Here’s an eye-opener. My latest Commentary, for May, has as its top story not a celebration of Israel’s birth, but a denial of the Nakba: "1948, Israel, and the Palestinians–The True Story," by Efraim Karsh, who has something of a history in the denial of Palestinian humanity.
The piece is aimed at the Nakba-recognition groundswell that I seek to foster on this site. It begins by saying that Israel is subject "to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels," a central plank being the "claim of premeditated dispossession" –ethnic cleansing–perpetrated by the "’new historians.’" Hold on, says Karsh. The "recent" declassification of thousands of documents, "untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the ‘new historians,’" reveals that this claim is "the inverse of the truth."
Then Karsh acknowledges the generosity of "Roger and Susan Hertog" in supporting his research. Hertog is chairman of the New-York Historical Society, a recipient of a Humanities award from President Bush last year, an owner of the New York Sun, formerly a backer of The New Republic, and former chairman of the Manhattan Institute. Wonder where all those august institutions will come down on this?
Karsh’s piece is almost laughable in several respects. First, it is not until the final line of a 6000- or so word article that he refers directly to the target of his attack, the Nakba, when he says that only when Arabs have "fundamentally different" leadership will they put their "self-inflicted ‘catastrophe’ behind them." Nakba is Arabic for catastrophe; this is the only use of that word in the article. Shouldn’t a scholar be straightforward and specific about his target? Also, I have to wonder who those Palestinian leaders are who will put the catastrophe behind them. I’ve never met a Palestinian who denies the Nakba, or does not think that the right of return is an important issue in the "peace process".
For another thing, Karsh doesn’t offer much evidence of recent declassification. Many of the sources seem very familiar indeed. The
Peel report, a British factfinding mission in 1949, and so forth. No footnotes.
But let’s address the substance: Karsh claims that the Arabs were "driven" out by their own leaders, "out of military considerations or in order to prevent them from becoming citizens of the prospective Jewish state." Thus: "In Jaffa, Palestine’s largest Arab city, the [Arab] municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea…"
I have not studied the Nakba in any great detail, but I know that with respect to Jaffa, this is grotesque misrepresentation. The other night, the Columbia anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod stated flatly that her father was "driven" from his home in Jaffa by the Yishuv. A second speaker read aloud this letter from Shukri Selameh to the New York Times in 1988:
At 4 A.M. on April 25, 1948, almost three weeks before the termination of the British mandate over Palestine, Jaffa was subjected to an intensifying barrage of concentrated mortar bombing from Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Agro-Bank. I twice risked my life and that of my family by attempting to escape in my car with my pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter. Halfway out of the city, I had to turn back and return to the center of town…. [P]anic was so intense and irreversible that almost 90 percent of Jaffa’s population of 80,000 escaped in the next 24 hours.
People scurried for their lives, cramming into cars, pickups, trucks, buses, and a large number fled on foot. Many of them sailed out in small boats, some of which capsized in stormy weather, resulting in substantial loss of life.
It is absolute nonsense to allege that the Palestinians were advised or encouraged to leave their homes. People who plan to do so would take at least their precious belongings with them. The vast majority of the refugees, including us, left with only a few pieces of clothing.
Karsh’s refusal even to allude to such accounts is evidence of racism. Equally offensive is his characterization of Deir Yassin, the village outside Jerusalem that famously was attacked by Israeli forces in April 1948, with nearly 100 killed– including 30 babies–as a place of a "battle." Even Benny Morris, whom Karsh cites approvingly, states that Deir Yassin was the site of "atrocities." Ilan Pappe writes in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine that Deir Yassin was the "epicenter" of the Yishuv’s "Plan D" that spring, in which soldiers were directed to "villages which you will capture, cleanse or destroy" so as to cleanse the land of non-Jews. And duly the Arabs fled when they heard what had happened there. Shlomo Ben-Ami: Deir Yassin was part of a campaign in which "a panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs’ monument of grief and hatred."
(Wikipedia states that Morris has accused Karsh of distorting facts and has written "Karsh’s way [is] to belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence.")
