|
Preface
Why write about Israel? There are enough problems in the world.
Yes, there are. The world is trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. America has seen millions of jobs lost during the pandemic. And there remain the usual problems with the economy, the national debt, an immigration crisis, riots in cities, the high cost of health care, and the high cost of everything else. Why Israel?
Because I care. I want to see people enjoy peace and prosperity, and I don’t want to see injustice inflicted on anyone.
And Israel is a problem that is easy to understand. “Don’t force your religion on others” is basic morality. Yet Israel is all about violating morality.
The claim that Israel has a right to exist is a religious belief. The declaration of Israel in 1948 was an attempt to force the world to accept Jewish religious beliefs. That was completely immoral because religious coercion is immoral. The result of that declaration has been what one can expect from an egregious act of immorality—untold death and destruction.
Yet violence and wars resulting from Israel can be easily stopped. There are about 8 billion people on the planet who don’t want religion forced on them, and they have every right to exercise their freedom of religion and deny that Israel has a right to exist.
The United Nations has voted to ban religious coercion, but that hasn’t taken full effect—yet. The United Nations would have the full support of the vast majority in the world in vigorously acting to abolish religious coercion, which would be the end of Israel. I want to expedite that process.
Israel is not ancient history. Death and war in Palestine made news headlines in the spring of 2021 when the Israeli military launched air strikes in Gaza in response to incendiary balloons floated at Israel. [1]
It is time to stop the never-ending cycle of war. The facts are simple. In 1947, the United Nations passed Resolution 181 in an attempt to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. But Arabs were the clear majority of the population in Palestine, and they were vehemently opposed to the imposition of a Jewish state on what they considered “our country”. The declaration of Israel followed Resolution 181 in 1948, and war erupted, as Arabs were left with no choice but to act to defend their homeland.
Any other population would have done the same. Resolution 181 was a denial of the legitimate right to self-determination by the majority of Palestinians.
Resolution 181 was also a violation of human rights. A nation by definition allows freedom of religion and religious pluralism among the people. But a nation for Jewish people, or any religious group, is a violation of the right to freedom of religion for the citizens of the nation. And the human rights violations of Palestinians have continued since.
More Americans are becoming aware of that fact. Political support for Israel has been dropping in the United States, especially among Democrats. Moreover, partisans from both political parties are realizing that supporting religious coercion and Israel is on the wrong side of history.
I believe right will prevail in the end. I want to hasten the time when peace and justice comes to those who have been victims of injustice for so long. I believe this book will make a difference.
Justice Percell
Introduction
I learned all the conventional wisdom on Israel while growing up in Tucson, Arizona. The Israelis were the good guys who had suffered in history and were being tormented by Arabs. The Arabs were terrorists. There have been wars in the Middle East, but God is on the side of Israel. It is God’s will that Israel exists, and therefore the enemies of Israel deserve to be destroyed.
The part about God’s will to destroy people was difficult to understand. As a young Christian, I thought God loved everyone, which includes Arabs. How could God will that people die because they refuse to accept Jewish, Christian, or any theology? Isn’t the purpose of Christians to inform the world about the love of God with courtesy and wisdom? Violence has no place in Christian ministry.
Most in the world disagree with Christian theology. But the goal as a Christian is to respectfully share your religious values with others, as well as political values, wisdom on healthy living, and whatever else that would be a help. Others are not going to agree with you on everything—it would be boring if they did. But you treat everyone with honor and respect, the way you want to be treated.
I never thought Christianity meant you must believe what I want you to believe, or it is God’s will that I kill you.
I wondered, what was the real cause of conflict over Israel? War is serious business. Both sides in a war have intense grievances. And all sides claim God is on their side. That means nothing.
I knew Jews wanted a state for Jewish people in Palestine. That was their religious belief. But that was a problem; no one has the right to force their religious beliefs on others.
Then I was curious, what was the Arab complaint? Specifically, what happened, or what was the precise source of so much hate and violence? I wanted to know the truth.
It was probably complicated, and exploring the truth might take considerable thought and analysis. But I was willing to learn. I can think. I can handle it. Bring it on.
It turns out Arabs were upset because in 1948, Jews declared Israel a Jewish state in Palestine, when Jews were one-third of the population. Oh, that was the grievance. And that I understand.
It makes perfect sense.
I realized the conflict is not complicated at all. No wonder the Arabs were enraged. Anyone would be. No one wants a minority of the population to declare a state on what is perceived as “our country”. That is just a criminal seizure.
Plus, no one wants to be forced to accept the religious beliefs of others. And when those claiming a religious nation are one-third of the population, it is explosive. People are willing to fight and die when that happens. Wars in the Mideast have happened for a reason.
I began to question why Israel was declared. The defense for Israel is made mainly on the fact that Jews were persecuted in Germany during World War II, and Jews claim to have some special historical right to Palestine. But Jews were demanding a homeland long before World War II, so the persecution argument is a nonstarter.
