RoR: Forum

Mrs. Branden,

The arguments put forth in the article are correct and undeniable to an intellectually honest person. The reference to the ‘moral inversion’ that is committed on this issue by the UN and others is right on the money.

However, (you knew there was a ‘however’ coming, didn’t you!) if I had to identify the single greatest threat to Israel, it would not be the UN, the terrorist, Arab states, anti-Semitism, or even the ‘moral inversion’ made by other nations. The greatest single greatest threat to Israel, are the Israelis themselves.

Israel, (like all other western nations) is suffering from a massive dose of moral equivalency, a moral equivalency that leads to the sanctioning of their victimization. The overwhelming majority of Israelis are highly socialistic and egalitarian in their political/philosophical outlook. The long-term result of this has been an ever-growing corrosion of the Israelis ability to deal with this conflict. While these conditions exist in all western states to varying degrees, it is especially virulent among Israelis.

With each passing year I have seen Israel progressively disarm itself in the face of an implacable enemy. Where Israel once struck in pre-emptive attacks; now they build defensive walls, she once spoke unapologetically about her right to exist and the inherent ‘evil’ of her enemies; today she prefaces her every action with a self-effacing and guilt-ridden qualification. The Israelis have assumed the ‘bunker’ mentality of a nation reconciled with the world’s derision, reconciled not in that they dismiss that derision, but as an earned guilt that has been forced upon them. Israel is a nation whose philosophical dichotomy has caught up with them. Never before has she been better equipped materially to ensure her survival and thwart her enemies, unfortunately - never before has she been so intellectually bankrupt.

I fear that there are but 2 possible alternatives for Israel in the future:

1) A massive and unprecedented terrorist act (nuclear or biological) finally forces the nations hand to determine its own destiny (they draw up their own borders, expel the entire Palestinian populace, and totally annihilate their immediate neighbors military capacity).

2) The nation continues down its current path as a ‘pariah’ state, and eventually comes to a settlement with its enemies, a settlement that will ensure that its future existence is untenable. The demographic trends along with a so-called 'equitable' land settlement, would ensure that an egalitarian Israel would eventually lose its western identity and be absorbed into an Islamic culture state. The ultimate result will be a second ‘Exodus’: except this time it would be out of Israel.

Unless there is a profound and sweeping ideological shift among the populace and its leaders that sets out to ensure the results of my first alternative, without first having to suffer the nuclear or biological attack; then I fear that only the trials of a Job will awaken them, or their nation will disintegrate in stages.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 9/23, 10:39am)

Post 1

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:57am

I am continually disheartened by the moral equivocation, package-dealing, and context-dropping engaged in by Israel's supporters in the States. Although I am still forming my opinion on Israel, I've found no compelling--and, more importantly, rational--arguments in its support. (I also find it disturbing that Objectivist libertarians align themselves so wholeheartedly and unequivocally with Christian conservatives on the issue of Israel.)

The first problem I see with this article (and all other arguments I've seen in support of Israel) is that it drops the context of the formation of the state of Israel. Although I am not an expert in Israel's history, it seems to me that Israel was formed by people who were otherwise welcome in the region but then expelled Palestinians by force and created their own state, by religious motivation of "divine right" to the land, again, by force. As this is still in recent history, I can still place moral blame on the current government of Israel (many of whom were directly involved in the formation of the state and the Six Day War); in opposition, the Israelis cannot blame present-day Palestinians for their historical expulsion from Israel. This argument reminds me far too much of the same context-dropping argument that fails to place any responsibility for (well-earned) resentment in the Middle East against America and Britain--that calls those of us who point out that America earned that resentment (but do not, for a single moment, excuse the willful murder of innocents) "Saddamites", "blame-America-first'ers", or other such distracting names.

The next problem I see is the package deal of Israel and the Jews (which involves some dropping of context as well). To paraphrase: If you don't support Israel, you must then excuse the Holocaust or at least be anti-Semitic. As Objectivists, no other argument should be necessary. This is a red herring. The morality of the state of Israel is independent of any alleged collective value of the Jews as a "race". One can certainly and consistently be opposed to the state of Israel on moral grounds without believing Jews to be inferior or subhuman or morally corrupt. (This argument stinks of the likes of Karl Rove.)