Anyway, what does it matter who drove out the Palestinians? As
Selameh wrote, "under international law, particularly the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Geneva Convention of 1949,
it hardly matters why unarmed civilians run away for their lives in
areas of hostility. They do not forfeit their right of return."
Israel’s refusal to let them back to their villages argues
that the intention of the original attacks was ethnic cleansing.
U.N. Partition had awarded the Jews a state that was narrowly-majority-Jewish. Ben-Gurion wanted a distinctly-Jewish state and exulted to see cities with only Jews walking around.
The Commentary piece is notable because it comes at a time when even The New Yorker is acknowledging the Nakba. Commentary knows this and is pushing back, out of ur-nationalist feeling. The worst thing about this piece is the refusal to dignify Arab testimonies as worthy of mention, let alone credence. Imagine if the head of the New-York Historical Society underwrote a paper that said that my ancestors’ claims of being forced out of small towns in Russia during the pogroms were lies. He would pay with his job. Nakba denial is still rewarded.
P.S. Since I posted this entry, Commentary has put up an annotated version of Karsh’s piece, complete with footnotes. To their credit! I’m gonna have a look soon…
Related posts:
{ 23 comments }
An "epicenter" is an extremely UN-specific description.
"Israel's refusal to let them back to their villages argues that the intention of the original attacks was ethnic cleansing. "
I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion. I think that the reason Jews didn't let the former residents return was fear, reasonable fear, based on history.
It is also true that the intent of the two wars in 47-48 on the part of the Arab communities and states, was to ethnically cleanse.
And, in clear violation of international law as well.
The nakba was a great tragedy, and did come at the hands of Zionists (some much more than others).
And, a similar great tragedy was averted by the Zionists at that time, as difficult as that is to hear.
I've never been in a fight to death, and I highly suspect that you've never either. I am NOT equipped to judge good from bad in a to the death (or to the exclusion) fight.
To hear only of the nakba is to hear half a reality, and if justice is your goal, half a reality amounts to no reality.
"I have not studied the Nakba in any great detail…"
Please be careful that when you use the term "nakba" you are referring to the same phenomena as those that reported at the Columbia presentation.
I regard the nakba as a description of a tragedy, "a catastrophe". That is different than an evil, though it might be.
If the right of return involves allowing those with murderous intent to return, then better that that not happen.
If people are consistently ready to move on from the resentment, then the right of return is a possibility.
If not, if polemic and hatred is the primary communication, then war remains, and is as likely to result in permanent dislocation rather than the temporary that reconciliation-seeking Zionists propose.
Its untested on both sides.
There was an article in today's times describing the dilemma that Israeli policy-makers grapple with.
That is that the wall and the road blocks have apparently resulted in significantly lowered "success" rates of terror incidents, from something 130 deaths in 2002, to 1 in 2007.
And, that conflicts with the objective of seeking genuine peace which requires removal of the roadblocks, easy cross-border travel, removal or green line relocation of the wall.
And, its not an incidental dilemma, and not a no-brainer for a progressive even.
How long must Israel continue to subjugate the Palestinians to appease Israel's demand for legitimate "security", something that most Western nations cannot even guarantee for themselves from other stateless terrorists. The lull in violence can only be speculated to be ephermeral if Israel continues its oppression. The reprisal will only be more bloody (for both sides) and Israel has been unable to beat down the Palestinians into submission altogether. Rockets still get fired and even the discontent is rising amongst the Israeli Arabs, whom the Jewish state has been regarding as a fifth column. This is a recipe for more disaster. Can they be engaged or will they be threatened to be expelled (they already threaten to do that)?
You shouldn't over-focus on the 1948 Nakba. The problem is Balfour declaration and the idea of Zionism – of which the 1948 expulsions (and all the subsequent expulsions, and incessant efforts to deny the Palestinians are refugees) are just the logical consequence. Palestine was full of arabs, but the zionists had the political power to influence the British government which became the military occupier, change the population, and expel the indigenous inhabitants. Balfour=Nakba(s).
