Question: What forces have shaped Israel?
Ross: Well I think you can’t understand Israel without understanding the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the seminal event in . . . in Jewish history; at least the seminal tragedy in Jewish history. And you have the birth of a nation state that emerges out of that. The Zionist movement was creating the basis for a state before that; but it’s the Holocaust that is a transforming reality. So Israel emerges, but it has that as its . . . its most important element of history and historical identity. And the significance of that is, for Israelis, the worst can happen. It’s not . . . It’s not their imagining or conjuring up what are false kinds of threats. The worst can happen. So in terms of affecting the Israeli outlook, number one you start with a premise of the worst can happen because of the Holocaust. Number two, you’re dealing with a reality that all your neighbors for the first . . . you know at least until 1977 when Anwar Sadat came to Israel . . . So for almost 30 years . . . 29 years of your existence as a state, all of your neighbors rejected you. Rejected your existence. Rejected your legitimacy. And even today, it’s still hard . . . You’re hard put to say . . . Even when the Arab world is prepared to say, “We’re prepared to live with you,” there certainly aren’t signs of a kind of reconciliation – a kind of genuine warmth. The peace Israel has . . . The peace Israel has with Egypt is a very cold peace. The peace it has with . . . with Jordan is also certainly not a particularly warm peace. And there may be all sorts of reasons from the standpoint of the Arab world, and particularly the Palestinians why that’s the case. But if you’re looking at it from the standpoint of the Israelis, they live in a world where their neighborhood has never really accepted them; and where the worst can happen; and where they’re constantly dealing with a kind of rejection which also plays out in terms of forms of terror, where terrorist outrages can be conducted. And from . . . Again, from the Israeli standpoint, the neighbors, even when they condemn certain acts of terror, it’s all kind of sloganistic. It doesn’t seem particularly genuine. So when the . . . When the Arab League Initiative was adopted in 2002 by the Arab League, a resolution that said that in return for Israel withdrawing to the June 4th ‘67 lines, there would be the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Israel. This came in a resolution adopted in Beirut, and the very next day there’s a Park Hotel bombing on the first night of Passover. And nobody who’s at this Arab League meeting where this resolution is being adopted is prepared to condemn it. So the message to the Israelis is, “Well the words are one thing; the reality is something else.” So the whole Israeli mindset is governed by a perception of not really being accepted; where terrorists seen against you is seen as being legitimate; and where security becomes a preoccupation, and you have to do it because you can’t rely upon anybody else. Nineteen sixty seven is a war where the Israelis have commitments from the Eisenhower administration which the Johnson administration doesn’t fulfill. And it reminds the Israelis, “Okay, we’re on our own.” Then of course when they win in a dramatic way, then there’s a feeling, “Not only are we on our own, but that’s okay because we can handle it.” So there’s a profound sense of self-reliance, but it’s also a function of feeling ultimately you can’t count on anybody else, and we always have to be the one to rely on ourselves. There’s a preoccupation with security because of that whole context I described. And security becomes a kind of sina qua non for how to see the world. Now as Israel develops and it becomes actually quite . . . I think quite effective in terms of its development economically . . . You look at it now, it’s a $140 billion dollar economy. It dwarfs all of its neighbors. So it’s very successful, and more and more of the Israelis see themselves connected to the world because of the global economy, and their success in competing in the global economy. So there’s a . . . there’s an interesting duality that’s emerging – the sense of being on your own; the sense of being preoccupied with security. Somehow you have this other reality where the world has shrunk, and economically speaking you’re an important part of it. So there’s . . . there’s an evolution taking place, although pretty hard to dismiss the preoccupation with security.
Discuss
John Smith on January 10, 2008, 1:41 PM
On 15 May 1948, why did the American Government advocated the creation of the State of Israel?
John Smith on January 10, 2008, 6:41 PM
On 15 May 1948, why did the American Government advocated the creation of the State of Israel?
Eric Djebe on January 17, 2008, 11:17 AM
You are mentioning "settlement withdrawal" as a possible or even probable event on the West Bank. I cannot see where you have taken into account the settlement movement in Israel. It seems to increase its momentum all the time and, at the moment, there does not seem to exist a political force strong enough to check it.
