A critical question
December 29, 2010, 11:03 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Jeffrey Goldberg blogging at the Atlantic asks: “What if Israel Ceases to Be a Democracy?” If Goldberg, an American journalist and ardent supporter of Israel, is worried about the democratic future of Israel, then the scenario he presents is either inevitable or the Neocon community is having a reality check about the West Bank. Which is it? HT: TPM And read David Remnick’s comments here.
And here’s MJ Rosenberg on the possible significance of Goldberg’s question.
Thanks for the two very interesting links. Goldberg’s was highly informative. Apropos Remnick, (whom I greatly respect), the last word of his quote would never have passed muster in that other, much discussed, publication … with or without the [sic] :-).
Of course, if the New York Times DID print that quote from Remnick, I’m confident we could all count on a post from you, Fr. Imbelli, noting archly that Well well well, it seems The Paper of Record is perfectly willing to print the Lord’s name when someone is taking it in vain. How very revealing.
Ms. Steinfels – “what if Israel ceases to be a democracy?”…..wonder how Palestinians or even Arab Nationalists feel when they see/read this type of headline and story.
Excellent book – “Faith Misplaced: the broken promise of US-Arab Relations 1820-2001″ by Ussama Makdisi, published 2010.
If you consider this question from the historical Palestinian viewpoint, Israel has never been a democracy…or at least, it has been a democracy for only certain ethnic, cultural, religious folks dating back to the Balfour Declaration (US Congress passed in 1922); the Sykes-Picot (justified Jewish Palestine) and King-Crane Reports (supported Palestinian self-determination); Palestinian Revolt of 1936; the Peel Commission of 1937 (recommended two states at the expense of local Palestinians even tho in 1937 there were 1/4 million Palestinians to 1300 Jewish settlers); fearing the onset of WWII, British White Paper in Feb., 1939 (stated no support for paritition – rather, Palestinians would have self-rule in 10 years and Jewish immigration would be curtailed); WWII reactions/decisions strongly influenced by the Shoah and Western anti-Semitism (Palestinians would pay the price for Western aggression towards Jews); the end of the British Empire in the Middle East; the UN declaration and recognition resulting in the Nakba and war; and then the series of wars/Israeli decisions to solidify their right to Palestine.
Thus, Zionism enabled the key tension – despite sympathies toward Arab aspirations, US foreign policy in the 20th Century repeatedly voted to ignore/deny the meaningful presence of Arabs in Palestine (at best, paid it lip service)…..e.g. FDR (changed what had been US foreign policy towards Arabs), Truman, Eisenhower changed this to a degree in terms of the Cold War.
Merely offer this to lay a context to the on-going arguments about Israeli political decisions and how/whether US should support them.
Two other interesting comments:
a) had a professor in graduate school at DePaul who challenged us with the Allied goals of WWII – primarily, the right of peoples to self-determination. His argument was that WWII goals were never achieved or implemented e.g. Palestinians, Vietnamese, etc. Yes, this was compounded by the end of war realities in Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the internal disarray of Arab politics (lack of cultures/societies that could maintain democracies);
b) would suggest that any on-going consideration of current editorials, articles, etc. about US policy in the Middle East start with reading Antonius’s book, “The Arab Awakening”. It does an excellent job of placing in context the Middle East/World at the end of WWII and Zionism’s statement that equated a Jewish state in Palestine with the end of anti-Semitism and the advent of a “new democratic world.” That is the background for the language seen today in various articles. But as you drill down, you realize that “democracy” has to be defined….thus, this article defines democracy in terms of complete elimination of Palestinian rights, history, legacy to the land of Palestine. Sort of a “weird” definition of democracy.
Bob and Mollie, I think we’ve had it with that particular discussion. How about moving on! Plowing in your neighborhood? How’s that going?
Bill de Haas: Balfour Declaration (U.S. Congress?): Wasn’t that a product of the Brits (in England).
