murphthesurf says:

Once again the lack of historical perspective undermines an understanding of current events.

The modern state of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism since ancient times, Because of the dispersion of the Jewish people by the Roman Empire in the 1st Century AD, Jewish presence in this area of the world has been small. Following the birth of Zionist Movement in 1897 and the resulting Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom the British Mandate of Palestine after World War I. The Mandate was created by redrawing maps of the region to create an area now called Palestine (later Israel). The British were charge with establishing a Jewish National Home while safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the Arab inhabitants of the region irrespective of race and religion.

An on-again, off-again civil war against the British waged by both Jewish and Arab forces derailed this effort almost from the start. WWII further destabilized the region. After the war, and in large part because of the Holocaust, international sympathy cleared sided with the Jews.

In November 1947 the United Nations decided on partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, Israel, an Arab state, Jordan, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders leading to the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states, and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Some international borders remain in dispute, however Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, though efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success.

Arab anger against the West was initially directed towards the British, but the U.S. has emerged as a principal target since it became the principal sponsor and protector of the Israeli State. U.S. interests pivot on three concerns: a) the security of the Suez Canal, b) a platform from which necessary military action could take place to secure oil reservs, c) maintaining a U.S. client/agent state that can act to uphold U.S. interests without direct U.S. involvement. Thus, Israel is the single largest recipient of foreign aid. Since 1946, more than one trillion dollars has been provided for economic and military development.

The bottom line….Mr. Paul is correct and so is Mr. Stein. Mr. Paul is correct because of the long list of real grievances that Arabs have against the establishment, maintenance and growth of the state of Israel. Mr. Stein is correct that many terrorists organizations use these grievances as a rationale for irrational actions aimed at bringing down non-Islamic nations and creating a world wide Islamic rule.

murphthesurf says:

Thanks to Keeva….my response.

1) Claims of ownership that go as far back as you cite with a 1800 year break in effective control of the area are difficult to defend. This is especially true when the “return” of that land was led by Christian nations like Briatain, France, and the United States whose own history includes efforts to dominate the Middle East. The Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is cited as proof that the land was stolen from “Palestinians” at gunpoint. How does one explain/defend the Post WWI decision to create a Jewish Homeland from occupied lands and the post WWII action that handed the land over? Is the Zionist desire sufficient? Is the occupation of the land after WWI by allied forces who had removed the Ottoman Turks? Does the Holocaust give the action moral weight?

2) Anti-Semitism is a reality. Its origins are religious, ethnic, cultural and economic. Dealing with acts of bigotry is extremely difficult. I have no doubt that this irrational hatred is one of the roots of anti-Israeli sentiment. What do you think of the actions of the Israeli state. Do its leaders and its policies bear any responsibility for ongoing
hatred? I am of mixed mind in regard to this. For example, the planting of settlements on the most disputed of lands is certainly a provocation. On the other hand, such settlements put pressure on Palestinians who break agreements regularly and seem determined to hold out for a full fledged Israeli retreat.

3) You are right that many Arab states continue to deny the right of the Israeli to even exist. Egypt’s recognition led to the assassination of its head of state and to ongoing internal turmoil. Jordan’s recognition is a stronger case since it was created at the same time as Israel. Your point that they need to “get over it” seems to dismiss the very powerful beliefs and feelings at the heart of the anti-Israel sentiment. That is the stalemate of which I wrote.

4) I have considered the question of International City Status for Jerusalem. On the surface it seems a good idea, but it does not seem workable. Vatican City is a sovereign state with the Pope as its head of state. Who would govern Jerusalem? As far as know, no Israeli political party has endorsed this idea as they regard such a step as the first one leading to their loss of the city. Muslim groups oppose it because it would be a de facto recognition of Israel’s legitimacy. Only Christian groups have endorsed the idea and they are the tiniest of minorities.

