Whither Elementary Morality?

Kim Petersen

...Israel is a state erected on the destruction, still ongoing, of another state and its indigenous people. Israel has been in existence since 1948: a 58-year fact-on-the-ground. Chomsky holds that the passage of time does give legitimacy to the state of Israel. As a solution to the current violence, Chomsky concedes this violent fact-on-the-ground by referring to the "reality" of options available to the Palestinians. Chomsky argues that it is in the best interests of the dispossessed and brutalized Palestinians and the brutalizing Zionist dispossessors to agree to a confederation, but the "reality" is that the outcome will probably be a two-state solution. In other words, to end the present suffering of Palestinians, the Palestinians should agree to their dispossession and in return they will be rewarded, supposedly, by a cessation of the violence against them for the audacity of wanting to live on their land. What does elementary morality posit about such reasoning? (...) Chomsky’s statements provide cover for several decades of Zionist expansion. Is Chomsky correct? Does the passage of time obviate morality and legitimate evil deeds? By the same "reality"-based logic, shouldn’t Chomsky also call for gifting Iraq’s oil to the invader-occupiers in exchange for partial restoring of Iraq’s sovereignty and ceasing the lethal violence against Iraqis? After all, the "reality" is that as long as the Iraqis resist occupation, Iraqis will die in large numbers...

continua / continued