The claim of historical right to the land for a religion is a theological belief. Where is the freedom of religion for the rest of the world in that argument? It is just a smoke screen intended to give Jews special privileges, including the right to force their religion on Palestinians.
As a Christian, I support freedom of religion, or from religion. All humans are equal. No one gets special privileges based on religious belief.
Yet religion is the central cause of the wars initiated by the declaration of Israel. Jews play on persecution in Germany to use as an excuse to force their religion on Palestinians. Then Jews act as if it is a great crime for Palestinians or anyone else to deny their attempts at religious coercion.
But the great human rights crime is to force religious values on others. There are no excuses. Palestinians weren’t persecuting Jews in Germany, and Palestinians don’t deserve to be persecuted by Jews.
Religious persecution has been copious in history. But it is never justified. No one deserves to be a victim of religious coercion, by Jews or anyone else.
It gets worse. More disturbing is that the argument for Israel goes beyond theological beliefs. Jews claim not only that it is God’s will that they have a state, but if others resist for whatever reason—maybe they just want to defend their homeland as anyone would want to do—then Jews claim the right to wage war and execute those who disagree with their theology.
The defense of Israel boils down to, “We want your land for our religious nation. If you want to fight for it, fine. It is God’s will that we kill you.” I have a few objections with that theology.
In fact, I happen to disagree with a great deal of all theology. So does everyone else in the world. Contrary to the attitude of defenders of Israel, it is not a crime to reject someone else’s theological beliefs.
Freedom of religion is not a license to force religious beliefs on others and slaughter people who disagree. That is the single reason Israel does not have a right to exist.
I was taught the basic test of morality is to treat others the way you want to be treated. And people don’t want anything stolen from them. People also have an instinctive interest in the land they live on and their country. I would be livid if any group declared a religious state on my property, or on what I consider our land. I’m not alone.
It is no mystery as to why Palestinians were inflamed with hate. That would be a normal human reaction. The declaration of Israel violated basic morality, and for that reason Israel does not have a right to exist.
Another test of morality is to respect that people want freedom. There are many freedoms, and one is the freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. That is incredibly important in people’s lives. There is a reason why religion is mentioned in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. People want the freedom to form their own religious or non-religious beliefs. It is perfectly natural for people to resist anyone trying to force religious views on them, which is everything about Israel.
It can also be said that the freedom of a people to choose their government is the most important freedom. Specifically, people want the right to self-determination. They don’t want some outside, unwanted mob to take over their government and make laws that they have to live by. Palestinians are people, and they want freedom, the same as everyone else. No one wants to be controlled by foreigners claiming their land and the power to make and enforce laws.
The conflict in Palestine is easy to understand. The simple fact is that Jews were a minority of the population in Palestine when they declared Israel as a Jewish state in 1948. That was a moral wrong because they were forcing their religious beliefs on others. It was also a denial of the right to self-determination for the majority of the population in Palestine. That was a violation of human rights, end of story. Unfortunately, the story didn’t end, and hasn’t ended yet. The declaration of Israel started a war, and there has been violent conflict in Palestine since.
Facts and logic matter. Yet when it comes to Israel, facts and logic end up blowing in the wind. The reality is that the declaration of Israel was a crime against humanity.
The arguments for Israel are made as if Jews are the only people who matter or exist. But there are other humans who have human rights and deserve recognition. Any serious discussion of the legitimacy of Israel must take into account the rights of all people involved, which means Jews and non-Jews.
In fact, it would be a great leap forward toward peace and justice in the world if discussions about Israel were about respecting humans and human rights, without reducing people into religious or ethnic categories.
Yet those who defend Israel exhibit little concern for human rights when it comes to the majority of the people in Palestine in 1948. The arguments for Israel reduce to the fact that those supporting Israel want a nation for Jews, period. And they act as if they are impervious to morality, human rights, or how many have to be killed in order to obtain their objective.
It is also a fact that the declaration of Israel on May 14, 1948, followed United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. That Resolution was used as a pretext for the declaration of Israel in 1948.
The intent of Resolution 181 was to partition Palestine into two states, a Jewish state, and an Arab state. [1] Yet there was clear evidence gathered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine that the Arabs in Palestine were the majority of the population. It was also indisputable that the majority of the population of Palestine wanted an independent state for all Palestinians, and were adamantly opposed to a Jewish state.
Yet the United Nations ignored facts and launched a mission to deny the majority of Palestinians their right to self-determination. The United Nations deserves no credit for doing anything to advance the cause of peace and justice. That the United Nations passed Resolution 181 means nothing, except as an example that the United Nations can conspire to deny human rights to a population. Using a United Nations resolution to defend Israel is no defense for anything.
