Two justifications in particular stood out for me.
The first was that of Hengemah Ziai, who interupted the evening for 10 minutes by refusing to wait until the question and answer session at the end of Ayalon's talk and instead shouted questions at him. Invariably, she didn't give him proper time to answer. She explained that she felt:
10 minutes was an insufficient amount of time to take Ayalon up on the lies he was feeding the audience
Oh please. Usually when a speaker lies or says something deplorable you catch them out at the end of their talk in the question and answer session. It's really not that hard. If 10 minutes - more than you would normally get with any other speaker - was not enough for Miss Ziai, that probably says more about her inability to coherently critique Ayalon than about the extent of his 'lies'.
The second individual whose explanation I took issue with was that of Nabeel Qureshi. He said:
If a holocaust denier came to the Union I would call him out on his lies rather than sit there treating him respectfully and letting him change history. Same principle.Of course a holocaust denier has come to the Union. His name was David Irving, and I was in the chamber and challenged him when he spoke. Was Nabeel there? No - or at least if he was he was remarkably silent. So why didn't he 'call him out on his lies'? Why didn't he apply the 'same principle' he talks of?
And moreover, lets have some perspective here: at worst Ayalon's historical errors consisted of an idealized reading of Jewish history, a false description of the 48 war (that tired old claim that the Arab leaders told their people to leave) and possibly some dodgy stats when it comes to Lebanon. Now call me crazy, but I really don't think these historical errors are comparable with Holocaust denial as Nabeel seems to imply. I just wonder: does he?
"Khaybar, ya yahood" has only one meaning: "Jews, know your place!" Rashid is a liar.
ReplyDeleteDear Blogger,
ReplyDeleteYou might disagree with Ayalon on many things, even on everything, but please do not try to rewrite history. You are far too green to present your own version of events.
I personally have spoken to Arabs that “escaped” in 48 and say that they did so because they “mistakenly believed that they had good reasons to do so”. This particular family only moved a few miles and so are now they are Israeli citizens. Do read the following, published in the Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/index.html
Hopefully, next time you will not be so quick to condemn Israel.
"The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.8By the end of January 1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.9
On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha’ab, reported: “The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.”10
Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for “bringing down disgrace on us all by ‘’abandoning the villages.’“’”11
Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. “They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks.”12
John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, said: “Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war.”13
Contemporary press reports of major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled conspicuously fail to mention any forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as “fleeing” or “evacuating” their homes. While Zionists are accused of “expelling and dispossessing” the Arab inhabitants of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs alike.
Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: “We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property.”14
Continue
ReplyDeleteIn early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led by Fawzi al-Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel.15 On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that “every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe.”16In fact, David Ben-Gurion had sent Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay, but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause.17 By the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.
“Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre.”
— New York Times, (April 23, 1948)
In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs’ possessions should be touched, and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.
Syria’s UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a “massacre” and said this action was “further evidence that the ‘Zionist program’ is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected.”18
Continue
ReplyDeleteThe following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.19
The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah’’s truce offer, the Arabs “preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town.”20
The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that “local mufti-dominated Arab leaders” were urging “all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so.”21
An army order issued July 6, 1948, made clear that Arab towns and villages were not to be demolished or burned, and that Arab inhabitants were not to be expelled from their homes.22
The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (the “shock force of the Haganah”), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Hula region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.23
In the most dramatic example, 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 that was occupied by the Arab Legion. “The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic.”24
As was clear from the descriptions of what took place in the cities with the largest Arab populations, these cases were clearly the exceptions, accounting for only a small fraction of the Palestinian refugees. The expulsions were not designed to force out the entire Arab population; the areas where they took place were strategically vital and meant to prevent the threat of any rearguard action against the Israeli forces, and to insure clear lines of communication. Morris notes that “in general, Haganah and IDF commanders were not forced to confront the moral dilemma posed by expulsion; most Arabs fled before and during the battle, before the Israeli troops reached their homes and before the Israeli commanders were forced to confront the dilema.”
