Does any state have an inherent right to exist? A philosophical and legal analysis of state legitimacy, the Nakba, and the asymmetry of self-determination.
If I were certain that another Holocaust is impossible, I would be less torn about the need for a Jewish state capable of defending itself. I certainly agree that all people should have the right to exist, but they quite obviously don't. There's no doubt that nudging that famous arc a few degrees in the direction of justice is long overdue: it's just so hard, when one must balance injustices, past and present, to get there.
Nobody who has read the history can promise that another Holocaust is impossible. That uncertainty is real, and it is why Jewish safety cannot be waved away as paranoia.
But the safety of Jewish people and the conduct of this state are separate questions, and the second one is being answered in front of us right now. The displacement is not historical. It is happening this week. The killing is not a risk to be weighed against some future catastrophe. It is a present fact, documented by Amnesty, by the ICJ proceedings, by the genocide scholars who once chose their words carefully and no longer do. A state that is actively starving and bombing a captive population has already forfeited the argument that its current form is the price of survival.
This is where the balancing gets so hard, and I think you feel it too. When we say never again, it has to mean never again for everyone, or it means nothing at all. A past injustice that cannot be undone and a present one that can still be stopped are not two weights on the same scale. The Holocaust cannot be reversed. Gaza can be. One of those is still in our hands, and it is the one being decided every day the bombing continues.
So the question is not how to balance the suffering of the past against the security of the future. The question is whether a state can go on displacing and killing the people under its control and still claim a right to exist in that form. It cannot. No amount of historical grief earns it that licence, because the people paying for it never owed the debt.
I obviously agree that Israel's conduct should not be allowed to continue. The international community, especially the United States of America, undoubtedly could (in my view should) apply the measures available to them to reign in the existing Israeli government, and the South Africa experience is instructive. I don't think anyone seriously questioned whether South Africa should continue to exist as a nation state, whereas Israel's enemies certainly have made such assertions. In other words, recognizing the existence and sovereignty of Israel is not the same as condoning (or facilitating) its conduct
On dot...
If I were certain that another Holocaust is impossible, I would be less torn about the need for a Jewish state capable of defending itself. I certainly agree that all people should have the right to exist, but they quite obviously don't. There's no doubt that nudging that famous arc a few degrees in the direction of justice is long overdue: it's just so hard, when one must balance injustices, past and present, to get there.
Nobody who has read the history can promise that another Holocaust is impossible. That uncertainty is real, and it is why Jewish safety cannot be waved away as paranoia.
But the safety of Jewish people and the conduct of this state are separate questions, and the second one is being answered in front of us right now. The displacement is not historical. It is happening this week. The killing is not a risk to be weighed against some future catastrophe. It is a present fact, documented by Amnesty, by the ICJ proceedings, by the genocide scholars who once chose their words carefully and no longer do. A state that is actively starving and bombing a captive population has already forfeited the argument that its current form is the price of survival.
This is where the balancing gets so hard, and I think you feel it too. When we say never again, it has to mean never again for everyone, or it means nothing at all. A past injustice that cannot be undone and a present one that can still be stopped are not two weights on the same scale. The Holocaust cannot be reversed. Gaza can be. One of those is still in our hands, and it is the one being decided every day the bombing continues.
So the question is not how to balance the suffering of the past against the security of the future. The question is whether a state can go on displacing and killing the people under its control and still claim a right to exist in that form. It cannot. No amount of historical grief earns it that licence, because the people paying for it never owed the debt.
I obviously agree that Israel's conduct should not be allowed to continue. The international community, especially the United States of America, undoubtedly could (in my view should) apply the measures available to them to reign in the existing Israeli government, and the South Africa experience is instructive. I don't think anyone seriously questioned whether South Africa should continue to exist as a nation state, whereas Israel's enemies certainly have made such assertions. In other words, recognizing the existence and sovereignty of Israel is not the same as condoning (or facilitating) its conduct