PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ THIS ARTICLE. ITS IMPORTANT.
By Ted Belman
Shaul Magid, Professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana U, asks What if the Left Abandonned Israel? and suggests that Israel would go to hell in a hand-basket. “Be careful what you wish for”, he warns.
For him, the left are “basically liberal-minded and believers in civil rights and the rights of the oppressed— at least in the abstract”. He suggests that the “messianics and revisionists” of the right, aren’t. Everyone believes in them in the abstract. It’s when you deal with reality other considerations and values come into plaY.
I also believe in the “rights of the oppressed” but differ with the left in that I see the Jews in Israel as the oppressed and not the Palestinians, at least not by the Jews. We are oppressed by everyone including the UN, the State Department, the E.U., and the Muslims including the Palestinians. We are oppressed by 60,000 plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbours and by threats of annihilation. And for what? Its either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are “occupiers” which much of the world thinks is unconscionable. They forget that UNSC Res 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders. They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein. But even if it does apply, Israel’s primarily obligation is to treat the people occupied, humanely. In this regard, 95% of the Palestinians are totally governed by the Palestinian Authority. Nowhere in the treaty does it say that the occupier must end the occupation. In any event the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is fully set out in the Oslo Accords of 1995. There is no suggestion in it that Israel must end the occupation without a negotiated agreement. So spare me the crocodile tears about the “occupation”.
The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian. How so? They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead. For the next 19 years the West Bank was under Jordanian control and no one ever called for a Palestinian state. In 1967 the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began. As a result the UNSC passed Res 242 which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference the Arabs rejected Res 242 and agreed on three no’s; no recognition, no negotiations and no peace. Arafat accepted Res 242 because such acceptance was a pre-condition to entering the Oslo Accords but he never agreed to its terms. .And now they reject negotiations.
Israel, on the other hand can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close settlement of the land. She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3000 years, by virtue of 1000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
Magid quotes Zachary Braiterman with approval who wrote:
-
“I used to think that American Jews had the right and obligation to stake ideological claims in Israeli politics. I was wrong. I don’t have anything to say. Legalize outposts? Go ahead. Beat the hell out of Hamas or Hezbullah? I won’t object. Hit the Iranians? I hope you all know what you’re doing, because the mess is yours if you make it, and there is not a lot that the American Jewish community will be (able) to do if things go south. Desecrate mosques, uproot olive trees, beat up a Danish demonstrator, pass racist legislation, muzzle criticism, harass people at the airport?”
Each one of these complaints show a profound ignorance of the law or the context. Each one can be rebutted to the satisfaction of a fair minded person.
-
“Historically, the Zionism of Braiterman was the norm. Even given the less-than-charitable things Ben-Gurion had to say about the Arabs and the ways in which Israel treated its Arab population during times of conflict, the Zionist mainstream was committed to a humanistic and liberal ethos, even as it failed in significant ways.“
This is true, but why did it fail? Because the Arabs would have none of it. And that’s the point; why it is no longer the norm. The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality, namely, that the Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary. The Charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so. Sharia says so. The incessant preaching of hatred says so. Their support for terrorism says so. Their unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands say so. Yet, the Left blame Israel for the lack of peace.
He complains:
-
“The unspoken merger of the messianic and neo-revisionist right, coupled with the politicization of the haredi has given rise to an increasingly uncompromising ethnocentrism and, arguably, a redefined Zionism.”
True enough. But by characterizing the new Zionism as “ethnocentric”, he is opening up a can of worms. He is embracing the canard that Zionism is Racism. He is arguing against the Jewish particular in favour of universalism or multiculturalism. Those values might be appropriate for America though I prefer the melting pot to multiculturalism. In fact, so do most Americans and Europeans. Multiculturalism has proven a failure and its bitter fruits have yet to be realized in full.
