This is so embarrassing. I was going through my June 2003 posts to pick some ‘Golden Oldies’ and I found this one, which I hadn’t ever hit ‘Publish’ for…. So it’s just been sitting there in Draft form in my JWN files…. Might as well publish it now, eh? Far as I can figure the situation’s about as described there….
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Palestinian refugee issue these past few days, in connection with a big writing project I’m working on. It’s hard issue to discuss much, publicly, here in the US, where much of the hardest of hard-line Israeli rhetoric about the refugees has just been accepted at face value.
That is, such mendacious old canards as (1) the refugees all left their homes in 1948 because the Arab leaders told them to. (Therefore they don’t have any “right” to return to their homes… ) Or (2) that the refugee camps are all run as training camps for the Palestinian militant groups and should be disbanded immediately. Or (3) that the Palestinians should all just resettle in the countries where they now are. (What’s all this about a “right” of return, anyway?). Or (4), that Arafat only raised the issue of the refugees in late 2000, suddenly and “capriciously”, with the sole aim of torpedoing the negotiations. Or (5), that anyway, before the Jews started going to Israel in the 20th century there weren’t even many Arabs there at all; the ones who were there just before 1948 were nearly all recent migrants who’d been attracted only by the Jewish wealth being poured into the country to “make it bloom”…
Are those the main ones? Any more?
I’ve been trying to figure out just why it is that the Palestinian refugee issue pushes such ultra-sensitive buttons for so many Israelis and so many of their supporters worldwide. What’s the big deal? Why is it that these ultra-Zionists feel they have to be so combative (defensive) about the refugee question that oftentimes they just refuse to discuss or even examine the claims of the refugees at all?
I think there are probably two reasons:
Many Jewish Israelis have a deep and perhaps understandable fear that if they admit that Palestinian refugees have any rights at all, then hordes and hordes of them will immediately be clamoring at Israel’s borders to take up their “right of return”. Since we’re talking about 3.87 million Palestinian refugees currently registered with the UN’s special relief agency, UNRWA– and a further million or two unregistered refugees– we’re talking serious demographics there, seeing that there are only around 4.8 million Jewish Israelis.
Because nearly all Jewish Israelis don’t want to lose the “Jewish character of Israel”– though it would be hard to find a consensus from among them as to what constitutes that Jewish character; maybe after all it’s indefinable, like “Englishness”?– they definitely don’t want to allow a full-scale “right of return” to Palestinian refugees. So for some reason, because they don’t want to allow that, there’s a real reluctance to look calmly and dispassionately at what the real claims and needs of the refugees are. Why is this? What is the source of this “slippery slope” type fear of even discussing the refugee issue at all?
I think maybe this exaggerated defensiveness comes from the fact that many Jewish Israelis hear the refugees’ claims regarding their right of return as constituting (rightly or wrongly) a reproach to, or accusation against, themselves.
This too is understandable. There is, after all, some reason for Palestinian refugees to reproach the Zionists for having displaced them and then, in the 55 years since 1948, for having steadfastly– with one notable exception– refused even to to consider (let alone accede to) the refugees’ claims against them…
I think at this point, it may be useful to start to conjecture just what the refugees’ needs, aspirations, and claims really are. I think we can divide their most pressing needs/claims into three categories. The Palestinian refugees have continued to suffer from three types of harm that need urgently to be addressed. These are:
(1) their statelessness and disenfranchisement
(2) their displacement from ancestral home communities into a diseprsed state of exile, and the attendant dismemberment of their families, and
(3) the dispossession (arbitrary taking) of the homes and properties they left behind.
How useful is this disaggregation of the kinds of harms they have suffered? I think it’s useful in two ways (sorry to be so list-oriented today). First, it reveals more of just what it is about the situation of being a refugee that is so unacceptable. (And also, by starting to name these specific conditions, maybe more Jewish people can start to see even more mirrors of the condition of their own people, in history: statelessness… dispersion… dispossession… Haven’t the Jews been there before? On the other hand, you might think just the name “refugee” might ring some historical bells for them.)
Second, disaggregating the nature of the harms suffered by the refugees may well help us to think through creative ways to find a solution.
It strikes me the most important set of harms above is that of statelessness and disenfranchisement. If the refugees had a state that would, (1) give them citizenship, and (2) be just as accountable to them as it is to Palestinian non-refugees– then just maybe that state could go to bat for them and help them deal with the issues of displacement and dispossession. (As the Jewish state has gone to bat for Jews on similar matters around the world.)
So that’s one really strong suggestion I have: that folks should think of enfranchising the refugees– especially those who don’t have any stable citizenship elsewhere– as an urgent priority on the way to finding a solution.
Enfranchise them, I hear you say: but how?
In any revamped Palestinian Authority, that’s how.
To my mind, it was a very undemocratic business to have the Palestinian “elections” of 1996 involving only the Palestinians resident in the West Bank and Gaza (including both non-refugees there, and refugees). Surely, this should not happen again.
But, I hear people responding, wouldn’t that mean a major radicalization of the Palestinian Authority?? “I mean, aren’t all those refugees rabid maximalists who won’t settle for any compromise?”
Actually, in my experience, no, they’re not. The problem is, that the more people in power treat them as if they’re going to cause problems for a negotiation, and therefore exclude them from the process– the more their “problematic” nature turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Let’s face it, no-one really likes to have other people make decisions for them behind their back.
So how about this: how about, instead of thinking of the palestinian refugees as constituting a “problem” that needs to be resolved by other older, wiser, cooler heads– how about if we think of the refugees as capable of being part of the solution??
How about if we think they may have some good ideas as to how their needs can be met in a way that is fair to everybody– and inviting them to the table?
As if they were– gasp– real, equal humans, just like everyone else?
I think, for example, that if all of the refugees got a voice in Palestinian national decisionmaking, and therefore also at the negotiating table, that they certainly would not all demand “total return, today”. But they would insist that their remaining two sets of demands and claims be fully considered, and adequately met. That is, their claims: (1) for a stable place of residence where they would enjoy full rights–whether this was inside Israel, inside Palestine, or elsewhere; and (2) for reparation for the property losses and other damage they suffered in or since 1948.
So I guess here’s my base proposal, how about we start treating those Palestinian who are refugees as adults, deserving of a place at the table of equal rights, rather than as ignorant, recalcitrant children?
…You raise interesting points.
However, the fundamental fact which should not be ignored in any discussion of this subject is:
That the state of Israel is an illegal state, founded on land the British Government had no right to give to anyone. And that the genocidal crimes committed against the Palestinians in 1948-49, are the real origin of the present situation.
The only humane and peaceful solution that remains then is to compensate the palestinians with land and money, in the same manner that the Jews have been compensated 20 times over for the real and imagined crimes against them during WWII.
I suppose you think that your article is based on sound wisdom… It certainly sounds like a pretty standard reiteration of the left-wing mantras.
I am not going to dissect your article line by line, but you are absolutely dismissive of a number of the arguments propounded by certain Zionists, without actually analysing their truth (or otherwise).
Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism, but any discussion of the Palestinian refugee situation without an acknowledgement of the many hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who were kicked out of arab countries at the same time is not a sign of impartial analysis or discussion. I note that you did not mention any responsibility of arab countries to look after their refugee kinsfolk.
Why is it that most of you lefty-trendies don’t even know (or care) about the 50-odd synagogues that were destroyed when Jordan took over East Jerusalem in 1948?
Why is it that the fact of the Jewish connection to Israel and the Jewish rights of self-determination get ignored? I never hear liberals talk about Hebron as the second holiest site for the Jews. I rarely hear about the Temple Mount being THE holiest site for Jews.
The Saudi Arabian website just published a page on visa entry requirements which explicitly said ‘Jewish people’ are not entitled to a visa. Where is the outrage of the left?
The left, remember? The ones who used to stand for values such as religious freedom, but now stand up for the rights of Muslim women to be subjugated. Who used to talk about freedom from tyranny, yet now rally around the world in support of the most murderous dictator since Hitler.
I used to consider myself left-wing, but there is no way I could identify myself with ideologies such as yours.
As for Alfred, my grandparents never received a cent of compensation for the loss of their parents, their siblings and their home. And even if they had, your suggestion that they might have been compensated ’20 times over’ shows the value you place on Jewish lives. Perhaps if your parents were killed and someone threw you a few pennies you might consider that acceptable, but for those who value life, no amount of money will ever replace the lost souls.
Because nearly all Jewish Israelis don’t want to lose the “Jewish character of Israel”– though it would be hard to find a consensus from among them as to what constitutes that Jewish character
Well, yes and no. There isn’t a consensus as to all the details, but there’s certainly a broad consensus that “Jewish character” includes a Jewish majority. Jews have had, shall we say, some bad experiences as a minority group over the past 2000 years, and you won’t find many Israeli Jews willing to make themselves a minority voluntarily.
And yes, I’m aware that Jews are currently valued citizens and neighbors in much of the West. There have been fairly long periods in the past, both in parts of Europe and in the Islamic world, where Jews lived much as they do now, and they’ve all ended the same way. I hope the current situation continues forever – but, given history, that’s not the way to bet. Call it Jewish paranoia if you will, but the idea of a state with a Jewish majority is a very, very comforting one to Jews both inside and outside Israel.
So that’s one really strong suggestion I have: that folks should think of enfranchising the refugees– especially those who don’t have any stable citizenship elsewhere– as an urgent priority on the way to finding a solution.
Funny you should say that, because the council that has been developing a Palestinian constitution has indeed proposed a plan for diaspora representation. I discussed it here:
I’m all for the Palestinian diaspora being represented in national decision-making, and I think the Palestinian negotiators also recognize this. One significant fact about the Geneva negotiations, for instance, is that the Palestinian delegation represented the PLO rather than the PA. This may have been an attempt by the PA to distance itself from the accords, but it also meant that the negotiators were credentialed by an umbrella organization that represented all Palestinians rather than only residents of the WB and Gaza.
I’d certainly like to see a creative solution to the refugee problem. Khalil Shikaki’s work suggests that the issue may be more tractable than previously thought; a package would have to include financial compensation, the right to citizenship in Palestine or in the refugees’ states of residence, and at least a symbolic right of return to Israel (possibly for those born in Israel or having close family connections). It seems doable with international backing and sufficient Israeli and Palestinian goodwill.
At the same time, the practical difficulties in achieving representation for the refugees shouldn’t be underestimated. I doubt it will be easy to hold a free and fair election in the Syrian or Lebanese refugee camps, and candidates who favor a compromise might face physical danger during and after the campaign. There would have to be a major international commitment of logistical support and policing, and obtaining the cooperation of the host governments might be a hard task.
BTW, you do have something to say to Alfred, don’t you?
Jonathan– thanks so much for those links to yr own HH post and to the JMCC piece… I did write the above post back in June, remember– which cd explain why I hadn’t references those more recent developments…
I do want to say something to both Alfred and Lewis, both of whom seem to be disturbingly dismissive of the claims of people they disagree with. But I’m away from home, so i don’t have a lot of time to do so.
To Alfred, I’d note mainly that it was not the Brits but the infant U.N. that divided the land of Mandate Palestine into two states, one jewish and one Arab. So that is a joint birth certificate for two states whose peoples really are, in a sense, joined at the hip. One state has been established. The other, not yet– but let’s hope a viable Palestinian state can still be extracted from the current sorry situation?
To Lewis: You say: any discussion of the Palestinian refugee situation without an acknowledgement of the many hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who were kicked out of arab countries at the same time is not a sign of impartial analysis or discussion. I note that you did not mention any responsibility of arab countries to look after their refugee kinsfolk.
There are a number of ways in which this argument is misleading. Firstly, the two situations are not symmetrical. Many Jews were kicked out of Arab countries, yes; many others were actively encouraged to leave by international Zionist organizations, as you must know. (Think Lavon affair, or events in Baghdad, etc.)
True, many Jews have large property and other claims outstanding aginst the Arab states. these should evidently be addressed. But the Arab states in question are the address or that; not the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, the existence of those claims by Jews from the Arab countries in no way undercuts or lessens the strength of the claims made by Palestinians against Israel regarding the properties they have been prevented from returning to for 56 years now (plus usufruct, maybe; why not?)
And then, there is the “Right of return”, a right explicitly recognized as belonging to every person in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which mentioned the right of every person to return to the land of his [or her] birth, or to return to it.
How convenient for Soviet-Jewry activists to mention the second part of that clause when arguing for the right of Soviet Jews to leave Russia, while completely forgetting the other half of it, eh?
Also, what exactly do you think the responsibilities of Arab states are toward the Palestinians? The Palestinians are not their “kinsfolk” in any sense that requires that the Arab states resettle them. The Arab states have acted as “host states”– with their level of ‘hospitality’ varying in different cases, as is usually the case with states that host (temporarily) refugees. But host states are under no obligation permanently to resettle refugees who land on their terrain.
But any suggestion that the Arab states (or anyone else) should just resettle the refugees flat-out also, significantly, ignores the preferences and desires of the Palestinians themselves in this regard. Which is an inherently abusive thing to do, to say the least!
As jonathan indicates (and as I know from my own work), many palestinian refugees have fairly flexible views regarding the future. But this flexibility is always linked to serious claims, based in rights like those promulgated in the UNDHR, that must be heard and discussed calmly. Such claims cannot simply be silenced.
Anyway, gotta run
I do want to say something to both Alfred and Lewis, both of whom seem to be disturbingly dismissive of the claims of people they disagree with.
Yes, Lewis’ post and mine crossed in the mail, otherwise I would also have mentioned his name.
One more thought about Israeli Jews’ fear of becoming a minority: The history of market-dominant minorities in the Middle East (e.g., Armenians in Turkey, Greeks in Egypt, Jews in Iraq) isn’t an encouraging one, and that’s exactly what Israeli Jews would be if they were incorporated into an Arab-majority Palestinian state.
Helena,
You didn’t really address any of my points, although I am prepared to address a few more of yours. Don’t know why I bother with intransigents like yourself, but here goes.
The fact that Israel may not want to be flooded with refugees may have something to do not only with the fate of the Jews (as suggested by Jonathan), but might have had something to do with the fact that absorbing the refugees will have the same degree of success as similar experiments in Lebanon, India, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia, etc. Well, just because it’s never worked before, doesn’t mean it can’t work in harmonious ‘lil Israel/Palestine, eh?
Any talk of Israel absorbing any significant amount of refugees is tantamount to proposing the destruction of Israel. When Arafat or Hamas talks of ‘from the river to the sea’, they are not talking about living in harmony with the Jews, they are talking about genocide. Read the PLO or Hamas charters, if you have any doubts. You talk in terms of nebulous ‘human rights’, but the effects of your suggestions are genocidal.
As for any suggestion of monetary compensation, that was suggested by Barak and rejected.
As for the ‘symmetry’ or otherwise of the refugee situation, some Jews were encouraged to leave. Perhaps it might have had something to do with the fact that their lives were in danger?? Are you seriously suggesting that the arabs living in Palestine were not encouraged to leave?? I agree that there is some assymetry here, but only insofar as the Palestinian refugees left to facilitate a genocide of the Jews, whereas that Jewish refugees left to avoid a genocide of the Jews.
You suggest that the claims of Jews against the Arab countries are to be treated independently from the claims of Palestinians against Israel. However, you are happy to selectively quote international legal documents to further your cause. Lets look at UN resolutions 242 and 338 for a moment (don’t even get me started on 194 -just read the text to understand that it doesn’t apply). 242 talks about a ‘just settlement of the refugee problem’ and ‘Termination of all claims or states of belligerency’. 338 supports the multi-national nature of 242.
This is a clear requirement that ALL refugee problems (Jewish and Arab) are to be dealt with in conjunction with a peace settlement amongst all states in the region. The ‘Palestinian refugee’ issue is clearly tied as a matter of international law to the ‘Jewish refugee’ issue, as well as to the wider regional one. Note that this does not provide for any ‘right of return’, merely a ‘just settlement’.
As for the UNDHR, there is no unfettered right of return (even for nationals of a particular country). These and similar provisions are to apply in respect of individuals asserting rights qua individuals. It was never intended to apply, for example to Sudeten Germans, or Hindus kicked out of Pakistan, etc. etc. Holocaust refugees have no right of return to their homes in Europe, and your selective application of this ‘law’ to Israel (not to mention your entire post) reeks of ‘selective bias’.
I am not a Soviet-Jewry activist, and if I were I wouldn’t be relying on the UNDHR. Wouldn’t be wanting to create a ‘straw man’ there, would I? I guess all Jews are the same to you (or maybe part of the same evil conspiracy, eh?), and you can dismiss all my arguments with the same brush. Maybe just assert that I am part of the ‘Zionist lobby, cabal, etc.’, not that I am old enough yet to be an ‘Elder of Zion’ How convenient…
As for your suggestions that ‘any suggestion that the Arab states (or anyone else) should just resettle the refugees flat-out also, significantly, ignores the preferences and desires of the Palestinians themselves in this regard’, good for you for speaking on behalf of these people. Wouldn’t want to give them a choice in the matter when you can condescend to speak for them, eh? Your paternalism is shocking (and, to say the least, racist against the people you so care about).
As for the duties of the arab countries vis-a-vis the Palestinians, if you really gave a crap about the Palestinians you would take a different line. But, I guess, it wouldn’t be as much fun as good-ol’ Jew-bashin’. Firstly, after 50-odd years, it is a bit rich for you to suggest that they are ‘temporary’. Perhaps you might want to look at Resolution 393(V). Plenty of other sources that would indicate that there are gross violations of various human rights ‘international laws’ in the arab treatment of Palestinians, not that you really care – it is obvious that your agenda isn’t so much pro-Palestinian as it is anti-Israel.
Finally, it is always interesting how the ‘right of return’ is never used to refer to the Jews who were kicked out of the Palestinian Territories either. I’m sure your idea would be to ethnically clense the West Bank and Gaza of Jews and once it is Judenrein, to flood Israel with Palestinians.
Great work… you get an Iron Cross, 1st class
Lewis, I thought I would address some of the issues you raised in your last post.
As for the ‘symmetry’ or otherwise of the refugee situation, some Jews were encouraged to leave.
Israel strongly encouraged all Jews to leave their homes and come to Israel. The difference between the Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab countries is that Israel wanted those Arab Jews to emigrate. It made a concerted effort, including propaganda and even terrorism, to make that happen.
Perhaps it might have had something to do with the fact that their lives were in danger??
The primary reason was not that their lives were in danger, but because Israel wanted to bulk up its Jewish population to increase its strength, and needed Jewish immigrants to settle recently abandoned Palestinian areas to make it harder for Palestinians to return to their homes. (I used to have a link to an Israeli university study of the population of the Israeli city of Ashkelon that made this latter point explicitly, but that link no longer works).
Jews were no doubt at serious risk in many Arab countries, and lost everything when they emigrated to Israel. Arab governments and people are hardly blameless. But this is only part of the picture. Israel made strenuous efforts, which at times included sponsoring violence against Jews (Iraq) , to to make Jews afraid. Israel also recruited Jews in Arab countries to carry out espionage, and even attacks against Western targets(Lavon affair in Egypt), which had the effect of poisoning the water between Arab counries and their Jewish populations.
Are you seriously suggesting that the arabs living in Palestine were not encouraged to leave??
They were certainly “strongly encouraged to leave” by the Israelis. According to research by Israeli historians, taking advantage of material from Israeli archives made public in the 1980s and later, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees left their homes either from fear of Israeli troops or were directly expelled. For a good overview, see The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined from Le Monde.
I agree that there is some assymetry here, but only insofar as the Palestinian refugees left to facilitate a genocide of the Jews, whereas that Jewish refugees left to avoid a genocide of the Jews.
See above.
Thank you ‘No Preference’ for your serious attempt to deal with some of the issues that I raised. I will endeavour to respond in kind.
Firstly, yes, Israel wanted all Jews to leave. After 1948, things became incredibly hostile for the Jews in arab countries. In most arab countries ‘Zionism’ was made a capital offense in 1948 and Jews were generally treated in a hostile manner and with suspicion. There were lynchings, show trials, confiscation of property etc. I am happy to provide sources, should you have any doubts.
Unlike the current situation with the Palestinians, Israel felt a genuine need to encourage Jews to emigrate. Although from a demographic point of view, it was certainly a benefit, the benefit was collateral. There was a genuine sense at the time that the lives of Jews in arab countries were imperilled.
I do not agree with the suggestions that Israel used terrorism to encourage emigration. It did not need to. As for your examples, if you are interested in a well documented and researched study into the Iraq situation, read “The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951 by Moshe Gat”. He goes to show that not only was the bomb-throwing incident not related to the departure of Jews, but Israel actually did not take in as many Jews from Iraq as Iraq had wanted to leave.
As for the Lavon affair, it was not something that Israel is proud of, nor should it be. Many people lost their jobs over the incident. However, to put a few things into perspective, the vast majority of Egyptian Jews had left Egypt for Israel before the Lavon affair took place.
At the time of the attacks, neither the US nor the UK were allied with Israel (and both countries had undermined Israel during the 1948 war). Israel had only recently and barely survived a war of annihilation and many Israelis had only just come out of the Holocaust. There was a genuine feeling that the attacks were the only way of keeping the US and UK presence in the area as a buffer to further attacks from Egypt. Again, it is not something to be proud of, but any suggestion that it was to encourage further immigration is just plain wrong.
Your comments presuppose that at no time were all Palestinians encouraged to leave by arabs and that all Israelis discouraged them staying. You might want to have a look at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html to the extent that it quotes a number of primary sources that can easily be fact-checked.
Yes, there were some propaganda efforts by some Jews to get the Palestinians to flee, but to ignore the context in which they occurred (ie the 1948 war) and to ignore the significant overtures made by many Israelis to encourage them to stay (as many did, who became 100% Israeli citizens with far more rights than any Jew (or for that matter any arab) in any arab countries).
Finally, as for your article by Dominique Vidal on Benny Morris, you may as well have quoted Fisk, Chomsky, Said or Pilger, given the disregard the ‘New Historians’ seem to have for the truth… See, for example http://www.meforum.org/article/466
Cheers,
L
After 1948, things became incredibly hostile for the Jews in arab countries.
Before that, in fact. Egypt, Syria and Iraq had Nazi-influenced nationalist movements in the 1930s, Iraq had a major pogrom in 1941 and pogroms occurred in Syria and Libya in 1945. Israel isn’t the sole proximate cause of Arab anti-semitism.
lewis, thank you in turn for a level-headed response, though I don’t agree with your conclusions. In particular, the evidence that Israelis conducted ethnic cleansing in Palestine in 1947-49 is very strong.
I invite readers to make their own comparisons between the Le Monde article linked to in my post above and the presentation of the issue you provided from the “Jewish Virtual Library”.
I found the latter to be seriously misleading if not meretricious. As an example, contrast the description in its lead paragraph of the departure of leading Palestinians before the outbreak of hostilities (“Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war”) and its description of the Palestinians driven out by force (“a handful were expelled”).
Is this an accurate summary of the reasons why the Palestinians left their homes? Let’s look at some facts.
First, wealthy Palestinians (including Edward Said’s family) did flee early to avoid hostilities. The Jewish Virtual Library says “30,000 wealthy Arabs”. Let’s accept this as a fact.
What about the alleged “handful” who were expelled? Let’s look at a single specific incident, which is described in the link you provided this:
. . . in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away . . .
The fact is that Yitzak Rabin, who conducted the expulsion, estimated the number of the “portion of the Arab population” driven out of Lydda and Ramle at 50,000. Some “handful”. Israel did not allow these people to return to their homes after the war ended. Though censorship, the government of Israel prohibited any mention of this expulsion for 45 years. This included censoring the first edition of Rabin’s memoirs. (Aside – hey, there’s a photo of Helena on this link).
I won’t address any of the other points you made at this moment. You may be correct in saying that the element of Arab hostility in the departure of Jews from Arab countries deserves more weight. I will say that the sources you provi, at least for me.
Before that, in fact. Egypt, Syria and Iraq had Nazi-influenced nationalist movements in the 1930s, Iraq had a major pogrom in 1941 and pogroms occurred in Syria and Libya in 1945. Israel isn’t the sole proximate cause of Arab anti-semitism.
First, the Nazis were enemies of France and Britain, which then occupied Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. There is no more reason to automatically assume that some Arabs established relationships with Germany out of antisemitism than there is to believe that the US allied itself with Stalin out of admiration for communism.
Second, while Israel did not exist at that time, the Zionist movement certainly did. Jewish colonization of Palestine was quite far along. The Zionist intention to create a Jewish state in Palestine regardless of the wishes of the indigenous majority was well known. The suggestion that Arab resistance to that was due to antisemitism is, in my view, very misleading. The comment that this had nothing to do with Israel is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
First, the Nazis were enemies of France and Britain, which then occupied Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. There is no more reason to automatically assume that some Arabs established relationships with Germany out of antisemitism than there is to believe that the US allied itself with Stalin out of admiration for communism.
I’m not suggesting that these movements developed out of anti-semitism; nationalism was much more of a factor. At the same time, once they were established, their Nazi connections fed anti-Semitic attitudes among their membership.
The comment that this had nothing to do with Israel is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
On the other hand, it somewhat disproves the theory that Arabs and Jews lived harmoniously until the Israelis spoiled it all by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. (And yes, I do believe the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed.)
In any event, there are cases of Arab anti-semitism dating well before the Zionist settlement movement – for instance, or the Algiers pogroms of 1805, 1815 and 1830.
First, the Nazis were enemies of France and Britain, which then occupied Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. There is no more reason to automatically assume that some Arabs established relationships with Germany out of antisemitism than there is to believe that the US allied itself with Stalin out of admiration for communism.
I’m not suggesting that these movements developed out of anti-semitism; nationalism was much more of a factor. At the same time, once they were established, their Nazi connections fed anti-Semitic attitudes among their membership.
The comment that this had nothing to do with Israel is disingenuous, to put it mildly.
On the other hand, it somewhat disproves the theory that Arabs and Jews lived harmoniously until the Israelis spoiled it all by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. (And yes, I do believe the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed.)
