Customer Reviews

The Case Against Israel (Counterpunch)

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

I always considered myself pro-Israel. But I struggled to see how the West Bank and Gaza settlements could be considered fair to the Palestineans. When I raised the issue with my pro-Israel friends, I was surprised that they were so angry at my even bringing it up. I also found it peculiar that they had so many arguments to justify the settlements, none of which I found persuasive. As I questioned their responses and pointed out how one-sided they were, completely ignoring what I thought were legitimate Palestinean positions, they practically accused me of anti-Semitism. I could not understand why an open discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each side's positions in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict would make me anti-Semitic. I found it interesting that they essentially refused to answer when asked what they would do if they were Palestinean.

Then it dawned on me. The presentation of this issue in the American media and throughout our society is so one-sided and imbalanced that any attempt at a balanced and reasoned analysis appears pro-Palestinean. So I sought out a book on the issue which went through all of the issues my friends had raised in support of Israel to see how they held up to a more informed scrutiny than my own. This book provided just what I was looking for.

The author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. After a thoughtful and fair discussion of each side's positions, his ultimate verdict is that "Israel is the illegitiate child of ethnic nationalism. The inhabitants of Palestine had every reason to oppose its establishment by any means necessary. No one is required to submit to a sovereignty from which they are excluded, much less a sovereignty arrogated to one ethnic group and excluding all others. Given the life-or-death powers of the proposed state and the intentions of its proponents to maintain ethnic supremacy within its borders, the Palestineans were justified in taking the project as a mortal threat, and, therefore, to resist by any means necessary.***It is admirable to fight those who come to dispossess or dominate you rather than flee."

Neumann's point is not to argue that Israel has no right to exist, but that the Palestineans can fairly be said to have given up something if they agree to recognize Israel at its pre-1967 borders, and that Israel could be said to have succeeded even if it permits all of Gaza and the West Bank to become a sovereign nation ruled by the Palestineans without Israeli interference. And that under such a mutually satisfactory approach, peace is possible, assuming both sides agree that peace is the goal. This book showed me that I am pro-Israel, but that I disagree with the ardent Zionists.

A huge issue in our times and our world has been the injustice of an the Palestinians and Israelis. It is not an easy issue, either, in America, where there is a large Jewish population. Many Jewish radicals come from families who whole-heartily support Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and are used to being named as self-hating Jews. They are often torn between their own experience of growing up in a predominantly Christian nation as well as being apart of a people who have been persecuted mightily throughout the world, and that experience being used by Israel to justify their imperialist activities in the Middle East. Indeed, American Jews have been known to unquestionably support the actions of the Israeli government even more than Israelis themselves, who are more torn into different viewpoints. This is the experience this book, "The Case Against Israel", was written from, as the author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor, who in the introduction states he has never been incredibly pro-Palestinian, teaching Philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada (close enough to America.)
It is also a touchy subject, because one certainly does not want to be accused of anti-Semitism as a non-Jew. I am not Jewish, making it difficult for me to get involved in this discussion without being shut-down as simply "not understanding the plight of the Jews" as has been said to me. The book, however, is a step-by step logical and moral counter to the arguments of Zionism and the government of Israel. It proceeds in a very calm but very encompassing style. The charge of anti-semitism is covered early in the book, noting that Israel does not represent all Jews and therefore it is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel, especially since the largest population of Jews lives in the United States and not in Israel.
The book is divided into two sections. The first is the argument against the ideology of Zionism, which is grounded in the pre-1947 founding of Israel. Neumann makes the point of stating the incredibly colonialist and imperialist nature of settling European Jews in any land, and arguing that the Zionist leadership saw the people of Palestine as non-existant or undeserving of the land, since Jews had lived there millennium before them (which is countered by stating that no one is really native of anywhere, since people existed in Palestine before even the ancient Israelites did.) He also makes the point that the Zionist movement leadership manipulated many poor Jews to move in the stead of more wealthy Jews. Following the horrific holocaust by Nazi Germany, the Zionist leadership actually placed fleeing Jews in even more danger by having them go to Palestine, where war was brewing between Palestinian people losing their land and the incoming settlers and refugees.
The second part of the book recognizes that after the 1967 war, Israel was in no more danger of being "driven into the sea", and therefore the shift of the Zionist ideology came to be supporting Israeli drives to take more land in Palestine. Many will argue that Israel must maintain its occupation to protect itself against Arab attack, and that is easily countered by stating the fact that Israel has not faced a united Arab world, which is itself sort of a fantasy, in a very long time. Indeed, the utter destitution that the Palestinians face as being permanent refugees in their own land leaves them with little choice but to resist, since it is the natural human need to resist attempts at bodily destruction of one's self and close ones. Logically, one cannot morally support the Jewish settlements which are funded by Israel and US tax aid.
There are many more arguments used by Israel's defenders which are refuted in a systematic rational manner within this book. A quick and enjoyable read, it is mainly based in Philosophy and sound arguments, and the author refuses to become emotionally overdrawn in any argument. For anyone with an interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict, this book is an absolute must read, since it carries some essential basic concepts and arguments that are so simple they are powerful, impossible for anyone with any sense of moral justice to ignore.

