Judea Pearl discusses his Op-Ed on Zionism
The image of Zionism, as painted by its critics, is a caricature of the real thing, according to UCLA Professor Judea Pearl, who argued in a Times Op-Ed earlier this month that anti-Zionism is "discriminatory, immoral and more dangerous" than anti-Semitism. Pearl's piece ran alongside a counterpoint by Ben Ehrenreich, who argued that Zionism is the source of the problems in the Middle East. Understandably, readers e-mailed The Times more than 150 letters in response to the articles, of which The Times published eight. Below, Pearl responds to those letters and other comments he received personally.
Pearl writes:
Some of the letters to the editor that react to my March 15 Op-Ed article betray unfortunate misconceptions by their writers of the nature and mission of Zionism as it has been defined and practiced since the late 19th century. In particular, the Zionist plea for a national home for the Jewish people has been misconstrued as a diabolic scheme to steal another people’s homeland, as one of the letter writers put it.
Ample historical evidence proves that, in the first half of the 20th century, the leaders of the Zionist movement approached the Arab leadership in Palestine with numerous proposals for accommodating the national aspirations of the two peoples on the basis of mutual recognition and reciprocity. Zionist leaders requested that Jews only be given a sliver of land they could call “home.” (Read my article in the fall 2008 issue of the Middle East Quarterly for more information.)
Read the rest of Pearl's response after the jump.
Pearl continues:
These proposals were more than diplomatic gestures; they were annunciated broadly and prominently in major Hebrew publications of the time to shape public opinion, educational norms and cultural molds. They created a contemporary Israeli society in which the dream of peaceful coexistence with an equally indigenous neighbor -- now labeled a “two-state solution” -- is second nature.
Invariably, these proposals were rejected, some with hostile proclamations by Arab leaders such as that Jews would receive land “not even the size of a postage stamp.” Among the notable rejected plans were the Peel Commission’s recommendation of July 1937 and the United Nations partition plan of November 1947. Reading Arabic press from that period reveals that the Palestinians never doubted that the land could absorb 5 to 10 million Jewish immigrants from the European inferno without dispossessing a single Arab. The rejection was based solely on the principle of exclusive Arab ownership, denying any historical ties between Jews and the Holy Land.
This profound and unyielding rejection, justified and reinforced by three generations of anti-Zionist ideologues, still dominates the Arab mindset today; it is reflected in education, media and public discourse. It is still the major factor behind the stalemate in today’s ongoing peace negotiations. Anti-Zionist intellectuals -- mesmerized by their mantra, “Zionism is the problem” -- are reluctant to discuss the pivotal role that Arab rejection has played in perpetuating the suffering of the two peoples, most visibly the Palestinians.
Were Jews justified in requesting a sliver of land for a national home in Palestine? The League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 deemed that request a moral and historical imperative. These two world bodies as well as most people of conscience judged Jews and Arabs equally indigenous to the biblical land, the former by an unbroken historical and national bond (though lacking in physical presence) and the latter by physical presence (though lacking in national bond). The consensus was that, though each side’s claim had its weaknesses, none could be dismissed or delegitimized. Certainly, neither side can be labeled “racist” or “colonial aggressor.”
Anti-Zionist ideologues would like us to define Zionism by its excesses and the painful consequences of the Middle East conflict, which they have labored to inflame, intensify and prolong. We should take a good look at history and ask ourselves whether the Zionist dream of a two-state solution is not the just and inevitable solution to the conflict, whether the sworn enemies of that solution do not bear some responsibility for the bloodshed, and whether the current surge in anti-Zionist rhetoric does not perpetuate a major obstacle to peace.
WHAT IS NEVER DISCUSSED IS THAT THE GRAND MUFTI OF JERUSALEM SPENT WW2 IN GERMANY, THE GUEST OF THE NAZIS, THAT THE GOVERNMENTS OF SYRIA, IRAQ AND LEBANON WERE INSPIRED BY NATIONAL SOCIALISM. LOOK AT THE UNIFORMS, MARCHING AND TREATMENT OF THEIR CITIZENS. THESE GOVERNMENTS WERE ALL FASCIST REGIMES. THERE WERE AS MANY JEWS LIVING IN THOSE COUNTRIES, FOR AT LEAST 2,000 YEARS, AS LEFT ISRAEL SINCE 1948. THE WORLD CARES LITTLE FOR JEWS BECAUSE THEIR CHURCHES AND MOSQUES HAVE TAUGHT THAT IT IS ALWAYS PLEASING TO GOD OR ALLAH TO KILL THE INFIDEL. WE ARE IN A GREAT CONTEST BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM. THIS WILL CAUSE GREAT TERROR AND BLOODSHED TOWARDS THE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.
THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL IS A THREAT TO THE TOTALITARIAN REGIMES IN ALL OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES. IT IS DIFFICULT TO LIVE NEXT TO A DEMOCRATIC AND PROGRESSIVE NATION WHILE YOU ARE CAUSING YOUR OWN NATION TO SUFFER. EH? DON'T SIMPLIFY THIS PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF 3 MINUTE REMARKS THAT GENERATE HATE WITHOUT SHEDDING ANY LIGHT. THINK HOW WONDERFUL THE MIDDLEAST WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IF THE ARAB PEOPLE WOULD HAVE EXHIBITED THEIR FAMOUS HOSPITALITY TO A DESPARATE PEOPLE WHO WHERE RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES. BUT OF COURSE THE BRITISH LOVED TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER SO THEY HANDED OVER THEIR ARMANENTS IN 1948 TO THE ARABS AND ENCOURAGED THEM TO FIGHT ON AND THROW THE JEWS INTO THE SEA. PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THEY ARE BEING SO SMART BY PURSUING VIOLENCE WHEN TALKING COULD HAVE DONE THE JOB.
Posted by: RUTH ROSEN | July 11, 2009 at 01:38 AM
The reason Mr. Pearl's article(s) are published is because he is a person of some notoriety, through the hideous murder of his son. He originally used this platform to address the hateful atmosphere at the school where he now teaches. Why is it that the LATimes has turned Mr. Pearl's articles into a debate on the existence of Israel? Why doesn't the LATimes debate the legitimacy of the existence of North Korea? Personally, to be fair to all parties I think that we should be debating is the legitimacy of the LATimes to exist as a newspaper.
Posted by: Adam Bennett | April 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM
To Eric Roth: This is not meant to condemn, just surmise on this seemingly eternal problem:
You mention the Irish have Ireland, the Koreans have their Koreas, so why can't the Jews have Israel? There is a difference. In Ireland or Korea, all who are born inside the border are Irish or Korean. The Jewish vision for Israel does not embrace humanity in this way; instead it excludes. That apartness is the fundamental condition that will cause others to reject Jewish presence into the future. The blame is laid the rejector, but it begins with the Jews rejecting others.
Posted by: Caroline | April 12, 2009 at 09:00 AM
Those who think Israel is brutal because it defends itself as terrorism should look at the other regimes in the area particularly the Bathist regimes of the late Saddam Hussein and the Assad Family in Iraq and Syria respectfully. Both regimes have murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens in actions such as Saddam using poison gas on the Kurds in 1988 and Hafez Assad crushing a rebellion in the city of Hamma in summer of 1982 killing an estimated 30,000 people. Both regimes have repeatedly attacked their neighbors and waged brutal wars of aggression such as Saddam's attack on Iran in 1980 which resulted in the nearly eight year long Iran-Iraq War that resulted in between 1 million and 1 and half million dead, approximately 10 times the people killed in the entire Arab-Israeli conflict from when it began in the 1920s to the present day.
Posted by: David Allbaugh | April 10, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Zionism is justified neither by historical continuity (ask yourself--are the Celts entitled to get France back 2000 years after Julius Caesar defeated them), religious claims (Jews say the Messiah hasn't come yet), or presence of a tiny minority over the years.
Israel's continued existence may be justified by right of conquest (how most nation-states came to be), and because it holds the descendants of about as many Jewish refugees from Arab lands as Palestinians were dispossessed. Zionist ideology, however, has no merit, and Israeli behavior is unpleasant or worse.
My question, though, is why the US has spent so much treasure, and to the extent that Iraq was motivated by pro-Israel sentiment, blood, in defending an ally that has ceased to be strategically very useful.
Posted by: David | April 09, 2009 at 09:15 AM
I guess I better look in to starting a subscription for the LA Times, given that the paper is willing to engage issues such as these, but in consequence looses subscribers.
