As it’s somewhat masochistic to open a thread on “Israel vs. Palestine” – please, I would like to focus on one specific proposition that came up in last night’s tequila-fueled debate:
A fundamental rationale behind the formation of Israel was the inability of the Jews to be sure of a safe haven anywhere else (refugees in the '30s were sometimes denied entry to various countries, including U.S., etc.), and the need to provide same for their own self-preservation.
However, as it stands in 2004, the U.S. (at least) is fundamentally and permanently committed to doing what it takes to support the Israeli state as long as needed. [And, without this support, the state probably wouldn’t be viable, or would have fallen before now].
But if there is a fundamental American commitment to the safety of the Jewish state, upon which the Jews there are essentially dependent, then we’ve already acknowledged that today there is at least one (reliable, and necessary) guarantor of Jewish safety against all threats.
Therefore, there is no longer a need for Israel to exist qua safe haven for Jews as (a) America would serve this role even if the state disappeared and Jews returned to the diaspora; and/or (b) Israel is not a self-sufficient entity, at least as regards its viability without American support.
Which of the premises/conclusions are stronger and weaker, and why?
N.B. that the proposition that was being made was only one for removing or deeming moot a specific plank of the argument in favor of the Israeli cause, while leaving many other no doubt sound rationales in place. I’d definitely expect that some of the pro-Palestinian arguments could be similarly questioned as essentially makeweights, and I’m not militating for either side at this point.
I don’t think Israel would really collapse without US support. It’d be considerably worse off, but direct assistance from the Jewish community abroad would probably increase greatly in response.
I’m as critical of the Israeli government as anyone on this board, and even I don’t see what it is you’re trying to get an answer for.
Is the proposition that since Israel is no longer needed as Jews can find safety in other countries (which I agree with), that it therefore should cease to exist (which I greatly disagree with)?
If we used that argument, I don’t see why we shouldn’t dismantle all countries in the world. All of us could find safe haven somewhere. I’m personally hoping Aruba welcomes me with open arms. Israel has every right to exist, as does a Palestinian state. With that said, a portion (small I would expect) of the Jews there wish for Israel to become “Jewish only”, which I do have a problem with, much as I have problems with “Muslim Only”, “White Only”, “Rich People Only” proposals throughout the world.
Is this what you were looking for, or did I completely miss your premise?
Jesus God Almighty (to introduce another religious note into this). Did you even read the OP and all its caveats?
The proposition is that, from the bundle of many justifications that are offered for the Zionist cause, should one (and only one) be removed: the specific one that draws legitimacy for the Jewish state from the perceived lack of any other safe haven for beleaguered Jewish people? This is one of the justifications that has been advanced for the existence and legitimacy of Israel, specifically, but has not, to my knowledge, been advanced as a rationale for the existence of Aruba (as haven for genocidally-persecuted Arubans) or many other countries.
N.B. that there are (as the OP noted) many other justifications left in the bundle for Israel’s existence (or Aruba’s) even if you subtract the “safe haven” rationale. One of them includes the fact that while the Jews (or Arubans) may not absolutely need their own state to keep from being wiped out, they want one, and this is a legitimate national aspiration.
That is why my question regarding a specific rationale for Zionism was labeled a “discrete” one. There are many other rationales in the pro-Zionist (or pro-Palestinian) bundle. The issue is, that in comparing claims to political legitimacy, people (Israelis and Palestinians alike) have a tendency to argue on a “my bundle is bigger than yours” basis. So the proposition was aimed at examining a specific reed within the bundle to determine if it were a makeweight and thus shouldn’t be given much credence in the political pissing match. I could just as easily have asked (and may do so elsewhere) whether some portion of the “Palestinian irredentism” argument ought to be discounted given that so many Palestinians (voluntarily or very involuntarily) have emigrated around the world and would not, likely, return to live in any Greater Palestine even if such came about.
I disagree. The United States is most certainly not permanently committed to supporting the Israeli state. It does so now and probably will in the forseeable future, but there’s nothing fundamental about America’s support of Israel. The US had an arms and aid ban to Israel for the first decades of the state’s existence and there’s no reason to believe that if the US saw a better ally in the region it would have no compunction about switching allies. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again.
IF there was one. But there’s not. And if the US ever broke itself of its huge oil dependence (or even just reduced it a lot), you’d likely see a lot less support for the safety of Israel.
You’ve made a huge and bizarre leap of logic. (a) I don’t see why that’s true. The US doesn’t give a crap about the Jews, they care about having a relatively stable ally in the region. And even if current US policy DID care about the Jews, there’s no guarantee that wouldn’t change. (b) I don’t see why Israel is not a self-sufficient entity. Especially not regards viability. Economically they could survive without US support and militarily they could, too. Not at the same levels, but they would do fine for themselves.
