Virginia Tilley thinks she has it all worked out. She thinks the reason there is violence in the Levant is that Jews, using a "rapidly eroding" argument, feel they have to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. She notes that some Jews are passionate about...
Ver más
Virginia Tilley thinks she has it all worked out. She thinks the reason there is violence in the Levant is that Jews, using a "rapidly eroding" argument, feel they have to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. She notes that some Jews are passionate about this.
Well, I am a liberal. And a polytheist. I am for human rights. I am for peace. I would like nothing better than for the people of the Levant to live together in peace. Not only that, I think it would not be peace to ban Arabs from Israel or to ban Jews from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Gaza, the Golan, or the West Bank. I think it would be a mistake (and again, not peace) to "ethnically cleanse" regions by expelling Arabs from Israel or expelling Jews from the West Bank. Matter of fact, I would like it if both sides let Pagans live in the region as well, and granted us human rights. Furthermore, I agree with Tilley that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank might be tough to remove. Maale Adumim and Ariel in particular are big towns.
Some folks say that a two-state solution is needed. Um, which two states? Two Arab states? Two Jewish states? One of each? There really isn't much land there. Israel, even including the West Bank and Gaza, is less than 11,000 square miles. The remaining Arab states have millions of square miles of land. 11,000 square miles is in fact not enough for either a Jewish state or an Arab state. While that land has plenty of coastline, it doesn't have oil. A few million people would, in time, buy up much more than 11,000 square miles. If we want two states, we'll need to find much more land for them. That fits right in with Tilley's argument: one state on 11,000 square miles is plenty. Dividing it up would render it less valuable to everyone and be a threat to peace as well.
However, Tilley fails to realize that Israel itself is land-poor. To her, the over 5 million Jews in Israel are inherently insufficient to be a majority in 11,000 square miles of Israel, while the millions of square miles of Arab lands are not really enough for the Arabs! That is preposterous. In peacetime, Jews would dominate that most or all of that 11,000 square miles, and probably buy up another ten or twenty thousand square miles as well. An actual Arab majority in Israel would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Israelis, just as an Arab majority in Italy would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Italians.
So I can't agree that we all need to realize that there is something wrong with Jews being a majority in Israel! As for the passion that Tilley says some people show on this matter, well, I think it is proper for people to be passionate about having rights to life, liberty, and property.
That gets us to the second big thing that is wrong with Tilley's entire concept. She seems to regard a binational state as a great new idea. It isn't. It was the original idea. It did not work. And the reasons why it didn't work are just as valid today as ever. Back in the 1920s and early 1930s, most Levantine Jews wanted the British Mandate to become just such a state. Jews would have rights of life, liberty, and property. They would be allowed unlimited immigration to the new state. Hebrew language and culture would be officially recognized (Hebrew and Arabic could be dual national languages). Jewish religious rights would be protected. Holy sites of all people would be protected and be open to all. And the Jews would have their own schools, universities, and hospitals.
Arab fanatics made sure that none of this could ever happen. The final blow came when Arabs convinced the British government to issue the infamous 1939 White Paper. That took away the right of Jews to immigrate, condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews (or more) to death in Europe, and made it clear that for Jews to have rights in the Levant, a Jewish state was a necessity. Tilley, by wanting to remove the elements of this state that allow Jews to have these rights, is being an outright opponent of human rights, not just for Jews, but for everyone.
There are some other problems with the book. Tilley complains about Jews ravaging the land and threatening the water table. I think that is misleading. The Jews have worked wonders with Levantine land in the past century or more, draining swamps, irrigating the deserts, using water efficiently, and making desalinization so inexpensive that it may permanently answer any long-term threat of catastrophic Israeli water shortages. If any group has traditionally ravaged Levantine land, it has been the Arabs. A single state might help fix that problem, not by reducing poor Jewish practices as much as by reducing poor Arab practices.
I think Tilley may be right that one state in the Levant is enough. But I think that state ought to guarantee human rights for Jews, including rights of immigration, not preclude them.