Just an additional factoid to your rundown on “Israel: A Democracy?” Israeli Arabs are allowed to vote and serve in the Knesset–though in some respects Arab Israelis suffer a number of civil disabilities that make them unequal citizens.
Peggy,
Just back from a walking-inspection: plowing in Pelham Bay actually making progress;
Molly, I had added the :-) just for you. I’m disappointed it passed unnoticed.
The comments at TPM to the Remnick quote are quite revealing IMO. Most of the comments seem to have been posted by Jews, and, if the comments are representative of the diversity of Jewish opinion on Israel, the occupation, and the Netanyahu government, they reveal fault lines in that community that appear to be growing.
“David Remnick Joins the Israeli Haters and the Leftist British Intellectuals”
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/12/28/david-remnick-joins-the-israeli-haters-and-the-leftist-british-intellectuals/
“If you consider this question from the historical Palestinian viewpoint, Israel has never been a democracy…or at least, it has been a democracy for only certain ethnic, cultural, religious folks” [Bill de Haas.]
“Israeli Arabs are allowed to vote and serve in the Knesset–though in some respects Arab Israelis suffer a number of civil disabilities that make them unequal citizens.”[Margaret Steinfels]
And, conversely, how are Jews treated in Arab nations? That is, those which even allow Jews to vote, much less serve in their parliament?
The double standard set up by Israel haters in favor of Palestinians seems utterly blind.
P Flanagan, quote accurately.
Balfour Declaration – yes, British but a part of the League of Nations deliberations at the end of WWI. Numerous commissions were implemented by the negotiators; specifically, the Middle East was a key area needing resolution, e.g. Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Turkey.
King-Crane was the end result of one commission; Sykes-Picot and later negotiations between Brit/French to modify borders led to the actual imposition of colonization – French over Lebanon/Syria; Brits over Iraq/Palestine/Jordan. Turkey was able by 1922 to set up its own final WWI settlement that changed the harsh terms and allowed them to proceed as a unified nation without colonial oversight.
King-Crane strongly supported Wilson’s self-determination before the League of Nations. As you know, the final result, unfortunately, led to the re-establishment of French/Brit colonial empires in the Middle East. These final results as a part of the final peace treaty of WWI (including the Balfour Declaration) required the US Congress to debate and approve that final treaty. Thus, my comment that the US Congress approved the treaty including the Balfour Declaration in 1922. This lopsided debate in 1922 symbolized what Palestinians were up against — almost every House member who spoke outlined that 93% of the residents of Palestine were Arab or Christian Arab but then they went on to glorify Zionism and vote in favor of it. Thus, self-determination could not and did not apply to Palestinians even though they had resided there for centuries.
Your other note – technically you are correct but realistically, Israeli Arabs are second class citizens (if you can even call them citizens).
Another interesting part of the history is the Suez War of 1956 and Eisenhower’s role in this event. Twice, Eisenhower went on television before the US people to lay out his reasons for acting in the Middle East (Oct. 31, 1956 and Feb., 1957 – addressing Israeli continue occupation of Sharm el-Sheik and Gaza/allowing UN peace keepers). Some of his statements are the last time a US president acted with any type of objectivity and neutrality in terms of Palestine:
“….wanted Israel to know that it could not take advantage of the US and the US would handle its affirs exactly as though the US didn’t have a Jew in America.”
“….the US had been deceived by its allies. No matter how provocative Egypt had been, our allies actions were wrong. We do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes. There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those we oppose and another for our friends. The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law, and the fostering of justice.”
In Feb. 1957 he threatened to cut off both US aid and US private aid. He clearly stated that Israel was defying the opinions of the world and trying to set pre-conditions for withdrawal. For him, it raised basic question of principle – how can a country that attacks/occupies vs. UN resolve be allowed to then set preconditions?