Tooly, you write that I am 'far too green to present your own version of events.' I am hardly presenting 'my own version of events' by rejecting the claim that the Arab refugee problem was caused by Arab leaders telling their populations to leave while the fighting happened; in doing so I am following the conclusions of many historians on the 48 war.
ReplyDeleteAs historian (and former Israeli Foreign Minister) Shlomo Ben-Ami notes in his book 'scars of war, wounds of peace':
“It is not at all clear, as maintained by a conventional Israeli myth, that the Palestinian exodus was encouraged by the Arab states and by local leaders... Indeed, [Benny] Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put.”
Moreover, there are some clear instances of Arab civilians being intentionally expelled or attacked during the war:
“A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs’ monument of grief and hatred, like those of Dir Yassin, Ein Zeitun, Ilabun and Lydda; of operational orders like those of Moshe Carmel, the commander of the Carmeli Brigrade in Operation Yiftah and Ben Ami, ‘to attack in order to conquer, to kill the men, to destroy and burn the villages of Al-Kubri, Umm al Faraj and An Nahar’ and by the mass expulsions during the Yoav operation.”
“‘Drive them out!’ was Ben Gurion’s instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzchak Rabin... with regard to the Arabs of Lydda”
It is very easy to quote out of context and present a desired scenario. Ben Gurion’s instructions were to drive out pockets of resistance. Indeed, TOCHNIT DALED which leftists of your ilk often like to miss quote, lay down exact plans on how to deal with villages who participated in the fighting (drive out) and how to administer villages that laie down their weapons.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that both sides can very comfortably quote Beni Moris’s “findings”, it appears that in his case, you just need to choose the period of his career that suits your needs. You really should examine your sources a little bit closer. Shlomo Ben Amy was indeed an Israeli Minster, however he was also one of the “architects” of the Oslo disaster, and as recently as 3 years ago, said on the BBC Hard Talk program, that we would only have peace in the region, with NATO fleets will threatening Israeli shores. The man is a typical self-hating Jew (sadly a trait that we are “blessed” with all too often), who is incapable in admitting failure and unable to accept the democratic will of his voters.
The fact is that over a million Arabs did remain in Israel after the war, hardly a “successful” ethnic cleansing. There are indeed many Arabs living in Lydda, was Ygal Allon so incompetent?
In his declaration of independence, Ben Gurion called for the Arabs to remain in Israel and to participate in the creation of the state as equal citizens. So to quote again from Myth and Facts: “Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.”
Tooly, you write: "It is very easy to quote out of context and present a desired scenario"
ReplyDeleteI don't see how what I quoted comprises of a 'desired scenario'. Quite the opposite.
As for describing Shlomo Ben Ami as a 'typical self-hating Jew', I think that description reveals more about you than it does about him. If working on peace plans and suggesting that outside forces may be required to maintain peace in the region - the two things you cite - are sufficient for someone to be a 'self-hating Jew', the term is stripped of any of its meaning. On such a ridiculous criterion you almost make being a left wing Israeli poliitician synonymous with being 'self-hating'.
On the note about choosing from different periods of Benny Morris's career, while his politics has changed, his history has remained much the same. He gave a seminar in Oxford only about two weeks ago which I attended. Nothing he said challenged what I have presented here.
Finally, on Ben Gurion, I don't think he is the best arbiter of who was responsible for the Arab refugee crisis. Reall - do you?
Ultimately, the history of the 1948 war and the refugee problem in particular is undeniably complex and contested. But to suggest as you seem to that the refugee problem was solely the cause of the Arabs is to simply disregard most of the scholarship on the issue. Reread your Benny Morris!
Please read again, “Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.” Is not a quote of Ben Gurion. It is a statement, which I find a hundred percent correct.
ReplyDeleteThe quote you used from Rabin’s book, is taken out of context and is used by you to draw a scenario you wish to present.
