How Should Secularists View the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? by Daniel G. Jennings

[nickrhythm]

Mr. Jennings does eventually reach the conclusion that the conflict in the Middle East should be viewed through a secular, rational lense if a solution is to be found. Unfortunatley, I did not get any hint of what the solution from the secular perspective should be.

He does mention that he believes that Israel has the right to exist. He also goes into the detail of Palestinian suffering over the last 80 years. I think that the answer is obvious: the only possible compromise that would be equitable to both sides is that there should be only one Israeli-Palestinian state, not the two-state system that is currently envisioned by our President.

The main problems with the two-state system is that the Palestinians will have no real power of their own, no resources, and a total dependency upon Israel. Israel will also be able to continue its repressive, racist policies. This is a situation that almost guarantees the continuation of terrorist activities.

Mr. Jennings does invoke the emotions attached to the Nazi Holucaust to reinforce his belief that Jews must have their own homeland. This is a misguided appeal to emotion. By setting up a Zionist state, Israel is conducting it's own Holocaust upon the native people of Palestine. The current Israel is in no sence a secular democracy. Historical parallels include the apartheid of South Africa and the genocide of the Native Americans under the U.S. Manifest Destiny.

A more liberal approach would be the proposition that Israelis and Palestinians unite as one state; one that grants equal citizenship. This will allow both peoples to access the same resources, travel freely throughout the land, and acheive some sort of equality.

First and foremost, the government must be made secular. This is a very American solution to the problem. Seconly, all of its subjects must be granted equal status under the law.

Granted, this solution is a vast departure from the goals of the people on each side, but that is the nature of compromise. The greatest benifit will be that neither side is humiliated. The new united nation can become a true beacon of liberty in the region. What other solution is acceptable when reason is applied?

Thanks for your time and for provoking thought.

Nick Strommen
Fremont, CA

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding How Should Secularists View the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=319) by Daniel G. Jennings (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=595). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[rlogan]

We often see this "right to exist" statement used with no logical context for it. Israel has a "right to exist"? What does that mean, exactly? At first pass it seems to be unobjectionable. But Israel is a factual state that took concrete actions in order to achieve its present form. Does this statement mean the actions taken were "rightful"? That requires a lot more discussion than a contextually bankrupt "right to exist".

It must exist in some FORM. In some PLACE. With some PROCESS that creates it. Israelis have no right to take over southern France by force and exterminate the local populace. But it would surely "exist" in so doing.

In the American constitutional context, free individuals have a right to elect a representative government. We also have clearly understand individual rights to life, liberty and property. Had this been the story of Israel, it would be entirely unobjectionable.

But the author jumps from this amorphous "right to exist" to the plight of the Palestinians - who have had property and liberty taken by force. But that was caused precisely by the actions we gloss over with this amorphous Israeli "right to exist" proposition.

Jewish families are still today rightfully seeking compensation for property taken by Germany two generations ago. Good. Jewish families bought quite a bit of property in Palestine. Fine. Jewish families immigrated there. No problem.

As soon as one person has property taken by force, or is discriminated against in employment or land ownership or civil rights because of race or religion, we must object. That is what is glossed over with this ill-defined "right to exist".

Most Americans would recoil at the idea of a country founded expressly upon race or religion - unless speaking of Israel. Where should the "black" homeland be? Where should the "Seventh Day Adventist" homeland be? The homosexual homeland? The homeland for retarded people? For white males?

I think for many this "right to exist" statement is in part the defensive assertion that you are not anti-semitic. That is worse than silly. Only an idiot is Anti-Semitic. The author also appeals to the guilt complex from Hitler's atrocities, but that has already been appropriately commented upon.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding How Should Secularists View the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=319) by Daniel G. Jennings (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=595). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]