Jerusalem Post: Semantic Shenanigans Galore

In the first instalment of a two part article called Israel's image - why the all-time low? by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post, the author tries to understand the causes of Israel's wavering International stature and seeks to find ways to prop up its international image. In short, this well-written but quite non-sensical piece, which will only curry favour with the most hard-line Zionists, advocates reinforcing Israel's claims to all of Palestine. In this way any land conceded to the Palestinian Authority will be perceived as a "gift" and this "largesse" will increase Israel's standing in the wider world. A hopeless rearguard fight if I've ever heard of one but here goes...

Conventional wisdom holds that Israel's international standing is directly related to its willingness to move toward peace with the Palestinians. Yet in recent years, despite previously unimaginable concessions, its international standing, far from improving, has hit an all-time low.

Consider some of the past few years' developments:

• It has become acceptable in academic and media circles to question whether Israel even has a right to exist. Yet 13 years ago, at the height of the "occupation" - before Israel had recognized the PLO, transferred land to the Palestinian Authority or evacuated a single settlement - such discourse was considered beyond the pale.



• It has become increasingly common to speak of Israel as an "apartheid state." That, too, would have been unthinkable 13 years ago.



• Decisions to boycott and/or divest from Israel - virtually unknown 13 years ago outside the Arab world - are now commonplace in the West. Several churches, for instance, have decided to divest from Israel; and in the last two weeks alone, both the largest British lecturers' association and a leading Canadian union voted to boycott Israel.



• Most Europeans, according to polls, consider Israel the leading threat to world peace. That, too, is a new development.

Which polls, Evelyn? Yes, some European people like me accept that the continuing non-resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a cause for future clashes between the Arab and Western worlds, albeit not the only one. But a clear majority? Let's also not forget that broadly speaking, European governments remain squarely behind Israel.

SO WHY have years of Israeli concessions produced not acclaim, but unprecedented international opprobrium? The answer is twofold. One part relates to the general public, and the other to a small but influential group of opinion leaders. I will discuss the first now, and the second next week.

Among the general public, the growing view of Israel as a pariah would be impossible had Israeli (and international Jewish) leaders not abandoned one simple tenet that all of them maintained prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords: that Israel has a valid claim to the West Bank and Gaza.

Clearly, to Evelyn, maintaining that "one simple tenet", if it serves Israel's political expediency and territorial ambitions, is more important than accepting that claims to the land that constituted the British Mandate of Palestine are perhaps more complicated than the constant and disingenuous harking back to over 2,000 BC and the Biblical land of Israel, which we've be inundated with by fervent zionists, since Israel's day of independence to this date.

This claim does not necessitate Israel's retention of these areas; countries throughout history have occasionally ceded land to secure peace agreements. But only if Israel has a valid claim to the territories can giving them up be a "painful concession" that merits reward by the international community. If Israel has no claim, it is merely a thief. And no one would admire, much less compensate, a thief for the "painful concession" of returning some, though not all, of his ill-gotten gains - or for offering to return some, but again not all, of the remainder in exchange for sufficient reward. On the contrary: The thief deserves opprobrium, boycotts and divestment.

Indeed, if Israel has no claim to this land, even its seemingly unassailable demand that the Palestinians end terror in exchange for Israel's withdrawal loses validity. Israel can reasonably refuse to cede land to which it has a valid claim without receiving peace in exchange. But if the land belongs to the Palestinians, then Palestinian violence, ostensibly aimed at retrieving their stolen property, becomes understandable - and so does their claim that Israel has no right to impose conditions on its return.

Again, more deliberate wordplay. It seems at this point the author perceives "truth" as something to be moulded to achieve a particular goal.

[a little snip]

Then, as if this were not bad enough, the unilateral withdrawal craze compounded the problem.

Until three years ago, Israel deemed uprooting settlements a national and personal tragedy - a painful (and expensive) move that merited sympathy and compensation. And the human portion of this tragedy - tens of thousands of people thrown out of their homes - would arguably be undiminished even if the territories were stolen Palestinian land. But now, two successive Israeli leaders have declared that far from being a tragedy, uprooting settlements is an Israeli interest, because they constitute a demographic and security burden. And if dismantling settlements serves Israel's interests, how can this possibly constitute a "painful concession" that merits either sympathy or compensation?

Tens of thousands of people thrown out of their homes... this is factually incorrect. In 2005 the 17 Jewish Gaza settlements were home to some 7,000 to 8,000 settlers. During the withdrawal, most settlers left peacefully, incentivated by generous resettlement compensation. Dismantling the settlements was indeed in Israel's strategic interests. Or is the author claiming the Jewish people also have historical rights to Gaza? Read on: she is not.

THUS IF Israel is to have any hope of reversing the rising tide of worldwide antipathy, it must start by reiterating the basic truths that have disappeared from its discourse over the last 13 years: that Israel has a valid claim to this land, and that ceding this claim is not an Israeli "interest," but a wrenching move conceivable only in exchange for suitable recompense.

The case, briefly, is as follows:

First, this is the historic Jewish homeland: Jerusalem and Hebron, not Tel Aviv and Haifa, were the heart of the biblical Jewish kingdom. This is vital, because the fact that this was our historic homeland is what justifies establishing a modern Jewish state here at all. Otherwise, we are indeed mere foreign interlopers.

Again, the stubborn and foolhardy notion that only those of Jewish descent have any claim to this land by gong back to time immemorial...

[another snip]

At this late date, reversing the international perception of Israel as a thief rather than a legitimate claimant will be a Herculean task. But unless Israel makes the effort, it will increasingly be treated as a criminal rather than a seeker of peace.

Finally, a word of truth in this sorry piece: "reversing the international perception of Israel as a thief rather than a legitimate claimant will be a Herculean task." Too true. But it's a task that can be achieved in a much easier, more honest and direct way.

In Tony Judt's words:

From one perspective, Israel's future is bleak. Not for the first time, a Jewish state is on the vulnerable periphery of someone else's empire: wilfully blind to the danger that its indulgent excesses might ultimately push its imperial mentor beyond the point of irritation, and heedless of its own failure to make any other friends. Yet, modern Israel still has options. Precisely because the country is an object of such universal mistrust, a truly statesmanlike shift in its policies (dismantling of big settlements, opening unconditional negotiations with Palestinians and the like) could have disproportionately beneficial effects.

Such a radical realignment of strategy would entail a difficult reappraisal of every illusion under which the country and its political elite have nestled. Israel would have to acknowledge that it no longer has any special claim on international sympathy or indulgence; that the US will not always be there; that colonies are always doomed unless you are willing to expel or exterminate the indigenous population.