Morality matters. There is right and wrong. If we are to achieve peace and prosperity, we must use our intelligence to respect morality and recognize human rights, even when they apply to Palestinians. Everyone wants world peace, but ignorance and defiance of reality do not make the world a more peaceful place.
Support for Israel in the United States has been popular in the past. Yet the vast majority of the world is opposed to religious coercion, and the future will reward those who can see that support for Israel is on the wrong side of history.
This book makes the case that Israel does not have a right to exist for four main reasons:
1. The claim that Israel has a right to exist is a religious belief. Any attempt to force that belief on anyone is a violation of the human right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is the right to choose religious beliefs, and to reject other religious beliefs, or to reject all religious beliefs.
There are about 8 billion people in the world who don’t want religion forced on them, and therefore have a perfect right to deny that Israel has a right to exist.
The United Nations has recognized freedom of religion as a human right, and has declared that no one should be a victim of religious coercion. Yet the declaration of Israel was an attempt to coerce the world into accepting Jewish religious beliefs.
Recognition of the legitimacy of a Jewish state is a violation of human rights because it condones the attempt to force religious views on others. Moreover, nations under international law allow freedom of religion and religious pluralism among the people. A Jewish state, or a state for any religious group, by definition violates the right to freedom of religion for the citizens of the state.
Forcing one’s religious beliefs on others is also a violation of basic morality, which is treating others the way you want to be treated. No one wants to be forced to accept others’ religious beliefs.
The declaration of Israel goes beyond forcing theology on the world. It is a justification to use theology to wage war. The declaration of Israel claims God’s will to declare a religious state on the land of an unwilling population, then sanctions violence against that population acting to defend their country.
A Jewish state is also a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. There have been times in history when church and state were inseparable, and those times produced countless religious-motivated human rights violations. The march of history has been a movement to separate religious belief from government authority.
2. The declaration of Israel was a violation of the right to self-determination by the majority of the population in Palestine in 1948. The right to self-determination has been repeatedly proclaimed by the United Nations, and has been accepted as a principle of international law. Yet the right to self-determination by the majority of those living in Palestine was ignored by the United Nations when it passed Resolution 181. That the United Nations passed Resolution 181, or any resolution, doesn’t make it right.
In 1939, a time when Britain had been given a mandate to govern Palestine from the League of Nations, the British government issued a “White Paper” in which it was clarified that there was no intent on the part of the British government that Palestine be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population. [2] Yet that is exactly what happened, and that has been the source of war in the Middle East.
Arguments that have been made to defend Israel are made in isolation, as if non-Jews in Palestine don’t exist. It is understandable why non-Jewish Palestinians are excluded from the conversation; an acknowledgment that other humans exist with human rights makes defending Israel difficult. But any intelligent discussion of Israel must take into account the majority of Palestinians and their right to self-determination in 1948.
3. Israel is a violation of the moral principle of “equal justice under law”. It is revered that justice is blind—no one is above the law, and all should be treated equally. But those defending Israel claim “special privileges” for Jewish people in order to establish a Jewish state. Equal justice under law means no one of any religious faith gets special privileges.
In fact, no one deserves special privileges for any reason. All are equal.
4. Israel is a violation of all human rights. Claiming the right to kill those who resist theological beliefs being forced on them is a rather obvious violation of multiple human rights.
Israel is also a precedent for governments to rationalize the violation of human rights for a population, if the population can be moved to their “homeland”. Yet the principle that should be defended is that human rights exist in all countries, at all times. Violations of human rights cannot be justified by finding a “refuge” for the afflicted population.
In short, Israel is an assault on morality, freedom, and human rights. Declaring a Jewish state is a violation of morality because it is purely an attempt to force religious values on others. Israel is also a violation of freedom of religion and the right to self-determination.
Clearly, Israel does not have a right to exist. Next, I will expand on the reasons in more detail.
Israel is a Violation of Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State
The declaration of a state for Jewish people is an attempt to force the world to accept the religious beliefs of Jewish people. Any attempt to force religion on others is a violation of freedom of religion, as well as basic morality. Recognition of Israel as legitimate is an acceptance of Jewish theology, and condones the human rights violation of forcing others to accept religious beliefs.
An analogy would be if a small group of Christians in San Francisco declared that the Golden Gate bridge be renamed the Jesus Our Savior bridge. The Christian group may be motivated by their sincere theology that renaming the bridge is God’s will, and it is their responsibility to carry out God’s will as well as evangelize the world.
Yet the group’s religious beliefs do not give them the right to force their beliefs on others. That is immoral. If the majority of the citizens of San Francisco are opposed to renaming the bridge, then it is a violation of morality and the majority’s legal rights to force a change to the name. It is laughable that anyone would try such a ridiculous stunt. It would just engender the wrath of the public because it is such a revolting attempt to force religious beliefs on others.
