The paradox of Zionism that perplexes a wannabe Jew

My latest Op-ed in Arutz Sheva - Israel National News, here slightly expanded.

The state, the government and the people of Israel, overwhelmingly internalise the wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs as fundamentally Israel’s responsibility. This tenacious “Jewish man’s burden” has been the handmaiden of Zionism from the start and manifests on so many levels: from a self-imposed obligation to share the bounty of their once-barren land, transformed solely by their own hands, capital and ingenuity, with the Arabs, to forcing onto the Arabs parts of the land itself in the expectation that the latter will “seize the opportunity” to transform that ceded land into a prosperous Palestinian Arab homeland living in peace alongside what remains of the Jewish homeland.

No number of intifadas, no contemptuously-rejected Singapore-on-the-Med, no amount of abused Israeli work-permits, nor ungratefully-received life-saving medical treatments by Jewish doctors in Israeli hospitals, ever disabuses the Jews of their self-imposed burden. It is the root cause of October 7 and all Israeli responses to October 7, including the current obsession with “the day after.” Bizarrely, after a century of periodic massacres, there is still concern for whether the Palestinian Arabs will prosper wherever they end up. Jews taking upon themselves responsibility for the wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs is one of the root causes of Jews tearing their own nation apart.

The consequences of insisting on bearing such responsibility is the very negation of Zionism in three ways. Firstly, it confirms the “settler-colonialist” accusation in being analogous to “the white man’s burden” of civilising the natives whose land they have colonised. This alone amounts to an admission that the land does not belong to the Jews, but the admission is compounded by a compunction that can only be assuaged by sharing the land. Whether that assuaging takes the form of unconditional Jewish surrender (Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Benny Gantz, Ronen Bar, etc.), or is conditioned by a refusal to compromise on Jewish security (PM Benjamin Netanyahu), the basic concern remains the wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs. Those Jews who fail to show the requisite concern for the pathological murderers of Jews are relegated, so to speak, beyond the Pale.

Secondly, concern for the wellbeing of Palestinian Arabs makes a mockery of the Right of Return. Every Jew everywhere enjoys the right of return to the ancestral homeland, and the right, whether de jure or de facto, to remain in the ancestral homeland never to be expelled, no matter what they do to bring about the destruction of that homeland. The paradox is that Palestinian Arabs within Israel after 1948, regardless of what they do to bring about the destruction of Israel, enjoy that same inalienable right to remain in the Jewish ancestral homeland even though they are not Jews, while those outside of Israel are denied a right of return because they are not Jews.

Thirdly, the Palestinian Arabs, and not they alone, have consistently demonstrated in the most gruesome and barbaric ways, especially since the First Aliyah, their utter rejection of any Jewish presence in Eretz Israel. While humiliation has persuaded some Arabs to seek a truce, and others see embrace of Israel as a way out of Islam (or, at least, the clutches of the Muslim Brotherhood), no such dilution afflicts the Palestinian Arabs. Palestinian mothers rejoicing at their children killing themselves killing Jews is proof enough of this. No amount of concern for Palestinian Arab wellbeing gets around this.

Just today we read in All Israel News:

Netanyahu also told the committee that the main bottleneck to voluntary emigration is the limited number of countries willing to accept Palestinian evacuees.

“Our main problem is in the receiving countries,” he noted.

Why is this your problem? Did they not murder 1200 of your people in cold blood, rape your women and chop them up, behead your men with shovels, sling your babies into ovens, strangle your babies with their bare hands and pummel their bodies with rocks, and take hundreds, young and old, captive, starve them and torture many of them to death? And you are worried about where they’re going to go?! They go wherever the currents take them; that’s where they go. I defy anyone to say that cutting them adrift on the high seas is worse than what they perpetrated on October 7. To those who bleat about proportionality, that is proportionality. Of course with adequate supplies and weather protection. We are not savages and we most certainly do not become "like them." Keep October 7 in mind and all else remains in perspective.

While Jewish concern for the wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs persists, the paradox—indeed, a double-paradox—of the Right of Return cannot be resolved. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was one of the first to understand and articulate that the wellbeing of the Palestinian Arabs was none of the Jews’ business, hence The Iron Wall. Whether the Arabs prosper or perish is entirely a matter for the Arabs. No action must be taken or policy adopted that does not satisfy this fundamental criterion. If Israel is ever to interfere in Palestinian Arab wellbeing, then it must be solely, or overwhelmingly, in the interest of Israel. Just eighteen months after the Palestinian Arabs had perpetrated “the worst massacre of the Jews since the Holocaust,” we are treated to the depressing spectacle of an Israeli Cabinet arguing over whether to feed those very perpetrators, viewed through a false distinction between “innocent civilians” and Hamas.

To roll back the psychological stranglehold that the Palestinian Arabs have over the Jews, no policy must ever be adopted, or action taken, the aim of which is the improvement of the condition of the Palestinian Arabs, and to the extent that any policy happens to also benefit the Palestinian Arabs, it must never be presented as Jewish or Israeli care, compassion or humanity. The Palestinian Arabs must absorb the message that their fate is utterly irrelevant to the Jews. This is the first step towards psychological dominance over the Palestinian Arabs. Then will the muddied waters of Zionism begin to clear.