To claim that Shlomo ben Amy “suggested that outside forces may be required to maintain peace” is a farcical misrepresentation on your behalf. The man suggested that peace should be forced by outside forces.
Shlomo Ben Ami is a bad looser who cannot admit defeat. So when the Israeli voters kicked him out, his next option was to suggest that NATO ships will impose his own ideas on the rest of Israel. There is no difference between him and those other Israeli leftists who cannot accept democratic decisions in Israel which goes against their belief, and are calling to boycott Israel, “because they know better”. To describe Shlomo Ben Amy as someone who was working for peace, is ignorantly ignoring the results of the Oslo process. Scores of dead and wounded, the so called “peace sacrifice” and Hamastan on the Israeli border.
I sincerely hope that my writing above indicates who I am and that it sets me clearly apart from the like of you.
Tooly, I think it does - your sincere hope is met!
ReplyDeleteApologies for misreading the statement from 'Myths and Facts' and attributing it wrongly to Ben Gurion. You write:
Please read again, “Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.” Is not a quote of Ben Gurion. It is a statement, which I find a hundred percent correct.
You find this statement 'a hundred percent correct.' I find two problems with it:
(1) The statement is premised on a speculative counterfactual. We cannot know - certainly not with '100 percent' confidence - what would have happened had the Arabs accepted the UN plan.
(2) The Arabs rejecting the UN plan is quite obviously not a sufficient cause of the Palestinian refugee problem as Mitchell Bard seems to imply. After all, we can conceive of scenarios in which the partition plan was accepted and no refugee problem ensued.
In any case, for all that you have written, you have failed to refute the specific statement in my post you seem to have taken issue with. I wrote that one of Ayalon's historical errors was 'that tired old claim that the Arab leaders told their people to leave'. I believe this is what you took issue with. But where is your evidence to the contrary? I.e, that the refugee problem was caused by the Arab leaders telling their populations to leave?
I accept that the mass exodus was in part inadvertently encouraged by leaders of the Palestinian community, some of whom blew out of proportion the atrocities committed on Arab civilians. I also accept that most of the Palestinian refugees left out of fear and panic and not because they were directly removed with force. But this is altogether different from saying what I object to and consider to be a historical error - that the refugee problem was caused by Arab leaders directly telling their populations to leave.
b'shalom
M
Tooly,
ReplyDeleteIf the Arabs had accepted the partition plan there may have been no Arab refugees but there also would not be a Jewish state today. With only a meagre majority in the 'Jewish State' as it was, many historians and thinkers believe [and I can't find a compelling reason to disagree] that Israel 'had to' expel arabs in order to maintain Israel.
Further, if you really believe that the Hagannah, Irgun etc. (--> IDF/Israel) Didn't plan to/actually didn't try to expel peaceful arab villages in the wrong areas you're kidding yourself. My very close friend's grandfather worked in the Hagannah and his job for months was to go to arab villages, tell them al to leave, if they wouldn't they were instructed to burn down the largest house in the village and then threaten them with destruction. Most arabs left. It saddens me greatly that this is the case, but it really is.
Telling what you believe to be the truth about Israel's creation does not make you a 'self-hating jew'.
Nicha,
ReplyDelete(1-2) You are saying that we cannot know that the statements is hundred percent correct.
Please draw me a scenario in which the Arabs would have accepted the UN plan peacefully, they would have not attacked, and something would have caused the refugees problem. (Please base it on facts).
I have given you plenty of material that shows why the Arabs have left.
From this material, these two points answer your specific isue.
Syria’s UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a “massacre” and said this action was “further evidence that the ‘Zionist program’ is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected.”
(not much has changed)
April 23, 1948, Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah’’s truce offer, the Arabs “preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town
If as you say you accept that “the mass exodus was in part inadvertently encouraged by leaders of the Palestinian community, some of whom blew out of proportion the atrocities committed on Arab civilians. I also accept that most of the Palestinian refugees left out of fear and panic and not because they were directly removed with force”. Then we actually agree. In your point about the so called “historical error”, you are arguing about semantics not on essence.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou have raised an interesting concept. Indeed if the Arabs would have accepted the partition plan there might not have been Israel today. However, you seem to level an accusation at Israel based on speculations of “historians and thinkers”. The question raised here is simply who is responsible for the many Palestinian refugees. I suggest that any other speculation you want to raise, interesting as they might be, are irrelevant.
My very close friend happened to know a grandfather who likes to tell stories. They make him feel important.
There is very little about Israel that I kid myself about. I know it inside and out, it was build and protected with sweat and blood of generations of my family. My first ancestor has settled in Jerusalem in 1846, (eighteen). It is a country which I love, warts (and it has many), and all.
In 1948 an all out war was lunch by Arabs living in the area known as Palestine, together with the armies of five Arab nations. This war, with its stated aim of cleansing the land from Jews is still going on as we speak. Some of the participants have changed; some of the participants have changed their methods. The original aim is still held by many, and although its chances of successes are largely recognized by sane people as nil, there are still enough insane people around who are willing to die trying. In the process they are causing immense suffering to Israelis and even greater suffering to their own people.
Lastly, I would categorized any Jew who wishes to use foreign power to impose his own will on Israel regardless of its democratic voters decisions, as a self hating Jew, whether he is exercising freedom of speech or not. In fact, I would categorize him in few other ways, but I am afraid that these are not printable.
Tooly, this is going to be my last post in response to you, because our historical discussion really has little to do with the content of my blog post above.
ReplyDeleteA brief chronology of our discussion:
1) I wrote in my post that Ayalon had made a historical error by giving 'a false description of the 48 war (that tired old claim that the Arab leaders told their people to leave)'
2) You appeared to take issue with this, and wrote:
'You might disagree with Ayalon on many things, even on everything, but please do not try to rewrite history. You are far too green to present your own version of events.'
3) After quotes being thrown back and forth you wrote:
If as you say you accept that “the mass exodus was in part inadvertently encouraged by leaders of the Palestinian community, some of whom blew out of proportion the atrocities committed on Arab civilians. I also accept that most of the Palestinian refugees left out of fear and panic and not because they were directly removed with force”. Then we actually agree. In your point about the so called “historical error”, you are arguing about semantics not on essence.
4) And now I respond:
The issue of whether Arab leaders explicitly told their populations to leave or inadvertently encouraged them to do so by mistake is not just an argument about semantics; it is an argument about what actually happened. Semantic arguments concern words and not facts; this is about facts.
You attacked me for rewriting history and for presentng my own version of events - quite a strong accusation - on the sole basis that I rejected Ayalon's claim that the Arab civilians left because their leaders told them to do so. For all your lengthy quoting, you have still not provided evidence to justify your accusation. (Indeed, you end by saying 'we actually agree'). I'd be more careful the next time you throw accusations around.
Finally, you write:
Please draw me a scenario in which the Arabs would have accepted the UN plan peacefully, they would have not attacked, and something would have caused the refugees problem. (Please base it on facts).
I assume this is in response to my point (1) in the preceeding comment. Like you, I suspect there would not have been a refugee problem had the plan been accepted. But (a) we cannot know this for sure - certainly there were arguments for transfer that predated the UN plan. And (b), and more importantly, as I wrote in my second point (though I originally wrote 'accepted' where I meant to write 'rejected'):
(2) The Arabs rejecting the UN plan is quite obviously not a sufficient cause of the Palestinian refugee problem as Mitchell Bard seems to imply. After all, we can conceive of scenarios in which the partition plan was rejected and yet no refugee problem ensued.
