Picture, it’s 1947, you’re a Jewish resident of the Yishuv contemplating an impending vote in the UN General Assembly to recognize the UN Partition and create a new State of Israel. You’re anticipating the support of both the Soviet Union and the United States. But nothing is certain. That’s when you hear that the U.S. Congress has scoffed at your dreams and aspirations and voted 407-6 to tell you to stuff it. Knock off those dreams of statehood and go back to the negotiating table to work out a deal with the Palestinian Arabs, who have rejected Partition and the idea of a new State of Israel.
Now compare this piece of historical fiction with a very real act of betrayal committed by today’s U.S. Congress which spat on the idea of Palestinian statehood, telling the Palestinians via a Sense of the House resolution that their only hope is to go back to the negotiating table with a liar and a thief, that would be Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli who wants neither peace nor a settlement (a peace settlement, that is) nor a Palestinian state. Not now, not ever.
There are six courageous (or foolhardy) souls, who no doubt will be targeted by Aipac in the coming Congressional elections for voting “Aye”: Justin Amash, Earl Blumenauer, Ron Paul, Joe Rahall, Dennis Kucinich, and Walter Jones. Those more fearful of Aipac and less willing to go out on a limb, refused to vote for the amendment OR against it. They were Keith Ellison, Jim McDermott, Pete Stark, Betty McCollum, Lynn Woolsey, James Moran, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. They deserve some, but less credit for their stance.
I have imagined exactly your first paragraph many times over the years, and have concluded that the world – and Jewry – would be much better off if it happened that way. That is not to say that the US would not today be involved in the Middle East as it is, but there would be a lot less blame put on the Jews of the world, and a lot less muslim anti-Semitism.
I’m not sure about there being less Muslim antisemitism; in general, the Arab and Islamic worlds have been less then accepting of those different from the main population, such as in Sudan and Iraq.
As for blame, people put the blame on Jews for misfortune -before- Israel was founded; obviously, it was present in Germany, but judging by Lindbergh’s speech, it wasn’t unknown in the rest of the world.
@ Benjamin
Wow, I’m interested. Could you tell us a little more of those ‘less than accepting of these different’ in Iraq. That’s a topic that I know little about, but I’m curious to know. When I think of the ethnic and religious diversity of the dozens of Iraqi that I’ve known throughout my life, I must have missed something.
Are your statement based on historical knowledge of the topic or is it just some plain biased stuff you’ve picked up somewhere. Maybe linked with the US invasion of the country ?
The Farhud. Ba’athist domination and murders of the Shiite and Kurdish populations.The Al-Anfal Campaign. The various death squads that attacked other groups.
However, I do admit that my wording was incorrect in the manner. A better phrasing would be ‘governments in the Middle East have been less then tolerant’. Of course, this includes Israel, which has been infested with rather disgusting prejudices and racism in its history.
Thank you. Then I do agree. ‘Governments’ – never democratically elected contrary to Israel – and not the population. Iraq has religious groups that I’ve never heard of elsewhere, and after Gulf War I, thousands of Iraqi came as refugess to the place where I lived. I was amazed by the diversity of culture, language and ethnic origin which would not have survived if the country had been as intolerant as Christian Europe throughout the Middel Ages.
“I was amazed by the diversity of culture, language and ethnic origin which would not have survived if the country had been as intolerant as Christian Europe throughout the Middel Ages.”
That’s it. I cannot imagine Muslims having being tolerated in Europe before the separation of Church and state.
Gene, you could be right. But then again, CERTAINTY is the folly of the all knowing.
Imagine that the Arabs accepted partition and didn’t go to war.
I’ve tried to imagine that too. But it wasn’t the Arabs who went to war, it was the Israelis who went to war. Read your Benny Morris and llan Pappé.
Today’s Truthout has a piece by Noam Chomsky I think well worth reading – http://www.truth-out.org/. One paragraph that especially struck me well represents just how officially indifferent we seem to our own potential pariah-hood.
