Is Israel Necessary?

I imagine most people's first reaction to the title of this post would be something like: “What? 'Necessary?' Of _course_ Israel is 'necessary', I mean, the Jews have to have some place to live, don't they? I mean, sure, they live all over, but they have to have one particular place that's set aside just for them, 'cause if they don't, well, look what happened with Hitler and the Nazis and the Holocaust. That proves that they have to have some place that's their very own and that they can't be kicked out of, and where they can't be persecuted.” And I expect this fairly standard argument, which also represents, by the way, a dominant “meme” in American education and politics, would be delivered with a kind of sputtering, indignant tone, with much huffing and puffing, as if to imply that not only is this the way things are, but it's the way things have to be, and anyone who questions it is, well, some kind of “anti-Semite”. So the proposition that the Jews need their own country, even though no other religious group on earth does, is accepted without question. In these times, even correlating countries with racial or ethnic groups is a fuzzy kind of affair, but in the case of Israel we have a country established for a single religious group of one race (allegedly) and one ethnicity (by definition). And this was accomplished by, arguably, two of the “freest” and most “diverse” countries on earth, namely England and the United States. The fact that this situation stands in opposition to American concepts of freedom of religion and racial/ethnic tolerance is ignored... as is the even more obvious fact that a very large group of people who live within the political boundaries of Israel but who do not share in the mandated religious or ethnic makeup of the country, namely the Palestinians, has been discriminated against, mistreated, and ethnically cleansed (when possible) ever since the nation of Israel was established, i.e. for sixty years and still counting.

The political movement that was the precursor to Israel as a nation was, of course, Zionism, which has been around in its modern form since around 1860. But the concept – the idea of Jews having their own nation (again, as in Old Testament times) – goes back much further, at least to the 17th Century. Not only that, but not all the Zionist movements were aimed at settlement in ancestral lands in the Near East; there were proposals for Zionist settlements in North and South America, Asia, Australia, and even Africa – in addition to proposals for set-aside areas in Europe (other than the Pale, which was imposed by the Russian government and which was, to say the least, unreliable as a source of shelter or protection). In any case, the retrospective notion – held by the Evangelicals, for example -- that all of history has been aimed at the restoration of the Jews to Israel is hard to defend based on the evidence, or on precedent. Whoever makes this argument would also have to explain why it only applies to the Jews, since virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious group on earth has been kicked out of somewhere at some point, and forced to migrate to some other location. How many of them are demanding to be “restored” to their “homeland”? How many of them even know for certain where their ancient homeland is? I'm sure I don't. I mean, I could say England, but how about prior to that? Think of all the invasions. Maybe my real “homeland” -- where my ancestors lived in Biblical times, say – is Scandinavia. Or who knows, I might have some claim to Germany, or Holland, or even Spain! So this notion that everyone on earth should, by rights, be restored to the homeland of their ancestors of 2,000 years ago is a bit far-fetched. And the notion that they might have some inherent “right” to said homeland – to property and resources – is even more far-fetched. And yet that is exactly what is claimed by the Zionists in Israel and their supporters in the U.S. and elsewhere.

But of course we are dealing with more than mere historical evidence here – we are dealing with articles of faith, belief systems, concepts of fate, destiny, and particularly -- for the Evangelicals -- what they refer to as “salvation history”, for which the Bible is the original source, but which gets added to by each generation in the form of interpretation, analysis, scholarship (of varying degrees of competence), and especially, as I see it, by a whole lot of wishful thinking. For some reason, certain religious people, and Protestants in particular, always like to see themselves as living at a pivotal, critical time in history – or, better yet, in the “end times”. This term refers to the period leading up to the events described in Revelations – that is if one assumes that those events have not yet occurred, and this in itself is the subject of much debate – and, again by some reckonings, those events themselves. And one of the more common “end times” events deemed – by the Evangelicals -- critical to the culmination of “salvation history” is, in fact, the restoration of the Jews to Israel, i.e. the Israel of old, i.e. the Holy Land. This is why the Evangelicals, of all the political interest and pressure groups in the U.S., are the most enthused about maintaining our unwavering “support” of Israel – and how that “support” is defined is, basically, whatever Israel says they want, or need, or whatever the Evangelicals _think_ Israel wants, or needs, or ought to have. Regarding this latter point, it's not unusual to find more unquestioning allegiance to Israel among American Evangelicals than among American Jews – or even among Israelis! They know enough to know that, number one, Israel is not politically monolithic, and this is plainly reflected in its politics. So how does one “support” a place that is highly fragmented and where controversies about things like foreign policy dominate political discussion? It would be like saying that someone “supported” the U.S. Well fine – but then, “which” U.S.? Which political party? Which administration? Which foreign policy? Which trade policy? And so on.

