Ralph Seliger has responded to Saif Ammous's latest response to him re the right of return:
Mr. Ammous obviously doesn't want to come to an understanding with me. The fact that a Zionist like myself does believe in a moral 'right of return' means nothing to him. But compensation and a case-by-case review of applicants who might want to "return" to Israel (even multi-generational
descendants who never lived in the Palestine Mandate) is the most
that he can expect from a sovereign state that his people tried to
destroy at birth.
There is no internationally-recognized right of return for the millions of Germans driven out of Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union after World War II. And nothing either for the tens of millions of Muslims and Hindus who fled respectively to Pakistan and India in 1947.
It's interesting that he agrees with the Zionist right that my
reading of history is "revisionist" and not to be taken seriously. It
is precisely the work of most of the "New Historians" they deplore, that I look at. For example, Benny Morris, Meron Benvenisti and even the anti-Zionist Avi Shlaim
are quite clear that Palestinian irregulars attacked in '47-'48. Shlaim
doesn't emphasize this fact, but he doesn't deny it.
Benvenisti lived in a Jerusalem
under siege at that time, even playing soccer with some of the young
men who were later killed in attempting to defend the kibbutzim of the
Etzion Bloc that all fell to Arab forces.
I want also to address Phil's preamble comment: "It is interesting
to me how the failures of the "peace process" to give anything to the
Palestinians for lo these many years has caused many to look back not
to '67 but to '48…." It's not true that the peace process of the '90s
was a total failure; it was literally murdered by enemies of peace
before it could reach its hoped-for conclusion.
The Oslo Peace Process was decapitated in Nov. 1995 by the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
and three devastating terror attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that led
to the narrow election of Netanyahu over Peres in the following spring.
In between these terrible events, Israel withdrew its occupation from
90% of the population of the West Bank, leaving the overwhelming
majority of Palestinians in the territories free to vote for a
self-governing framework called the Palestinian Authority and a process
in place to negotiate a complete end to the occupation. Extremist
violence from both Palestinians and Israelis defeated peace-seeking
forces on both sides. The Oslo peace process had flaws: among other
things, Israel failed to curtail settlement expansion, Palestinians
failed to end terrorism and too much was left up in the air for
final-status negotiations, but it was a way out for both
peoples which got tragically derailed.
A quick response, Ralph, from me, Phil Weiss: I appreciate the India/Pakistan analogy, which has become my central way of looking at the "situation." Palestinians have had no state for 60 years even while the other great partition of '47 created two states, in violence. Palestinians have had no representation. Yes you can blame the Jordanians and the Arabs themselves, but even Harry Truman said, Hey you Israelis have overrun the boundaries established by Partition. And later they took the whole of Mandate Palestine. Yes there have been piecemeal efforts to give the Palestinians authority, but it obviously feels to these people like Bantustans. Limited, debasing. I despair of the ability of these two brutalized peoples to figure out their own futures. Don't you ever want to see an imposed solution? As an American, I often do.
Related posts:
{ 12 comments }
'the most that he can expect from a sovereign state that his people tried to destroy at birth'
This is so upside down it's almost funny, though I can understand why Saif might not be terribly amused. A 'sovereign' state, eh? Sovereign over land stolen from 'his people', who not unnaturally tried to stop the invading thieves. How quixotic of them, to try and destroy a force that was destroying them! Those Arabs! They're not like us, are they?
You'd be an amusing pest Ralph if you squawked away in Speaker's Corner with a few like-minded souls, where you belong with your sincerely held prejudices. But you operate in an environment where you are simply one of thousands of likeminded souls, busy busy busy working away for the ideal, the Project, the tribe. Buried deep in every sector, a gun in every crenellation (never again!), ready to do battle with the sort of garden variety common sense and pleas for fairness Saif shows here, and which you and your cadre have managed to eliminate from the national discourse.
'It's not true that the peace process of the '90s was a total failure; it was literally murdered by enemies of peace before it could reach its hoped-for conclusion.'
Their names were Ross, Indyk, Barak, Wurmser, Feith.. there's not enough bandwidth here for all of them.
Well its like this Glenn. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, within minutes of the founding of the state. There never was a country called Palestine, it was a British mandate, and before that was part of the Ottoman empire. And in fact before 1948 when you said somebody was a Palestinian it meant he was a Jew. I know the Austrailians have fallen a long way from the Anzac days but try to restrain yourself.
'There never was a country called Palestine'
Yes, and there never was a country called 'Israel' either. Your point?
Zionism must make the blood run away from those areas of your brain where hypocrisy is detected, and where shame resides.
Selinger keeps dodging the question: International law provides for the return of refugees expelled during conflict. Yes? Does he recognize this or not? (Apparently not.)