Since Phil rejoices and writes at length about every single person he claims has discovered the mythical "naqba" and fantasical Palestinian "narrative", it must come as a crushing blow to find out that "Red Ken" Livingstone, a kindred spirit of Phil's regarding Israel and Zionist LOST his bid for re-election to a Conservative who is openly pro-Israel. I don't think many people who voted for the winner did so primarily becasue of his pro-Israel beliefs, but they certainly didn't hurt him. Add to this the big victory of pro-Israel Berlusconi in Italy (who had an MP elected who is a Jew who lives part-time in "occupied Palestine(!)" and pro-Israel Sarkozi in France. Will Phil comment on how it seems Europe is turning AGAINST the mythology of his favorite victims?
Long before the Arab-Israeli of 1948,
Jews were driven out of Hebron by an Arab massacre in which many BABIES were slaughtered in 1929. The same happened in Tzfat (Safed) at the same time. Jews were driven out of Gaza by Arab violence in 1936. Jews were driven out of Shechem (Nablus) by Arab violence. Jews were driven out of Gush Etzion by Arab violence and massacre in 1948. Jews were driven out of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Beit Ha'arava , Kfar Daron and numerous other places as a result of Arab violence and massacre. I don't know what the Mufti called it (plan "Gimel"?) but he openly proclaimed that was the goal of the war in 1948…massacre of Jews and their ethnic cleansing from the country.
Hey bar_kochba132,
Don't be ridiculous man!!! Europe, that is the people of Europe, are NOT turning against the Palestinians and their aspirations for a Palestinian state. Perhaps what we're seeing is a flexing of the economic resources of European Jewry in supporting candidates who support their "homeland", wrong or right.
The only thing you got right is that NOBODY voted for your conservative buddy in London primarily for his pro-Israel beliefs.
Get a grip, and keep praying that Europe becomes more like America. I'll give you my prediction, which is that the opposite is happening. The Americans, because of the free and brave like Phil, are getting their glued eyes surgically opened, and they aren't going to like what they will see when the blinders come off… especially since they bankroll it!!!!
PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/980274.html
Unwilling to stand idly by
By Tzafi Saar
Tags: Women in black
"It's too bad Hitler didn't finish the job," a passerby shouted at the women who took part in a Women in Black protest in Haifa. Among them was a woman of about 80, a Holocaust survivor with a number tattooed on her arm. "You don't scare me," the old woman replied. "'Specialists' scared me."
NEVER AGAIN, to anybody (and not by my hand)
NEVER AGAIN means it. The self-affirming Jewish community will never again be subordinated in Europe, sharia states (they're still scared there), communist states, neo-fascist fantasies of America.
to anybody means it. The self-affirming humanists (the Jewish ones) will never again watch while others suffer in Zionist state, Europe, Africa, sharia states, communist states.
(not by my hand) means it. The ethical humanists (the Jewish humanist ones) will never again willingly harm others by their own direct or indirect actions.
But there is an order to the sequence.
Bar-Kochba would have been well advised to keep his mouth shut about Arab violence against Jews because if it comes to this his list pales into insignificance compared to the endless list of Jewish violence against Arabs and others even before 1948. Compare:
http://pedulipalestina.blogspot.com/2007_02_18_archive.html
There was indeed a massacre of Jews in Hebron. Tom Segev saw as the direct cause for this the fact that the Jews had put up some fence to separate men and women at the Western wall of Jerusalem, something that was regarded by the Arabs as tampering with a holy site. But of course the deeper cause was Arab anxiety about Jewish immigration and the Jewish project for ultimate domination.
Moreover as the Dutch-Jewish poet Jacob Israel de Haan, who was in 1924 murdered by the Haganah, has testified, the Arabs were often treated like sh.. by the Jews.
There is one aspect of the Hebron case that Bar-Kochba chose not to emphasize. According to Segev most of Hebron's Jews "were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes".
One would have loved to read such a thing about Deir Yassin – one small glimpse of humanity among the murderers. Alas, neither there nor elsewhere the Zionist thugs have ever given us this consolation.
"One would have loved to read such a thing about Deir Yassin"
Read Righteous Victims. Morris describes similar among orthodox siting to the Irgun, "they are human beings".
In thinking about the Columbia presentations by Saif and Massad I find myself fantasizing about questions that I would have liked to ask.
