Orthodox Anarchist/Dan/Mobius has responded to my Misplaced Priorities post. Here is my reply:
Hi Mobius,
Thank you for your extensive reply.
I would like to begin by expressing surprise over your contention that the tone of my post was condescending. If anything, I was very careful with my language, and sought to avoid any implication of it being an ad hominem attack on you. I even stated that it is because you “seem like someone who genuinely seeks truth, as well as a peaceful resolution to the conflict.” and have “good intentions,” that I felt the need to comment on your post. Your presumption of condescension likely arises from my statement that you “educate yourself more as to the Middle East conflict, for I fear you are slowly going to find yourself on the wrong side of history.” Yes, I can see why you would feel that this may be condescending, but it was not intended that way, and does not, I feel, relegate the entire tone of my post to the annals of condescending behavior. (Just like your statement “I’m simply coming about things from a whole other level, which may be a paradigm you are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with, but one which is just as valid as any other, and perhaps maybe just a tad more productive than most” could be construed as condescending, but does not set the tone of your entire post).
Your basic position seems to be that although Israel has the right to defend herself from terrorist attacks, certain Israeli measures taken to achieve this goal serve no purpose in defending Israelis, and are unnecessarily prejudicial to PLO Arab rights. And while both sides have their own mythologies regarding the conflict, what is really important is what is happening to real people. And what is happening is that PLO Arabs are suffering horribly under Israeli occupation (a fact that you state “is truly the sole basis for the culture of violence and hostility that is flourishing amongst the Palestinian population today”), while Israelis are also suffering. You deem history to be entirely irrelevant and unreliable.
Firstly, just because you find it “difficult to understand how [certain measures taken by Israel] contribute to the security of Israeli citizens”, does not mean that that there is no rationale, or indeed efficacy, involved. Let me take your example of the security fence, which you believe encroaches unnecessarily on to PLO Arab land, and senselessly causes dehumanizing and demeaning experiences. There are, indeed, non-political, security-related reasons for this route. For instance, did you consider the fact that the fence must be placed far enough away (approximately six miles) from Ben Gurion airport, so as to prevent terrorists from threatening aircraft? Furthermore, is it not a legitimate security goal to incorporate as many Jews as possible within its boundaries, while, at the same time, as few PLO Arabs as possible?
By seeing the security measures as a mere “incitement towards further hatred and resentment on the part of the Palestinian population”, you are also not acknowledging the fact that Israel is trying to minimize the extent of inconvenience suffered by the PLO Arab population. A brief look at the Ministry of Defense’s Security Fence website reveals the following measures designed to alleviate PLO Arab inconvenience and suffering:
Access gates
Modifications to the route as a result of negotiations with landowners, the discovery of archaelogical sites, and the discovery of new houses in areas previously registered as uninhabited
An assurance that the land is not confiscated and remains the property of the owners
Legal procedures already in place to allow every owner to file an objection to the seizure of their land.
Property owners being offered compensation for the use of their land, and for the damage to their trees.
The route of the fence is a very complicated issue, and there is, ultimately, a balancing act to be performed. Israel has had to decide the following: “Is it worth having a fence in area x, which will inconvenience PLO Arabs, but will, likely, save the lives of Israelis.” In some areas, the government has decided to inconvience the PLO Arabs (but, as previously mentioned, attempt to minimize the level of inconvenience). It is not as simple as you make it sound.
It is all well and good to accept Israel’s right to secure herself via the fence. But if you are going to question the way in which Israel has gone about doing this, it is an imperative that you be acquainted with all of the facts, and not just the accounts of PLO Arabs who are, indeed, affected and inconvenienced, by portions of the fence, or from ISM volunteers, who have their own insidious agenda. This is precisely what I meant when I implored you to “Please educate yourself more as to the Middle East conflict” (rather than your interpretation that I consider you ignorant as to history).
