This article is reprinted with permission from FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East). Visit FLAME’s website, factsandlogic.org, to read every one of their excellent articles debunking common misconceptions about the history and current events of the Middle East. — Admin
The Israelis wanted the second phase of the Mideast Peace conference to convene in the respective capital of the involved parties. It seemed like a reasonable suggestion. After all, Jerusalem is only 150 miles from Damascus, Syria, and only 80 miles from Amman, Jordan. But the Arabs did not accept that suggestion and insisted on a site as far away from home as possible. Why would they wish to impose such inconvenience on themselves? They believed that meeting with Israel in their respective capitals might by inference be considered as their recognition of Israel’s existence.
What are the facts?
Despite decisive military defeats in the wars that they have launched against the Jewish state since the very day of its birth, the Arabs, in an almost unbelievable act of mental acrobatics, deny the existence of the country that has inflicted such severe and repeated punishment on them. When it becomes inevitable to mention the Jewish state it is referred to only as “the Zionist entity.”
This non-acknowledgement of Israel’s existence is not simply a matter of semantics. Arab maps do not show Israel, but a vast area, including Jordan, labeled as “Palestine.” Cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa simply don’t exist. Arab school children, though imbued from earliest age with hatred of the Jews, have no “official” knowledge of the existence of Israel. They learn about it, one supposes, just as they learn about sex, by whispered comments in the schoolyard. Schedules of foreign airlines that show Israel on their route maps or that list Israeli destinations are not allowed in the countries. Foreign publications (among them, one regrets to report, such U.S. magazines as Time and Newsweek) print special editions for the Arab countries, since no publication carrying advertising of Israeli firms may appear in those countries. And, of course, tourists of any nationality may not enter most Arab countries if their passports show evidence that the holder has ever visited Israel, the “non-existent country.” Not too many months ago, a U.S. Senator was barred from entering Saudi Arabia, our “faithful ally,” because of an Israeli visa stamp that had been placed in his diplomatic passport.
As an inducement to Israel for yielding land that is absolutely indispensable for the country’s defense, the Arabs now and then offer the possibility of the “recognition” of Israel’s existence. The sad and almost incomprehensible aspect of that is that many well-meaning people in the U.S., in other countries, and yes, even in Israel believe that this might be an acceptable bargain for Israel. But Israel’s existence is in no way dependent on the recognition of any Arab state. It’s simple: Israel exists because it exists. Therefore, supposing that any meaningful face-to-face meetings came about and, if say, a Syrian diplomat should ask Israel what it would be prepared to “give” if Syria would consider acknowledging Israel’s existence, Israel should reply that Israel might in turn consider acknowledging Syria’s existence. Or, Israel could declare a boycott of the Arab world and could offer to relax or to rescind such boycott in consideration of parallel gestures by the Arabs.
The bizarre concept of Israel’s “non-existence” has been around for over forty years. Many good people, including quite a few in Israel itself, have been led to believe that Israel should bring substantial sacrifices, even to the point of imperiling its owns security and survival, in order to get the Arabs to acknowledge Israel’s existence. It is often said that Israel needs to be “recognized” by the Arabs in order to “normalize her condition.” But need not the Arabs, too, live in “normalized condition?” And Israel is often promised that, in return for yielding vital strategic territory to the Arabs, she would be assured of “safe and secure borders.” But don’t the Arabs also need borders that are safe and secure? The Arab countries and much of the world have come to believe that peace is only good and desirable for Israel. But it is surely at least as important for the Arabs, who have lived through and have been bloodily defeated in five wars with Israel — the “non-existent country.” Peace and prosperity can and will come to this troubled region only when the Arabs accept the reality of Israel’s existence and negotiate with her openly and in good faith.
—————
39
5 Responses to “Israel’s “Right to Exist”: Is it important that the Arabs acknowledge it?”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
Why should Palestine recognize Israel when Israel is not required to recognize Palestine? What Israel should Hamas recognize? The nation given to them in 1948 without the permission of those who already lived there or the post 1967 borders that the entire world recognizes includes occupied territory? No nation has ever been required to recognize the right of the existence or the existence of another nation. Do they have to say Israel exists when there is no question that it is a fact that it does exist? Do they have to say that it has a right to exist on lands occupied illegally?
