My criticisms of Ms. Butler's paper have to do with her suggestions that Israel lacks legitimacy as a Mid Eastern State, her apparent thoughts that Israel should cease being a Jewish state and instead should be multi-national, and her comments that Israel has become blinded by its oppression of Palestinians and fails to recognize their humanity.  On these major themes, I explain why her criticisms are inaccurate and misguided. 
 

Israel lacks legitimacy as a state in the Mid East

Ms. Butler began her talk by citing Edward Said’s historical/genetic ideas about the origin of Jews. The argument seemed to be that 1. Moses was the creator of the Jewish people.   2. Moses was Egyptian and African, and that therefore “real Jews” are non European; and implicitly 3. Ashkenazi Jews were European and had no right to claim a homeland in Palestine. 

Said was well known as a Palestinian partisan and would be a good person to cite for a Palestinian perspective.  These views about the history of Jewish people, as outlined by Butler, are bizarre.   How can one discuss the origins of both Jews and Palestinians without starting with Abraham?  Why avoid the biblical story that Jews and Palestinians are children of Abraham? (I do not want to suggest that the Bible is historical truth, but it is very important in shaping ideas of cultural identity in this situation.)  Why hide the meaningful myth that that Jews and Palestinians are half brothers?  They both pray at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, dedicated to their common patriarch.   The fact that they are at least mythically half brothers does not mean that their relationships must always be harmonious.  In most cultures, it is well understood that the half brother relationship is complicated and sometimes violent.   A large aspect of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is a tragic, bitter family struggle for inheritance of their father Abraham’s land.

As for Moses, the argument of Said and Butler is equally silly.  The biblical text is clear that Moses’s parents were Jewish.  His wives were from other tribes, and his children were not mentioned as being political or genetic contributors to the Jewish people.  Moses was as Semitic as both the Jews and Palestinians.   And as for the origins of Jews in Europe, it is clear that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews originally migrated to Germany from the mid east, as did Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition.     For Ms. Butler to suggest that Said presented an objective, balanced view of the history of the Jewish people that somehow illuminates the current political and ethical dilemmas in the mid-east reflects a profound ignorance and/or bias.  Sadly, both seemed present in the rest of her lecture.

How could Ms. Butler start out on such a distorted road?  I could not see any reason, other than to undermine any legitimacy to Jewish claim to be a part of the earlier Palestine Mandate. Apart from the mid Eastern origins of European Jews, what about the fact that the most militant supporter's of Israel's militant polices are, by and large the mid eastern Sephardic Jews?  After centuries of living more-or-less harmoniously in the midst of Muslim communities, these Jews were abruptly displaced from their homes in the 1950s and 1960s.  They were “ethnically cleansed” and driven from their homes in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and other places without any due process or compensation.  They numbered in the hundreds of thousands, roughly the same number of Palestinians who were refugees from Israel.  When they took refuge is Israel, they supported the militant defense of Israel.

Of course Hitler and the holocaust were related to the creation of Israel, but that wasn’t everything.    Ms. Butler failed to acknowledge the Jewish presence in the Palestine area throughout history, the vigorous movement into that region in starting before 1900, and the large migration of Sephardic Jews from the middle east.

Ms. Butler also introduced the views of many Jewish thinkers and writers from previous decades who were skeptical or opposed to the creation of a Zionist state.   This is well known; there is no surprise that there was disagreement and controversy about creating Israel.  Is this relevant today?  Israel is a democratic country with 7 million people, who make their decisions about the nature of their state through a vigorous democratic political process reflecting a full, complex range of views.  While intellectual issues explored in the past about the plusses and minuses of creating Israel may be of interest, the simple fact is the future policies of Israel will by decided by the Israel's citizens and its political processes.  It will be influenced more by its interactions with its Palestinian and Arab neighbors than by philosophical analysis of old books.