The moral equivocation of Israelis "fighting to defend their country" against the Palestinians obviously follows. If a large number of people came to the place you and your family had lived for hundreds of years, expelled you saying that their people had a divine right to your land, and you retaliated, which is morally within your rights, would you not think the appellation "terrorist" to be a bit unjust? Add to this the continued policy of encroachment by Israel into Palestinian lands (expelling Palestinians in the process), and you begin to get a picture of why Palestinians are so angry. Of course, Arafat and his cronies are terrorists. They attack and murder innocents in cowardly fashion (killing themselves in the process to avoid any responsibility in this life). To judge them as murderers and punish them as such is morally appropriate and necessary, but, in our condemnation, to forget the historical context of their resentment--and to refuse to judge whether we also should resent Israel's actions for fear of being lumped together with them--is reprehensible.

This is all the more confused by the blanket hatred of the Muslim world for all Jews (and thus, they say, Israel). As rational judges, we must make our judgments independently and assign moral blame where it belongs. We cannot, as the equivocating neocons and Christian conservatives would have us, place blame *only* upon what is most evil today (i.e., terrorist murders); we must place all blame where it belongs, which is, in this case, on both sides.

...

I'm more than willing to hear opposing viewpoints on this. I'm still in the process of forming my opinions and judgments on this complex historical situation in Israel.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 8:59am

Dean,

Your message is a good example of contradictory reasoning, and prejudice.

Fistly, you state that

"I am still forming my opinion on Israel";

but later --close to the end of the message-- you say:

"[...] we must place all blame where it belongs, which is, in this case, on both sides."

So listen: you decided we must place the blame on both sides, because you decided it without having formed your opinion on Israel.

My opinion is:

1.- The Jews --of Israel and outside-- and all non-Muslims must practice the right of self-defense more consistently than they do today.

2.- The aboriginal Palestinians are the Jews. The Israelis refounded their state legitimately.

3.- In the new Jewish state in where all ethnic groups can live in freedom, differently from all its surrounding thugocracies, including Arafat's band.

Post 3

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:51am

Joel,

My apologies for the seeming contradiction. I should have said, "I am still forming my full and integrated opinions in regard to Israel." I obviously already have formed some judgments.

However, I disagree with your conclusions. They are all contradictory.

Israel was founded by force--*initiation* of force. The "aboriginal" status of any people is irrelevant. Unless you're talking about forcible expulsion of living, individual Jews from Palestine--unless either the criminal or the victim is still alive--there is no longer a victim for whom to seek justice or a criminal to prosecute. Also, there is no justice for a "people"; there is only justice for individuals. The Jews, despite their many protestations and anti-Semites' actions to the contrary, have earned no collective sympathy, victimhood, *rights to land*, or right of justice.

Who are the living criminals? What individuals have had their rights violated? These are the only appropriate questions to ask. Any collective guilt or victimhood is irrelevant and only serves to distract one from rational judgment.

[Updated:]

In addition, I also find the alleged comparison of the level of freedom in Israel to its neighbors irrelevant to the question at hand. I'll freely concede that Israel's government is far more moral than its neighbors' governments, as far as I know, but it is still far from moral; compulsory military service, for instance, is not the hallmark of a free state. The question seems to be related to Israel's right to Israel. I see nothing rational to justify a positive conclusion.
(Edited by Dean Hall on 9/22, 9:57am)

Post 4

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:30am

Quote: Although I am not an expert in Israel's history, it seems to me that Israel was formed by people who were otherwise welcome in the region but then expelled Palestinians by force and created their own state, by religious motivation of "divine right" to the land, again, by force.

First of all, historically Jewish people have never been ‘welcome’ in the Middle East (nor for that matter in many other regions). Secondly, Israel was created as a result of the Balfour Declaration in which Briton intended to eventually create an Israeli state in their colony of Trans-Jordan. A mandate for that proposal was given in 1922 by the League of Nations. Originally nearly all of what is presently known as Israel and Jordan would make up the state of Israel. The present borders of Israel represent less than 1/3 rd of the original intent. The area chosen was not chosen for any “divine rights” reasons. It was recognized that these areas were the natural historical and cultural foundations of Jewish culture and identity for thousands of years.

The eventual creation of a Jewish state in 1948 was also a result of the Holocaust during the Second World War. A wave of international sympathy arose for the Zionist cause of creating an independent state of Israel. At that point it was decided to split Trans-Jordan up into two entities – Israel and Jordan – a Jewish state and an Arab/Palestinian one. In other words, from the very beginning a Palestinian state was already in existence: Jordan. The current clamor for the creation of a Palestinian state for a ‘stateless people’ is nonsense. Palestinians make up the vast majority of the Arab peoples of Jordan. The results were the borders that existed until 1967.

