Liberal Zionists believe that Israel committed injustices against the Palestinian people in 1948 (and its aftermath) and in 1967 (and its aftermath) – but they try to distinguish between the two, and to find some moral mitigation for the former. Right-winger and left-winger intellectuals like Yosef Ben-Shlomo and Yehuda Shenhav don't buy the distinction. For them, the West Bank settlements are no different from the post-1948 settlements within the Green Line – and it is hypocritical to attempt to make a distinction.
Tel-Aviv university professor Chaim Gans published an op-ed in Haaretz this week that tries to make a moral distinction between the two sets of injustices. His argument is based on the distinction in just war theory between jus ad bellam and jus in bello, between the questions whether a war is just, and whether its conduct is just. According to Gans, the declaration of the state in 1948 was just because the Jewish people needed a state to ensure its survival and its prospering after the Holocaust. But this does not mean that the decisions taken during that war were ipso facto just; on the contrary, a just war can be waged unjustly (e.g., the carpet bombing of Dresden by the Allies.) So although some injustice to the Palestinian was required for establishing a state, that injustice should be viewed as a necessary evil, the impact of which should be reduced. This does not, according to Gans, include the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes, which was a war crime and unjustified.
By contrast, argues Gans, the settlements created after 1967 have nothing to do with the survival and flourishing of the Jewish state, but only with claims of ownership and historical rights over the Land of Israel. Gans rejects all such claims as irrelevant to the justice of Zionism (although he admits that they may serve to help locate the Jewish state in Palestine). If Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is based solely on the historical claim that the Jews owned the Land of Israel and never lost that sense of ownership, then the State of Israel has no right to exist, according to Gans.
The post-'67 settlements (in contrast to an Israeli military presence in the territories) cannot be justified on the basis of the needs of a persecuted nation. The settlements are the bases for the continuing injustices committed by a powerful state. These wrongs are being carried out many decades after the persecution of the Jews ended. They are in effect acts of persecution committed by Jews against Arabs with the backing of the Jewish state. So the Zionism in whose name they are carried out cannot be considered just.
Some have claimed that the West Bank is vital for Israel's security. Fine, says, Gans, but that only justifies military control, not settlement.
Gans' argument rests inter alia on the empirical premise that the Jewish people needed a state in order to survive and flourish, that their self-determination required a state. Or, to use the just-war theory language, the establishment of a Jewish state, with the inevitable injustice to the indigenous people, was historically a "last resort." But this premise is highly questionable, and for a Zionist to assume it begs the question. Many peoples anchored to a land failed to survive over the course of human history; ditto for the more recent phenomenon of nation states. Some have suggested that the Jewish people's survival was due, in part, at least, to its dispersion among other nations: or, to be precise, because it fostered a historical memory and common consciousness of being a nation, despite the development of different Jewish communities, bearing a family resemblance, on different soils. There are Jews who feel threatened by Israel's actions, and there are Jews who feel shame because of them. Herzl's utopian vision didn't take that into account. For the hardcore Zionist, of course, the Jew living in the Diaspora was like a comatose patient on life-support – barely surviving, with no autonomy, and with no dignity. But this is a debatable proposition (the annals of Zionism are full of such debates) as are the propositions that a Jewish state best enables Jewish culture to survive and flourish, or allows the Jewish people to be masters of their fate, or that it gives Jews outside that state a feeling of dignity and pride. So it seems to me that Gans' distinction assumes too much of the Zionist ideology as true to be helpful (Of course, this was only an op-ed, where space is at a premium.)
How do the Palestinians fit into all this? They are the innocent bystanders, the collateral damage of the Zionist project. The Zionists would have been happy for them to go away, and indeed, they ethnically cleansed Palestine of most of them for the sake of the Zionist project. They knew that the establishment of a Jewish state would involve injustice towards them, but both Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky argued that the injustice suffered by stateless Palestinian Arabs was considerably less than the injustice suffered by a stateless Jewish people, since the nationalist aspirations of the former could be fulfilled in one of many Arab states. (Neither of them recognized Palestinian Arabs as a people). Gans does not make this argument, but on the contrary, argues for the desirability of the Palestinian state, for limiting Jewish hegemony, in short for a smaller, "gentler" Zionism than proposed by the likes of Ben-Gurion. He does all of this in the book on the right of my blog, and in a forthcoming book in Hebrew.
