Does history matter?
At first blush, the question is — well, to blush for. Obviously, history matters. July Fourth is history, and so is Pesach, and Simon Bolivar and the Great Depression and Galileo and on and endlessly on.
Still, much depends on how we define words. I leave for another time discussion of what we mean by “history” and of the tension between history and memory. Here, my concern is with the word “matter.” And what calls this urgently to mind is an Op-Ed essay by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in The New York Times of August 11.
There, the authors, veteran analysts of Israeli-Palestinian affairs, argue that no resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is possible until both sides come to grips with the events of 1948. The demands of both sides, the authors assert, implicitly recognize that the original dispute has not been resolved. Both sides agree that the problem did not start with the occupation of 1967, but with Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state and the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinian refugees.
Sweeping the underlying issues under the carpet will no longer do; it is largely because they have been so willfully ignored that the post-’67 problems have yet to be dealt with successfully. The hope, they say, “was that, somehow, addressing the status of the West Bank and Gaza would dispense with the need to address the issues that predated the occupation and could outlast it.” Instead, peacemakers must take account of “the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians,” for whom “the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.” History does matter.
Agha and Malley lead the readers up to the water, and there encourage them to drink. But there is, they powerfully imply (yet never flat-out say), only one flavor drink available: a binational Israel.
To be sure, Agha and Malley dutifully acknowledge that the “ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967.” But then they quickly add a caveat: “To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948.” And they conclude, ominously, “the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.”
In the 1930s a number of Jewish intellectuals proposed a binational state. But a binational state is an idea whose time never came. Yet now, hint Agha and Malley, we must prepare to resurrect it, albeit within Israel’s pre-1967 borders. What exactly this would entail is unclear: Do they want Israel to permit the return of the Palestinian refuges from 1948? Or would declaring Israel a “state of its citizens” rather than a Jewish state suffice? What, in their view, does history require?
Did not the Baal Shem Tov teach us that “Forgetfulness leads to exile, but in remembrance lies the key to redemption”? And did not Santayana teach us that “those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”? But those who love aphorisms must acknowledge their aphoristic opposites — in this case, “Those entrapped by history cannot move beyond it.”
Those who would “solve” ’48, for which there is no thinkable solution, before turning to ’09, preach a counsel of despair. The most that can — and should — be said regarding ’48 belongs in the “whereas” section of the ’09 or ’10 or whenever end-of-conflict agreement, a compendium of acknowledgments in which both sides own up to their mistakes, their excesses, their deafness to the other. Such acknowledgments may, indeed, be necessary ingredients of a final resolution, as might a commission of historians from both sides charged with developing, over the course of a decade or so, a serious history of the early years.
Arrival at a cobbled two-state solution will not be easy, to put the matter very, very mildly. But those who first seek closure on ’48 must understand that a two-state solution is a precondition for the necessary accounting and not a barrier to it. Dealing with ’48 in the absence of promising progress toward a two-state solution is dealing with an aggravating abstraction, in which each side is bound to come up with an interpretation that will give it an advantage when negotiations finally happen. It will inevitably be an interpretation based on grievance, hence not at all conducive to resolution or reconciliation.
Agha and Malley, like many of us, are fatigued by the endless and so far fruitless quest for an acceptable two-state solution. But while their analysis may be sophisticated, their prescriptions are dangerously naïve. Unless, that is, they simply do not care that there be a Jewish state.
The Palestinian narrative defines the beginning of conflict with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. The Jewish narrative sees the beginning of conflict with the rise of the new yishuv in the second half of the 19th century. So, both sides certainly do not agree that the conflict began in 1948 "with Arab rejection of the newborn Jewish state and the dispossession and dislocation of Palestinian refugees".
Not only do the two sides understand that the conflict pre-dates the UN Partition Plan and its subsequent war, they also are not showing any signs of fatigue ("Agha and Malley, like many of us, are fatigued by the endless and so far fruitless quest for an acceptable two-state solution"). We all know that it is a multi-generational conflict, and its final outcome is a matter of central historic importance.
Throughout the long Middle Ages, Jewish communities were under significant pressure. Despite the humiliations, limitations and occasional violent attacks and expulsions - the Jewish collective existence did not express any loss of patience or fatigue. Quite the contrary. The Jews were absolutely confident in their ultimate vindication - no matter how terribly frustrating everyday life had been. Modern Jewish history, so things have turned out, is a direct continuity of the former Jewish experience. Fatigued analysts don't really have a message for the Jewish public.
In the Agha/Malley article in the NY Times, the rejection of the two-state solution is worded as such: "Acceptance of the two-state solution signals continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle by other means". In short, the writers maintain that the two-state solution will not be a solution to the conflict; rather, the two states will be the new political framework for continuing the conflict. The same wise observation is true also for the one-state solution: The two sides will continue their struggle within the framework of one state, even as they share a common citizenship. In the theoretical one state, the Palestinians will struggle to undo all the changes that have taken place throughout the last one-hundred years, and the Jewish side will struggle to receive recognition for the legitimacy of its achievements. That's exactly the conflict as it is today.
