The state of Israel: Conflict of faith & the future
Photo: habakuk.nu
Once again, so-called Middle East peace process has been reoriented by yet another US President Barak Hussain Obama. He struggled for the middle part of his name while campaigning for the election. That bitterness may have had some impact in his later foreign policy decisions on Middle East. As the days progressed, we became very clear that the rhetoric of a young, enthusiastic presidential candidate would end up in nowhere and nothing could change the big brother's foreign policy direction. The root strength of Netanyahu's adamant and arrogant position on settlement issue lies where- need not a further explanation. Reality is- nobody can fix the ever complex Middle East conflict unless everybody concerned goes back to the old days and apprehend the origin of the crisis. The Jews were at perpetual loggerheads with Christians from the very early period of Christianity over the conversion issue. Intensification of Jews-Christian conflict led to the Christian's characterization of Jews as agents of the devil. In the medieval Europe, Jews experienced several brutal massacres during the long crusade era. And also in between 1251 and 1320, the Jews were subject to attacks by the Shephards' Crusaders followed by expulsions and banishing of all English Jews. Thousands of Jews were subsequently expelled from France, Austria and Poland. Until 1840s, European Jews were required to regularly attend the sermons urging their conversion to Christianity. They were illegally taxed for practicing their religion and forced to live in a specified place (ghettos) and many more. And the final blow, the massive killings of millions of Jews, we witnessed during the Second World War was also held in Europe. For many such reasons, Jews, for centuries, were looking for a safe and secured place and nothing could provide them with better security than that of a state. In 1897 Theodor Herzl established a Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, which urged for the restoration of a Jews state in Palestine. Choosing Palestine was apparently a religious cause as Herzl wrote: "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency." The movement for marching forward to Palestine was seemingly both an escape from a hatred place- Europe and also to find a common and historic place that would be catchy to Jews of all over. The State of Israel was created arbitrarily and its populace was mobilized from some other sources. On November 2, 1917, The British Foreign Office issued a declaration signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Arthur James Balfour, "...His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..." Later on June 30, 1922 a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the Mandate for Palestine confirming: "Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews people..." The most notable features of the US Congress' debate were the speech of Representative Walter M Chandler. He argued in favor of Jews national home and boastfully presented three choices for the existing Arab inhabitants of Palestine: 1) to remain in the land under the Jewish Government domination, 2) to sell their land to the Jews, or, if they do not consent any of the previous, 3) "...they (the Arab inhabitants) shall be driven from Palestine by force." No hide-and-seek play. And after May 14, 1948 that was exactly happened to the Palestinians- they were forcefully driven out from their own land. The legitimate question is: who authorize the British and the Americans to make such declaration and exercise that arrogance? Is that for winning a war? Perhaps. Later, the League of Nations, which was the catalyst and instrumental in keeping the global controls in favor of those winning nations, endorsed the so-called British mandate for the Jewish national home on July 24. 1922 (the endorsement historically viewed as a Mandate for Palestine): "Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." Now let us argue: what is that "historic connection?" Is that the claim that: "The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people..." (Declaration of Independence of Israel, on May 14, 1948)? If League of Nations is very much convinced with the argument then the millions of Christians can claim the same land (Bethlehem) and their right to settle there as we know the fact that the Jesus Christ (PBUH) was too born in that place. And the League of Nations could not fulfill the desire of millions Buddha's followers' wish to return to the tiny city- Lumbini, Nepal. That was unhesitatingly a bizarre kind of argument. The natural course of action of each and every religion was that their followers spread all over the world to preach their respective religious messages. Later, on April 18, 1946, League of Nations transferred its duties to the United Nations (as it was dissolved on that day). And Great Britain (the so-called Mandatory or Trustee of that land) did turn over its responsibility to the United Nations as of May 14, 1948, the very day Israel declared its independence. That healthy (!) process of being a Mandatory or Trustee or transferring rights of lands or many others issues related to Palestine totally ignored its own people. It never bothered to ask or include Arabs. It did not consider the potential dangers and plight of its existing inhabitants. Letting aside the legality question of Belfour's declaration, the text itself it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country was vastly ignored as spirit. We know the fact that more than seven hundred thousands of innocent people were displaced and suddenly turned into refugees as a consequence of 'imposed' Israel state. Moreover, one of the Jew's arguments in justifying the imposed state was that all Middle-Eastern states were artificially created by the colonial masters rather than home-grown ones. Quite true. Even then, a Jew living in Germany cannot claim his right to live and settle in Jerusalem unless he is allowed to buy lands or taking refuge by the local inhabitants. Although the argument that the Arab states are artificially created partly renders the scenario, the other side of the argument is that none of these countries' inhabitants were mobilized from any other sources. They all were living in that place for centuries. And as John Stuart Mill, a renowned political scientist, once noted, "The worth of the state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." Therefore, the creation of artificial states with aborigines and the imposition of a state through colonizing it cannot be viewed from the same angle, cannot be traded off and justified. Jews often and boastfully refers to that "Mandate for Palestine" as the legal basis of the Jewish State. But we all know those international laws are subject to change once some other nations win some other big wars, start ruling, and setting their new agendas. It can well be argued that if winning a war is the criterion to set the legitimate standard then should we wait for another war to hear the voice from the Arabs? This may sounds bitter, but tragically it's true that mostly war defines the laws of international politics. Whither Arab Peace initiative?After all these odds, can there be a peaceful solution to the Middle-East crisis? Do we really need more bloodsheds, destructions, and hatred? I believe most of the peace-loving people would say 'no'. In March 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, Lebanon, a peace plan was adopted by all the Arab states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, calling for the ending of decades of hostilities and a comprehensive peace with Israel reversing their earlier stance of three 'noes'- no peace, no recognition and, no negotiation. In that proposal Arab states offered Israel with the full acceptance, normalization of relations with all Arab states including the Muslim world in exchange of full withdrawal of its forces from all the territories occupied since 1967, provide a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, and the establishment of a Sovereign Palestine State with East Jerusalem its capital. There was never proposed such a thing to this crisis. As Arab leaders noted that "...it was such a deal that the founders of the State of Israel would surely embrace with characteristic boldness and, negotiate with vigor." Jews once enjoyed the status of being a Muslims' ally during the crusade-era. Now, the Muslims are in place and offer a solution - a long cherished homeland for Jews with full recognition and security guarantee. Will the Jews embrace the historic choice? Do the Jews really believe that only 'Merkava-type' power can provide its security in the long run? Alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe can alter the momentum. Arabs are too rethinking about their own peace proposal as already a number of Arab countries hinted that the 'Arab Peace Initiative' will not be on the table forever. Time is running out for both sides. To avoid a dangerous end game, there is no alternative to a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Middle East cannot afford anymore bloodsheds and tears.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments