Zionist moral ascendancy

In shambles

There is a silence which haunts, a quiet which forebodes and a calm that preludes only the coming of the tempest. It is an issue in the world politics which remains a gaping wound. A wound that festers.

Although not much has been said about it recently, there is a need to address it, talk about it, keep it in the loop because the violation of human rights continues unabated, and human life degraded. To this end, a recent programme shown on Aljazeera Television, on 7^th March, 2014, “Head to Head”, came to my rescue. In it, a very important debate was unleashed. The ideological foundations of Zionism were challenged and some of the transition from prior Jewish inflexibility to today’s ripening rational tradition on the issue was revealed. It is vital to revisit the issue which festers in world politics with some freshness of ideas, and a non conformist approach. This programme did just that!

The guest of the programme was former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami. The panel consisted of a professor emeritus of International Relations at Oxford University, Avi Shlaim; Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer; and Paul Charney, the Chairman of Zionist Federation. The three pivots on which the debate hinged were how compatible, if at all, is Zionism and liberal democracy; second, the moral grounds for Israeli settlement policy in Palestinian neighborhoods; and third, the turnout of peace negotiations.

The most striking questions raised were those that very often get smothered in the overriding Muslim emotionalism on the subject of Palestine and Israel. It was: if Israel claims to be a democracy, how can a democracy be called as such when it is dedicated to only the preservation of one particular ethnicity? Democracies are supposed to stand for egalitarianism and equality of all before law. If that is not met, then is not the word an anomaly, a misnomer for Israel to call itself a democracy? Paul Charney said that the status of Israel must not be mistaken since it was made for the protection of the oppressed Jewish population.

Nonetheless, what is happening now is that the same previously oppressed population is oppressing another population. To me, in this entire narrative, two wrongs seem not to be making a right!

Bringing some sanity to the discussion, Avi Shlaim responded to Paul Charney with the following: the liberal Zionism and liberal democracy are increasingly incompatible due to the reality on the ground where a huge gap exists between the lofty dictates of Zionism, and the treatment of Palestinians. Therefore, gaps existing in the core of the matter are increasingly filled by the hypocrisy of the Jewish state.

Second most crucial issue discussed was of the Israeli settlement policy in places like Hebron, East Jerusalem and Haifa. Before I mention the details, let us look at this: 700,000 Palestinians have had to abandon their homeland either due to financial constraints or simply forced to evacuate by the Jewish state since 1967. While Jewish settlements have increased to 7,000, Palestinian settlements amount to an embarrassing 7.

To this, Paul Charney responded by saying that even the BNP (British National Party) treats other ethnicities as such, so Jewish state should be expected to be no different. The question arises if Israel wants to draw parallels between itself and the extremo-fascist organisations, and take strength from there to discriminate along ethnic and religious lines. If so, Israel must shake off the pretense of being a western styled liberal democracy and must be ready to face the music of international criticism, rogue state status and come out in the open like Iraq before 2003, Afghanistan under the Taliban in the 1990s, and most recently Myanmar in 2013; and acknowledge that it is a failed state because it has failed to provide basic human rights to the minorities; in fact, it flouts them with impunity.

The Israeli settlement policy is an abject denial of international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into an occupied territory. The panel argued that the reason why Israel unflinchingly adheres to the settlement policy is — though not as some justification — that it is psychologically still stuck in the pre-Israel years. Historically, Jews back in the day used to outsmart states like Britain, Russia and even Ukraine among others in furthering its settlements to produce an artificial demographic majority to yield political influence, and garner protection. A similar legacy in the Jewish psychology is still continuing despite that Jewish population now has a state to protect it. This state behaviour stems from insecurity and breeds more insecurity. Logically, Israel must return to its borders of 1948, as there is little justification in making the inhabitants (Palestinians) of the place immigrants in their own land; dispossessing them, dehumanising them and giving rise to terrorist tendencies in the oppressed population.

Third, the potential and success of peaceful negotiations between Israel and Palestine was debated. Shlomo Ben Ami said that the future of direct Israel and Palestinian talks seemed bleak in the wake of failure and discontinuation of Taba Summit. The Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords and the 2001 Taba Summit have all been too little for the Palestinian cause. Also, as Taba represented the final negotiations to solve the Arab-Israeli conundrum, the Israeli political schedule (the elections that year) and the massive moral and ideological divergences between the two sides harrowed the process, leading to an immense dissatisfaction and disbelief in a peace deal. Diana Buttu criticised Israel in being the one who negotiates the division of a pizza and eats it simultaneously. Similarly, when Paul Charney argued the limitation of entry of immigrants in Israel, Buttu argued that the residents of a land were made immigrants out of rightful denizens. Israel takes the land, occupies it and then gives concessions on the land that originally does not belong to it. Also, that the religious, ethnic and cultural discrimination within Israel, of Palestinians, amounts to an Apartheid. According to Amnesty International, “Israel invokes spurious ‘security’ justifications for a law which institutionalises racial discrimination and violates international law.”

Shlomo Ben Ami, a liberal Zionist, holds the view that Israel would have been in a much sound moral position if in the wake of the second Arab-Israeli War, it had returned the Arab territories occupied, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Quneitra, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan heights. This way, its security within Middle East could have been enhanced. To the mention of Apartheid, Shlomo Ben Ami responded by saying that the end to this must be a two-state solution which was not the end, but a means to an end for Israel. The end for Israel, Ben Ami said, was by no means the alleviation of pain of those affected by its actions, but its own security in the Middle East.

A self interest that marks the core of international relations.

In the light of the above, one is forced to see the divergent approaches of those who uphold each side of the narrative. Not just the Jewish and Arab side, but within the Jewish culture there is liberalism which contradicts the core of liberal thinking. And then there is conservatism which is more than conservative and inches toward fascism. Each side is strong, yet none wishes to heed the other. What will be the future of the conflict as well as the ideological chasm which is almost irreconcilable? The question that intrigues the mind of an objective observer is if the liberals of Israel think in such terms, what would the conservative, rightist Zionist be thinking?