Robert Tulip wrote:The catastrophe of 1948 was 66 years ago. Just three years before that, the allied powers stopped the Germans from completing their plan to eradicate the Jews from Europe.
As Sam Harris points out in the article I linked above, the universal hatred toward Jews justified the need for a Jewish homeland. His article is well worth reading as a perspective on the merits of the conflicting sides, and the question of to what extent hostility towards Israel contains an anti-Semitic dimension.
Looking back to a longer historical view, Israel was the Jewish homeland for a thousand years until the Romans expelled them in 70 AD. So their emotional and historical attachment to the land of Palestine made Israel the logical place for a Jewish homeland.
The Holocaust was a terrible thing, but again, two wrongs don't make a right. It wasn't the Arabs who committed genocide, but the Germans. A fairer settlement might have given a portion of Germany to Jews. This is not so far fetched. Germany was being sliced and diced in 1945 anyway, and no one could claim this wasn't justice.
I also don't buy the idea of emotional attachment. Attachment to a land one has never seen, and never lived in is simply a fantasy. Two or three generations down the road, such attachment becomes mere folklore, harmless in itself, but in no way a legal basis for occupation and expulsion. Almost everyone on the planet has origins somewhere other than were they are now, if we go back far enough. A pragmatic solution will focus on more recent history.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Yes, the process of creating Israel by expelling Palestinians was handled badly. But the geopolitical reality of the Holocaust meant that the international community of the leading imperial powers considered the great suffering experienced by the Jews meant they deserved sympathy through provision of a homeland.
There are conflicting views on the causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Perhaps if the Arabs had welcomed the Jews they could have lived together in peace, coexisting as friendly neighbours. But the Arabs did not welcome the Jews, they formed a military coalition to invade and expel them. This poisoning of the relationship toughened the Jewish attitude towards national security.
How do Australians welcome boatloads of Afghani and Pakistani refugees? If the numbers are reasonable, and it is thought they will take up the existing culture, and they go through proper channels, then OK. If not, forceful action is taken. This is no different to the Arab response to Jewish settlement in Palestine. Small numbers were seen as fine, as long as they didn't want to take over the place. The only difference is that Australia has remained in control of the situation, and Palestine has been swamped and taken over. If uncontrolled immigration ever reaches 20 or 30% of the Australian population, I'm willing to bet you my pension that there will be some ugly violence- as there would be anywhere else.
The military coalition was only formed after Jews began the systematic clearing of Arab villages ahead of the independence declaration, after considerable violence and killing had taken place.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Hamas, eyeless in Gaza, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Until Palestinian attitudes become more forgiving, they have little hope of gaining freedom. Guerilla warfare, terrorism and hatred are not effective strategies for progress, since they destroy trust, teach harmful skills and attitudes in the place of helpful skills and attitudes, and fail to secure opportunities for a focus on economic growth to displace military conflict.
Yes, some in Gaza have become quite radical. This is not so surprising considering they live in an ongoing, massive prison with little hope of freedom or progress. Again, we have to look at context. Many in Palestine are quite moderate, and only want a reasonable settlement. The Palestinian Authority has agreed to the Saudi peace proposal of 2002, one that is mainstream to general world opinion, and is indeed quite generous towards Israel, offering recognition, trade, and the retention of the bulk of Palestine. This is hardly a radical document. It has been rejected outright by Israel, as they have no interest in any sort of compromise settlement while they are in a strong position. Violence is never really justified, but in this case it is Israeli "attitude" that needs to be adjusted in order to obtain peace.
Robert Tulip wrote:
What you describe Etudiant about Australia actually happened. Aboriginal people lived here peacefully for more than 40,000 years until the British confronted their wooden weapons with steel, germs and writing. That clash of superior and inferior technology was far more extreme than the clash between Israel and Palestine. But it is part of the sweep of colonisation of the world, with more advanced societies conquering the less advanced. If the British had not invaded Australia, the Japanese or Chinese or some other superior culture would have done so.
This dialectic of the modern and the primitive is an emotionally confronting topic with its implication of the condemnation of the inferior. That implication can be overcome if the conquered people choose to learn from and assimilate to the conqueror.
Australian Aborigines have a choice whether to fester in hatred and resentment, seeking compensation for past wrongs, living with the despair of unemployment, or to accept their situation and make the best of it. The best way for Aborigines to sustain their deep cultural heritage is to learn how to succeed in the modern world. Rejecting the world is a recipe for a spiral into alcohol fueled violence, desolation and destruction.
There is a colonial parallel here, but with two major differences. First of all, the Jews were too late. By the late '40s, colonialism was on the way out, as Europe's colonies were in a state of discontent, if not outright revolt. The idea of the white man's burden was no longer in fashion, and no longer accepted by subject peoples, or indeed many in the developed world. It simply did not wash anymore to march in and take over from the locals.
Second, there is considerable difference in degree. Australia's aboriginals are arguably some of the most primitive people anywhere. I was in northern Australia earlier this year, and in my observation was that the gulf between the two cultures is still stark. Today, Palestinians are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals. The primitive peoples argument was unsupportable in the '40s, and non-existent today.
Robert Tulip wrote:
The Christian model, as I alluded, is presented in the Gospels by John the Baptist as a gospel of forgiveness in exchange for repentance. Repentance means an honest understanding by the perpetrator of the wrongs of the past, a mutual acknowledgement of a shared history with the victim as a basis for reconciliation.
The Jewish Old Testament ethic of eye for an eye, and the Islamic vision of universal submission to Allah, can be bridged by the Christian framework of love as a basis for mutual acceptance and tolerance. The story of the cross and resurrection is a universal archetype of human politics, of the ability of a suppressed true vision to overcome political suppression through an assertion of moral legitimacy. Turn the other cheek may seem like foolish advice, but in the longer term the Christian ethic provides a spiritual power of liberation with an irresistable mandate.
You may have something there, but in any sort of reconciliation, acknowledgement of the truth is essential. A wrong has been done, and even many Israeli's now accept this. It is up to the political leadership of Israel to be truthful about the past, drop the rationalizing rhetoric, and compromise on a settlement plan. The prison guards have a more freedom to maneuver than the prisoners in this regard.