18 comments:
Gans is just another example of the "progressive" Jews negotiating among themselves about what morality necessitates that we give the Palestinians so we can feel good about ourselves. Sternhell who has appointed himself as one of the main moral beacons of the "progressives" in Israel and who goes around calling those who don't agree with him "fascists" also thinks the Holocaust gives him the right to live on formerly Arab-owned land. But the Palestinians don't really exist in this debate. How do they feel about this intra-Jewish argument? It is irrelevant to them. Jerry, you yourself have pointed out that the Zionist enterprise is entirely immoral and the Arabs had every right to use violence to try to stop it, so therefore the Palestinians have every right to oppose your generous offer of the "2state solution". I must say all this leaved me perplexed. I will try to ask you this question: What right did you have to come on aliyah AGAINST THE WILL OF THE ARAB POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY if you yourself hold Zionism and its derivate "Law of Return" which you utilized in order to come to Israel as being being immoral.
This is why the Arabs will never accept the "2-state solution" even if "progressives" like you offer it to them. They are not interested in Israeli "progressives" any more that "right-wing settlers" other than using them like Lenin's "useful idiots" to weaken Israeli resolve.
Gans, Sternhell and the rest of the "progressives" are now showing all the contradictions and lacunae of their position and they will become weaker and weaker as time goes on for the very reasons you point out. The Arabs will dilly-dally and avoid reaching a peace agreement in the (wrong) belief that this confustion in part of the Israeli camp will lead to ultimate self-destruction, so forget about them making peace with Israel. That is the upshot of the point you are making here.
Good analysis--so it sounds like what you're saying is that '48 not only has major jus in bello deficiencies, but also likely has major jus ad bellum deficiencies.
Since the founding of a 'Jewish state' inevitably required ethic cleansing (too many non-Jews will prevent the state from being a 'Jewish' one), then you really have to be able to argue that the founding of such a state was really an 'absolute necessity'. And since that assumption is not at all clearly grounded--and seems to rest largely in questionable Hegelian nationalist assumptions regarding history, peoples, states, etc., rather than in empirical criteria of 'absolute necessity'--then the jus ad bellum also loses its punch.
It would be interesting to hear what Gans would say about this--what would be his reasons for saying that a (necessarily ethnically-cleansed) Jewish state was an 'absolute necessity'?
The ethnic cleansing was done by the Arabs, Magnes. No Jews were left in any Arab-controlled area. The Jews had 20% of their state's population remain Arab and extended an offer to bring back another 100,000 refugees as far forward as 1950. It was only after they realized the task of absorbing the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim lands - while the Arab nations which attacked in '48 were refusing to accept any form of compromise, including even recognizing Israel - that Israel chose to focus on the Jewish refugees who were arriving. As Loba Eliav noted, "A thousand each day." And praytell, where were those refugees supposed to go? Canada? The US? Were they accepting Jewish refugees at the time? 800,000 - 1,000,000 refugees?
As for 1967, please let's not forget Khartoum or the years and threats that preceded that war. Let's also not forget that even within the Arab world, or the rest of the world for that matter, the Palestinians were not perceived as a nation in need of a state at that time. That's why SCR 242 is written as it is.
It's quaint to blame everything on Israel, but it's just not factual.
Just some clarifications
Gans does not believe that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists was a necessary evil; it was just an evil. There could have been a Jewish state without this ethnic cleansing. And, of course, he need only to point to every statement of the Zionist leadership before the ethnic cleansing occurred. Let's face it; had the Zionists argued before 1948 to the world that a Jewish state required ethnic cleansing, then there would not have been a 1947 Partition Plan, and there would not have been recognition of a Jewish state.
Y. Ben David, there is indeed a moral issue in making aliyah, but as Magnes replied to Ben-Gurion, one's aliyah need not be to assert Jewish claims of hegemony over Palestine. It was that sort of aliyah which the Palestinians objected to. Palestinians would not have problems with individual Jewish settlers provided they were willing to become Palestinian Jews in a Palestinian state.
