“Greater Israel” makes an unwelcome comeback

You’ve probably heard the phrase “pre-9/11 world” before. But have you heard “pre-First Intifada world” before? Probably not, because I think I just invented it. Though a bit clunky-sounding, the phrase quite accurately depicts the current mindset of the Israeli and American Zionist right wing.

Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine recently wrote a blog entry profiling a man whom I’ve quoted many times on this blog, Jeffrey Goldberg. Ibish focuses on how Goldberg manages to draw the ire of extreme leftists, like apologists for Palestinian terrorists, as well as extreme rightists. The example of the latter that Ibish cited was a horrifying op-ed in The Jerusalem Post written by Steven Goldberg (no relation to Jeffrey), who is vice president of the hard-right Zionist Organization of America and is affiliated with the Likud Party of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Steven Goldberg’s op-ed uses some pretty standard gimmicks, such as implicitly claiming that Yitzhak Rabin was against the peace process. (This is baloney.)

What’s far worse is a reversion of Likud/right-wing Zionist thought to a view that was largely abandoned by the early 1990s — that Israel could and should hold on to all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River — a “Greater Israel.” The view was standard of Revisionist Zionism as far back as it has been around — in fact, early Revisionists thought Jordan was rightfully Israel’s territory, too. Pictured at right is the emblem of the Irgun/Etzel, a pre-state militia that espoused Revisionist beliefs, showing all of pre-1922 Palestine (Israel and Jordan).

When the 1947 partition of Palestine was not accepted by the Arab states and Arab Palestinian community, the lands that would have composed this state wound up being split by different countries: During the course of fighting its war of independence, Israel conquered some of this land. The remaining land to Israel’s west, the Gaza Strip, was occupied by Egypt. The land to Israel’s east, the West Bank, was annexed by Jordan; its inhabitants were forcefully made Jordanian citizens. Revisionist Zionists were forced to accept a Jewish state that fell short of their ideal borders. For them, the old city of Jerusalem and Jewish biblical sites in the West Bank were essential to complete Israel’s Jewish character.

Their goal was achieved during the Six-Day War, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, among other territory. The West Bank and Gaza were put under military occupation, while the Palestinians lost any citizenship they ever had. For two decades, this did not change much — and Israeli rightists were content with the status quo. (Yitzhak Rabin did experiment with Palestinian autonomy initiatives in the mid-1970s, however, such as local elections.)

The status quo changed in 1987, when the Palestinians launched the First Intifada. It represented the first coordinated effort by Palestinians to achieve independence and shook Israeli conventional wisdom. Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988, signaling acceptance of Palestinian independence. Meanwhile, the Israeli peace movement got under way and led to the re-election of Yitzhak Rabin in 1992. The election of Rabin and the widespread rejection of permanent Israeli occupation heralded a significant blow to Revisionist Zionism. Israelis — even those like Rabin who valued military strength — saw a strategic need to separate from the Palestinians. The formation of Kadima is a delayed product of this shift in strategic thinking on the Israeli right; Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Tzipi Livni all used to be hawks but later embraced partition as a necessity.

Steven Goldberg’s op-ed indicates he would like to turn back the clock 25 years. He writes:

It’s time to declare categorically that there will never be a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. [Biblical terms for the West Bank]

The Arabs who live there may continue to be residents of Israel with full civil and religious rights and local autonomy, but any national or political rights must be exercised in affiliation with Jordan – the already existing Palestinian state.

There are two humongous problems presented here. The first is that denying inhabitants of your territory — in fact, territory you have conquered — citizenship and voting rights is illegal, discriminatory, and undemocratic.

The second is that Jordan is not and never has been a Palestinian state. Jordan is ruled by a king whose family was installed by the British and which represents a local Jordanian tribe. The Palestinian population of Jordan, though a numerical majority, has almost no political influence at all. If the Palestinian population were to rebel en masse against the government, it’s possible they could actually create a Palestinian state there. But is that what Steven Goldberg wants? A Palestinian state larger than Israel, with an air force and a standing army?

Imagining Israel to be what it was before the First Intifada, like imagining America to be what it was before 9/11 is a foolhardy and dangerous action. Israelis, and especially Palestinians, began to believe after the First Intifada that the idea of a Palestinian people wasn’t so silly after all. Reverting back to an antiquated and domineering approach to Israel’s rule over the territories is not the answer to the Palestine question.