Trending Topics:

On John Judis’s ‘Genesis,’ and its critics

Israel/Palestine
on 63 Comments
John Judis by Christopher Parks

John Judis by Christopher Parks

The Argument

Several weeks ago John Judis, the long-time writer for the New Republic, published a major historical work, whose title accurately describes the scope and central theme of the book: Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). Written with Judis’s characteristic flair, elegance, and perceptiveness, Genesis will become an indispensable work not only for its discussion and argument about the early years of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, but also for its analytical history of Zionism in America, to which most of the chapters in the book are devoted. Moreover, Judis’s work is directly relevant to the overall story of the U.S. government’s relations with Israel in general, and of the Obama administration in particular.

Judis’s central argument is that Harry Truman, while sympathetic to the plight of the Jews after the Holocaust and their need to find a homeland and place of refuge in Palestine, also thought that for reasons both of moral justice and strategic concerns over U.S. national interests in the Middle East, it was necessary to reach a solution that would be fair to the Palestinians. The best solution, Truman thought—and this is clearly Judis’s own preference—would have been the establishment not of the Jewish state of Israel but of some kind of binational Jewish-Palestinian state or federation.

Such a solution in 1948 would have meant that the Jews would have been the minority in the new state, and for that reason it was bitterly opposed by the Zionist movements in Palestine and the United States. Faced with this difficult decision, Judis argues—persuasively supported by the highly detailed evidence he has assembled– Truman backed down from his own moral and strategic preferences. Facing the presidential national election of 1948 in which he was the underdog, Truman and his political advisers overrode the strong objections of the State and Defense Departments and reluctantly bowed to political realities–foreshadowing the entire history of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the central role played by what has come to be known as “the Israel lobby.”

As summarized by Judis: “Truman’s successors have, as a rule, suffered the same fate as he did. They began with a moral and strategic conviction that something had to be done to right the situation of the Palestinians, but under relentless pressure from supporters of Israel (and after 1948 from the Israeli government itself), they gave up. That’s what happened to Barack Obama during his first term” (6-7, all page numbers from Kindle edition)

A second theme in Genesis focuses on what Judis argues is an inconsistency and moral blindspot in the American Zionist movement which, while led by strong liberals such as Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and others, abandoned their principles by privileging statehood for the Jews in Palestine over democracy and self-determination for the Palestinians. If they had been true to their principles, Judis argues, they would have recognized their moral obligation to support the few leading Zionists in Palestine, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber, who argued for the creation of a democratic binational state:

“The outward logic of Zionism was impeccable,” Judis writes. “Jews wanted a genuine nation of their own where they could be secure from persecution and oppression. The trouble came when Zionists specified where that nation should be. Two thousand years earlier most Jews had lived in Palestine and a few thousand still did. But other peoples had also inhabited Palestine over the millennia, and Arabs had lived there for 1,400 years.” (15)

Even so, Judis clearly does not favor the disestablishment of Israel today, for he goes on to argue that “the moral balance in Palestine and the case for a Jewish state” changed after that state became a fait accompli. As for how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved today, Judis does not argue for the replacement of Israel by a single binational state but supports the standard international consensus two-state solution, the only one that in his view (and mine) is morally justifiable and has any chance of being implemented.

The Critics

As was entirely predictable, even such a balanced and meticulously-researched work has already brought forth a storm of bitter and even ad hominem criticism—as in the already notorious and truly crazed attack by Leon Wieseltier, Judis’s “colleague” at the New Republic—from those who will not countenance any serious criticism of Zionism and Israel. Because this phenomenon is so widespread and pernicious, especially in the United States, I think it is important to examine it in some detail.

For that reason, I will begin my own assessment of Genesis by examining what is likely to be considered as the most important and definitive criticism of it, the long review in the prestigious and widely-read magazine National Interest, by Bernard Wasserstein, an emeritus chaired professor of modern European Jewish history at the University of Chicago.

I want to focus on the Wasserstein review, and at some length, for two reasons. First, the prestige of the author as well as that of National Interest may afford it an influence that in my view is unwarranted. But beyond that, Wasserstein’s main criticisms of Genesis reflect a kind of intellectual and moral blindspot about Israel and Zionism that are characteristic of a number of otherwise learned and eminent intellectuals.

Trivial Errors?

Before I turn to examples of the blindspots in the Wasserstein review, however, I want to begin by taking note of a standard practice in negative reviews, which is to cite trivial errors in the text while seeking to meet the obvious objection by conceding that they are indeed trivial. It is an objectionable tactic on two counts. First, no work of history is likely to avoid a few slight errors that are of no relevance to the main arguments or overall historical accuracy of the book. Second, because this is so, the citation of such errors (if indeed they are errors) in an unfriendly review–no matter what the acknowledgement of their triviality– is clearly designed to discredit or at least call into question the credibility of the author and his work in its entirety.

