Finn dAbuzz wrote:Many of Israel's critics wish to dismiss the acute threat of violence Israelis face on a daily basis, as either a rather inconsequential fact of life, or as deserved retribution from the people they are said to oppress.
Clearly their continued and constant peril is going to influence their decisions on how to order their society as respects Jews and non-Jews.
It strikes me that one's position on Israel can, largely, boil down to the answer to the following question
Does Israel as a nation have a right to exist?
If your answer to this question is "no," well then it really doesn't matter how they treat non-jews, jews or penguins for that matter.
If your answer is "yes" then I think it is debateable as to whether or not the manner in which Israel treats non-jews is essential to its continued existence. Given the constant existential peril Israel has faced and continues to face, I'm not sure it's quite as crystal clear, as some would suggest, that discontinuing any discriminatory practices against Palestinians will enhance its prospects. I suppose it's quite tempting to suggest that a nation that discriminates to preserve its existence doesn't deserve that existence, but then we would have to argue that quite a large number of nations on earth (and virtually all in the Middle East) who engage in discriminatory practices, and arguably for far less essential reasons, don't deserve to exist either.
Do we then nullify all of the nations in the region and sit back and see what rises from the ashes? Want to bet it would be Israel?
It is interesting what behavior we will tolerate in our enemies in the name of peace, as opposed to what we will accept in our allies.
A cogently stated argument, but one that involves more than a little sophistry.
The question , "Does Israel as a nation have a right to exist?" is loaded with unstated associations that are critical to a meaningful answer. This alone is the key source of the fallacies in the argument that follows.
Moreover the question, so stated, bypasses the fundamental existential fact -- Israel, the nation, does indeed exist. Significantly this nation defines itself as a Jewish state, with special immutable provisions for the preservation of its essential Jewish character and special rights for Jews everywhere for residence and citizenship -- rights that are explicitly and forcefully denied to their immediate neighbors, the present and former residents of its territory, and those of additional adjacent lands it covets and controls through military occupation. Israel also defines itself as a modern democracy. However this self-definition is fundamentally incompatible with the even more central Zionist character of the state. Israel is first and foremost a Zionist, racist theocracy. It is modern and democratic only within those strictures -- in effect, modern and democratic to Jews and to a passive, submissive non Jewish minority - as long as it remains passive, submissive and small.
In these attributes Israel is no worse than any of the surrounding, predominantly Moslem states. Indeed, within its well-defined limits of intolerance, it is superior to most in many aspects of is operation. However in its fundamental character it in not materially different from them.
Many Americans have for a long time (centuries) identified their own historical struggle to create a new civilization and political order in the New World with the Biblical struggles of the Jews to create Israel - and even to eventually recreate it in the modern world. This goes back to the images of the founding colonists, in the Massachusetts colony, and to a large degree it persists today. However, this association ignores a fundamental element in our development of a successful political system and culture, namely a tolerant and non-sectarian society promising freedom and equal treatment for all. William Bradford the Massachusetts colony governor, who wrote of the "shining city on a hill" they were creating in American, in fact headed a colonial government that tolerated neither atheist, Jew, Catholic nor other variety of Protestant. - A fact that directly led to the creation of the breakaway colony of Rhode Island by Roger Smith and others. It was only later during our revolution and the following two centuries of our development that we refined and (however imperfectly) widely applied the principles of equality, freedom and democracy.
Israel has yet to face and deal with these issues. While it may, in many ways, be like the Massachusetts colony it, is fundamentally unlike the United States of America. It represents a primitive and even regressive (for many of its citizens) stage of political development, hardly different, except for its relatively greater economic efficiency, from that of its Middle Eastern neighbors. We have no transcendent right, need, or obligation to prefer its interests to those of its neighbors.
It has been argued that, despite this fundamental difference, Israel is a vital strategic ally that promises benefits to this country as we try to navigate our way to safety and security through the hazards of a still competitive and dangerous world. This notion, however, does not pass the test of even cursory critical analysis. Israel, at best offers us some assistance in dealing with a few of the serious problems we have only as a direct result of our security guarantees for her.
Finally, we can note the very strong likelihood that the security guarantee we have provided Israel over the past decades has indirectly suppressed the most progressive elements in Israeli society which otherwise might have evolved a tolerable accommodation with her neighbors and the development of a state offering freedom and near equality for all of its inhabitants. We have, perhaps without intending it, provided a security blanket for the worst elements in Israeli policy and thereby undermined the best interests of all of its people.
They've lost that long ago! It's time now they start to understand why and learn how to find it again.