As history tells us, even Eisenhower’s statements were not consistent – during the 1950′s, US had authorized the Syrian overthrow; the Iraqi overthrow. Most historians indicate that this more objective Middle East foreign policy line was short-lived due to the Cold War.
Flanagan – historical letters; records, etc. clearly show that the British Empire both explicitly and implicitly supported Zionism and its Palestinian immigration policy because Parliment refused to allow Jewish immigration into the UK – this started at the end of the 19th century. (your comments about Arab nations denying Jewish rights may be true but is it a reaction to the earlier history above? and how is that any different from what western nations practiced in the first half of the 20th century?)
US immigration policy toward Jews even as late as the 1930′s and 40′s was just as nativist as the British Empire. FDR’s memos, letters, and records of conversations clearly show an anti-Semitic immigrant policy. Yes, this is complex and there are reasons such as the threat of Communism and Nazism but the end result is the same)
Of a piece, perhaps, this JTA dispatch:
“Concern in Israel over growing backlash against African migrants, Arabs”
By Dina Kraft · December 28, 2010
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/12/28/2742350/concern-in-israel-over-growing-backlash-against-african-migrants-arabs
Another NYT story this week concerns state support for ultra-conservative Jewish scholars. It seems that they are now a significant portion of the population and growing, and even some conservative Jews are objecting to such state support for this one group.
I had no idea that Jewish conservatives were strong enough maintain such an unfair program. And the demographics of the super-conservatives make the future of Israel look terribly grim.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/middleeast/29israel.html?src=me&ref=homepage
A timely reminder from Christianity Today:
Christian Zionism began with William E. Blackstone, a real estate developer and unconventional minister who settled in the Chicago suburbs in 1870. Intense emphasis on Palestine’s role in the upcoming end of the world began even earlier, notably with the work of Plymouth Brethren leader John Nelson Darby. Yet Darby’s views, known as dispensational premillennialism (think Left Behind, or look at the definition here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.html#dmil), had more detractors than supporters in the late nineteenth century. This didn’t bother Blackstone.
Blackstone, who could almost hear the clock ticking down humanity’s final days, called Palestine “God’s sun-dial.” He frequently advised, “If anyone desires to know our place in God’s chronology, our position in the march of events, look at Israel.” By the mid-1880s, Blackstone had shifted from mere timekeeping to attempts at speeding up the cosmic chronology. In 1887, he helped form the Chicago Committee for Hebrew Christian Work to evangelize Jews and thus ready them for Christ’s harvest. On a parallel track, he agitated for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, both to shield Jews from oppression (particularly in Russia) and to fulfill biblical prophecy.
Blackstone’s adventures in statecraft yielded a remarkable document known as the Blackstone Petition, or Memorial, of 1891. Addressed to President Benjamin Harrison, but also sent to Czar Alexander III, Queen Victoria, and other European leaders, the petition noted that, “[a]ccording to God’s distribution of nations,” Palestine belonged to the Jews. The document also asserted, “We believe this is an appropriate time for all nations and especially the Christian nations of Europe to show kindness to Israel. A million of exiles, by their terrible suffering, are piteously appealing to our sympathy, justice, and humanity. Let us now restore to them the land of which they were so cruelly despoiled by our Roman ancestors.”
The 413 signatories included prominent journalists, businessmen, and clergy members from Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore-among them Cyrus McCormick, J.P. Morgan, John D. and William Rockefeller, D.L. Moody, A.T. Pierson, Philip Schaff, James Cardinal Gibbons, and future president William McKinley. The names of a few rabbis and other Jewish leaders appeared as well, but only a few.
At this point, Zionism was primarily a Christian concern. Theodor Herzl wouldn’t publish The Jewish State (a response to the 1894 Dreyfus case in France) until 1896, and even then, many Jews even opposed the idea. Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch said, “We modern Jews do not wish to be restored to Palestine … the country wherein we live is our Palestine.”
