Nov 21st 2009

The Palestinian Jews

by David Eichler

The author is a professor of physics at Ben Gurion University in Israel. He received his Ph.D. in 1976 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Further biographical information can be obtained at http://www.bgu.ac.il/~eichler/.

Evenhandedness in the Mideast? It sounds fair if it means equal rules for Arabs and Jews. For example, forbidding natural growth of Jewish settlements inside the West Bank and the Gaza strip, on the assumption that it is future sovereign Palestine, is fair if the same principle is applied to Arab settlement in Israel. The demand that Israel halt natural growth of settlements in what many consider rightfully Arab territory, without demanding the same of Arab settlements in Israel is…. sorry folks….racist, however inadvertent..

Arguably, any ethnic-specific law about where people can live is racist. Were Arabs in Israel forbidden to own land in Israel, it would be loudly protested as racism. They are, after all, Israeli citizens. Most of them had predecessors, recent and perhaps ancient, living on what is now Israel before 1948. And you know what? Jews living in a future Palestinian state would be of exactly the same status.

Wait, I hear you say, Jews living in a future Palestinian state would never consent to be loyal citizens of such a state. Why would they not be as loyal to such a state, if they dared remain there, as Israeli Arabs are to Israel? There is the slight complication, of course, that Jews in a predominantly Arab country would be in mortal danger if they remained - that is one of the true asymmetries in the Mideast - but who knows what they would decide if the Palestinian State granted them physical security and equal rights? (And I do mean granted, not merely promised.) If it granted its Jews the right to vote, as Arabs have in Israel, a Palestinian government that depended on fair election victories to stay in power might realize that it had every reason to protect its Jews, as smart Israeli politicians realize the importance of the Israeli Arab vote.

The world has been deprived of opportunities to find out whether Jews would live in a democratic Palestinian state. When the Sharon government cleansed the Gaza strip of Jews, it removed them by force, including those who wished to remain even without the protection of Israel's military, so the world was deprived of a test case. When Hamas assassinated its political rivals after taking power, we were deprived of another important test case: a Palestinian government relying on fair reelection.

Wait, I hear you say, the Jews living in occupied territories obtained their residence there through conquest, whereas Arabs living in Israel obtained their residence legitimately. Actually, the Arabs living in Israel acquired their residence and supremacy through conquest followed by racist laws. Throughout the Ottoman occupation of the Mideast, Arabs were allowed to settle in Palestine/Israel while Jews were not. In fact, anti-Jewish cleansing in the Mideast goes back millennia as both Christian and Moslem administrations placed severe restrictions (to say the least) on Jewish residence. It is no wonder that Arabs in Palestine/Israel outnumbered Jews in the early 20th century. It must have seemed very peculiar and threatening to many Arabs when the British briefly allowed both Jews and Arabs to settle in Israel/Palestine, and they soon got the British to put a stop to it. Now outraged that Jews are still allowed to settle in the West bank, from which Jews were evicted long ago and again in 1948, they are successfully pressuring Obama as they successfully pressured Great Britain. It's all very expected and ho-hum, as racism traditionally is until challenged.

Peace will come to the Mideast only when all Arabs with the power to make or break such peace recognize the right of Jews to live there. The violence and terror, which existed in even greater amounts before Israel was reestablished in 1948, are not fundamentally about border disputes, Israel's policies, or even Israel itself. The conflict is over real estate. Allowing Jews to buy land freely and live in peace, if it doesn't ruin the neighborhood, at least drives up the price. (Jewish neighborhoods in American cities during the 20th century were busted up by terror, much of it organized, for much the same reason.) David Ben Gurion's book "My Talks with Arab Leaders", to which the reader is referred, reveals the candid statements of those leaders about why they opposed Jewish immigration, even within an Arab dominated Palestine. He paraphrases Auni Abdul Hadi, a prominent Palestinian Arab, speaking in July 1934, shortly after Hitler took power in Germany: "Who can resist the insane prices (for land) paid by Jews?"

To this day, private land transactions between consenting parties count for little in the Mideastern political arena. Jews living on land in the Gaza strip privately purchased from consenting Arab owners were evicted from it by the Sharon government, while the world cheered, because they were Jews, and, on these grounds alone, apparently not permitted to exercise their legal ownership. Arabs protested the influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union during the 1990's for reasons that had nothing to do with Arab-Israeli borders, and everything to do with their being Jews and not Arabs.

