=ihtshlai Response to an article published in the IHT Op Ed by Avi Shlaim, Feb. X '05 (1st week in Feb '05) ------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know how clearly one can see Israel from Oxford England, nor when Avi Shlaim, of whom I'd not hitherto read, was in Israel: but his diatribe against Zionism does not fit my perceptions. Here are a few responses: It is not clear that Israel's occupation of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, in counter-attack against the 1967 invasion by Jordan Egypt and Syria, was 'illegal'. That territory had not been sovereign since the previous Jewish state (although Jordan captured and claimed Judea-Samaria when the British in 1948 abandonned their trusteeship of the land of Israel (which they, folloiwng the Romans, called 'Palestine', a variant on 'Philistine', after the sea-people who settled the coastal plain in pre-biblical times). The 'Palestinians' are not predominantly an indigenous people (though some Palestinians may be descendents of peoples, predominantly the Jewish peoples, who occupied the land in Biblical times.) Most 'Palestinians' are descendents of nomadic immigrants from (other) Arab regions, many drawn by the increasing prosperity of the land under Jewish resettlement, in the late 19th and early 20th century. I have seen practically no racism in Israel, especially compared to the USA prior to the success of the Civil Rights movement, and compared to England prior to its acceptance of decolonialization. Nor have I seen much anti-Arab prejudice, especially compared to the USA under the Bush Administration (its sporadic platitudes notwithstanding). And I have noticed pracitcally no Israeli prejudice agaisnt Islam. In Israel, Druse (who are non-Islamic Arabs) amd Beduin (who are Islamic) are honoured (albeit economically disadvantaged) segments of society; and (despite a predominance of ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods) Arab citizens of Israel co-exist with Jewish citizens, with less ethnic tension than one takes for granted in the cities of the USA. Nor would I term Jewish occupation of Judea-Samaria and Gaza 'colonial'. Judea-Samaria (but not Gaza) is the Jewish biblical heartland of the state of Israel. And there is not much to colonize there except rocky hillside scrubland (sand-dunes in Gaza), and the already threatened water table. As for Sharon, distinguished by his boldness aas a general in the counter-attack against Egypt in the 1967 War, the major violent solution which he supervised, except for a crackdown on terrorism in Gaza, was the final evacuation, against vigorous passive resistance, of Jewish settlers from the Sinai. Sharon now plays the part of an American housecat, growling briefly when too-much teased by militant gestures from the competing Palestinian blocs, most of them financed and led by adjacent Arab states. It is not clear that the Palestinian people, except for a few warlords, would be better off under an independent Palestinian state than they were under Israel's administration from 1967--1988 (the start of the intifada). The Palestinian territories have little arable land, almost no natural resources, few skilled workers, and little industry -- foreign aid to the PLO having gone almost entirely into sustaining the intifada rather than building an economic infrastructure. It is difficult to see how a Palestinian state would survive economically, especially since security considerations would probably oblige Israel to sharply restrict the flow of Palestinian workers into its areas. At best a Palestinian state might become a center for brand-name fraud (as it did following the withdrawal of Israeli administration after the Oslo accords); most likely it would almost immediately become the world's first official terrorist mini-state, hosting almost any terrorist group that would pay its fees. Most Jews living abroad, most obviously in England with its subtle gradations of insualar prejudice, are intimidated peoples, under social pressure to dissociate themselves from any assertive moves by the Jewish state. For almost 2 millenia the Jewish people had no nation, and turned, at best, to a sort of universalism. This phase is romanticized by some who wish to see the Jewish people of Israel disempowewred. It is not true that the government of Israel, presently led by Sharon (a weak leader with a weak mandate and weak support) is "waging a savage war against the Palestinian people." That would be militarily possible, and would probably be over (militarily but not diplomatically) in a few days. On the contrary, Israel responds with minimal force, often little more than symbolic, to deliberaste provocations orchestrated by competing terrorist warlords anxious to prove themselves to their foreign financial backers. Israel has confiscated land to build defensive infrastructure required (in some cases with questionable justification) for defense against a Palestinian strategy of continual terrorist attack, largely against civilians. Trees are uprooted when they are repeatedly used as cover for terroirst ambushes of travelers on adjacent roads. Temporary roadblocks are set up in attempts to thwart infiltration of terrorst teams. It is not clear that the wall (which certainly is an aesthetic and ecologic affront) is 'illegal' (the World Court opinion notwithstanding), nor even what is meant ins saying so. I have found Israel society to be in general more -- well -- open, tolerant, good-humoured, mutually supportive ( to a Jewish resident at least), imbued with intelligence, and honouring of the young, the old, the poor, racial minorities, and (especially) women -- than most socieiteis in the USA. In many ways Israel society is more tolerant and supportive than the Swiss, for all their impeccable manners and ecologic vigilance (apart from an obtuse refusal to stop smoking in restaurants). As for the impact of Israel's policies on foreign anti-Semitism -- one must first note that what foreign preoples perceive of Israel is practically only the image presented by what they read in newspapers and newsmagazines, and especially see on essentially sensationalistic TV news programs. Even the most ostensibly objective -- TIME, Newsweek, sometimes even the IHT -- can be shown to show subtle anti-Israel bias. Terrorist attacks are not in general, the spontaneous outrage of oppressed individuals, they are deliberate highly-planned stratetgic moves by wwell-organized groups. Anti-Semitism, ranging from the little digs that are or were fashionable with English writers (eg Mr. T.S. Eliot from St. Louis) to the crudities of skinheads, would seem to be a complex matter. I would not term anti-Zionism 'respectable', since the overthrow of the the state of Israel, which is the aim of anti-Zionism, would likely cause the destruction of a large part of the present rebult Jewish people and culture. While brining little gain to the Palestinian people. It may be, though this is dubitable, that a majority of the Jewish people of Israel are willing to expel a Jewish minority from Judea-Samaria and Gaza. A majority of the people of the USA might vote to relocate the residents of New Jeersey to the alligator swamps of the Everglades, if the price were right and if the Supreme Court, as it usually does on constitutional issues, looked the other way. Israel has not 'oppressed' the Palestinian people. Rather the contrary: During the administration of the territories of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, until the self-appointed leaders of the Palestinian people insisted on taking over administrative responsibility, and until the PLO-supported anarchy of the intifada, Israel made substantial efforts to improve the standard of living of the Palestinian people, providing employment (admittedly at the bottom-level wages and conditions typical of 'Guest-Worker' situations); and to improve trade, medical care, et al. (sa, Campra, 7 Feb '05 -- 29 Shvat -- ) -----------------------------------------------------------------