When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, “the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders.” Weymouth went on, “Will you recognize Israel?” to which Haniyeh responded, “If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them.”
In 1989, Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (assassinated by Israel in March 2004) stated, “I do not want to destroy IsraelÖ. We want to negotiate with Israel so the Palestinian people inside and outside Palestine can live in Palestine. Then the problem will cease to exist.”
Israel assassinated him?! And all he wanted was peace…truly Israel is the monster Curtis has been telling us it is.
And to think that we were fooled by the Israelis! Its the Arabs that want peace.
Saifedean Ammous makes a good point here as he speaks of the ridiculous condition set by the Quartet on Palestinians of recognizing Israel:
“Let us first bear in mind that the idea of Hamas—or any Palestinian political party for that matter—recognizing Israel’s “right to exist†is a patently meaningless idea that makes as much sense as Manchester United Football Club recognizing Tanzania’s “right to existâ€. Nowhere is it written that nation states have a “right to exist†themselves. What is meant by “recognition†in an international setting is what happens when countries exchange embassies and establish diplomatic relations. Nowhere but in Palestine has the idea of a non-state entity recognizing a state ever been seriously discussed. Further, the imbeciles who repeat this canard conveniently ignore that Israel is not merely “not recognizing Palestine’s right to existâ€, but actively, deliberately and comprehensively destroying any chance of a Palestinian state ever existing. But, for the morally-superior Europeans, Hamas’ “recognition†of Israel is the thing that bothers them the most about Palestine/Israel today, and not all of the crimes listed above. The kicker, of course, is not just that this is a morally and logically absurd position, but that Israel’s actions are the root of the conflict, and not whether Hamas recognizes Israel. This recognition won’t change anything on the ground and won’t affect the lives of anyone in any way, but the walls, settlements, killings, checkpoints and Israel’s racist policies will. Only when these are ended can there be peace, regardless of what Hamas “recognizes†or declines to “recognize.â€
http://tonykaron.com/2007/07/30/european-hypocrisy-a-palestinian-view/
The LA Times also published a great editorial on this ridiculous condition and criticized itself for adopting a Pro-Israeli viewpoint in its own news reporting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-makdisi11mar11,0,2601983.story?coll=la-opinion-center
This reminds me also of the demand that Palestine renounce violence while the US and Israel do not even hint that they will do the same.
er…..do you really believe that the relationship between england’s manchester united football club and the nation of tanzania is even comparable to that of hamas and israel? i can think of one similarity: manchester united football club’s charter once demanded tanzania’s eradication and the establishment of a red devils state in its place.
oh, wait, it didn’t.
but hamas’ 1988 charter (in effect at the time the FLAME article was written, but recently renounced) called for the destruction of israel and the establishment of a palestinian state in its place.
the people who call for palestinian political parties to recognize israel’s right to exist do not do so because a diplomatic formality is being imposed upon them — it has nothing to do with that. hamas and other groups that seek power in palestine openly call or called for israel’s destruction. to get economic and political support from western countries, and to truly seek peace, they should ease up on the genocide talk.
from the “great editorial” in the la times, the same disingenuous argument shows up:
again, this is because you people keep arguing the primacy of a non-sequitur. ‘recognition,’ in this case, is not a diplomatic formality. it is a request by israel (and by third parties in the peace mediation process) that governing political factions in palestine migrate toward a tenable peace position. think of it this way: why would israel give up its main bargaining chip in the peace process (land) without at the very least a basic promise from the most powerful palestinian political party that, after israel’s concessions, hamas would not continue to call for israel’s destruction?
i realize you are struggling dreadfully to understand this, curtis, but it is really just a basic concept.
The basic concept is not lost on me Travis, however, there is another basic concept at play here that is apparently lost on others. That Palestine has hostile intentions is a given. They have plenty of reason to. However, Israel’s hostile intentions toward Palestinians are not recognized by many. That such intentions exist is not really disputable. Therefore, should not Israel also be required to do the same things as are required of Palestine? Shouldn’t they have to formally say that Palestine has the right to exist (preferably on land that was taken by Israel in 1967)? Shouldn’t Israel also have to renounce violence? Shouldn’t Israel also have to live up to prior agreements including the Oslo accords. If you are going to make ridiculous requests of one side, the slightest pretense of fairness dictates that the same conditions exist for the other side.