I wasn't hoping my book would win me a Mr. Congeniality award, and I won't complain about the obviously hostile reviews. But I do complain about the reviewer who accuses me of inconsistency ('Inconsistent'). Because he seems reasonable and moderate, someone might actually believe his wild claims.

(...)I by no means adopt a fascist definition of the state; I adopt a definition from the decidedly unfascistic Lawrence Krader, Max Weber and Robert Nozick, one which is quite standard among political theorists.

It is entirely false that I claim for the Palestinians a right of self-determination; I merely claim for them a right of self-defense which I explicitly say is available to everyone, including Jews.

Do I "forcefully argue that Palestinians have a right to self determination because they are a separate people"? I say: "...before the Zionists came, there were a bunch of people who lived in the area. Whether they were called Palestinians, whether the area was called Palestine, whether the people in this area considered themselves a people, Palestinian or otherwise, are all questions without the slightest importance when assessing Zionism." And, 'many pages' on, when I 'argue against the Jordanian option for the Palestinians', I say "Nor does any of this have anything to do with whether the Palestinians are in some cultural or anthropological sense a `people'."

(...) I leave it to others to explain how my book can be both "a consistent summary of Neumann's writings" and 'inconsistent'.

This is the fairest book you can buy in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It puts to one side all the spectacular stuff - the atrocities on both sides, the wars, the accusations of racism. You're left with what Neumann considers the key issues - land and sovereignty over the land. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, I guarantee you you'll have
a clearer idea of your reasons than before you read the book.

Dr. Neumann uses a logical argument to lead the reader to an unescapable conclusion:

1) Zionism meant the establishment of a Jewish controlled state in the territory known as Palestine

2) There was already a large non-Jewish people living in this territory

3) Therefore, logically, for there to be an Israel, the majority of the inhabitants of the land had to be removed by force.

4) Thus, conflict was a necessary outcome of the Israel project.

The negative arguments made by other reviewers below are amusing. One reviewer even makes the argument that Jewish people have the "right to life liberty and property too", as if this is something controversial! Of course they do. The difficulty comes in when one IMPOSES one's rights onto another ALREADY exercising the same rights.

Palestine was, unfortunately, not an empty slate to be filled and improved by settlers. There are people in Palestinian refugee camps who still have the keys to the houses they were evicted from in 1948. This book is an important aid to understanding this difficult topic.

Logic Says:

"In theory, it could be that Israelis have no right to live in the West Bank or anywhere else, and that the land they own is stolen. In practice this is not the case, but suppose it were. Well, given the good use that Israelis have put that land to, I would certainly not recommend that this land be taken from the Israelis, especially if the intent were to do so to misuse it. Instead, I'd make the Israelis pay for that land. The land is worth more to them than to others. Why not get full value for it and let those who really want to improve that land do just that?"