In any event, there are cases of Arab anti-semitism dating well before the Zionist settlement movement – the 1840 Damascus blood libel, for instance, or the Algiers pogroms of 1805, 1815 and 1830.
Jonathan,
I am not suggesting that being a Jew in most arab countries was necessarily easy pre-1948, but please don’t suggest that it wasn’t harder post-1948. I am fully aware, for example, of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Hebron and have read the works of Bat Yeor and others on the lives of ‘dhimmis’ throughout the ages (an suggest you do the same, if you have not done so). Let me assure you, there is no way in hell I would want to live my live as a dhimmi.
No Preference – I did not cite the article to prove every one of the author’s arguments. Perhaps some of Benny Morris’s arguments may hold some validity. However, his manipulation of primary sources, as the article evidences, to serve his own purposes is reason enough to discredit any arguments based on his work.
If you want to cite other articles, I am happy to countenance further discussion in the area, so long as I am convinced that they are based on genuine evidence and not the fabrication of evidence. Therefore, if you want to cite evidence of forceable evictions in Lod or Ramle, I am happy to discuss the works of other historians in the area, but you cited another Benny Morris article.
I agree that some Palestinians were evicted from those towns. My understanding is that it was closer to 20000. I acknowledge that this is a significant number, but it is a small percentage of the Palestinians who did leave.
As for Said, he was an Egyptian who returned to Egypt in 1947. Weiner’s article in Commentary magazine should dispel any myths you might have read about him.
The fact that arab countries associated with the Nazis is not proof of antisemitism, just good prima facie evidence. There is plenty of other evidence out there to support arguments that many arabs supported Hitler’s agenda of killing the Jews. In particular, Arafat’s mendor, the Mufti of Jerusalem specifically asked Hitler to assist him in finding a ‘final solution’ to his own ‘Jewish problem’.
All Arafat is doing is continuing in his mentor’s footsteps.
if you want to cite evidence of forceable evictions in Lod or Ramle, I am happy to discuss the works of other historians in the area, but you cited another Benny Morris article. I agree that some Palestinians were evicted from those towns. My understanding is that it was closer to 20000.
Fine. Look at the second edition of Yitzak Rabin’s Memoirs, and you will see his description of his eviction of the Palestinians from Lydda and Ramle, including his estimate of 50,000. Don’t get the first edition published in 1979; that’s the one from which Israeli censors excised all references to the event.
As for the rest, unfortunately I don’t have time to discuss all the points you raise. However, your mention of the Weiner article on Edward Said’s background casts further doubt on your sources. That was a hatchet job if ever there was one.
Mr. Edelstein, thanks for your comments.
No Preference – I am not going to get into a debate over whether it was 20000 or 50000. Either way, it was an exception that proved the rule.
As a whole, Israel did not force Palestinians to leave. There was no official policy that this should be done. The evacuation of those two towns was in the course of the seige of Jerusalem. Both towns were en route to Jerusalem and certain residents of those towns fired on convoys that were taking supplies to Jerusalem.
At the time it was deemed necessary (even by Rabin, if you read the memoirs) to evacuate the towns in order to save the Jews in Jerusalem from death. It was unfortunate, but understandable when you put it in the context of an existential war.
Now, if you want to talk about massacres and illegal transfers, maybe you want to start with the Jews of Gaza and Judea-Samaria (renamed the “West Bank” by Jordan in 1948), including Jerusalem.
Perhaps when you next talk of Ramle or Lod, you might want to consider Tirat Tzvi, Atarot, Beit Haarava, Kalya, Neve Yaakov, Masuot Yitzhak, Kfar Darom, Shimon HaTzadik, Hebron, Batei Machseh, Revadim, Neve Daniel, Rosh Tzurim, Sheikh Jarrah, etc etc. These were towns that were ethnically cleansed of Jews as a matter of policy. Is there a ‘right of return’ for them?
Again, there is assymetry, but not in the way you would suggest.
Friends– I’m imagining that all of you who have read this far (and yes, this includes you, lewis!) had actually given a calm reading to my own original post on this issue.
If you’d done so, I hope you would have noticed what I was, and what I was NOT, trying to do there.
I was certainly not trying to put forward my own idea for how the Palestinian refugee issue should be resolved. (And therefore, I was not urging that “all the refugees immediately return to Israel”, or whatver it was that you, Lewis, were accusing me of doing.)
Instead of putting forward ideas of my own as to how the issue should be resolved, I was underlining that it does still need to be addressed, and cannot merely be swept under the carpet or shunted aside, as it as been for some 56 years now. The refugees have claims outstanding, many of tem well-grounded in international uman rigts law and norms; and those claims have to be satisfied– most probably not in full, but certainly satisfactorily— if the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is to be ended. (Which is, I am guessing, what all of us want?)
There are of course also claims that some Jewish Israelis (and other parties) have outstanding against the Arab states, though notably NOT against the Palestinians. Did I ever deny that? Those claims are, however, a separate issue. Perhaps all these claims could be addressed together in the context of a broad regional settlement; but that would require the agreement of the parties.
What i was chiefly trying to do in my main post, however, was to unpack the Palestinian issue as much as possible, in the hope that this unpacking might help people to come up with new ways to start mitigating or redressing the very real harms that have been visited on the refugees by the continued non-resolution of their issues and the continued non-addressing of their claims.
I know that the “Right of Return” is a hot-button issue for many Jewis Israelis and their friends. I was seeking to find different ways of looking at the refugee issue.
Maybe I succeeded; maybe I didn’t. But I submit that our friend Lewis has amply demonstrated the truth of what I said in the post there about many ultra-Zionists being so defensive about any mention of this issue that they often “refuse to
examine or discuss the claims of the refugees at all.”
Easier to dismiss me as a hot-headed ultra-Zionist than to actually deal with the issues that I raised, eh?
I’m not actually sure what ‘ultra-Zionist’ actually means. Yes, I am a Zionist to the extent that I believe in the Jewish right to self-determination. The epithet ‘ultra’ juat seems to be a vituperative insult to suggest that Zionism is an extreme position.
The point of sensitivity is the insistence on a ‘right of return’ as opposed to a right of compensation for any expropriations, losses, etc. Israel can offer compensation (and has offered to do so on several occastions) to resolve the refugee issue. If the issue is quantum, sure, that is a legitimate issue for debate.
However, it is a point of consensus among the vast majority of Israelis and Zionists (ultra or otherwise) that offering a right of actual physical return to a people who have shown such hostility to Israel over the years would literally be suicide.
The people who insist on such a right tend to be the ones who seem to think that blowing up school buses can somehow be justified or rationalised. The world did nothing during the Holocaust and there is no reason to believe that they would do anything to help the Jews/Israelis if they were in mortal danger again.
You only have to look at the experience of Israel during the Yom Kippur war, for example, to know that this is correct. Israel can’t even get a resolution PROPOSED at the UN that might suggest that antisemitism is a bad form of racism. The Algerians, for example, could propose a resolution in the UN that the earth is flat and this is Israel’s fault, and it would pass 100-4.
The fundamental reason for the State of Israel’s creation was because Jews genuinely believed in the mantra ‘Never Again’ – that the Jews would never again march silently into the ovens. Turning the Jews into a minority in Israel would defeat the state’s raison d’etre – instead of being second-class European citizens, the Jews would become second-class citizens of an arab-majority state.
The history of Jews and other minorities in arab-majority states, particularly over the last two centuries, is not an enviable one (see, for example, Bat Yeor’s writings). And, if any ‘new’ state is run anything like Arafatistan, the eventual genocide of the Jews in that country would be a virtual certainty.
Sorry if not wanting to die is so upsetting.
As for claims against the Palestinians, actually there are a few people out there who might have claims – people who lost their homes in Gaza or the West Bank or perhaps the thousands of Jews who were injured or killed or had property damaged as a result of the policies of the Palestinian leadership.
Finally, as I have raised and you chose to ignore, the Palestinian refugee issue is one that, according to the international law that you love so much, needs to be dealt with in the context of a broader regional settlement including the Jewish refugee issue.
The history of the creation of resolution 242 clearly indicates that the use of the word ‘refugee’ as opposed to ‘arab refugee’ was deliberate insofar as all refugee problems were to be resolved under that resolution in conjunction with the broader issues. The fact that you are so dismissive of Jewish rights and Jewish claims as refugees says a heck of a lot about you.
I know that the existence of Jewish right is a hot-button issue for many Israeli-bashers and their friends. I was seeking to find different ways of looking at the refugee issue.
Maybe I succeeded; maybe I didn’t. But I submit that our friend Helena has amply demonstrated the truth of what I said in the post there about many Israel-bashers being so defensive about any mention of this issue that they often “refuse to
examine or discuss the claims of the Jewish refugees at all.”