Must we pick sides?

Israel or Palestine; Israel or Hamas

by

With the revival of the Israel - Palestine conflict, the world see what longstanding grievances can evolve into.

Hate and violence are no way to a better future. Those who justify the Hamas attack on the basis of settler colonialism by Israel need to pause. How would they feel if their loved ones were affected if Canadian Indigenous people chose the same approach to remedy their longstanding grievances? 

In the view of Oakville's Rabbi Stephen Wise the response of his Shaarei-Beth El congregation is qualitatively different than in past Middle East conflicts.

The sheer barbarism of the Hamas attacks has elicited a new level of anger and of determination to respond, in the hope of eradicating this threat to the people of Israel.

And understandable though the reaction may be, vengeful violence is, on historical precedent, more likely to give birth to more terrorists than to eradicate them.

As Rabbi Wise says, "ultimately, we don’t want war or violence; we constantly pray for peace." 

There are two questions for all Canadians, and therefore for all of us here in Oakville.

  1. What do we support to bring peace to this area in our foreign policy?
  2. How do we avoid importing hatreds and grievances to our shores so that we maintain the freedom, safety, security and prosperity that we and those who come here enjoy?

The second of these questions is addressed here: No Place for Hate Here (to be published this weekend).

Between Israel and Hamas, who should Canada support? 

The answer to this question may seem obvious to some, and our government has made that clear. But based on tweets from prominent people and the writings and protests in some of our academic institutions, it is worth re-visiting the background.

The roots of the Israel Middle East conflict come from the eventual granting of land inhabited by Palestinians to the Jewish people as a homeland. This was done in 1948 by the United Nations, with all Arab countries voting against it. It was a response to longstanding persecution of Jews in Europe in horrific pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust.

The location, arguably the most hostile possible for such a country, was chosen because it had been the home of the Jewish people for 1,000 years until they were displaced by the Romans 2,000 years ago.

Lacking a home, Jewish people maintained their culture and traditions spreading around the world but faced persecution almost everywhere. They were not safe.

The new country was conceived as a place where Jews could at last be safe and was promoted by the Zionist movement beginning in the late nineteenth century. They began purchasing land from willing Palestinian sellers and immigrating to Palestine.

As early as 1917, the then-world-power British gave support to the concept of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Holocaust was the tipping point that made their dream a reality.

To establish the new state once the UN decreed its borders in 1948, Jewish settlers and the Israeli government displaced the vast majority of the inhabitants of the land they had been granted. There were terrorist attacks on the British in the period leading up to this, by the Irgun, Israeli insurgents led by Menachem Begin, who, in one of many transitions from terrorist to freedom fighter the world has seen, later became President of Israel.

Some 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly, and sometimes violently, expelled and found their way to refugee camps, where they and their descendants live today. This longstanding grievance is at the root of today's animosity. The British had disarmed the Palestinians and left the country, so there was no policing force. 

The West and the United Nations effectively made Palestinians pay the price for crimes committed against Jews by Europeans.

Palestinians call this the Nakba, the disaster. Many families still have the keys to their former homes. Some wear them around their necks. Large symbolic keys are prominent emblems of their desire to return, displayed in refugee camps. 

When we sit in judgement on this, it is salutary to remember that many countries, including our own, were based on the displacement of Indigenous populations.

Jews, after centuries of attempting to co-exist in other countries, having themselves been displaced and even faced potential elimination in the Nazi "final solution," decided to take their future in their own hands.

The narrative could have been along these lines: "If this is how people get self-determination, by occupying and securing land, then we will have to do the same." Put another way, someone else must be victims to stop the cycle of Jewish victimhood.

It may seem shocking that this occurred so recently, in the modern era, but it was immediately after the Holocaust. That context is difficult to imagine for many today, but its enormity dwarfs the Israeli response.

Arab states were at first unwilling to accept this. There were multiple wars and insurgencies, and in 1956 Britain and France enlisted Israel in an attack on Egypt in the Suez Crisis but were forced to back down by the U.S. and the USSR. Since that action, largely initiated by the British, Israel has taken on the mission to be a country that fights only in defence, and that held until the threats began to come from guerilla and terrorist actions.

In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel. Almost 50 years before the most recent Hamas attack, Israel was attacked in the Yom Kippur war. In these and other wars and insurgencies, Israel was victorious and captured more land.

Some of this land (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank), is today called the occupied territories. They have not been incorporated into Israel because they are occupied by Arab largely Muslim populations, which, if they were part of Israel, would have the vote, since it is a democracy.

Jews would then be the minority in Israel, which would defeat the purpose of the country which is to give the Jews a homeland where they are in charge and able to secure their own safety. (Within the original Israeli boundaries, the Arab minority has the vote and representatives in the Knesset, the parliamentary body.)

This is hard for Canadians to grasp. Our country is not founded on ethnic homogeneity. But most of the world’s countries have some alignment to race, religion or ethnicity. Israel is far from unique in this.