For this reason, any attempt to attribute all responsibility for the refugee problem on the Arabs, along the lines articulated by Bard as you quoted him, simply will not do. Events happened in between the Palestinian rejection of the UN plan and the refugee crisis happening, and the Jewish forces were - uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge - involved in these events. In the seminar Morris gave on the 48 war in Oxford recently, he argued that initially, the war really was war of survival for the Jews, but that as the war progressed, the strategy evolved. While it was never officially stated, he argued, an 'atmosphere' for transfer emerged. And that 'atmosphere', and the actions that it contributed towards was undenuably a contributing factor to the refugee problem.
I'm signing out now.
Best,
M
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is a pity that you are signing out, because I am not clear on how, if you cannot draw any other scenario, (based on facts, that would have caused the refugee problem), you can still try to claim that you cannot agree with a statement that: “Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.”
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that you are trying to hold the stick on both ends. It is a feeble attempt on your part to claim that a rejection could have coincided with no action. It should be quite obvious to you that by rejecting, the meaning is -acting against- and not simply rejecting and doing nothing, which is an acceptance.
Ayalon has pointed out exactly the same thing, and you tried to dismiss him by dscribing it as “historical errors consisted of an idealized reading of Jewish history, a false description of the 48 war (that tired old claim that the Arab leaders told their people to leave)” I have showed you that although it is old, it still stands the test of time. You even said that you agree with most of it.
If you are looking for dramatisation of historical facts, rather than relying on Beni Moris’ atmospheric description, I suggest you take a look at these:
http://www.iba.org.il/media/?site=152&page=252&topic=928
To understand it fully, you will need to understand Hebrew. I must warn you that it is presented in a very dramatic way, but the facts are there for you to see, sometimes in colures, mostly in interviews with real people, you will not have to simply accept someone’s word for it.
Tooly,
ReplyDelete1) If you're asking directly who was responsible for the palestinian exodus or Naqba, then the answer is: The Hagannah, Irgun & Lehi (---> Israel) *AND* The local arab leaders *AND* other Arab states. Did ethnic cleansing occur in 1948, I believe yes having looked at a lot of evidence. Does that stop me supporting the right of Israel to exist? no!
2) Re; My friend's grandfather. Are you calling him a liar because his story doesn't fit with your world view? He's told that story for 62 years [apparently], and it's never changed. He's not lying - things like that *DID* happen, whether you want to admit it or not.
3) The suffering caused to Israelis today, in 2010 is miniscule compared to the suffering Israel is inflicting upon a largely innocent population. There's only so long that you can kid yourself that Israel is always the victim and 'the Arabs' just want to clear the area of Jews. It's offensive. I have many Palestinian and Arab friends (although definitely not outnumbering my Israeli and Jewish friends), and none of them wish for anything more than peace and a 2-state solution.
4) Your definition of a self-hating Jew is insane. What you're saying is that Jews *MUST* agree with everything Israel chooses to do, otherwise they are self-hating? That if Israel goes against international law and I believe that international law should be upheld that I'm a self-hating Jew? That if I feel that Israel is going in the wrong direction and I wish to save Israel because I believe that what she is doing to herself is completely and utterly damaging then I'm a self-hating Jew?
How far does your definition go? What if (and this will NEVER happen, but let's push your theory to the extreme) Israel opens up concentration camps and gas chambers, and the Israeli public vote for it? If I want an international force to stop this, am I a self-hating Jew?
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou either have problem understanding plain English, or you are very keen to put words in my mouth. I will try to make it clearer for you once more. Shlomo Ben Amy is many things (all of which are bad) because having brought a disaster on Israel with the Oslo “agreement” and having been kicked out by the Israeli voters, he is now calling to impose his will on Israel with outside help.
You can have any view you like, indeed there is a rainbow of views in Israel itself. It is however something completely different when you disregard the democratic process in Israel and seek to bare pressure on its people by using NATO ships. This action is as abhorrent as any other call for a military revolution.