As for the "Palestinians not existing in the debate" -- why not? Do you think that Gans would be upset if Palestinians disputed or reacted to his arguments? Why should he limit his readership to Jews? Perhaps what you mean is that no Palestinian would accept the practical implications even Gans's limited, "gentler" Zionism. But given the current situation, what makes you so certain? In my opinion, virtually all Palestinians would welcome Gans' proposals, even though the one-staters would not be satisfied. They may not agree about the legitimacy of Zionism -- many Jews don't either, but so what?
The bigger question is why introduce morality in the first place? And the answer is because it is there, and it has consequences. Political leaders are elected and toppled because of it. States are boycotted and sanctioned because of it. For better or for worse, morality is a factor in realpolitik.
If enough people come to believe that the State of Israel's existence is immoral -- won't that have consequences? A cynic would say, of course.
ben azzai,
The Zionist movement accepted the partition plan, which gave the Zionists a majority in areas allotted to them. How that majority would later be preserved is indeed a question. It is assumed that there would be massive immigration of refugees, and that there would be migration of minorities to their nation state. In any event, one could argue -- as did the Zionists before 1948 -- that ethnic cleansing was not required
Anonymous,
Compare the Jewish-Arab ratio in 1947 and in 1952 in Palestine. That's ethnic cleansing. You may have a problem with Resolution 194, but the ethnic cleansing was pretty good. Not good enough for Benny Morris, perhaps, but good enough for most.
I have already said my say on the Jewish "refugees" from Arab lands and how they have been used as pawns by the Zionists (after they were miserably received here) in a game to avoid responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.
One thing we agree on -- it would have been a shame for the Arab Jewish refugees who were not allowed to return to their homeland to waste away in refugee camps for over sixty years.
Or maybe that wouldn't bother you, either.
Jerry,
You are correct that, technically speaking, ethic cleansing was not necessary for a Jewish state. By the definition of the political Zionists, a Jewish majority was necessary, but that could have been achieved by increasing the Jewish population rather than decreasing the non-Jewish population.
Still, a couple questions remain:
A state whose very definition requires a certain group to be a majority already seems problematic, and not particularly democratic. So would a war to bring about such a state fall short of jus ad bellum, even if it didn't require ethnic cleansing?
More importantly, though, from some of the readings I've done (which could, of course, be incorrect), the Zionists accepted the partition plan primarily because they were confident that the other side wouldn't accept it, and so then they wouldn't have to, either, but they could still look good publicly. That is, some of what they said publicly (e.g. accepting partition, claiming that their project would not compromise the rights of indigenous inhabitants) may not have been what they really intended behind closed doors. Politicians being deceptive?--perish the thought!
To found a 'Jewish state' without a decisive Jewish majority, merely on the hopes that you could bring in more Jews in the future, seems like it would require a lot of faith--and for the most part, the Zionists seemed pretty pragmatic and hard-headed in their calculations. Do you really think the Zionists would have let themselves be satisfied with a Jewish state that was initially only 55% Jewish? I think it's likely that they'd have preferred to 'keep waiting' rather than really accept that. Or, as it turned out, they had other means at their disposal.
I don't want to be overly cynical, but it seems like your 'theoretical' account of how to have a dominant-majority Jewish state without ethnic cleansing seems to ignore the available facts about the personalities, plans, priorities, and moral willingness of the actual, historical Zionists in question.
"Compare the Jewish-Arab ratio in 1947 and in 1952 in Palestine. That's ethnic cleansing. You may have a problem with Resolution 194, but the ethnic cleansing was pretty good. Not good enough for Benny Morris, perhaps, but good enough for most."
And yet, the ratio is even better if you look at the areas conquered by the Arabs. It has a 0 on one side.
"I have already said my say on the Jewish "refugees" from Arab lands and how they have been used as pawns by the Zionists (after they were miserably received here) in a game to avoid responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem."
Magnes, one of my parents is one of these "refugees" and that parent rejects your opinion. The key difference between that parent and you, interestingly, is that only one of you was actually there.
"One thing we agree on -- it would have been a shame for the Arab Jewish refugees who were not allowed to return to their homeland to waste away in refugee camps for over sixty years."