This is not to deny the difficulties of poor tenants when real estate prices increase. This universal problem, however, is hardly grounds for abolishing the freedom of property owners to sell it for a good price. If an Arab wants to sell his home and/or plot of land for a million dollars (hundreds of times what the average Palestinian earns in a year) to a Jew who is willing to pay this much for it, what right does anyone have to prevent these individuals from making this transaction? Had the freedom of private transaction between consenting adults been respected - e.g. had Arabs, instead of murdering Jews, and denying them basic rights, demanded that the British administration or international community deal with displaced tenants - there would have been no war and no massive Palestinian refugee problem. The cost of buying brand new homes even for 10,000 displaced (by market forces) households per year (far less than the present rate of home foreclosures in the U.S.) would have been of order $1 billion or so per year (in 2009 dollars). This is ludicrously miniscule compared to the cost of arms, wars, and support of post-1948 refugees. Most importantly, the cost of new homes and land plots would have been small compared to the revenues that land sales to Jews in Hitler's shadow would have brought to the Palestinian Arabs.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's position that Jews everywhere are entitled to live like normal people is the one slim hope for peace in the Mideast, because it confronts the underlying obstacle to peace head on. It remains to be seen how he will stand up under American pressure, given the dismal performance of recent Israeli leaders and the ignorant policies of foreign meddlers. Incidentally, the last breakthrough for peace in the Mideast, Menahem Begin's agreement with Anwar Sadat (skyrocketing oil prices of the 1970's notwithstanding) followed Begin's innocent question to the world: Jews are allowed to live in London, New York, Los Angeles; why shouldn't they be allowed to live in the land of their forefathers? The world did not have a good answer.

Perhaps sensing in Begin a man of strength and principle, as per President Carter's description, Sadat dramatically announced within months that he was going to Jerusalem in search of peace. When he arrived in Jerusalem he said: "We used to reject you, true. We refused to meet you anywhere, true. We referred to you as the 'so-called Israel,' true. At international conferences our representatives refused to exchange greetings with you, true. At the 1973 Geneva Peace Conference our delegates did not exchange a single direct word with you, true. Yet today we agree to live with you in permanent peace and justice. Israel has become an accomplished fact recognized by the whole world and the superpowers. We welcome you to live among us in peace and security." All this was said before he received any concessions, because he recognized that universal matters of principle are not bargaining chips, even if the guarantees and details of their implementation are. In the tough negotiations that followed, he obtained every inch of Egyptian territory in return.

When Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran recognize, as a matter of principle, the basic Jewish rights to live, buy and sell land anywhere, why shouldn't there be peace? Politicians, arms manufacturers, and thugs benefit from war and fear, but most private individuals don't. When private individuals defend their rights to conduct private business, war-mongering elements are neutralized. As recently quoted in a New York Times article about the improvement of the Palestinian economy and security, Palestinian store owner Rashid al-Sakhel said "For the past eight years, a 10-year old boy could order a strike and we would all close. Now nobody can threaten us."

Arabs and Jews want the same things. They want to fall in love, raise families, earn money, buy homes, sell them for a profit and buy newer, better ones, worship in a manner of their choosing, and pursue happiness as individuals - anywhere. When and only when governments recognize these rights without regard to race, creed or color, peace becomes possible.

People also want physical security, and, in a region with a history of violence, mistrust, numerical asymmetry, and but a tenuous tradition of democracy, it will be hard to implement the ideals of unrestricted individual freedom overnight. But this is all the more reason to display respect to them as principles, while negotiations for assurances, guarantees, checks and balances etc. proceed. Otherwise, there is little to negotiate about.