In short, by selective use of absurdities and irrelevancies, Ms. Butler fails in her efforts to develop the foundation for an argument that Israel was a European creation that had no legitimacy in the mid-east.

A Zionist Israel should be dissolved in favor of a bi-national non-confessional state

I’m not certain Ms. Butler said explicitly that Israel should be dissolved in favor of a bi-national state, but this certainly seemed to be the clear objective of her talk. 

I personally think this is a good idea, but ONLY at the right time and under the right conditions.  It should not happen until all parties have evolved cultures and institutions of tolerance and when they understand the advantages of such a different arrangement -- a process that will take at least a few generations, maybe a century or more.  For the foreseeable future a Two-State partition is the only solution for peace.

Partition has been used many times in the past to solve two inter linked problems:  First, different peoples living intertwined in close proximity have conflicts over land and water, and over access and use of state power.  These conflicts increase in intensity until they are so frequent and intense that they completely undermine social stability and bring social and economic disaster.  Separation of the peoples reduces interactions and conflict. 

Second, the different peoples have different cultural values which they would like included in state law and policies -- values typically involving religion, marriage and family law, education, language, and broader culture.  Muslims in particular have a strong preference for incorporating religious values into state law.  They often call for a “Islamic State,” which incorporates Sharia into government law.  The partition of the South Asian subcontinent to establish the state of Pakistan was demanded by Muslims so they could have a state shaped by Islamic values.   Separation and development of separate states with separate legal systems enables different peoples to live in their preferred political/legal/cultural environment. 

There is, however, a very high human cost for having culturally homogeneous nation states where peoples have previously lived inter-twined.  Minorities have been forced to leave to create these homogenous states.   We have many words for this process: pogroms, ethnic cleansing, displacement, forced migration, forced removal, etc.   Whatever the vocabulary, peoples are torn from their home, property, and social communities and forced into a new environment. 

After World War I, over a million Greeks and Turks were forcibly moved to reduce domestic ethnic tensions.  Armenians were forced ut by Turks from their historic homeland.  After World War II, Germans, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and Ukrainians were forcibly moved to enable states to reduce ethnic differences (and conflicts).   Half a million ethnic Finns were forced to move from their homes in Karelia (which had been conquered by the Soviet Union) to Finland.  Ethnic Chinese were forced out of Vietnam; they became “boat people.   In the 1990s, mutual ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Croats seemed to be the prerequisite to establish reasonably homogenous Serbia and Croatia.  In nearby Kosovo, Serbian efforts to displace Albanians generated hundreds of thousands of refugees; and today, the movement to create an Albanian state in the Kosovo region of Serbia is generating involuntary migration of Serbs.   In 2000, thousands of Christians were killed and many more fled northern Nigeria when several states adopted Islamic law, in what might be called "coercive internal partition."   Even now in 2007, in Iraq a “soft” partition into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions is often suggested as a solution to the internecine warfare, which is forcing people to flee their homes and neighborhoods to neighboring countries. 

By and large, these forced migrations involved in separating peoples involved no compensation for lost property.  The international community (UN) provided some support for re-location and some temporary refugee camps as transitional rest stops on the way to permanent resettlement.  Recipient countries provided the bulk of support as refugees learned new languages and new skills.  The Hindu and Muslim people in India, the Karelian Finns, Greeks, and all other (but one) of the migrant groups knew it was far better to get on with their lives in a new place, rather than to encamp for generations in suspended animation so their great great grand children might possibly return to a  place that had changed drastically during the intervening time.

The UN efforts to partition the Palestine mandate in 1949 presumed that refugees in this region would act like, and be treated like all other refugees.  However, in contrast to all of the successful efforts to partition warring peoples and to facilitate population resettlement, a large portion of the Palestinians have defied resettlement.  Many remain in a refugee status and camps now for almost 60 years, refusing resettlement and insisting on the right to return to previous residences within Israel.   The international system provides housing, education, basic food rations, and health care to this group of refugees, which has expanded over the years from about half a million to over 4 million, thanks to a relatively high birth rate. 

