Your Name Shall Be Israel

These days Israel, with the support of both belligerent and shameful West, manages to stand out as the sole democracy in the Middle East.

As a valuable ally to the West and as a haven for Jews who have been persecuted for aeons under various empires, only to be butchered by the millions in Nazi Germany only little more than half a century ago, Israel is pretty much immune to rebuke.

As she lies there, relatively safe, we can afford to conduct what Einstein called a thought experiment.

In the Old Testament Solomon, the legendary king of ancient Israel, was presented with a moral dilemma:

Two women both claimed the same son, stating that a boy who had died in the sleep belonged to the other woman.

With no witnesses or physical evidence to lean on, Solomon was left to his guile when he passed his famous judgment:

"Let the boy be cut in half and give each woman half of the child".

The woman who pleaded for the life of the child, he figured, would be the true mother, while the other, lauding his fairness, was the deceiver.

The problem of applying Solomonic wisdom to the Middle East conflict are manyfold:

The division of the state into two is supported by both some Israeli and some Palestinians.

Neither of these people speak in unison, but are divided amongst themselves.

The division of Israel into Israel and Palestine does not necessarily implicate the destruction of the land.

Those who argue against it have more interest and less cause, in principle, and their actions are less moral.

It's the reverse situation: Only the Two State solution offers any hope of peace.

You could argue that Hamas, seeking the utter annihilation of the Jewish state, comes closest to the deceitful and immoral mother from the Biblical fable.

On the other hand right wing Zionists will argue strongly against a Palestinian state, since they see it as a permanent security risk to Israel.

Abandonment of the Palestinian state leaves Palestinians at the mercy of Jews, which in the current condition is equal to a zero sum result for the Palestinian people.

In any case, the result becomes the same: None deserve the land.

Another Biblical parable about a dispute between siblings may be useful to investigate the ethical conundrum:

Jacob, in his early youth, tricked Esau of the right to inheritance by offering to buy it for a meal, when Esau was hungry after a day of hard work in the field.

That's a good capitalist way to go about it: You desire something, so you use guile to achieve it.

The contract was binding, but later the older brother was infuriated. Jacob had to escape, so he took employment with a relative named Laban, where he worked hard and became a wealthy man.

In fact, Jacob became so wealthy - favored by God as he was - he fell out with Laban as well.

Jacob left one night with his wives, his live stock and his earnings, only to be hunted down by Laban and his men.

After a minor quarrell the two parties established a peace agreement between them.

But Jacob was still not safe; as he moved towards his former homeland, Esau heard of his arrival and formed an army against him.

The night before he crossed over a river forming the natural boundary to the land of his father, Jacob went through some serious soul searching.

Until this point in the story everything seems to indicate the narrator - and, as such, Jahveh - is on Jacob's side.

The deal was sordid, but only because of his intentions - the contract they made was legit, and it is reinforced in the Bible by the prophetic line of heritage counted from Isaac through Jacob, not Esau, even if Jacob was the younger brother.

Esau is described as a man not to God's liking, reluctant to do domestic chores, preferring the freedom of the wilderness, and above all, capable of disrespecting the sacred heritage in a moment of plain hunger.

Also, it is repeatedly stated God was with Jacob and spoke to him and even helped him to acquire wealth by means that strangely resembles black magic.

Still, as Jacob was facing the daunting force of his frustrated brother, coming against him with apparently no good cause, Jacob was brought to his knees by an angel.

According to legend he fought the angel so fiercely that, around dawn, it broke his hip in order to make him stop his desperate resistance.

The point of the story is that Jacob, in spite of being legally entitled, was deceitful and ambitious by nature, a trait even emphasized by his name, which means a "deceiver" or "one who grabs the ankle" (to get ahead).

That is, according to the story, God's gripe with Jacob. He chastises Jacob to make him understand that if he continues to play people like he do, he will also have to keep running from enemies.

Now that his hip is broken, and he cannot effectively run, he is forced to do some serious soul searching, and Jacob comes up with a rescue plan:

He humbles himself, begs forgiveness and offers Esau a tremendous lot of wealth, wealth stacked by Jacob through hard labour for an even more deceitful capitalist than himself.

Jacob accepts to incur a loss.

In the story of Jacob and Esau a new deal was struck, and a balance was achieved, and the two brothers could co-exist in an equilibrium.

Esau, in spite of his frustration, would have to acknowledge he had incurred loss due to his own profane attitude, his disregard for the heritage and his shortsightedness.

Also, he had to be permanently grateful for what Jacob had done for him.

The similarities between Jacob and the modern state of Israel are many. Even when it comes to the name, Israel is actually another name for Jacob, given to him at the very moment he realizes that his constant scheming only makes him ever more enemies.

Like Jacob in the story tricked the blessing of his father from Esau, modern day Israel was established through a combination of cunning, ingenuity and favourable political winds.

