The Irgun Conundrum Revisited

By Cernig

It's two years since I wrote a piece entitled The Irgun Conundrum during Israel's last Forces of Light rampage against the orcs of Mordor terrorists, who can never-ever be negotiated with and can only be endlessly killed because "appeasement just makes them worse". It still stands as a serious problem to the "Israel even when wrong" camp's narrative. Simply: if neocon/Likudnik policy had been followed back when the modern state of Israel was being born, the presence of the terrorist Irgun group and others would, by their own logic, have meant that Israel could not exist in its current form.

The British would have begun bombing infrastructure in Jewish towns because Irgun and Lehi terrorists were using that infrastructure to resupply. The British would also have sent in a massive armored force to attack villages, after first warning the inhabitants that after a two hour period of grace the troops would consider any remaining in their homes as terrorists too. The inhabitants would have had no-one to blame but themselves and the real fault would have been upon the Irgun's heads.

Moreover, since "there's no negotiating with terrorists" and "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist", no-one in the international community should have even recognised Israel as an independent state as long as terrorists were part of its political heirachy. Perhaps even as long as the party the terrorists created from their groups - Likud - was involved in national politics at all. No state, no famous terrorist-turned-statesmen. Certainly no Peace Prize for Begin. He was and always remained a terrorist, after all.

Oh...and no peace, ever. Not even for a little while.

Of course, not a single "Israel, right or wrong" pundit would ever offer such advice about Israel even though they cannot justify such a position in historic fact without tying themselves in knots. And luckily for Israel, the Brits felt differently. They still do. In Northern Ireland, too, they eventually realized that peace only comes when you begin talking to those who hate you.

Comments

[Charles]

Cernig, if you didn't see Avi Shlaim's article in The Guardian, you might want to take a look.

[Peter G.]

Good day Cernig
It is ironically true that yesterday's terrorist is sometimes tomorrow's statesmen (If they live long enough) but your argument cuts both ways. The Palestinian elements that refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist in any way shape or form are stuck in the same rut as the Israelis. If the balance of military power were reversed I do not think Hamas would show any greater restraint and if their charter is to be believed, probably a lot less. I've always found a grain of hope in the very same paradox that you have observed. The fact that it has been done means it can be done again. They will speak to each other. Through third parties at first, then low level direct contacts and finally in public. How many Palestinians and Israelis will die before this happens is problematical and yet I still hope to see a political solution in my lifetime.

[Steve Hynd]

Charles, your link is dead.

Peter - agreed, totally.

Regards, C

[anderson]

The other problem -- the real problem -- is that the British were never religiously wedded to the Levant as the Israelis believe themselves to be. And that is a powerful force in Israeli society, as they firmly believe that the land of Israel is god-given to them and no one else. There is never any talk of this, because the discussion would then devolved into arguing for Israel based upon fictive biblical precepts. But that is exactly why modern Israel exists. But once an argument is made on those grounds, any religious faction can argue that way.

It is close to impossible to accept compromise when such strident religiosity is present, or at least is present as justification for expulsion, oppression and occupation (no, those are not words you are going to hear in the media narrative, either).

As long as such primal religiosity exists in Israeli minds, compromise seems a distant dream.

[chris y]

Menachem Begin narrowly failed to kill my mother in 1946, she being in the British army at the time. Because she was an intelligent woman, she was able to analyse her feelings about this relatively lucidly in later life. She hated all forms of anti-Semitism with the passion of one who had seen the first reports from Belsen in the movie houses when such things were quite literally unimaginable, and understood what she was seeing, but she could never really bring herself to support Israel, because of her personal experience of the people who ran it. She would accept that this wasn't entirely rational, but then.

If this is the response of a bright, centre-left middle class Brit who just got caught up in it, why should we not expect the children of displaced Palestinians to support Hamas, even to the bitter end?

[Peter G.]

But Anderson does not the Hamas charter specifically call for the elimination of Israel and it's replacement by an Islamic Palestinian state. I don't see that that primal religiosity is restricted to Israelis. I suspect that it would be fairer to say that religiosity is a prime motivator for violence in a minority of the population on both sides of this conflict.