As unfortunate as it is that so many refuse to discuss the circumstances of the Israel-Palestine Territory, and as unfortunate as it is that the opinion writers in the L A Times support Israel, still that there is a forum for discussion in response calls forth gratitude.
The truism that there are two sides to every story doesn't lose validity when one discusses Israel. Those who refuse to consider the other side lose by taking that option.
Posted by: Margaret | April 07, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Israel can be as Zionist (i.e. expansionist, aggressive) as it wants to be, just not on my dime. No $3 billion/year in U.S. aid; just let the chips fall where they may.
The type of emotional blackmail practiced by Jewish-Americans like Judea Pearl, using the barbarity of the Holocaust to bludgeon other Ameircans into submission, must stop. And here's how it stops.
It's kinda the flipside of the "love it or leave it" challenge. If you love Israel so much and believe it's so vital to your well-being, then go live there and stop bothering me with your guilt-mongering. Stop lobbying the U.S. government for financial aid. If AIPAC is unable to comply with this, then it needs to register as an agent of a foreign government. Call things what they are and go imperialize on your own dime!
Posted by: David Bradvica | March 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Israel is here forever. Get used to it. We can talk about history and go on and on just like we can talk about American history and the native Americans and the civil war but none of that will change the fact that today the US exists and it's not going anywhere.
Shalom from Tel Aviv
Posted by: IsraeliMan | March 30, 2009 at 08:55 AM
What I have read what is posted here from cynical posters trying to sound philosophical about Pearl's description of "sliver of land" is what Jews dreamed about, and what cynical hateful comments I have encoutered here down right anti semitic which this paper stooped as low as the sewer in its liberal junky thinking.
And thats the reason I have cancelled LA Times delivery to my home and will never subscribe to it no matter how pesty their sales people get on the phone.
Posted by: Yardena Anat Even | March 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Much of the Middle East was carved up by colonial European powers. Look at the jigsaw puzzle borders of states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Minority "royal families" have ruled as dictators. Anyone complaining? Apparently the only "colonial" state that bothers people is the State of Israel.
Posted by: perry jahn | March 29, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Mr. Pearl generally has it right but this is not correct: "These two world bodies as well as most people of conscience judged Jews and Arabs equally indigenous to the biblical land, the former by an unbroken historical and national bond (though lacking in physical presence) and the latter by physical presence (though lacking in national bond)."
Regardless of whether this was or was not the judgment of the world, there was an unbroken physical presence of Jews in Palestine since the Roman period. Jews did not suddenly appear in the late 19th century. They too were a continuously resident indigenous minority. It is upsetting when even friends seem to be unaware of the unbroken Jewish connection to Palestine in terms of real people living their lives there as a marginal minority, century after century.
But the errors in that little quote are not all against the Jewish perspective either. I find my side's dismissal of the Palestinians "national bond" or "national identity" to be somewhat facile as well. While there was little sense of a "Palestinian" identity in modern national terms, there was a deep sense of rootedness in an Islamic place and an Arab society. Modern Palestinian nationalism in the modern sense may have developed to a large degree in reaction to Jewish nationalism.... but so what? Why should Palestinian national consciousness have to follow some western model of development? Arabs of Palestine knew that this was their place... even if they lost or lacked awareness that it was a place of other people(s) too.
Bottom line is that Pearl articulates the reality of two legitimate claims with not fully comparable historical natures and narratives. One side was willing to work it out and recognize the multiplicity of historical claims (or at least of two main legitimate ones) and one side was completely rejectionist.
One side began with a recognition that the dual claim on the land was the fundamental reality... the other side sought (and seeks) to deegitimize and dismiss one of the claims (the Jewish claim) as imperialist and colonial... when the Jewish claim is in fact every bit as indigenous and reasonable as the Arab claim.
Posted by: Mike | March 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM
QUOTE
In particular, the Zionist plea for a national home for the Jewish people has been misconstrued as a diabolic scheme to steal another people’s homeland, as one of the letter writers put it.
Mr. Pearl the Zionist plea for a national home for the Jewish people may have started out as a purely virtuous notion in the beginning but even you must at least recognize the reality of what that notion has NOW become...TODAY.
Which is a diabolical campaign to steal ALL of the land and one only has to look at the illegal settlements being built on Palestinian land which the Israeli government refuses to curb and in fact encourages.
It seems to me that you are still romanticizing Zionism for what it began as.....and will not come to terms with what it NOW IS.....
