Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Elder - When Jewish leaders fall for the Arab "all or nothing" fallacy

Elder of Ziyon
05 July '11

Robert K. Lifton, former president of the American Jewish Congress, wrote an article in the Huffington Post that shows that even committed Zionists can find themselves believing the "all or nothing" fallacy that the Palestinian Arabs try to push.

He describes the fallacy well, without realizing it:

The alliance of aggressive nationalists and religious expansionists is endangering the dream of Zionism as conceived of by Theodore Herzl and shared by millions of Jews. Through their overzealous efforts toward expansion, in which they seek to extend Israel's jurisdiction over the biblical "whole land of Israel" -- the Territories gained in the 1967 Six-Day War -- they are endangering the Zionist foundations of that land.


For many years, I have been concerned that Israel not put at risk its Zionist purpose in an effort to expand its reach into the Territories. During my tenure as President of the American Jewish Congress, starting in 1988, we argued that in view of the demographics of Palestinian and Israeli population growth, among other factors, Israel would not be able to continue as both a Jewish and a democratic state if it attempted to annex the Territories as part of the state of Israel.

And also without realizing it, he describes why it is a fallacy:

It is in the hands of Mr. Netanyahu and his government to take the actions that save Zionism. He has said that he supports a two-state solution. His nationalist and religious coalition will be difficult to carry along to a two-state solution that is within the range of acceptability to the Palestinians.

Here is the crux of the issue. Because of years of the world accepting Palestinian Arab intransigence as a given, the former head of an unabashedly Zionist organization has accepted that a Palestinian Arab state must be within the parameters that the Arabs insist - and Israeli Jews are the ones who must do all the compromising.

Lifton uses the straw man that Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Goldberg and others use: that the only choice is between Israel annexing the entire West Bank and Israel giving up the entire West Bank (with minor land swaps.) Yet this is not even close to true.

The concept of a Palestinian Arab state is not identical to the demand that Israel withdraw from all the crucial lands needed for defensible borders and to to maintain a Jewish presense in historically and religiously significant areas.

(Read full "When Jewish leaders fall for the Arab "all or nothing" fallacy")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

1 comment:

  1. Funny huh. He doesn't understand he just said that the only condition under which Israel can make peace with the Palestinians is total utter capitulation.

    Palestinians won't accept peace in exchange for the West-bank and Gaza. They want Jerusalem too, the return of the refugees, compensation for lost property and the expulsion of all Jews who entered Israel after 1948. Only then, when the state of Israel has been destroyed will they accept peace.

    Some deal!

    ReplyDelete