Bibi's History Tutorial
I’m in agreement with the pundits who conclude that there was absolutely nothing new for consideration offered in Netanyahu’s speech. Perhaps he achieved a personal milestone by finally uttering the words “Palestinian state” but beyond this it was a tune we’ve all heard before. He offered “peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions” then proceeded to spell out the all too familiar prior conditions that everyone knows are non-starters for the Palestinians (i.e. Jerusalem remains the “united capital of Israel,” “natural growth” of the settlements will continue, there will be no right of return for the Palestinians.)
Same old, same old. For me at least, the most interesting parts of his speech were not his tired policy pronouncements, but his extended forays into historical analysis – and in particular, his repeated justifications of the Jewish people’s right to the land:
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers.
It seemed clear that Netanyahu’s history lesson was a pointed rejoinder to Obama’s Cairo speech, in which Obama stated that the “Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” You may have heard that following his speech, many in the Jewish community criticized Obama for connecting Israel’s right to exist to the Holocaust and failing to cite the Jewish people’s historical connection to the land. Witness this livid Jerusalem Post editorial:
Mr. President, long before Christianity and Islam appeared on the world stage, the covenant between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel was entrenched and unwavering. Every day we prayed in our ancient tongue for our return to Zion. Every day, Mr. President. For 2,000 years.
Perhaps it’s because Palestine was never sovereign under the Arabs that even moderate Palestinians cannot find it in their hearts to acknowledge the depth of the Jews’ connection to Zion. Instead, they insist we are interlopers.
When Obama implies that Jewish rights are essentially predicated on the Holocaust—not once asserting they are far, far deeper and more ancient—he is dooming the prospects for peace.
For why should the Arabs reconcile themselves to the presence of a Jewish state, organic to the region, when the US president keeps insinuating that Israel was established to atone for Europe’s crimes?
Thus Netanyahu’s pointed words yesterday:
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years – persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations…The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People.
It’s facinating to me that Netanyahu et al are so threatened by the suggestion that Israel’s establishment is ultimately bound to the Holocaust. After all, didn’t Theodor Herzl himself found political Zionism as a reponse to world anti-Semitism? And whatever historical claim the Jewish people might have to the land of Israel, it’s safe to say there would never have been international support for a Jewish state had it not been for the Holocaust.
Beyond this, I’m troubled by the need to continuously and defensively remind the world of the historical Jewish connection to this particular piece of land. I’m not at all sure that this is really a road we really need or want to go down.
What does it really mean for any people to have a “right” to a land? I understand that the Jewish nation, like every nation, has its historic narrative, but let’s face it: nations don’t exist by right, they exist by fiat. Nations exist by virtue of military power and by their ability to maintain a system of governance that will ensure their survival as a polity. Beyond this, it’s pointless to argue one’s historical or moral right to a land. It seems to me that if history has proven anything, it’s that might makes right – and all the rest is commentary.
The real question here is not who has a right to this land. The central issue is how its inhabitants will see fit to exist on the land. And on this point, I don’t see that Netanyahu gave us anything fresh to consider.
well said, SR.
we at jewish dialogue group are working on a guide that will contrast various ways of looking at the conflict, its history, and various proposed solutions. as the lead writer on the guide it’s my job to tease apart these values, convictions, and motivations and when bibi gives these speeches contradicting herzl i am writerly-intrigued. check out the website if folks are interested–it’s going to be an awesome guide: http://jewishdialogue.org/deliberation.htm
Why should we expect anything new from Bibi? Is there anything new coming from the Palestinian side? Things rarely change.
same old same old.
While I am no fan of Bibi, and I totally agree that the central question at this point is how can the two peoples live together in peace and with mutual respect now and going forward, I don’t really disagree with this aspect of Bibi’s speech.
While it is certainly true that Herzl intended a Zionist state to be a refuge from, and solution to the problem of, antisemitism, it is also true that were it not for the historical connection to Eretz Yisrael a Jewish state may as well have been located in Uganda or Alaska in order to serve that function. These options were deemed unacceptable exactly because of the deep historical connection between the people and the land of Israel.
