Allies of Israel Support Thirty-Five Years of Brutal Occupation

Author: Hosam Mekdad

In order to take Mr. Kilchevsky's May 1, 2002, article "Supporters of Isreal are Hardly Blind" seriously one has to believe that he is being tongue-in-cheek about what the Israelis are willing to do for peace. According to him "the vast majority of Israelis, American Jews and their supporters believe in the following: a two state solution. Territorial compromise, meaning an eventual withdrawal from occupied territories on the basis of secure and recognized borders (grounded in United Nations Resolutions # 242 and # 338). Support of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and harmony with Israel." There would not be a problem if this was true. And I would like here to salute the courageous position of Mr. Kilchevsky, if this is truly what he believes. The problem is that he is either paying lip service to the international will represented by the United Nations Security Council Resolutions # 242 and # 338, or he is too naïve to realize the import of his statements.

Nobody is asking Israel not to do its best to protect itself, but Israel claims that in order to protect itself it has to enslave another nation. For the last three and a half decades, Israel has been an occupying force. It is this that we criticize. Then Mr. Kilchevsky harangues us about the virtues of Israeli democracy, which we also laud, but one does have to ask, what is the position of the 3 million occupied Palestinians in this democracy? Are they cheap labor? The unfortunate dwellers in a land God promised to someone else? What does Israeli democracy have to say to the dignity and inalienable rights of human beings who happen not to be allowed to be citizens and are not relinquished at the same time? If the land is for Israel, then Israel should give the Palestinians full citizenship. Then the harangue of Mr. Kilchevsky will be taken seriously. If citizenship is not to be given, then the land apparently is not Israeli. One cannot covet the land and pretend that it does not have inhabitants.

The problem with Mr. Kilchevsky's piece is that it is not taking the rights of the Palestinians seriously. But why should he? One, apparently, can occupy another people for 35 years and still insist on being morally superior. This is a feat only the supporters of Israel can pull off with a straight face. If it was not for the Palestinians' revolt, Israel would be happy to leave things as they were. The peace offers from Israel came under duress and not because of a moral crisis. Or have we forgotten the realities before the first Intifada?

As for the United States' support for Israel, that is indeed the crux of the matter. For Israel can only manage to keep this military geared society through the full support of a superpower. And here is the rub. Israel is thus only powerful in so far as the United States is powerful, and the price for Israeli autonomy is rather steep. Israel in this regard is a country without real independence. One does wonder about the wisdom of hinging the survival of Israel on the will of another nation, the whims of its electoral swings. But did not Zionism teach us that the Jews should never trust the liberal democracies of the West when it comes to the safety of the Jewish people? Isn't the reason why the Jews need a state simply to avoid the benevolence and malevolence of the liberal European tradition that was inherently inimical to the Jews?

In a last resort, Israel needs the good will of the Arabs for its survival. This is perhaps a reality that was never intended but is now all the more apparent, for Israel left Europe to settle among Arabs, and Arabs are thus to be taken seriously. Israel cannot insist on the model of the rational Arab when he is an enemy and the stupid Arab when it wants to make peace with him. A Palestinian state means a sovereign state, with borders, with authority over who comes and goes, with authority over its space and water, with full sovereignty over its citizens and their well being. This is what I think is needed for peace, a real Palestinian sovereign state. Given a state, the Palestinians will then behave according to the interests of a state, short of that they will have to insist on their full rights, which are assured through the will of the international community.

Finally I would like to salute the polite tone some of the commentators on the issue of Palestinian-Israeli conflict have adopted. We can differ but ought to remain civil. I thus would like to express my full respect for all my fellow students and their entitlement to their opinion. I think we can only benefit from a polite conversation over a sensitive issue.