Thursday, April 21, 2005
History Lesson
(via MaxedOutMama)
More:
For those interested in the topic, the comment thread on this post is unusually "detailed" and link filled.
Still More:
SC&A responds to critics. My view is that willful ignorance -- and the inability to support one's opinion with facts and logic -- are more prevalent than racism. Especially regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict.
More and More:
Preoccupied Territory:
[A]ttacks against Israelis are described in the passive voice, while the deaths of Palestinians (never taking into account in the headlines whether they were terrorists) are described as active. If this seems like a trivial complaint on my part, notice the difference between "Bus Blows up in Central Jerusalem" (Was this spontaneous combustion? Do buses just randomly blow up in Israel? Is this phenomena relegated to only Israel?) and "Four Die in Israeli Shooting Rampage" (In reference to the two terrorists who were shot dead by Israeli policemen after they had killed two Israelis and wounded 50 others in the town of Afula).
Links to this post:
12 Comments:
Thank you for the link. I read the piece you remarked on in the comment you left. Simply put, great minds think alike.
By 
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, at
10:52 PM, April 21, 2005
You're welcome. Between the two, think supporters of the poor, poor Palestinians ever will be convinced? I don't--so long as the media coverage remains so slanted.
By Carl, at
12:19 AM, April 22, 2005
Very detailed post from Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, but I'm afraid they've got a few of the facts wrong in their history lesson. It's true that Egypt precipitated the six day war, but SCA don't mention that in the Nasser was responding at least in part to Israeli aggression - specifically, the raid at Samu and the downing of six Syrian MIGs. The (incorrect) perception in the Arab world was that Israel intended to invade Syria. Nasser was honoring his alliance with Syria and trying to intimidate Israel to back down. Historical evidence is that neither Egypt nor Israel really wanted the war - they were drawn into it by brinksmanship.
Israel's Prime Minister, Abba Eban, conveyed an offer of full withdrawal in return for peace to Dean Rusk on June 21, after the war was over; and that Egypt and Syria rejected the offer. There is some uncertainty as to whether Rusk conveyed the details of the offer.
But it is also true that Israel quickly backed off its willingness to cede the territory and, as international peace negotiations got underway, the offers Israel made were considerably less accomodating. Within a year after the war, Israel had made up its mind to keep the territory, and began the process of placing settlers there. Settlement has grown steadily since 1972 and has created a major problem for Israel, as well as sending the message to the Palestinians that Israel has no intention of allowing them a homeland.
The occupation has not been, in any way, benign. The Palestinians have been denied any rights or sovereignty for over a generation. Their framland is routinely appropriated and they are allowed only limited water (about half of the WHO minimum per capita consumption). According to the World Bank, economic conditions have deteriorated massively under the occuapation. Poverty, malnutrition and infectious diseases are rising steadily. Very detailed post on Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, but I'm afraid they've got a few of the facts wrong in their history lesson. It's true that Egypt precipitated the six day war, but SCA don't mention that in the Nasser was responding at least in part to Israeli aggression - specifically, the raid at Samu and the downing of six Syrian MIGs. The (incorrect) perception in the Arab world was that Israel intended to invade Syria. Nasser was honoring his alliance with Syria and trying to intimidate Israel to back down. Historical evidence is that neither Egypt nor Israel really wanted the war - they were drawn into it by brinksmanship.
It's also true that Israel's Prime Minister, Abba Eban, conveyed an offer of full withdrawal in return for peace to Dean Rusk on June 21, after the war was over; and that Egypt and Syria rejected the offer. There is some uncertainty as to whether Rusk conveyed the details of the offer.
But it is also true that Israel quickly backed off its willingness to cede the territory and, as international peace negotiations got underway, the offers Israel made were considerably less accomodating. Within a year after the war, Israel had made up its mind to keep the territory, and began the process of placing settlers there.
The occupation has not been, in any way, benign. Israel has steadily increased settlement in the territories, squeeaing the Palestinian population into less and less land. The Palestinians have been denied any rights or sovereignty for over a generation. According to the World Bank, economic conditions have deteriorated massively under the occuapation. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. To call the conditions they live under benign is either naive or disingenuous. If you lived under the conditions they do, I'll wager you'd be take up arms against your occupier without a qualm.
