open Democracy News Analysis - israel & palestine - old roads, new maps - Comments

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:30:40 +0000

It's not silly, it's true. This is the justification the Arab League gave for the intervention in Palestine in 1948:

Quote:

10. Now that the British mandate over Palestine has come to an end, without there being a legitimate constitutional authority in the country, which would safeguard the maintenance of security and respect for law and which would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

....

...the Governments of the Arab States have found themselves compelled to intervene in Palestine solely in order to help its inhabitants restore peace and security and the rule of justice and law to their country, and in order to prevent bloodshed.

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/arab_invasion.html)

The Arab aim was not an ethnic cleansing of Jews from Palestine, nor inflicting a genocide, nor driving the Jewish inhabitants into the sea. These charges have been made up by Zionists in order to legitimise their war of conquest and expulsion. During 1948 "Arab agression" became the first article of faith of Zionism. The function of this believe is to legitimise taking land from the Palestinians, expelling them, and blocking their return. Next to "making Palestine Jewish" Zionists also aspire to be moral superhumans. Of course, this can only be achieved simultaneously by fooling oneself with this kind of dubious legitimisations.

The Arab aim was to give Palestine to its inhabitants. That's why they didn't want a Jewish state. This has nothing to do with racism, but everything with the rights of the Palestinians according to the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.

Michael Brenner on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

Michael Brenner — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:10:35 +0000

"It is a fact that the Arab states justified their attack by referring to the 250.000+ refugees that the Zionists had already created by 14 May. Morally, the attack of the Arab states was comparable to the attack of NATO on Serbia when it tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo."

What silliness. If you believe that the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 because of the refugee issue, I have a bridge to sell you. The Arabs attacked israel because they did not want a non-Arab state in the Middle East. They were unequivocal in declaring their opposition and unambiguous about what they would do if anyone tried to bring a Jewish state into being, even if it was one with a large Arab minority.

"It is a pity that the Zionists won and succeeded with their conquest of Palestinian land and expulsion of the Palestinians."

Yes, what a pity that the Arabs were not permitted to perpetrate another holocaust in service of making the Middle East ethnically pure.

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:30:02 +0000

Maybe there are some Palestinians who believe that there was no Jewish temple where now is the Haram al Sharif, but this is only a marginal opinion. Certainly the Palestinians do not need this to legitimise their struggle.

The injustices done to the Palestinians by Zionism are not "revealed truth", but reality. 150 years ago they lived peacefully in their country. Then came the Zionists that claimed that country for the Jewish people. Then, after 1948, the Palestinians found themselves thrown out of a large part of their country. Of course the Palestinians resisted; they did not react in any way strange to the attempts of another people to colonize their country. They have every right to resist this. The injustices done to them are not "revealed truth" but reality.

habesor on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

habesor — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:31:56 +0000

JCBosma,

I think that your response is a perfect example of the flaws inherent in a study of history driven by partisan or ideological views. In your opinion the Palestinians are true believers of their own case therefore there is no necessity, psychological or otherwise, to question the revealed truth as it has been handed down to them. I would suggest that at this stage the Palestinians need new historians even more than do the Israelis. And it seems that a bit of critical analysis of Palestinian national myths might do you some good as well. For instance, the Palestinian national myth currently includes the notion that no Jewish Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount. What psychological need of the Palestinians (and perhaps you as well) leads to such a distorted view of history?

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:17:41 +0000

As Shlaim writes, the battle between "old" and "new" historians is a battle about the moral interpretation of history. In this battle the "new" historians are not on the side that is guided by its believe in Zionism's superior morality. The "new" historians are the more critical ones. The "old" historians let themselves guide by their believe in Zionism's moral superiority, and they are the ones that promote an ideological view. (by the way, Benny Morris, although he is a "new" historian, still advocates an ideoligically distorted view of history).

Zionism was and is constantly working to construct an image of reality according to which it is always acting moral. Zionists tell themselves that they are constantly defending themselves, but their "defense" leads to nationalist goals like conquest and expulsion. Apparently, they don't find it moral to conquer and expel because of their nationalist ideals (Zionists believe that all of Palestine belongs to the Jewish people), so they legitimise their acts and policies in other (dubious) ways. As a result of this, it is not surprising that the "old" Zionist historiography is severely distorted. Even Benny Morris's work is distorted in a zionist way.

On the Palestinian side there is no such thing. Almost all Palestinians agree that they have a right to resist Israel and the Zionists, who conquered much of their land and expelled many of them in 1948, occupied the remaining part in 1967, and are since then slowly but surely conquering this with their settlements. Unlike the Zionists, the Palestinians don't feel a psychological need to deny their real motivation. Consequently there is not such a psychological need that requires them to create a distorted image of history, and their view of history is much less distorted. They don't need "new" historians.

