The Palestine-Israeli Conflict

About two weeks ago, I mentioned that I was reading the book The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide. I wound up finishing it yesterday and was generally impressed by the overall presentation, as well as the content relayed by both authors.

As I noted back then, the book was written half by Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok and half by a Palestinian lawyer, Dawoud El Alami. Apparently, both teach at the University of Wales, Lampeter.

Each author’s half of the book provides a rather straightforward historical narrative of the conflict since the late 19th century. While both authors do a good job of presenting the arguments of each “side,” they seem to be fair in their writing and admit wrongs, even when they do damage to their own claims.

Beyond their initial writings, both authors engage in a singular round of exchange where they comment on the other’s writing. This is probably the best part of the book, as both sides seem to take the gloves off and get to the heart of their disagreements. The only critical comment of the book I have is that the exchange could have gone several rounds, and the book would have been the better for it. Overall, the conflict seems to be best grasped this way – in debate and dialogue – because then the specious arguments and, dare I say, propaganda of both sides are easily unveiled for factual and rhetorical fallacy.

To give a better glimpse into the book, I’ll present some of the more telling quotations from the debate part. While I don't mean this as a review, the quotes seem pretty useful in explaining the differing interpretations of the conflict and, I felt, were worth relaying:

Responding to El Alami’s questioning of “the moral legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Palestine,” Cohn-Sherbok discusses the persecution of Jews throughout the centuries, echoing the claims of early Zionists like Hess, Pinsker, and Herzl. Noting that the “Zionist cause was based on the recognition that Jews had been and no doubt would continue to be regarded as aliens in countries where they constituted a minority” and claiming that the “Jewish people would never be able to overcome anti-Semitism unless they had a state of their own,” he then cites the Holocaust and asks:

Is this not sufficient moral grounds for the Jewish quest to obtain a foothold in their ancient homeland? In attempting to persuade the British of the justice of their cause, Zionists recounted the terrible legacy of anti-Semitism as it evolved through the ages. The Jews had been oppressed simply because of their faith. They constituted a small, vulnerable minority in alien cultures. In the face of rising anti-Jewish agitation particularly in Eastern Europe these Zionist pioneers championed a Jewish homeland to safeguard the lives of their co-religionists. Was this truly an immoral act?

Concluding that “surely there are compelling reasons for Jewish immigration to the Holy Land,” he argues that the creation of a Jewish commonwealth was to allow Jews to “defend themselves from future hostility.”

Following his insistence of Israel’s "moral right to exist," Cohn-Sherbok seems to defend many of the developments since 1948 by arguing that Israel was protecting herself from “hatred and bloodshed” caused and fomented by Arab aggression. This is reflected perfectly in this statement: “since the creation of Israel over fifty years ago, Arab nations have repeatedly denied Israel’s right to exist…While Jews have sought peace with their neighbors, the Arabs have waged wars.”

Writing specifically about this defensive posture made necessary because of “Arab intransigence,” Cohn-Sherbok writes, in order to justify the repression and displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population:

One of the results of the war [of 1948] was Israel’s determination to protect itself from further aggression. Is it surprising, therefore, that the Israelis took steps to restrict the activities of Palestinian refugees living in their midst? Although Israel’s Declaration of Independence guarantees social and political equality to all its citizens, Israelis were ambivalent about the Arab population in the country. Could they be trusted? As events proved, the Arabs in Israel were a real threat to the stability of the country. Ben-Gurion was right that they were a dangerous presence.

Dawoud El Alami responds with multiple points to Cohn-Sherbok’s arguments, although from the very beginning of his response it is clear how he interprets things:

…the history of Jewish Palestine ended effectively in 137 CE. Until the middle of the 20th century, there had not been a Jewish majority in Palestine since that time over eighteen hundred years ago. In a kind of international aberration one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, involving the destruction and dispersal of a settled, indigenous population, has been based on a folk memory that, however vital to the cultural identity of the Jewish people, cannot possibly have entitled them to colonize an inhabited land at the very time when the rest of the world was turning against colonialism.

El Alami spends little time rationalizing or explaining the Arab aggression and what type of a role that has had in the conflict. His argument deals almost exclusively with the so-called “original sin” – the creation of Israel, the expulsion of Palestinians, and the colonization of Palestine – as the root cause of the conflict. Israel’s history is illegitimate in El Alami’s view, not because of some anti-Jewish bias, but because it is predicated on the destruction and uprooting of an entire society.

To the argument that the Holocaust justifies, in some way, the creation of Israel, El Alami directly responds:

I cannot accept that the dreadful events of the Second World War demonstrate the validity of the Zionist ambition. The creation of the apartheid state that is Israel represents the ultimate victory of the extreme separatist notions propounded by Nazism. Is not the very concept of a Jewish state the ultimate in discrimination? By definition the creation of a state based on religion and ethnicity in an inhabited land can only be achieved by a degree of ethnic cleansing. The state built by a people who have long been victims institutionalizes a form of ethnic and religious discrimination that would not be acceptable in any other modern state.

El Alami spends little time addressing what he would probably claim to be minor details. While the Israeli-Palestinian history has taken a winding course, the chief cause of the conflict is quite simple in his mind, which is indicated in his conclusion:

No one would wish to deny the Jewish people peace and security, but true security in the modern world will never be attained simply by creating a fortress, maintaining military superiority and arming civilians…rather it will be attained by establishing justice and recognizing that other peoples also have rights.

To summarize the book:

Cohn-Sherbok’s argument is that the creation of a Jewish state was justified and, in fact, an act of defense in response to centuries of maltreatment and anti-Semitism, especially the Holocaust. The creation of such a state has brought pain and mistreatment to others, but the blame for much of this lies with the aggressive and militaristic stance taken by Israel's Arab neighbors, which has precluded the arrival of peace, cooperation, or, even, the creation of a Palestinian state (perhaps to be carved out from other Arab nations).

El Alami’s argument is that the indigenous population of Palestine – which has largely been driven out of their homeland in an act of ethnic cleansing – should not bear the responsibility for the oppression of Jews over hundreds of centuries. Israel has no moral or legal right to exist as an exclusively Jewish state on land that was seized from individuals already established and living in Palestine during the late 19th and early-mid 20th centuries. El Alami does not call for the violent eradication of Israel, but instead calls for the recognition of equal rights for the indigenous Palestinian population, especially the rights of those refugees displaced since 1948.