Finally, it is inaccurate to state that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. There are Islamist groups operating in the territories that call for Israel's destruction, but the dominant party is Fatah/PLO, which recognized Israel in 1992 with the signing of the Oslo accord. In their recent election, Palestinians voted by a large majority for a candidate who called for an end to violence against Israel, and for a two-state solution with negotiated borders.
By Andrew Schamess, at
6:38 AM, April 22, 2005
A bit of my comment above got duplicated - sorry about that.
By Andrew Schamess, at
6:40 AM, April 22, 2005
Thank you, mr Schamess, for your critique. We do take issue however, with a few of your remarks. We will discuss them in random order.
Syria had been shelling Northern Israeli towns and villages for years, from the Golan Heights. That Syria felt threatened should not have come as a surprise.
Notwithstanding Nasser's sense of outrage, kicking out UN peacekeepers, massing half a illion troops and an unprecedented number of tanks on Israel's borders would seem to most, curious behavior of a 'peace loving' leader, who 'didn't really want war.' Further, Israel had and has a right to defend herself. It was not as if Nasser had clean hands in cross border raids into Israel.
Land issues aside, the occupation has been benign. That may not suit many of Israel's critics, but it is a fact. Further, the settlement issue is indeed a thorny one- though in reality, the vast majority of land cliamed by settlers remains as uninhabited as it was the day that land was claimed by settlers. Again, the vast majority of settlements were established on unoccupied land.
To say that the Palestinians (well known for their honesty, integrity and forthrightness) and the PA agree to a two state solution might be better received if PA material, maps and educational material did not specifically refer to Israel proper that is, inside the green line) as occupied territories. Them's thje facts. Further, PA sponsored religious leaders make that same claim and others, referring to the libertaion of all of Israel as the goal.
That the Palestinians were denied the right of sovereignty is their own fault, for two reasons. Their own politically corrupt leadership wanted it that way, so as to benefit themeselves and their benefactors.
Despite Oslo- which as you know, Arafat SPECIFICALLY said was a interim step to liberating the land (ALL of Israel), the PA did nothing to take concrete steps to achieve a viable state- so little in fact, that the EU threatened on more than one occasion to withold funds (which they did, for some projects) and they chastised the PA appropriately.
Lastly, your remarks re the economic situation of the PA territories is absurd.
The occupation did not destroy the Palestinian economy- it was the Intifadah that destroyed it. Prior to the Intifada, the Palestinians had a higher standard of living than most Arabs. They wanted an Intifadah- that got them nothing- and they didn't think it would cost them? Ridiculous!
Revisionism may work with some audiences, but not all.
By Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, at
10:02 AM, April 22, 2005
For what it's worth, Andrew, SC&A is spot-on. Many of the "facts" you assert are erroneous; to clarify I recommend Michael Oren's masterful Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (which relied on documents recently declassified by Israel and Egypt) and -- modestly -- my own post on the topic, which is supported by numerous hyperlinked sources.
I also suggest reading liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel. Although the book isn't well written it is well sourced and makes two further points:
1) After WWII, the 850,000 Jews residing in Arab countries were expelled (see page 5), most moving to Israel. The number of "Jewish Refugees" far exceeds even the high-side estimate of the Palestinians who left what is now Israel in 1948. This a) undermines the Palestinians' claim to be uniquely disadvantaged; b) invites asking why Palestinian, but not Jewish, refugees still reside in squalid camps without productive employment; and c) raises the question of why the Arab world has the right to be "Juden Frei" (Jew-free), but Israel does not (and has never demanded such a "right").
2) As SC&A point out, most Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank were built on, and bloomed in, unoccupied desert land. But, perhaps more importantly, Dershowitz demonstrates (page 6) that the overwhelming number of such settlers "did not displace local residents by conquest or fear. . . They lawfully and openly bought land--much of it thought to be nonarable--from absentee landlords." Willing buyer, willing seller: a bona fide and lawful transaction in any society upholding property rights, i.e., any non-socialist state.
Whether revisionism or ignorance, Andrew, it's not persuasive.