Peace in the Mideast probably must accommodate Israeli Arabs into its equation. So must it, if only out of principle, accommodate Palestinian Jews.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Oct 17th 2021
EXTRACTS: "But property-sector woes are not the only economic danger China faces in 2021-22. The Chinese government’s mounting crackdown on the country’s burgeoning tech sector may pose an even greater threat." ---- "According to a recent study by McKinsey & Company, the share of Chinese urban employment supported by private enterprises more than quadrupled between 1995 and 2018, from just 18% to 87%. The share of exports generated by the private sector more than doubled over the same period, from 34% to 88%. And private-sector fixed-asset investment jumped from 42% to 65% of the total. The message in the data is clear: clamping down on the private sector and threatening innovators is not the way to ensure sustained rapid growth. Chinese entrepreneurs can read the writing on the wall. They understand that their political and regulatory room to maneuver is shrinking, and that the balance has shifted in favor of state-owned firms and public officials. And they understand that this uneasy atmosphere is likely to persist."
Oct 16th 2021
EXTRACT: "We designed a programme that incorporated data from over 300 million buildings and analysed 130 million km² of land – almost the entire land surface area of the planet. This estimated how much energy could be produced from the 0.2 million km² of rooftops present on that land, an area roughly the same size as the UK."
Oct 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "Britain in the 1950s was wedded to the US, acting as a partner rather than leading the charge. Now, while the UK continues to support the US, the influence it has seems negligible. While it may bring comfort to the UK to feel it is a partner to a superpower, being its stooge or subordinate is an unpleasant place to be, no matter how much you tell yourself it values your opinion."
Oct 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "That was then. Now, the Chinese government has doubled down, with President Xi Jinping throwing the full force of his power into a “common prosperity” campaign aimed at addressing inequalities of income and wealth. Moreover, the regulatory net has been broadened, not just to ban cryptocurrencies, but also to become an instrument of social engineering, with the government adding e-cigarettes, business drinking, and celebrity fan culture to its ever-lengthening list of bad social habits. All this only compounds the concerns I raised two months ago. The new dual thrust of Chinese policy – redistribution plus re-regulation – strikes at the heart of the market-based “reform and opening up” that have underpinned China’s growth miracle since the days of Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. It will subdue the entrepreneurial activity that has been so important in powering China’s dynamic private sector, with lasting consequences for the next, innovations-driven, phase of Chinese economic development. Without animal spirits, the case for indigenous innovation is in tatters."
Oct 5th 2021
EXTRACT: "Wartime nostalgia plays an important part in Britain’s instinctive fondness for the special relationship. Like former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, some British politicians might believe that the United Kingdom is the only European country with serious armed forces and the political will to use them. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, like Blair before him, seems to fancy himself a modern-day Churchill. Unfortunately (or not), Britain’s military power is insignificant compared to what Churchill could command in 1944. Wartime nostalgia has drawn Britain into several foolish American wars, which other European countries were wise to avoid."
Sep 24th 2021
EXTRACTS: "We have found that 47 million American adults – nearly 1 in 5 – agree with the statement that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.” Of those, 21 million also agree that “use of force is justified to restore Donald J. Trump to the presidency.” Our survey found that many of these 21 million people with insurrectionist sentiments have the capacity for violent mobilization. At least 7 million of them already own a gun, and at least 3 million have served in the U.S. military and so have lethal skills. Of those 21 million, 6 million said they supported right-wing militias and extremist groups, and 1 million said they are themselves or personally know a member of such a group, including the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys." ----- "..... the Jan. 6 insurrection represents a far more mainstream movement than earlier instances of right-wing extremism across the country. Those events, mostly limited to white supremacist and militia groups, saw more than 100 individuals arrested from 2015 to 2020. But just 14% of those arrested for their actions on Jan. 6 are members of those groups. More than half are business owners or middle-aged white-collar professionals, and only 7% are unemployed."
Sep 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "That long path, though, has from the start had within it one fundamental flaw. If we are to make sense of wider global trends in insecurity, we have to recognise that in all the analysis around the 9/11 anniversary there lies the belief that the main security concern must be with an extreme version of Islam. It may seem a reasonable mistake, given the impact of the wars, but it still misses the point. The war on terror is better seen as one part of a global trend which goes well beyond a single religious tradition – a slow but steady move towards revolts from the margins."
Sep 11th 2021
EXTRACTS: "Is it not extraordinary that in a country that claims to be as enlightened and advanced as ours, the combined wealth of three individuals – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett – exceeds the total wealth of the bottom half of Americans? One has to return to the days of the pharaohs of Egypt to find a parallel to the extreme wealth inequality that we see in in America today." ...... "The top tax rate remained above 90 percent through the 1950s and did not dip below 70 percent until 1981. At no point during the decades that saw America’s greatest economic growth did the tax on the wealthy drop below 70 percent. Today it is somewhere around 37 percent. President Biden’s American Families Plan would increase the top tax rate to 39.6 percent – a fairly modest alteration, albeit in the right direction. It is true that there was a time when the top marginal tax was even lower than it is today: in the years leading up to the Great Depression it hovered around 25 percent."
Sep 7th 2021