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:53:53 +0000

Mr. Brenner, you are wrong that Arab Legion invaded Israel. It did not. Except for the old town of Jerusalem and the Gush Etzion (which was harrassing Arab transport) the Arab Legion only defended itself against Zionist attacks. Ben-Gurion ordered an attack on the Legion in Latrun for three times. He was trying to conquer land that was assigned to the Palestinian state.

It is a fact that the Arab states justified their attack by referring to the 250.000+ refugees that the Zionists had already created by 14 May. Morally, the attack of the Arab states was comparable to the attack of NATO on Serbia when it tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo.

It is a pity that the Zionists won and succeeded with their conquest of Palestinian land and expulsion of the Palestinians.

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:45:26 +0000

As you tell it is like the Zionists like to see it. This is however a constructed image of reality designed to satisfy the need of Zionists to see themselves as morally superior. It is a fact that there was a Zionist plan that meant the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. It is a fact that most Palestinians fled because they were attacked by Zionist forces. It is a fact that the Arab states justified their attack by referring to the 250.000+ refugees that the zionists had already created by 14 May. Morally, the attack of the Arab states was comparable to the attack of NATO on Serbia when it tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. It is a pity that the zionists won the war. Had the Arabs won (and the Zionists abandoned their nationalist ambitions) the two peoples could have lived peacefully together, like Jews and christians have lived peacefully in Arab countries for centuries.

gyoram on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

gyoram — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:56:28 +0000

It was not exactly like Shalim remembers it:

Israel was officially declared a state on the night of May 14. On the
morning of the 15 the attack by the Arab League began.
On that same date the Secretary General of the Arab League, Abdul Razek
Azzam Pasha, announced at a Cairo Press Conference:
'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre' .this
was reported in New York Times, 16/5/48
Is it any wonder that the Jews felt threatned and fought firercly ?
On the subject of the refugees, it seems obvious that had there been no
war, had the Arab world accepted the UN decission there would have been
NO war. Then there would have been no refugees.
As to the responsibility of the both the war and the refugees Emile
Ghoury, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, placed the
respnsibility where he saw it; in an interview with the Beirut
Telegraph, he said:
‘The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the act 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’.
(Beirut Telegraph, 6/9/48, cfpm.org))

habesor on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

habesor — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:29:43 +0000

I think that Avi Shlaim's comments reveal two fundamental faults with the advocacy approach to the study of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. First, the selection of facts to prove the rightness or justice of a cause almost always produces an inaccurate picture of historical events. Second, the historical focus restricted to only one side of the conflict also distorts the picture of events.

One has to pause when confronted by some (emphasis on some) of the new historians' attitudes towards factual data which contradicts an intensely held thesis or, in the case of Ilan Pappe, an ideological position.

It should be obvious that the more traditional Israeli historians did not have a patent on the truth. I would suggest that such a patent would not be granted to the "new" historians either and in fact, they might do well to view criticisms of their own work as legitimate and not some new form of warfare.

Shlaim's announced focus in the above comments is, as is usually the case, only on Israeli historians. One must wonder what Palestinian new historians are saying or, as is my impression, are they sticking to the "party line" even more closely than the much maligned "old" Israeli historians. In fact though the new Israeli historians have had a moderating effect on Israeli perceptions and policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab states, there seems to be nothing comparable on the Palestinians side. This should be troubling to those who claim to favor peace and reconciliation between the two peoples.

One final note. The Palestinians indeed refer to the 1948 war as al-nakba, the catastrophe. However, the 1967 war, which by all indices led to greater losses to the Palestinians and the Arabs is referred to as an-naksah, the setback. It might be of help if the New historians could explain this different terminology.

Michael Brenner on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

Michael Brenner — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:33:55 +0000

Have we not read this article a hundred times before at OpenDemocracy?

Whether the British were for or against the establishment of a Palestinian state has little to do with the fact that the British supported the Arab Legion, which fought against Israel. I have never heard Zionists argue that the British fought for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Zionists merely argue that in a war between the Israelis and the Arabs, the British took the Arab side.

Avi Shlaim seems to point an accusatory finger at Israel's illicit importation of arms during the first UN embargo. Perhaps he would rather that Israel had been overrun at the conclusion of truce that few expected to hold. It is also misleading to cite troop numbers. Israel was invaded by five armies from countries surrounding it on all sides. No one disputes that, and while it is certainly true that the Arab armies were disorganized, that is hardly something that is the fault of the Israelis.

There is little question that the Arab aim was to eliminate the new State of Israel. The evidence is overwhelming. The Arabs did not try to hide this aim.

