Opinion: Judea Pearl discusses his Op-Ed on Zionism
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
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.