Norman Geras over at normblog has some interesting things to say about the Benny Morris interview in Haaretz. Concerning the crimes which were committed in the founding of the state of Israel, which Morris so scrupulously records:
If, as Morris argues, such crimes were, and had to be, a part of the foundation of the state of Israel – if Israel’s very foundation, in other words, could not have happened without crimes of this kind – then the conclusion would have to be drawn that the foundation of the state was not justifiable at the time and so should not have happened.
All I would say, and this is not so much of an argument against what Norm is saying as just a comment on it, is that my feeling from the Morris interview is that he’s looking at the whole thing in the broadest possible terms: where, when it comes down to it, could you find a country who’s history isn’t soaked in blood? For centuries, millennia, people have been colonising other people, invading their neighbours, killing each other. This doesn’t justify it, but that’s the way it’s been. In historical terms, Israel’s crimes are insignificant: if you want a modern comparison, then China’s colonisation of Xinjiang, which I posted about earlier, is far far worse. No, it doesn’t justify it, the point Norm raises still stands. But at what point do we go back and say, OK, from now on everything has to be justifiable, but before that, hey, that’s alright, that’s history, no point in crying over spilt milk. And why should whatever Israel has done come after that point? Israel has defeated enemies who attacked it in at least three wars; it’s surrounded by states that actively seek its destruction. Isn’t there some point at which you say, well, it’s there, that’s where those people live, it’s their home. Why should Israel alone be subject to a set of international laws which frankly few other countries could comply with if you go back far enough.
Norm distinguishes between a state’s right to exist, and the question of whether its foundation is justified. I suppose what I’m trying to say is, in those terms, can any state really claim that its foundation was justified? All of America would be ruled out. Africa as well, I would think, in that African nations were to a large extent creations of the colonial powers. Even Europe: practically every country has its disaffected minorities, and whole populations have over the course of history been shuffled between one nation and another as the balance of power shifted. So why should Israel be singled out?
Leave a Reply