This is the logic used by a reviewer above. Forget about the Palestinians who lived there in 1948, forget about the UN Resolutions demanding Israel return to its pre 1967 borders. Forget about the Wall that they (Israel) disingenuously claim is just a fence between neighbors, albeit 20 feet high, reinforced steel and concrete and divides the West Bank into disconnected Bantustans. Forget about right and wrong, legal and illegal, because Israel is making good use of the land! The Palestinians were ALREADY making good use of the land, they were living on it, they did not force anyone off the land so that they could claim ownership by force, they were just there, living the way their ancestors had, for generations.

Using this logic, I could argue that Germany should be given back Poland, invaded in 1939, because they made better use of Poland than the Poles. Give Zimbabwe back to the white Rhodesians, they were doing a much better job than the Robert Mugabe, whose government is obviously incapable of feeding his people as well as the white farmers that he dispossessed. We could call this new theory of ownership the Best Use Doctrine. Politicians would love it. All they would have to do is invade a country they coveted, improve on it for 40 or 50 years, and it's theirs. If they say that they are making better use of it than the former residents, they get to keep it! No need for impartial observers to decide what "better use" means, the new tenants' claim is ample proof. There might be a few more wars as a result of this new doctrine, but politicians love wars as much as they love stealing land, and their wealthiest supporters and client states will already be either on the land or in the weapons trade, so everyone would be smiling, except the former residents, who don't matter anyhow, because they clearly did not value their homeland enough to make the best use of it. What a brave new world that will be!

This is the case Michael Nuemann destroys in his book. He makes the legal case for the former residents of the land known as Palestine, and pretty much dismantles the rhetoric used by Zionist's such as Alan Dershowitz, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History who are short on legality and long on the "historical and religious title to Palestine by the children of Israel" argument that plays well at first blush but dissolves under the weight of international law.

Nuemann's book sets out the case for the Palestinians, that they were expelled from their land forcefully, with the stated objective of that action being the formation of the State Of Israel, a state for Jews, set up along Zionist principles. This is historical fact. Unfortunately for Palestinians, Zionists such as David Ben Gurion were not satisfied with the 1948 borders, they were after the Greater Israel, and that meant that the Palestinians were to be completely ousted from their land, by force of arms. This is the crime, and the result is the long struggle that has set the present day Arab and Muslim world on the road to violence in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya. The fundamentalist suicide bombers, international terrorism, al Qaeda, and the millions of deaths over 90 years of Arab Muslims against Western Christians are all symptoms of this core issue. The Palestinian issue is the crystallization of Arab suffering from Western invasions, from the Crusades of the Middle Ages to Iraq in 2003.

I am NOT blaming Israel for the entire clash between Arabs and the West. What I AM saying is that the Palestinian struggle has kept this conflict between East and West on the Arab street, always there, a constant struggle that gave Arabs looking for excuses for violence an easy target for jihad, a distraction from poverty, an issue for mullahs wanting influence and power, a way to get back at the West for past grievances. All of this is magnified by today's 24 hours-a-day cable news, especially al Jezeera, and makes the issue of Palestinian rights a centerpiece for Arab anger, and it will remain there until political solution is found.

In the book you will learn in case you didn't knew that the Zionist movement meant the establishment of a Jewish controlled state in the territory known as Palestine. The problem was that there was already a large non-Jewish people living in this territory; therefore, logically, for there to be an Israel, the majority of the inhabitants of the land had to be removed by force. Thus, conflict was inevitable an a necessary outcome of the Israel project to be made on the back of the expultion of the others. I would argue that the project is still in progress in the so call East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, sometimes called "Father of Israel," was intimately involved in the creation of Israel almost from the inception of Zionism. Such being the case, he knew better than anyone else the intricate and complex history of relations between the indigenous Palestinians and the mostly Ashkenazic Jewish imigrants who made Israel their home. Toward the end of his life he became pessimistic about the future of Israel and had this to say about the prospects for peace with the Arabs:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschweitz, but was that their fault? They see only one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" (Quoted by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World jewish Congress in his book "The Jewish Paradox")