They got on with it, didn't they? Very little in the way of support from the international community and yet they got on with it. Not just in Israel, mind you, wherever they went. One can only wonder where we would be today if it weren't for UNRWA and the cynicism of countries like Lebanon and Syria - not to mention Fatah itself - in keeping Palestinians prisoners of their own narrative.
"Or maybe that wouldn't bother you, either."
(Please read this in a sarcasting voice) I'm clearly not as good-hearted as you, Magnes.
Then again, with people like you around, peace just keeps getting farther and farther away.
Anonymous,
Let's get this straight. If "the Arabs" didn't "expel" a million Jews, but rather gassed them and served them to their children for dinner, God forbid, that would not justify the expulsion of a single Palestinian.
If you think otherwise, you are a moral cretin. But what can I do? How do you argue with someone so morally challenged? What I take for granted -- that each individual is responsible for what he or she does, and should not be made to pay for the sins of other people - you think is a matter of having a big heart.
As for getting on with their lives -- puleese! The Jews weren't even kicked out of here two thousand years ago, and yet some of them claim a right to return and become so focused on their own holocaust (oh, it has to be uniquely evil, doesn't it) that they make every visiting leader go to Yad Va-Shem.
Nobody outvictims the Jews -- and their Holocaust lasted seven years. Get over it, indeed.
You cannot take any moral criticism without pointing your finger at the Arabs. It's like some kid in kindergarten who says, "Yeah, but look at what that kid is doing over there."
That's the problem with so many of the folks here. Call it Holocaust Trauma or whatever. But they just don't grow up.
ben azzai,
like you i can only rely on the historians. ben gurion clearly wanted a larger state and he wanted less palestinians. And that has been the official Zionist and Israeli thinking. But the state always wanted recognition and legitimacy, and, at least in the case of ben gurion, moral respectability. He thought he could have it all; he was wrong, as the growing alienation of the Palestinian Israelis, and the growing isolation of Israel, shows. (Y. Ben David disagrees; he thinks in terms of realpolitik, the "start-up nation" is doing pretty well, and that is only some crazy leftwingers making noise. Perhaps. But that noise is a lot louder than it was twenty years ago, and polls consistently show a drop of support in Israel as the age group gets younger.)
Israel will have to liberalize or it will go the way of backward ethnic states over the globe. Not today, not tomorrow, but coming soon.
Jerry-regarding "drop in support" for Israel in the last 20 years...well, in the US support for Israel is as strong as it ever has been. IT IS TRUE that "progressives" are increasingly seeing Zionism and their belief in the "progressive" agenda is contradictory (but didn't MAPAM have this problem when they were worshipping Stalin and he was sending Zionists to the GULAG or having them shot at the same time?). But "progressive" true-believers are a relatively small minority in the democratic countries.
What I find fascinating is that the "deligitimization" of Israel, and talk of BDS has accelerated as Israel has made more and more concessions. Back in the 1980's when Israel was building settlements like mad and not talking to "official" PLO Palestinians, there was much less of this. The conclusion I would draw and to which you will object is that the weaker Israel is perceived to be (and giving up territories is a sign of weakness to much of the world, especially the Arab world) the more Israel is attacked. A strong, confident Israel gets much more respect than one which is trying to get back in the "victim" column which is where the Israeli Left always wanted to be (recall Levi Eshkol's famous comment after the Six-Day War "now we have to convince the world that we are Samson the nebbisher!")
"that would not justify the expulsion of a single Palestinian."
Magnes, what justified 1948 is that the Arabs attacked first and furthermore that THEY fought a war of ethnic cleansing.
And they lost!
Now maybe you think it's not justified to prevent the return of those who left because they were on the losing side of this war of ethnic cleansing which they launched, but that's because you apparently want endless war, or just mini-pogroms like they had in 1920, 1922, 1929, 1936-1939, 1947 and 1948.
"If you think otherwise, you are a moral cretin."
And you're a buffoon who supports murderers who teach their children that being a "martyr" for Palestine is a worthy cause. I strive for peace and you strive to support those who want to turn back the clock to 1948. I don't think I'm the one with the morality issues.
"What I take for granted -- that each individual is responsible for what he or she does, and should not be made to pay for the sins of other people - you think is a matter of having a big heart."