It is a certain evasion to say that the Palestinian Arabs of 1948 left because of Israeli pressure. If the Israelis are fighting a war of survival, and Palestinian Arabs leave because they fear Israeli military strength, it is hardly the fault of the Israelis.

JCBosma on "Israel’s “new history” and the Palestinians"

JCBosma — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:50:42 +0000

Indeed, what Zionists did in 1948 can learn Zionists a lot about Zionism. Benny Morris did an attempt in 1988, he unearthed a lot of facts about what happened. However he interpreted it in a typical Zionist way: his interpretations were dictated by his conclusion, namely that Zionists did not premeditate the expulsion of the Palestinians. In this way Zionists will not understand their past, and will not understand themselves. They do not understand that there is a difference between reality and the image of reality that they have shaped (and are constantly shaping) in order to see themselves as moral. Everytime Israel does something to the Palestinians or other Arabs that furthers Zionism's nationalists goals, it claims that it does it for whatever reason (e.g. "security" or "archeology") except to further Zionism's nationalist goals. In 1948 they conquered most of the areas alloted to the Palestinians by "defending" themselves. They expelled 700.000+ Palestinians by "defending" themselves. In 1956 they conquered the Sinai by a "pre-emptive" war. In 1967 they did the same, but also with the West Bank and the Golan. Sharon's real goal with the war of 1982 was securing the West Bank for Israel. The war of 2008 was only fought to avoid doing concessions to Hamas. Stopping the rockets could have easily been achieved by an agreement with Hamas, for which Hamas was not asking more than what international aid organisations were asking: to lift the blockade on humanitarian goods.

A fair interpretation of what happened in 1948 is given bij Ilan Pappe in "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine". It is a pity that Avi Shlaim does not mention this book.

Sandgroper on "Psychoactive and Operation Cast Lead"

Sandgroper — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:03:25 +0000

You said: " Our colleagues persistently voiced their opposition to any form of attack on or killing of civilians, whether Palestinian or Jewish..."

Did they voice this opposition at any other time during the 8 years of rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians ...or only after Israel attacked?

(I'm genuinely interested in an answer.)

Moe on "The Hizbollah project: last war, next war"

Moe — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:53:00 +0000

"Israel" cannot use nukes for one simple reason: Palestine and lebanon share the same air (and even water), and so using nukes against Lebanon would mean the following:

*Palestine's air would become lethal, and thus, "Israelis" would die or become deformed.

*Palestine's/Lebanon's water would become not drinkable= the death of "Israelis" and Lebanese equally.

*In event of such Nuke use, Lebanon would be destroyed, but so would "Israel".

*Just like "Israel" can use nukes against Lebanon, Hezbollah can hit Dimona, which would have similar results as firing nuclear bomb on "Israel"; however, I assure you, the next war will end within less than 48 hours, and before "Israel" comprehends what is going on.
And, Jews who lived in Palestine before 1918 would be allowed to stay, while illegal settlers will be sent back to their original countries--as Hezbollah hates to kill anybody including its enemies--this is why only 39 "Israeli" civilians were killed in the last war: "YOu kill our people, and we respond by targetting your Saar warships, Merkava tanks and military bases" Nasrallah said after "Israels" second Qana massacre in 2006.

JCBosma on "Psychoactive and Operation Cast Lead"

JCBosma — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:19:29 +0000

Great article.

I highly appreciate the work of Psychoactive and support them fully.

deteodoru on "Binyamin Netanyahu’s mirage"

deteodoru — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:42:18 +0000

Bibbi Netanyahu seems to think that Jews have nowhere else to go but to listen to his perpetual campaign diatribe. Whatever he has to say will be taken as truth by Jews because, after all, he too is circumcised. And the goyum will listen and shake their heads in approval for sure, well, because, after all, they're only "dumb goyim." Like far too many Israelis Bibbi keeps shielding his bad side with the ever blinding and paralyzing (so he thinks) Holocaust. Perhaps because they never bothered to consider whether there is a logical connection between the Holocaust and the Zionists' right-- just taking it for granted-- permissive to extermination the Palestinians, he has this week used it at the UN and on the Charlie Rose Show-- as indeed in his perennial ever in the USA campaigns for political office in Israel-- as a distraction from Israel's "rat hunt" for Palestinians to exterminate simply because you can't have Jews and Arabs alternating standing on
eachother's head to occupy the same "greater" tiny nation. But there is the question of: what really was the "Holocaust"? Was it the industrial killing of German Jews or the manual massacre of "doubly inferior" (for being both inferior as Jews and as East Europeans) Jews of East Europe? This, today, is the question raised by Holocaust scholars:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875
His little history lesson cheapens the obvious horrible reality because it is used as a verbal shower curtain pulled closed before the UN General Assembly to hide the Gaza and Lebanon industrial killing of civilians DELIBERATELY from the air. It wasn't even his party in power that did that, so why should he be put in a position excusing the darkness at an opportunity to manifest the light? Could it be that Bibi the shyster takes over whenever he leaves the soil where he knows that to do good he has to be serious? Is he calculating that if he speaks at the UN of current issues, as he does in Israel, American Zionists will no longer fund his perpetual political campaigns abroad instead of at home? Did he forget that now he came to New York as a Prime Minister and not as as a perpetual campaigner seeking funds as if a TV evangelist?

