate claims to the land. Let me restate that the British came from Britain, the French from France, and the Jews… from Judea. The only land in which Jews will not be foreigners is in Judea, it is de facto their land. Sometimes I use the Kangaroo argument. You can take the Kangaroos our of Australia for three thousand years or for five, it does not mean that the Kangaroos didn't come from Australia. That FACT can never be changed.
BOTH people now have legitimate claim to this land. And BOTH people must now share the land.
But do the Jews have a RIGHT to return to Judea? That the Jews would have to eventually return to Judea was an historical inevitability -- just like the Tibetans eventually returning to Tibet. ONLY in one’s homeland can one be guaranteed full protection under the law, throughout history or regime change. The Holocaust sped up and occasioned the establishment of the Second Jewish return from exile (the first being the return from Babylonia). And come to think of it, the Jews of Europe started to freely return to Judea as soon as Emancipation started, that is to say, as soon as they really could. Before emancipation the Pope would not allow the Jews to fully return to Judea. The Crusades sought to claim Judea for Christians, not for Jews. And if armed Christians with the backing of European governments could not safely exist in Judea, what hope did the Jews have. To say the Holocaust caused the the creation of the Jewish state is to shrink your view of history to be half a century long -- in which case nobody had any claim to anything.
Had the Jews been exiled to China and been foreigners in China, the Arabians would now be saying that they have inherited a Chinese problem. Had we been exiled to Africa, they would be claiming that they inherited an African problem. The land in which the Jews were foreigners is not at all the point. That they were in a Diaspora from which any people would want to return is the point. When the Tibetans finally return to Tibet are the local Chinese going to shout, “We’ve inherited an Indian problem!!”? It’s absurd. The historical reality is that the Arabs walked into a Roman problem, namely that the Romans forcibly exiled the Jews from Judea; that the Jews would eventually return to Judea is an historical inevitability.
The Holocaust has nothing to do with it.
The Kurds didn't get a state. The Tamil hopes for a state were just crushed by the Sri Lankan army along with thousands of civilians. The Lakota sioux decared independence in 2007 and have issued their own passports. The Basques and Baluchis struggle for their own states. EVen the Puerto Ricans don't have their own independent state. I don't see where the "Palestinians" have any greater claim for independent statehood than those and many other groups striving for national independence. However, in exchange for FULL recognition by the entire Muslim world of the right of the JEWISH STATE to exist, I might cede them a limited degree of statehood provided that that state is 100% democratic, demilitarized and cooperative. The Jewish nation strived for a very long time, and through legal channels, to finally get recognition by the League as a national group deserving its National Home. But the Arab side has only used war, force, terror, boycotts, blockades and intimidation, not so much to gain their own state, but to eliminate Israel by hook or crook. This behavior must not be rewarded by anymore unilateral concessions. Israel won the wars, and Israel must dictate the peace, and not America or the UN or anyone else.
Robert Morgan " It is becoming tiresome for the wold to see pro Israeli forces harping on that only the Jews have suffered most."
Are you "the world" Morgan? I don't think so. If it is tiresome listening to Jews why do you read the Forward a Jewish newspaper? Antisemites often hang around Jews as bizarre as it might seem.
"And this should absolve Isreal from any accounting of its contnuing war crimes in Palestine and beyond!"
What "war crimes?" Anyone can say "war crime.: Doesn't mean a thing.
"Why should the Palestinians hav to pay for the sufferings of jews inflicted by Europe!"
None sense. The Arabs and Muslims also inflicted suffering on Jews. However, Palestinians are not "paying" for it. The Palestinian Arabs are responsible for their plight. Had they accepted the UN partition plan and not made war on the Jews they wouldn't be were they are. They can also decide to make peace any time they want to.
"Some body asked Golda Meir how the Israelis could do such horendous acts when they themselves gon through it! Her reply was because it was done to us so we do now! And they expect Arab world to let them!"
This is a stupid antisemitic lie; Golda Meir never said that. I challenge you to come with a source for you quote, Rober Morgan.
You really are an antisemite. Are you related to James Von Brunn?
Serge,
"However, it is perverse to think that, uniquely in Israel's case, the issue of the collective rights of national minorities should somehow throw into question Israel's existence in a way it does not do for Poland, Portugal, Egypt or East Timor."
The difference is that those other nations, unlike Israel, weren't founded on the idea that a group has an inherent right to "return" to its ancestral homeland, regardless of how much time has passed and whether there are now other people living there.
Herbert Kaine,
"Palestinians were active participants in the Holocaust...The Palestinians are paying the price for their own participation in the Holocaust."
