Rebuttal of Anti-Israel Claims (Part 2)
This is a continuation of my rebuttal of anti-Israel claims from a previous issue of The Tech.
First, I will note that as of 10 days after publication of that column, not a single anti-Israel writer or protester has responded. The MIT Values Statement says “Because learning is nourished by a diversity of views, we cherish free expression, debate, and dialogue in pursuit of truth – and we commit to using these tools with respect for each other and our community.” I am engaging in debate and dialogue, but it appears I do not have a counterpart in this endeavor.
A common anti-Israel claim is that Israel was founded as a colonialist nation. As with genocide, that word is never defined by those using it. A common definition of a colony is “an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control” [1]. The argument seems to be that Jews coming from Europe took over Palestine, and therefore were colonists. But the various Jews who immigrated to Palestine from the late 19th century to the early 20th century were not sent by any foreign nation or state. They were mainly refugees from Eastern Europe, escaping discrimination and countless separate pogroms. They came from many different locations, bought land (much of it desert or swamp), developed it, and lobbied the controlling powers to be a state, in the same way Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries in the region became states. Later waves of immigration resulted, not from a desire to take control, but because every other country had strict quotas preventing Jews from immigrating, from 1920 all the way up to 1948. Even the British severely limited immigration to Palestine by Jews during that period. The Jews had nowhere else to go. That is not colonization; that is escape.
Additionally, close to 45% of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi, which are Jews who emigrated from or are descended from those originating in Middle Eastern or North African countries [2]. Many of those Jews were violently expelled from Arab countries when Israel declared independence or left when it became clear that they would not be safe in those countries. So Israelis are not colonizers — the vast majority of Israelis are descendents of refugees.
No foreign nation sent Jews to colonize for purposes of control, so the foundation of the state of Israel does not meet the definition of colonization.
The term “apartheid” is also misused, and never defined by the anti-Israel writers and protesters. A legal definition is “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” [3]. As mentioned previously, millions of Palestinians living in Israel are citizens, voters, members of the military, leaders of large companies, or members of Parliament. The Palestinians in Israel are racially and ethnically identical to those outside Israel. Does that fit within the definition of apartheid? Inside the West Bank, Palestinians are not treated like Israeli citizens, because they are not Israeli citizens, nor do they reside in Israeli territory. We can debate how an occupying power should treat residents of occupied territory, but treating often-hostile Palestinian civilians in occupied territory differently than law-abiding Israeli citizens in Israel proper is by no means apartheid. (Executive Committee Note: The Tech could not immediately identify a source that objectively clarifies the claims substantiated above.) It is a differentiation based on location and political status, not race or ethnicity, and therefore does not meet the definition of apartheid.
Finally, I will talk about the concept of Zionism. I think it is unjust for opponents to define what a group’s goals and purposes are. Zionism is defined by many Zionists as “the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.”
The Declaration of Israel’s Independence says:
“[The] recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State...
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations” [4].
That is Zionism. A small number of people will violate the terms of Zionism and still call it Zionism. Anyone who is interested in dialogue and progress will recognize that misusing that term creates conflict and mistrust, and will avoid using it in a derogatory way. Because very often, anti-Zionism is just a codeword for anti-Semitism. Fair and respectful criticism of Israel—or more specifically the Israeli government—should always be acceptable, when it is in proportion to criticism of other governments in similar situations. But dog-whistles, stereotypes and blanket statements are never acceptable.
Some closing observations: I have said many times that every death in Gaza is a tragedy. Continuing the fighting is the second worst option, given that Hamas has created an environment intended to maximize civilian casualties. (Executive Committee Note: Western media have reported that Hamas, at times, have deliberately put civilians in danger amidst combat in residential areas. It is not immediately clear that such acts are intended to maximize non-combatant casualties.) But the worst option is letting Hamas remain in power. They will rearm, they will rebuild tunnels instead of rebuilding schools, and Palestinians will suffer under the rule of a barbaric terrorist organization. As soon as they are able, Hamas will repeat October 7, as promised, and we will be right back where we started, with even more death and destruction on all sides [5]. (Executive Committee Note: Given the underground nature of the militant organization, it is immediately unclear that—although Hamas spokespeople have at times claimed the group’s desire to continue these attacks should the war persist—these will actually be carried nor would they be to the scale of October 7. Notably, interviews held with Hamas spokespeople by Western versus Middle Eastern media yielded conflicting responses to such questions.)
The best thing for the Palestinian people is the end of Hamas as the government of Gaza, and the start of a new chapter. Hamas can make that happen today, but they refuse. If someone knows how that goal can be achieved more peacefully than how Israel is attempting to achieve it, please let me know.
In the thousands and thousands of words written by the authors mentioned in my previous column, not a single word was written about Hamas’s responsibility for any deaths, other than a brief false equivalence of October 7 to the occupation of Gaza. The entirety of the casualties, in which tens of thousands of Hamas fighters are lumped in with civilians, is blamed on Israel. In all those columns, no mention is made of the continued holding of hostages, the rockets firing at Israeli civilians with no military objective, the Gazans killed by badly aimed Hamas rockets and Hamas gunfire. Not a word is said about the ability of Hamas to stop the war if they would only release the hostages and surrender. I think that silence, as well as their refusal to engage in a discussion, speaks volumes.
---
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
[4] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/us/politics/hamas-power-gaza-violence-israel.html