I AM A JEW (PART XXVII - Discussion 3)

As the title shows this is the 27rd part (actually the 28^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

As I said In my previous post: “My colleague, Albert Nekimken, of Vienna, Virginian, a staunch defender of Israeli policies, has agreed to present the Israeli viewpoint chapter by chapter, and I will share his comments with you together with my rebuttals.

In my previous post I shared with the reader his comments on my post "I AM A JEW (PART I)" and offered my rebuttals. Now I come to "I AM A JEW (Part II)," in which I started the post by publishing some comments from readers. Nekimken first addresses those.

He addresses George Garver’s criticism of me for taking pride in my ethnicity and writes:

In my opinion, there is no need for you to defend either your sense of pride in the achievements of Jews, or your sense of despair when they fail to fulfill your moral expectations. Both are quite understandable.

Hal Wolkoff of Montclair, NJ, expressed some views which space will not allow me to replicate (See the post) to which Nekimken expresses substantial agreement saying:

Hal’s point here is well taken. I can find no reason why having a profound sympathy for, and understanding of, the situation of the Palestinian people should require us to blame Zionism and Israel wholesale for their suffering. Even a cursory reading of history of the conflict since the early 20^th century reveals Palestinian Arabs to have been the victims of duplicitous, inept and corrupt leaders who wasted no opportunity to promote their own interests at the expense of “the people” whom they professed to represent.

 Hal rightly identifies Palestinian rejection of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state because to do so would undermine a primary reason for opposing Israel, i.e., its “alien” nature. PM Netanyahu has been criticized as obstructionist for insisting on this point in peace negotiations with the PA. Yet, without it Israel would have no way to defend the essence, the raison d’être of Zionism itself and no way to reject peace plans that put it in jeopardy.

 Liberal Western Jews who complain that states identified by a religion are an anachronism in the modern world only need to look at the neighborhood: virtually ALL Arab states (and Iran) today describe themselves as some version of an “Islamic republic.” (ISIS in Syria and Iraq has even dropped the fig leaf of “republic” in its aspirations for a restored Caliphate.)

Having already responded to Hal Wolkoff, I will confine my remarks to Nekimken’s assertion. Let me start with Nekimken’s last paragraph first. He appears to be denying that “that states identified by a religion are an anachronism” by pointing out that most states in the Middle East  “describe themselves as some version of an “Islamic Republic”. Here he sets up a straw man, for I never made such an assertion and secondly I would be the first to recognized that not only are states defined by religion and even religious laws in the Middle East, but many states in the Far East are.

That is hardly an argument for Israel being one. But I have made clear that I believe Israel should be a Jewish State, in so far as it follows policies that would keep a Jewish majority by its immigration policies, and by denying the Right of Return to Israel proper. I do, however, strongly object to it being a theocracy, regardless what other states in the region, or in the rest of world are.

---------------------------------

Nekimken then address the substantive part of my post, which I urge the reader to read or re-read since without a point of reference it is difficult to follow the train of thought.

Nekimken writes:

Here you omit the not-so-unimportant fact that Israel’s declaration of independence was followed immediately by the expulsion of Jews from all Arab countries where they had been living for millennia. Together with the in-gathering of Jews from Ethiopia, Iran and elsewhere, over a period of a few decades,

I don’t think it is relevant, except as a way to sow hatred. In any case the Palestinians had no part in it.

Israel’s demography shifted from Western-oriented Ashkenazi to Sephardic. The Sephardic Jews (and later, the Russian immigrants) had no experience with Social Democrat politics and eventually they formed their own parties, which resulted in the Likud coalition today, as you describe. Subsequently, support for the Labor Party plummeted.

Absolutely true and a tragedy! They had no experience with any kind of Democracy, and they brought only Right Wing philosophy and hatred. It transformed Israel.

Your reference to Jews who were living in “peace and prosperity for generations in Arab lands” represents a gross distortion of the truth. Whatever “peace and prosperity” they were able to enjoy was temporary and subject to tragic deterioration from day to day.

Suffice it to say, they were better off than in most Christian lands. That is why they chose to live there. But it is not really relevant to our dilemma today.

Curiously, you cite “three factions,” but only name two: the Haganah and the Irgun. In fact, Haganah was not a political “faction,“

I disagree! It was the backbone of the group that formed the initial government and early subsequent governments. It was the foundation of the Labor party!

but rather the institutional militia organized overtly by the Zionist leadership. The third defensive element was the Palmach, which was an informal (at times covert) village defense organization that was merged with Haganah to form the Israel Defense Forces after independence. Its defense of Jewish settlements was critically important. Your decision to follow your description of clashes between the Haganah and the Irgun with the so-called Deir Yassin “massacre” and reference to “ethnic cleansing” was not “instructive” in the way that you intended. Here you use it as prima facie evidence for Zionist crimes.