By Carl, at
5:38 PM, April 22, 2005
Well said, Carl and of course, accurate. My own distaste- and at times short temperedness- results from what passes for educated comment and opinion.
While I realize that various opinion is acceptable (and indeed, often desirable), it should be predicated on truth and not some fantasy-land ideas put forth by those that have a history of deceit (self and otherwise).
Simply repeating something as 'fact' when it flies in the face of reality might appeal and be accpetable to college freshmen and sophomores, but in the real world, remains unacceptable.
An Arab friend of mine once said, in effect, 'woe unto us when when you don't need the oil.' He went on to say that the oil producers of the region were not making friends- that is to say, friendships are not forged on a constant barrage of lies and deceit. He likened the Arab relationsip to that of the only butcher in town with deliberately 'fixed' scales.
When the an new shop opens up and everyone abandons that first butcher, he shouldn't be surprised ti find he has no friends.
By Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, at
6:12 PM, April 22, 2005
By the way, your reference to the refugees is more than a matter of interest.
The original UN resolutions on refugees made it clear that ALL the regions refugees were to be dealt with- the Jewish refugees as well. That matter is telling as the Jewish communities in Arab countries predated Islam in many instances. Further, the property appropriated had great value (for starters, what is now the Damascus City Center was property owned by Jews, as well the land/buildings is the more elite Damascus neighborhoods as well as huge swaths of land along the Tigres and Eupharates banks in Baghdad and other established commercial areas). I'll just leave it at that, for now.
By Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, at
6:19 PM, April 22, 2005
Thanks, SC&A, and I agree that the issue of Jewish refugees is both important and virtually subterranean in the current debate. As you say, Syrians destroyed the Jewish quarter in Aleppo (1947) and, by the mid 1990s, only 150 Jews remained in Damascus, down from approximately 30,000 in all of Syria at the end of WWII. Iraq was worse--by WWI, Baghdad was between one-third and one-quarter Jewish; as of two years ago, only 38 Jews remained.
After WWII, Jews living throughout the Arab world deliberately were impoverished, hunted, murdered or deported. Of course, some emigration to Israel was voluntary. Still, it is estimated that of the nearly 900,000 Jews in Muslim nations in 1948, by 1976, less than 26,000 remained. Such figures suggest an environment bordering on genocide.
Neither Israel nor Jews claim perfection. Nonetheless, Europeans and Americans who believe the Palestinians "right" and the Israelis "wrong" simply "don't know much about history."
By Carl, at
7:25 PM, April 22, 2005
You're remarks are right on the money. That said, the numbers don't tell the whole story. The wholesale slaughter that took place in places like Libya, Algeria and throught North Africa are just heartbreaking. Like Jewish communities in the Levant, they were over a millenia old.
What the Arab/Muslims regimes did was attempt to nullify two thousand years of history- one that even predated Islam. Further, the continued desecration of Holy sites, cemetaries and other remnants of those ancient societies- an ongoing chain until they were so violently uprooted- is an open source of visceral hatred.
Arab leaders are coming to understand the ramifications. In another 2 or 3 election cycles in Israel, there will be a Sepharadic Prime Minister, of Arab country origin.
That explains Qadaffi's invitation and offer to Jews of Libyan descent to return to claim property in Libya, as well as Bashar Assad's invitation to Jews of Syrian descent to 'invest' in Syria. That country is even restoring ancient desecrated cemetaries and Holy sites. There is even talk of Jewish tourism! In the US, the new Syrian ambassador has been making direct overatures to the Syrian Jewish community.
If I were Bashar Assad, I'd do exactly what he is doing. He doesn't want an Israeli Prime Minister with Syrian roots with recollections of his grandmother wailing over the desecration of her parents gravesites- and tales of terror as she recounted how they were treated.
I don't think Bashar Assad wants that at all.
By Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, at
8:52 PM, April 22, 2005
This whole comment thread ought to be duplicated and put up as a post!
(Well, except for my cheerleading comment here.) ;-)
By Beth, at
12:04 AM, April 23, 2005
High praise, Beth; thanks. SC&A raised great issues! Spread the word.
By Carl, at
7:32 PM, April 24, 2005
return to 
