Israeli Elections

As Israeli voters cast their preliminary ballot there is a pervasive sense of uncertainty about the future direction of the Arab-Israeli conflict. My contention is that the outcome of this election will have no discernable impact.

Historical context

Prof. Alan Dershowitz (Harv.) aptly insists on a 'statue of limitations for grievances' in his book 'The Case for Israel' (2003). While some opportunists intentionally misinterpret this as a license to observe the conflict within a convenient time period, the Prof. is actually precluding much of the esoteric religious debate over ownership (which is highly variable depending on what language you praise God with). Succinctly, the Arab-Israeli conflict commenced in the year 1948 when Israel gained independence. Arab objections to Israel were not based on concerns that Israel was formed on "Palestinian territory"; indeed, "Palestine" has never existed in a sovereign capacity, but rather that Jews have no right to self-determination. It is worth noting that Israel was formed largely on land purchased from absentee Arab landlords by wealthy Jewish donors. Where land was designated, it complied with clauses in the Israeli constitution that prohibited the acquisition of land on which Arabs were a majority. In fact, the Arab nations were also averse to the creation of an independent Palestinian state through the contemporary Two State Solution. They preferred that British Mandate Palestine be returned to Syria, the traditional administrator of the land during the days of the Ottomans. There are countless evidences to support this assertion but I specifically draw the reader's attention to E. Said, a prominent anti-Israel intellectual, who stated that "the whole of Palestinian nationalism evolved from the desire on driving all Israelis (Jews) out." I also remind the reader that land designated for a provisional Palestinian state was promptly annexed in 1947 by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Thus, the fundamental opposition to a Jewish state in the Mideast by its Arab neighbours is a pervasive legacy.

Territorial or Existential?

Critics of Israel typically maintain that the Jewish state can defuse tensions with its neighbours by ceding territory to the Palestinians. I have intentionally omitted a description of these territorial concessions because they are at best ambiguous. According to the Fatah party (brainchild of terrorist Yassir Arafat, born Cairo, Egypt), Israel illegally occupies land seized during the 1967 Six Day War. According to the Hamas, a terrorist organisation and the current democratically elected representative body of the Palestinian people, Israel has no legitimacy in any form. According to Libya, Israel doesn't currently exist in any capacity (yes, we're all very confused by that statement). Naturally, I will address the foremost argument.

When the united Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973 and amassed along its border in 1967, the intention was evident: the complete destruction of Israel. Curiously, very few nations were concerned by this prospect, as evident by an absence of any UN draft resolutions concerning these illegal invasions, and most even exacerbated Israel's woes by imposing arms embargoes (prior to 1973 only the French sold arms to Israel). Nevertheless, in the space of just a few weeks, the Chosen people flushed the aggressors from the Holy Land. During these wars Israel secured territory from the invaders. The rationale for this decision was to establish militarily strategic vantage points (such as the Golan Heights and the West Bank of Jordan) and wield some leverage as far as future negotiations. In an historic peace agreement with Egypt's President Sadat in 1979, Israel conditionally* returned the Sinai. Pres. Sadat was subsequently assassinated by Islamic extremists. The peace has nevertheless endured.

The assertion that Israel must unconditionally return land that it legitimately seized to a provisional state incapable of enforcing its own obligations under International Law and failing to recognise Israel's right to exist is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, this line of reasoning was proved to be defunct in the 2000 Camp David Peace Talks, where terrorist Yassir Arafat shocked the world by rejecting a proposition that he himself had been demanding; an independent state with its capital in Jerusalem, control over the Temple Mount, a return of 95% of the West Bank of Jordan and the entire Gaza strip, and a $30 billion compensation package for alleged refugees of the 1948 Arab instigated war. Arafat failed to offer a counter-proposal. Instead, he waged the Intifada.

Thus, the issue of "occupation" had been effectively dissolved as a central point of contention among the Palestinians and Israelis. The issue is the fundamental right of Jews to live in their own state.

Consequences

The most overt implication of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it will never be resolved through politics. Regardless of whether Israel will be governed by Kadima, the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the ideologies of Israelis and the Arabs that precludes any diplomatic outcome. Isolationism appears to be the only option.

I conclude with the final blessings offered by millions of Jews daily:
Ose shalom bimrumav, Hu ya'ase shalom aleynu, ve al kol Yisrael.
Bring peace in our time, bring peace upon us and upon all of Yisrael.
Amen

(*The primary condition was that the Sinai would remain a demilitirized zone)