Richard Landes
I recently received the following note.
Dear Professor Landes,
I have two questions, please. First, what is the best discussion that you know of the legality or illegality of west bank settlements, as well as their moral standing? Second, should Israel retain its’ Jewish identity—-What would be a good discussion to read?
THANK YOU,
I invite readers to both propose some bibliography (short, medium and long) as well as thoughts (systematic and not) about these issues.
Legality of Settlements
On the first topic, I think any reading of international law against the background of how nations – including every one now hectoring Israel – have, and continue to behave reveals that Israel has, comparatively, has behaved better with her captured territory than any nation in the history of mankind (with the possible exception of the USA in Europe after WW II). So any claim of illegality of what Israel is doing under her circumstances (in which her enemies have no record of any commitment to Geneva-accords legal behavior internationally, au contraire), is either cruel or mad.
I can’t say I spent much time with the intl law issues; hopefully one of my readers will give you some good leads. The stuff I’ve read makes very convincing arguments for the legality – esp since the land was not sovereign territory. This is a particularly salient point because that status was itself the product of the complete lack of interest in a Palestinian nation on the part of Arabs living in Palestine in 1948, an attitude exquisitely articulated by Arafat in 1964 when, West Bank and Gaza in Arab hands, he could only mobilize for the destruction of Israel. So the idea that the Palestinians have some kind of un-forfeitable ontological claim to this land is itself kind of loopy. A claim, maybe, but hardly one that overrides all other considerations (including the contempt with which the Arabs and other Palestinian leaders have treated the inhabitants of these territories.)
The issue, I think should be thought through not only in legal terms, but also as a matter of fair judgment. To judge the Israeli settlements illegal is so harsh an application of whatever laws one can find (the most stringent application of Geneva, unapplied to any other national entity), that it calls into question the partiality of the judge (indeed, it is an uncritical adoption of the Palestinians claims).
Judgment should, in this case, help set law. any demotic international law capable of sustaining itself would not deny the Israelis legal right to control lands taken in a war with an openly genocidal enemy until something is settled. Otherwise one is feeding a civil society to the fire. and not just any civil society, one that has played an immense role in the creation of a democratic society as we now see in many parts of the world.
So if the 21st century is not to be the century in which Islamism expands dramatically (to the grave detriment of women, civil society, human rights, freedoms of all kinds), a sane international community would not be assaulting Israel right now about the settlements. Indeed, in the history of settling conquered areas, including the record of Islamic conquerors, Israeli behavior in the West Bank as been exceptionally mild and constructive. All the indicators of quality of life are higher there than any of the surrounding Arab states. And all this was accomplished with comparitively little violence from the conquering settlers (the norm is harsh violence from conquerors; the action of the most extreme settlers is peanuts in comparison).
(NB: this is not to promote conquest and settlement. it’s a historical phenomenon that’s been going on for millennia. both israel and the arabs should be judged in that framework.)
On the contrary, a sane and committed human rights community would start right away on issues of Palestinian violations of human rights, starting with their treatment of Israeli captives, whom they mistreat (and kill) in violation of all international law (no grey area here). Gilad Shalit shd be released immediately – as a test of Hamas’ commitment to international norms (which Goldstone, Finkelstein and Carter tell us is firm).
It’s absurd that the focus of the discussion be on the legality of the Israel occupation rather than the Palestinian teaching of hatred and the suicidally murderous moods it induces.
It’s an expression of the “left’s” lack of confidence in the Palestinians ability to behave even remotely civilly, that they focus all their effort of pushing for yet another Israeli concession. They dare not – they can’t even imagine trying to – say, “stop demonizing Israelis and suppressing your own journalists” to the Palestinians because they know that won’t happen and if they actually a drew a line in the sand, they might have to start sanctioning the Palestinians. So why not find some new Israeli concession to militate for, promising that this time it’ll work to bring peace, and let’s sanction those stiff-necked Israelis until they do concede?
Jewish State
On the second, my answer is, “of course.” The idea that there should be no difference between nations (that different national entities shouldn’t have particular characteristics, that everyone should become part of one, undifferentiated world) is disastrously impoverishing, and reflects no confidence in humans: ie, people not are really able to be different and still get along (which is hard), so let’s avoid conflict by avoiding life.
Tribal loyalty has been part of the human soul since its very inception: for around 100,000 years (!) We can’t, we shouldn’t want to abolish it. (This reminds me of the female student in my honor-shame class who came to office hours with the paper topic of “How do we eradicate testosterone?”)
Of all the peoples who have dealt with the problem of tribal loyalty (what about the “other”? how to go beyond “my side right or wrong”?), the Jews have the best record. The other monotheists a very bad record of violence and imperialism.
I warmly recommend the work of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, to understand that particularity is one of the key dimensions of a rich human life, and that the Jewish message to humankind is precisely about a commitment to universality through particularity. As Blake said, “the minute particulars alone are real.”
Walk down the streets of Jerusalem on a Friday summer night and hear families and friends singing shabbas songs out their windows with no fear of offending their neighbors or drawing down upon their people the reproach of a hostile majority… Anyone who can do that and say, “even tho there are 56 muslim nations in the world, there should not be one Jewish one,” is a person in peril of his or her soul.
If any culture has the right to self-define itself, again, in a sane world genuinely committed to the values of civil society and human rights (which terms tumble so lightly off the lips of our current chattering classes), then Israel as a Jewish state would be welcomed the world over. The assault on the Jewish state is an assault on the dignity of both individual differences and cultural ones. It’s an effort to run away from the messy business of judging others by leveling everyone, a kind of cultural Marxism that promises to be just as catastrophic as the material Marxism of the last century.
Welcoming a Jewish state is also the way to test and tame the pre-modern Islamic beast (the kind of honor-shame triumphalism that, in Christianity, gave us the inquisition — sooner kill than admit error). By insisting that the Arab Muslim nations who want to join the 21st cn as part of a civil global community, need to treat their Israeli neighbors – indeed all their neighbors – with respect rather than infantile rage, the world community can do themselves as well as the Israelis an enormous favor.
After all, the israelis have done nothing to the Arabs that they have not done to each other (Hama rules), and indeed, in victory, the Israelis have done a franction of what the Arabs said they’d do to the Jews (and do to captured Jews).
So I guess, in conclusion, I’d say, it’s a sad generation which takes on the challenges that face it, with debates about the illegality of the settlements or the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, while the real questions lie unaddressed. It only takes a brief look at the media to see how poorly they inform us, not to mention academics in the wake of Edward Said. No surprise we can’t think straight.
Mind you, it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of my generation with their soft-headed unconscious millennialism and their aggressive cognitive egocentrism. Your job is to refuse the terms of the debate and start thinking clearly about equity and honesty, not about how to appease people with no sense of or desire for reciprocity.
Hope this helped. Please feel free to object, ask for clarifications, probe, pursue, etc. And I hope my other readers will offer their thoughts and suggestions as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment