The brutality and inhumanity of the Hamas invasion of Israel can’t be denied or excused. Enough has been said by other about this, so I concentrate here on its possible place in Israeli history by considering two models from America’s past.
The attacks by Al Qaida on 9/11came as a great surprise, which justified scrutiny of US intelligence gathering and analysis as part of an overall intensification of security efforts. But because Al Qaida and later ISIS were and are opposed to democracy and the toleration of religious differences, there was no need for the US to do any soul searching about its goals. There’s no chance that we’ll convert to a medieval-style theocracy. We just have to defeat such organizations militarily, full stop, as we promote democracy and tolerance worldwide.
The Tet Offensive in Vietnam was also a surprise, but the aftermath included, after repelling the offensive, increasing scrutiny of our goals in Vietnam. Years before release of the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the administration considered the war impossible to win, the Tet Offensive fostered doubts about our goals and the possibility of victory. After defeating the Viet Cong, which was never again capable of major military gains, we increasingly questioned our war aims and ultimately found them deficient.
In some respects, Hamas is like Al Qaida and ISIS. It’s bent on the destruction of Israel just as those groups are dedicated to destroying modern civilization. There’s no alternative to defeating them militarily. However, the Hamas invasion is also like the Tet Offensive insofar as its murderous aims are embedded within the desire for national self-determination. Those who hate Israel (and perhaps Jews everywhere) won’t be deterred by any policy changes that promise self-determination, but their ability to recruit members of future generations may be hampered by Palestinian statehood and economic success.
What kind of soul-searching does this suggest for Israel after it has defeated Hamas and before war against Israel is taken up by the next generation? One fundamental Israeli goal must be abandoned. It stems from the religious belief that the West Bank, although inhabited mostly by Palestinians, really belongs to Israel because it’s the ancient Jewish homeland, Judea and Samaria. Religious conservatives in the Israeli government have increased the access of Jews to this land (Israeli settlements, evictions of Arabs, and threats of annexation).
This religiously-inspired goal of a return to ancestral lands is at odds with the values of democracy and tolerance at the center of modern aspirations. An overriding goal of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is precisely this. Russians claim that the original site of Russian civilization was Kiev, so they should rule that area today. They deny that there really is a Ukrainian people just as some Israelis claim that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people. What’s more, they see no role for Ukrainians in governing the territory. They are to be expelled, killed, or subjugated, retaining no power of self-determination until the end of time.
The same is true of Serbian designs on Kosovo. Serbs were subjugating Kosovars until international intervention allowed for the establishment of a Kosovar state. Another example is the Cambodian claim during the murderous Pol Pot Regime that Cambodia should rule in the Mekong Delta because that is the area of the original Khmer civilization. It’s hard to see how Israel’s religious claim to the West Bank is any more justified morally than the claims of Russians, Serbs, and Cambodians to permanently subjugate their neighbors.
Morality aside, right-wing Israeli policies jeopardize the country’s security. History teaches us that people will not lose a sense of national existence just because a powerful neighbor says they aren’t a nation. What’s more, they may long endure unconscionably corrupt governance, but not by a foreign power. Nineteenth century colonial regimes have fallen – every one of them. In addition, rapid weapons developments may decimate Israel later in this century if currently unimaginable offensive weapons are developed before the development of equally unimaginable defenses against them.
The only path forward is an independent Palestinian state, initially on the entire West Bank, one that controls its own immigration and national defense. Israeli settlers, should they choose to remain, would be subject to Palestinian law as Israeli Palestinians are subject to Israeli law. Israel should prioritize the economic development of the Palestinian state so it’s an attractive model for people in Gaza who may in a future generation want to join it.
Could such a Palestinian state attack Israel? Of course. But that possibility must be weighed against the much greater likelihood of successive revolts by a subjugated people. I’m Jewish, not Israeli. But if I were Israeli, I’d quote Commodore Stephen Decatur, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
I will reply to civil comments addressed to wenz.peter@uis.edu.
留言