The present West Bank was an area conquered by Israel from the Jordanian state, after Jordan’s failed participation in a war against Israel. The area protrudes into the very center of Israel itself and is only a few miles from the coast. As such, it was a strategic necessity for Israel to occupy this area in order to ensure that Israel itself could not be so easily cut in half if another Arab invasion occurred. The same strategic considerations involved taking the high grounds of the Golan Heights from Syria. Notice that there were no riots or intifadas by Palastinians against the govermenet of Arab Jordan for their 'occupation' of the West bank from 1948 to 1967! The current claim to the West Bank would be comic, if it were not so tragic.

As to the so-called “mass” expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland, this is the true red herring. Not even a fraction of those persons that are presently designated ‘Palestinians’ lived in what constitutes the present day state of Israel. Unreported by the media is the fact that the majority of those ‘millions’ of dispossessed Palestinians have no connection to this region whatsoever. Furthermore, after the creation of the state of Israel, a voluntary mass exodus of Palestinians occurred, after a call from Islamic leaders for them to leave and having nothing to do with a state they loathed. From the very beginning the antipathy for Israel rested on 2 foundations: a despised Western Culture and Anti-Semitism.

The area known today as Israel was very sparsely populated in the ‘40s, made up of myriad of peoples ranging from Jews, Arabs, Lebanese, Christians and the majority Arab Palestinians. Were some Palestinians forcibly removed, yes they were. But their numbers are no more than a few thousand. A simple Israeli reparations payment to those persons is in order – however, the current myth of a massively dispossessed peoples is a total sham. This entire region has for hundreds, even thousands of years, been in the possession of one conquering/colonizing nation after another, it was not until the establishment of an Israeli state that the first true Democratic Republic ever exist in this region.

The current so-called struggle of the Palestinians against their ‘occupiers’ is a modern construct. Originally the cause was stated more honestly; the destruction of the Jewish state – completely and totally. Its existence was a blasphemy to Islam and a stain to be wiped out. The current war against Israel and the manner, in which it is being sold, is the result of so many failed attempts to destroy Israel or exterminate their people. Having failed to do that, their foes have decided on an indirect approach to the same ends. The weapons employed now are a combination of terror (and the fear it creates), along with the moral equivalency and moral inversion of irrational and misinformed people.

This is not a struggle for the rights of the dispossessed, it is a clash of civilizations: with Israel (with all its inherent flaws and contradictions) being the product of Western Enlightenment, - hated and despised by a foe mired in the ideology of the Dark Ages.

George

PS: As a side note, soon after the creation of the state of Israel, thousands of Jews living in Libya, Jordan, Syria, and other Arab states were forcibly removed (or so threatened that they left in fear for their lives). This is yet another unreported reality of the entire issue. Imagine for a moment the howls of laughter at the UN if 2000 Jews were to demand reparations or their land back from the Governemnts of Libya and Syria.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 9/22, 10:40am)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 9/22, 10:46am)

Post 5

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 11:18am

Thanks for the information, George. For the time being, I will have to defer most of the argument to you and others who know the history of the situation much better than I.

I do, however, have a problem with a few things you mention.

"First of all, historically Jewish people have never been 'welcome' in the Middle East (nor for that matter in many other regions)."

I understand this, and to a large extent, this is certainly due to religious hatred and anti-Semitism. But could part of the reason for the difficulty Jews had relocating to Israel have to do with Zionist calls to "reduce [the Arabs] to a race of woodcutters and waiters" (David Ben-Gurion)?

"The area chosen was not chosen for any 'divine rights' reasons. It was recognized that these areas were the natural historical and cultural foundations of Jewish culture and identity for thousands of years."

I find this distinction of little importance considering the stated aims of Zionism.

Post 6

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:28pm

Dean,

For someone who admits ignorance of history - and thereby effectively confesses that his "analysis" is not grounded in fact - you are spending an awful lot of words on your ungrounded arguments.

Please check the facts. Israel was founded as a refuge from pogroms and genocide, and not for any religious reason. To this day, Israelis are more often non-religious (over 60% non-religious according to the most recent figures) than the people of any other country on Earth.

It is a matter of basic intellectual hygiene to base one's judgement only on verified facts. Please study the necessary history, and come back when you know enough to make a reasoned and informed argument.

Post 7

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 1:50pm

Mr. Reed wrote:

"For someone who admits ignorance of history ... you are spending an awful lot of words on your ungrounded arguments."

If you will notice, I did not admit an "ignorance of history". I admitted a less-than-expert knowledge about the history of the nation of Israel, specifically.

I wasn't aware that all we were allowed to do on these forums was engage in argument. As I said, specifically, "I'm more than willing to hear opposing viewpoints on this." I'll add this as well:

I have some initial impressions and judgments on the Israel issue that I find difficult to reconcile with predominant Objectivist opinions. I'm interested, for anyone who is interested in discussing it, in some further justification on the pro-Israel standpoint--and in response to my reservations about supporting Israel as "moral" or "right".