He regrets that Israel was not able to “attain a balance necessary for its rightful place as a society among the nations of the free world”. But why must Israel be like everyone else. Why can’t it remain a pumpernickel in a worlD of white bread? Besides, Israel is in the Middle East which is not part of the free world. The Arabs are barring Jews and Christians from their countries. In Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere they are killing Christians and burning churches. No multiculturalism for them. No universalism for them other than under an Islamic dominated world..
While the Jewish left embraces the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad, I believe to America’s detriment, Israel prefers to keep her distance from the forces which are bent on her destruction. In order to defend herself, she must embrace her ethnicity not eschew it. Her people must rally around the flag, not tear it to shreds.
I accept that many Jews who embraced the Zionism of their youth, “understand quite well and are deeply informed — not only about the political realities but about the underlying history of the conflict.” But so do the Jews who embrace the new Zionism. The difference being that the former want Israel to be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state. The latter apparently is too Jewish for them.
In the end, its not about the old or new Zionism, but about survival. The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community to ensure her survival. It ignores that history teaches otherwise. It ignores the implacable hatred of the Arabs and their commitment to destroy her. The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel’s destruction. It prefers to achieve real peace through strength.
Israel doesn’t need the sanctimonious preaching of the Left to be moral or democratic. She doesn’t need the moral grandstanding of the left to save her from depravity. I have every confidence in the Jewish Israeli right to do the right thing.
Young Jews don’t “instinctively feel critical of Israel”. They have been indoctrinated by the constant and pervasive stream of demonization and deligitimation emanating from the media and academia. To suggest otherwise, as Magid does, is disingenuous. Real Zionists, whether old or new, defend Israel. The others are aiding and abetting her destruction.
If only, the Left would abandon Israel…
Outstanding article. Woe unto those who ignore it!
Canadian Otter Said:
First of all, $1000 per person per mopnth is more than enough to pay for that person’s food and lodging.
But more important is the fact that the money is going to Israel. What did she promise Obama in return?
@ David Amini:
Thanks.
Latest scandal?
Will it matter whether it’s the left or the (real- and fake-) right wing that is charge if Israel goes down?
The lack of proper response by ALL POLITICIANS to the African invasion says it all. Nobody seems to have a clue.
THE AFRICAN INVASION crisis has more or less quieted down in the media, after a barrage of articles on alleged Israeli racism in the aftermath of a violent demonstration against Africans in Tel Aviv – quite likely instigated by leftists to make Jews appear bad on the media, and then wallow in guilt.
But now this:
Obama’s Pet Project: Illegal Immigration Into Israel
http://www.jdl-uk.org/2012/05/obamas-pet-project-illegal-immigration.html
“In a highly disturbing piece of news over at Kr8 Israeli Patriot, the online magazine reports that the Obama administration is providing funds to Israel (via the UN) for every illegal African immigrant that enters the Jewish state.
“The funds, quite bizarrely, are only between $1000-2000 per illegal, per month, not enough to cover food let alone rent and food. However, in what is being seen as the likely incentive for carrying out this migratory sabotage of the Jewish state, is the fact that these funds are being split, with a portion of it going to unnamed sources at various stages of the transfer, from its way from the US to Israel.
“What is fairly well known is that the police bring the ‘refugees’ from the Egypt/Israel border, right up, all the way to south Tel Aviv, the central bus station. But that’s not all. What else is now coming to light, is that with these funds, these illegals are somehow opening businesses and will soon start their own newspaper!
“… government inspectors frequently close down illegal Jewish-owned businesses, but not the illegal businesses belonging to the illegal immigrants.
“This financial improbability of all this likely hints towards further sources of funding, which as yet are undetected.”
The soon to be oil rich South Sudan’s government is establishing an office in Tel Aviv.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime politicians of all colors continue to drag their feet in deciding what to do about this invasion.
– Negotiations with South Sudan and Eritrea for their repatriation, perhaps?
– Or the long-awaited border fence?
– Or setting up a committee to study the situation more in depth?