I didn’t say the logic was mine or that I accepted all premises (hence my query which were stronger, which weaker).
I do find it unlikely that, at any time in the foreseeable future, the U.S. would stop being a political/military guarantor of Israel’s security. I can’t remember the last time a politician of either U.S. party seriously suggested that the support be terminated or meaningfully lessened. Anything can change, but this policy strikes me as one of the less likely to vary out of all the foreign policy positions.
<< But if there is a fundamental American commitment to the safety of the Jewish state, upon which the Jews there are essentially dependent, then we’ve already acknowledged that today there is at least one (reliable, and necessary) guarantor of Jewish safety against all threats. >>
This is where the “logic” falls apart. Whether there is a fundamental American commitment to the safety of the Jewish state, that’s NOT the same as a “guarantor of Jewish safety against all threats.” To the contrary, every week or so, we see some American leader/politician calling that America is supposed to be a “Christian nation.” As long as such calls are heard, there is no way of saying that American will guarantee Jewish safety against all threats.
America has done nothing to guarantee the safety of Jews in Ethiopia, in Iran, in Syria, in Argentina. Israel has done that. America MAY possible guarantee the safety of Americans who are Jewish, although even that is problematic.
I see your second point more than I do your first. I’m not sure which “leaders” you’re referring to, but I suspect that either: (a) they are not in a position to do anything that would effectively implement the theocracy you seem to fear; (b) their reference to a Christian nation (assuming this is true; I also hear a lot of talk about "Judeo Christian heritage) means that they would launch pogroms given the chance (a dubious proposition, given that the evangelicals who, I suspect, fuel your apprehension are the same people whose tangible support of massive military and political backing for Israel (admittedly, for their own end-times reasons) seems more cogent than any intangible danger to Jewish Americans from “Christian nation” rhetoric.
On your second point . . . I’m not sure if you’re saying that Israel protects these extra-territorial Jews by tangibly improving the security situation in, e.g., Argentina (maybe they do, I don’t know), or that they make these diaspora Jews safer by giving them a safe haven to emgirate out of Argentina under the Law Of Return. If the latter, agreed, it helps, but I’d also imagine that under U.S. immigration and asylum laws (immeasurably more liberal now than in 1940), Israel is not the only option for these folks; in fact, I’d imagine some Israelis concerned with encouraging Jewish immigration to boost the population have looked on with some chagrin as the U.S. has proven a very attractive alternate safe haven for thousands of ex-Soviet types.
Israel does not need the U.S. to susrvive. If American cut off its support, things would be rough around here for a bit (and they’d be much rougher on the Palestinians, I can assure you), and our standard of living may drop somewhat, but we’ll pull through. I mean, it’s not as if anyone can successfully invade us - especially now that the Soviet Union has gone kaput.
Besides, if the ability to defend itself is a prerequisite for a nation’s existance, I say cancel Belgium.
Looking after world Jewry is an important national duty, but that’s not why we’re here. We’re a nation, after all, not a science project or a goodwill fund. We have roads and towns and factories and universities and theaters and shopping malls and high-tech industrial parks, and most of all, we have people who built all these things and have no intention of giving them up. regardless of why we came here in the first place, we’ve set roots. Israel is as real a nation as Danemark or Japan, and real nations don’t need “reasons” to exist - they’re self perpetuating.
America won’t be around forever, and it won’t always be a safe. Germany was once the best place a Jew could live.
Alessan:
“Danemark!” Urgh! Is that a mix of German and English? I believe the word you’re looking for is Denmark (or Danmark). But under no circumstances Dänemark! The best way to insult a Dane is always to mistake him for a German. Are you spoiling for a fight or what?
Huerta88:
How do you think Americas support for Israel is so vital that removed it would collapse? Economically: the last numbers I heard, US support made up less that 1% of the Israeli GNP. Trade with the EU is of a much higher magnitude. Military: Which Arab military do you think would be up to the task of taking on Israel for the foreseeable future? A new Arab war would more likely result in Israeli settlements outside Cairo than Arab forces in Tel Aviv. Perhaps political: that has some merit, but hardly to the extend of rendering Israel unviable without.
Even were 1) spot on, the rationale for Israel’s existence is no longer the same as it were in 1948. As far as I know the large majority of Israelis have been born in Israel – if nothing else then this makes them the rightful owners of the land, and infinitively more so than some third generation Arab refugee who has never been within spitting, or rock throwing, distance of Israel.
My uttermost apologies. Like most Israelis, I respect and admire the Danish people, and the last thing I would ever want to do is insult you (especially that way!).
