Noam Chomsky on Israel's "Right to Exist"

Seems like the point centers around the idea of a 'right to exist' rather than 'recognized borders' which the international community legitimizes. Seems like a strange distinction, which may be Chomsky's point - ie in every other situation we talk about disputes over recognized borders, not the right of existence. I guess Chomsky thinks this is a onerous condition out of sync with the normal process/claims in these kinds of disputes. However, I think this particular situation is unlike other disputes (usually borders, as everyone agrees, are changed through conquest or purchase). In this case one group was imported into an area (albeit one with roots) on top of another, creating a situation where not only the previous occupiers, but the surrounding states, have historically had the new state's destruction as a declared goal. In comparison, the Mexico situation was war between two states with an end and a treaty spelling out the result. That result, of course, threatening the existence of neither state.

 

Nice explanation, FB. I can see that.

Another good post. Between the two of you, I think I "get it" now.

 

I suggest reading the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. Britain pledged Palestine to the Arabs for helping expel Ottoman rule.

 

Does it say anything about recognizing Texas' right to exist?




First it was recognizing Israel. Then it became recognizing Israel's right to exist. Now it is recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. There is no legally binding treaty. Just some personal reassurances, of the type that get reevaluated and changed all the time in the real world.

It all means the same thing. There is no way you make "peace" with someone if they are going to try and destroy you as soon as they have a chance to regather. Hamas refuses to do anything more than grant a ten year ceasefire, after which it is assumed that war will restart. The only thing that does is to get Israel to give up their advantage. To agree to peace on those terms is tactical suicide.

If Santa Anna had made it clear as he was signing the treaty that he planned to destroy Texas after ten years of peace, the Texans might have found it prudent to include language making Santa Anna recognize the reality that the new Texas was there to stay. Thankfully, though the man was a stubborn narcissist, he knew better than to rant and rave about destroying Texas.

If the Palestinians are going to try and destroy the Israeli state no matter what, it is much more logical to continue the current setup and keep the Palestinians weak. In fact, it is an ironclad imperative of survival to do so, and that is what the Israeli hawks believe.

 

Eliminating a state and eliminating a population are two entirely different things, though I don't condone either one.

There are a handful of Palestinians who want to just exterminate all Jews, and most of the confusion is cause by translation (Arabic to English) since those who disagree with the right of Israel's existence prefer not to say the word "Israel".

I think it would be wise to differentiate between the two.

It's not unusual for rivaling, neighboring nations to disagree over each others right to exist. You are right in that it's more prevalent in Palestine, but obviously, it's more prevalent because as Chomsky says, no country has exactly been granted the right to exist by external parties and that's a difficult reality for poverty stricken, undereducated Palestinians to deal with. When the only hand that feeds you (in this case, Hamas/Fatah) wants to push an agenda, the success rate is ostensibly stunning.

 

On the basis of several thousand years of Jewish history, one tends to follow the other.

 

Incorrect, the Damascus Protocol was a legally binding agreement from Great Britain:
http://books.google.com/books?id=n7...ource=gbs_summary_s&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hamas has already stated multiple times they will recognize an Israeli state within its 1967 borders.

Well when they sign a peace treaty and Santa Anna breaks said treaty, the Texans will have all authority to destroy Santa Anna. Either way, your hypothetical situations are laughable.

Nice hasty generalization. As long as there is an occupation, the Palestinians that attack Israel will still have a reason to do so.

 

According to who that doesn't have a horse in the race?

Nations don't make legally binding treaties with rebels within another nation.

Documentation, please. Every informal offer I've seen involves a ten year hudna which, to quote Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, "would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." (source)

Nice hasty generalization. As long as Palestinian Muslims are attacking Israelis, Israelis will still have a reason to occupy them to protect themselves.

 

Well, the Jews living there disagree with you. And they have much more to loose in the equation than you.

 

What is the difference between America and Israel when it comes to conquering land and repressing the native people?

 

Pre-'67 Jordan massed tank batallions in East Jerusalem, and set up artillery positions on the hills. When was the last time you saw artillery or tanks aimed at Israel in either location?

The Israelis also can blow up bomb factories and weapons caches. The Palestinians still do everything they can to try and kill as many Jews as possible, but the occupation prevents them from having the tools. I mean, the Israelis have their foot on their neck, where any rational person would stop trying to fight back, but the Palestinians still launch manage to launch what are essentially toy rockets filled with explosives. Letting up only ensures that the rocket builders will have better tools.

If you have a rabid dog by the collar, and it is snarling and spitting at you, and doing everything it can despite the restraint to nip you, is your first thought that you should let him go so that he can get in a really good position to bite you? Or is the normal and rational response to hold him as securely as possible to protect yourself?

 

I have. I visited Jordan prior to the 1967 war, stayed in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, and toured much of the West Bank. I floated in the waters of the Dead Sea, visited Bethlehem and saw the spot where Jesus is said to have been born, which produced an eerie feeling, I can tell you, even for this agnostic. Looked over the border at Israel, which was remarkably greener.

Frankly, I was astonished that the entire area became annexed to Israel a couple of years later. While I was a tourist, every religious spot I visited seemed to be free to do whatever it was they wanted to do. Certainly, we weren't told we couldn't go anywhere. I still wonder what happened to all the people living in the places I visited and am horrified at the images of The Wall being constructed across the land. Too strange.