full rights for the LGBT community, full rights for women, a critical and free press and independent judiciary, a rich history of trade unionism, freedom of expression of religion, a welfare state to help those in need and a participatory and representative democracy. These are principles that those on the left should cherish and defend with all their vigour; but, regrettably, the delegitimisation of a state that emboldens these values has become the cause célèbre of those who wish to define their politics as that of the ‘noble’ left.
The de-legitimisation of Israel is a very strange beast. It is no longer the domain of the Keffiyeh-clad socialist selling a barely read rag, it has entered discourse about Israel. Think about it: when was the last time you heard the phrase ‘Israel is an Apartheid state’ go unchallenged? It may sound glib, lazy, misinformed or even offensive to a fair minded person who rejects such a proposition as ludicrous. But it is all part of creating a narrative, that the State of Israel should not, (and maybe for some, should never have) exist. It is insidious and pervasive.
Last month, many of us assembled in London for the first ever ‘We Believe in Israel’ conference. There, Colonel Richard Kemp spoke of a young, British soldier called Lieutenant Mervis who was killed in action. Lieutenant Mervis happened to be Jewish. Kemp challenged us:
…had he [Lieutenant Mervis] joined the IDF, instead of developing into a brave, dedicated military leader concerned for the welfare of his men and taking every conceivable step to protect the civilian population, would Paul Mervis have become a callous, brutal thug, haphazardly dropping white phosphorous into the houses of innocent civilians? Would Paul Mervis have deliberately and without qualms killed women and children? Would Paul Mervis have blown up schools, raked ambulances with machinegun fire?
The answer, of course, was a resounding no. This is the progressive obligation: you do not have to support every course of action the current Likudite administration of Israel does. Neither do you have to pick a side as arbitrarily as one might pick a side in a football match, and defend ‘your side’ to the hilt. You can be both ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘pro-Palestine’. But every progressive has an obligation to defend the state of Israel from the attempts by some, especially those within our movement, to cast it out from the international community as a pariah state, to reject the right of six million Jews to their self determination and to cast the Zionist as an evil usurping monster.
Be it on campus, in your workplace or on the internet, do not let their narrative become the parlance of choice when discussing Israel. Because if they had their way, there would not be an Israel to defend.
“But every progressive has an obligation to defend the state of Israel from the attempts by some [..] to cast the Zionist as an evil usurping monster” This would be easier if Israel was prepared to negotiate on the right of return, admit culpability in turning nearly 3/4 of a million people into refugees taking their homes and their land as the founding act of the country or even just ceased annexing Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.
And why should Israel negotiate the right of return? there was a war in 1948, the Arabs attacked Israel, they lost and run away.
This strategy – making “the progressive case for Israel” has always seemed very odd to me. Does Israeli legitimacy depend on the progressive values described in the opening paragraph? If they weren’t part of Israeli law and constitution, would that make Israel less legitimate. Israel’s legitimacy is a matter of international law, as embodied by the UN since 1947. This is the very same legitimacy that the Palestinians depend on for their rights of self determination and which they are currently denied – ever more vehemently – by Bibi “the 1967 borders are not defensible” Netanyahu and Avigdor “we will cancel Oslo” Lieberman.
After the Arabs were forced from their homes? Also, there’s a little thing in the Declaration of Human Rights which providespeople with a right to return. That said, I think the major issue is what’s going on in Gaza and the West Bank. The West should, for the sake of Israel’s continued survival, demand an end to illegal settlement building, the recognition of Palestine along the 1967 borders and the lifting of the vast majority of restrictions on the Gaza Strip. The reason why I said this is for Israel’s sake is because I firmly believe that the status quo is bad for Israel in the long run.
Aiden, The right of return is a nonsense for the following reasons: 1. The refugee problem was created in a war started by the Arabs with the intention of wiping Israel out. This failed. There were atrocities on both sides, and refugees on both sides. The Jewish population of East Jerusalem and the old city were driven out when the Jordanian Arab Legion, under British officers, took the city. There was no suggestion after 1948 that the Jordanians would allow the Jews to return. 2. At least as many Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries during or after 1948. Most of them settled in Israel. A population transfer took place similar to, though on a much smaller scale than, occurred in India and Pakistan at around the same time. 3. It is contrary to all international law and practice to regard the status of ‘refugee’ as hereditary. The children of refugees, living in the place they were born, to which their parents fled, are regarded as natives of that place, and should have the full rights of citizens. That’s why no-one talks about an ongoing refugee problem or ‘right of return’ with respect to India and Pakistan. If they did it would affect tens of milllions. By continuing to regard the children and grandchildren of refugees as themselves refugees, their host countries are engaging in an apartheid practice. Why are native-born Lebanese, Jordanians, etc still confined to refugee camps because of their parents’ or grandparents’ place of origin. That is the real scandal.
What do you mean the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 and “ran away” Where was this
What I am aware of is Israel under Ben Gurion and others not being satisfied with the proposals of the UN and taking the law into their own hands and killing and driving out over or about half a million Arabs from their ancestral homes
A process that continues to today, in taking Arabs and dispossessing them of the land they are still allowed to live on Israel ahs continued doing so almost day and daily since 1948 and continues today Indeed on Palestine havingt he nerve to seek to join UN Israel’s response was to announce they were going to seize yet more land from the Arabs by force
Were was it you are referring to? I am not aware of that place Yes some Arabs have attacked some Israilis but it it is the right of those under occupation to fight their occupiers under nternaltional law is that what you refer to?
deryck
What do you mean the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 and “ran away” Where was this
What I am aware of is Israel under Ben Gurion and others not being satisfied with the proposals of the UN and taking the law into their own hands and killing and driving out over or about half a million Arabs from their ancestral homes
A process that continues to today, in taking Arabs and dispossessing them of the land they are still allowed to live on Israel ahs continued doing so almost day and daily since 1948 and continues today Indeed on Palestine havingt he nerve to seek to join UN Israel’s response was to announce they were going to seize yet more land from the Arabs by force
Were was it you are referring to? I am not aware of that place Yes some Arabs have attacked some Israilis but it it is the right of those under occupation to fight their occupiers under nternaltional law is that what you refer to?
deryck
What do you mean the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 and “ran away” Where was this
What I am aware of is Israel under Ben Gurion and others not being satisfied with the proposals of the UN and taking the law into their own hands and killing and driving out over or about half a million Arabs from their ancestral homes
A process that continues to today, in taking Arabs and dispossessing them of the land they are still allowed to live on Israel ahs continued doing so almost day and daily since 1948 and continues today Indeed on Palestine havingt he nerve to seek to join UN Israel’s response was to announce they were going to seize yet more land from the Arabs by force
Were was it you are referring to? I am not aware of that place Yes some Arabs have attacked some Israilis but it it is the right of those under occupation to fight their occupiers under nternaltional law is that what you refer to?
deryck