But what you think has nothing to do with reality. The Arabs evicted every single Jew in the areas they conquered and in many Arab and Muslim countries they made life miserable for their Jewish inhabitants. You always excuse or dance around these issues as if what is happening to the Palestinians has happened in a vacuum.
"As for getting on with their lives -- puleese!"
Sorry, the Jews left THEIR refugee camps and ma'abarot long ago. Whether they moved to Montreal, New York, South Africa or Israel, they left whatever they had lost in their Arab, Muslim and European countries behind and started new lives. Contrast that with what the Palestinians have done - not entirely through their own fault but in large part because of UNRWA and the UN treating them differently than EVERY other refugee group in the world (the primary way, by the way, is that they are considered refugees beyond first generation unlike all other refugees in the world). And, in addition, I can point you to official Fatah documents that call to leave the refugee camps open because they serve an important political purpose.
So no, this is not the same as inviting people to Yad Va'Shem, you are missing the point. The point is that many Palestinians have been left as refugees for 6 decades and that's ridiculous. What, Lebanon can't give them citizenship and allow them to live in the midst of their general population? And you have complaints about my morality?
"Nobody outvictims the Jews -- and their Holocaust lasted seven years. Get over it, indeed."
I'm the moral cretin?
"You cannot take any moral criticism without pointing your finger at the Arabs. It's like some kid in kindergarten who says, "Yeah, but look at what that kid is doing over there.""
You cannot see any action taken by Israel without vilifying it.
"That's the problem with so many of the folks here. Call it Holocaust Trauma or whatever. But they just don't grow up."
Oops, you forgot the 55% of Jewish Israelis who don't even come from Europe. What's their trauma?
And again, I'll remind you: I advocate for a two state solution and would even accept Olmert's offer. You support the end of a state because you perceive it to be born in sin. Your views encourage the extremists on both sides to fight harder. My views will lead to a peaceful resolution of two nations living side by side in a compromise.
Is the moral cretin the one who supports war that culminates in a bitter and endless fight or the one who seeks an answer that satisfies both sides to a limited degree but ends the fighting?
Hi Jerry,
What you're saying makes sense, and it's important to recognize the many contradictions in any historical movements or figures. The case of Ben Gurion wanting moral respectability and fewer Palestinians is a good example. So, that is a good corrective to my assertion.
At the same time, I'll try to push my point a little further: granted that they harbored both 'liberal' and 'nationalist' tendencies, wouldn't you agree that Ben Gurion and his crowd (to say nothing of those further to the right) would still have prioritized the 'nationalist' over the 'liberal,' if and when the two should come into conflict? That is, Ben Gurion would absolutely have preferred to be able to set up a Jewish-majority state without expelling people--but if the first goal ended up requiring mass expulsions, he would have had (and did have) few if any qualms about doing so. (Ze'ev Sternhell has a similar analysis.)
However, defined this way, it ends up being "I certainly have no desire to act unethically--unless, of course, it is expedient to do so." But just an expedient approach to morality seems pretty much equivalent to immorality--it merely serves to distinguish one from sociopaths who *desire* to act immorally.
So, while ethnic cleansing may not have been a theoretical necessity, it seems that, historically, it came pretty close to being a practical necessity if one was committed to establishing a Jewish state. And so this the question I'd want to pose to Gans: If he had to choose between "commit ethnic cleansing, and establish a Jewish state" or "don't commit ethnic cleansing, and fail to establish a Jewish state," which would he choose? If this does come close to the actual past historical situation then viewing the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine to have been morally legitimate ends up meaning that you must also view the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to have been morally legitimate--you can't simply view the latter as a separable matter from the former.
So, (using your mind-reading skills), what do you think Gans would say?
And so this the question I'd want to pose to Gans: If he had to choose between "commit ethnic cleansing, and establish a Jewish state" or "don't commit ethnic cleansing, and fail to establish a Jewish state," which would he choose?
Answer: Don't commit ethnic cleansing, and fail toestablish a Jewish State. Non-majoritarian self-rule is good enough.
Chaim Gans,
Thank you for answering my question!