The Christian group may even display makeshift signs near the entrances to the bridge to proclaim the name change. That would provoke the enmity of the majority of the citizens of San Francisco. Perhaps some citizens would act to tear down the signs, which could start a violent confrontation with the Christian group. And after an altercation, the Christians proclaim that the citizens of San Francisco are terrorists, and that Christians need to arm themselves to protect their security. You would call that insanity.
Welcome to Israel.
The justification for Israel is divine right. Yet Israel illuminates the fact that there are different versions of divine right. The divine right for Israel is not only to claim God’s will, but also to destroy those who exercise their human right to resist being forced to obey someone else’s religious belief.
One could walk up to someone on the street and say, “I believe it is God’s will that you give me fifty dollars.” And if the stranger refuses, to respond, “Have a nice day.” That version of divine right is offensive, but it respects human rights, or at least the right not to be assaulted by an idiot.
Another version of divine right is to walk up to someone on the street and say, “I believe it is God’s will that you give me fifty dollars.” And if the stranger refuses, to respond, “We disagree on theology. But I have to do God’s will. And I have a gun and you don’t. So too bad for you. I’ll just shoot you and take your wallet anyway.” That is the version of divine right that is claimed for Israel.
It is amazing how logic and common sense get reversed when it comes to Israel. Those using violence to force their religious views on others are regarded as saints, while those who exercise their right to freedom of religion and act to defend their homeland are denounced as terrorists.
Many excuses are given to defend the immorality and intended violence inherent in the declaration of Israel. One is that it followed United Nations Resolution 181. Yet that Resolution was an egregious violation of the right to self-determination.
Resolution 181 was also a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. The principle means the government does not endorse, support, or enforce any religion on the population. That has been done in the past, resulting in countless human rights violations, and war. Somehow that was all ignored in Resolution 181.
It is acknowledged that the principle of separation of church and state is controversial at times. While the vast majority would agree with the principle, there have been contentious disputes and court cases that have shaded the relationship between church and state.
Some religious believers tend to think the concept means suppression of religion. They therefore have negative views because they believe it means they would have to send their children to schools where godless Communists will indoctrinate the students into all manner of drug addiction and sexual promiscuity, without teaching critical thinking, respect for the flag, and just plain decency.
Religious non-believers also have negative reactions, fearing separation of church and state means the government will be run by religious fanatics who will ban liquor, the teaching of science in the classroom, and Mick Jagger concerts.
Thus, perceptions of the meaning of separation of church and state vary. However, the divergence of attitudes has occurred because there are often situations where it is simply impossible to separate church from state. Should Christmas be a national holiday? Should your contribution to the homeless shelter run by the Little Sisters of the Poor be tax-deductible?
Yet the basic principle is not controversial: the power of the state should not force religious or non-religious beliefs on the people. This is reasonably stated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
There will always be controversies over how the right to religious belief and the right from religious belief are implemented. But it is unquestioned that no one wants to be forced to accept religious beliefs. Yet the declaration of Israel for Jewish people was a brazen attempt to force the world to accept Jewish theology.
Unfortunately, Jews haven’t been the only religious group attempting to force their beliefs on others. Israel has also been supported by many Christians. Yet Christians who support Israel are failing to see that morality extends beyond theology. Murder is immoral even if the victim is a non-believer.
Christian support for Israel is based on theological interpretations of God’s will from the Bible. But the divine inspiration of the Bible and support for Israel are theological beliefs. Christians do not have the right to force their theological beliefs on others. Even Palestinians should be treated the way Christians and everyone else want to be treated. And no one wants to be forced to live in a nation declared for a religious group at any time, especially when it was declared by a minority of the population.
Christians who support Israel need to consider how they would feel if a group of Muslims conclude that God wants an Islamic state in North America, congruent with the borders of the United States. What then? Is that the end of the United States, because of the divine right of God according to some Muslims? How soon before the United Nations would declare the Islamic State of North America? How many Christians in the United States would welcome living in and subject to the laws of the new Islamic State?
The answers are obvious. Few in American would peacefully accede to Islamic theology and living in an Islamic state, or any religious state. In fact, the United States has taken military action against those trying to establish an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. And those military attacks don’t mean Americans are a gang of terrorists.
Yet according to a Gallup poll, more than 80 percent of Christians support forcing their theology on Palestinians. [3] The Christian argument has been that if the majority of Palestinians exercise their right to freedom of religion by disagreeing with Judeo-Christian theology, and choose to defend their country as anyone would do, then as many of them as necessary must be slaughtered in order to achieve God’s will. But that is not treating people the way you want to be treated, and it is not Christian morality.
Israel is a Violation of the Right to Self-Determination
Jews were one-third of the population in Palestine when Israel was declared in 1948. Israel is therefore not “We the People” of Palestine. If any state should have been declared in 1948, it should have been an independent Palestine for all Palestinians, regardless of religious beliefs. That would have been a just and moral solution for peace in the Middle East.