This argument has been recycled by Alan Dershowitz and others, and I find it very unconvincing. Even if what you say is true (and there's a great deal of debate about the extent of the Mufti's participation in the Holocaust), it's clear that many other national groups were much more culpable in the Holocaust than the Palestinians (Germans, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Hungarians etc). If Israel's supporters can say that the Palestinians should "pay" for whatever involvement they had by having Israel be established in the Middle East, the Palestinians and Arabs can argue that since other groups in Europe were more guilty, Israel should have been established there.
Lee, in contrasting Israel to Poland, Portugal, Egypt or East Timor -- the issue of collective rights of national minorities is often held to throw into question Israel's existence, but not that of any of the latter -- states:
"The difference is that those other nations, unlike Israel, weren't founded on the idea that a group has an inherent right to "return" to its ancestral homeland, regardless of how much time has passed and whether there are now other people living there."
This statement is based on two incorrect premises.
One error is the mistaken premise that the creation under international law of countries other than Israel, as the exercise of the right to self-determination, took place in the absence of national minorities. Clearly this is untrue. Consider the Roma in Hungary, the Finns in Sweden, the Swedes in Finland, the Copts in Egypt. Indeed, there exists almost no nation-state that does not include national minorities. It is generally accepted that these national minorities are to be granted collective rights as groups, above and beyond individual rights.
Another error is the mistaken premise that the concept of "return" or of time passing is directly relevant to the international legal test that is to be applied. It is not. Clearly, over time "peoples", as these entities are defined at international law, fade away, so time matters as a question of fact. However, as a question of law, each actually-existing "people" may assert a right to self-determination; and the territory in respect of which self-determination may be asserted again goes to that people's culture and attachment. It is beyond dispute, except among racists, that there exists a Jewish people, living for the large part in diaspora, whose culture and traditions are rooted in the Land of Israel.
A third error is the mistaken premise that attachment to a particular place requires the exercise of self-determination. Clearly it does not. As noted in a comment above, the historic attachment between Jews and the Land of Israel does not mean that self-determination must be exercised over all of the Land of Israel. Rather, it means that a presumption exists in favour of self-determination somewhere within the Land of Israel.
Three (related) final notes. First, Lee (and Akiva Potok, whose comment I found excellent) are correct that, as a factual matter, the *manner* in which Jews were to exercise their right to self-determination within the land of Israel was subject, among other things, to a balancing against the rights of those who lived there. That is a feature of most modern state creation, and there are elaborate principles that have been developed as to fair border delineation, national minorities, elective population transfer, and so forth. Many of these principles were put to work in developing the partition plan, which was rejected. Second, it is beyond dispute that the creation of Israel as the Jewish exercise of their international legal right to self-determination was not executed perfectly. What is perverse is to erect that as some sort of reason to assert the illegitimacy of Israel's existence under international law: by this standard, I cannot think of a country that would be legitimate under international law. And, whatever those may think who yearn for a new world order beyond statehood, most countries (including Israel) are indeed legitimate under international law.
Third, it is incorrect to think that self-determination must always result in the creation of a new state. Where a national minority exists within an existing state, and is demonstrably able to exercise self-determination within that state, there is no right to create a new state. This principle is not relevant to Israel/Palestine, where no preexisting state was in place, but it is probably relevant to the Kurds, Tamils, and others. On this point, the Quebec Secession Reference, a Canadian Supreme Court judgement, is worth reading, as it is an outstanding primer on these issues. It is freely downloadable at canlii.org.
... sorry; if searching, that should be "Reference re Secession of Quebec".
... paragraphs 109-146 (the second of the three questions).
-“It sounds as if he is buying into the Arab narrative,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.-
Foxman is a small-minded racist. There is no 'Arab' narrative anymore than there's a Jewish narrative or a white narrative.
Why do people give this racist and his group any credence?
-“It sounds as if he is buying into the Arab narrative,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.-
Foxman is a small-minded racist. There is no 'Arab' narrative anymore than there's a Jewish narrative or a white narrative.
Why do people give this racist and his group any credence?
The Holocaust has everything to do with the emergence of Israel. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of anti-semitism. Because of the Holocaust, mainstream Jews took seriously the notion that having their own state would put a stop to the long history of persecution. Before the Holocaust, Zionism was an idea that the majority of Jews held dear but did not take seriously. In addition, because of the Holocaust, nonJewish government leaders voted to accept the legitimate rights of the Jewish people to have their own state. WE don't know what would've happened if there were no Holocaust. But we do know that the state of Israel was born just a few years after World War II, as a direct result of the Holocaust.
