The new US embassy opened in Jerusalem on Monday, just days after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal. Both events cemented the US to Israeli interest, which may further isolate the US from the rest of the world.
Here are the videos for the meting:
- US envoy met with protests, praise ahead of embassy opening in Jerusalem
- Over 50 dead as US opens embassy in Jerusalem
- Why Are Palestinians Protesting In Gaza
- This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel
- Donald Trump nuking Iran deal has huge implications
- Iran's foreign minister starts tour of world powers to save nuclear deal
- Iran-Israel tensions Iranian scholar threatens destruction
Here are the other videos shown at the meeting:
- Haley to UN Israel acted 'with restraint' in deadly Gaza clashes
- Iran-Israel conflict escalates
- Turkish PM Erdogan's UK visit met with protests
Paul Wilson in writing about Václav Havel in The New York Review (Feb. 9, 2012) noted that Havel believed that “‘Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.’” Taking a cue from Havel, and as reasoning human beings, can we determine what “makes sense” in the conflict over Jerusalem (which of course is one piece in a larger conflict)?
ReplyDeleteOne opponent of the 1917 Balfour Declaration was Lord Curzon, “chairman of a cabinet committee on Middle East acquisitions. Curzon thought that the Jewish National Home idea was unrealistic, since Palestine was already inhabited by some half a million Arabs who ‘will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter’” (O’Brien 1986, The Siege). Assuming that Lord Curzon was accurate in his assessment of demographic realities at the time, did it “make sense” to expect the Arab population to simply fade into oblivion?
On the other side of the equation, Jews have faced thousands of years of discrimination and persecution and, in living memory, an attempted genocide that killed some 6 million people. Does it “make sense” that they (or anyone) could ignore this history and not do everything in their power to ensure that they will never again be passive victims of other people’s hatred?
Beyond the particulars of the Arab/Israeli conflict is a larger complicating factor. It has been posited by a number of social scientists that human beings live in a state of fear – the fear of chaos and meaninglessness in a vast unknown cosmos. As the theory goes, for perhaps 100,000 years we humans have dealt with this anxiety by creating narratives about our group (tribe, if you will) that place us at the center of the universe and guarantee our significance in the grand scheme of things. Given that the vast majority of our evolutionary past occurred in such contexts, does it “make sense” to expect people to readily abandon this practice (whether Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Rastafarian, or perhaps Trumpian)?
On the other hand, for almost all of human experience it was possible for people to live with their story, among people just like themselves, with few if any challenges to its “truth.” But since the rise of civilization, it has become increasingly problematic to hold to such tribal identities and beliefs, and in today’s globalized, cosmopolitan world it may be impossible without making significant adjustments and concessions. So does it “make sense” in our hair-trigger existence to cling to such identities and beliefs when they constantly challenge and conflict with those around us?
So as Havel suggested, let us hope that whatever happens in the conflict over Jerusalem, as well as the thousands of other conflicts currently rattling the world, it will at least “make sense.”
I am not sure that I understand this. "makes sense" to whom? of course the victor will think it makes sense, but this is just a matter of might over right, which is the situation in this conflict. It is ludicrous to talk in terms of a negotiated settlement between two such asymmetrical foes; the only thing accomplished in past "peace processes" is that Israel used the negotiations as a cover to steal more and more Palestinian land. And "steal" is the correct word. Jews have been recompensed for life and property lost, even to the point of being paid for lost art works, whereas Palestinians have not received a penny from these same people (or their descendants) for land, homes, and resources stolen. If the Palestinians had any power at all, they would not be in the horrible situation that they are now. I suppose it would "make sense" to the Palestinians if Israel were, at a minimum, to allow them the same rights as Jews (as promised to the United Nations and in their own Declaration of State), and show some respect for international law, which prohibits settling ones people in occupied territories, and recognizing the Right of Return, which apparently everyone except Palestinians is entitled to. The argument that this would then preclude a Jewish state should not be a consideration since, if it is necessary to violate so many international laws (some of which were adopted at the end of WW II to preclude atrocities such as those practiced by the Nazis; i.e., Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) precludes a Jewish state, then so be it. Israel's violation of these laws puts them in pretty bad company. It's claim to be a democratic Jewish state is an oxymoron; Israel is instead a racist ethnocracy, with special rights reserved to one ethnic group.
ReplyDeleteThe Balfour Declaration contained the same caveat as to equal rights for all. At the same time, Britain promised the Palestinians their state in return for help in WW I against the Ottoman Empire (the twice-promised land). (See Laurence of Arabia). Unfortunately, Palestinians did not have as much clout as the Jews, and so their rights were ignored.
Many Jews (Israeli and others) see a distinction between Judaism and Zionism, and do not support nationalistic Zionism; notably Einstein, Barenvboim, Avnery .....