When the Zionists first proposed, in 1897, to create a Jewish state in Palestine, they knew that they would have to find an imperialist sponsor and sell the idea to audiences in Europe and United States. Within a few years of its creation, the moral case for Israel had been sold like a Spielberg blockbuster. The Zionists had succeeded in presenting Israel as a small, beleaguered but heroic country, defending Western values against the onslaught of Islamic vandals. Next to the creation of Israel, the launching of this narrative has been the greatest triumph of Zionism.
Is it then foolhardy to oppose this entrenched narrative? One might answer with Noam Chomsky that any system “that’s based on lying and deceit is inherently unstable.” The Zionist narrative about Israel too is unstable. It is scarcely surprising then if this hegemonic narrative has at last begun to fray at the edges even in these United States. A movement to divest from Israel has already spread to more than forty campuses. In Europe, the shift in sympathies towards Palestinians is now a fact.
All of this suggests that the time is ripe for examining again, case by case, some of the leading Zionist theses of the past century. We are at a turning point of history, for better or worse. If we can unravel the fabric of lies woven about Israel, we can perhaps nudge this historical turning point just a little bit towards better outcomes.
Promised by God
According to this thesis, the Jews have a legal right to Palestine because God, in the Torah, promised it to Abraham and his descendents some four thousand years ago.
There is one slight problem with this thesis. It has never been established that a religious document, purporting to record statements made by God, could form the basis of legally enforceable claims to property in this world. Imagine what would happen if courts began to accept individual or collective claims to land, buildings, rivers, and mountains that were backed by divine promises. Saddam Hussein might claim that he had a dream in his youth-which he hasn’t revealed so far-in which God had chosen the Iraqis to inherit the entire United States.
A Historical Connection
More secular Zionists pressed their claims on the basis of a historical connection to Palestine. The historical connection is valid, but it will not support Zionist claims
It is worth pointing out that the historical connection ended some two thousand years ago, when the overwhelming majority of Jews left Palestine for other destinations, mostly in the Mediterranean world. The real problem with this thesis is that claims of an ancient historical connection cannot be used to justify present claims to territory. If this is accepted as a valid principle for appropriating territory, we should all start by vacating United States, since the Indians have a historical connection to this land that is quite a bit weightier than any Jewish connection to Palestine.
A Distinct People
The Jews are a ‘distinct’ people, and, hence, they must have a state of their own. In this case, it does not matter where; it could be in Argentina, Uganda, or Palestine.
This claim is fraught with difficulties. The Jews were a distinct people some two thousand years ago when they inhabited a single territory, spoke a common language, and shared the same traditions. But since their dispersal, they divided into many distinct Jewish communities, each of which had blended with their hosts through marriages and conversions. How much was there in common between the Jews of Russia, Morocco, Iran and Ethiopia, that could define them as a ‘distinct’ people?
This thesis assumes that all distinct peoples have a state of their own. This is patently incorrect. There are hundreds of distinct peoples through out the world who do not have a state of their own. In addition, most of these distinct peoples have a stronger claim to statehood than the Jews since they constitute a majority in the areas they inhabit.
Many Arab States
The Arabs already have several states of their own. If they were not motivated by anti-Semitism, they would not object to the creation of the only Jewish state. Instead, they would welcome and resettle the Palestinians displaced by Jewish colonizers.
This is a racist argument. It assumes that the Jewish need for a state has moral precedence over the rights of Palestinians to their own homes, their history, their ancestral lands, their towns and villages. It blames the Arabs for not showing proper deference towards the desire of the Jews for their own state, a state that would be established solely at the cost of the Arab peoples.
Israel Attacked in 1948
In order to paint Israel as the victim, the Zionist narrative claims that Arab armies from Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel the day after it was created on May 14, 1949.
Were the Arabs attacking an established state with a historical, moral and legal right to Palestine, or were they merely defending themselves-their lands, their homes, their historical rights-against a foreign occupation supported successively by two imperialist powers, Britain and United States?
What would the Americans have done if the UN-in a world in which Japan had won the Second World War-had first allowed unlimited immigration of Jews into Massachusetts, and then authorized its partition to create a Jewish state of Israel in 55 percent of Massachusetts? In 1948, the Arabs had done what I have no doubt the Americans would have done: they defended themselves against an alien invasion.
Only Democracy
The Zionists repeat ad nauseum that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. This happens every time the discussion turns to some egregious Israeli violation of human rights.
But is Israel really a democracy? This depends on what are the boundaries of Israel. Israel is the only country in the world that has never declared or demarcated its borders. And for thirty-five years now, since the 1967 war, its undeclared borders have included the West Bank and Gaza together with their three million Palestinian inhabitants. Israel has been building illegal settlements in these territories since 1967, which did not stop even after the 1993 Oslo Accord. The expanding, armed Jewish settlements are proof positive that Israel never planned to give up these territories. In other words, the true borders of Israel encompass three million Palestinians who have no political and very few civil rights within these de facto borders.
Is Israel then a democracy? Reverend Desmond Tutu, a leading opponent of South African apartheid, prefers to describe it as an apartheid similar to the one that existed in his own country for more than forty years.
A Beleaguered State
The Zionists deflect criticism from Israel by portraying it as a small country-a lamb amongst lions-whose very existence is threatened by hostile Arab armies. This image is hardly supportable.
Israel is a small country that packs a lot of military power. Just consider the wars it has waged against its neighbors. In the 1948-49 war, Israel fielded an army that was stronger and better equipped than all the Arab armies on the war front. On October 29 1956, Israel invaded Egypt, in concert with Britain and France, and occupied all of Sinai and the Gaza Strip until it was forced to evacuate by United States. In June 1967, Israel launched a ‘pre-emptive’ war against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and in less than six days occupied Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank. Only Sinai has been vacated so far. In June 1981, Israel launched an attack against Iraq to destroy a nuclear reactor under construction near Baghdad. Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982, advancing up to Beirut, and remained in occupation of parts of Southern Lebanon till May 2000. Is this the record of a small country, beleaguered, threatened by its neighbors?
Coda
The Zionist propaganda machine, however, remains fecund as ever. Even as the old lies are exposed, their credibility undermined, they are replaced by new ones.
As the Israelis advance towards a final round of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, I can imagine a conclave of Zionist ideologues-including the likes of William Saffire, Thomas Friedman and Daniel Pipes-vigorously debating the merits of the new Zionist theses that will sustain Israel through another millennium of hegemony over the Arab world.