Israel was created by western imperialism. The League of Nations/UN backed by England simply decided that the lands of the former state of Palestine were to become the jewish state of Israel. I think that act itself means that Israel has no inherent right to exist. The whole historical ownership argument is bullshit; by that same logic the Native Americans deserve the entire contingent United States, Australia should go back to aborigine control, etc. The concept of zionism as a refuge for Jews following the horrors of the holocaust is understandable, but that doesn't mean you get a right to kick people off of their land just because you want it.
I'm also very curious as to why the US continues to back Israel at all (not as a historical argument but as a practical international relations one). In the middle east the US needs allies in order to have continuing access to the oil reserves there. So to do this, we go ahead and back the one single nation that all of the oil-producing nations there hate. And that one single nation produces no oil itself.
Israel is also useless to us as a base for pursuing military operations in the middle east. As soon as Israel is seen to back a military effort against an arab nation, every single arab nation unites in opposition. This almost happened when Iraqi scud missiles hit Israel during the first gulf war.
Maybe the one reason i can see for backing israel would be that theyre a large consumer of American military arms. However that consumption is not inherent to israel as there will always be a demand for the newest military equipment.
Going forward, I can only see one realistic solution. Israel will never go away as a nation, with it's western backing and nuclear capabilities. Palestinians will never forgive the fact that their lands were stolen from them by western imperialism. So maybe instead of a two state solution there should be a one state solution. The entire area of Israel governed by one nation encompassing both Israelis and palestinians, where each as an equal political say, and where neither religion can be used as a means of governance. A sort of hybrid between israel and palestine.
I think the US itself can be an example of this, where historical religious enemies like protestants and catholics, jews, muslims, etc. do manage to live alongside each other in relative peace, where each has an equal say in government, and where no religion is forced upon any other. This would be very difficult to sell to both sides, but I think it can be done.
I just came across this, you make some interesting points and I completely agree with the ends of your argument that a single joint state is necessary.
ReplyDeleteBut the means of your argument are missing at a few points.
First, as to why the U.S. continues to back Israel? I see the problem here. I personally believe that if it were not for the state of Israel, there would be significantly more stability and less agitation between the Middle East and Western Nations. That being said, however, U.S. continues to back Israel because they pose an indirect base for influencing Middle Eastern politics and economics -- yes, as you point out, oil is the issue here. Theoretically, if the U.S. wants to take the realist approach and exert as much of there power capabilities in the Middle East, then they are doing the right thing. Israel has proved itself time and time again as a very powerful nation militarily and have won major wars against multiple enemies at once. Let's not forget Israel's success against Sadat's monolithic Egypt during the Yom Kippur war. So that is why the U.S. continues to back Israel, because our government handles international politics with realist methods.
I doubt, however, that realism will succeed. But on to the issue of who has rights to the land. The Israelites/Jews have been kicked out of the region numerous times; the history has gotten so muddled that it's difficult and almost absurd to attribute any supposed rights of the land to anyone. Yet Palestine, and let me be clear here, WAS NEVER A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY -- it has always been under the rule of another nation. The term Palestinian was recontrived in 1948 as a method to oppose the Balfour Declaration (creation of the State of Israel).
But even still, none of that is relevant to who has rights to the land. The Israelis have been there for over 60 years now; the country is as much part of their culture and history as it is for the "Palestinians." Both view it with the same sentimentality and nostalgia. And thus neither can be stripped of it. They cannot split the land because certain territories are too disputed. They cannot give it one way or the other because it'd be screwing over one group entirely. No, and this is where I definitely agree with you, they need to share the land.
Gandhi was big on maintaining the India and Pakistan as one state because he knew that despite the soft surface-level differences between Hinduism and Islamism, that foundationally and culturally they were all the same. He wanted an India that would benefit both or neither.
The same could be said for Israel/Palestine. The goal would be to shatter the kitsch of the arbitrary differences and show that the two nations are better off together than apart. To hell with Zionism and Islamic Fundamentalism, how about humanism? Eh?
So yeah, that's kind of the same as your conclusion. I just get there somewhat differently.
Cheers
If the realist approach is really why America is backing Israel, then we should really stop it. Its far better to influence the actions of oil producing companies through diplomacy then military coercion. Military force makes them hate us, and they'll continue to fight forever. That truly makes us out to be the tyrants they portray us as.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise i agree with what you said. I was mainly aiming at pointing out that Israel is not an absolute good that many in the west think it to be, and also that the Palestinians aren't an absolute evil as many in the west think. I'd say that both are right and wrong to a certain extent, and sharing that blame maybe contributes towards having a one nation solution a viable solution. If that makes sense.