I do not recommend this book.
Virginia Tilley thinks she has it all worked out. She thinks the reason there is violence in the Levant is that Jews, using a "rapidly eroding" argument, feel they have to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. She notes that some Jews are passionate about this.
Well, I am a liberal. And a polytheist. I am for human rights. I am for peace. I would like nothing better than for the people of the Levant to live together in peace. Not only that, I think it would not be peace to ban Arabs from Israel or to ban Jews from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Gaza, the Golan, or the West Bank. I think it would be a mistake (and again, not peace) to "ethnically cleanse" regions by expelling Arabs from Israel or expelling Jews from the West Bank. Matter of fact, I would like it if both sides let Pagans live in the region as well, and granted us human rights. Furthermore, I agree with Tilley that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank might be tough to remove. Maale Adumim and Ariel in particular are big towns.
Some folks say that a two-state solution is needed. Um, which two states? Two Arab states? Two Jewish states? One of each? There really isn't much land there. Israel, even including the West Bank and Gaza, is less than 11,000 square miles. The remaining Arab states have millions of square miles of land. 11,000 square miles is in fact not enough for either a Jewish state or an Arab state. While that land has plenty of coastline, it doesn't have oil. A few million people would, in time, buy up much more than 11,000 square miles. If we want two states, we'll need to find much more land for them. That fits right in with Tilley's argument: one state on 11,000 square miles is plenty. Dividing it up would render it less valuable to everyone and be a threat to peace as well.
However, Tilley fails to realize that Israel itself is land-poor. To her, the over 5 million Jews in Israel are inherently insufficient to be a majority in 11,000 square miles of Israel, while the millions of square miles of Arab lands are not really enough for the Arabs! That is preposterous. In peacetime, Jews would dominate that most or all of that 11,000 square miles, and probably buy up another ten or twenty thousand square miles as well. An actual Arab majority in Israel would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Israelis, just as an Arab majority in Italy would signify to me that something bad probably had been done to the Italians.
So I can't agree that we all need to realize that there is something wrong with Jews being a majority in Israel! As for the passion that Tilley says some people show on this matter, well, I think it is proper for people to be passionate about having rights to life, liberty, and property.
That gets us to the second big thing that is wrong with Tilley's entire concept. She seems to regard a binational state as a great new idea. It isn't. It was the original idea. It did not work. And the reasons why it didn't work are just as valid today as ever. Back in the 1920s and early 1930s, most Levantine Jews wanted the British Mandate to become just such a state. Jews would have rights of life, liberty, and property. They would be allowed unlimited immigration to the new state. Hebrew language and culture would be officially recognized (Hebrew and Arabic could be dual national languages). Jewish religious rights would be protected. Holy sites of all people would be protected and be open to all. And the Jews would have their own schools, universities, and hospitals.
Arab fanatics made sure that none of this could ever happen. The final blow came when Arabs convinced the British government to issue the infamous 1939 White Paper. That took away the right of Jews to immigrate, condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews (or more) to death in Europe, and made it clear that for Jews to have rights in the Levant, a Jewish state was a necessity. Tilley, by wanting to remove the elements of this state that allow Jews to have these rights, is being an outright opponent of human rights, not just for Jews, but for everyone.
There are some other problems with the book. Tilley complains about Jews ravaging the land and threatening the water table. I think that is misleading. The Jews have worked wonders with Levantine land in the past century or more, draining swamps, irrigating the deserts, using water efficiently, and making desalinization so inexpensive that it may permanently answer any long-term threat of catastrophic Israeli water shortages. If any group has traditionally ravaged Levantine land, it has been the Arabs. A single state might help fix that problem, not by reducing poor Jewish practices as much as by reducing poor Arab practices.
I think Tilley may be right that one state in the Levant is enough. But I think that state ought to guarantee human rights for Jews, including rights of immigration, not preclude them.
I do not recommend this book.
