For once, Alan Dershowitz
wrote an article that is remarkable by what it does not contain.
Nowhere does the writer
exhibit the hangup that would have him say, Jewish citizens of Arab countries
were mistreated by their governments and by their neighbors because of their
religion ... the reason why Arab Jews “fled” to Israel. This had been the
standard regurgitated lies of every beastly ignoramus who wrote about the
conflict in the Middle East previously. It was in fact, the manufactured hangup
that rendered such writing useless, void and not conducive to holding rational
debates.
But now that Dershowitz has
shown willingness to talk seriously about that conflict, we can engage him and
address the concerns he is raising with regard to the idea that was proposed by
Peter Beinart. In fact, Dershowitz made his concerns known in an article that
came under the title: “Beinart's Solution for the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
Is an Invitation to Possible Genocide,” published on July 14, 2020 in
Algemeiner.
Let's dispose of one
nonsensical concern right off the bat lest it get in the way of a meaningful
discussion. It is the question of what will happen to Israel's nuclear arsenal
in the proposed binational nation. First of all, there is no such a thing as an
Israeli nuclear arsenal because nobody builds an arsenal of a weapon it never
tested. But if Israel did some research in the field similar to that of
apartheid South Africa, it can be disposed of the way it was in South Africa.
The rationale for doing this, is simple to understand: There will be no need
for nuclear research, much less a nuclear arsenal in a binational state.
As to the rest of the
Dershowitz concerns, they all seem to emanate from the fear of an anti-Jewish
genocide erupting in the region. He gives the example of Yugoslavia and
Lebanon, which he says are failed experiments, without giving details of what
happened there so, that’s the end of that. But he also failed to mention the
binational and/or bireligious states that live in harmony despite ferocious
foreign agitations designed to sow discord in those places. First among these,
being the Christians of Egypt, Iraq and Syria who love their Muslim governments
more than the fanatic Jews of America can incite them to start a rebellion and
ruin their countries the way that they and their collaborators succeeded in
Lebanon.
What this says is that citing
examples like Yugoslavia and Lebanon to support one point of view or the other
is a futile exercise. That's because what moves people to rebel in any country,
is a complicated set of circumstances that have to do with history, beliefs,
mores, temperament and a long list of other factors. However, what can be
considered a reliable indicator as to what might happen in a binational state,
is the current attitude of the Arabs towards the Jews in general, and towards
the Israelis in particular.
To define the prevailing
Israeli mentality, we first notice that despite the fact Israel is made of Jews
from Arab descent more than European descent, nearly one hundred percent of the
high positions in Israel are held by European Jews, and nearly one hundred
percent of the decisions made in Israel are made by these people. Thus, the
roots of those decisions go back to the Jewish experience in Europe, and we can
say that the important decisions made in Israel, stand on the notion that you
get nothing of what you do not take by force.
Opposed to this European
mentality is the Arab mentality which says, everything that looks bad to you
now, will eventually come to an end. If you cannot fix it peacefully at this
moment, wait and let time fix it for you. In fact, the 1967-1973 war
illustrates the difference between the two mentalities when push comes to
shove.
Here is how that goes: Having
learned from the British and the French how to attack Egypt in 1956, the
Israelis put that lesson into practice in 1967. In a sneak attack that allowed
them to capture the Sinai, they said to the Arabs: now that we have leverage,
let's talk. The Arabs said there will be no talks because what was taken by
force will only be returned by force. The Arabs counterattacked in 1973 and
pushed the Israelis back. When the angry emotions subsided five years later,
Egypt's President Sadat showed the world what Arab magnanimity looks like. He
visited Israel to tell the Jews: Now that we won, let me tell you what we wish
for. We wish that there be no more wars between us.
In fact, what has been at play
all along in the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region––not just
during the '67 to '73 war––has been the interaction between the Arab
magnanimity and the Jewish hunger to develop leverage for use to extract
concessions from their victims. If you're not up to date on the history of the
region, what you can do to get a sense of the differences between the two
cultures, is compare the rhetoric and behavior of Benjamin Netanyahu against
those of Saeb Erekat or Hanan Ashrawi. When you do that, you'll see the
difference, and be amazed at the contrast between the vulgar Jew and the noble
Arab.
Well then, what does that say
about the possible rise of a binational state in the Middle East? It says that
the Jews of Arab descent that have been marginalized in Israel up to now, will play
a bigger role in Israel. Familiar with the Arab culture, they will get along
very well with the Palestinians.
There may be a few difficult
moments at the start of the coming-together, but the relationship between the
two parts of the new nation will be as harmonious as it had been for centuries
when Arabs of Muslim and Christian and Jewish persuasions lived together in
harmony and brought the Renaissance to Europe.