‘In June the U.S. Senate passed a resolution threatening to suspend aid for the Palestine Authority if it persists with its U.N. initiative. Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., warned that there was “no greater threat” to U.S. funding of the U.N. “than the prospect of Palestinian statehood being endorsed by member states,” The (London) Daily Telegraph reports. Israel’s new U.N. Ambassador, Ron Prosor, informed the Israeli press that U.N. recognition “would lead to violence and war.’
Of course Truman’s then Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, in 1948 strongly opposed the recognition of the State of Israel, correctly foreseeing the conflict and bloodshed that would soon ensue.
This is delegitimization at its finest: because the Arab states and Palestinians refused to accept the partition plan, Israel should not have been recognized? And how is this relevant to the current situation, trying to move forward? Israel is a fait accompli and George C. Marshall is immaterial to the matters at hand. There is no other country in the world whose existence is questioned in this way.
“There is no other country in the world whose existence is questioned in this way”
Palestine?
Our groveling support for a segregationist theocracy should have been shot down at the get-go as a violation of the wisdom of the very first clause of the First Amendment of the USA Bill of Rights .
Saudi Arabia?
Any and all .
The first time I imagined this scenario myself was when I read this back in 2009:
“On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by ‘an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders’” (Avi Shlaim, The Guardian, Wednesday 7 January 2009).
Unscrupulous gangsters . . . I think that Bibi is merely following a well-established Israeli tradition. And Obama is well within the American tradition.
Nobody in US government wants to insult our dear friends/weapons customers/psychic controllers the Israelis. Everybody fears the “nastyness” AIPAC and the others can bring on, the droning/sniveling speeches from Michael “should be hawking used Lada Nivas on UHF-TV” Oren, the whinging from Alan “can hold four billiard balls in his mouth” Dershowitz, maybe a cold stare from Jon Stewart.
All I can say is “Are we men, or are we mice?” When will we tell this tiny country they can go stuff it, that the Palestineans have claims too? Politics should not be about being liked all the time; it’s about accomplishing tasks for the good of the society the politicans live in, and if that means stepping on certain people’s toes, then so be it.
AIPAC Bills Opposing Palestinian Statehood Drive Sail Through House And Senate
July 8th, 2011
http://www.lobelog.com/aipac-bills-opposing-palestinian-statehood-drive-sail-through-house-and-senate/#more-9280
Mitchell Plitnick
The Senate passed a resolution last week threatening repercussions if the Palestinians press on with their bid for statehood. A similar House of Representatives resolution passed this week.
The two bills, very likely drafted by AIPAC, cite a number of statements by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to support a very strong stance against the Palestinian campaign, highlighting the extent to which the Administration was already behind these efforts, even before Congress added its voice.
Eldar: “The Oslo Process is over”
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, July 6, 2011
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/06/eldar_the_oslo_process_is_over
Thanks for the link. A simple article that seems unfortunately accurate.
if the jews of the Yishuv had prefferd to see the destruction of great britian, other than to see their state established, I would say to that little jewish boy “you don’t get what you don’t wish for enugh”. a recent poll done by a palestinian center find exactly that – almost 84% of palestinians would not accept peace, even in the price of not getting statehood, if it will not include making israel into an arab state by giving the “right” of return to milions of “refugees”.
they will never get what they don’t wish for enguh.
but sure, go ahed with the Daawa.
Jeez are you mixed up. Great Britain ended the Mandate & recognized Israel, at which time Jews were welcome to “return” to Israel. Israel, unlike Great Britain, does NOT recognize Palestine AND refuses to allow former residents of Israel who were expelled from it from returning to it. So the situations are entirely dissimilar. But do keep trying. Eventuality you may actually create an argument that makes a bit more sense.
You wrote that the situations are entirely dissimilar but doesn’t your blog post attempt to present similarities between the situation in 1947 and what is happening today?
Your opening paragraph presents a “historical fiction” scenario set in 1947 and then the rest of your post asks the reader to compare that to the current reality.
In your opening paragraph you ask the reader to picture it being 1947. At this time, the Mandate would not yet have been terminated and Great Britain would not yet have recognized Israel.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, Great Britain did not recognize Israel until 1949.
Thus, in the scenario you presented in the comparison between 1947 and today in your blog post to which this person is responding, the Mandate had not yet ended and Great Britain had not yet recognized Israel.