ZIONISM IS STILL THE ISSUE
For those who have forgotten or never understood what Zionism was all about, two remarkable, recently published pieces will make salutary reading. The first is an interview with the Israeli historian, Benny Morris, that appeared in the Israeli daily Haaretz on January 4th 2004 and the second is an article by Morris in the January 14th edition of the London Guardian newspaper. In these he explains with breathtaking candour what the Zionist project entailed. Few Zionist outside the ranks of the extreme right have been prepared to be so brutally honest. Morris not only claims a leftist position but, more significantly, it was he who first exposed the dark circumstances of Israel’s creation. Using Israel State archives for his groundbreaking 1987 book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, he was hailed as a courageous ‘revisionist historian’.
Though he baulked at confronting the full implications of his discoveries and still refuses to recognise the deliberate Zionist ‘transfer’ policy that aimed to drive the Palestinians from their homeland long before the 1948-9 war, his work suggested to many that, knowing the facts, he was bound to be sympathetic to the Palestinians. In the last few years, however, he has been expressing ever more hardline views, as if he regretted the pioneering research that helped expose the savage reality of Israel’s establishment. This shift seems to have culminated in his most recent utterances about the nature of Zionism. Unpalatable as these are, we must thank him for saying so bluntly what all Zionists, however ‘liberal’, at bottom really think but cannot say.
There was a time when the Arabs understood Zionism to be the basic cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From the 1920s onwards, the Palestinians, being the ones most targeted, feared that Zionism would take over their country. They tried to fight it but failed and the Zionist project took hold. When the other Arabs came on board it was commonplace to hear Israelis being called, ‘the Zionists’ and Israel, ‘the Zionist entity’, and it seemed a black and white issue. But after the 1967 war, a new ambiguity appeared. Resolution 242 introduced the idea that the basis of the conflict was the Israeli occupation of post-1967 territory, without reference to what had gone before. This set the pattern for all subsequent Arab-Israeli peace proposals, and its first successful application was the 1979 Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt. By the time of the 1991 Madrid peace conference, the (post-1967) land-for-peace formula was firmly established. In 2002, the Saudi peace proposal upgraded the Arab offer to one of Israeli withdrawal from all the 1967 territories in exchange for normalisation of relations with the whole Arab world.
Thus, the Arab stance towards Israel as an illegitimate body forcibly implanted into the region whose ideology, Zionism, inevitably meant aggression and expansion to the detriment of the Arab world, quietly slipped out of view. Now, it was only Israel’s post-1967 occupation that was the problem and, once rectified, Israeli integration into the region could presumably proceed. The Palestinians had a clearer view of Zionism. In 1969, the PLO propounded a vision of a democratic state replacing Israel that would give equal rights to all its citizens, Muslims, Christians and Jews. This was a direct challenge to the idea of an exclusive Jewish state, but more importantly a refusal to acquiesce in the Zionist theft of 1948 Palestine. However, the huge power imbalance between the parties forced the PLO to modify its stance and in 1974 the two-state idea was born. In 1988, the PLO formally recognised Israel in its 1948 borders. By 1993, the PLO had signed up to the Oslo Agreement that finally legitimised Zionism, since its terms excluded any discussion of 1948 Israel and concentrated on the 1967 territories. And by accepting these terms, the PLO signalled its acceptance of the original Zionist claim to Palestine. This process has found its apotheosis in the recent Geneva Accords, which require the Palestinians to recognise Israel as ‘the state of the Jews’. No greater turnabout in history could be imagined.
Accompanying this evolution of attitudes has been a sort of Arab flirtation with Zionism. Following the Israel-Egypt treaty, a number of Arab-Israeli projects and initiatives came into being. Arab-Jewish ‘dialogue groups’ sprang up and the breaking of traditional taboos became enticing. All this intensified after the Oslo Agreement and contacts between several Arab states and Israel were made, either officially or in secret. Even previously hardline anti-Israel states like Libya and Syria have started to make overtures towards Israel, (though admittedly with mixed motives). The majority of these initiatives have involved ‘liberal’ Zionists, not the small minority of radical but marginalised anti-Zionist Jews. It is as if the old antipathy towards Zionism as the root cause of the Palestinian tragedy and the turmoil in the Middle East had been forgotten. Like Marxist terminology in the West today, the anti-Zionist rhetoric amongst Arabs that previously prevailed is passé and many believe that Zionists are people you really can do business with.
At this point, Benny Morris’s revelations are like a slap in the face. He reminds us that Israel was set up by expulsion, rape and massacre. His recent researches, cited in the new edition of his book, The Birth of the Palestine refugee problem revisited, provide the authentic evidence. The Jewish state could not have come into being without ethnic cleansing and, he asserts, more may be necessary in future to ensure its survival. Force was always essential to the maintenance of Israel, he explains; native hostility to the project was inevitable from the start and it had to be countered by overwhelming strength. The Palestinians will always pose a threat and they must therefore be controlled and “caged in” (and hence the West Bank barrier wall). Though the Jewish state project was an impossible idea it was still worthwhile because it was morally justified by the overriding need for a solution to Jewish suffering. The Arabs in any case have a tribal culture, he says, “with no moral inhibitions” and “they understand only force”. Muslims are no better. “There’s a deep problem in Islam…in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy openness, and creativity are alien.”
These utterances capture the essence of Zionism: that a Jewish state could never have been established without force, coercion and ethnic cleansing; that its survival depended on superior power to crush all opposition; that it was fired by a conviction of its moral rightness which accorded Jews a special place over others; and because of this, viewed everything as instrumental to its goal. Morris regrets the Palestinians suffering entailed in Israel’s creation, but sees it as a necessary evil in pursuit of the greater good. “The right of refugees to return to their homes seems natural and just”, he says. “But this ‘right of return’ needs to be weighed against the right to life and well-being of the five million Jews who currently live in Israel.”
Thus he eloquently shows why Zionism is a dangerous idea: at its root is a conviction of self-righteousness that justifies almost any act deemed necessary to preserve the Jewish state. If that means nuclear weapons, massive military force, alliances with unsavoury regimes, theft and manipulation of other people’s resources, aggression and occupation, the crushing, however inhuman, of Palestinian and all other forms of resistance to its survival - then so be it. The Zionist idea has lost none of its force today; it is deeply implanted in the hearts of most Jews, whether Israelis or not. No Arab should be under any illusion that it is a spent force, no matter what the currently fashionable discourse about ‘post-Zionism’ or ‘cultural Zionism’ may be. No region on earth should have been required to give this ideology houseroom, let alone the backward and ill-equipped Arab world. It is perhaps a measure of this backwardness that some Arabs, governments and people, believe that an accommodation with Zionism is possible. We owe a debt of gratitude to Benny Morris for disabusing them of such a notion. The Zionist project has no long-term future. The fact that it has got this far is remarkable but that holds out no guarantee of survival. As he himself says, “Destruction could be the end of this process.”
Al Ahram Weekly January 2004