Between Might and Right
Herzel believed that anti-Semitism was an “incurable gentile pathology.” Zionism was developed as an ideology determined to lead its people out of “perpetual enemy territory.” The Jews, he posited, should have a nation-state of their own. “Herzel himself would have been ready to contemplate any territory for this purpose, but most Zionists felt that Palestine was the only possible one. Palestine was the land of their ancestors; the idea of the return to Zion, of Next Year in Jerusalem, had been kept alive throughout the long centuries of exile and suffering; only ‘the mighty legend’ of Palestine had the power to stir the Jewish masses.” Herzel said “It is their [the Arabs of Palestine] well-being, their individual wealth, which we will increase by bringing in our own.” But we must not forget that Herzel was a man of his times, times in which an ethnocentric European imperialism dominated the backwards lands of the world through conquest and control. The moral dilemmas derived from the force necessary in accomplishing such imposing goals in the service of civilization did not seem as reprehensible as it does in today’s day and age. In approaching a dilemma or conflict of sorts one must decide what one
The principle suggested is morally just, but has not been accepted by either of the parties in the conflict. Nor for that matter has any real universal moral point of reference been accepted by either party that might provide a framework for a just solution. Amit’s solution, although encompassing no specific steps towards fulmination, shows the fair, good and just principles by which he believes the moral dilemmas of the Jewish majority in Palestine may be solved. There is no possibility that Israel will give up its sovereignty in order to solve the moral dilemma of having a Jewish majority in Palestine. Any plans by Palestinian Arabs for liberation that attempts to deny Israel of its self-government would end in only massacre or some world power taking control of the region again. If indeed Arab plans are such, they can hope for nothing more than an even more authoritarian rule by the Israeli government. In the moral dilemma faced, two issues are at odds, “Jewish rights” and “Arab rights,” and the problem cannot be resolved in terms that satisfy either one nation or another. While being good and just may be the ultimate goals of Israel as a state, in order to attain such lofty goals they need first to set a ground for them to rest upon. Until then, the Sub-goal and present state necessary to obtain the higher order goal is that of a strong and victorious Jewish state that remains alive long enough to achieve its future goals. So what then can be done to create the peace the Israelis so desire? And what can be done to satisfy the Arabs wish to return to what they believe to rightfully be their land?
Some topics in this essay:
Arabs Palestine,
Golda Meir,
Palestinian Arabs,
Israel Palestine,
Gideon Levy,
Mandate Palestine,
Israel GNP,
Jewish Nationhood,
Firstly Zionism,
Jews Arab,
moral dilemma,
yellow wind,
middle east reflections,
justice nationhood york,
capita west,
chomsky noam,
peace middle,
noam peace,
middle east,
faber 1977,
york pantheon books,
nationhood york pantheon,
york pantheon,
reflections justice nationhood,
reflections justice,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1728
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on Between Might and Right
Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|
Example Essays Home