The claim is often made that Jews deserve the right to self-determination. But that has two flaws. One, religious groups do not have the right to self-determination in declaring a nation; that would be a violation of freedom of religion. That is, it is a violation of the freedom of religion for nations to force religious beliefs on the citizens.
Second, the claim ignores that there are other people in the world with human rights, and who also have the right to self-determination. The whole argument for Israel is that Jews have human rights, and other people don’t have human rights.
The situation in Palestine in 1948 was not complicated. There were two distinct populations in Palestine who wanted an independent country. David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, explained Palestine in June, 1919 by claiming, “We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; Arabs as a nation, want this country to be theirs.” [4]
The fallacy in Ben-Gurion’s statement is that no religion is a nation. That would be a violation of freedom of religion. However, one truth from the statement is that Ben-Gurion affirmed that Palestine is a country, where in fact Jews were the minority. Thus, Palestine wasn’t their country.
So, the Jews weren’t a nation, yet they wanted the country of Palestine “to be ours”. That explains Israel well. Except the human right atrocity is that declaring a nation by a minority of the population is a denial of the right to self-determination for the majority of the Palestinian people.
One popular defense of Israel is that Palestinians—or Arabs everywhere—have been portrayed as intransigent goons for not accepting United Nations Resolution 181 to partition Palestine. Yet Palestinians did not accept the partition for good reason: “You don’t accept a partition of what is yours.”
It should be carefully observed: No one who criticizes Palestinians for not accepting a United Nations resolution to partition Palestine has agreed to a partition of their land based on a claim to the land from a religious group trying to force their religious values on others.
Palestinians therefore refused to be forced to accept the religious beliefs of Jews, not to mention participate in the criminal appropriation of their land. Good for them. Any other population would have done the same. Claiming someone else’s land as a nation is an act of war. And the declaration of Israel started a war.
Edwin Starr, a popular Motown artist, recorded a celebrated song in America in 1970 with the lyrics, “War…huh…yeah…What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again y’all. …War is an enemy to all mankind, …” [5]
But for defenders of Israel, war is blessed—death and destruction is a perfect solution to achieve goals in life.
Israel is a Violation of Equal Justice Under Law
A major defense of Israel is that Jews have special rights as a result of persecution in other countries. Jews thus need a nation as a refuge from persecution, especially from Germany during World War II. However, that argument dissolves when it is realized Jewish Zionists were agitating for a Jewish homeland before Hitler and World War II.
Jews have not been the only victims of persecution. Tens of millions have been killed by Communist governments. One might think that would make Jews virulent anti-Communists. But that is hardly true. Apparently, Jews are not all that greatly disturbed with government committing mass murder.
There is selective moral logic when it comes to Israel. Jews claim they were denied their human rights and treated poorly in Germany. That was a moral wrong that should be corrected by giving Jews special privileges in Palestine.
That is, there is right and wrong in the world, and people should do the right thing. Then those who define moral right and wrong in Germany want to deny human rights to the majority of Palestinians in 1948. However, granting special privileges for Jews does not give them a right to oppress Palestinians.
Another claim is that Jews have lived in Palestine since Biblical times. Thus, they have special rights to declare a state in Palestine.
This is the historical right argument, which creates the illusion of legitimacy. It is beguiling because a history of land occupation does mean something. Land tenure is an earned economic good. However, land tenure does not accrue special privileges under the law.
We all recognize that if you go to a grocery store, pick up your groceries, and walk to a cashier (or, more likely these days, a self-serve register), there may be others in line ahead of you. So you get in line behind them. The others in front of you don’t have any special privileges under the law. But they were there ahead of you, and earned the economic right to be checked out before you. However, that economic right is not based on religious belief. Religion is irrelevant in determining the order of who gets checked out.
The fact is that Palestinians have also lived in Palestine since Biblical times. That has value. But that is totally ignored by those defending Israel. Yet it is relevant to ask, what are the historical land rights of Palestinians? If land tenure should be valued, then why was the land tenure of the majority of Palestinians ignored when Israel was declared?
The logical fallacy in the historical right argument is to project land tenure onto a religious group. Land tenure does not transform into religious privilege, and it does not squash the right to freedom of religion for everyone else. Land tenure does not give a religious group the right to declare a religious state anywhere, anytime.
To use the historical right argument to defend Israel is a violation of the principle of “equal justice under law”. The principle means no one has special privileges. That is no one, for any reason. As humans, we are all equal. Justice is blind as to who has lived where or when.
It is not an excuse to say, “I’ve lived in the same house in the neighborhood for twenty years. I had a right to shoot my new neighbor for making noise late at night.”
The declaration of Israel asserts special privilege with the claim, “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.” [6]
This claim for a sovereign state for Jewish people raises the question, how many other religions deserve their own sovereign state? Do Christians deserve a sovereign state, logically in Palestine? That could get complicated. Do Muslims deserve a sovereign state, again in Palestine? That could get very complicated. Do Buddhists or any other religious group that has been persecuted—which seems to be most of them—deserve a sovereign state?
The answer is no to all the questions. Religious belief doesn’t confer special privileges in society, and has no bearing on what nations should be declared or recognized.
Historical land occupancy is one thing. Freedom of religion is another. Implying that land tenure somehow creates privileges for a religion is a violation of equal justice under law.
It doesn’t matter if Jews were a majority of the population in Palestine for the past 10,000 years. That does not grant the right of any religious group to force their religion on others. Historical population locations around the world do not grant the right of Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Jews, or whomever, to any special privileges.
The historical fact is that Palestinians have lived in Palestine. The French lived in France. Italians lived in Italy. The religious composition of any population is irrelevant as to who has human rights. Humans have human rights, and they are not parsed based on religious belief. The Palestinian population has consisted of a number of religious groups: Jews, Muslims, Christians, as well as non-religious groups. Any attempt to elevate the entitlement of one group over another is a denial of the right of everyone in Palestine to be treated equally under the law.
It may be that my family has lived in a certain local area for generations. That may yield some economic benefit if I were to open a hardware store in the area. But my family history doesn’t give me the right to force my religious beliefs on others, or my family the right to declare a religious state in the area. Historical land tenure does not trump the right to freedom of religion.
Nearly every argument in defense of Israel concludes that for some reason Jews deserve special privileges. But no religious group deserves special privileges. To allow exceptions to equal justice under the law for any reason would open the door for infinite exceptions, to the point where there is no law, and everyone suffers.
Israel Represents Violations of All Human Rights
Israel is a rationalization for the denial of all human rights. Declaring a state for Jewish people, then claiming the right to kill those who disagree with Jewish theology and are willing to defend their country—as any human would do—is a denial of all human rights, to say the least.
An argument for Israel is that Jews need a refuge in Palestine. However, the solution to unjust treatment of any people is to stop the unjust treatment, not to move the afflicted to another location—where they can be mistreated and moved again.
Segregation of populations is not a solution for human rights violations. Human rights should be respected in all countries. The international community and international law should be able to recognize human rights violations and take action to stop that from happening, when and where it happens. That is a challenge, but that is the solution that needs to be implemented. The solution is not to migrate the victims to another location.
Carving out an Israel in Palestine only implies that it is acceptable to deny human rights if the population can be sent away. Israel is thus an excuse for future governments to deny human rights to a population, then claim the population should seek refuge elsewhere.
The international community is just that, a community, where people collaborate and cooperate with others. A community is not where people are segregated and survive in isolation.
American Governor George Wallace is famous for proclaiming, “Segregation forever!” Israel is a fulfillment of that dream.
Israel and Morality
Israel is often discussed as a foreign policy or military issue. It also has religious and political implications in the United States. But Israel should also be discussed in the context of simple moral values. And the question is, does Israel have a moral right to exist?
The thesis of this book is that it does not.
Morality means treating people the way you want to be treated, and no one wants religion forced on them. Thus, defenders of Israel have no moral standing.
One example of how that is obvious is the ad hominem accusations that are fabricated against those who criticize the declaration of Israel. Those who oppose that declaration are commonly called Nazis, terrorists, or anti-Semitic.
It is stunning how prevalent ad hominem attacks are in all political discussions. Racism these days gets thrown around like olive oil in an Italian restaurant.
I vividly remember being taught logical fallacies such as ad hominem when I was in the fifth grade. I remember laughing at the thought that any adult would dare try such a tactic. It would be an obvious admission that the argument is lost, not to mention a confession of rank stupidity. Yet personal slander is pervasive in political discourse today, and it is routinely used to defend Israel, which is telling evidence that Israel does not have a right to exist.
Personal slander is used in part to discourage intellectual curiosity. Obviously, there is great fear that if people learn the truth about Israel, they will not be supportive. The public must therefore be intimidated from having any desire to openly and honestly discuss the subject. And that intimidation comes in the form of personal attacks and name-calling, such as anti-Semitic.
The most important purpose of this book is to provoke intellectual curiosity. The book is also an invitation to inquisitive minds to explore social and political controversies. That is called education, which I want to promote in discussions of controversial issues, especially Israel.
Beyond personal attacks, it is intriguing to see the mountain of illogic in defending Israel that is built on the foundation of moral wrong. Examples of illogic assert that United States presidents, or the United Nations, or other countries, have recognized Israel’s existence. How can anyone question what United States presidents or the United Nations have done?
Easy. In terms of simple morality, United States presidents are not the majority of Palestinians in 1948. Other countries are not the majority of Palestinians in 1948. And the United Nations human rights fiasco with Resolution 181 was the ultimate denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.
It is true that recognition of statehood by the international community is legitimate in international relations. However, it is also perfectly legitimate for the international community to recognize that mistakes have been made, and reverse policy. It is an act of injustice to recognize any country that was founded on the denial of the right to self-determination by the majority of the population. Eventually violations of human rights must be recognized and corrected in international relations, especially if there is going to be progress toward peace.
Israel has been recognized in the United Nations, but that should be an embarrassment to the world. Even the concept of “state” of Israel is a fraud. Normally a state means a reasonably stable population in a defined geographical area. But the “state” of Israel was never intended to meet that definition. The “state” of Israel is intended for Jews around the world. Those who defend Israel gladly boast that it is not a state in the normal sense of the word. Rather, they claim it is a place intended for Jewish people, meaning Jewish people from everywhere.
Moreover, most countries, even those who recognize Israel, at least pay lip service to concepts of freedom of religion and equality under the law. In fact, the majority of nations in the world include some protection of the freedom of religion in their constitution. Although it is true that freedom of religion—in fact freedom in general—is not realized in practice as much as it should be. [7]
There have been efforts in the international community to honor freedom and human rights. Most countries support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to freedom of religion. When countries seriously recognize that a Jewish state is antithetical to freedom of religion, countries will eventually withdraw recognition of Israel. The world will be a better place when that happens.
Another hallowed defense of Israel is the claim that Israel’s security is threatened, and therefore Israel needs to oppress the Palestinian population to achieve security. This conveniently ignores the fact that the declaration of Israel was an attack on the security of the majority of Palestinians. Israel was able to kill enough Arabs to survive. But this is the result: “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
Security is a serious issue for all countries. If a country’s military attacks another country’s military base at dawn on a Sunday morning, kills thousands, damages hundreds of aircraft and sinks ships, the attacking country’s security will be in grave danger. It is also true that when a minority of the population in a country declares a religious state on what the majority believes to be their country, security will become an equally serious issue.
Israel will never be secure. Lack of security is Israel’s own making. No state founded on human rights violations should ever be secure. Thus, Israel and insecurity are one and the same, and Israel and oppression are one and the same. If Israel had been declared in Italy, India, Canada, Texas, or anywhere else where a population’s right to self-determination is violated, Israel would still have a desperate need for security.
Israel’s most lethal enemy is time. Israel has benefited from favorable political winds in the past. But political winds change quickly. When enough people around the world realize Israel represents a violation of basic human rights, Israel will be history.
The declaration of Israel was a violation of numerous human rights. The declaration of Israel and the wars that it caused will be a permanent monument to man’s inhumanity to man. Violations of human rights do not disappear easily. In Ireland, many Irish today feel aggrieved because of British “occupation” 900 years ago.
Attempts to defend Israel are a textbook study of tawdry human reasoning. One complaint is that, “Israel is surrounded by countries that hate Israel.” Yes, if you claim your neighbor’s land as your own based on your religious beliefs, your neighbors will hate you. What is the point?
And irony upon irony, Israel has become a place known for persecution. The word “ghetto” was originated from a Jewish quarter in Venice, Italy where Jews were compelled to live. Jews were also known for living in ghettos in Germany, and were forced to wear identifying armbands. [8] Yet it is Jews today that are creating ghettos for Palestinians as an attempt to force them to leave Palestine.
Israel continues to deny human rights. Israel’s Law of Return allows Jews from all over the world to emigrate to Israel and gain citizenship. [9] But Palestinians under Israeli occupation are harassed and prevented from moving around easily. Palestinian children do not get an equal opportunity at education. [10] Palestinians have been persecuted to the point that the United Nations has created the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to assist Palestine refugees in the Near East. UNRWA was created because there is a need to provide primary health care and social services, and build infrastructure for besieged Palestinian refugees. [11]
There was a time when science, evidence, and logic were seen as tools for human advancement. I believe those tools are still the path for progress, and those tools will be used in this analysis. Ultimately, if peace is to be achieved, it will be achieved with intelligent thought and reasoning.
The purpose of this book is to tell the truth about Israel. Yet Israel is not the only political controversy in the world involving the right to self-determination. There have been, and there will be, many similar controversies. And international law has been mostly absent from addressing the issues. I want to start a process for updating international law on this critical human right.
I also include my Middle East peace plan. The plan is different from all previous peace plans in that it addresses the core problem, which is the declaration of Israel. The peace plan is simple—abolish Israel.
That can be easily done. Israel exists because the international community, especially the United States, allows it to exist. But public opinion changes quickly.
It is time to change the false perception of Israel as an ally to the United States, and emphasize moral values in United States foreign policy. Which means, United States support for Israel will end. When the United States withdraws support, Israel will cease to exist, and Israel will no longer be a cause of war in the Middle East.