Why is it that the international system and various states have been able to facilitate the resettlement of every group of people except this one?   Why have Palestinian refugee camps and status been converted from a temporary stop over on a road to resettlement to a semi permanent, tragic system of dependency and immobility?   I don't have a good answer to this question.  It is clear however, that if all the refugees, their children, grand children, great-grandchildren and spouses return to Israel, this might sooner or later swing Israel's demographic balance away from a Jewish majority and towards Muslim majority.  Given Israel's democratic politics, this change could sooner or later bring Muslim control of the state of Israel.

What would happen then?  Is there any real expectation that a Muslim dominated Israel would create a happy, multi-ethnic, bi-national state?   Where is the evidence that Muslim states can do this?  Where has it happened?  The best that can be said is that in a few Muslim countries (Turkey, Tunisia), small Jewish minorities can flourish.  Most likely, in the present environment, a Muslim dominated Palestine would expel Jews, as they were expelled from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.  It might adopt Sharia and frighten Jews to leave, as happened in 2000 in Northern Nigeria.   Another likely possibility is that the Jews might suffer the fate of the people in Darfur  --  Jewish towns would be bombed and burned, and fleeing Jews would be raped and butchered.  Survivors would be herded into refugee camps and attacked again.  Has Ms. Butler considered this set of possible scenarios in her implicit suggestion for a bi-national state?

Instead of a multiethnic state, the two state solution -- i.e.  partition --  would mean that many of the current Palestinian refugees would either migrate to other countries or change their status from refugees to citizens of the state of Palestine.  Refugee camps would be converted into towns.  Economic support from external sources might go to the Palestinian state for its normal housing, educational, and health programs; and former refugees would receive the same treatment as all other citizens.

On the Israeli side, the major issue is that a final partition would require Israel to accept fully a firm, immovable borders, presumably the 1967 border, adjusted by mutual agreement.  The necessity of Israel going back to its 1967 borders is the basic message of former president Jimmy Carter’s maligned (but seemingly not read) book (Palestine Peace Not Apartheid). In reality, Israel has moved psychologically and physically a long distance towards accepting the 1967 borders.  Israel's withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon were significant steps in this direction, giving up of land, hopefully in exchange for peace. 

Former President Jimmy Carter, in the aforementioned book, cites statements by the Arab states and Hamas that the borders before the 1967 war would be acceptable to them.  Whatever President Carter thought he read and heard, recent events make it clear that it is by no means certain that the Palestinians and other Arabs will accept the borders of 1967.   No sooner did Israel withdraw from Gaza than Gaza militants used Gaza as a base from which to launch rockets towards Israel.  As Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah installed rockets in the midst of civilian settlements.  When they were launched without provocation at Israel during the July 2007 war in Lebanon, they tragically converted civilian homes, schools, mosques, etc. into military targets.   Even after meetings in Mecca (Feb. 2007) with Saudi officials who are on public record for accepting Israel’s 1967 existence, Hamas continues to reject the existence of Israel. 

Of course going back to 1967 borders also requires Israel to give up the idea that the West Bank would become regular parts of Israel.  Those Jews who insist on living in the West Bank (believing it is part of God's contract with them) would have to end up becoming citizens of Palestine, hoping that the new Palestinian state will tolerate a Jewish minority.  In a broad sense, more and more of the people of Israel are accepting this reality, but it is still very controversial. 

While some Jews see settlement of the West Bank part of a contract with God, most Israelis see the West Bank as a secular security question.  They want to have great influence and control in the West Bank until they are reassured that that region will not be used as a base for military attacks on Israel.  One important and unfortunate consequences of rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and Lebanon was to heighten the fear that the West Bank too would become a base for rocket and other military attacks.  Of course these recent attacks also trigger memories of the large military attacks and threats on Israel from its Arab neighbors in 1948, 1967, and 1973 as well as countless suicide and other attacks in recent decades.  Israeli anxieties about future military assaults from West Bank bases have a real basis in history; they are not paranoia.