Ruth Book - The state was not founded by Holocaust survivors. It was founded by the yishuv that had been established in the country beforehand. Moreover, the state was not established by what you call "mainstream Jews". American Jews of the mainstream may have supported Zionism because of the Holocaust - but they didn't build the yishuv or prepare for war. They watched events from afar without influencing them too much. The state was founded by those who revived the Hebrew language, built towns and villages - and founded a society that saw itself as a nation worthy of self-determination. The Holocaust surely influenced the timing of independence, but it almost destroyed the very reason for establishing a Jewish state. The Jews who identified with Zionism as an ideology for themselves (not merely for others) were murdered. Despite the loss of this population, the yishuv succeeded in establishing the State of Israel. Israel came into existence DESPITE the Holocaust.
if the zionest want a home country, then thay have to deal with the consequences. it will never be easy!
Obama is clueless. I don't understand why so many Jews voted for him.
Wow, we took Nathan's bait and now there is a great discussion. But the discussion is over Nathan's spin, not the real thing he spun. Read the words straight from the speech and you'll see/hear something quite different from Nathan's editorial. I did and found the key to countering the Moslem argument - Zionism. The two paragraphs affirm a long history of persecution leading to Jewish aspirations (Zionism) and the ultimate expression of persecution simply being the Holocaust. This is the shortest argument against both the strongest Moslem (zionism) and now Iranian (denial of The Shoah)one could make - inmho. No mention of Israel's formation is made. Israel simply "is" in these short two paragraphs.
Excerpted whole: America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
While I must admit that I personally see the founding of Israel as the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy, that view has nothing to do with my support of Israel. Even if there was no Bible, I would still tend to support Israel because I support any ethnic group trying to establish a separate nation in their homeland. Some of my ancestors from Germany were actually Slowincians (protestant Kaschubians), I once lived among the Lakota on the Rosebud, and my ex-wife had some Cherokee ancestry, so maybe that would explain my belief.
Why should the Palestinians have to pay for the sufferings of jews inflicted by Europe?
How the Israelis could do such horendous acts when they themselves gon through it! Her reply was because it was done to us so we do now! And they expect Arab world to let them??
Haaretz - Get a hold of yourself. The conflict in the Middle East is a very, very low-intensity war. Life is very normal here - for us and for the Arabs. Perhaps you should read the interview with Abbas that appeared in the Washington Post and here in the Forward (see: http://www.forward.com/articles/107217/ ). Life in the West Bank, how "surprising", is very fine. I write "surprising" in quotation marks, because it's not really surprising. Anyone who knows the reality of life here knows that the population is growing rapidly, the standard of living is comfortable, each generation is more educated than the previous one, etc. Your picture of equating the Holocaust (i.e. geocide) with the conflict here (one of many conflicts in the world - and certainly one of the less intensive ones) is simply hate propaganda.
Why is it that Germany (rightfully) is blamed for, and made substantial financial settlements for It's crimes against the Jews, and yet there has never been any such outcry for Stalin's equally deadly policies?
Recent DNA evidence indicates that the Palestinians have continuously occupied their land for millennia. Originally they probably were Jews who then converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Israelis from Russia and Poland seem to have no genetic ties to the Middle East
Gee, Frank Messmann, I didn't realize that DNA evidence was a required examination for determining political legitimacy. I imagine (as happens so often) that this is a "standard" that has been invented only when discussing Israel. No one would raise such a silly topic when dealing with Americans or New Zealanders or even Englishmen. I would imagine that your DNA would not give you any real connection to the American continent. Generally, when one raises an issue of biology in a political debate, it would be quite logical to assume that the real issue is racism. Issues of sovereignty or self-determination are not determined by biology.
Wait a second, Mr Messmann. You are claiming that the Eastern European Jews have no genetic ties to the Middle East, leaving the clear hint that the other half of the Jewish population in Israel is connected to this region. So, is this Jewish population legitimate in your eyes and entitled to its statehood?
There is no connection between DNA and politics. Only an anti-Israel propagandist would invent such a connection. I can't think of any other political debate anywhere in which DNA would be raised. The State of Israel was born, and therefore it is legitimate. As such, it is equal to Estonia and Poland and Egypt and the USA and Argentina.... As every sovereign state, it is entitled to defend its existence (as we have done quite successfully).
I think the other problem with Frank Messmann's argument is that it is completely false and against the heavy weight of consensus that states that Ashkenazi Jews are linked to the other Jewish streams and the origin of those streams is in the Middle East as they share the Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups J and E. Israelites are included in Ancient historical sources conclusively during the first milennium BC and in the 8th Century BC they are referred to when their city of Samaria within the current boundaries of Israel, was destructed by the Assyrians and the Ashkenazim are genetically linked to them.