Most of the hot air coming from pro-Zionist propagandists is an attempt to cover up, confuse, or complexify the original perpetration inherent in the formation of Israel; the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the theft of their homeland. Until this injustice is rectified or forgiven there will never be peace in the Middle East. And as long as Israel continues to confiscate and appropriate Palestinian land in the West Bank and Jerusalem and destroy Palestinian homes and crops with impunity (which it continues to do to this day) such rectification or forgiveness becomes ever more remote.

Funny, if you look at the ratings for this fine book, the graph resembles a "W". Love it or hate it...

Clearly, this material strikes a bell with thoughtful readers. It also strikes a guilty nerve with the pro Zionist crowd.

I've visited Isreal numerous times - all on engineering business trips - no political agenda whatsoever. I really like the Isreali people - many of whom surprizingly apolitical and secular.

It seems that most educated Isrealis are very much ashamed of the Gaza concentration camps and ongoing cruelty and subjugation of the Palestinians. Most would like a fair handed approach to neighboring countries, and a lasting negotiated peace in the region.

This book provides an accurate and fairhanded look at the situation in Isreal today. Like Carter's recent book, it should be required reading for Americans.

It is ridiculous that any neutral analysis of the ongoing Isreali middle east mess be labeled "anti semetic" by jewish bigots with an axe to grind.

I challenge any American to visit Isreal and see things first hand. Tour Gaza. Witness the second class citizen status of Palestinians in Tel Aviv. Visit the various asinine US-funded "settlements". Learn the real truth about what is going on - something you will not find in the Jewish controlled US media.

This book is well researched and carefully written. I commend it to you.

In many respects Michael Neuman presents the most powerful and concise arguments against Israel's domination of the Palestinian people in print. He deftly shows that although Zionism was a minority movement at its inception--as it is today (most of the world's Jews do not want to reside in Israel)--the bulk of Zionist planning and thinking was always intent on establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, one that either "transferred" Palestinians from the area or repressed their ability to achieve political parity, much less control, in the nation that would be named Israel.

Neuman is at his best on examining Israel's expropriation of the west Bank and Gaza and on how acquiring those territories provided Israel with the opportunity to settle the question of a Palestinian state once and for all. Israel could have unilaterally decided that the occupied territories would become a Palestinian state by working with Palestinian groups amenable to such a plan. (Israel could make the same decision today.) But Israel acceded to the wishes mostly of religious fanatics who settled in the occupied territories by the tens of thousands. Neuman cuts through all the nonsense about how Israel required the occupied territories as a security buffer to protect itself. If that is so, why would Israel allow its citizens to settle in area that it considered its first line of defense? Israel's occupation of the occupied territories (indisputably contrary to international law) can be summed up in two words: land grab.

Neuman correctly realizes that Israel is able to occupy the territories, colonize them, and deny the Palestinian people their fundamental human rights only because the of the United States' support, both financial and diplomatic. Neuman believes that the best way to sever that support is by showing that the USA/Israel alliance was born entirely out of the Cold War and continues merely out of habit. The USA, he argues, isn't thinking clearly. It no longer possesses a valid strategic reason for its support of Israel and, in fact, might be jeopardizing its strategic interests by continuing the support. I believe that Neuman's analysis goes off the rails on this point.

In a debate he is carrying on now with Norman Finkeltein, Finkelstein correctly points out that Israel represents for the USA a "stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region." Neuman incorrectly believes that such a base must involve the actual deployment of US troops in Israel (although Israel always presents that possibility for the USA). Israel can act as a proxy force in the area and, more powerfully, as a well-armed threat of a proxy force for USA interests.

I suspect that Neuman believes the USA will never be convinced to sever its support for Israel's dominance of the occupied territories for reasons of justice, but only for reasons of strategic interest. He could be correct, but it places him in the position of making arguments that are not very convincing.