Zionism is a model for indigenous people
“Forget the Jews for a while and focus on your own backyard.”The Land of Israel is ours, apply sovereignty and heal Oslo's damages
This unsolicited morsel of advice left me taken aback. I had just spent two weeks at Oxford attending a course on Critical Contemporary Antisemitism by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. Such a rebuke gave me cause for reflection. Why should an indigenous person from distant New Zealand care about what happens to Jews in the Middle East and elsewhere?
Oft-cited is the phrase “Jews are the canary in the coal mine”. In other words, rising antisemitism is an unmistakable sign that society is in deep trouble.
Antisemitism globally is displaying an alarming upward trend, a trend that is coincidental with – likely lubricated and accelerated by – increasing polarization within Western-style democracies. As is painfully obvious, the latter is a phenomenon from which Israel is not exempt.
Antisemitic incidents in the US reached their highest level last year since the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) began such records in 1979.
A 2021 survey on antisemitism in my own nation found that 63% of New Zealanders held at least one antisemitic view and some 6% held nine or more antisemitic views (based on 18 questions posed to expose antisemitic ideas.)
Further, antisemitism emerges from a bewildering range of divergent worldviews. If this means society is indeed desperately ill, perhaps we should all care about the Jews?
Another reason for my concern over Jewish issues is that there are many “in my backyard” who seem to think it’s noble to attack and demonize Israel. As a Christian, I cannot ignore nearly 2,000 years of persecution of Jews perpetrated in the name of Christ. While I can’t be held responsible for such attitudes and actions, it naturally and properly creates for me a deeply rooted connection to the issue.
Viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a settler colonialist lens
Many New Zealanders view Israel through the lens of our own settler colonialist history: the Jews, like the British, are seen as white European colonizers; the Palestinians, as akin to my own people, the indigenous Māori.
SUCH IS the narrative. But like so many narratives, it lacks even a passing resemblance to the facts of history.
The British were complete strangers to the land of Aotearoa New Zealand. In contrast, for the Jewish people, Israel is the ancestral homeland. It was here that a distinctive indigenous Jewish culture, language and religion began to develop more than 3,000 years ago. And despite multiple dispersions, there has always been a residual Jewish presence in the land; for Jews in the Diaspora, an inextinguishable longing for the land. Thus, as an indigenous person, it’s most natural for me to recognize in the Jewish experience and history the markers of indigeneity.
Of course, Arabs are indigenous too – to Arabia. They came to Palestine (so named by the Romans as an act of cultural erasure) many centuries later.
One of presenters at Oxford remarked that Zionism is about reclaiming the land. “We walk the land. We know every stone – we know the land”. (Yossi Shain, ISGAP 2023) This is very much an indigenous trait. The recovery of the Hebrew language is also an inspiration to other indigenous peoples seeking to revive their language.
Moreover, while many critical race theorists insist on defining Jews as white, with all the attendant oppressor class guilt associated with whiteness, Jews generally do not identify themselves as such. Indeed, only two generations ago Jews were hunted down and murdered by the millions, in large measure because they were not white.
He writes that “In the Oslo process Israel recognized the PLO as per its self-definition, namely, “the representative of the Palestinian people,” while the PLO did not recognize Israel as a Jewish democratic state, as per its self-definition. Israel merely accepted the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s “right to exist in peace and security.” Even also notes: “Violence proved to be part of the Palestinian strategy and was intended to exert pressure on Israel.” The more terrorism has increased, the more Israeli support for the Oslo Accords has decreased.Why the Palestinian Arabs continue their war against Israel
NOW WE are dealing with new agreements. Peace agreements with Arab states, currently being discussed, come at the price of sovereignty. Interestingly, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are able to turn a blind eye to Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria but are unwilling to accept sovereignty. The reason is that the Arabs understand the value of the land, and they understand that when Israel imposes sovereignty over the areas of Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, it will finally determine that this is our land.
We are at a critical juncture in time. International pressure is growing, the youth do not remember Operation Defensive Shield and the reasons we staged it; and in the meantime, we are losing thousands of acres in Judea and Samaria to illegal Arab take-overs and are “partners” in the establishment of a de facto Palestinian state.
We are in the middle of a national emergency. The damage that the Oslo architects caused is tremendous. Israel must urgently return to the path of Zionism and build major cities and industrial zones in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, to spread out the Jewish population eastward and officially ensure massive aliyah from all over the world and security on all our borders.
First and foremost, the eastern border must urgently be secured through the application of sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, restoring governability and deterrence. There is broad consensus regarding the Jordan Valley from Yigal Allon, through Yitzhak Rabin, Benny Gantz, and many others who are concerned about the future of our land from across the entire political spectrum.
We call on the prime minister to step up and apply sovereignty, as this is the appropriate response to remedy the enormous damages of the Oslo Accords.
Despite offers of statehood ever since the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995, amplified by then-PMs Ehud Barak and, even more by Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Arab leaders have consistently refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The question is, why? They insist that all of what was “Palestine” belongs to them, and that Israel must be destroyed; it’s explicit in the PLO Covenant and the Hamas Charter. Still, logically they could take whatever Israel offered, and do whatever they wanted later.
The answer is provided by Henry Kissinger’s perspective of the war in Vietnam.
"The North Vietnamese and Vietcong, fighting in their own country, needed merely to keep in being forces sufficiently strong to dominate the population after the United States tired of the war. We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition, our opponents aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win. "
That is the strategy of the PLO, Hamas, and Jihadists. As they see it, they are in a war of attrition which requires constant terrorism and no compromises.As long as Israel does not destroy them -- and instead negotiates with them -- they see this as wining. And, they continue to receive support.
Israeli Arab political parties, despite their alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, decided to become members of the Knesset not only for financial rewards, but to support Israeli concessions in the Oslo Accords, and to legitimize the arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat. Although criticized by Hamas, the PLO argued that they should take advantage of every opportunity to consolidate power as a tactical move, while continuing to support terrorism and promote anti-Semitism as a strategy.
In their view, the Arab population in Israel will increase and will become more powerful and influential in Israeli politics and society. They will continue to demand “ending the occupation of Palestine,” removing Jewish communities in the “West Bank” (“settlements”) as “illegal according to international law,” their “rights to self-determination” as a sovereign state, the two-state-solution,” (2SS), and the “Right of Return” (to Israel) for Arabs in UNRWA facilities in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. The PA/PLO continues its “pay-for-slay” policy, and all of this is supported by America, Canada, the EU and UN agencies, and others around the world.