Zionists to this day claim that the indigenous Arab population around the turn of the century was merely a bunch of raggedy nomads.

It is also difficult to argue against the fact that Israel has thrived under the ingenuity and the effect of foreign capital administered by Jewish Israelis.

Some say that Jews always held claim to Israel, because it was their historical heritage; this is mostly American Evangelical Zionists, i.e. Christian supporters of Israel as a fulfilment of Biblical end day prophesies.

Tecnically, if you go by the Torah, when the Jews were evicted by the Romans, it was the will of God. God would usually punish the rebellion of the Jewish people by exile and, at least according to scriptures in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, with pestilence and sword.

Even Jesus allegedly prophesied the razing of Jerusalem in the year 70.

So much for the ancient claim to the land, but what about the more modernistic arguments?

You could say that with a UN approval Israel was and is, beyond discussion, a legitimate nation-state.

Formally, Israel has the right, regardless of past or present disputes.

You could also say Israel earned the right, in spite of the fact that the Zionist movement in the early days before recognition was helplessly intertwined with terrorism.

The Holocaust argument is also somewhat relevant - Jews do need a sanctuary, even if you might argue that in this day and age they'd be safer just about anywhere else on the globe than in conflict torn Israel.

Still, it does not erase the fact that the Palestinians, the indigenous Arab families residing in the region, got the raw deal.

There are numerous reports of individual or collective injustices commited by Israel, regardless of actual conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbours, from eviction of Palestinians to settlements in the occupied territories against UN resolutions, and all the use of dysproportional sanction to clamp down on the Intifadas.

The main problem, if we lean to the Jacob-Esau analogy, is that Israel had full support from the Western powers, Europe and America.

They could harness tremendous economical momentum from the money that followed, not only sponsorships from wealthy Jews in the West, but also simply from the money brought into Israel by new Jews afforded citizenship according to the discriminating Law of Return.

So, when the Arab nations went up against Israel for incursion into their territory, Israel beat them back in Six Days, a feat which has become almost mythological to Evangelicals in the West, a proof God is with the IDF.

Again, if you go by the Bible, you would have to say that without military support from the USA, Israel would not have stood a chance in the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War, and they would most certainly not be a nuclear power today.

So, in a sense, USA has become the God of Israel.

Only, in stark contrast to the Jewish God of the Bible, USA does not chastise Israel even when the government and the military act in violation of international law.

USA, seeing the predicament of Israel and remarkably loyal to allies as she is, lets any dysproportional retribution or preemptive action fly.

So, when Israel faced her "Esau", the warriors ammassed against her to punish her for her land-grabbing, there was no battle with an angel.

There was no introspection or fear of God; there was only battle and, by the end of the sixth day, triumph.

And on the seventh day Israel rested, having itself become like a God in the region, answering to no high authority than its own best judgement in its own best interest.

So, bitter sentiments lingered on.

If Israel had been subject to higher powers she might have been forced or compelled to strike some kind of deal and achieve an agreeable equilibrium with her neighbours in the region.

When the Aliyah really took pace Evangelicals in Europe and America scrambled to raise support for Jews returning to the "homeland", disregarding the discriminatory Law of Return and the logical consequence of demographic displacement.

They saw it as fulfilment of prophesy, particularly scriptures in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation.

The "resurrection" of Israel fitted nicely into an ever more watered down and apocalyptic version of Christanity.

It looked like an act of God, so it was convenient to interpret it as such.

This is how Israel became the modern day Christ of the West, a saviour beyond reproach and a living proof of the existence and might of an ancient desert God who is as comfortable speaking to shepherds through burning bushes as He is handing over nuclear weapons to his chosen people.

Among Orthodox Jews, however, there is widespread scepticism about the interpretation of modern day Israel as the fulfilment of prophesies in the Torah.

They argue God, through Messiah, would establish a perfect Jerusalem, not a civil war torn and constantly threatened Israel governed and secured by worldly and military power.

Just to take one example of the gross discrepancy between the pet imagination of Christian Zionists and reality, Tel Aviv has become the "gay capitol" of the world, allowing homosexual marriage and offering numerous advantages to gay tourists in order to tap into the socalled "pink dollar industry".

That doesn't sound like the masterplan of the deity that sent the Flood and later wiped out the forces of Egypt.

Had God really been behind the establishment of modern day Israel, it would have been convenient to have sent Israel a crisis to make her accept the relative responsibility for the grievances of Palestinians, in spite of every argument that Israeli is formally or technically or historically or morally entitled.

He did so, when Jacob faced Esau, and Esau wasn't even particularly popular with God.

It was a matter of principle.

The power of the Christian Right in USA is waning, and the GOP is in a state of crisis with only 21% of Americans willing to identify themselves as Republicans.

But the support for Israel among Americans is still exceptionally high.

The latest Gallup survey, conducted during the first 100 days of Obama's presidency, states 59% in support of Israel, which is the highest number in all the days of Gallup polling this issue.