David Fridland on January 17, 2008, 1:13 PM
Why did the US gov't advocate the creation of the state of Israel? Most likely I would imagine it was the 6 million jews that lost their homes during WWII.
-D
David Fridland on January 17, 2008, 1:14 PM
LoveNPeace
Are you kidding?Or are you 5?
-D
Ian Hoch on January 17, 2008, 3:36 PM
To dfridland
6 million Jewish people did not lose their homes, 6 million Jewish people were executed by a governmental institution. More than 6 million lost their homes.
Eric Djebe on January 17, 2008, 4:17 PM
You are mentioning “settlement withdrawal” as a possible or even probable event on the West Bank. I cannot see where you have taken into account the settlement movement in Israel. It seems to increase its momentum all the time and, at the moment, there does not seem to exist a political force strong enough to check it.
David Fridland on January 17, 2008, 6:13 PM
Why did the US gov’t advocate the creation of the state of Israel? Most likely I would imagine it was the 6 million jews that lost their homes during WWII.
-D
David Fridland on January 17, 2008, 6:14 PM
LoveNPeace
Are you kidding?Or are you 5?
-D
Omar Sapayeen on January 17, 2008, 6:23 PM
If the Jews lost their homes because of the Germans, it's a slice of Germany that they should've been given. Not Palestine.
People speak of terror. The first terrorists in Palestine were Jewish groups: Irgun, and Lehi to name two. Irgun was organizing killings of innocent Arabs in the 40s. In one massacre, Jewish terrorists caught Palestinian laborers as they returning from work, and butchered them with knives. The western Media hides these accounts. Minachem Begin, 6th Prime Minister of Israel, was a leader of Irgun. A TERRORIST. Nobody minded that though.
That Jewish terrorism landed them a state, and America's perpetual servitude to their causes and interests. And the terrorists who then killed Arabs were rewarded with positions of prestige and authority, their records of persecution and murder kept hidden by the media.
Is it any wonder Palestinians would use the same methods to regain what was stolen from them?
Ian Hoch on January 17, 2008, 8:36 PM
To dfridland
6 million Jewish people did not lose their homes, 6 million Jewish people were executed by a governmental institution. More than 6 million lost their homes.
Omar Sapayeen on January 17, 2008, 11:23 PM
If the Jews lost their homes because of the Germans, it’s a slice of Germany that they should’ve been given. Not Palestine.
People speak of terror. The first terrorists in Palestine were Jewish groups: Irgun, and Lehi to name two. Irgun was organizing killings of innocent Arabs in the 40s. In one massacre, Jewish terrorists caught Palestinian laborers as they returning from work, and butchered them with knives. The western Media hides these accounts. Minachem Begin, 6th Prime Minister of Israel, was a leader of Irgun. A TERRORIST. Nobody minded that though.
That Jewish terrorism landed them a state, and America’s perpetual servitude to their causes and interests. And the terrorists who then killed Arabs were rewarded with positions of prestige and authority, their records of persecution and murder kept hidden by the media.
Is it any wonder Palestinians would use the same methods to regain what was stolen from them?
Theresa Fisher on January 18, 2008, 5:02 PM
It was such a relief to hear the Israeli/Palestinian issue discussed calmly and rationally. Every time I hear a discussion which even remotely involves Israel, people tend to get very emotional and simply start yelling at one another rather than presenting any rational debate. These issues are never going to be resolved until the parties on either side manage to at the very least admit that the other side has a legitimate complaint/argument, even if they do not agree.
Theresa Fisher on January 18, 2008, 10:02 PM
It was such a relief to hear the Israeli/Palestinian issue discussed calmly and rationally. Every time I hear a discussion which even remotely involves Israel, people tend to get very emotional and simply start yelling at one another rather than presenting any rational debate. These issues are never going to be resolved until the parties on either side manage to at the very least admit that the other side has a legitimate complaint/argument, even if they do not agree.
MANUEL VICENTE on January 27, 2008, 9:38 AM
Mr Ross, being realistic, do you think a Palestinian civil war will become an inevitable stage in the long process towards a lasting peace?
MANUEL VICENTE on January 27, 2008, 2:38 PM
Mr Ross, being realistic, do you think a Palestinian civil war will become an inevitable stage in the long process towards a lasting peace?
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register