5) Whether it is true that the Israeli government is anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim in reality is not as important as the perception. The government of Israel has offered all Arabs living in the country full citizenship. Only 20 percent have accepted. These “Arab Citizens of Israel” ,as they are called by the government, exercise the same rights as those who identify themselves as Jewish. The remaining Arab residents of the state classify themselvs as Arabs, or Palestinians or Syrians. They are legally classified as resident aliens. At the root of these designations is the belief by most of Arab descent that Israel is fundamentally anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim. This is a huge problem as the growth rate of the Arab population has surpassed that of the Jewish population. Arab families are larger. Immigration is the principal source of Jewish population growth.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this…..Murph

murphthesurf says:

Dear Keeva,

Thank you as well for a civil conversation. It is possible to disagree and to continue the conversation. In that conversation common ground can be discovered.

The Balfour Declaration was the result of extraordinarily skillful political gamesmanship by the leaders of the Zionist Movement. The total collapse of organized government in Palestine after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks made the creation of the British Mandate possible. The events of the Second World War (both the occupation of Northern Africa by the Allies after the defeat of the Axis powers; and, most importantly, the Holocaust) made the creation of the Israeli State a moral, political and economic necessity. An Israeli State provided an answers in conscience to generations of hate against the Jewish people. It assuage a lot of guilt. An Israeli State planted a generally European and American community loyal to and dependent upon the principal Allied Lead Nations in the Middle East. Middle East stability was one of the cornerstones of post WWII planning. The Cold War, and the Petroleum “Wars” illustrated how important this decision was.

What was not considered was the long term reaction of the native Arabs. Unlike your examples of the British and Native American claims on North America, the number of Arabs has continued to go up and virtually every Arab nation eventually joined together as enemies of Israel.

In the years that followed the American Revolution Britain’s ability to take back the colonies lessened thanks to the Atlantic Ocean, the growing independence of Canada, and the robust growth of the United States. Native Americans were hopelessly outnumbered from the start and the conquest of their homeland a foregone conclusion. Israel has always existed in a hostile environment.

I believe that the original design for Israel was based on a belief that Palestinian Arabs would recognize the benefits of living in a well run, prosperous Jewish state. Islamic belief and practice at the time was much more civil as it existed in a Middle East where Christians had tremendous power and where religious fanaticism was suppressed. That changed quickly. By the 1950’s radical Islamic leaders were appearing, nationalism had reduced the presence of Christians, and Israel was targeted as a Jewish and Western Client State. The massive support of Israel by Britain at first, and then by the U.S. reinforced this image.

What I am suggesting is that the hatred of Israel is principally anchored in a hatred for Judaism by radical Muslims, but I also think that this hatred has its roots in anger toward the Western nations that dominated the Middle East treating its nations as colonies. Western efforts to control the Suez and oil has added to their fear of European/American domination. Israel is clearly regarded as an agent for Europe and the U.S.

So we are caught in a loop. As long as Israel is Jewish and seen as an agent for European/U.S. interests because of its close military and economic ties, many Arab powers will deny its right to exist. As soon as those ties cease to exist, Israel will be extraordinarily vulnerable to attack and elimination. I cannot think of a way around this.

Here is another loop. The number of Arabs living in Israel continues to grow. These Arabs are the refugee Palestinian populations and Arab residents in Israel. Of note, many of those classified as Palestinian refugees have fled from other Middle East nations. They are castaways who have been tossed into Israel’s back yard. The refusal of Arab residents, especially younger residents, living in Israel to be integrated into the Israeli state via citizenship further destabilizes the state.

Some of the best diplomatic minds have worked on this and ended up where we are. So here is where I end up:
a) The existence of Israel is a given. One cannot turn back the clock (even if one wanted to, which I do not)
b) The refusal of Palestinian Leaders to bargain honestly is a given.
c) The hostility of radical Islamic movements toward Israel is a given.
d) Most Arab nations will not recognize the state of Israel because of their own internal troubles with Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian sentiment.
e) Israel’s role in the Middle East as a Western Proxy/Client state is both stabilizing and destabilizing. In general I think it lends more stability than not. Therefore we will continue to support Israel.

Therefore, the current situation will go on indefinitely.