Amongst other things, I noticed that the much-heralded Iraq Study Group’s report recommended direct talks with Palestinians – but only Palestinians who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
I hear that phrase a lot – Israel’s right to exist – and to be honest with you, it makes me angry. It’s ridiculous. If you disagree with me, at least hear me out, ok?
To begin with the phrase isn’t referring to the rocks and trees and rivers in Israel and their right to exist, nor any endangered animal species or plant species. The phrase is only used to refer to the political entity of the modern state of Israel and its “right to exist”.
What other country has a right to exist? Does Spain have a right to exist? What does that even mean?
Spain the country it is today was formed by aligning a number of kingdoms in the Middle Ages. But before that, parts of (what is now) Spain was a Roman colony after it was won by defeating the Phoenician (Carthaginian) Empire. Before that, the Phoenicians/Carthaginians had to subdue the local inhabitants (known as Iberians). And before that, the Iberians had been partially settled and conquered by Celtic peoples from northern Europe.
So the Romans held Spain until the western Roman Empire collapsed, then the “Barbarians” moved in and Goths and (lots of) Visigoths and others moved in from the north. Then in the late 8th century, Muslim peoples (referred to now as Moors) crossed over from North Africa. From the 8th century until the 13th century, the Muslim peoples of North Africa ruled what is now Spain – with the exception of Asturias, Navarra and Aragon (now provinces of Spain but they were “kingdoms” during this time).
By the end of the 13th century, the ex-Visigoth ex-Roman ex-Germanic ex-Celtic now Christian states had pushed out the Muslims except for Granada (now in Andalusia, a province of Spain) which was captured in 1492.
Everyone knows that Isabella and Ferdinand were the joint rulers of Spain at that time. But before Isabella and Ferdinand, there was no Spain. Isabella was the Queen of Castille and Leon. Ferdinand was the King of Aragon. They united in wedlock, they united (most of) the peninsula and they financed C.C.’s trip to the New World and then enormous wealth poured in. And that is how the modern nation of Spain was founded.
But does Spain have a right to exist? That’s my question. Here are some more things to consider:
- The only reason Portugal is a separate country is because it never united with Spain. It has some land barriers that separate the two regions and the dialect of Vulgar Latin metamorphed over time and now the two of them speak similar but different languages.
- Andorra, which is an independent tiny kingdom just north of Spain (on the border with France) is independent only because it never chose (or was forced) to unite with Spain
- The remnants of the Celtic people still live in Spain, primarily in the northwest where their province (Galicia) retains the name of their former homeland. And Galician is a separate language from Spain, as Portuguese is.
- The northeast of Spain is the province of Catalonia, which is a kingdom that Ferdinand inherited and was therefore grafted into what became Spain. The language Catalan is similar but distinct from Spanish and there is a large community of Catalan peoples across the border in France.
And of course we can never forget about the Basques. The Basques have always been there and almost definitely predated even the earliest of the first invasions of the peninsula because the Basque language is older than every other tongue spoken on the continent. The Iranian (Farsi) and Russian languages are more similar to Spanish (or English) than Basque is.
The Basques are ethnically distinct, speak their own language, and were the original inhabitants. Yet half their people live across the border in France and half live in Spain and there hasn’t been an independent Basque since the 8th century, when the Moors moved in from North Africa. Most of what is today Basque country actually remained under Frankish (now French) rule during the Middle Ages!
So does Spain have the right to exist? Do the Spanish-speaking peoples who are descended from those who arrived in the peninsula later than Basques or Galicians deserve to decide where the national boundaries are more than the Basques or Galicians do?
Does might make right? Does the fact that the Spanish-speaking (actually Occitan-speaking) people conquered the Basque-speaking people 1,100 years ago give the now Spanish-speaking people some inherent “right to exist” that the Basque people don’t have?
And people always say, well Jews have to have a place to live. Sure they do. What does that have to do with the government currently in place in Israel’s right to exist? Jewish people have the same right as you or me or a Mexican person or an Argentinian or a Chinese person to live somewhere. And Jews live in the United States, Mexico, China and Sierra Leone without ever having set foot in Israel.
And people say, well Israel is the Jews’ “homeland”. Well the Basque country (currently in France and Spain) is their homeland. At least the Basques have always been there while most of the Jews were exiled for a few thousand years. Ok well if the Jews get permanent, infinite timespan access to their homeland then so do the Kurds, Abkhaz, Chechens, Dagestani, Ingush, Gagauzians and Tatars. So do the hundreds of indigenous peoples of Brazil and the rest of South America. There’s a long, long list of people who are denied access to or the ability to self-govern who have equally well-established “homelands” as do the Jews.
Well people say, “Hitler massacred the Jews so they need a safe haven”. And that massacre was a tragedy, but how does that equate to Israel the country’s “right to exist”? It equates to “Jews deserve humanitarian treatment and the freedom to live in peace”. But if maltreatment on a horrendous scale implies the “right” to self-government in one’s homeland, then what about the Tutsis in Rwanda? What about the Hutu in Burundi? What about the Twa people in Rwanda and Burundi? What about the Acholi people in Uganda? What about the Fur people in Sudan? What about the Acehnese people in Indonesia? What about the Hmong people in Laos? Etc etc.
For that matter, the Basques were devastated by Hitler himself in World War 2 (remember Guernica) and then their culture, language and identity was banned under the 40 years of Spain’s dictator, Generalissimo Francisco Franco. I realize Franco never mass murdered the Basques but he still did his level best to crush them and their culture for 40 years.
No, I think the concept of Israel having a “right to exist” is patently absurd. I think Jewish people have a right to exist peacefully and be treated humanely in whatever nation they were born in, the same as you or I or anyone else. I think that Jews living in Israel have the right to the same – a peaceful and humane existance and fair treatment. But I just cannot stomach or support the thought that any political entity, not even the United States, has some fundamental and inalienable “right to exist”.
And even if I go ahead and posit that ok, Israel does have a right to exist, does that give Israel a right to impose apartheid? Does that give Israel a right to deny half the people under its authority basic human rights such as citizenship and the right to vote? Does it give Israel the right to shoot and kill innocent men, women and children? Does it give Israel the right to impose miscegeny laws prohibiting inter-religious marriages? Does it give Israel the right to mistreat a single human being? Does it give Israel the right to invade and occupy neighboring countries?
And last but not least, does Israel’s “right to exist” include a right to exist at the expense of Palestinians?
As many of you know, I lived in Israel. I realize what I’m saying is often mirrored by those who have anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) views and wish serious harm or death for Jewish people. I certainly don’t wish any of that on anyone nor am I denying that previous atrocities occurred or anything even close to that. Nor am I condoning or approving of terrorism or violence by Palestinians or anyone else as justified in their struggle to obtain basic human rights.
The leaders and politicians in the United States all stand united that the only Palestinian worth talking to is one who acknowledges Israel’s “right to exist”. But I wonder if it wouldn’t be a whole lot more equitable AND productive if the same standard was applied to Israeli leaders and politicians – in other words, speak, finance and engage in dialogue only with those who acknowledge the Palestinian‘s right to exist.
In my humble and worthless opinion, ALL the people who live in Israel of all ethnicities and religions have a right to exist.
Sorry about the ranting, folks. Sometimes though there’s just only so much I can take.
Pax