Currently, less than 50 percent of Democrats in the United States support Israel. And from a Gallup poll, overall American support is less than 60 percent. [12] That there is any favorable opinion toward Israel is the result of decades of pro-Israel evangelism. Yet political winds are changing, and more are realizing that support for Israel is on the wrong side of history.
The larger picture is one of world opinion. No one supports religious coercion. World opinion will vehemently oppose Israel once the full truth about Israel is better understood. The vast majority of the world would also approve of any movement to stop the human rights violation of forcing religion on a population. I want to expedite that movement.
It could be asked, “Why should I care?” Eliminating Israel is not going to provide more food and housing, reduce energy costs, advance medical technology, or help to develop a self-driving car. No, it will not do any of that—immediately.
But human rights matter. When human right violations exist, it affects everyone. If efforts are not made to stop human right violations that are occurring, it only gives motivation to violate human rights in the future, and we all suffer, one way or another. It is in the best interest of the world to stop human right violations immediately, whenever and wherever they occur.
In the pursuit of honesty, I’ll disclose my bias. Everyone has a bias, and it adds to credibility to admit one’s biases. I have always challenged conventional wisdom. I’m proud of that instinct. I wish more had it. President Franklin Roosevelt did not save the country from the Great Depression, and John Keynes had it all wrong on the causes of economic growth.
I’m a Christian and a Republican. I believe in capitalism and the free market that has lifted billions around the world out of poverty. I’m pro-life, and I want to eliminate injustice wherever possible.
Precision is important in political matters, and I use political terms carefully. United Nations Resolution 181 attempted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Resolution specifically mentions Arabs and Jews, and it has been common to discuss the Israel controversy in terms of Arabs and Jews.
That Israel was intended for Jews is obvious. In the declaration of Israel, it was claimed, “…Hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called Israel.” [13] The term Jew is therefore perfectly appropriate for those of the Jewish faith.
In contrast, the term Arab is less than precise. The historical Arab population in Palestine was not monolithic. There were all manner of citizens from around the world and people with different religions living in Palestine in 1947.
The term Arab has been useful historically to distinguish the Arab population from the Jewish population, especially in Palestine. But Arab often implies Muslims. Yet there have been Christians who have lived in Palestine, and to use the term Arab would obscure that fact. In addition, Arab can refer to a meta-ethnic group living in multiple Mideast countries. Arab also generally includes those who speak the Arabic language, which has no specific relation to Palestine.
Moreover, Arab is often used to deny the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people. Thus, I will use the term Arab when it is historically appropriate. I will use Palestinian to recognize that Palestinians have existed, do exist, and deserve to be granted the same human rights as everyone else.
I also use Palestinian as a term to refer to the majority of the population of Palestine in 1948, and those who currently live in Palestine but not in Israel, although that distinction changes almost daily. In addition, I use Palestinian as a general term for those who are critical of Israel. We should all be proud to be Palestinians, because that means we care about extending morality to everyone.
I want to know the truth and the facts on any political topic. I form conclusions based on the facts, and I express them. I would be embarrassed if I articulated views that did not represent the truth, or were an indication that I knew or cared zero about facts and logic. Unfortunately, that attitude seems to be rare these days.
References
Preface
1. BBC News (2021, June, 18) Gaza fire balloons draw renewed Israel air strikes
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57523206
Introduction
1. United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine
Retrieved from https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
2. Center for Israel Education, HMG White Pater: Statement of Policy
Retrieved from https://israeled.org/resources/documents/hmg-white-paper-statement-policy/
3. Newport, Frank (2021, May, 28) Americans’ Religion and Their Sympathies in the Middle East
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx
4. Morris, Benny (2001) Righteous Victims A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001, New York: Vintage Books, p. 91
5. YouTube video (1987) Edwin Starr - War (What is it good for) + Lycris HQ!!
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ztZI2aLQ9Sw
6. Jewish Virtual Library, The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (May 14, 1948)
Retrieved from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-declaration-of-the-establishment-of-the-state-of-israel
7. Routledge Handbooks Online, Constitutional models and the protection of religious freedom, Authored by: John T.S. Madeley
Retrieved from https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203694268.ch14
8. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Ghettos
Retrieved from https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ghettos
9. Abunimah, Ali (2006) One Country, New York: Metropolitan Books, p. 118
10. Ibid., p. 125
11. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
Retrieved from https://www.unrwa.org/
12. Saad, Lydia (2019, March 6) Americans, but Not Liberal Democrats, Mostly Pro-Israel
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/247376/americans-not-liberal-democrats-mostly-pro-israel.aspx
13. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Full Text of Israel’s Proclamation of Independence Issued in Tel Aviv
Retrieved from https://www.jta.org/1948/05/16/archive/full-text-of-israels-proclamation-of-independence-issued-in-tel-aviv
|