Nevertheless, Israeli citizens have settled in these territories outside the original borders where they are protected by the Israeli military. This stands in the way of any possibility of a clear Palestinian state which might co-exist with Israel. The occupation and settlements are viewed as illegal by many countries and have been sanctioned by the United Nations.

In 2004, Israel left the Gaza Strip and repatriated its settlers back within Israel’s borders. It retained control over the border and air space and controls electricity and water supplies (there had not been electricity or running water in many parts of Gaza prior to the occupation). The Palestinians there were to govern themselves in other aspects of civil life.

They elected Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and much of the energy and resources of government have been dedicated to preparing for that end, rather than to improving the lot of the residents. There have been no further elections. Hamas has frequently fired rockets into Israeli territory and Israel has responded, generally causing more fatalities than it has experienced.

This experience has left Israel in a box. It does not wish to incorporate the occupied territories into Israel because the resulting dominant Arab population would defeat the purpose of the country as a Jewish homeland.

It does not feel safe to return the occupied territories to Palestinian control because this would be putting an enemy dedicated to its destruction on its border. This fear has been reinforced by the experience of Gaza.

As a result, a large number of Palestinian Arabs live under Israeli control without the vote in a condition which Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Amnesty International have described as apartheid. De facto, they are second class citizens. 

Further, Israel has opted to support Israelis settling into the West Bank with a military presence as a security buffer. Even more moderate Palestinians who are prepared to move on to a solution where they accept Israel’s right to exist in a so-called "two state solution" see this as a provocation which makes such a solution increasingly difficult to achieve.

From the point of view of Enver Domingo of the Oakville Palestinian Rights Association, who experienced apartheid first-hand in South Africa, "Palestinians cannot be expected to be passive victims in this situation."

These more moderate Palestinians may believe the establishment of Israel was a grave injustice done to their people, but they do not wish to limit their futures by trying to right that injustice, or to base their futures on grievance politics. Instead, they want the best future for their children possible in the face of the fact of Israel.

This would likely mean the return of the West Bank to Palestinian control where there would be two countries, one for Palestinians, the other for Israelis. Israel’s ability to trust would be put to the test, because of those Palestinians who believe Israel should never have been given its land and should be eliminated.

These Palestinians, who support Hamas and Hezbollah and do not accept Israel's right to exist, represent an ongoing threat to Israel. Given the commitment of the West to Israel, their intransigence can only mean a future of continued conflict and bloodshed for themselves and their children. 

A.Q. Mufti, an Imam at the Al Falah Islamic Centre, founder of the Halton Interfaith Council, suggests that the world powers must intervene in the conflict to create and ultimately enforce as fair a solution as is now possible. 

Canada supported the establishment of Israel, along with the West and the United Nations. We can of course debate whether in hindsight it was the right way to resolve the need for the Jewish people for safety and self-determination. Such a debate, however, is academic.

The facts on the ground are that Israel has relied on the United Nations decision and is recognized as a legitimate country by most of the world.

The most powerful country in the history of the world, the United States, is 100% committed to the preservation of Israel. Even Arab neighbours have increasingly agreed to recognize Israel. Its elimination is simply not going to happen.

Canada supports Israel’s right to defend itself within the rules of war. It must stay true to that position. At the same time, Canada should support all constructive initiatives that further the likelihood of a workable and just future for the Palestinian people. In that, Canada should draw on its compassion and its deep tradition of compromise.

Canada should reiterate that violence breeds violence and that so-called “collateral damage” and the deaths of civilians will create more terrorists.

Retribution and vengeance are no more a recipe for future peace and reconciliation than is terrorism justified by old grievances. Israel’s reaction is as understandable as the Palestinians’ deep resentment of the loss of their homes. Neither is a basis for an agreement that allows for a peaceful future. 

Unfortunately, in the fallow ground of past injustice, foul and destructive weeds have found sustenance. Hamas and Hezbollah are founded on hatred of Israel. They are backed by Iran, which remains committed to the elimination of Israel. Iran, and other players on the global stage, including Russia, are happy to foment, and to see the West drawn into, the middle east conflict.

There is clearly a struggle today between the forces of authoritarianism, on an axis of Russia and China, and the liberal democracies. Ukraine and Israel are on the front lines of that struggle.

There is less ambiguity in the case of Ukraine, and Canada’s position is clear on that, with very broad public support.

In the case of Israel, as we have described, there has been past injustice committed against Palestinians. But in the larger global struggle, Hamas and Hezbollah are, along with their own agendas, pawns ranged against the liberal democracies.

In history’s great battles for freedom and democracy, there is never a faultless participant. But in any conflict, one side represents the best chance for the long-term advancement of human freedom and progress towards justice: if only as the lesser of two evils. It is often necessary to choose.

Such a choice does not imply innocence for either side. It is a question of facing the things that cannot be changed and promoting an outcome which holds the best potential for the future for all involved.

In the Israel Palestine dilemma, both sides must be heard. In the Israel/Hamas conflict, it is clear who Canada must support. That support should be conditional on compassion and understanding and on respect for humanitarian considerations and international law.