Across Israel, Meir Panim responds to the growing needs of the country’s 1.75 million impoverished residents through various food and social service programs.
In the course of a lengthy essay in The Atlantic, writer Jeffrey Goldberg quotes an encounter he had with a Gazan imam named Ibrahim Mudeiris, who had just delivered a sermon in which he had described the Jews as “the sons of apes and pigs.”
Mudeiris summed up the current standoff between Israel and the Hamas movement which currently runs Gaza by saying, “It does not matter what the Jews do. We will not let them have peace.”
He went on to succinctly describe the futility with which generations of Israelis have sought to deal with the Palestinians: “They can be nice to us or they can kill us, it doesn’t matter. If we have a cease-fire with the Jews, it is only so that we can prepare ourselves for the final battle.”
What can Israel do when faced with such intransigence?
Goldberg’s lengthy and disquieting ruminations on this question provide no easy answers, but the question in the title of the piece, “Is Israel Finished?” provides a decidedly non-celebratory feel to a piece published to coincide with Israel’s 60th birthday.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert comes across in Goldberg’s story as a petulant, defensive figure who is clearly uncomfortable being in the crosshairs of vocal critics like novelist David Grossman, who lost a son during the prime minister’s disastrous Lebanon war. It is also hard to argue with Goldberg’s contention that “he is not Israel’s deepest thinker.”
But you have to sympathize with Olmert during the course of his interview when he expresses impatience with Goldberg’s focus on the “flaws in the execution of the Zionist program.” Speaking of Israel’s many achievements, he begs for a bit of historical perspective.
And for that, readers can do no better than go to a new authoritative source about the beginnings of the Israeli state, Benny Morris’s 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Those who do will be left with the inescapable conclusion that there is nothing new about Olmert’s dilemma.
Morris is the most famous and certainly the best of the so-called “new historians” who rose up in the 1980’s to question the romantic view of Zionism that had heretofore prevailed in Jewish history writing.
The author’s diligent digging in the state’s archives has resulted in some work that has outraged many Israelis. But no nation’s history is that one-sided.
Some Jews speak as if Israel’s right to exist is called into question unless all Israelis were and are without blemish, though that is a notion that is nonsensical in itself. As such, there will be readers of 1948 who will howl with outrage at Morris’s acknowledgement that there were some atrocities committed by Israelis during the course of the bloody War of Independence.
Others will be uncomfortable with his presentation of the fact that, at certain points of the conflict, the Israelis outgunned the Arabs, even though the few hundred thousand Jews in the country were outnumbered by the tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region who opposed them.
But the general thrust of the narrative is inescapable. War was inevitable, not because the Zionists were imperfect or wanted a larger Jewish state than the truncated province offered them in the various partition plans, but because the Arabs never once considered making peace with the Jews on any terms.
“The 1948 war, from the Arabs’ perspective, was a war of religion as much as, if not more than, a nationalist war over territory,” Morris writes. “Put another way, the territory was sacred its violation by infidels [Jews] was sufficient grounds for launching a holy war and its conquest or reconquest, a divinely ordained necessity…. The evidence is abundant and clear that many, if not most, in the Arab world viewed the war essentially as a holy war.”
Morris once refused service in the IDF because of his opposition to Israel’s presence in the territories, and he is still reviled by many on the Right. But in recent years he has spoken of the need for Israel to act to stop the threat of nuclear attack from Iran. He has also ruminated publicly that Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, may actually have erred by not doing what the Jewish state’s opponents accused him of having done: actively seeking to push all the Arabs out of the country.
About the Author: Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of Commentary magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com, where this first appeared. He can be reached via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
The answer is an emphatic no.
The meaning of “God’s watch” here is not entirely clear.
Don’t Israelis and Arab Palestinians deserve more than this? Is it not time to stop the insanity?
At age 104, my mother was still concerned about her relationship with Hashem.
Obama’s incompetence, the way his naive worldview and credulity have made a fool of him, are equally frightening
“The only difference between this world and the time of Meshiach is our bondage to the gentile kingdoms.”
You’ve discovered our little secret!
Klein’s challenger has demonstrated a propensity to unleash poisonous vitriol, even to other Zionists
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy.
Welcome the book of Leviticus!
If the nationalist Knesset members don’t provide the answer, the Arab MKs will do so in their place.
International Agunah Day falls annually on Ta’anis Esther, this year on March 13.
Yeshiva University Museum recently hosted an exhibit titled “Threshold to the Sacred.”
Even a foxhole Yid has to admit that antisemitism is on the upswing.
When it became known in May 2008 that Malley had met with Hamas terrorists, the Obama campaign severed ties with him.
Issuing a statement dredging up Wildstein’s life, Christie’s office raised as many questions as it answered.
No matter how wrong Israel’s leaders may think their American counterparts are, little good comes from public spats.
Lieberman has repeatedly dismissed the Palestinian Authority as not being a peace partner.
This is a political version of replacement theology.
Like Chamberlain, Obama sued the ayatollahs for peace, insisting the only alternative to appeasement is war.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/60-years-later-arab-goal-remains-the-same/2008/05/14/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.