I have a dilemma as an American Jew. In our prayers, we honor God for rescuing us from enslavement in Egypt. We consider Egypt both as the nation which once enslaved us and as a metaphor for any kind of enslavement or oppression. Yet, we hold ourselves guiltless for the tragedy of the Palestinians.
As I understand the Old Testament covenant between God and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if Abraham and his offspring accepted Him, Jehovah, as the one God and if the Hebrews were righteous then their children would be rewarded with the land which became known as Israel.
I find that God speaks to Abram of this covenant at least twice before commanding Abram to change his name to Abraham and to be circumcised. In these portents, in the Old Testament it was known that there were inhabitants in that land, much as the United Nations knew there were Arabs living on the land that was to become the modern State of Israel.
18: On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra'tes,
19: the land of the Ken'ites, the Ken'izzites, the Kad'monites,
20: the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Reph'aim,
21: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gir'gashites and the Jeb'usites."
(Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 15, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library)
"And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God
(Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 17, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library)
When the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, God, according to the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, interceded in their behalf. When they came to the promised land God interceded and helped us win in battle. In the Old testament, a number of times, the Jews lost their righteous ways even going so far as to begin to worship other Gods. In these cases, God allowed our enemies to prevail. We were driven from the land or we became ruled by foreign powers. Sometimes a prophet would emerge and intercede with God once more to reestablish the covenant. In modern times, Jews have not attempted to worship other Gods. I question, however, our righteousness, particularly over the issue of the State of Israel and the Palestinians. There has been no prophet and no further renewal of the covenant.
Every nation no matter how it was created, rests its continued sovereignty upon two elements. The first is the consent of its people. In many cases, as in democracies, that consent is expressed in elections. Tragically, there are other nations where consent is enforced by the military, police and an assortment of coercive organs. Nevertheless since populations have risen up against the most repressive regimes it would seem there is a tacit consent. The other basis, nearly critical as consent, is recognition by other governments and by regional and world bodies of nations. The modern State of Israel was established by the partition plan of the United Nations and by recognition of the majority of the nations of the world. It’s continued sovereignty depends upon both the consent of its population, as expressed in repeated elections, and the recognition of the world community of nations. The State of Israel does not exist because of the covenant between God and the Jews. The Covenant serves as spiritual motivation for the Jews of Israel. It does not affect the attitude of other nations or peoples.
I point that out because there has been an expansionist tendency in Israel which seeks to inhabit areas outside the partitioned borders on the basis of biblical history. The result is the Jewish settlements on land beyond the partition, land the Palestinians consider their own. Land, in some cases privately owned and documented by Palestinians. There is no legal justification for this. It can only be viewed as an attempt at conquest.
After WWII the Jews were a battered, nearly extinguished people, particularly the Jews of Europe. Zionism, the idea of returning to the biblical homeland and the land of the Covenant had been a dream since the late 19th century. The history, in the first half of the 20th century of how the Jews came to be reinstated in this land, the various promises and declarations and what entities made those promises and by what right they could make those promises may all be interpreted by the parties involved. In fact, the single act that created the modern State of Israel was the United Nations partition plan which was passed by the General assembly in November 1947. This was preceded by the attacks upon the British Army of occupation by underground Jewish groups in Palestine. The British turned the problem over to the United Nations.
The following is from an NPR presentation:
U.S. President Harry Truman endorsed the U.N. partition plan for political reasons, but also because of the terrible toll of the Holocaust, according to William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
"We did understand there was a tremendous human need after World War II for some kind of a political solution for the survivors of the Holocaust, who could not rebuild their lives in Germany and who were in need of some sort of restitution," Quandt says.
The Arab majority in Palestine rejected the U.N. proposal. "The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country," says Philip Mattar, editor of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. "Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice."
On May 14, 1948, Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the independent state of Israel. Almost immediately, four Arab states -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq -- invaded the new state.
U.N. Partition and the recognition of the government of the State of Israel by the majority of the nations of the U.N. is the legality upon which rests the existence of the State of Israel. From the very beginning that existence had to be defended with force. The head of the Arab League walked out of the U.N. promising "A sea of blood and fire". There was never the thought of tolerating Jewish sovereignty in the land they considered Palestine.
