Interesting is one word, cb. I would call it rubbish -- certainly expressed the way it is, with Israel supposedly engaging in some diabolic conspiracy to get more and more land, and "Greater Israel" being the supposed bone of contention. Greater Israel is not the bone of contention. Israel, inside any borders, is the bone of contention.
Wanniski's recap reminds me of Chomsky's history of the sins of the US in the Cold War, while conveniently omitting the existence of the Soviet Union.
There is certainly a Greater Israel camp, though the idea of simply hanging onto the territories has now been shown to be a failure and has been an outvoted minority in Israel since 1991 (unfortunately, its ideas were replaced by an even greater failure, Oslo).
The large part of the motivation of the Greater Israel camp is pragmatic. Israel is nine miles wide at Netanya. When you're surrounded by hostile armies, that's not very comforting. The way to lessen the support for this camp is for the neighbors to act peaceable. The way to increase it to act like bloodthirsty nuts. Not surprisingly, the camp is growing again.
Wanniski's account omits mention of the hostile armies, and also conveniently forgets how Israel's borders came to be where they are.
I'm now reading Six Days of War by Michael Oren, who explains that Israel was essentially conned in 1949 to signing an armistice, while Israel was winning handily, on the idea that they would get some recognition and end of hostilities from the Arabs. As soon as the cease-fire was signed, the Arabs reneged. Oren also points out that the capture of the West Bank and Gaza were not so much planned as happened in the momentum of war in 1967, and first thing Levi Eshkol did was to offer them back in exchange for a peace treaty. The Arabs said no dice. So much for Greater Israel always controlling Israel's actions.
And what was the bone of contention in 1948, when the Iraqi General al Kawkji led the Arab league armies? What was the bone of contention in 1967? Was it Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank? Obviously not.
European intellectuals – left and right – had been able to figure this out a long time ago, which is why they see Tel Aviv as being the culprit in sabotaging all efforts by moderate Israelis to bring about a two-state solution
I do hope you're not buying this rubbish. Because Israel's politics are not monolithic, it's all Tel Aviv's fault? Who made offers at Camp David and Taba? Who said no and launched a war? Has Israel been ruled by Arik Sharon for forty years? If Arafat didn't like Sharon, maybe he shouldn't have elected him.
the price being paid thus far on behalf of the Zionist dream has been the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians under the UN sanctions
There is only one man responsible for the death of Iraqi civilians, and that is Saddam Hussein, who got plenty of humanitarian money to feed his people but preferred to spend it on arms. I really love the assumption that the Mideast would have been sweetness and light without Israel. Did Israel invade Kuwait? Would getting rid of Israel make everybody forget about oil? Don't you suppose the Western powers would be involved in the region with or without Israel?
And Mr. Wanniski should acquire some fact checkers:
Before the June 1967 war, there
were 200,000 Jews in Baghdad, and there are still active synagogues there, I am told.
There were never that many Jews in Iraq in modern times. In 1948 there were about 150,000; by 1967 only about 20,000, in just awful conditions. They were still there because Baghdad had forbidden emmigration in 1952 and they hadn't been foresighted enough to leave in the three year window when they were allowed to. There are now about 100 Jews in Iraq. Can't support too many synagogues on that.
us-israel.org |