While a propaganda argument espoused by the Arabs is that Ashkenazim are wholly descended from Khazar converts, this has been consistently refuted by study after study and while they have certainly mixed with the local populations during their long time of exile from the region which may include a partial descendency from Khazars amongst some East European Jews (the Khazar genome has not been identified so it is impossible to make conclusions on this), they have maintained a definite relation genetically throughout the centuries based upon a Middle Eastern heritage.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi#DNA_clues which explains some of this.
Also, Jewish groups including Ashkenazim are heavily linked genetically to the Samaritans who have been documented as living in the Israel region for "millennia" unlike the first of the major settlements of Arabs who likely settled there after the Muslim conquests in the 7th Century. Regardless of all this, up until the 19th Century, the land was sparsely populated for centuries and infested with malaria-ridden swamplands until immigrants arrived and rejuvenated it. While they might be slightly connected to the Israelites or ancient and historical tribes based in the area, the vast majority of modern day Palestinians are descendants of immigrants from neighboring Arab countries over the past couple of centuries like the Jewish population of Israel are descendants of immigrant Jews throughout the globe during the same period.
After reading most of these comments I am convinced that Israel is on its way to a one-state solution; with "supporters" like these, who needs enemies?
Jews have been in Israel for over three thousand years in spite of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Crusaders, and Moslems, to name just some, desiring to wipe them out.
Also, I am surprised to see that anti-semites and Nazi sympathisers congregate here. Is it possible that some relevant, cogent, truthful facts might actually rub off on them?
Aside from the usual anti-semites who post on the Forward, the fact that there are a goodly number of Jews here standing up for Israel is heartening. I am particularly impressed by the history lesson from George.
Unfortunately, the "Jewish" Forward is itself a far-left anti-Israel propagandist, with anti-Israel "columnists" such as Leonard Fein, with ties to extremist anti-Israel (anti-semitic) organizations such as J Street - a radical leftist enemy of the Jewish State of Israel. The Forward generally features a menagerie of radical far-left extremists, whose wacko ideologies and hatred of Jews and Israel should never appear in a "Jewish" publication.
The "debate" among enemies of Israel about the founding of Israel is a sick joke brought to you by anti-semites. There is obviously nothing to debate. The only ones "debating" among themselves are the Muslims, Barak Hussein Obama, extreme far-left propagandists like the Forward, and other virulent anti-semites. "Debating" the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel is what anti-semites love to do. Any debate at all grants credence to the anti-semites. It is similar to "debating" whether "palestinians" have a right to murder Jews. Any "debate" at all grants credence to the murderers.
Obama does not want to "counter" Holocaust deniers. He wants to avoid the real issue, which is the "palestinians'" and other arabs' perverse refusal to accept the Jewish State of Israel. Anyone with half a brain knows that "settlements" have NOTHING to do with making peace. The arabs can have peace on a moment's notice. The ONLY issue is the "palestinians" and other muslims being utterly unwilling to accept the Jewish State of Israel. "Debating" the founding of Israel simply buys into their perverse propaganda.
Obama is the huge new problem facing Israel and the Jewish people. Here is a timely article:
....
Hoenlein Expresses "Concern" About Obama
(IsraelNN.com) Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a top lay leader of American Jewry, says Jews who supported U.S. President Barack Obama are now “very concerned” about him.
Hoenlein spoke with Newsmax this week, offering some sharp criticism of the man for whom an estimated 80% of Jews voted in last year’s election. He emphasized that he was expressing only his own personal views, but said that he’s heard similar concerns from “some of [Obama’s] strongest supporters.”
American-Jewish groups to the right of Hoenlein’s Conference have already expressed alarm at Obama’s new approach towards the Middle East. The Zionist Organization of America, for instance, said Obama’s Cairo speech “may well signal the beginning of a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.”
Hoenlein's Long List
The strongest terms Hoenlein used in describing his and others’ fears about Obama and where he is going in terms of the American-Israeli relationship were “concern,” “troubling,” and “questioning.” However, the list of gripes he enumerated appears to justify downright “alarm” and “trepidation.”
Hoenlein cited Obama for having traveled twice to the Middle East without visiting Israel. In addition, he noted several problems with Obama’s speech in Cairo, including the following:
* Obama claimed that there are 7 million Muslims in America – when in fact the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population in 2007 at only 2.35 million.
* Obama did not mention the Jewish people's ancient connection with the land of Israel. "There was no reference to the 3,000 years of Jewish connection to this land," Hoenlein says. "And that is again one of the propaganda lines that the Arabs have used: that the Jews are interlopers, that the two Temples never existed, that there was never any Jewish history in the land of Israel. Even Yasser Arafat and others have used that argument because they're trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't believe that was the president's intent, but not making those references I think is troubling."