I think it would be wise to remember that both sides are guilty of attempting to minimize the other side’s historical connection to the land. Too often Jews raise red herrings like “there was never a Palestinian state”, or “Jordan is already a Palestinian state” in order to de-legitimize the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
On the other hand, it is the official position of the Waqf that there are no Jewish ties to the Temple Mount area. We should not allow our historical connection to the land to be erased by those [who I think are] with bad intent, like the Waqf, or by those those [who I think are] with good intent, like President Obama.
Further, just as I don’t want my practice of Judaism reduced to “Holocaust, Holocaust Holocaust”, I don’t want the argument for Israel’s right to exist in Israel be reduced to the Holocaust either.
Though it pains me to say he is right about anything, I think Bibi is right, to an extent, to remind the world of the Jewish historical connection to Israel.
“Perhaps it’s because Palestine was never sovereign under the Arabs that even moderate Palestinians cannot find it in their hearts to acknowledge the depth of the Jews’ connection to Zion. Instead, they insist we are interlopers.”
Idiot. Does that mean we should give EY back to the Turks, who owned it longer than anyone else? While we’re at it, why not let the Assyrians re-conquer it? God knows THEY are itching for some sovereign territory.
“And whatever historical claim the Jewish people might have to the land of Israel, it’s safe to say there would never have been international support for a Jewish state had it not been for the Holocaust.”
You’re so totally off base it’s amazing.
The institutions and the progress towards a Jewish state existed before the Holocaust. The Balfour declatation happened in the ’20s. The yishuv was established and self governing before WWII.
I hate to say it, but for once I agree with Bibi. The reality is that the Jewish people are a First Nation of the land of Israel. That negate the fact that the Palestinians are also an indegenous people, but the point people are trying to make is that Israel doesn’t exist solely as a means of protecting Jews from anti-Semites. It is meant as a national home that empowers a people to contribute to society. The idea that all people have a place in the world and the right to self determination is a fundamental premise of progressive thought and this holds true for Jews as well.
You missed his point. He said that there wouldn’t have been any INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT if not for the Holocaust. The nascent Jewish institutions may have been locally viable, but they did NOT enjoy widespread support even among the global Jewish community.
Well said, Rav, very very well said.
The institutions of the Jewish national project existed pre-World War II the same way that the present-day Hawaiian separatists have a nascent royal court ready to reclaim their constitutional monarchy again, should the United States somehow give it up. States exist by fiat, not rights, amen.
STATES might exist by fiat, but PEOPLE have the right to live on their land in peace. This goes for both sides of the conflict.
“I understand that the Jewish nation, like every nation, has its historic narrative, but let’s face it: nations don’t exist by right, they exist by fiat. Nations exist by virtue of military power and by their ability to maintain a system of governance that will ensure their survival as a polity”
The Jewish people has existed throughout the term of golus not just as a nation, but as multiple nations. The Jews of Spain, the Jews of Eastern Europe, the Jews of Yemen etc. Within the context of the greater jewish idea each group developed a societal life, a language, and contributions to humanity as a whole. They did this without fiat and without states. It is easy to bind the notion of nation with that of the state or land, but it is simply not the case. kung-fu jew points out that it is states that exist by fiat, this i could not agree with more. Nations on the other hand are people, not states, not tracts of land. the jewish people is unique in that it has provided for so many different nations throughout a period of time that we had no centralized self-governance. when we use the language in such a way that nation and state denote the same idea we are limiting our great ability for expression, and it follows, our options for a greater interpretation of what it mean to be a jew today.
Yisroel,
Perhaps I was imprecise in my description of the Jewish “nation.” The Jewish people have always referred to themselves as “Am Yisrael” – “the Jewish nation” – and I believe this points to an abiding national culture – even when the Jewish people existed in galut “among the nations.”
I agree with Mordechai Kaplan’s analysis that the Jews have characteristically lived in two civilizations throughout our history. We’ve also proven that it is possible to maintain a national culture w/out a majority of our people living in the land – and certainly w/out needing to have political control over that land.