Ah yes! The anti-Israel "progressive" NYT (typically) hosts a screed by two virulent Israel-haters, and Fein wonders if they "simply do not care that there be a Jewish state". Now, if that is not meant to be sarcastic, it is amusingly naive. Has anti-Israel Fein finally bumped up against the natural result of his leftist anti-Israel propaganda, and found it surprising? Of course they care! They care very much that there NOT be a Jewish state.
That is and has always been the entire point of every arab country that attacked Israel, the invention of "palestinians" by refusing to repatriate local arabs into their neighboring countries of origin, the creation and maintenance of "refugee camps" (years after they were "refugees"), the creation and existence of every arab terrorist group (later coalesced into the PLO, "Palestinian Authority" and Hamas) and Hezbollah, and now the point of Iran and others joining the attack to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.
But why the apparently feigned surprise? When one attacks and demonizes Israel for its alleged "colonization" and "occupation" and "oppression" and "apartheid" and "abuse" and "war crimes" and "pummeling" and "settlements" and every other libel - that is and has always been the point - to delegitimatize the Jewish State of Israel.
Fein has in the past excoriated Israel for its failure to adequately accommodate Israeli arabs (who hate Israel, cheer when it is barraged with rockets, and deny the Holocaust) and in insisting on its Jewish national character and soul as expressed in Hatikvah. He has criticized the concept of Israel as “a Jewish state”, which he sought to replace with the concept of Israel as a “state of all its citizens.” He has lauded the "Arab League/Saudi proposal", despite the fact that it requires a "right of return" - that descendants of "refugees" be allowed to settle in Israel. He has attacked American Jewish supporters of Israel as "the militant pro-Israel community", while supporting the virulently anti-Israel "progressive" American leftists. He has made common cause with the virulent extremist far-left Israel bashers (as does the Forward with its support of George Soros' J Street).
He who lies down with "progressive" dogs will rise with anti-Semitic fleas. The leftist Israel-bashers are virulent anti-Semites who would destroy the Jewish State of Israel. The arabs have never been coy about their intentions. "Progressives" cannot feign surprise when their fellow-travelers are not coy about theirs.
It is great that Ameicans like Malley are realizing what 4.5 billion of our planets inhabitants already know. As long as a racist Jewish state exists, there will be war. The solution is clear. Jews, who have no historic claims to Palestine must be transported to their true homelands, like Belarus and Las Vegas, and Palestinians allowed to return. Anything less than that is a recipe for continuel conflict
Raed Kami - It's always nice to hear your blunt point of view of the Middle East reality. It could be true, indeed, that as long as Israel exists, there will be an ongoing conflict. In other words, you are expressing a kind of threat: "We will fight until you (the Jews) go away". However, you should take into account that it's not really such a terrible conflict. Life is very normal, and actually the conflict is by no means the center of our lives. So, we'll stay here. All in all, the weather here is much nicer than in Belarus or in Las Vegas.
Frank - You should interpret the criticism of Israel as a sign of strength, as a sign of a self-assured society that will survive and thrive. Did you ever notice that all the pro-Palestinian activists hardly have a word of criticism of Palestinian society and that self-criticism is almost unheard of in the entire Arab world? Roger Cohen went to Iran, for example, and he didn't see anything that deserved a word of reservation. Why? Well, it is a kind of haughtiness. Some societies in the world are not regarded as equals. They should be regarded as equals, and they deserve our criticism just as others are criticized - but this is not the way things are. It's as if one is dealing with children from whom you have little expectation. So, you would hardly hear a word, for example, that Lebanon is an abnormal state in which a political party (Hizbullah) has its own foreign policy, its own army and its own war-and-peace decision making process - in addition to the elected Lebanese government.
So, I understand your frustration that the spotlight is only on Israel. It really is too much. But instead of going ballistic all the time, you should take it all with a pinch of salt, even with a smile. There's a nice Yiddish joke from way-back-when that might be helpful. A Jew sees a friend of his reading an antisemitic newspaper: "Moishe - why do you read that awful paper?" Moishe's answer was: "Reading our Yiddish press, I find out how much the Jews are suffering and how the innocent are being attacked and humiliated. Reading this newspaper, it's so nice to hear out how powerful the Jews are, and how they control the world...."
Frank - Mr Fein is very pro-Israel. It's really too bad that you don't see it. His criticism of Israel week after week has the very same message: "Israel is the center of our Jewish world. She is very, very important - and hence she deserves such intense attention and criticism". Notice how very little criticism (if any) is given about Jewish life in the Diaspora. The lack of criticism in this regard has me very worried. Criticism means that we care; lack of criticism means that we don't!