I also question why you are aligning yourself with organizations such as the ISM. You are either unaware of their real agenda, or not willing to accept it as anything other than Zionist propaganda. I have studied the ISM for a few years now (since I discovered a relative who is a member). There is no doubt that they see the establishment of the entire state of Israel as the occupation, and not merely post-67 areas.
And still on the issue of your recognition of Israel’s right to be secure, the aim of the protest your friend Laila attended (and which you seem to support), was “to protest against the closed military zone that is presented to [protesters] every time [they] protest.” Do you think that this justifies impeding IDF operations, and hence jeopardizing our security?
With regards to your comments on history, you said that it is written by “the winners.” This is sometimes that sometimes holds, but not always. In fact, it is the Middle East conflict itself which serves as a refutation of your statement. How so? Well, the Arabs can be deemed the “losers” of the conflict. Israel has emerged victorious in all of the wars waged against her, yet the Arab version of events is the one generally accepted by the world. The very fact that you refer to them as “Palestinians” indicates that you, too, accept their version of events. Yet they were never a unique nation of people called “Palestinians.” Rather, they regarded themselves as part of “Greater Syria.” Despite your assertions, this is not Zionist propaganda; I can rely on “neutral,” or even anti-Israel sources. For example, Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, was quoted in Dutch newspaper Trouw (March 1977) as saying:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
Just because this statement reinforces the pro-Israel point of view, does not render it unreliable. In fact, it makes sense to believe the statement; it surely helps explain why the PLO Arabs never decried the Jordanian “occupation” of the “West Bank” prior to 1967.
And here’s another “objective” quote which supports my contention:
“It is certain that many of the inhabitants of Syria and the Lebanon enter Palestine without formality (Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp 291-292)”
Based on your previous response, you will likely say that this is all irrelevant to you; what is important is that there are Arabs being occupied by Israel, and they are suffering. However, history is relevant. For example, history shows that the PLO Arab terrorist organizations have attempted to liquidate the entire state of Israel (and their charters confirm this). This affects the selection of options available to Israel in order to alleviate PLO Arab suffering. If history showed that the PLO Arabs genuinely wanted a two-state solution, and did not choose terror as their tactic, then perhaps Israel might be obliged to give up land and accept a state, with an end to occupation. However, since history shows us otherwise, Israel is forced to adopt a more cautious approach, without taking reckless risks with regard to her security. In other words, historical experience necessarily changes facts on the ground.
Incidentally, I find it curious that you, a person grappling with the idea of being an observant Jew, cannot accept the notion of objective truth (or, as you quoted, “This declaration of non-truth may be the only truth there truly is”). Judaism is all about objective truth. There is a G-d. He gave the Jews the land of Israel. These are all fundamental beliefs of the Jewish religion. If you believe these are mere myths, then why bother believing? And if you say that you don’t mind believing in myths, then why pick and choose which myths to believe in? Do you, or do you not believe that G-d gave Israel to the Jews?
I must also say that for someone who aspires to see beyond mythologies and subjectivities, and solely focus on what transpires before his eyes, your conclusion that PLO Arab suffering under the occupation “is truly the sole basis for the culture of violence and hostility that is flourishing amongst the Palestinian population today” is inconsistent with such an approach. How do you know this? Is this an observation with your own eyes, or a conclusion you have drawn? Of course, it is a conclusion, likely based on your discussions with PLO Arabs and ISM members. Yet I can quote terrorists who say their motivation is to meet some sexy virgins. And what about the woman who was cheating on her husband, and was forced to blow herself up to redeem herself? Not to mention the mentally challenged boy. Furthermore, why did Muslims murder Jews in the Hebron riots of 1929? Was this because of their “suffering” under occupation? You have fallen victim to the exact phenomenom you pride yourself on having transcended.
I can see that you are, indeed, an idealist. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Your mention of “general discontent with the concepts of nation-states and borders all together” belies an underlying humanistic philosophy on you part, a recognition of the brotherhood of mankind. While this may be a noble philosophy, I would contend that it makes you prone to seeing things in black and white. I agree that we must see the humanity in each other, but, at the same time, not compromise our own well being.
Peace.
David