* Obama equated the Nazi slaughter of more than six million Jews during the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering over the past six decades since the creation of the State of Israel. "There's no comparison between the Holocaust… and what happened to Palestinians," Hoenlein said.
Nor is Israel responsible for any such suffering, Hoenline feels: "The Palestinian refugee problem, or dislocation as he said, didn't come about because of the creation of the Jewish state. It came about because the Arab states declared war on Israel and warned the Arabs that they would suffer the same fate as the Jews if they didn't get out. And then [the Arab states] kept them as political pawns."
* Obama did not give a clear message to Iran: "What concerned us, concerned many people, was the message to Iran that we didn't hear," Hoenlein noted, namely, "an absolute assurance about the U.S. commitment not to allow Iran to be nuclear, not to allow it to continue to support terrorism, not to allow it to continue being the major state sponsor of terror around the world."
...
Hoenlein was later pressured into moderating his comments, but he was accurate. In this case "outreach" means "appeasement".
This should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding why there has been no "peace" between the arabs and Israel:
....
"Interesting Times: THE GREAT ARAB REFUSAL"
There is something bizarre about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Everyone assumes, naturally, that it is about Israel giving something that Palestinians want - a state. But what it really is about is the Arab world giving the Jewish people what it wants - a state.
That makes no sense, you might say. After all, Israel exists, Palestine doesn't. How could the conflict be about people who don't have something giving it to people who do? The answer lies in a simple fact of history: The Arab war against a Jewish state not only predates Israeli control over the territories ostensibly in dispute but began before the founding of Israel itself.
"The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence... and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the Six Day War," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. "All this occurred during the 50 years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria."
That must have changed, you chime in. At some point Israel must have flipped from being the state deny-ee to being the state denier. Doesn't most of Netanyahu's own party still claim that a Palestinian state would be existential threat? If Israel is not the obstacle, why did Netanyahu have to be dragged into grudgingly supporting a two-state solution? Let's step back a bit and ask another question: What is meant by a "two-state solution"? In Western eyes, the idea is a simple one. The conflict comes from the lack of a Palestinian state. Create a state; end the conflict.
This would be a slam dunk except for one thing. What if the Palestinians see a state of their own not as the beginning of peace but the continuation of war? Quit being paranoid, the world responds. Israel is a regional superpower, and Netanyahu just said that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized.
The rub, however, lies not in demilitarization. Savvy Palestinian spokesmen say that's not a problem. The rub is Netanyahu's second "tough" (as media reports call them) condition: "a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
Now we have finally drilled down to the essence of the conflict, and it's not Israel but the Arab world that is out of step. Look at the official White House reaction to the Netanyahu speech: "The president is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples." This is what Palestinians are for, right? Actually, no, this is what even Abbas and other "pro-peace" Arab leaders vehemently reject.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Mahmoud Abbas asked in an April 27 speech in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly." Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that calls for recognition of a Jewish state are attempts to "abort" the peace process. "Netanyahu Threatens Peace" was the headline in the Saudi-owned Al Hayat, while Lebanon's Assafir claimed that the speech was "like a declaration of war."
The Arab world has never accepted either part of President Barack Obama's straightforward statement: that Israel is a Jewish state and that it is there not by chance or even because of the Holocaust but because it is the Jewish people's "historic homeland."
WE SEE that the great Arab refusal that began almost a century ago continues today. While the West takes it for granted that "mutual recognition," as the road map and Oslo agreements put it, is the bedrock of peace, the Arab side seeks a Palestinian state without accepting the existence of a Jewish people, let alone a Jewish connection to its historic homeland.
If further evidence of this refusal were needed, the claim of a "right of return" embodies the Arab attempt at obtaining a 22nd state without accepting the single Jewish one. If Palestinians have a permanent "right" to move to Israel, in what sense have they accepted Israeli sovereignty? How can they claim a right to move to Israel while not only denying the right of Jews to move to Palestine, but assuming that it must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews?
Obama is right that the Arab-Israeli conflict is in dire need of truth telling. And every time he uses the words "Jewish state" and "Jewish homeland" he is chipping away at the essence of the conflict. But there is an even more basic, underlying truth to be told: that the Arab world can end the conflict any time it wants.