Your hypothetic question is pathetic, even when you qualify it with “it will never happen”. However, it serves this debate well. The reason why Shlomo Ben Amy becomes disgusting is the same reason that stops your hypothetic question from happening. Israel is a state govern by law, Shlomo Ben Amy tried to put himself above that law, he is as guilty as anyone who would try to build concentration camps in Israel would be.
I am glad you have Arab friends, Please believe me when I tell you that Ayalon too have Arab friends. There are many Arabs, who recognize the right of Israel to exist, and there are many that given the choice between living in Israel or a Palestinian state, will choose Israel any time. (And who could blame them). However, the problem remains with the huge number of Arabs who are willing to die while killing as many Israelis as they can. It is entirely their fault that so many Arabs are suffering and it matters not how many grandfather stories you have heard. On the day these Arabs will be serious about peace, the entire Middle East will change. Unfortunately, when you get to know the Arab mentality as well as I do, you will understand that the chances of reaching that day in our life time, are very, very slim.
Is your friend grandfather a liar? I don’t know him, I couldn’t even care. I am sure that there were many minor incidents that took place at the time. War is ugly. Our concern however should be with the question of whether there was an -ethnic cleansing plan-, by Hagana, by Palmach, by RASHY HAYSHUV, and the answer is categorically no. Even people like Beny Moris admit that. At the same time, you don’t have to go 62 years back to know what the other side is whishing for, just read the Hamas charter.
Dear Blogger,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for the late addition, but you got me a bit more interested in the subject, so when I had few free minutes I went for a quick search.
I am sure you have heard of Abu Mazen, I suggest you ask the various Beni Morises to argue with him.
The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".
- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976
With your permission, a few more.
ReplyDelete"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948
"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".
- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25
The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31
I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481
- Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949
We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
ReplyDelete- Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951
Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.
- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963
"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948
"The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"
- Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953
"[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""
- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14
Micah,
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, I'm glad we're talking openly and non-judgementally about differing historical narratives. The subsequent discussion however I find deeply unnerving. It seems like the acrobatic single loop learning on show here, whilst boasting pretty impressive hasbora skills, is missing the point somewhat.
Amos Oz writes in an article to Tikkun Magazine (1998) that 'when [he] sees a car accident, [he doesn't] ask who caused the accident, but who is bleeding more heavily; it is they who deserve the most urgent attention.' It saddens me that individuals blogging here thing that blaming either the Palestinians/surrounding Arab nations or the Israelis for the current situation somehow absolves one side from the need to compromise. If Israel really strives to be a moral nation, supporters must stop looking at competing narratives of '48 and ask what can be done in 2010 to help alleviate suffering.
Tooly, you're clearly an intelligent person, but I don't think that you're working in the interest of reconciliation. Why not?
B
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteYou might be familiar with the term RODEF SHALOM רודף שלום Peace Chaser. Israel has been chasing peace from the day of its creation. More so, the left in Israel has been chasing peace extremely hard in the last 20 years or so. The result has been that peace (like everything else that you chase) has run away even faster.
Unfortunately, every concession that Israel is making for peace, is perceived on the other side (not by all, but by those who count) as a weakness and as a sign that they should put more pressure and carry out more atrocities. You ask why I am not working for reconciliation, reconciliation, with whom?
Speaking for myself, (and now days I am probably in a minority in Israel), if I thought that it would bring peace, I would even put Bark’s offer to Arafat, back on the table again. However, I am not prepared to do so just to find myself in an even worse position than I am now.
Your writing suggests that you are even more intelligent than I am. As an intelligent person, please explain to me what steps do you take, once you pass the compassion stage following the accident, in order to prevent the next one?
By simply pretending that both sides are to blame, because it is a “nicer thing to do”, you are giving permission to any reckless driver to drive as he likes. Amos Oz is a brilliant writer, a wonderful humanist; unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good book to stop a suicide bomber.