1. Is there a form of Zionism that is still Zionism that you could accept? What would that look like?
2. Isn't anti-Zionism as illustrated by the Arab/Palestinian resistance to Jewish and Zionist settlement in 1947/8 also an attempt at ethnic cleansing, a racism?
(The Hebron massacres – small compared to genocide, were directed NOT at Zionists, but at long long-resident orthodox Jews. I don't know how they compare to Deir Yassin and other massacres.)
Bar-Kochba is clutching at straws when he, somehow, wants to construe the election defeat of 'Red Ken' in London and the election victories of 'Sarkosi' (sic) and Berlusconi as evidence for Europe becoming more and more enamored with Israel.
This view seems to me a bad case of Zionist egotism. The whole world turns around that 'shitty little country' (the words of a prominent European) between the Jordan and the Mediteranean. Of course, the electoral fate of these worthies must be explained by their attitude towards Israel.
BK better takes note of a poll conducted by the ADL on which Haaretz reported on the 19th of July last year:
"Fifty percent of Europeans in six countries believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their home country; 34.5 percent agree that Jews have too much financial and business clout; and 43 percent said Jews talk too much about the Holocaust, according to a poll released yesterday by the Anti-Defamation League."
Moreover when he looks around him in his native America he can find little cause for satisfaction either. Greg Felton wrote recently
"Last September, a study by the American Jewish Committee found a growing generational chasm between older and younger U.S Jews. It found that only 48% under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older. In addition, only 54% under 35 are comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State, as opposed to 81% of those 65 and older. The study’s authors concluded the trend is part of a long-term irreversible slide because attachment to Israel does not grow with age."
Witty wrote:
"Isn't anti-Zionism as illustrated by the Arab/Palestinian resistance to Jewish and Zionist settlement in 1947/8 also an attempt at ethnic cleansing, a racism?"
Here is a question for you: Was the Indonesian struggle to remove the Dutch from their territory, that took place at round about the same time, 'an attempt at ethnic cleansing, a racism'?
Bar Kochbar could have added Germany's Angela Merkel to his list of European conservative pro-Israel politicians.
But Merkel – in her speech before the Knesset – explicitly deplored the fact that the majority of EU citizens doesn't hold a favorable view of Israel.
For some odd reason I keep thinking of the Wall Street Banking System–make up your own rules. Shell game accounting, double books, off that book, on that one (in the bottom drawer). Leverage without end. Valuation. Who knows? Now look at the exuberant mess we're in–where's Barney Fife or Barney Frank when we need him? The mortgage gets steeper by the day.
Why is Philip Weiss so concerned with the cause of the Palestinian Arabs? and not with the Kurds? or with the Christians of Lebanon? or with the minorities throughout the Middle East who have been persecuted by the Sunni Muslims? Why is he not concerned with the minority peoples in Iran or Lebanon for that matter being persecuted by the Shiites? or for the tens of peoples being persecuted by Islamic fundamentalists wherever those fundamentalists are found? Why does he not show any great interest in the anti- Semitic propaganda of the Arab and Islamic media in general? Why does he insist on finding as the target of his attention, resentment, anger, the one Jewish state in the world which takes up such a miniscule proportion of the territory of the Middle East? Why does he by the way show no sympathy for the thousands of Jews lost in this war with cruel inhumane enemies who deliberately kill and main civilians whenever they can ? Why does he have such sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs who are supported by every major anti- democratic and pro-terrorist group ? Why does he so support the professional refugees the Palestinians , the only group in the world who are allowed by the U.N. to count as refugees their third- generation? What about some sense of the similar number of Jewish refugees who were driven out of Arab lands and rebuilt their lives? where is the sense that perhaps the Palestinian Arabs are too responsible for their own situation? Five times they have been offered a state, and five times they have said "All or Nothing."
Is it possible that Mr. Weiss depises the Jews of Israel because of some particular constellation of personality clashes within his own family background?
Whatever the answer as a Jew living in Israel who has actually experienced the reality 'on the ground' I can say that his distortions of what the conflict is about, and what Israel as a society and as a people are about are cruel and shameful.
"the Palestinians, the only group in the world who are allowed by the U.N. to count as refugees their third-generation?" – Shalom Freedman
Well, the Jews claim a 'right of return' to their 'homeland' some 60(!) generations after their Nakba at the hands of the Romans. Why not go and complain to Berlusconi and ask for compensation?
"Five times they have been offered a state, and five times they have said "All or Nothing."
All or nothing? You mean the 22 % of the original territory you fellows have left them?
I cannot answer for Philip Weiss but as for me the main reason why I am more worked up by the plight of the Palestinians than that of similarly placed groups is that this conflict is more widely, vigorously and consistently lied about than any other similar situation, also by Jews living in Israel who claim to have 'actually experienced the reality 'on the ground' such as Mr.Freedman.
As Ilan Pappe wrote: “Zionism’s main defense is not money and military might but a wall of propaganda lies."
Arie,
You don't have to believe Shalom Freeman's conclusions, but have the decency to listen to his experience.
Similarly, Mr. Freedman should listen to Lila Abu-Lughod's conveying others' experience.
There is a problem with memory though, especially if it is so mingled with interpretation.
But it is not dismissable for not being perfect memory.
Shalom, you don't expect the locals to bring send you flowers, do you? Israel has made its own bed. I just resent having to pay for the bed and lie in it with you.
I'd be happy to leave you to your fate without a word, if Israel would pay its "loans" from the U.S., call back its double-agents and dual citizens, come clean about the USS Liberty, and issue a formal, televised apology to Jimmy Carter along with the public whipping of the diplomat who accused Carter of being a bigot. How about that?
"Arie,
You don't have to believe Shalom Freeman's conclusions, but have the decency to listen to his experience." Witty.
What experience? You mean that apologetic tirade, varieties of which we have been submitted to a thousand times ?
BTW, what about the answer to my question? I will read it tomorrow because it is nighttime here and I will call it a day.
Shalom,
Fair question re my motivation. Short answers. 1, Because after Sept 11 and the disastrous decision of my country to invade and occupy an Arab country, causing tremendous suffering here and in Iraq, as an American I needed to explore why we had made this tragic mistake. 2, Because as a Jew all my life I have heard the narratives and logic you cite, which are well known in my country, constantly the subject of congressional resolution and in the media; I came to understand that it is essential that the other narrative is given some air time in American life, is advanced, is dealt with, or we too will be enmeshed in the cycle of violence that your society has been enmeshed in for 60 years because of the denial–for whatever reason, on both sides–the denial of self determination of the Palestinians.
I often imagine, What if Indians had rationalized the nonstatehood of the Muslims for 60 years following their partition. Think how combustive that would be. Far better that Pakistan exists. 1+2=The indifference to Arab self-determination, Arab humanity, in which I was engaged most of my life, threatens the security of my country. Phil
Shalom: for someone who "has actually experienced the reality 'on the ground,'" you don't seem to know much about the situation. Lebanese Christians being persecuted by the Shi'a? Are you serious?
If anything, the inverse has historically been true. The Christians ran the entire state up until the civil war and to this day still have more representation in the government than the Shi'a and much more than their numbers warrant. Maronite Christians are guaranteed not only the presidency in Lebanon but also the head post in the military.
Furthermore, about half of the Christians of Lebanon, under former general Aoun, are allied with Hezbollah and Amal, the two main Shi'a parties in Lebanon.
Maybe the former SLA militiamen who fled to northern Israel because they were collaborators during the Israeli occupation of the South are telling you a sob story, but even those in the SLA who were caught in the South by Hezbollah after Israel pulled out were handed over to the state government and tried in a court of law. None were killed.
Anyone who says the Christians of Lebanon are being "persecuted" doesn't know Shi'ite from Shinola.
Finally, and for the record, all 18 religious groups in Lebanon are minorities (with the Shi'a being a plurality). The only people being treated unfairly as a group (besides domestic workers, which is another problem that exists from Israel to Saudi) are the Palestinian refugees, who make up between 5 and 10% of the population of Lebanon. And while their treatment here is shameful, the ultimate responsibility for their lot belongs to Israel.
Comments on this entry are closed.