This is what Obama should have said to the Arab world in Cairo: "End the conflict. Who is stopping you? If you truly accept Israelis, talk to their leaders, stop denying their history and connection to the land, you will have a Palestinian state faster than you can shake a stick." I understand that Obama thinks that the harder he pressures Israel on settlements the more likely the Arabs are to cooperate. But this is exactly backward. Direct pressure on Israel is always taken by the Arabs as an excuse to do nothing
The smart way to pressure Israel is to put the onus on the Arab side. Why? Because the slightest Arab movement toward peace turns any Israeli government into putty. "Looking back, I confess that well-formulated peace plans are not enough," President Shimon Peres admitted in a recent op-ed. "What brought about the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, signed in 1979, was a journey of less than an hour - the time it took Anwar Sadat to fly from Cairo to Jerusalem. This hour changed... creat[ing] a turning point far more powerful than outside pressure."
The Arab-Israeli conflict is just not symmetrical, no matter how often assorted peacemakers adopt an "evenhanded" approach. After 1967, the Arab states realized they could no longer openly call for Israel's destruction, so they hit on the idea of demanding a Palestinian state - without mentioning that they weren't willing to accept a Jewish state in return.
Now Netanyahu, grudgingly, and Obama, dilutedly, have called the Arab bluff. This has been obscured by Netanyahu's foot-dragging and Obama's fight-picking (with Israel), but the fact remains that it is now the Arab world that has been cast in the role of odd man out.
saul@jpost.com
Preventing Iran - the enemy-di-tutti-enemy of peace - from going nuclear remains the single greatest prerequisite for peace. The much easier yet no less important step is to systematically expose the great Arab refusal, thereby placing asymmetrical responsibility for the conflict on the Arab side. Pressure on the Arab side is a two-fer, because Arab gestures "deliver" Israel; pressure on Israel is a no-fer, because it reduces pressure on the Arab side.
saul@jpost.com
Whoa! From the Goyish perspective, unquestionably the sympathy flowing from the tragedy of the holocaust engendered a great deal of support for the establishment of the new state of Israel. And yes, the prevalence of anti-Semitism was used as a justifier for the establishment of the Jewish state. It is ironic that the actions and policies of that new state has exacerbated and transmogrified simple anti-Semitism into virulent anti-Zionism.
To Jagarputz:
You know nothing of American Jews and WWII. How dare you make a statement about what American Jews would have done if the Holacaust had occurred ,or as you implied they would have marched to the crematoriums as European Jews did. By the sound of your name you are probably not Native American. Just an educated guess from your statement.You have the smell of a East Europen Anti-semite.
Of my seven close friends,all just turned 18 when entering service, one died at Bastone. One lost his leg as a mine detector, one was machined gunned to the head a wore a metal plate in his skull until he died of Parkensons as a result of the injury. The other four including myself served overseas in both Theaters. Through the grace of Hashem we are all in our mid eighties and still functioning. I am a member of JWV Post 440 with two hundred active members, many from wwII and Korea War.
Are thes the jews that would have acted no differntly, then the Jews of Europe? You digust me with your latent Anti semitism, hiding behind what you considered a benign falsehood that no one would question.
From the Heartland - Oklahoma - I'm from Oklahoma,and am kind of surprised how many Americans are here spouting their point of view.I personally,am sick and tired of my country,sending trillions upon trillions,into a money pit.The Israel Palestine issue,has gone on far to long. I really get both Israelis and Arabs.I get why yall fight one another.But for Americans,to instigate crap,is not cool at all.First and foremost,Americans should keep out of it. We Americans,have done enough.We got the whole damn world hating us.And believe me,I along with millions of other Americans,get what Zion is.And it's getting to,if not already not cool either.Too many people,that call themselves Americans,really Zionists,just instigate crap,and we true Americans are sick and tired of it. For crying out loud,you so called Americans stay out of Israels and Palestine problems.We Americans,have got enough problems of our own.And this goes for Arab Americans to. If Israel and Palestine want to kill one another,so be it.But this American,is sick and tired of watching both sides of it.It is absolutely sickening,what that part of the world has come to.And to the true Israelis and Palestinians,this American is truly sorry,for what America has done,to both sides. It is just a matter of time,before one of two sides gets so pissed,that someone pulls the trigger on a nuke,or worse a bio weapon. Then I guess,yall will see who's God is rite. It's to bad,the trillions wasted,could have been spent on some nice condos and soccer fields.Better yet,food for all.Instead of trying to work crap out,killing one another is what yall do better. Has anyone ever stood back,and counted how many kids,have been murdered on both sides.If yall would put as much effort into getting along,as yall do killing one another.You guys would have a nice country.And not to mention,the world would have peace.But I guess that would be asking to much,from two peoples,that the world has dumped trillions into. Believe me,I'm just as pissed off at my government.I'm in my 40's,and I can't remember when we Americans havn't stuck our noses into other countries problems.I along with millions of Americans,am sick and tired of the killing. To the true Israelis and Palestinians,I am truly sorry for sending my tax money to a killing pit. I truly hope yall work it out! But if ya get a chance,between the fighting,check out why our sun has no solar flares.Check out www.thehorizonproject.com And look into Planet X. The year 2012 is just around the corner.You may want to stop killing one another,just long enough,to figure out some way of getting through a Asteroid hit. I guess I'll go.Oh and the only reason,I ever found this site.Was to look up what a goyim is.And I found out what it means.And this goyim,is not impressed. Yall in the middle east take it easy,and for crying out loud quit the damn killing.