Support for Palestine, which is not necessarily the equivalent to anti-Zionism, is also at its peak, but only 18 percent answer favourably.

There has, of course, never been an overweight of supporters of the Palestinian/Arab side.

It is not up to me to judge whether or not God made the modern state of Israel; I do not believe in a God that acts on history, as I cannot see the slightest level of divine justice in any historical or political event.

The Biblical legends are merely brought up to bring some perspective on the Zionist claims on the territory formerly known as Palestine.

Historically, parts of the region was bought by Jews from the Ottoman Empire, which had the ownership, and the co-existence of Jewish and Arab Palestinians was administered by the British Mandate.

I consider it beyond question that the IDF worked with terrorist organizations like Irgun Zwai Leumi to pressure the increasingly feeble British Empire into submission.

I also consider it beyond doubt that gross injustice has been done to the Palestinian population, whether or not you approve of the term "Palestinian" used to describe indigenous Arab families in Palestine before the formation of modern Israel.

I'll even admit that Palestinians, for as much as they can adopt to the new Israel, and for as much as Israel can change its discriminating statutes - such as the unreasonably open-ended and religiously motivated Law of Return - can enjoy a higher standard of living than they would, had they developed through the natural course without Jewish and British and UN intervention in the region.

This, however, is purely hypothetical; historical events took another turn, and that is what we are left to deal with.

Yet, for as long as Israel has almost unanimous support from a vastly powerful America, there will be no consideration of the devastation of the Palestinian people.

Israel will do anything to her own advantage, simply because she can.

Even without the bitter Hamas charter and without shelling of Israeli cities and without suicide bombers, nobody in Israel, Europe or America will consider the injustice done to the indigenous Arabs, perpetuated through stubbornness in conflict.

The mere technological, economic and military superiority will drown out objections.

In Europe, traditionally more sceptical of hawkish Israeli policies, tolerance for Muslims is declining and support for Israel on the rise.

Tragically, among many Muslims, Israel has become the symbol of Western incursions into their territory, from the old crusades in the Dark Ages of Europe to the new crusade, led by Bible thumping American Zionists who will mowe down the entire Levant in order to secure Israel's continued existence.

No pragmatism is allowed, no questioning whether it is useful or even remotely possible to win such a large scale campaign in the Middle East, and most certainly not if it is justified.

This attitude, through the political entrenchment between Christian West and the Islamic world, permeated even secular society to a point where The Clash of Civilization could be triggered over a small piece of Mediterranean land.

The crisis that could lead to Israel humbling herself and admitting guilt, offering compensations for injustices far more tangible than tricking the birth right from an older brother in a moment of adrenal fatigue, is on the horizon.

It's called the "Islamic bomb", and as we all know Pakistan already has it, and Taliban has quickly graduated from being a nationalistic force to a geopolitical player, strategically positioning itself to threaten all the interests of the collective Western nations by taking the Buner Province only 60 miles from Islamabad.

Pakistan has recently tested long range missiles, which can be equipped with nuclear war-heads. They are thought to hold 20 operative nukes, while Israel is thought to possess at least 60, but when it comes to territory and population Israel would soon be lost in a nuclear conflict.

To add to the tension, Iran will soon have nuclear capacity of some sorts.

Of course, this is not the picture, as long as USA with its vast arsenal of nukes stand behind Israel. As long as that is the case Mutually Assured Destruction applies to the Middle East conflict gone nuclear.

The moral question is if Palestinians should forget their claim to justice and accept defeat like Lieberman said, making them effectively a conquered nation among so many others, including the Americas and Australia.

That's a moral hazard, and in this day of age something that really stretches the patience with centuries of rampant Christian imperialism.

On the other hand, it is also a moral hazard to support staunch anti-Semites like Hamas and Ahmadinejad, a well known holocaust sceptic.

It seems immoral to argue in favour of nuclear armament in the Levant for the simple purpose of pressuring Israel into giving admissions, having nukes acting as substitutes for the angel, just like modern day Israel acts like the substitute for the resurrected Christ to the Christians in the West.

It could even be dangerous or fatal.

The problem is, however, that even if you can morally justify to bury the truth for the sake of peace through superior firepower, it cannot be done in practice. The cat is out of the bag, and we must expect the same to be the case for nuclear capabilities.

The race, then, becomes to solve the principal problem, the ethical conondrum the world has landed in by granting Zionists a profoundly Jewish state in the middle of Arab territory on the basis of a horrifying genocide on European soil.

That injustice is historical and impossible to bury as long as there are people who keeps mouthing off about it, even if their name should be Ahmadinejad.

If the devil should speak the truth, even angels have better listen.

The crisis will be perpetual, until admissions are granted and compensations offered and accepted, and it will develop in a world where the distribution of weapons of mass destruction grows ever wider.

Until, at some point, Jacob falls to his knees in despair and ask the angel to bless him.