If you wish to disprove or argue against my opinions, I welcome it. If you just wish to make hostile remarks about my ignorance--well, feel free, but I don't see anything constructive in it.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 2:09pm

This is Jim Kilbourne posting this for Barbara:

Dean, you wrote:

"I also find it disturbing that Objectivist libertarians align themselves so wholeheartedly and unequivocally with Christian conservatives on the issue of Israel."

Christian conservatives are against murder. So are Objectivist libertarians.

"Although I am not an expert in Israel's history, it seems to me that Israel was formed by people who were otherwise welcome in the region but then expelled Palestinians by force and created their own state."

This does not begin to name the historical facts. When Jews came to Palestine, they bought land from the Arabs. No force was involved. And they created jobs for Arabs, and transformed the desert into a fruitful land. When the United Nations -- not the Jews -- granted statehood to Israel in 1948, the Arab nations en masse attacked the tiny new state. Even then, few Arabs were displaced by law or by force, although many of them left to escape the fighting. They fled to other Arab countries, but were not granted the right to assimilate; they were forced into squalid camps so that the world would take pity on them, and there they have remained all these years -- not because of Israel, but because of their own Muslim world.

"If you don't support Israel, you must then excuse the Holocaust or at least be anti-Semitic."

I don't know who ever said that. I certainly never did, nor have I heard it. However, when anti-Semitism became unpopular after World War II, many anti-Semites, undeniably, did transfer their hatred of Jews into a more acceptable form: hatred of Israel. And they continue to do so today.

"If a large number of people came to the place you and your family had lived for hundreds of years, expelled you saying that their people had a divine right to your land, and you retaliated, which is morally within your rights, would you not think the appellation "terrorist" to be a bit unjust?"

I am answering you calmly because you said you don't know much about the history of Israel. But don't you think you ought to know considerably more before you venture what can only be the opinions of other people, people profoundly antagonistic to Israel?
As for the appellation "terrorist," what would you call thugs who deliberately and consistently murder innocent civilians; killers who, recently, as an example, encountered a Jewish mother with her four young children and pregnant with another child, and machine-gunned her and all the children; parents who teach their own children that they will go to paradise if they blow themselves to smithereens in order to murder Jews?

"We must place all blame where it belongs, which is, in this case, on both sides."

It's a popular Post Modernist fallacy that there are two legitimate sides to every question. There are not two sides to the question: Should we be guided by reason or by faith? -- or: Should we murder people or respect their rights? Or, in the case of Israel and the Palestinians: Should we blame the murderers or those they murder?

Barbara

Post 9

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:10pm

Ah, the Balfour Declaration. Let's examine that for a moment.

The Balfour Declaration and its subsequent corollaries gave one half of the land in TransJordan to Arabs, and one half to Jews. At the time, Jews made up a quarter of the population and owned 5% of the land. So 45% of the Arabs in TransJordan would have to give up their land in order for this split to work. Consequently, they opposed the Balfour Declaration and all of Britain's attempts to force an equal racial and religious division where there was none. Imagine if after the Civil War, it was decided that 50% of all land in the United States were to belong to African-Americans.

But the part of the arguments above that still gall me are these suggestions of 'aboriginal rights'.

Please tell me, supporters of aboriginal rights, shall we in the United States abandon our homes to give the land back to the Native Americans? Should people of Norman descent be forced to leave England to those with more Celtic blood?

I was under the impression that in the modern age, it is INDIVIDUALS who hold rights, not peoples. The type of logic that would suggest that a bloodline confers upon an individual restitution for all wrongs and rights done to his forefathers is a throwback to the monarchical thought, and breeds stereotyping besides, which is one thing neither Jews nor Muslims need.

Either we live in an age of individual rights or we assign everyone to their prearranged bin, and assign their rights accordingly. Choose.

Post 10

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:35pm

Dean,
I agree with many here that you should first learn more about the history of modern Israel before jumping into this discussion. I'd recommend this short book as an introduction.

My view is that if any human being has the right to live on this earth, then the modern State of Israel has the right to exist, thus the right to defend itself.

Barbara wrote:
"...when anti-Semitism became unpopular after World War II, ..."

Was this really true? Was it a fact that most of the Western countries, in particular US, were unwilling to absorb the Holocaust survivors into their country? And shiploads of Jews were floating from port to port in the Mediterranean, across the Atlantic and back, and were not allowed to land anywhere? I'd guess there probably aren't many Jews who remained living in the continental Europe? (Please correct me if I am wrong here). Could this be one of the reasons that "many anti-Semites, undeniably, did transfer their hatred of Jews into ... hatred of Israel. And they continue to do so today".

