Allan Massie: Israel must now learn magnanimity

Israel has shown resolution and defiance of its enemies, but to establish peace it must show goodwill

IN JAMES Joyce’s Ulysses, the headmaster Mr Deasy tells Stephen Dedalus that Ireland is the only country that has never persecuted the Jews. And why is that? “Because we never let them in.” Actually, we in Scotland could make the same boast, partly for the same reason: that until the late 19th-century influx of Jews fleeing tsarist persecution, there were few here.

There is, however, another reason, and one that goes deeper. We identified with the Jews, and not only because, like them, we were good with money (well, we used to be till our banks went doolally). The Church of Scotland was much keener on the Old Testament than the New, and Jehovah loomed larger than Christ. Israel “had made a Covenant with God” and in like manner 17th-century Presbyterians proclaimed Scotland to be “a covenanted nation”.

So , one way or another, we avoided the anti-Semitism that has stained so many European nations, and the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land was a popular cause here.

Things are more complicated today. The Palestinian question looms large. Marches and protest meetings on behalf of the Palestinians attract a lot of support in Scotland. “Justice for the Palestinians” is a popular cry. This raises the question: is criticism of Israel the new form of anti-Semitism? Yes, I know Arabs are Semites too, but anti-Semitism has come to mean hostility to the Jews, and, by extension, to Israel. These are not necessarily the same things.

Israel’s cause used to be popular in Britain. The Holocaust was the justification of the creation of the state of Israel, which was established in 1948 by a resolution of the United Nations. Most of us applauded Israel’s victories in three wars against their Arab neighbours. In 1956 Britain and France colluded with Israel in the Suez war against Egypt. The Israelis were a small and gallant nation rightly struggling to be free, and Israel was the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. This remains true.

Israel exists and has a right to exist. It might be better if it didn’t, if Zionism had been stillborn, and the call for the settlement of Jews in the Holy Land had never been uttered, if the western democracies, especially the US and Britain, had extended a general welcome to Jewish immigrants, but such speculation is futile. Israel is there, a state with a seat at the United Nations and a remarkable record of achievement. Its right to exist shouldn’t be questioned.

But … there is a huge but. Since the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, both formerly part of the kingdom of Transjordan. The continued occupation is defended on the ground that Israel is surrounded by enemies who seek to destroy it. That Israel has such enemies is undeniable. It may, however, be argued that Israeli policy and Israeli action since 1967 have helped to perpetuate this enmity.

“In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.” Churchill’s words have often been quoted. Israel has shown splendid resolution and, though never defeated, remarkable defiance of its enemies. But it has not shown magnanimity in victory, and the goodwill necessary to establish peace has not been evident. Instead of magnanimity, Israel continues to occupy Arab land in defiance of UN resolutions. It has planted settlements there. It has maintained a military and police presence there. It has engaged, contrary to all law, in targeted assassination of those it has identified as enemy leaders. It has launched pre-emptive strikes against military, perhaps nuclear, installations in hostile states. In short, “the only democracy in the Middle East” has time and again behaved like a rogue state, and it has been able to do so thanks to the financial and military support of the US. Meanwhile, it has become more difficult for many who wish Israel well to condone or defend its policy and conduct.

This is tragic. Israel, which used to have the support of most liberal-minded people here, has lost that support. I don’t think this shift in opinion can be called “anti-Semitic”. There is undoubtedly a revival of anti-Semitism in some European countries, but it is mostly Islamic anti-Semitism. The mood here is more properly termed anti-Israeli.

It has been said of the Palestinian leadership that it has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and there was some truth in the jibe. Today, however, the charge might be directed at successive Israeli governments. Lip-service is given to the “two-state solution”, but by continuing to permit the planting of settlements in the West Bank, the Israeli government is making the establishment of a viable Palestinian state more difficult. Meanwhile, its policy of heavy retaliation for rocket attacks from Gaza sours relations further.

Twenty-five years ago Conor Cruise O’Brien wrote The Siege, reflections on Israel and Zionism. In it he equated the embattled Israeli position with that of Northern Irish Protestants and the Afrikaners in white South Africa. The comparison was a fair one. Since then, however, the Ulster Protestants have consented to share power with their Sinn Fein enemies, and the Afrikaners, under the leadership of F W de Klerk, dismantled apartheid and surrendered political power. Only Israel remains embattled and increasingly isolated.

The creation of Israel may have been a mistake, as Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and pioneer Zionist, came to believe: it was a colonialist enterprise in the Middle East set up just as the old imperialist powers, Britain and France, were beginning to withdraw. But Israel is there; it cannot, and should not be, wished away. If, however, it is to survive, it must someday come to an accommodation with the Palestinians and the neighbouring Arab states. In victory: magnanimity.

There is such an opportunity today. The Palestinian Authority has asked the UN to recognise a Palestinian state. Israel of course opposes the request, and the US intends to use its veto in the Security Council. The Israeli line is that there can be a Palestinian state only after negotiations satisfactory to both parties have been concluded. This is a means of postponing the creation of such a state. Wiser, surely, to have a “de Klerk moment”, accept that there will one day be a Palestinian state, and the sooner the better – in Israel’s long-term interest. Accept the state, then negotiate about the outstanding questions. In peace, goodwill. Or will Benjamin Netanyahu take another opportunity to miss an opportunity? Sadly, it is only too probable.