The tragic consequences of Palestinian/Arab delay or refusal to recognize Israel formally during the past sixty years are now obvious.  Just imagine if the Palestinians and Arab countries had recognized Israel before 1967 and had established peaceful relations and stable borders.  Imagine if Egypt had not mobilized for war, blocked Israel’s Red Sea harbor, and asked UN peace-keepers to leave the Sinai in 1967.   If there had been no war in 1967, Israel would not have occupied the West Bank.   That Egypt recognized Israel in 1979 at Camp David was good, and it would have been far better if the recognition had occurred 30 years earlier.  Saudi Arabia says now that it is willing to recognize Israel in its pre 1967 borders.  Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if they had reached that conclusion forty years ago, before the 1967 war?

This analysis argues that the best solution now is for the end of indefinite refugee status for Palestinians, a serious effort at resettlement, and a proper, comprehensive partition between two states – the “two state solution” -- with Israel fully accepting that the West Bank is part of Palestine.   At the same time, both states should allow and protect minorities living in their states.  Israel has, in fact done this since its inception.  Roughly a million Arabs live in Israel, with full legal rights in theory, at least.  Civil rights organizations and lawyers work hard to have these rights respected.  A Palestinian state should similarly protect and give full legal rights to Jewish, Christian and all other residents.  Successfully insuring full protection and rights for minorities in each country would be a crucial first step in creating the trust needed to make a combined, multiethnic state in the distant future. 

Is there some reason why the Jews have less right to a nation-state than Finns, Croats, and all they other peoples who have nation-states?  At the same time, if Palestinians are so distinct from other Arab peoples in the region, they also need and deserve a state that can reflect their culture.

Needless to say, partitioned states do not always live in peace and harmony.  India and Pakistan have had three major wars, other near wars, and sabotage and terrorist raids.  Despite these problems, there has not been any serious political attempt to un-do the partition.  There is no effort to put India and Pakistan back together, and no one thinks that the milliions of refugees and their descendants from the time of the partition should all go back to their earlier homes.  The problems of partition are fewer than the problems of not having partition.

Of course the nation state is not the last word on state systems.  In the mid-east the reality is that there has been in the past and remains in the future a very large potential for fruitful cooperation in water management, economic, cultural, and scientific affairs between these two partitioned states and peoples, the Israelies and the Palestinians.  It would be wonderful if the threat of violence ceases and movement back and forth between these two states can match the ease of travel between the U.S. and Canada or Mexico.  In the long run, if both states can avoid violence and develop respectful modalities of managing their minorities, and if these states have comprehensive interactions, it is possible to imagine that sometime in the future, they would draw closer together politically, as the European states have done. 

Judging by European experience, formerly warring countries can find lasting peace over a 50 years process, if there is recognition on both sides that deliberate efforts have to be made to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation and preliminary, partial integration.  Maybe cooperation of water resources can have the same effect in this region as cooperation on iron and steel had in transforming France’s relations with Germany.  Who in the depths of the World Wars would have imagined these historic enemies ever beating swords into plows?  Sixty years after the end of World War II, they remain separate countries, but they live in peace and harmony. 
 

On Victims, Victimization, and Face

Ms. Butler discussed the ideas of the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas concerning the moral responsibility of people to others.   She also argued that The Wall that Israel has constructed (physically as well as symbolically) results in Israelis not seeing the faces of Arabs and this means they to not see and comprehend their humanity.  This opens the door to treating others as “others” in a non-human way.  Israel's shelling of Gaza and the bombing of Lebanon are the tragic results. 

