Soccer Dad

Anti-zionism ?= antisemitism folowup revisited

Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of “Bantustans” under de facto Israeli control.40 Europe’s crimes against the Jews provide a clear moral justification for Israel’s right to exist. But Israel’s survival is not in doubt—even if some Islamic extremists make outrageous and unrealistic references to “wiping it off the map”—and the tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the United States to help Israel no matter what it does today.

From the Israel Lobby, Walt and Mearsheimer.

By quoting Arafat's view of Barak's Camp David offer, Walt and Mearsheimer aren't simply saying that Israel didn't offer enough to make a deal possible. They are saying that failing to make an appropriate offer, makes Israel illegitimate.

The term "Bantustan" refers to an aspect of apartheid. Arafat used the term very deliberately, meaning to deny Israel's legitimacy. Walt and Mearsheimer's uncritical quoting of Arafat shows their acceptance of his stance. Their subsequent disclaimer is boilerplate.

And while others don't go as far consider a recent New York Times editorial West Bank Withdrawal

Whatever borders Israel fixes are not likely to get international recognition, particularly if those borders leave Palestinians cut in half — in the West Bank and Gaza — and unable to get from one part of their country to another without going through Israel.

The idea that Israel should cut any part of the so called West Bank in half is looked at in horror. Any Israeli decision that cuts the West Bank in half doesn't deserve international approval and may even serve to condemn Israel as an illegitimate state.

Biur Chametz pointed out a major problem with striving for Palestinian contiguity - it's like playing hex. Gaza and the West Bank cannot be contiguous, unless they have a means of passage that would cut Israel in half.

(It's amazing some believed that a non-contiguous state of Palestine would bring peace or at least stability to the region. It worked so well with Pakistan and East Pakistan didn't it?)

Regardless, to much of the world, Israel's legitimacy stems from its ability to placate its enemies. If Israel is successful it deserves approval but if not it invites pressure and questions about its legitimacy. Knowing this creates an Arab or Palestinian veto. Only Israeli concessions that are approved by the Palestinians are considered adequate. So what's the cost to holding out? And thus nearly 13 years after the Oslo accords were signed there is still no peace.

What does Israel need to do?

Evelyn Gordon's (h/t Israel Perspectives ) Israel's image - why the all-time low? in the Jerusalem Post provides some answers. While I'm not sure that Israel's image is at an all time low except in the precincts she specifically mentions, the article is important. In conclusion Ms. Gordon writes the case Israel must make to change mistaken impressions

The case, briefly, is as follows:

First, this is the historic Jewish homeland: Jerusalem and Hebron, not Tel Aviv and Haifa, were the heart of the biblical Jewish kingdom. This is vital, because the fact that this was our historic homeland is what justifies establishing a modern Jewish state here at all. Otherwise, we are indeed mere foreign interlopers.

Second, this land was unequivocally allotted to the future Jewish state by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which was never legally superseded. The 1947 UN partition plan was no more than a non-binding "recommendation" (the plan's own language) - as are all General Assembly (as opposed to Security Council) resolutions. Thus once the Arabs rejected the plan, it had no more validity than any other unsigned deal. (Were this not true, incidentally, much of pre-1967 Israel would also constitute "occupied Arab land.")

Third, no sovereign state ever replaced the Mandate on this territory. Jordan and Egypt conquered the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, in 1948, but neither conquest ever received international recognition. Legally, the territories remained stateless lands whose ownership was disputed. The only change that has occurred since is that the Palestinians have replaced Egypt and Jordan as the Arab claimants.
And finally, Israel acquired these lands not in a war of conquest, but in a defensive war.

At this late date, reversing the international perception of Israel as a thief rather than a legitimate claimant will be a Herculean task. But unless Israel makes the effort, it will increasingly be treated as a criminal rather than a seeker of peace.

Israel must be certain of its legitimacy. Any doubt will be magnified by Israel's enemies. Meryl Yourish (courtesy of Yehuda Avner) remembers an Israeli leader who harbored no doubts - Israel does not need Palestinian recognition

SO WHEN, on the first day of his premiership in 1977, he was waylaid by a tall, debonair, rakishly good-looking Englishman in a bow tie and a perfectly pitched BBC announcer’s voice, and saucily asked whether he looked forward to a time when the Palestinians would recognize Israel, his jaw tightened in restrained Jewish anger. But honed as he was by years of legal training, he answered with the composed demeanor of a practiced jurist, saying, “Traditionally, there are four major criteria of statehood under international law. One - an effective and independent government. Two - an effective and independent control of the population. Three - a defined territory. And four - the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations. Israel is in possession of all four attributes and, hence, is a fully fledged sovereign state and a fully accredited member of the United Nations.”

“But, surely, you would insist, would you not, that the relevant Palestinian organizations recognize Israel as a sine qua non for negotiations with them?” persisted the fellow.

“Certainly not! Those so-called relevant organizations are gangs of murderers bent on destroying the State of Israel. We will never conduct talks about our own destruction.”

“And were they to recognize Israel’s existence - would you then negotiate with them?” pressed the correspondent.

“No, sir!”

“Why not?”

“Because I don’t need Palestinian recognition for my right to exist.”

About this Meryl concludes

3,500 years of unbroken Jewish existence in the land of our forefathers should suffice. But it doesn’t, because the world can’t wrap its brain around the Jewish claim to Israel. It can only see the claim of the “palestinians,” many of whom moved there after Jews returned and started making the desert bloom again.

The fact that the leaders of Iran — a terror state — terrorist organizations, and various Muslim and Arab nations refuse to “recognize” Israel’s existence doesn’t make Israel any less real, or their non-recognition any more legitimate.

Israel exists. Arab and Muslim recognition or not will not change that fact.

Despite the historical ties of Jews to Israel, Isreal still seeks legitimacy for its existence. Given that Israel is the only country that seems to have to constantly defend its right to exist, I'm inclined to call anyone who attacks Israel's legitimacy - an anti-Zionist - an antisemite.

Elder of Ziyon says that's well and good. In most cases I'd be right but still apply a test to see if a specific anti-Zionist is also an antisemite. And he gets the test from Natan Sharansky.

There are a few good "acid tests" to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism and old fashioned bigotry against Jews. One of the better definitions comes from Natan Sharansky.

He calls it the "3D" test:

Demonization - "When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel."
Double Standards - "When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism."
Delegitimization - "When Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism."
So while it may not be prudent to yell out "anti-semite!" at every critic of Israel, it is more than reasonable to dig a little deeper and see if the critic fits one or more of the above criteria. It quickly becomes clear that the motivation behind Israel boycotts, for example, is pure Jew-hatred dressed up as liberal social values.

Technorati tags: antisemitism, anti-Zionism, Israel/'s Right to Exist.

Posted by SoccerDad at June 16, 2006 5:42 AM | TrackBack