Because he thinks himself such a "shmecker," he talks extemporaneously and doesn't consider his sentences, only his for-effect hot-button words. For example, on the Charlie Rose show, in making the case that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state, he invoked the "demographic time bomb" which would make Arabs more numerous than Jews in Greater Israel-- thus sounding like the Afrikaners explaining why "Kefers" (blacks) couldn't be given a vote in the apartheid days in South Africa (an all-white government that Sharon spent many months in studying how to create Palestinian "Bantus-tans" instead of two states but later realized can't be done). If Israeli Arab Christians and Muslims are such a population time bomb to him, he thus admits that Israel is NOT the Jewish HOMELAND state because Jews like it fine being Diaspora citizens, only enjoying Israel as a nice place to visit but not to live in. Is the Great Aliyah full of "olims" coming
to *THEIR* Jewish state or "yorims" in a reverse aliyah to Los Angeles and New York, sick of Israel's garrison state economy living as a fetal state off of an American placenta?

Holocausts are many so the evidenciary momentum is definitely in favor of each and every one of them as proof of how much man can be wolf to man. But when you use the deaths of Jews that millions of Diaspora Jews are still mourning over in daily grief and reverence as a cheap cover for your own brand of lebensraum tactics to prune the "Palestinian vermin" at the very time when his government is acting like the Sudanese Government over Dar-fur in refusing to face the charges in the World Court (even before they have been filed)-- especially when in Israel German refugees from the Holocaust were unsympathetically derided as "Yekes" during the Holocaust-- you thus alienate the very global Jewish political base on whose behalf you claim to be the Head of State.

Israel is a reality to the mass majority of Palestinians as much as they want Palestine to be a reality to Israelis-- a reality whose mail fist they often feel to remind them of how real it is. There's no need to try and steal the identity of the Diaspora nor the victims they cherish in silence to muddle the issue with guilt. Indeed, Netanyahu presents Israel, not as just a Jewish homeland, but as Hitler and Stalin presented their people under their regimes, as "new men" that are no longer sheep that march to slaughter. He thus doubly desecrates the Jews who chose to believe in THEIR Western Culture rather than run to Palestine-- the Jewish state to which generations from survivors now still in the Diaspora STILL contribute so very, very much-- as bovine fools that are mere propaganda fodder for the "new mensch" sabra fighters exterminating Arab human vermin just as did Hitler and Stalin race and class enemies. This "Zionazi" perspective is not the one
Bibbi got elected with. He advocated raising the Palestinians economically, helping them achieve HOPE in their own humanity as a SISTER STATE in a two-states, one-economy paradigm that rebinds the historic familial ties between Jews and Arabs all through the sands of the Middle East in hope that Israel can help modernize them and free from their poor prognosis as one crop economy (oil) banana republics. Bibbi instead avowed to sympathetic old Charlie Rose in response to loving softball questions that he hears voices, the voices of the Arab leaders in their private conclaves plotting Israel's demise. Charlie doesn't challenge, after all the Mossad hears everything! Bibbi also speaks of blasting Iran into a lunar landscape so Israelis can feel safe that no one else in the Middle East will acquire atomic weapons while Israel chokes on its 500 or so hydrogen bombs that it twice almost used.

Please Bibi, we are not "dumb goyim" in America, though we put our hopes in you. Be weary of us Americans, however, for we tend to say one thing (bravo!) and do another (squeeze into compliance). So spare yourself from the strangling dependency on the ridiculously generous American dole you swore you would end when Sharon's Finance Minister. Now we are broke and feel more desperate than generous. The only way you can escape it is by rejoining as a Semitic family member in the modernized Middle East. That's mensch-hood" instead of chutzpah. You're not Bibbi the Shyster, you're-- again, and maybe for the last time, so make the most of it-- Bibbi the Prime Minister. Please act PM-ish at home as well as abroad. Don't look to Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi for how to be an asshole abroad. Be a mensch, the mensch your father raised you to be!