RWCME : I have to hand it you. Of all the posts I've just read here, all the historical analysis and whatnot, yours put a smile in my face. In plain okie talk you have told it like it is...reflecting how so many of us in America have come to feel watching this seemingly unending conflict from afar...all the death and destruction, the torn bodies of innocent children, the wailing at the funerals... and all such horrors which, in spite of so many billions of out taxpayers dollars, seems continue year after year with no end in sight. It makes you wonder, could it be that those billions are making it worse? It is obvious that this is not a simple good guys vs bad guys thing, as so many in America seem to think ... both sides share the blame, except one side seems to be at a greater disadvantage. Seriously, for everyone's sake, this has to stop. At this point, who cares how the state of Israel came about, or whether Palestinians themselves are to be blamed for not having a state, or whether Jews or Arabs have a right to the land, or whose ancient DNA has been found, or who has suffered the most... The fact is that Israel is ...it was created, for one reason or another, and it exists. Palestinians exist, too -- they have been there for centuries and they, too, see that part of the world as their homeland. You all need to sit down and, in all seriousness, try to figure out how you can live with one another without the violence and the killing. Enough with using your bodies to blow up innocent people, or using airplanes to blow them up from the air. Enough with the bombs and the tanks, and smashing people's houses and whatnot ... time for all the bickering and fighting, that you've been carrying on for longer than some of us have been alive, to come to an end. Not being from Oklahoma I can only repeat what RWCME said so well: "Y'all take it easy, and ... quit the damn killing!"
Seriously.
From The Heartland - Oklahoma - To Jean Jean,I hope you and fellow Americans' read this.We here in the States,just don't see what influence,Americans' with no business even going to Israel has.I don't want to get into this Zion thing,because I really don't understand it,and to put it lightly don't.So I will just keep it to Americans' going over to other countries,starting crap.My Grandfather,always told us grandkids,whatever goes around comes around.And my Grandmom always said,if ya don't have anything good to say about someone,don't say anything at all. I am part Cherokee Indian,and I had relatives,that were murdered by others.And some,that were on The Trail Of Tears.To this day,the Elders still talk about the atrocities in a quiet way.But always say,"To bring the atrocities up out of anger would anger the Spirits".That is not to say,we don't tell the young ones though.It is always brought up,in a respectful way,to not anger the Spirits. More and more,Americans are seeing what is really going on.It is just so sad,that generation after generation,of people living in the middle east on both sides of the problem,have been killed. There are so many other issues in the past,and most important present,the world peoples are at present begging for violence to stop.There will be a time,when it will be demanded. The United Nations,is like it's other The League Of Nations,a joke. There are so many issues,confronting the world.The most important being this Asteroid or whatever it is,heading our way.And no news media talking about it.Every 3600 years,this thing comes really close to Earth.So close,it causes pole shifts.It is the reason,behind the sun having no flares.And this so called global warming,which has turned into climate change. If people,no matter what religion race creed or color,did their homework on this issue.The fighting would stop,and people would start working together,to figure out the best way to survive this upcoming event. There is no coincidence,that the people in the know,are and have been working on their survival.Twenty Twelve,is real,from what little homework I have done. Some of the research,leads to the bibles being a hidden warning. And further evidence,of The Georgia Guidestones,being part of a warning. The people of the world,deserve a rite to know,and should be given a chance to do their homework and to prepare,if so desired.If it is true,that the bibles are a word of God,and were written to warn people,then the Creator of humanity should be headed. I am not writing this,to mock any ones religion,just to lead one to do some homework.The evidence is so overwhelming,that it begs one to look.It is not rite,for a select few,to not tell people.That act alone,is a crime against humanity. The Hopi Indians and millions of others are preparing. So people,quit the killing and lead people to the truth.Just do the research,and if you don't think there is anything to worry about,go about your business of murdering one another.Just leave the rest of us out of it.There has got to come a time,when people say enough is enough.For your childrens sake,stop the killing,look into the warnings.The next couple of years,could be the last.So make the best,of every day.Just as the bibles say,treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated.An eye for an eye,leads to being blind. The world says to stop killing one another.