Yet, presumably, he see no problem in allowing kids from Miami or New Jersey to move to the country, just because their mothers are jewish.
I am fascinated by his ability to square this moral incongruity.
Selinger argues here that there was no effort to ethnically cleanse Mandate Palestine. Could he please comment on Plan D? The following is apparently an excerpt, as lifted from a pro-Israeli site:
"Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:
- Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
- Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state."
http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm
Of course, Pappe treats the subject at length.
I doubt Selinger will listen to me, but I would really like to see how he incorporates such an apprently transparent effort to ethnically cleanse the country with his position that these people should not be allowed to return. Phil, give him a nudge? Specifically — what are his views on Plan D?
Ok, Sam, I'll go with that. Any Arab that was expelled and can prove that can return. Now I don't know why they would want to live in the belly of the Zio-nazi beast but ok. Also, we're talking about actual refugees, so this means nobody under 60 yrs old. You ok with that. And if not why not. Other wise it's just a back door move to engulf Israel in a sea of Moslems and that's all it is.
SOG,
I'm okay with that…
as long as all Jews less than 2,000 years old vacate the premisis immediately.
PM
I want to thank my many fans on this site for their support.
According to both Benny Morris and Meron Benvenisti, Plan D was a defensive strategy concerning what to do in the face of the expected multi-pronged attack on Israel, which in fact happened when Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. It was designed to clear out Arab centers of resistance flanking Jewish lines once the Arab armies attacked along a variety of fronts.
Plan-D was defensive because many Arab hillside villages were bases for attack on the roads leading to Jerusalem and other population centers. Jerusalem was under siege with 100,000 Jews on the verge of starvation. Implementing Plan-D involved very cruel military actions, even crimes, but it relieved the siege of Jerusalem and broke the back of the Palestinian irregular forces in time for Israel to contend with the four regular Arab armies (Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and the Trans-jordanian Arab Legion) that attacked from the outside.
War is not pretty. Does Sam have anything to say about the major instances of ethnic cleansing by the Arab forces which captured the Old City of Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc to the east?
>> According to both Benny Morris and Meron Benvenisti, Plan D was a defensive strategy concerning what to do in the face of the expected multi-pronged attack on Israel, which in fact happened when Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948.
Look, instead of reciting someone else's analysis, why don't you look at the text yourself? To wit:
- Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
- Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state."
This directive came from Ben Gurion's office. It says that populations must be expelled from the borders of the state. How can you with a straight face say that this is not a directive for ethnic cleansing?
Instead you rely on the analysis of an present-day advocate for ethnic cleansing (Morris.)
In passing, though, what military purpose does destroying villages and booby trapping the rubble serve?
Peace will never come to the region unless past wrongdoings are acknowledged, contrition is shown, and forgiveness sought. It appears we have a long way to go.
>> Does Sam have anything to say about the major instances of ethnic cleansing by the Arab forces which captured the Old City of Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc to the east?
Anybody who was expelled from their homes as a result of the war should be allowed to return, as is consistent with international law. Is Selinger with me or not?
Benny Morris:
"[Plan Dalet] constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions [from villages that resisted or might threaten the Yishuv] by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions."
Plan Dalet also stated:
"Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state."
Interpretation is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. But labeling "defensive" does not absolve anyone nor should it have been a blank cheque to maintain the territories it took control over and then named the current boundaries of the new state of Israel.
War may not be pretty but with this shocking precedent, you are given weight to many Palestinians who aim to destroy Israel to gain back what they lost. After all, they have been under siege for decades. It can be interpreted as defensive too.
I know we all put great prestige in Benny Morris, but didn't he complain that Ben-Gurion didn't go far enough in expelling Palestinians? The context was not very defensive in that manner. Also, you spoke of two historians, both Israeli. I know they are respected and I cite them also but what about other interpretations of Plan Dalet? What about Walid Khalidi, a Palestinian? Does he count? What about J. Bowyer Bell and Netanel Lorch? Even Ilan Pappe but I know he is very derided by commentors here.
It's also interpreted in full here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html
Final note: Ralph, decrying that "war is not pretty" only creates more problems ie what is accepted as "defensive" or actual war crimes. But its "not pretty". So the actions of the incumbent state of Israel is to be pardoned but the suicide bombers are to be condemned and vilified. But hey, "war is not pretty". Would that suffice to Israel's apologists? I doubt it. So why would it suffice to the Palestinians?
Using Morris to support one's contention that Plan D did not constitute ethnic cleansing seems more than perverse. Referring to Ben-Gurion he said:
"In the end, he faltered… If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris
Could Seliger pls address Plan D directly (as opposed to through the lense of a guy like Morris) and explain how this was not a deliberate effort to rid Mandate Palestine of its native population?
Comments on this entry are closed.