Surpressing Supersession

Four years ago, I belatedly discovered today, Jeremy Waldron, an academic and a philospher of law, published an article entitled "Settlement, Return and the Supersession Thesis".

This thesis, simply summarized by Waldron, asserts that historic injustice may be overtaken by changes in circumstances so that a situation that was unjust when it was brought about may coincide with what justice requires at a later time. He developed it on the basis of his own national experience of New Zealand where he was born. It seeks to make the best out of a bad situation.

Waldron attempts, and fails in my opinion, to suggest that it is applicable to the issue of Jewish revenant presence in the territories he considers "occupied", whose communities he declares are "unjust" (p. 250). He admits, p. 248, that he hopes he is not too ill-informed but, of course, since most if not all of his sources appear to me to be of extreme and radical post-Zionists and anti-revenant persons, that is more or less what he is when it comes down to details, including a woeful misinterpretation of history. But since Waldron plaunges in as a moralist and philospher, I presume he thinks himself excused.

He automatically excuses himself from having to reply to any criticism of his Theory if it is based on the claim that the residential activities of Jews who are in their national homeland is not "unjust". That, I would suggest, is taking the easy way out. In actuality, what Waldron does is ignore (but not entirely, see his 2003 lecture here on "Who was here first? Two essays on indigeneity and settlement" at the Minerva Center, one of Israel's most post-modern and anti-Zionist academic dens) the essence of Jewish nationalism, the long period of constant return, the weakness of Arab localism, the total negation of Jewish nationalism by those Arabs and the religious aspect of the two movements claiming the same territory.

He ignores the fact that, whether or not I pwersonally think it was the correct path at the time, the pre-state and state institutions of power, i.e., the World Zionist Organization and the Governments of Israel, all promoted, sought out and negotiated compromise. Compromise of immigration, compromise of parity, compromise of territory to this or that extent. Never did the Arabs consider any compromise. In the 1920s, they rejected an Arab Agency. Other proposals of a legislative council and an advisory council came their way, but the Arbas consistently failed to act in a diplomatic fashion, preferring terror from 1920 on until, basically, today. Given that character of a movement, given that character of an approach and outlook, Waldron is so way-off-base in his theorizing that it is difficult to understand why such a brilliant thinker proposes such a theory.

I presume he realizes that he is being political, not philosophical nor moral, when he asserts that peace is not served by the communities or that Israel is guilty of crimes of ethnic cleansing (unlike the Arabs who ethnically-cleansed the Mandate of the Jewish communities of Tel Hai, Hulda and Bee'r Tuvia in the 1920s and 1930s and in the 1947-49 war continued the cleansing of Bet HaAravah, Neveh Yaakov, Atarot, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's walled section - there not being in truth a west/east divide - and the Etzion Bloc of four kibbuztim, all the while massacring the Jewish inhabitants) and expulsion.

He also avoids the legal question in not dealing with the legitimate Jewish right to settle closely on the Land which at that time, 1922, extended to the Jordan River, at least. This is not being academic, nor philosphical not moralistic. And thwre are many other aspects (constant Return to Zion over the millenia; the military history of this Land; the true Arab origins; etc.) that are not confronted.

I would suggest that if one is to be a genuine moralist, why not have the the Supercession Theory? If one ethnic/national group completely rejects the other's nationalism and its claims, rejects diplomacy always in favor of terror, adopts the most horrific of terror methods like homicidal suicide bombings, cannot build or maintain institutions of political power nor create democratic practices and neither promote human and civil rights and liberties, then that group is superceeded by history and loses out, what Martin Sherman calls "losing out on history".

In short, the Supersession Thesis should be superseded and surpressed.

=====================

These might be found helpful:

Melanie Phillips' recent post.

Aspects of International Law. More. The booklet. And Efraim Karsh's latest Commentary artcile.