Cluelessness from left to right.
They don’t seem willing to look at more effective and logical options:
1) Stop them at the border and send them away after providing them with essential supplies for the trip back.
2) Enlist UNRWA to remove Africans already in Israel to be placed in refugee camps in Egypt.
3) Deport those who don’t claim refugee status.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This issue definitely deserves further media investigation. It could reveal a lot more than the above article I quoted suggests.
@ Ed Katz:
All you had to do was simply check out my many arguments with Narvey going back to 2007.
Up until recently I belonged to a small group of Conservative Jews that live in Israel, Canada and the US. Bill Narvey was one of us and up until a few weeks ago, he has us completely fooled as to his political leanings. When the concept of “Two States” came up for discussion, we learned of his true bent as a far left liberal. As we called him out, he picked up his marbles and left the group.
He is entitled to his positions and we were entitled not to have him in our group.
@ Bill Narvey:
NARVEY
Correct me if I am wrong- but to the best of my knowledge Alberta, Canada is not in Israel. if you are complaining that Magid should keep his mouth shut about Israel, being a non resident of Israel, might I be so bold as to suggest that the very same might apply to yourself.
Since when do any of us in Israel have to care what some spoiled rotten North American Jew says about Israel? When they pick up their lazy butts and COME HOME, taking the same risks we take in our homeland, do they get the right to even open their mouths. Till then – SHUT UP AND PRAY!
I wish we had more like Ted Belman around. Keep up thge good work.
NEWS FLASH! ISRAEL IS SANE!
I was starting to think there was nobody more nuts than the Israeli Jews, but I was wrong. Watch the latest
FROM AMERICA!
Americans are going onto freeways, stripping off their clothes and chewing each others’ faces off! 😮 Honestly, Israel has a way to go, to top that!
Megid also spelled Meggid in Hebrews, is a traditional Eastern European Jewish religious itinerant preacher, skilled as a narrator of Torah and religious stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggid
Apparently The ancestor or ancestors of Megid were such and they took on and kept the name to this day. In an age where individual family names are changed as easily as common fashion, that he kept his name is to his credit.
@ Bill Narvey:
All relevant.
@ yamit82:
RIGHT ON.
YESSS!!! If only…
Magid’s article flows from a number of inarticulated premises and false assumptions:
1. As a self admitted leftist, Magid assumes that those to his right that he pigeon holes as right wing, are ideological in just the same way he is. Not so. While those to his right show some evidence of ideological leanings, they are not nearly as influenced by these leanings as the left are.
It is easy to categorize the Magids of the world as being left wing, given that the biases, perceptions, doctrine and dogma they adhere to are pretty universal and it is those univeral beliefs and perceptions that determine their thinking.
Those on the right, such as Ted Belman counter the views of the Magids with reference to fact, history and circumstance, something that the Magids assiduoulsy avoid including in their calculations. Thus the Magids of the world, singularly focus on Israel’s shortcomings and failures, real or imagined and give a pass to those, be they Palestinians, Arabs, Muslim Middle East or the world for their anti-Israel words and deeds that Israel tries her best to deal with.
2. Though not articulated, what emerges from Magid’s critical essay is that he is measuring Israeli democracy against American democracy as if the two nations are in the same boat. American democracy has been susceptible to left wing influences and continues to be as American democracy continues to be refined and defined. Magid deplores that the so called Israeli right are a force against her democracy moving more leftward.
3. Magid, like so many of his fellow leftist Jews who proclaim their love of Israel, don’t live Israel at all. Reading between the lines of Magid’s piece and it is easy to read them, is that Magid is in love not with Israel as she is, but Israel as he wants her to become.
I think this clip expresses the full nature of the conflict between Shaul Magid, those on his camp and the rest of Israel more rather than less.
I chose this clip for it’s content and because it offers an English translation. Watch here
Great article! Everything in a nutshell. If only the left would read it. What would they say?
Excellent article.