No, that is the point! It was not Zionist crimes! It was the crimes of a faction, which unfortunately has now become the dominant faction in Israeli politics.

While no one denies the incident, it has been used egregiously by anti-Zionists and Arab propagandists. An entire chapter was devoted to the incident in Ari Shavitz’ recent book, “My Promised Land”. The chapter was republished in a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine. See here and for a critique see here. Suffice to say that your summary account here fuels a series of unwarranted interpretations. Whatever happened, and without minimizing the gravity of the tragedy,

A massacre is a tragedy, but not every tragedy is a massacre. Nekimken’s use of the term “tragedy” tries to deflect blame. And we have not even begun to discuss other massacres such as Lydda.

the incident was NOT an example of “ethnic cleansing,”

Many, if not most, would disagree! It resulted not only in the expulsion, and to a large extent the murder of its citizens, but more important caused a panic among the Palestinian population causing many of them to flee. The fact that many remained does not change this fact. The horror of the act is exemplified by the fact that the Haganah apologized for it.

Villagers were relocated a few miles away. These Arab deaths in no way reflected a Zionist

Nekimken talks about Zionist, as though it was a united group. The atrocities were committed by a faction, which, unfortunately, is now the ruling faction.

desire to eradicate Arabs from the land entirely, merely—as you indicate—the need to secure a pivotal defensive position under conditions of war. Twenty per cent of Israel’s population comprises Arabs who remained in place. Despite some wild talk recently, there has never been any effort to expel Arab citizens and “cleanse” the Jewish state of Muslims or Christians.

Absolutely true!! But as I have indicated the Arab population, like the American descendants of slaves, are discriminated against as a group, and have neither real political power, nor are their towns given the same resources as Jewish towns.

Although the idea never took hold for a variety of reasons, during earlier periods it remained an open question why Jordan should not be considered the much-discussed “Palestinian state.” The majority of its population is commonly identified as “Palestinian” in distinction from the Bedouin communities that form the anchor of the Hashemite monarchy that rules Jordan. Yasir Arafat did his people no favor when he attempted to overthrow the monarchy and was defeated in the Black September 1970 coup attempt.

This may, or may not, be true, but its relevance escapes me.

As described earlier, Britain created Jordan precisely as a remedy to the perceived unfairness of the Balfour Declaration that had awarded ALL of the Palestine Mandate to the Zionists. Why that effort failed became part and parcel of the over-arching Arab effort to eliminate Israel entirely.

 Of course there is a difference, as suggested above. Likud’s claim on the West Bank and Gaza was based on historical precedent: the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent establishment of the Palestine Mandate. The British negotiated with a Zionist leadership that more or less democratically represented the global Jewish community.

The characterization here of the establishment of Israel as illegal because it was “contrary to the wish of the Palestine people” etc. and violated their right to self-determination is nonsense.

Some of these comments amaze me! Where did I ever assert, allege, or suggest, that the establishment of Israel was illegal?

In 1947 there was no “Palestinian people” and Israel’s independence was validated by the UN.

Of course, there were Palestinian people. People who live or lived in Palestine, by definition are Palestinian people. This constant repetition of this offensive nonsense, is just that – offensive. As for Israel’s independence being validated by the UN, simply cries out for the validation by the UN of a Palestinian state. Israel was not created out of negotiations with its Arab neighbors. Why must a Palestinian State come about only out of negotiation with Israel? Why is Israel entitled to a veto?

The British creation of Jordan was precisely intended to provide a location for a new Arab “homeland” similar to the creation of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

True, but it overlooked that the Palestinians, west of the Jordan river, did not want to be ruled by the monarch chosen by the colonial powers.

Arafat’s statement referenced here after a meeting with “five prominent Jews” was never more than a tactic intended to further the continuing effort to eradicate Israel. Acts of terrorism never abated.
 Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly as a terrorist organization for the purpose of destroying Israel and ejecting all Jews from the region. In what sense can it be a partner for negotiation?

One doesn’t negotiate with friends. One negotiates with enemies. Israel has never offered to recognize a Palestinian State, with the characteristics of sovereignty, contiguous, including a link to Gaza, with East Jerusalem (the Part that was never part of Jerusalem and is inhabited by Palestinians) as its capital and with the Right of Return to the new Palestinian State. Instead it has shown bad faith in all negotiations, by annexing Palestinian territory, as it ostensibly negotiates. Sincere negotiations require that the status quo (if not the status quo ante) be maintained during negotiations.