QUOTE
Invariably, these proposals were rejected, some with hostile proclamations by Arab leaders such as that Jews would receive land “not even the size of a postage stamp.” Among the notable rejected plans were the Peel Commission’s recommendation of July 1937 and the United Nations partition plan of November 1947. Reading Arabic press from that period reveals that the Palestinians never doubted that the land could absorb 5 to 10 million Jewish immigrants from the European inferno without dispossessing a single Arab. The rejection was based solely on the principle of exclusive Arab ownership, denying any historical ties between Jews and the Holy Land.
Mr. Pearl with all your whining regarding rejection did it ever occur to you that the historical ties to the Holy Land that Jews once held did not give Zionism the right to Settle in Palestine on other people's Land.
Or that Arab rejection should have given Zionism a clue that its plan was seen as Immoral by the Arab and that Zionism would forever be seen as a proverbial thief by the Arab?
How could/can Zionism equate historical ties to Palestine into a right by Zionism at the expense of Palestines indigenous people?
What if a group of idelogical Persians decided one day to shed their Islamic revolutionary ties in favor of Persian Nationalism and stated that because of historical ties to the holy land which they ruled many times through-out history that they now wanted a Persion state in what is now Israel and the International community backed their proposal through an International mandate.
Tell me Mr.Pearl would you feel any different than the Arab does right at this moment or the Palestinian?
QUOTE
This profound and unyielding rejection, justified and reinforced by three generations of anti-Zionist ideologues, still dominates the Arab mindset today; it is reflected in education, media and public discourse. It is still the major factor behind the stalemate in today’s ongoing peace negotiations. Anti-Zionist intellectuals -- mesmerized by their mantra, “Zionism is the problem” -- are reluctant to discuss the pivotal role that Arab rejection has played in perpetuating the suffering of the two peoples, most visibly the Palestinians.
Mr.Pearl may I remind you that with all of your blather regarding Arab rejectionism what started this entire decades old conflict was and is Zionism settling in the Middle East.
What has perpetuated this conflict from the beginning is Zionism.
Settling in a land where you were not welcome.
So to deny that Zionism is not the problem is simply on your part intellectually criminal especially when the Arab and Palestinian have never wavered from this argument.
An Argument which is foolishly rejected by Zionists and framed by Zionists as anti-semitic instead of understanding that Zionists created this conflict the moment they set their eyes on Palestine as a homeland contrary to Arab and Palestinian disapproval.
QUOTE
Were Jews justified in requesting a sliver of land for a national home in Palestine? The League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 deemed that request a moral and historical imperative. These two world bodies as well as most people of conscience judged Jews and Arabs equally indigenous to the biblical land, the former by an unbroken historical and national bond (though lacking in physical presence) and the latter by physical presence (though lacking in national bond). The consensus was that, though each side’s claim had its weaknesses, none could be dismissed or delegitimized. Certainly, neither side can be labeled “racist” or “colonial aggressor.”
This would be true if the Arab would have had a choice but Zionism never asked for the opinion of the Arab or the Palestinian and instead rejected their protest simply because two world bodies proclaimed that it was lawful to steal land in order to fullfil the dream of an ideology that has since become nothing more than a rogue Ideology in control of a rogue state whose own politicians openly discuss the open theft of Palestinian Land.
Where is you conscience Mr. Pearl?
QUOTE
Anti-Zionist ideologues would like us to define Zionism by its excesses and the painful consequences of the Middle East conflict, which they have labored to inflame, intensify and prolong. We should take a good look at history and ask ourselves whether the Zionist dream of a two-state solution is not the just and inevitable solution to the conflict, whether the sworn enemies of that solution do not bear some responsibility for the bloodshed, and whether the current surge in anti-Zionist rhetoric does not perpetuate a major obstacle to peace.
Until the Zionist can look at the mistake of pushing their Ideology on a land and people that did not accept or want them they will be forever in a state of conflict because of their irresponsible lack of accountability.
One wonders if Herzl's dream for Jewry would have already come to fruition if Zionism would have settled in a land that welcomed them instead of settling in a land that did not want them and were forced upon them.
and that Mr. Pearl is the very reason Anti-Zionism exists and why you see it as immoral and dangerous because it acknowledges what you, Zionism and Zionists will never acknowledge which is the immorality and criminality which was/is used by Zionists to justify themselves even though that justification is a slap in the face of reality.