Tooly,
ReplyDeleteYou're right that certain concessions made by Israel have been misconstrued by the Palestinian leadership as signs of weakness, none more so than the withdrawal from Gaza. I also agree that it is frustrating to have goodwill thrust back in your face, and that 'peace chasing', as you put it, can compromise Israel's security. However, I believe there is something deeper at stake here than Israel's security, and that is the moral fabric of the Jewish people living there.
When Israel abandons policies that are aimed at giving Palestinians a stake in a future Palestine, they create an environment in which extremism can thrive. That is not to say that Israel is to blame for the success of Hamas, rather to observe that Israel can create an environment in which Hamas find it more difficult to rule. It should be recognized by policy-makers that Hamas have a vested interest in keeping the Palestinians both subjugated and poor. They were elected on a platform emphasizing social reform, yet no one holds them accountable to these promises when they are fighting Israel. Any war with Hamas only serves to further impoverish Palestinians, while simultaneously giving Hamas the perfect scapegoat - no longer are they expected to deliver on promises to improve living standards.
Unfortunately where I think your analysis falls down is to imply that Israel always chases peace, save when their security is compromised by doing so. Allowing further development of West Bank settlements serves not only to antagonize the Palestinians, but also confers no defence related advantages. It also means that the international community are reticent to support Israel, and rightfully causes them to question Israel’s peace-seeking credentials. Similarly, the policy of bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers after they have committed an atrocity has not proved to be a significant disincentive, and is a form of collective punishment. I would have hoped that this policy would have been abandoned without the need for the Israeli Supreme Court’s intervention.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the ultranationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Leiberman, seemingly misses no opportunity to alienate and offend the Arab Israeli minority. Trying to ban Arab parties or deny them citizenship surely cannot come under your banner of רודף שלום.
I really don't believe I am 'pretending' that both sides are to blame. Both sides are to blame, certainly not with equal weighting, but as I said in my previous comment, viewing this conflict through the prism of historical wrongs is not constructive. Israel should show both to the Palestinians and the wider international community that it is willing to make painful concessions for peace. Whether or not Israel expects certain settlements to be swapped for land inside the green line, it is not Israel's prerogative to develop them, as that constitutes predetermining the terms unilaterally of a future peace agreement. Similarly, more funds need to pour into NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether or not we consider the current Palestinian leadership to be an appropriate partner for peace. Radicalized Palestinians must be given something to lose through embracing extremism: a job, a safe home, a continuous supply of electricity. These can be provided (at a significant cost) by the Israeli government.
I honestly believe it is not just a case of showing Palestinians compassion, but it is in Israel's long term interest to make itself more vulnerable temporarily (as was done by making route 443 accessible to Palestinians), in order to both show goodwill to the Palestinian people and to curry favour within the international community.
Unfortunately none of this will be done by the current coalition, as it was not elected to seek peace, as you claim, but rather to maintain the status quo. Maybe some individuals will 'drive more recklessly' because of these measures, but I imagine most individuals will simply feel more secure in their cars knowing that they will be cared for in the event of an accident. Healthcare doesn't incentivise risk taking, and I would similarly argue that removing as many road blocks as possible, providing more humanitarian aid, and abandoning policies that are aimed at land-grabbing, do not strengthen Hamas, but challenge their traditional and tired complaints that the Zionist enterprise is the root of all evil. Perhaps if Palestinians had fewer immediate concerns, they could start holding their leadership to account.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts - no doubt you think me naive, but I welcome a response all the same.
Ben.
ReplyDeleteWould I describe you as Naive?
Not at all, you don’t come across as such; maybe blind to the truth, but more probably you are chasing an agenda irrespective of the truth.
Firstly let me state that I don’t consider Lieberman as a peace chaser. All the more credit to him because of that, as at least he is less likely to chase peace away. This will only sound strange to anybody who refuses to acknowledge the recent history. We know that Israeli governments leaning to the right can achieve a lot more in terms of peace agreements, but more importantly, in our neighbourhood, peace and quiet is more easily attained when you carry a big stick. As for Lieberman upsetting Israeli Arabs, it might not be such a bad idea for some of them to re-evaluate their loyalties. Strange how suddenly a Palestinian state seems a lot less attractive to many if it includes them in it.