But having said that, the common element, which everyone agrees on, is that Israel must continue to exist as a nation, and therefore (implied) as a political, military, and economic power. And this must be because... well, go back to the points discussed previously. If Israel didn't exist, where would the Jews live? Well, they'd live where they live now – all over the world, but especially in the United States. It seems to me that the Zionists of the late 19th Century could have just looked at the U.S., which was taking in millions of Jews, and said “mission accomplished”. Why worry about setting up a Zion in the Near East, home to millions of hostile Arabs and/or Moslems, when the Promised Land was already being settled in North America? From a purely practical standpoint, the issue should have been settled right there. But that would have violated the meme at that time, which was that simply setting up a Jewish nation wasn't enough – it had to be in the Land of Zion, i.e. the land in which the Jewish religion and the Jewish “tribe” originally flourished. And I've already asked why this had to be the case for the Jews even though no one else on earth was making similar demands. I suppose it has to do with insecurity – but again, can one imagine a more secure place to be a Jew than New York City, say? Aren't they a lot safer there than in Tel Aviv? Well then, maybe it's about land. But Jews of today -- unlike in the past, in many places -- can simply buy any piece of land they desire, if they have the resources. But that's not good enough either.

So there is no answer – it's just something that, somehow, had to be. And one could live with this level of zeal if were confined to the Jews themselves – but somewhere alone the line the Protestants, first in England and later in America, got enlisted in the cause, and most recently the Evangelicals have taken it up and made it a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. And this brings the question closer to home because, for example, it's just possible that we would not have invaded Iraq if we had not been urged to do so by Israel and its supporters – which means we would have saved thousands of our own citizens' lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, and just possibly avoided the current economic meltdown. In other words, the war in Iraq, which is not being fought for any discernible American interest, is not only a catastrophe in its own right, but it could be the key to all of the other catastrophes that have afflicted us since the war began, on both the domestic and foreign fronts. As Nixon once said to Kissinger, “You gotta think big!” Imagine if we had been allowed to continue the “vacation from history” that we enjoyed under the Clinton administration – no 9-11 (which can also be traced to our policy vis-a-vis Israel --- Osama himself has said so)... no Patriot Act... no “Gitmo”... no Halliburton... no Blackwater... no borrowing money from China to fight the war... no stock market/banking/insurance/housing crash... not to mention, the Republican Party is going to take years if not decades to recover from all this. How thankful do you think they are that, when Israel said “jump” they said “how high”? Now, of course, there are other things entering into current events than this one chain of cause and effect... but, like the subprime housing meltdown, sometimes things that don't appear to be that big a deal are enough to tip the balance. But then disaster strikes, and everyone lies there, battered and bruised, and thinks “was it worth it?” -- and the answer, in retrospect of course, is “hell no”. But then it's too late. And the final irony is that not only does a rigid, fanatical focus on a single mission, or a single priority, lead to disaster on all other fronts, it doesn't accomplish the primary mission either. Is Israel really safer for our having invaded Iraq? Well, the invasion mobilized the entire rest of the Arab and/or Moslem world against us and against Israel; I imagine they're more united on this point than they have ever been up to now. Would Iran have put their nuclear program into high gear – with the help of all of our old Cold War enemies? Maybe, but probably not. And would those same old enemies now be circling like vultures as we crawl across a dry desert of economic chaos and catastrophe, with no one on our side politically except England (maybe)? Highly doubtful. So our exertions in Iraq may have done more than any other single factor to hasten the demise of the American Empire... and some (me included) will say “about time”. But here's the irony. You get rid of the U.S. as an effective military/political/economic force, you also get rid of Israel. They can't live for five minutes without our support and backing. They are on a lifeline... a tether, like an astronaut floating outside a space station. If we go, they go... and the whole world knows this, particularly the militant Islamists and their opportunistic allies. So this could go down in history as one of the great follies – and tragedies – of all time. But who, knowing this in advance, could, or would, have tried to prevent it? Once a belief, or an idea, takes hold, even the most cynical politician is likely to let it carry him, and the country, off a cliff. I don't know why this is; it's a form of madness, perhaps. But we see it being repeated time and time again, and can only look on in amazement.

The bottom line – if there even is one – is that the first question Obama will have to ask himself, on Day One of his administration, is: Is Israel Necessary? -- because, as incredible as it is, it seems that that question is ours, and ours alone, to ask, and to answer, over and over again. A “no” answer – which is politically impossible – would plunge Obama, as it would his predecessors, into the same problems that tormented European leaders for so many centuries. But a “yes” answer will mean more of the same, foreign policy-wise... more wars, more invasions, more occupations, more death and destruction, more corruption, more scandals, and more negative economic impact. It's one hell of a dilemma, even if seldom recognized as such. And how one small country in the Near East managed to acquire this much leverage over the foreign policy, and therefore the economy, of “The” Superpower is a story in itself. In fact, it's almost a miracle. It's almost.... Biblical.