I think this question (i.e. the one of priorities in principle) is an important one, since people often get tangled up in the 'facts of history', which can, by their nature, be harder to come to agreement over. Thus, when people disagree about historical events, you don't always know whether they differ in principles, or whether they have the same principles but simply interpret the historical evidence differently. Reasonable people can conceivably come to different conclusions, but it's important to know where they're starting from.
Has anyone ever done a poll of Israeli politicians, or Israeli Jews, or American Jews, asking them this question?
ben azzai, asked the question that you asked Gans, most people would refuse or beg off answering it.
One of the points of my blog is to argue that Israel's control of the West Bank and Gaza must be accompanied with systematic and massive violations of the Palestinian people's most fundamental human rights -- those inalienable rights. And that if the price to pay of the safety and security of the State of Israel is a long-term occupation, which I consider a crime on the scale of genocide, if not worse, because the deprivation of liberty is arguably worth than murder -- then it is a price too high to pay. So if the only way the State of Israel could survive would be to systematically deprive the Palestinians of their rights -- in the name of Israeli security, of course -- then why would anybody want the State of Israel, or for that matter, any state in that circumstance to survive.
This is not the same as wishing the death of the Jews. It just means that people have to sit down and rethink the State of Israel.
Now I realize that many people don't agree with me, and they feel that the price is not too high.
What I want to make clear is that this IS the price, and those who think that the price is not what I have described are deluding themselves.
Torture may or may not be justified depending on one's worldview, but water-boarding is torture; to call it an "enhanced interrogation technique" is simply to delude oneself into thinking that it is not torture.
So while I understand that there are people who would have not the slightest qualms about torturing Palestinians if they felt that it would save Israeli lives, I don't understand people who torture and then say to themselves that it is not torture.
Anonymous, thank you for pointing out that what justifies your whacking Arabs is the fact that they started to whacked Jews. When the casting call for Godfather IV goes out, I will let you know.
What I want to make clear is that this IS the price, and those who think that the price is not what I have described are deluding themselves.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most important things to get across, and that is why your blog is a really significant voice--if someone really does want to 'pay that price', then that's up to them, but they should at least acknowledge it.
My sense is that, at least in the US, a lot of Jews would *not* support paying that price (i.e. they do not ultimately subscribe wholeheartedly to a mafia morality), and that they support the State of Israel in the way that they do only because they are able to delude themselves about what is really involved in having a 'Jewish State' in that region of the world. So, if there were a way to push the question, and get people to admit, even just in principle, that they would *not* support a Jewish State *if* it required ethnic cleansing, that would be a helpful step. Focusing instead on 'the situation' in its 'messy actuality' can often allow people to avoid the question of principles.
And on another note, Chaim Gans's answer to the question indicates that he may not hold the position you attributed to him, namely, "Gans' argument rests inter alia on the empirical premise that the Jewish people needed a state in order to survive and flourish, that their self-determination required a state."
Perhaps Gans is closer to being a Magnes Zionist, or even to a Dubnovian type of Jewish Autonomism, than he might have initially seemed!
"Anonymous, thank you for pointing out that what justifies your whacking Arabs is the fact that they started to whacked Jews. When the casting call for Godfather IV goes out, I will let you know."
My pleasure, Jerry. If you would just read some history, you wouldn't need me to tell you these things. Go and take a look at some of the things said by many early political Zionists that showed a desire to blend in with the existing population of the region. Look at the art of the period with their positive depiction of the Arabs. Consider the political maneuverings seeking to attract Arab and Muslim support for Jewish presence in this part of the world in the early part of the 20th Century.
Then look to see how the numerous attacks on Jews in the area and even on entire communities forced the realignment of the earlier Zionist vision of co-existence into one of active defensive preparedness.
You see, Jerry, it's not my doing or my invention, it's actual history. Interestingly, your "solution," which is the dissolution of a Jewish state in order to facilitate the creation of what the earliest Zionists wanted, is untenable because the side that whacked first has still not accepted either the premise of two states living side by side or one state if within that state, they are not in control.
And just to remind you, since you'd like to turn me into a mafioso, I'm the guy who advocates for a solution that terminates the wars and you're the guy who supports the "solution" that results in a severe civil war and probably a severe war between at least two nations. That's not to mention your stated understanding for suicide bombings as a tool in the Palestinian arsenal.
Post a Comment