The January/February issue of Foreign Policy magazine has an insightful article by Josef Joffe, the publisher and editor of Die Zeit and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution titled " A World Without Israel." While advocates for Israel often point out the tremendous technological, medical and agricultural advances Israel has produced (including those by this  year's Nobel Prize winners in medicine) which have benefited so many people around the world, this intriguing article constructs a counter—factual history of the Middle East which would exist without Israel.  Since there are a surprising and distressing number of people who blame the Arab world's woes on Israel (and hence try to link Israel with the spread of terrorism), this article taps into the zest that some historians have for imaging various scenarios. Joffe focuses on 5 key areas and the impact that the elimination or still—borne birth of Israel would have had in the region.

 

State versus State relations: Anyone who envisions comity in the area would be in for a surprise. Joffe notes that the region's nations have as much experience warring with each other as they do with Israel. Syria has laid claim to Lebanon, has attacked Jordan, has been on the brink of war with Turkey. Egypt has intervened in Yemen with the goal of hurting Saudi Arabia; Iraq has invaded Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia. The anger that these Arab nations feel for the West has more to do with the history of their colonialism, racism and mistreatment of Arabs than it does with Israel — which as an outpost of the West serves as a proxy to pay the price for the Western nations' history of dealing with Arabs. The Arabs would hate and envy the West regardless of Israel.

 

Believers versus Believers: Sectarian bloodshed has existed among the Shiite, Christians, Kurds, Sunni, Wahabbis, Berbers, etc. This has nothing to do with the presence of Israel in the region and predated the founding of the state in 1948.

 

Ideology versus Ideology: The region is rife with ideologies which compete with each other. Pan—Arabism, socialism, Baathism, Communism, monarchism — the area is filled with tension regarding how (or whether) to develop. The only "ism" that has not been tried is democracy — despite it succeeding so well in Israel. Indeed, moderates in the Arab world have begun comparing the regimes they live under to Israel and find their own lands wanting.

 

Reactionary versus Modernity: Israel is often blamed for preventing modernity in the region. Joffe points out the absurdity of this view: the fundamentalists and dictators fear modernity for the deleterious effects it would have on their continued rule. Hundreds of billions of petrodollars have not helped modernize those nations because the money has been ill—spent on sybaritic lifestyles, on weapons, on madrassas, and payoffs to terrorists.

 

Regimes versus Peoples: the need to confront Israel has been used by dictators and their apologists to justify the police states that exist throughout the Arab world. The gist of that belief is that a total mobilization of society is needed to eliminate Jews from the Middle East (sound familiar to the Nazis mobilization of society?). Again, basic common sense obliterates this notion: police states exist to control a population and ensure continued dictatorship—not to eliminate Israel.

 

Joffe points out that Israel is a pretext, not a cause, for the ills of the Arab world and notes that some reformers in the Arab world have begun to realize that those who blame Israel for these self—inflicted wounds are keeping the wounds bleeding.

 

The whole thing is worth reading:unfortunately not available on line yet but keep checking the Foreign Policy website http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

 

Ed Lasky   1 02 05