WMM
Posted by: Shawn | March 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Just because the Zionists asked for a "sliver" of land does not obligate the existing owners and residents of that land to give the Zionists that sliver. The Arab residents of what we now know as Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, had and still have every right to say no. The apologists for the Zionist movement never mention the three quarters of a million Arab families who lost their homes and farm lands. The Zionists heard no from the existing Arab population and decided that since asking wasn't going to get them the land they desired, they would take it any way they could. Every time I see a Palestinian home bull dozed or their orchards taken from them for another Israel highway or settlement I shake my head in shame, because my tax money and my so-called representatives make this all possible.
Posted by: Phil | March 28, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Who wouldn't be a Zionist after the holocaust. The Jewish people were oppressed and murdered by the millions. One would have been inhumane not to give the Zionists a chance to build a better nation. The experiment was done and Israel was created. But we have to admit the experiment has failed. The Zionists have built one of the more brutal nations on Earth. Periodically pummeling the Palestinian refugee camps in West bank, Gaza, and Lebanon with military missiles, cluster bombs, and white phosphorus. The oppressed became the oppressor. But why? I believe it lies in one key flaw in the development of the Government of Israel. Israel did not separate "Church and state" or rather "Temple and state." The land of Palestine is home to Muslim, Christian, and Jewish peoples. No Government will ever stand there that does not treat all people equally. The only way to do that is to officially separate the state government from religion and allow freedom of all religions and freedom from all religions.
Posted by: Michael | March 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM
The Irish have Ireland, the Koreans have two Koreas, and Jews have a right to a nation too. It's that simple.
If Israel existed in 1938 than the Holocaust would have never have lead to the murder of six million Jews. Fact. Just simple fact.
Of course, there was no Jewish state and six million Jews were murdered.
For those post modernists who claim to hate all nation states, than I suggest that you look at other nation states before attacking the existence of a successful, democratic nation. If you judge a society by its education system, Israel looks pretty good - especially on a global standard.
Note: Israel has produced more Nobel prize winners than some entire continents.
The success of Israel in creating an educated, prosperous society puts many former colonial nations to shame. That's understood. The Arab League, without a single democratically elected leader, remains united by a hatred of Israel. Too many Arab nations blackmail too many poor and rich nations with oil. Understood.
But why is the LA Times wasting more time debating whether Israel should exist? Consider this animus toward Israel the principal reason that I do not subscribe to your very thin rag.
Posted by: Eric Roth | March 28, 2009 at 11:02 AM
This commment is not about this one article but about the LA Times in general. This paper is far more hospitable to Jewish views (Judea Pearl, Jonah Goldberg, Joel Stein) than to Arab ones. That's a basic problem that needs to be addressed here. More Arab columnists please!
Posted by: Elmer Hantry | March 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Sliver or slab, the Zionist enterprise was colonialist from its very inception. That's the problem. Europeans, under the sponsorship of the British Empire, sought to establish another colony in Asia, just as their existing colonies were becoming unsustainable. Even in 1900, colonialism was obsolete. Today it is an outrage. Little wonder that the world hates us for our involvement with this anachronistic enterprise. Little wonder that this alien ministate has to fortify itself behind walls and hurl thousands of bombs to ward off the unceasing encroachments of its hostile neighbors.
Posted by: Schigolch | March 28, 2009 at 06:08 AM
Maybe some Zionists requested "only...a sliver of land" back in the early 20th century. Mr. Pearl fails to describe what sliver of land that was, and he ignores Ariel Sharon's Seven Star Settlement Plan, which hardly aims (present tense) for a mere sliver. Apparently not all Zionists were politely requesting the same thing. It's who got the upper hand and the biggest weapons that matters, and whom the Palestinians had every right to fear. The Jewish immigrants from Europe could just as easily have settled in Palestinian land and formed enclaves and communities to call home without trying to partition up the land artificially. All partition plans that try to divide up land along ethnic lines fail and cause long-lasting strife: India/Pakistan, Iraq Shiites/Sunnis/Kurds/Kuwaitis, and more. How is that now Israel claims two-third of that land with a fraction of the population of the area, and the Palestinians have been pushed into two non-contiguous regions? Mr. Pearl is fooling himself with his ardent desire to believe how Zionist Jews couldn't do anything so bad.
Posted by: Nkirv | March 27, 2009 at 10:48 PM