Jean - I don't think that you have a clear picture of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Perhaps, through your TV screen, it seems that all of us here are living in the middle of the Second World War during the past 100 years. No. It is a very low-intensity conflict, and life goes on here rather normally - for both sides. What is intense about our conflict is the attention it gets, and the emotions it arouses. But as far as violence is concerned, you would be advised to come on vacation in this part of the world and see for yourself the absolute normalcy of life (and the incredibly interesting sites). By the way, there is no solution to the conflict. We're really stuck. But that's the reason that it's such a low-intensity confrontation. One can live in a low-intensity conflict permanently (that's our true situation). No one can live in a permanent conflict as you have imagined it ("all the death and destruction, the torn bodies of innocent children, the wailing at the funerals...").
From the Heartland - Oklahoma - Yahuda,I pretty much gave up,on watching T.V. along time back. And the Radio,is not much better.For some reason,telling the truth,is hard for these T.V. and Radio stations.One of these days,I would love to make it to Israel.My brothers wife,is Jewish.It has been a wile,since they went to Israel.The last time they went,one of those rockets,came close to where they were. I think the violence,has been really bad,throughout the whole world.This was another thing,that these scientists talk about,as the earths magnetic field goes squirrely.And when that happens,the violence will get worse.Yahuda,go to the website I was telling about above.It's not the complete answer,but it is a start.I can't urge yall enough,what we are getting ready to go through,is not going to be pleasant.I hope it's not true,but the evidence is so clear. Are yall going through any weird weather,like tornados or earthquakes any weather out of sync from the past? Has the water level,on Israels ocean side rised. Well yall in the middle east take it easy,and tell people,no matter who,about this asteroid coming.Tell everyone,to go to www.thehorizonproject.com This website,has looked at this for quite a while,and the people are scientists,and have looked at this from that point of view.
There is so much obfuscation and a deliberate distortion of the facts here that it boggles the mind.
"Also Americans such as Prescott Bush or Thomas Watson were active participants in the Holocaust. In fact, America sent boats back to concentration camps. Do you think that does justify killing American children today or is there a different standard for Americans?"
The so-called Palestinian Arabs and their leaders were allies with Nazi Germany, while the current leaders and majority of the population continue to believe, speak and act out in accordance with that heritage. America on the other hand fought against the Nazis. Americans do not lob missiles into innocent kindergartens in order to deliberately kill children or have a covenant to liquidate Israel like the Arabs do. This distinction should be glaringly obvious to anyone who is still not impervious to the severest truths.
There is so much obfuscation and a deliberate distortion of the facts here that it boggles the mind.
"Also Americans such as Prescott Bush or Thomas Watson were active participants in the Holocaust. In fact, America sent boats back to concentration camps. Do you think that does justify killing American children today or is there a different standard for Americans?"
The so-called Palestinian Arabs and their leaders were allies with Nazi Germany, while the current leaders and majority of the population continue to believe, speak and act out in accordance with that heritage. America on the other hand fought against the Nazis. Americans do not lob missiles into innocent kindergartens in order to deliberately kill children or have a covenant to liquidate Israel like the Arabs do. This distinction should be glaringly obvious to anyone who is still not impervious to the severest truths.
There is so much obfuscation and a deliberate distortion of the facts here that it boggles the mind.
"Also Americans such as Prescott Bush or Thomas Watson were active participants in the Holocaust. In fact, America sent boats back to concentration camps. Do you think that does justify killing American children today or is there a different standard for Americans?"
The so-called Palestinian Arabs and their leaders were allies with Nazi Germany, while the current leaders and majority of the population continue to believe, speak and act out in accordance with that heritage. America on the other hand fought against the Nazis. Americans do not lob missiles into innocent kindergartens in order to deliberately kill children or have a covenant to liquidate Israel like the Arabs do. This distinction should be glaringly obvious to anyone who is still not impervious to the severest truths.
What benefit is there in constantly feeding the battling rhetoric over who is right and who is wrong ? No matter how much one can claim just what is the truth, history is a point of view. And each historian has a different point of view. And each reader of history, a different interpretation of what those points of view mean to them. The Jews believe that Israel was bequest to them from God, the Moslems believe that Abraham's illegitimate son Ishmael had an equal birthright. Who is to say the other's claim is illegitimate and is not either claim an excuse to keep this horrific bloodbath going ? Why can't these two religious groups get along and share in the bounties as the Jews and moors did in Spain and in Turkey ? Isn't this homogenous allegiance really and allegiance to war and destruction ?