There are many sound criticisms to be made of the US/Israeli relationship. However, just as there are Zionist zealots with whom there is no reasoning, there are anti-Zionists of equal obdurancy.
Neither are to be encouraged. I’m way cautious of giving any substantive participation or encouragement to this thread.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want to give substantive encouragement to a thread on a bulletin board. That could be dangerous.
I’ve read a lot of responses on this board. Suffice to say that yours is in a category by its own. I think that what makes it abide in a category of its own is the Farrakhanesque numerology in examining my e-mail handle. I think that’s it. But there’s more.
The sly imputation that my question, or I, are anti-Zionist, when I affirmatively noted that even if this plank in the pro-Zionist platform were removed, there would be many other arguments that could be adduced in its favor, including the one Alessan later invoked, which is that Israelis (or Arubans) could justify their state (if a debate ensued on this point, as it has with the Palestinians) by pointing to their desire for nationhood, rather than having to show a need for it. The follow-on cheap shot imputation, that “anti-Zionism” by virtue of (imputed) improper thoughts on the Middle East balance equals anti-Semitism (and that’s what you were implying; why else would your tone be so dire and your approach so gravely “cautious?”) is just vulgar argumentum ad Hitlerum, and you know (do you?) what most observers say about the reasoning skills of those who pull out that particular rhetorical stunt early on in a discussion.
The suggestion that anything in any of my positions bespeaks zealotry, of any stripe, when its all heavily qualified (as debates on political issues have to be, when the issues are controversial). Assuming you think I have a dog in this fight (I don’t, as not being Israeli or Palestinian, I don’t feel obliged to), why’d I ask “which of these premises is stronger or weaker?” I now gather that the people who’ve taken the scary and possibly life-threatening step of “substantively addressing” this zealotry-inspired question (my gosh, the exaggerated self-importance some people give message board postings . . .) is that the argument overstates Israeli political and economic reliance on the U.S. This is what I asked them to do, so it’s helpful, and, to the extent possible, if I want to follow up on this, I’ll look at the economic statistics, military budgets, etc. I suspect I might end up in agreement that the Israelis are less vulnerable to actual military defeat than at some earlier stages of the past decades (the nuclear option alone would help, albeit the victory would be less than optimal).
The assumption that no decent person could be discussing any of the planks of the case for Israel, when the issue, not just of Israel’s right to try and exist, but specifically, of the form and borders the state will take, is very much live and in the news (much to the chagrin of many bystanders like myself who wish that colonial borders and what Balfour said and who struck whom at the King David hotel were not still motivating people to kill each other – but they are). The my-bundle-of-justifications-is-bigger-than-yours argument continues on both sides seeking to control certain common territory (in a way it does not as between, say, the U.S. government and Russia as to Alaska). As long as Palestinians are bemoaning their lost homes from 1948, the political argument seems likely to return to (and Israelis will be tempted to counter with their own rationales regarding) the founding days and founding rationales for the state. This is not my choice, but treating it as a non-issue, when it does inform the argument, is like telling the people in N. Ireland to get over that whole partition thing when they can’t get over the Battle of the Boyne.
Eight-eight. Yes, 88. 88, you see, is what the white man uses to beat up on the Zionist. Because 88 is 4 times 22. The ten commandmants were given to the 12 tribes of Israel – that’s 22. And then, one tribe went away. 21. I was driving through Reno. The sign, my brothers, said high stakes 21 – loosest slots in town, ten times odds on craps. Loosest slots in town – that’s how the Zionist betrays his plans to take our women. Ten times odds is . . .
Never have I seen such a conspiratorial approach to parsing someone’s handle. Here’s a clue, bud: try getting an e-mail nickname on a popular web-based service using the name of your choice. When it comes back SevastapoolLastBastionAgainstFascism2003920ab22, come back and I’ll be happy to parse out the significance.
If there aren’t already plenty of threads that are pro-kitten or anti-Gargamel, or other venues for non-substantive responses to make one feel happy about himself, I do promise to start one; I do believe firmly in your right to a safe haven to demonstratea the depths of your concern and caution.
I happen to live in a neighborhood filled with Jews who ran from the Soviet Union as soon as they were legally able.
But, a few decades ago the USA was turning away boatloads of Jewish refugees fleeing the war.
There is no guarantee that the USA’s position on Jewish refugees won’t change back in another few decades.
But, so long as Isreal exists, Jewish refugees can find saftey there.
Re Denmark
I cannot imagine any Jew (and especially a Jew living in Israel) intentionally insulting Denmark. During lessons on the Holocaust, Denmark is described as “righteous” “courageous” “selfless” “shining” and such. King Christian X is regarded as a great man and hero.