Analysis from Israel
Any hope of reversing the rising tide of antipathy demands we reiterate forgotten truths.

Conventional wisdom holds that Israel’s international standing is directly related to its willingness to move toward peace with the Palestinians. Yet in recent years, despite previously unimaginable concessions, its international standing, far from improving, has hit an all-time low.

Consider some of the past few years’ developments:

  • It has become acceptable in academic and media circles to question whether Israel even has a right to exist. Yet 13 years ago, at the height of the “occupation” – before Israel had recognized the PLO, transferred land to the Palestinian Authority or evacuated a single settlement – such discourse was considered beyond the pale.
  • It has become increasingly common to speak of Israel as an “apartheid state.” That, too, would have been unthinkable 13 years ago.
  • Decisions to boycott and/or divest from Israel – virtually unknown 13 years ago outside the Arab world – are now commonplace in the West. Several churches, for instance, have decided to divest from Israel; and in the last two weeks alone, both the largest British lecturers’ association and a leading Canadian union voted to boycott Israel.
  • Most Europeans, according to polls, consider Israel the leading threat to world peace. That, too, is a new development.

    SO WHY have years of Israeli concessions produced not acclaim, but unprecedented international opprobrium? The answer is twofold. One part relates to the general public, and the other to a small but influential group of opinion leaders. I will discuss the first now, and the second next week.

    Among the general public, the growing view of Israel as a pariah would be impossible had Israeli (and international Jewish) leaders not abandoned one simple tenet that all of them maintained prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords: that Israel has a valid claim to the West Bank and Gaza.

    This claim does not necessitate Israel’s retention of these areas; countries throughout history have occasionally ceded land to secure peace agreements. But only if Israel has a valid claim to the territories can giving them up be a “painful concession” that merits reward by the international community. If Israel has no claim, it is merely a thief. And no one would admire, much less compensate, a thief for the “painful concession” of returning some, though not all, of his ill-gotten gains – or for offering to return some, but again not all, of the remainder in exchange for sufficient reward. On the contrary: The thief deserves opprobrium, boycotts and divestment.

    Indeed, if Israel has no claim to this land, even its seemingly unassailable demand that the Palestinians end terror in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal loses validity. Israel can reasonably refuse to cede land to which it has a valid claim without receiving peace in exchange. But if the land belongs to the Palestinians, then Palestinian violence, ostensibly aimed at retrieving their stolen property, becomes understandable – and so does their claim that Israel has no right to impose conditions on its return.

    THIS, HOWEVER, is precisely the picture that Israeli (and international Jewish) leaders have painted for the past 13 years. No Israeli leader talks any longer about Israel’s right to the territories; instead, they talk about the Palestinians’ “right” to statehood and the need to end “the occupation.” But if the Palestinians have a “right” to a state on this land, it must belong to them; similarly, if Israel is “occupying” the Palestinians, the land must be theirs. That is what “right” and “occupation” mean.

    Then, as if this were not bad enough, the unilateral withdrawal craze compounded the problem.

    Until three years ago, Israel deemed uprooting settlements a national and personal tragedy – a painful (and expensive) move that merited sympathy and compensation. And the human portion of this tragedy – tens of thousands of people thrown out of their homes – would arguably be undiminished even if the territories were stolen Palestinian land. But now, two successive Israeli leaders have declared that far from being a tragedy, uprooting settlements is an Israeli interest, because they constitute a demographic and security burden. And if dismantling settlements serves Israel’s interests, how can this possibly constitute a “painful concession” that merits either sympathy or compensation?

    THUS IF Israel is to have any hope of reversing the rising tide of worldwide antipathy, it must start by reiterating the basic truths that have disappeared from its discourse over the last 13 years: that Israel has a valid claim to this land, and that ceding this claim is not an Israeli “interest,” but a wrenching move conceivable only in exchange for suitable recompense.

    The case, briefly, is as follows:

  • First, this is the historic Jewish homeland: Jerusalem and Hebron, not Tel Aviv and Haifa, were the heart of the biblical Jewish kingdom. This is vital, because the fact that this was our historic homeland is what justifies establishing a modern Jewish state here at all. Otherwise, we are indeed mere foreign interlopers.
  • Second, this land was unequivocally allotted to the future Jewish state by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which was never legally superseded. The 1947 UN partition plan was no more than a non-binding “recommendation” (the plan’s own language) – as are all General Assembly (as opposed to Security Council) resolutions. Thus once the Arabs rejected the plan, it had no more validity than any other unsigned deal. (Were this not true, incidentally, much of pre-1967 Israel would also constitute “occupied Arab land.”)
  • Third, no sovereign state ever replaced the Mandate on this territory. Jordan and Egypt conquered the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, in 1948, but neither conquest ever received international recognition. Legally, the territories remained stateless lands whose ownership was disputed. The only change that has occurred since is that the Palestinians have replaced Egypt and Jordan as the Arab claimants.

    And finally, Israel acquired these lands not in a war of conquest, but in a defensive war.

    At this late date, reversing the international perception of Israel as a thief rather than a legitimate claimant will be a Herculean task. But unless Israel makes the effort, it will increasingly be treated as a criminal rather than a seeker of peace.

  • Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

    Israel’s constitutional crisis has been postponed, not resolved

    After years of leftists crying wolf about democracy being endangered, Israel finally experienced a real constitutional crisis last week. That crisis was temporarily frozen by the decision to form a unity government, but it will come roaring back once the coronavirus crisis has passed.

    It began with Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein’s refusal to let the newly elected Knesset vote to replace him as speaker and culminated in two interventions by the High Court of Justice. I’m one of very few people on my side of the political spectrum who considers the court’s initial intervention justifiable. But its second was an unprecedented usurpation of the prerogatives of another branch of government, in flagrant violation of legislation that the court itself deems constitutional.

    Edelstein’s refusal, despite its terrible optics, stemmed from a genuine constitutional concern, and was consequently backed even by Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon, who had opposed Edelstein many times before and would do so again later in this saga. The problem was that neither political bloc could form a government on its own, yet the proposed new speaker came from the faction of Benny Gantz’s Blue and White Party that adamantly opposed a unity government. Thus whether a unity government was formed or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s caretaker government continued, the new speaker would be in the opposition.

    But as Yinon told the court, speakers have always come from the governing coalition because an opposition speaker can effectively stymie all government work. And once elected, he would be virtually impossible to oust, since 90 of the Knesset’s 120 members must vote to do so. An opposition speaker would thus “hurt democracy,” warned Yinon. “We’re planting a bug in the system, and this, too, undermines our constitutional fabric.” That’s why Edelstein wanted to wait, as Knesset bylaws permit, until a government was formed and could choose its own speaker.

    Yet despite this genuine and serious concern, the fact remains that a newly elected majority was being barred from exercising its power. Moreover, it had no parliamentary way of solving the problem because only the speaker can convene parliament and schedule a vote. Thus if you believe majorities should be allowed to govern, the court was right to intervene by ordering Edelstein to hold the vote.

    Read more
    Archives