[anderson]

Peter,

Oh, yes, you are correct about that. Religiosity is rampant on both sides. Though it is hardly ever reported anyway, Hamas has been much more willing to negotiate than Israel. They actually have said they would recognize Israel, with the '67 borders. The '67 borders (close to the original UN mandate) is the cornerstone of most of the peace accords. This may be currently impossible to meet, considering the Israeli state infrastructure now in place on the West Bank.

Quibbling exists over the phrase, "right to exist," as opposed to recognizing a state's existence. No country has a "right" to exist in any sense. Countries come and go all the time. There is no international right to exist for any state, nor should Israel expect special treatment on this issue by Hamas or anyone else.

But Israel is in the driver's seat. They have the overwhelming military, nuclear deterrent, the force of US support and veto power in the UNSS. Rationally, they have no real motivation to negotiate and, rationally, Hamas, or the PLO prior, knows this. The Palestinians are on the shit end of the stick, with little option to coerce Israel to act in good faith, which they don't.

[Enlightened Layperson]

I have long believed that a fine argument to be made to Israelis and their neocon supporters is to liken modern-day Israel to the colonial British and the Palestinians to the Zionists. It likens Israel to an adversary, but one of its milder and more humane adversaries. The comparison is provacative enough to offend, but not so provocative as to outrage and shut down all hope for rational discussion.

By all means, let us press the Igrun Conundrum.

[Charles]

Cernig,the link is www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

[Peter G.]

For clarification, for me the "right to exist" refers to the polity and has nothing to do with geography per se. The question in my mind Anderson is how to bring Israel with the overwhelming advantages you so correctly summarized to a real negotiation. Clearly violence will not do, moral considerations aside, because it only reinforces the the more reactionary elements within the fairly broad Israeli political spectrum. To my way of thinking external pressure must be brought to bear but with a very deft diplomatic hand. I think this calls for a light stick and a lot of carrot. The last thing we need is nuclear power that perceives itself as cornered and friendless. I am frankly at a loss to see how this may be done with Hamas. The decision to have elections so prematurely has had disastrous consequences. It may sound paternalistic but I think it would have been much better to make the Palestinians a ward of the UN, as it were, until such time as more moderate politicians less likely to appear threatening to the Israelis come to the fore. I very much doubt that there will be any more elections, in Gaza at least, since Hamas is unlikely to relinquish power now that they've got it. Any moderation will have to come from within Hamas and that could take a considerable time given the current situation. I could be wrong about the elections but if I am I cordially invite you to send me a photocopy of this thread and I will e-mail you a video of me eating it. Regards Peter G.

[anderson]

The decision to have elections so prematurely has had disastrous consequences.

Indeed. And I do not think you are wrong. And we can thank Bush and Rice for that one. It was Bush admin who pushed for elections, despite warnings from everyone, including Abbas and the Israelis. That Rice issued another "who could have known?" statement after Hamas won the majority merely indicated how clueless she remained to the situation. Hamas had gained ground in earlier local elections and the writing was on the wall. The White House pushed elections anyway.

[Peter G.]

This is such an odd place. One can rationally discuss a difficult and divisive issue without being called a neocon or anti-Semite for mildly disagreeing with anyone else's perspective. Very odd. Refreshing too.

[Charles]

It is not odd, Peter. It is normal. What is odd is that so many people think that a matter is not discussed unless the participants use 140 decibels.

[anderson]

Peter,

This is a bit late in the discussion, but I wanted to address a comment of yours, which I neglected over the course of this discussion.

For clarification, for me the "right to exist" refers to the polity and has nothing to do with geography per se.

Yes, that is correct. Nation-states are political entities and are defined and prescribed by a balance of internal and external polities. Geographic boundary definition usually arises as a matter of physical convenience or inconvenience as the case may be.

Further to the issue of a nation's "right to exist," or, rather, that there is no such right, I'd like to quote anthropologist Max Forte, who writes about this very issue and in this very context.

“Might makes right” is possibly one of the most brilliant popular sayings we have. Might thinks itself right, when it succeeds; but when might meets counter-might, as it does in Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan, then might goes insane. Israel has no moral right to exist as a state, and in this world, history has seen many states come and many go. If I say this about Israel, I say it about all states. What Israel does have is the might to exist — and all might is temporary and conditioned by contextual factors outside of the control of the given state.