Picture credits:

IDF

Comments:

On 12 May 2025 at 20:54, Sha'i ben-Tekoa wrote:

Another great piece by you: the neurotic Israeli need to care for their mortal enemies.

It all stems from the post-religious secular Founding Fathers of Zionism.

Netanyahu is also like this. Their dream is getting the Muslims to like them. They thought that if Jews stop calling themselves the Chosen People and being religious, that would end antisemitism.

The greatest mistake ever in Zionism was giving citizenship to the Muslims. To the Christian Arabs yes; to the Druze, yes. But not the Muslims.

The secular Zionists did not want to be any more a “people that dwells alone.” Like the kibbutzniks on Oct. 7 butchered by the same Muslims they prided themselves on being nice to, to show them we are not bad people.

For two decades the Muslims in Gaza shot rockets into Sderot and adjacent communities, tens of thousands of them, with Israel, daily sending into Gaza 700 semi-trailers packed with consumer needs, with Israel supplying the Strip with free electricity to make those rockets. I call it Jewish psycho-pathology.

Sha’i ben-Tekoa

On 13 May 2025 at 10:21, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar

I read your article with interest. I certainly agree with your concerns and checked this issue on the internet as to our obligations as a state under attack:

This is the information gathered:

Israel's Right to Self-Defense Under International Law:
When a terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis attacks Israel, international law recognizes Israel's inherent right to self-defense. This right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence¹ if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...

Several key aspects of this right are relevant in the context of attacks by non-state actors like terrorist organizations:

Armed Attack: While Article 51 explicitly refers to an "armed attack" by a member state, state practice and evolving interpretations of international law acknowledge that a large-scale attack by a non-state actor can also trigger the right to self-defense. The scale and effects of the attack, such as the number of casualties and the extent of damage, are important factors in determining whether it qualifies as an "armed attack."

The UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373, passed after the September 11th attacks, recognized the inherent right of self-defense in response to terrorist acts.

Necessity and Proportionality:
Any defensive action taken by Israel must adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality under customary international law.

Necessity means that the use of force must be necessary to repel the attack and that there are no other peaceful means available to achieve the same objective.

Proportionality means that the defensive measures taken must be proportionate to the armed attack and must not be excessive. The response should be aimed at ending the attack and neutralizing the threat, not at retribution.

Attribution:
Traditionally, self-defense against non-state actors was often linked to the state hosting the organization, requiring evidence that the host state was either unable or unwilling to prevent the attacks. However, there is a growing acceptance that a state may act in self-defense against a terrorist organization operating from another state's territory even if the host state is not directly involved, particularly if the terrorist organization poses a significant and ongoing threat. The focus in such cases is on the necessity of the action to protect the state's population.

Imminence:
While Article 51 refers to an attack that "occurs," the concept of anticipatory self-defense is debated. Some argue that a state may take action if an attack is imminent and unavoidable. However, this remains a contentious area of international law with strict conditions of necessity and imminence.

In the context of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis:
Israel has consistently maintained its right to defend itself against attacks emanating from territories controlled by these organizations.

Military operations conducted by Israel in response to attacks have often been justified under the right to self-defense.

The legality of specific actions taken by Israel is often scrutinized under the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Israel's Obligation to Supply Humanitarian Aid to Aggressors:
International humanitarian law (IHL) governs the conduct of armed conflict and aims to protect civilians and limit suffering. It distinguishes between the obligations of a state engaged in conflict and its obligations towards the civilian population.

Regarding the obligation to supply humanitarian aid:

General Principle: IHL places obligations on parties to a conflict to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need.² This is enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and Additional Protocol I.

Occupying Power:
The obligations of an occupying power towards the population in the occupied territory are more extensive under IHL. However, Israel's status as an occupying power in Gaza and parts of the West Bank is a subject of ongoing debate. Israel withdrew its permanent military presence from Gaza in 2005.

Aid to the Civilian Population:
Even if Israel is not considered an occupying power in all the areas from which attacks originate, it still has obligations under IHL to allow humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population in those areas, especially if that population is in dire need due to the conflict. This obligation is linked to the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

No Obligation to Directly Aid Aggressors:
IHL does not obligate a state to directly supply humanitarian aid to the armed groups or terrorist organizations that are attacking it. The focus of humanitarian aid is on the civilian population.

Preventing Diversion:
Israel has a legitimate concern to ensure that humanitarian aid intended for civilians is not diverted to or used by the terrorist organizations that are the aggressors. Measures to inspect and control the distribution of aid are often taken for this reason. However, these measures should not unduly impede the timely delivery of essential aid to civilians.

Recent Developments:
The issue of humanitarian aid to Gaza has been a subject of intense legal and political debate, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict with Hamas. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also been considering Israel's obligations regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population.

In summary:
Israel has a right under international law to defend its population against attacks by terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, adhering to the principles of necessity and proportionality. While Israel is not obligated to directly supply humanitarian aid to these aggressor organizations, it does have obligations under international humanitarian law to allow and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid to the civilian populations in the areas they control, who may be in need due to the conflict, while taking reasonable measures to prevent aid diversion to the aggressors. The specifics of these obligations can be complex and are subject to ongoing legal and political discourse.

There are people in Israel who are torn between these dilemmas.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

Best Regards
Ben Dor A.