EXTRACT: "But Biden can’t be blamed for the rise of the Taliban, or the fragile state of a country that has seen far too many wars and invasions. The US should not have been there in the first place, but that is a lesson that great powers never seem to learn."
Sep 4th 2021
EXTRACT: "The world is only starting to grapple with how profound the artificial-intelligence revolution will be. AI technologies will create waves of progress in critical infrastructure, commerce, transportation, health, education, financial markets, food production, and environmental sustainability. Successful adoption of AI will drive economies, reshape societies, and determine which countries set the rules for the coming century." ----- "AI will reorganize the world and change the course of human history. The democratic world must lead that process."
Sep 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Although the Fed is considering tapering its quantitative easing (QE), it will likely remain dovish and behind the curve overall. Like most central banks, it has been lured into a “debt trap” by the surge in private and public liabilities (as a share of GDP) in recent years. Even if inflation stays higher than targeted, exiting QE too soon could cause bond, credit, and stock markets to crash. That would subject the economy to a hard landing, potentially forcing the Fed to reverse itself and resume QE." ---- "After all, that is what happened between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, following the Fed’s previous attempt to raise rates and roll back QE."
Sep 1st 2021
EXTRACT: "Today’s economic challenges are certainly solvable, and there is no reason why inflation should have to spike."
Aug 27th 2021
EXTRACT: "To be sure, they have focused on their agenda, which is totally misguided—not by our own account but by the account of the majority of the American population, who view the Republican party as one that has lost its moral footing to the detriment of America’s future generations, who must now inherit the ugly consequences of a party that ran asunder."
Aug 21st 2021
EXTRACTS: "Now that so many sad truths about Afghanistan are being spoken aloud, even in the major media – let me add one more: The war, from start to finish, was about politics, not in Afghanistan but in the United States. Afghanistan was always a sideshow."--- "....the 2001 invasion was fast and apparently decisive. And so it rescued George W. Bush’s tainted presidency,..." --- "Bush’s approval shot up to 90% and then steadily declined,..."
Aug 17th 2021
EXTRACT: "The Taliban’s virtually uncontested takeover over Afghanistan raises obvious questions about the wisdom of US President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw US and coalition forces from the country. Paradoxically, however, the rapidity and ease of the Taliban’s advance only reaffirms that Biden made the right decision – and that he should not reverse course. ...... The ineffectiveness and collapse of Afghanistan’s military and governing institutions largely substantiates Biden’s skepticism that US-led efforts to prop up the government in Kabul would ever enable it to stand on its own feet. The international community has spent nearly 20 years, many thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars to do good by Afghanistan – taking down al-Qaeda; beating back the Taliban; supporting, advising, training, and equipping the Afghan military; bolstering governing institutions; and investing in the country’s civil society. .... Significant progress was made, but not enough." ....... "That is because the mission was fatally flawed from the outset. It was a fool’s errand to try to turn Afghanistan into a centralized, unitary state. "
Aug 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "But even in the US, which is more lenient than most countries, the principle cannot be absolute. Inciting imminent violence is not permitted. Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, urging the mob to storm the US Capitol, certainly came close to overstepping this boundary. It was a clear demonstration that language can be dangerous. What the internet media has done is raise the stakes; “fighting words” are spread around much faster and more widely than ever before. This will require a great deal of vigilance, to protect our freedom to express ourselves, while observing the social and legal bounds that stop words from turning into actual fighting. "
Jul 27th 2021
EXTRACT: "When it comes to the Chinese economy, I have been a congenital optimist for over 25 years. But now I have serious doubts. The Chinese government has taken dead aim at its dynamic technology sector, the engine of China’s New Economy. Its recent actions are symptomatic of a deeper problem: the state’s efforts to control the energy of animal spirits." ---- "... the Chinese economy, no less than others, still requires a foundation of trust – trust in the consistency of leadership priorities, in transparent governance, and in wise regulatory oversight – to flourish. --- Modern China lacks this foundation of trust ."
Jul 25th 2021
EXTRACT: "It seems that they are, as the last 18 months have seen a remarkable expansion of the central banks’ fields of activity, largely driven by their own ambitions. So they have moved into the climate change arena, arguing that financial stability may be put at risk by rising temperatures, and that central banks, as bond purchasers and as banking supervisors, can and should be proactive in raising the cost of credit for corporations without a credible transition plan. That is a promising new line of business, which is likely to grow. ---- Central banks are also trying to move into social engineering, specifically the policy response to rising income and wealth inequality, another hot button topic with high political salience."
Jul 25th 2021
EXTRACT: "The EU’s ambitious unilateral climate strategy will transform Europe into a trade fortress, encourage green protectionism worldwide, and give other regions the opportunity to develop using cheaper energy. And without China, India, and the United States on board, other countries will be careful not to follow the EU in its self-appointed role as the world’s green guinea pig. If Europe is not careful, it will risk finding itself in a climate club of one. "
Jul 9th 2021
EXTRACT: ".... ruminants belch and fart methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. As a result, rearing beef cattle brings about, on average, six times the contribution to global warming as non-ruminant animals (for example, pigs) producing the same quantity of protein. ..... if projected to 2050 [beef production], would use 87% of the total quantity of emissions that is compatible with the Paris climate agreement’s objective of staying below a 2° Celsius increase in temperature."