By juxtaposing Levinas’s ethics with the contemporary tragic violence in Israel/Palestine, Ms. Butler gave the impression that Levinas himself was deeply critical of Israel’s policy.  This is false.  In a broad sense, Levinas was supportive of Israel and as a deeply religious and religiously informed Jew, understood the occasional need for violence in self defense.  He died in 1995.  The suggestion that Levinas did criticize Israel or The Wall or would have criticized them if he were alive now is Ms. Butler’s reckless invention.  Ms. Butler’s perspective is profoundly incomplete and one-sided, and results in a seriously flawed analysis and conclusion. 

Ms. Butler miraculously has not observed that the violence in this area is bilateral.  Each side attacks and each side retaliates, on and on, in a reciprocal dynamic.   Even when authorities on either side try to terminate this reciprocal violence, there are individuals on either side who can initiate violence that demands retaliation.   This unwillingness and inability to control violence has been especially true on the Palestinian side, where success in violence seems to be a badge of honor and pre-requisite for political support.   A similar dynamic in Israel makes failure to retaliate politically dangerous.  The problematic Wall was constructed as a way to block terrorism and to reduce the instinct for retaliation.  Apparently, it has been reasonably effective.   Does Ms. Butler’s myopia on this issue reflect ignorance, oversight, or some sort of serious bias? 

Let’s pursue the issue of de-humanizing humans.  Are Levinas’s ideas of ethical responsibility applicable only to Jews, or are they universal?  Are only Jewish philosophers such as Levinas concerned about humanizing humans?  Are there no Muslim philosophers who see ethical obligations to others?  Do Palestinian terrorists or Hezbollah rocket shooters see the faces and recognize the humanity of their victims in Israel?  Did the suicide bomber, sent by Hamas, see the faces and recognize the humanity of David Applebaum and his daughter Nava (distant cousins of this writer), whom he killed on September 9, 2003, in a Jerusalem café, along with five others?  Did he realize that Dr. Applebaum was managing medical clinics for all people of Jerusalem without regard to religion, and that he hired Muslim, Christian, and Jewish doctors to provide full medical services seven days a week?  Did he ever think that Dr. Applebaum was a person who saw and respected the faces of all and was precisely the type of person needed to make a humane, multi-ethnic society?  Similarly Dr. Applebaum's daughter Nava, who was to be married the next day, was a person who saw faces and was dedicated to their humanity. 

Reciprocal violence has blinded each side to the humanity of the other.  Ms. Butler is so blind that she doesn’t see how one side’s victimhood is part of an interactive dynamic in which each side’s actions trigger the dehumanizing reaction of the other. 

In addition, another serious denial of face and inhumanity is the Hamas and Arab refusal to recognize Israel diplomatically. To set in motion a mutual spiral of improving acceptance of each other’s humanity, an obvious first step would be for all states to recognize formally all other states, even if the recognition is hedged by a statement that the borders of Israel are awaiting final agreement with Palestine.

Needless to say, Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s comment that Israel should be wiped off the map is a similar denial of the face and humanity of Israel and its citizens.  (Note that Iran’s official press agency endorsed this interpretation of his Persian language speech; there is no translation problem here.)  Especially disturbing is the fact that this image of extermination comes when Iran is vigorously proceeding on developing nuclear technology that could eventually be used to realize this goal.  One would hope that such a denial of humanity is noticed by serious scholars and that a future president of Iran will restore the face and humanness of Israel and its peoples.

To suggest that The Wall is the reason that Jews fail to see the faces and humanity of Palestinians, and is the source of problems there is absurd.  Of course the Wall creates serious inconveniences for people and ultimately will need adjustment.  But the Wall is not The Problem.  The Problem is the mutually interactive dynamic of violence, which tragically is easier to escalate than to diminish.  How Ms. Butler can ignore this obvious fact is bewildering. 

Scholarship

I find it disappointing that a distinguished scholar can offer a long, carefully prepared speech with so many absurdities, inaccuracies, and biases.  It is equally disturbing that a university audience enthusiastically received it.  A big part of the problem was that the format provided no real opportunity to open and discuss the numerous controversies in the presentation.  I hope future presentations on campus are better.