Link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2002/feb1.html
Here is another interesting article that frames this original column and question from a different perspective – Christians:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3744
Some highlights:
“Whether living in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza, the Christians there (with the exception of recent immigrant worker communities) are all Palestinian and have been there for two thousand years. They live as a double minority, as Christians in a largely Muslim culture and as Palestinians living under an Israeli military occupation.”
“Since the State of Israel, has occupied these lands (partially in 1948, taking the rest in 1967) the Christians have left. As cited in the recent Middle East Synod, “the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio economic life and the thousands of refugees” have created such conditions, that many who can afford to leave have left. Christians who are generally well educated and have connections in the West have left in great numbers.”
“….many Christians in the West seem to hold kind of a default Christian Zionist viewpoint, which actually works against our brothers ands sisters there. Christian Zionism is an oxymoron, the practice of which is rooted in violence and exclusivism, things that are the very antithesis of Jesus’ teachings.”
Bill deHaas: Yes, there is an irony in the support of Christians and Christian Zionism for policies that have resulted in the departure of so many Middle Eastern Christians, many from ancient communities. Though this Zionism and Christian history is interesting, some of it, as you know, is disputed and/or highly convoluted as to the motives of Western Christians.
The point today is not so much that history but the support, implicit and explicit, of the U.S. government for Israeli policies that are steadily eroding the credibility of Israel itself. One of the usual defenses of U.S. policies is that Israel is the only flourishing democracy in the Middle East. Is it flourishing? (I think Goldberg’s worries are real.) Is our unstinting support (partly explained by the history you portray) really in our interest, in the Israeli interest, or for that matter in the interest of a Middle East able to develop and live in relative peace.
The greater interest among Americans and American Christians in these questions is a positive sign though the end point remains obscure. All the more reason to keep asking questions.
Totally agree. Shared the history because it is my opinion that without a historical context, every point of view chooses their own starting point e.g. 1948; 1967; etc.
A complete history, at least, lays bare the current Jewish quandary……they are a creation of a small group that exists in Palestine only because the Western powers took Palestine from its rightful people and then denied or ignored or manipulated those people for decades. We can argue that what is done, is done but folks need to start with a total picture.
Okay, so starting from more recent times, Israel is built upon a “myth” – only democracy; Zionism; created out of nothing; success militarily and economically, etc. There is ample evidence that this myth is now eroding in the face of the Palestinian & Israeli realities. It flourishes only because of US money; US votes in the UN; etc.
If I can borrow a famous Irish phrase – “the center can not hold”… but do we have to wait for Israel to implode before there is movement.
This is an unrealistic and limping analogy but look at the South African experience and apartheid. One solution would have been to create two South Africas – one white, one black. But, instead, you had a Reconciliation and Truth Commission; you had UN pressure; you did not have an “equivalent” US foreign policy supporting Apartheid (altho some tried). Eventually, you had free elections that preserved one nation in the midst of its diversity and bigotted legacy.
Yet, because of REALPOLITIK, the US supports the two state solution for Palestine. Is it a solution? Or is it just an intermediary step?
How does the US offset the AIPAC – even if Israel implodes, do you think the US Congress will ever reach an objective point of view?
Obviously, my comments indicate that US “unstinting support” only digs us deeper and deeper (interesting but US Israeli policy changed the most during LBJ with McNamara and Rostow – the same gang that led us down the Vietnam Quamire based on their brillance). The flawed US decisions about Vietnam from 1945 onwards have been duplicated with Israel…..no, US has not lost 60,000 troops; Israel unlike South Vietnam, has flourished in comparison; but the long term results have been just as devastating for both the US and for the world.
What would have happened if Palestine or Vietnam had been allowed self-determination?
What would have happened if Palestine or Vietnam had not been re-colonized after WWII?
What would have happened if the Vietnamese nationalists or the Arab nationalists in numerous nations had been given US support?
As you say – “all the more reason to keep asking questions”