Monday, December 18, 2006
Israeli Legitimacy, the Holocaust and Iran
The Holocaust is generally accepted as the most thoroughly organized and documented genocide in history. There are those who argue it did not happen, or did not happen in the scale described; but those claims succumb to the remarkably detailed German accounts of the genocide.
So what does the Holocaust have to with with Israel?
With the passage of time and the legend that poor journalism and historical ignorance can create, Israel's formation, Zionism and its war for independence is today viewed as directly and politically linked to the Holocaust. Well, that's actually not true. Israel's legitimacy and Zionism predate the Holocaust by a large amount.
The Zionism which culminated in the formation of Israel began in the late 1880's. There were a series of immigration waves of Jews to the region which became Israel long before WWII. At the time, they were immigrating to the Turkish, or Ottoman, Empire. After WWI, this became part of the British Mandate, so called due to the British defeat of the Turks and resulting sovereignty over much of Arabia. As the British imposed their rule, they promised the locals their own deal - an Arabia for Arabs under Hashemite rule (generally) and a Jewish Homeland for the local Jews. This is the "promise" that emerged from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WWI. The British empire, in other words, supplanted the Turkish Empire, and promised all the locals a better deal - self-determination for Arabs and Jews. That tends to get lost in the leftist political discussion about imperialism and zionism being linked - the Jews immigrated. They were local. They bought their property. They were first ruled by the Turks and then the British. So were the Arabs. They had every right to want their own land, their own nation - having nothing to do with the Old Testament, by the way.
Eventually, as history unfolded, the Jews fought the British to expel them, feeling that the British had failed to live up to the Balfour Declaration's promise. More militant elements of the Jewish military (Menachem Begin's Irgun) bombed the British military headquarters at the King David Hotel, forever earning the enmity of the Brits in so doing. Each of the Jews, on the one hand, and the Arabs, on the other, felt the Brits favored the other unfairly. Eventually, the Brits left town, and in 1948 the Jews completed their War for Independence by soundly defeating the Arabs (by whom they were surrounded on all sides). No help from anybody. In fact, the launching point of Jewish anger at the Brits was that they attempted to limit Jewish immigration to the Mandate after WWII and the Holocaust. Gee, guys, thanks. Go read Exodus.
So there's a great deal of history underlying the formation of Israel that predates the Holocaust by quite a bit. In a funny way, I think this is where Ahmadinejad is very clever in his Holocaust denial conference. Most sentient beings would not conclude that the Holocaust was a fiction. But it is not that hard to be swayed by the next bit he argues -- even if there was a holocaust, and it was the fault of the europeans, why "punish" the Muslims with the Jewish homeland when it belongs in Europe? Shouldn't the Europeans bear this cost? Muslims didn't exterminate Jews (though they did help - ed.).
Ahmadinejad's conference isn't strictly about denying the event of the Holocaust. It's a convenient subject, because 100% of Holocaust deniers are in fact anti-semites and anti-Zionist. But in also focusing on and questioning the core legitimacy and history of the formation of Israel, Ahmadinejad's conference can resonate not just with fringe anti-semites, but it can find fellow travellers far and wide who are anti-Zionist. Jimmy Carter can contribute. James Baker can play a role. Mearsheimer and Walt can jump in. Academics can appreciate it. Think of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric as a negotiating position. Eventually, he will drop Holocaust denial, and you will have agreement on Israel's illegitimacy. Or at least its annoying-ness (to Baker or Scowcroft, for instance).
Israel derives its legitimacy, like any nation, from the fact that it was formed by its own people (in a popular war), and today is ruled by consent of the governed. It was not formed due to the Holocaust. It does not derive its legitimacy from the Holocaust. It was formally recognized by the US (under Harry Truman) and by the UN after WWII. The providers of this recognition were undoubtedly moved by the events of the Holocaust, recorded by the Germans, reviewed by the Courts at Nuremberg and witnessed by so many at the Nazi death camps. But the choice by others, in 1948, to recognize Israel did not give it legitimacy. Its own people did, and do that every day.
