Babylon was of course succeeded by the Persians, who were succeeded by Alexander and his successors, who were succeeded by Rome, which was succeeded by Arabs and the Ottomans and so on until 1948. That's a very long time. At least from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, most Jews lived elsewhere. Thus the Jewish Diaspora, which some maintain commenced with the Babylonian Captivity.
The creation of Israel, it must be recognized, virtually guaranteed conflict with those who lived where it is now located. That conflict has continued since its creation. It seems likely to continue ad infinitum. It may therefore be claimed, reasonably I think, by those who don't believe in the Jewish homeland or that God gifted it to the Jews, that its creation was unfortunate.
That said, Israel exists and is a sovereign nation. It should be treated as such. A sovereign nation may defend itself. It cannot be erased from the world. It will continue to exist, unless perhaps the entire region or the world itself is destroyed.
Claims that Israel should be dissolved or destroyed and efforts to achieve those claims are, therefore, futile and unreasonable. When those efforts amount to brutal, ruthless terrorism of the kind being perpetrated now by Hamas, they should be denounced and deplored.
The fact that Israel is a sovereign nation does not mean that it has any right to, or should, expand its borders particularly if it results in the additional displacement of those already displaced by its creation. Itsexpansion in the form of new "settlements" beyond its borders isn't justified by the claims of zealots who think the land is theirs because God gave it to the Jews, which are absurd. It's expansion to the harm of others is unjustifiable.
What should take place in any reasonable world is a resolution which wouldn't include either the destruction of Israel or its expansion, and the recognition of the fact that Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs should be accorded the same treatment, and have the same rights. However, the effective leaders of the conflicting peoples have no interest in such a resolution. One side wants Israel destroyed, the others want the Palestinians to be removed or rendered harmless.
Can reason be imposed, can peace be imposed, when those fighting one another have no interest in either? It's doubtful. Perhaps the only option is to act in such a way as to restrict or contain the harm which will be caused by the intransigent on both sides. That will be difficult enough to do, but may be more achievable than any peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment