Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 I recently read Benny Morris’ Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999. Interestingly (or unsurprisingly) it simply solidified my position-first do no harm, and second step back, very far back…. At 700 pages of text, it seems like it is a thick tome. But in fact, much of it is fast reading, especially the last 400 pages. The first few chapters, from page 1 to 300 or so, before the 1948 “War of Independence," is the meat of the book. The last 400 pages can be summed up in the following manner:

• 1948: Arab runs toward Jew, Arab drops gun, Arab runs fast in the opposite direction.
• 1956: Arab runs toward Jew, Arab drops gun, Arabs runs fast in the opposite direction, but is stopped by the Americans and Soviets.
• 1967: Arab runs toward Jew, Arab drops gun, Arabs runs fast in the opposite direction-very, very, very fast.
• 1973: Arab runs toward Jew, Arab drops gun, Arab stops and backs up slowly and declares that he’s won the fight.

There’s stuff on the peace process from Sadat to Barak. But nothing you couldn’t glean from the New York Times or Washington Post. Morris in fact chronicles the last 50 years in a way reminiscent of old chroniclers, wars, deaths and major personalities dominate the field while social and historical context tends to fade in the background. This contrasts with the first portion of the book where these factors form a seamless whole and give you a rich taste of early 20th century Palestine. So what did I “learn” (or at least confirmed) in the first few chapters?

• The Jewish contention that the Palestinians were not a nation-state seems mostly correct-though in the later chapters Morris makes the case that a new Arab sub-nation did arise in response to the Zionists in the latter portion of the 20th century.
• The Arab contention that the Jews were pawns and players in the colonialist game is in its basics correct.
• The Jews did consider themselves superior.
• The Jews were in great measure culturally and economically superior.
• The Arabs were a relatively backward people who benefited from the Jewish presence in their region.
• The Arabs detest the Jews, and have always detested the Jews, as alien Europeans dispossessing them of their lands.

From a simple utilitarian perspective it seems that the Arabs of British Palestine have done well from the incursion of Ashkenazi Jews in their region. It was the Jews who set up many of the Arab universities on the West Bank under occupation. It was the Jews who gave them a level of non-petrol prosperity unknown in other parts of the Arab world. Israeli Arabs are free and affluent compared to their neighbors in Syria or Egypt, while those on the West Bank are far more literate than they might be without the Jewish state and the accompanying UN and NGO services. Even the Gaza Strip benefits from the high level of services that the NGOs provide-allowing the world’s highest birthrate to flourish due to the low infant mortality. From an individual perspective, the Arabs should say, come conquer us, lift us out of our misery and deprivation. In a way, this is what Arabs do when they immigrate to the infidel nations of the West. They abdicate their political supremacy in exchange for economic gain. The original Jewish purchase of land in British Palestine was facilitated by wealthy Arabs selling their lands, even though the latter would simultaneously decry those who did commit such ethnic treason. It is ironic that much of present Palestinian discontent derives from their relative lack of prosperity compared to the pre-intifada years! And yet, was the dispossession of the Arab political class, and the dishonoring of their ethnos as the hands of Jews “just.” That depends. It seems by the standards of the early 20th century the Zionist settlement of Palestine was acceptable. The Jews made a case to Europeans that they would better the condition of the land and even improve the Arab lot simultaneously. Morris points out that some Zionist leaders, starting with Herzl, emphasized that Jewish Palestine could serve as a European proxy in the region, a civilized state taming the savages. Some Zionist leaders did not blink that the Jews who might rule what is today Jordan, Israel and the occupied and semi-independent territories might be outnumbered by 10 to 1. These were after all the days of colonialism, and the racial supremacist ideas that fueled apartheid took form in the early 20th century. The idea that civilized races ought to rule their inferiors was not particularly shocking-even if that implied non-democratic political solutions. And yet in 1947, the Palestinians reacted in shock that the Jews received 55% of the partitioned land (the Negev through intense lobbying) though they were only 30% of the population. Why was this? Morris makes clear that the UN delegates were struck by the squalor of the Arab villages and the venality of their rulers. While the Jewish authorities made a cogent and persuasive case that they would make the desert bloom, Arab leaders simply threw banquets for the delegation. This chasm of sensibilities, between the modern and pre-modern, echoes down to this day. It is an irony that the only Arabs who experience democracy live outside Arab polities. The honor of the Arab nation is manifested in the autocracy of its oligarchs. The relative prosperity of the Arab masses under non-Arab rule is irrelevant in tribal thinking. But it must be remembered that in 1950 (as today) black Americans were the most prosperous of their race in the world. And yet that did not justify the segregation and disenfranchisement that occurred throughout the South. Today, Israeli Arabs, thought they have the most dignity as political agents in any part of the Middle East, are legally barred from the military and de facto excluded from political power and patronage employment (which tends to benefit Sephardic and Russian Jews-who were sometimes relatively recent immigrants). Conservative rabbis will often assert that a legitimate leader of the Jewish state must have a plural majority of the Jewish vote-unlike Yitzakh Rabin who won with the backing of Israeli Arabs. It would be equivalent perhaps to saying that a legitimate leader of the white American state must have a plural majority of the white American vote-unlike any Democratic president in a generation. Unlike the whites of Zimbabwe or South Africa, the Israeli Jews currently have the numbers on their side. And like these two European settler populations, they almost certainly have bettered the lot of the indigenous population by their very presence. I think one can make a good case that the extension of white rule, and therefore colonialism, in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and South Africa allowed the accumulation of social capital that could be used toward later development. Zimbabwe has finally exhausted that legacy and is now becoming another African kleptocracy. South Africa seems to have a long way to go-but the high crime rates and emigration of the white populace does not bode well for its long term prospects. We live in a world where tribal honor holds sway over individual well-being. The “racist” political domination of Africa or the Arab world by Europeans and Americans is not acceptable, while the starvation and deprivation of hundreds of millions is, so long as they are ruled by men (rarely women) of their own color and faith. I believe that Israel is a nexus around which these ideas flow. One reason the world’s political elite aside from the United States rejects Israel is because they reject the “white man’s burden,” the “City On The Hill” and all its concomitant implications (and commitments). The European peoples have retreated to their ancient homes and their modern fortresses. The slaughter of a million in Rwanda at the hands of fellow blacks does not warrant the label genocide (at least not while it was going in), but the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims at the hands of Christians in Bosnia does. At the same time the world rejoiced at the triumph of democracy in South Africa, where at most thousands of blacks were killed in political repression, while perhaps (and I say this reluctantly) the delay of domination by the black elite by 50 years allowed their maturation and might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There is no ideal solution for the Arab-Israel conflict. I must say I laugh at the idea that outsiders can do anything to mediate it-for who would know the subtleties and nuances better than the parties involved? I suspect we’ll have to watch the slow demographic consumption of the Jewish state by its Arab minority in the next few generations. And while they’re at it, the European nations should also look to themselves and their growing Muslim minorities…. Update: The New Republic has a piece up that is related to my blog. Fact Check: From page 186, 3rd paragraph: "...a Palestinian historian was later to write, why 37 percent of the population had been given 55 percent of the land (of which they owned only 7 percent)...." when talking of the UN mandated partition. The note for this paragraph says "Khalidi, W., 305-306". It would be nice to have a refutation, or a further confirmation of this statistic. As something of a libertarian I suppose-the idea that the Jews purchased the land that became Israel has always been persuasive to me. But it seems that much of the land (no doubt barren desert) was not under private Jewish control (no doubt regions of Judae and Samaria were owned by Jews and had to be evacuated). Today, most of Israel is not privately owned (which allows Arabs to be excluded from purchases by the government)-and I assume that property rights were weak during this period in Palestine. Nevertheless-the idea that Jews had purchased the land that became Israel does not seem correct in light of these facts (if they are true). Follow up: Talked to a friend who's really into the "crisis" in the Middle East and has done a lot of reading. The property rights issues are very unclear. For instance-the Ottoman legal code allowed absentee landlords-but sometimes their tenants assumed de facto ownership rights. So the de facto owners would sometimes sell lands to the Zionist settlers-even though the plot was under Ottoman law someone elses. In addition-this is complicated by the interplay of Islamic and traditional laws-and extraterritoriality that often applied to Jewish citizens of foreign powers. All in all-a mess. It seems that neither the Arabs nor the Jews should be trumpeting property rights in any conventional Western sense to bolster their claims....