So the President of Iran can work terribly hard to undermine Israel's perceived legitimacy. He can work assiduously to develop the weaponry to threaten its existence. But personally, I think he's wasting his time, and the energy and resources of his people. I think it's more likely that Israel's legitimacy will be enhanced, not diminished, by his threatening posture. It is his legitimacy, and the rule of the Iranian theocracy, which can't bear scrutiny. When you stone your own people; eliminate free speech; deny the Iranian people the right to choose their own political representatives; and subordinate religions (and their practitioners) to the state established religion; then it is your nation, and your regime which lacks legitimacy.
So, President Ahmadinejad, do not ask for whom the bell tolls...
8 Comments:
By 
allen, at
Mon Dec 18, 11:34:00 AM:
trish said...
Where's Allen?
Trish,
Allen has lost interest. Allen is no longer amused.
Every conservative, indeed, every patriotic blog should have front and center the story of a guy from Texas who, 23 years ago after disbarment in at least two states, was commissioned an Air Force JAG. This non-lawyer lawyer, faux-officer went on to become probably one of the most influential people in the Air Force; think of LtC. Oliver North, here. Among other things this liar, cheat, and fraud, became commandant at the Air Force JAG School in Montgomery, Alabama, i.e. he formulated the policy and curriculum used by all JAG commands throughout the world; think Iraq and Afghanistan, here. He negotiated with and distributed “large sums of money” to selected tribal leaders and other political entities in Iraq. (And when the US government admits to “large sums of money”, it must be assumed that they were LARGE sums of money.) In short, the liar, cheat, fraud, disbarred non-lawyer, faux Colonel chose and rewarded the Iraqi allies of the United States. Finally, this flag fraud served two tours within the White House, presumably advising the President, through the Air Force, on legitimate target acquisition and other material issues in TWAT.
For all those who obviously missed a REAL story, that of “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy is one. Oh, and it is one over which the President may exercise his sole prerogatives as CnC.
Link
By 
, at
Mon Dec 18, 01:29:00 PM:
TH:
Great summary. You should include special mention of the vote in the UN which agreed to partition, as it was that vote which precipitated open war between the Arabs and the Jews.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 18, 03:06:00 PM:
davod -
The credit for this excellent post belongs to co-blogger Cardinalpark.
By , at
Mon Dec 18, 04:56:00 PM:
Good analysis except for a few things.
The Balfour Agreement did not promise a Jewish state, only a 'homeland'. A large group of Jews living in an Arab land would not have been as problematic as a group declaring independent statehood.
This was an issue that the Ottoman's were concerned about as well as they sought to limit Jewish immigration. The Ottoman gov't did not welcome Jews fleeing European and Russian pogroms of the 19th C. and saw no reason why they should bear the population burden of that flight.
I'd recommend a close reading of The Arabs and Zionism by Neville J. Mandel, based on assorted archived documents of the period. Note, particularly, the way European governments (and the US to a more limited degree) used the leverage of "Capitulations" to strong-arm the Ottomans into not enforcing their own laws.
By William, at
Mon Dec 18, 06:45:00 PM:
Heh, the Arab states also saw no reason to bear the burden of the flight of Palestinians by integrating them into their society. That huge group of displaced, disenfranchised immigrants is probably the largest factor keeping the Israeli conflict alive and angry.
Well done and enlightening summary. As the recent Iranian elections demonstrate, Ahmadinejad scare tactics and huge oil subsidies still have failed to buy him resounding popularity in Iran. Kudos for the Iranians. We need to find a way to make the United States more of a wedge between him and his people, instead of a press pushing the two together.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 18, 08:25:00 PM:
"No help from anybody."
Untrue. An emergency arms shipment from Czechoslovakia, courtesy of the USSR with the understanding that the new Israel would become a socialist state, was very important in turning the tide of the war for independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_shipments_from_Czechoslovakia_to_Israel_1947-1949
Also, there was an American military officer unofficially detached to the Israeli cause (under a surname) to help lead and train their new forces, though this was largely because of his own convictions and not an interventionist policy at the Pentagon. He played an important role in the early war, especially the lifting of the siege of Jerusalem. There was a movie made about him, actually. 'Cast a Giant Shadow.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Mickey%29_Marcus
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Dec 19, 12:17:00 AM:
"We need to find a way to make the United States more of a wedge between him and his people"
It seems to me one thing we can do immediately with little risk is to begin a campaign pointing out that Iran is a human rights hellhole. Not unlike "tear down this wall!"
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Dec 21, 03:57:00 PM:
Oh. I just noticed that I said 'surname' rather than 'alias.' Duh.