Your claim that the PLO accepted Israel’s right to exist never materialized during negotiations and was, in any case, superseded by Hamas, which made no such concession.

Since it wasn’t included in the negotiations, why would it make, or offer, any concessions. What concessions were offered to it?

Your reference to “self-determination” conveniently omits the right of the Jewish people to the same goal. 

These constant straw men become tiresome! Who is denying the Jewish people self-determination?

The reference to “Israel’s endless encroachment on Palestinian territory” includes the implied assumption that some kind of Palestinian Arab political entity existed whose land Israel was “annexing” and “encroaching.” Yet, at no point in history has there ever been any such entity.

Another straw man! What has a political entity to do with it? People live in a part of Palestine who do not wish to live under Israeli rule. The attempt to impose such rule on them in the territory in which they live is annexing their land. What can be plainer! Israel’s de jure right is actually only what the UN granted them, the 1948 border. The 1967 border can only be claimed by right of conquest, a poor reed to lean upon.

The military ceasefire lines after the war resulting from Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 never demarcated any political border. Recall that it was Jordan that annexed the West Bank in 1950 and, during the period from 1948 to 1967—when there were no Israeli settlements or presence of any kind—there was no attempt whatsoever to establish a Palestinian state. Nor was there any effort under the Egyptian occupation of Gaza during the same period to establish any kind of “Palestinian” entity there. An argument could easily be made that Jordan’s annexation was illegal and, after 1967, the West Bank merely returned to Israel as part of the state declared in 1948.

A rather strange assertion, since “the state declared in 1948” had the 1948 borders.

Apart from Jordan, Arab governments everywhere kept Palestinian “refugees” in wretched camps without passports and supported at great expense by UNRWA.

Exactly! Showing that Nekimken’s claim of a “larger pan-Arab, Muslim “umma” is nonsense. Arabs in their own countries have no allegiance to Arabs who are of another tribe or another ethnicity.

During the same period, Israel successfully absorbed more than 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries,

Yes, that was the raison d'être for the creation of Israel.

a number roughly equal to the Arabs who left the new state of Israel.

A strong indication that they were too terrified to stay.

As for Israel turning the P.L.O. into a “Vichy government”, the claim is ludicrous since it was, in fact, Israel that facilitated the PLO’s return to the West Bank from Tunis (after it was chased out of Lebanon) in order to set up the Palestinian Authority as envisioned by the U.S.-brokered Oslo, peace negotiations. Had Israel not agreed to do this, the comparison with Vichy France might have some relevance. 

It is precisely because Israel agreed to do this that shows they were creating an entity to keep order on its behalf and if they don’t behave Israel punishes then, as they are now doing, by withholding taxes collected from Palestinians, ostensibly on behalf of the P.L.O.

Regarding the P.L.O or PA being characterized by Israel as “too weak” to be a partner in peace, we see today that the recent, much applauded “unity” government announced a short time ago between the PA and Hamas is already unraveling. Hamas only agreed to the deal because Egypt had closed the Gaza border and it was unable to pay either civil servant or “freedom fighter” salaries; it needed financial relief. The rocket attacks and publicity that followed presumably attracted new funds and made the PA deal superfluous.

Hamas is popular because it represents resistance to Israeli oppression, or as one Palestinian resident of Gaza was recently quoted as saying: “I would rather die quickly than to be slowly strangled by Israel.”

As to negotiations - The view of both Israel and Hamas is that there is nothing to negotiate. Each side wants to eliminate the other. Primarily American and European Liberals continue to believe in negotiations.

Since Nekimken has for many years described himself as a liberal, I would think he would be part of that group. As I have said, since the assassination of Rabin, and certainly since the advent of Netanyahu, all of Israel’s pretense at negotiations, has been just that – pretense.

The American political climate makes the right solution difficult, if not impossible. Peace will not come by negotiations, because Israel is intent on conquering the whole West Bank and has no interest in negotiations.

The U.S. has the capacity, if it had the political will, to impose a solution. It is in the interests of the U.S., of Israel, and of the Palestinians for it to do so. Mediation must end! Arbitration must begin! Further settlement activity must stop immediately, or sanctions must be imposed.

I regret the length of this post, but an adequate airing of Nekimken’s views and my rebuttals necessitated that.

I will not entertain comments at this time, since Nekimken has more to say, and I have to respond.