In 1948-1949, the Jews in Israel fought off the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In the process hundreds of thousands of Arabs left their homes never to return. (I have found figures ranging from 450,000 to 750,000) Depending on the agenda of the writer various histories give different accounts of how they came to leave. It now seems established that there were some atrocities by Jewish soldiers in some Arab towns. It is also true that many Arabs fled because the tales of atrocities were deliberately exaggerated. Certain Palestinian leaders convinced their people to run so they could convince the Arab countries to attack.
However the Palestinian exodus came about, the Israeli high command decided they would not be allowed to return. This decision was said to be based upon the fear of a mass of enemies within.
There is a serious moral question here. By what ethical process did the United Nations come to the conclusion that the Jews had a greater right to the territory than those who were living there? It is true that the Palestinians did not have a sovereign state, but they did reside in that territory and many of their most sacred religious places are there. It is true that the Jews had suffered enormously during the holocaust and nations felt an obligation to do something for the Jews. It was felt that there was a moral imperative. but how could that moral imperative be expressed by the displacement of one people for another? The United Nations was formed at the end of WWII to prevent the aggression of one nation against the other. By proposing and approving partition they set up a situation whereby one people would have no choice but to attempt to conquer another people. Was the peace sought by the founders just to be peace for the United States and Europe? It was a serious moral lapse that the entire world has been paying for ever since.
I understand that Secretary of State Marshall was against President Truman’s determination to recognize the State of Israel. I used to think it was due to some kind if old line anti-semitism. Perhaps it was because the Secretary did not want to solve one moral dilemma by creating another.
I have never heard it said, but I suspect that, silently, the politicians of the U.N. did not believe they could trust their nations to treat the Jews with decency. Rather than resettling these scattered beaten people into safe environments, it was easier to send them to a place where someone else lived. There was never an attempt to turn to each nation and try to build tolerance for the acceptance of resettled Jews. It was easier to say "The Jews want their own country, give it to them." It was ghettoization all over again on a grander scale.
Surely the Jews wanted to complete their Zionist dream. The history of Jews and Arabs who already lived in Palestine indicated that as a continuing U.N. protectorate they could not live in peace together. Partition may have looked sensible. Two sovereign nations would keep the peace in their own territories. There were serious problems. The larger population was Arab and they were to be given the smaller amount of land. In the land that would be Israel lived hundreds of thousands of Arabs who did not wish to move and certainly wanted no part of a Jewish State. The inevitable consequence was war.
How can one group of people can be dislodged from their homes by another group with the acquiescence of the world community? It can only be because the second group is somehow considered more worthy. The Jews, in what became Israel, were worthy of the land by reason of need and by reason of history. The Arabs were worthy because, in large numbers they lived there and have the same human rights as anyone else. There should never have been proposed a solution which caused one people to displace another.
In my first paragraph, I complained that we Jews hold ourselves guiltless for the plight of the Palestinians. We have paid dearly. Yet, other parties are just as guilty perhaps more. The United Nations itself was the architect of the morally flawed partition plan. Except for Egypt and Jordan, the Arab nations have refused to accept the existence of the Jewish State after four major wars. After 1973, when it became clear that Israel would never be defeated militarily, instead of any kind of acceptance, each one of these nations began using the Palestinian refugees as the excuse for not coming to terms. They have sent money for guns and supported the tactics of terrorism which have now expanded to include the United States in the target list. They have never attempted to help those refugees to a better life. They have allowed no resettlement in their vast territory. They say that all Arabs are brothers but they fight with each other and treat their Palestinian brethren like dirt. All of these nations are brutal dictatorships with regimes staying in power on the basis of hatred of Israel in particular and the West in general. No the Jews are not blameless, but there is plenty to go around.
Do the Israelis need to prostrate themselves before the Palestinians and tell them to take back the land. No, to do so would be another breach of morality for it is likely that the displaced Jews of Israel would have no place to go. All peoples will fight for survival. Any solution that must result in war is not a solution.
The Israelis do have an obligation to take every possible step for peace. They must address the final status of any settlement directly. There must be at least a symbolic right of return. There must be reparations. There must be some kind of joint sovereignty in Jerusalem. Finally, they must remove all the settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. When the exact borders are negotiated and a Palestinian state becomes a reality, if the security fence is to remain it must be pulled back to those borders.
Melvyn Polatchek