You claim that Israel is losing the moral ground. Quite apart from the fact that in order to be moral you first need to be breathing, I can’t see how you can find immorality in one defending oneself. I have no doubt that you are willing to search very hard to find these “immoralities”, but I suggest that you must start with a pretty twisted point of view to look for these in the first place. Of course I would take no joy in the suffering of the Palestinians, even if I was callous and uncaring, which I am not. I readily admit that it is in my own interests to alleviate their suffering. However, Israel has done a lot in the past for the Palestinians and where has it got us? What have the concessions to support the peace process achieved? Against all logic Israel has trusted Arafat and the PLO as peace partners. For these mistakes we paid with blood, and the Palestinians paid with rivers of blood. Do you seriously suggest that we should blindly ignore what we have learnt from experience and continue to sink deeper?
I do think that the situation we have at the moment, where Israel is protecting the PLO in the West Bank and has left the Palestinians to stew in their own mess with Hamas in Gaza, has a good chance in achieving what you are describing as a “stake in the future”. The simple comparison between, living in relative peace alongside Israel, as opposed to waging war against it, is a good one for any would be extremists to ponder.
I found your suggestion that “it is in Israel's long term interest to make itself more vulnerable temporarily” outrageous. It is taking us back to “sacrificing people for peace”. Try as I might, I cannot bring myself to understand where you would take the audacity to suggest that. Where is your goodwill to allow me to live?
Continue
ReplyDeleteI think that by presenting the settlements as an obstacle for peace, you are, to put it mildly, misleading. There was war way before there were any settlements, and there was peace made with Egypt despite many settlements in Sinai. At the same time, the removal of settlements from Gaza has pushed peace further away. More so, Netanyahu now agreed to freeze building in the settlements. Has that brought us any closer to negotiations? At the same time, you did say that “Radicalized Palestinians must be given something to lose through embracing extremism”. The settlements are the “egg timer” without which the Palestinians themselves, even the less extreme, admit that they could wait a hundred more years.
Demolishing houses of suicide bombers (though not practiced that much these days) has proved to be working in the past, as it has shorten the list of would be suicide bombers. We are looking at a desperate situation, the intentional murder of women and children. This calls for desperate measures, you can hardly threaten a dead person with a punishments of a long jail sentence.
Your message is that Israel should make concessions to convince, or to help, or to encourage the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table. You tried to side step the problem of whom, on the Palestinian side, Israel should negotiate with. You said “regardless of whether or not we consider the current Palestinian leadership to be an appropriate partner for peace”. Can you please explain the logic behind this idea? If we take a most simple example of buying a car, would you seriously suggest that I should negotiate a price and pay regardless of whether the seller is the owner of the car???
Why don’t you start answering the real questions? When will you admit that the other side is not interested in anything that you can offer?
Let say that I give you complete control over Israeli policy, a free hand to offer anything you want, - bar the destruction of the Jewish state in the land called Israel -, you can choose the borders, you can sign any deals... Please answer candidly, what do you think you can achieve?
Do, however, try to answer logically. Something like the answer you gave “I imagine most individuals will simply feel more secure in their cars knowing that they will be cared for in the event of an accident” is simply side stepping the question. After all, there is a very good medical service in England; you wouldn’t for a moment suggest that because of that we can stop policing the traffic.
It is no wonder that, when you allow your imagination to suggest that medical facilities can improve driving, you can then imagine that somehow removing roadblocks will increase security. Like everything else in that region, when you try to pretend that it is all a chicken and an egg situation, when you try to ignore the true course of events, you can then imagine that the roads blocks are the reason for the violence, completely disregarding the fact that we erected these roads blocks because of the violence. With this sort of imagination, it is no wonder that you find it so easy to assign blame to “both sides”.