I have often called islam a "cult". I often point out how fascist are the structures of governance and society in all muslim lands. EG, until '76 a kurdish villager cld not leave his/her village without permission of his master: an agha, amir, et al.
Some of the arab lands are not even countries, but emirates. Others are ruled by kings or sultans. having said this, i note that US democracy [or israeli] is the best fascism ever developed.
Greks have invented a better form of fascism. Some of the lands have perfected it; US structure of governance being near perfect in controling domestics and aliens; aliens with missiles and domestics with lies. True, US is now in an incipient stage of mussolini's fascism; much less effective than US unique fascism. democracy was invented precisely because it is by far better able to deceive, rob, and utterly control the populace.
Americans are deluded like no other nation. They even have until just recently rejected even the most basic human rights: the healthcare. They still do not recognize the most basic human rght; that of the right to return. 'Jews' reject this right, too. Amers also reject public ownership of transport, mines, forest, etc. they unwittingly reject also right to be informed and to obtain free higher education.
Of course, shemites[later becoming muslim or mosheic], also have been rejecting for millennia some of the most basic human rights. Hebrews have been ruled by judges [priests] and later by kings.
So 'jews', mostly a nonshemitic people, but also armed with a cult and ruled by fascists, complain about the fact that we point out just these facts. And they use the ancient subterfuge of simply renaming what we say as "criticism" rather than juxtaposing own facts. By naming actions,including writing, does not take acumen, reasearch, time, or bravery/honesty; all it takes is a stupidity attack.
My suggestion to muslims, christians, and talmudim is to first of all deem selves as human beings. If one is a jew, muslim, or christian one rejects not only one's humaness but also ethnicity. The labels christian, muslim, and jew denotes cultishness and not humaness. Is it any wonder that this cultists are locked in eternal and mutual rancor,hatred,intolerance, warfare and are also in eternal conflict with secular people. Some eternal veities??? tnx
Mr Bozh - I don't have a clue what you wish to say, but since you often use the term "semite" ("a nonshemitic people"), allow me to inform you that the adjective "semitic" only has meaning in the sense that it is the name of a particular family of languages. Hebrew is a semitic language. So is Arabic. There are many extinct semitic languages since antiquity (for example - Babylonian), and there are a handful of modern-day semitic languages (Maltese, Amharic). Any other use of "semitic" is simply nonsense or, worse still, racism. People speak semitic languages, but no one is a semite. The term "antisemitism", therefore, is actually nonsense. It's as if someone is against speaking a semilitic language! Alas, the term was invented in the 19th century by racists who wished to coin a clever way of saying "hatred of Jews" (hence, even a speaker of a semitic language could theoretically be an antisemite, and indeed there are such people).
Anyway, if you are curious, I could give you a linguistic definition of a semitic language. Meanwhile, you should drop any other use of "semitic" - since it only leaves the impression that you are busy with issues of race, rahmanan litzlan ("may our merciful One help us" in Babylonian Aramaic, another semitic language)!
Dear Bozh: You are right on the money - about everything!. Except that -perhaps-you are a bit overpessimistic about the future.
We are seeing the death-throes of 'le laissez-faire' - if I am not too overoptimistic - it is definitely a case of ' c'est fini!' The problem for Israel is really a problem abot the US (Britain, France, Germany ... ) We must face the fact that Israel was seen by many a "supporter" of Israel as a happy safe sanitary solution of the Jewish Problem: I see no other answer to the question why Truman who held "conventional views" about the Jewish Menace ( - google "Truman" "Jews"- ) and yet supported recognition of the new state contra Gen, Marshall and others. But Balfour himself ( a born-again Christian) probably held similar views, IMHO. We DO know that many in the House of Commons openly voiced such views in 1948.
The importance of a quick solution to the problem is necessary for the peace of the world. We cannot be certain that the Arabs, Iranians, Malays, Pakistanis . . .; will stay impotent and incompetent for ever and ever. Or, that the US can support an expansionist Israel concerned only with reviving the Empire of david in this modern age.
(Mr/Ms) Bozh - kindly communicate your opinions in more detail: I for one find them very pertinent and enlightening.
To call either Fein or J Street "very pro-Israel" is to engage in an absurd "progressive" "Big Lie". Both are virulently anti-Israel. Extreme far-left anti-Israel propaganda is evil and anti-Semitic. It should be confronted, all the more so when it appears in an ersatz "Jewish" publication. (And there is never any reason for any Jew to take anti-Semitism, "with a pinch of salt, even with a smile".)
These are dangerous times, when Jews are under attack (under the pretext of "anti-Zionism"), Iran threatens Israel's destruction, and the present American administration is the most anti-Israel one in history.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the "Jewish" Forward published a positive story on Israel? Instead of the looney evil leftist attacks from every fringe anti-Israel extremist it can find?
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.