open Democracy News Analysis - conflicts - 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.

jamie de jesus on "Mindanao: poverty on the frontlines"

jamie de jesus — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:19:28 +0000

i agree with everything, aside from you calling the phils a capitalist country.

we are very far from being capitalist. it is a backward agricultural country.

conflict from the south stems out from the landlessness of our brothers and sisters. this situation aggravated by the greediness of multinational corporations who have interests in mining ang agro-business.

thats why the govt is so keen in flushing out the rebels, to once again, sell our patrimony.

Sivakumar Chelliah on "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka"

Sivakumar Chelliah — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:05:46 +0000

The UN and EVERY rights group has repeatedly told us that in Sri Lanka the Tamil Tigers held 300,000 people as a human shield, and even shot at them whilst they fled.

Neutral news media reported that Sri Lanka paused it's offensive numerous times to allow civilians to flee. There is even video of Sri Lankan soldiers on loud speakers ushering people out of the conflict zone.

So unlike the people of Gaza, Sri Lanka did not attack an entire population to get at the combatants. In Sri Lanka it was the combatants that held people as a human shield.

Clearly not genocide and not comparable under any circumstances.

My gripe with people flaunting the word is that it shows lack of respect to the word and reduces it's value. Millions perished in genocides. We must reserve the word cautiously or it will turn into "just another word."

If you think no one is acting on the accusations of genocide now, that's the main reason. It's impossible to prove allegations if everyone is flaunting the word.

We must all call out and expose those who falsely claim genocide.

The following is an interesting read:
http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2009/genocide-talk020609.htm

david3210 on "Uses of genocide: Kenya, Georgia, Israel, Sri Lanka"

david3210 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:19:03 +0000

Some time ago I was hoping and believing that there will be no more genocides in the world, like in the armenian genocide in 1915, but it is a reality that world has not matured or learned from it as genocides are still happening, it is so unbelievable that these accure again and again, why are world leaders still not stopping the mass murders efficiently, learn from the past already!

Schnides on "Afghanistan: peacekeeping without peace "

Schnides — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:07:03 +0000

"...Security organisations clear the terrain while the UN can focus on organising elections, state-building and delivery of humanitarian and development assistance." What, exactly, are "security organisations," outside of the big ones already there? And how do you pull this off, if, as the authors aver: "The greater the number of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan, the larger the resentment, resistance and violence." An increased role for the UN, absent an adequate "security organization"(the U.S. Army?), will result in more loss of life for UN personnel, as we saw today in Kabul.