I have another question: was there ever any discussion among Western governments to designate a piece of formal colonial land in Africa for the European Jews during or after World War II? Or was it simply a fiction and I just read too much Leon Uris?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 9/22, 6:43pm)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 9/22, 6:59pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 5:10pm

There have been two subjects that for about forty years I have said I want to avoid: the Israeli/ Palestinian problem and the American Civil War. They both depress me. The Civil War, because It is so involved and there MUST have been a better solution to solving our racial problems than killing about 1 out of 30 of our people. The I/P problem, because no one ever seems to get anywhere, no matter what is tried.
Well, the War on Terror got me to look at Israel and Palestine. I was somewhere nearer Dean in preconceptions, and have come out even stronger George and Barbara in conclusions. What is done to Israel by the international community is despicable.
The predominate subject of our time in politics is the War on Terror, and if you think that that has nothing to do with the Israeli/ Palestinian problem, you really do have some reading to do. As Objectivists, we know that in any compromise between good and evil, evil wins. In all situations I have ever considered, I have never seen a clearer example of good and evil.
I'll look at the Civil War next decade.

Post 12

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 9:52pm

Barbara writes:

Christian conservatives are against murder. So are Objectivist libertarians.

This is oversimplification. Many of the Israel supporters on the Christian Right view the situation from a biblical perspective: they see the re-creation of the state of Israel as biblical prophecy, the beginning of the end of the world. This disturbs me. However, given World opinion on Israel these days, she is no position to be turning away friends.

(Edited by Pete on 9/22, 11:31pm)

Post 13

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:45pm

Barbara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite reply. I'll try to address more general issues of principle than of history.

You wrote, in response to my statement of disturbance that Objectivists and conservative Christians hold the same position on the Israel/Palestine issue:

"Christian conservatives are against murder. So are Objectivist libertarians."

I obviously understand this (and obviously agree), but this begs several questions: First, are some Zionists not also responsible for the murder of Palestinians? And second, is murder the only evil we must identify in this situation?

My initial statement was not meant that Objectivists should disagree with everyone who does not hold Objectivist primaries; rather, I find it disturbing and confusing when I see Objectivists support Israel for many of *the same reasons* as Christian conservatives.

"...[T]he United Nations -- not the Jews -- granted statehood to Israel in 1948..."

I do realize that you're saying that the Zionists and/or Jews did not take Israel from the Palestinians per se, but was it within the rights of the United Nations to establish the state of Israel? Did the UN dispossess one group for the pity of another? Did anyone have to serve as the sacrificial lamb to the cause of the Jews and their state--and did they?

"However, when anti-Semitism became unpopular after World War II, many anti-Semites, undeniably, did transfer their hatred of Jews into a more acceptable form: hatred of Israel."

This is sometimes the association that is made when one voices disagreement or questioning of the sanction of Israel or of Israel's actions. When I judge that when Israel plows down the homes of the *families* of suicide bombers (in blind retribution and no sense of justice), does that make me an anti-Semite? Obviously not. It merely means that I see Israel's government betraying any rational attempt at justice (which, admittedly, the suicide bomber made impossible--at least upon him/her).

"...[W]hat would you call thugs who deliberately and consistently murder innocent civilians...?"

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that such people are not terrorists. Of course they are. But if someone kicks you out of your home, justice is impossible by means of government intervention, and you defend your property *specifically against those who stole/are stealing your home*, that cannot be classified as terrorism--merely as self-defense. I'm not implying that terrorists do this--Islamic terrorists have a brilliant way of shredding any notion of justice and disintegrating any moral justifications for their actions by their deliberately off-target retribution against civilians who had nothing to do with any imagined or real evil done to them--but shouldn't we get to the root of the issue instead of merely declaring the issue only to be about Israel's self-defense against terrorism? That seems to neglect the motivation--and thus, the history and ultimate cause--of the situation.

"There are not two sides to the question...."

I simply cannot agree with you on this. The murderer is certainly responsible for his murder, and the victim is certainly blameless. But we're not talking about a single murder here. We're talking about a cycle of retribution lasting for decades. If both sides engage in immoral activity, completely devoid of any sense of justice and only concerned with revenge, are not both sides (though not necessarily equally) to blame?

(Edited by Dean Hall on 9/22, 10:46pm)

Post 14

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:50am

I hear that Syria actually holds a principal seat on the UN Security Council. That, in and of itself, completely invalidates the United Nations as anything more than a posturing mob of phonies.

Post 15

Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 6:47am