04) Arguments For Israel

Arguments for Israel What follows is an outline of arguments and issues. It is not meant to be an answer to an anti-Israel advocate, nor a substitute for a good book on the subject. (Some book recommendations appear at the end).

1.

Why does Israel belong to the Jews?

a.

It was ours For a religious Jew, our relationship with the Land is rooted in the Divine promise of the land to Ya’acov and his progeny, and our fulfillment of the commandment to live there. However, though there are those who deny the divinity of the Bible, no serious historian denies its fundamental historicity. The Jews are the oldest surviving claimants to the Land, having been the sovereign rulers of it until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.

b.

We were unjustly deprived of it The Jews were forced from the Land by direct expulsion, persecution, and economic deprivation by the Roman authorities. However, our hold was tenacious, and the expulsion took a long time, and was in fact never complete. Even today, there are families from Pekin who never left the Land.

c.

We never gave it up Even when unable to re-occupy the land, we always attempted to come as individuals. Those who could not do so, turned their faces to the Land three times a day in prayer, and prayed that “next year” would be “in Jerusalem”. For those who could not reach the Land in life, they sought to do so in death. And for those who could not do even that, then the Land came to them, and they were buried with earth of the Land under their heads.

d.

The International community recognized our claim (it did not create it) Our original claim to the Land, coupled with unyielding attachment to it, was recognized as our title deed. Various non-Jews saw it as axiomatic that we should be entitled to come here and rule ourselves. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and the UN’s recognition of Israel were all recognitions of our long-standing claim. These Lords and Nations did not give us the right to the Land, but facilitated our ability to exercise that right.

Arguments for Israel

2.

What about the Palestinian Arabs?

a.

They are almost all recent immigrants The vast bulk of Palestinian Arabs are first or second generation here. Leila Khaled (famous PLO woman hijacker from the 1970’s) was born in Lebanon. Her family moved here when she was a child. Arabs came because the area was undergoing rapid development as a result of Jewish immigration and investment. Arabs could come because they could enter across a largely unguarded land border.

b.

They had no national consciousness at the time of the Mandate There are two words for national in Arabic: watani and qawmi. Watani is the nationalism of being an Egyptian, a Syrian, or a Saudi. Qawmi is the nationalism of being an Arab, and part of the great Arab nation that stretches from North Africa to the Gulf. At the time of the British Mandate, although Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as part of the Arab nation, they did not see themselves as part of a distinct Palestinian nation. Haj Amin al Hussein, the Mufti of Jerusalem and the leading spokesperson for the Palestinian Arabs, did not necessarily see the solution to their issues in an independent state.

c.

Palestinian Arab national consciousness asserted itself only in the 1960s Haj Amin al Hussein, the most prominent leader of the Palestinian Arabs during the Mandate period, saw the future of the area as part of Southern Syria, or Western Jordan, or possibly an independent state. It didn’t really matter, as long as the Jews didn’t have it. Fatah was founded in late 1950s. The PLO was established in 1964. It was founded in the (then) Intercontinental Hotel in East Jerusalem. From its foundation to 1967, it never made any effort to “liberate” any part of Palestine ruled by Arabs. However, groups such as the PFLP and Fatah were developing in parallel with the PLO. They did perceive a greater role for a distinct Palestinian identity, and took over the PLO in 1968. Nonetheless, even the PLO covenant of 1968 saw a Palestinian identity as transitory, and secondary to a greater Arab identity.

3.

What is the real argument?

a.

It isn’t about Jerusalem or the post ‘67 territories Arab concern for Jerusalem only ever surfaces when Jerusalem is ruled by non-Arabs. For long tracts of history, Jerusalem and the whole Land of Israel have been backwaters, their status rising only as “unredeemed” parts of the Arab homeland.

b.

It isn’t about settlements Israel fought three wars before there were any settlements. The settlements that some complain about are on land that Israel gained in a defensive war in 1967. Hence the settlements are a result of conflict rather than a cause of it!

Page 2

Arguments for Israel

c.

So what is it about? For forty years, Israel was clearly locked in an existential battle for its existence. The Madrid Conference of 1991 and the Oslo Accords of 1993 led many to see this period as being over. Perhaps Arab attitudes had changed, and instead of seeking Israel’s destruction, the Arab world might be willing to accommodate itself to Israel’s existence, if sufficient provision were made for Palestinian Arab independence. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of over 90% of the “West Bank” and Gaza, additional land within Israel as compensation for the “missing” 10%, and parts of Jerusalem, was met not with open arms, or even tough negotiations to secure a better deal, but with the “Al Aksa intifada” (the Rosh Hashanah war). Arafat’s insistence on the “Right of Return”, and refusal to agree to an “end of conflict” agreement, convinced most Israelis that he was still (or perhaps always was) bent on Israel’s destruction. So what is the problem?

4.

Israel’s existence is an affront to the Arab/Islamic world

a.

Dar Al Islam/Dar Al Harb Islamic thought tends to see the world in dichotomies. It views the world as divided into lands ruled by Muslims, called the Dar Al Islam (“Home of Islam”), and the Dar Al Harb (“Home of War”), those lands not yet ruled by Muslims. Once an area has been ruled by Muslims, it is always and forever part of the Dar Al Islam. Israel is such a land, and its rule by non-Muslims is an affront to the natural (or perhaps divine) order of things.

b.

Dhimmi In traditional Muslim societies only Muslims can be full citizens. “Un-believers” cannot live in such a society at all. Jews and Muslims, as monotheists, can be tolerated, but only as second class citizens, forced to pay a special tax, and subject to restrictions on their religious and other rights. This status is called dhimmi (“protected people”, or “protégé”). That Jews and Christians should break out of this quasi-apartheid status, in the heart of the Dar Al Islam, is an even greater affront.

5.

Book list Please read the following books. Any one of them will improve your understanding of the conflict. All four will make you an expert! In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power Daniel Pipes: Basic Books August 1985

Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam Bat Ye’or: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press May 1998

Semites and AntiSemites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice Bernard Lewis: Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc. March 1999

Page 3

The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism Connor Cruise O'Brien, Simon & Schuster Trade, March 1986