For example, Wasserstein asserts that a number of errors “pepper” Judis’s book. (emphasis added). He points to two that he considers to be of “substantial importance” and illustrative of Judis’s “sometimes shaky” historical knowledge. First, Wasserstein denies that the Jews of Palestine “suffered religious persecution” under 19th century Ottoman rule, as is mentioned, in passing, in Genesis—according to Wasserstein this is “a figment of his [Judis’s] imagination.” It is an odd—but revealing—criticism: not only does the issue have nothing whatever to do with Judis’s argument, if anything if Wasserstein is right in denying that the Jews were persecuted, it somewhat undercuts his own implicit argument that persecution of the Jews legitimized the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Second, Wasserstein argues that Judis is wrong in his claim that the British deliberately sought to exacerbate the Jewish-Arab conflict in pre-1947 Palestine, in pursuit of a divide-and-rule policy. I don’t know who is correct, but what is unmistakable is that, like the Ottoman religious persecution issue, the matter is entirely irrelevant to the argument of Genesis.

Those are the alleged errors in Genesis that Wasserstein considers to be important indications of Judis’s “shaky historical knowledge.” Then there are alleged errors that Wasserstein acknowledges to be “trivial.” He cites the following: “Earl Curzon would have been surprised to learn that he was the House of Lords representative in the war cabinet;” “Vladimir Jabotinsky’s political movement was not the National but the New Zionist Organization;” and other “bloopers,” such as getting a few entirely irrelevant dates wrong: “Saudi Arabia makes a premature appearance in 1915….Guyana, born in 1966, pops up in 1937.” But if they are trivial, then why mention them?

In another (and far nastier) attack, the rightwing historian Ronald Radosh asserts that “Judis doesn’t really possess the command of his subject that he pretends to have….His narrative is full of the sort of errors and omissions that abound in polemics disguised as history.” (emphasis added) Like what? “Some of them are relatively minor,” Radosh concedes, such as Judis’s “drastic reduction” of the number of Jewish settlers in Palestine in 1994 from many hundreds to about twenty, and being off by two years on the date that Baron Rothschild began providing financial assistance to the settlers. More seriously, Radosh continues, is that while Judis notes that one Jewish terrorist organization, the Stern Gang, attacked British targets in Palestine during WWII, “he seems to be utterly unaware of” similar attacks by the Irgun. Even assuming that Radosh is right that these are errors—I’ll leave it to Judis to respond, if he so chooses—as in the case of Wasserstein’s similar criticisms, they have nothing to do with anything even remotely important in Judis’s history of the Truman administration and the Zionist movement.

Nothing New?

Wasserstein, Radosh, and others assert that there is nothing new in Judis’s book, citing several others that deal with the same topic. No historical work, especially on a topic so important as that covered in Genesis, can be completely new and original—every historian builds on the work of others. As it happens, I know the scholarship on the Truman period pretty well, particularly what until now has been regarded as the definitive work, Michael J. Cohen’s 1990 work, Truman and Israel (which in fact is copiously cited by Judis throughout Genesis). In fact, Judis has gone well beyond Cohen, among other ways in his ample use of the Papers of Max Lowenthal, who was a key participant in the debate over Israel in the Truman administration.

For these reasons, I learned a great deal from Judis’s detailed account of how Truman was persuaded to change his mind about Israel. Even more importantly, Judis provides persuasive evidence which at least calls into question Cohen’s main argument, that “no number of Jewish votes or sum of Jewish money could have persuaded Truman to adopt a policy that he believed ran counter to the national interest.” (Cohen, 279) That is hardly so clear in Judis’s account, especially when in 1946 Truman, under fierce pressure from the Zionist lobby, backed away from his initial support of a joint British-American plan (negotiated by Truman’s personal representative Henry Grady) that would have created a binational federation instead of a Jewish state.

Logical Errors

Wasserstein objects to Judis’s argument about the influence of the American Zionists in persuading Truman to support Israel, as well as about the comparable political power of the Israel lobby ever since, particularly in the Obama administration. It is not the case that rightwing Zionists, past and present, represent the real views of the American Jewish community as a whole, Wasserstein argues, citing opinion polls that find that only 30 percent of them describe themselves as “very attached” to Israel and large majorities oppose the continued building of settlements. Moreover, Wasserstein continues, American Jewish diplomats, such as Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer, “have tried to nudge Israel toward more realistic policies.”

Leaving aside his questionable list of Jewish policymakers who have played a positive role—Ross and Indyk certainly don’t make my list—it is hard to follow Wasserstein’s logic. It would be one thing if Judis had argued that the Jewish community as a whole invariably supports all Israeli policies or that no Jews have played a positive role in the search for an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But that is not Judis’s argument at all–nor anyone else’s that I am aware of.  Rather, the argument is that the organized Zionist movement and, later, the Israel lobby, has had undue influence on U.S. government policy towards Israel.

In other words, Wasserstein misunderstands not only Judis’s argument but that of other chroniclers of the power of the Israel lobby such as, of course, John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt. No one argues that the lobby speaks for American Jewry as a whole—on the contrary, one of the key arguments of the Israel lobby thesis is precisely that it doesn’t, and that therefore its undoubted power in Washington is especially pernicious.

In yet another example of murky writing and logic, Wasserstein asserts that the doctrine of self-determination offers only a “mechanical solution” to all nationality problems, and then points to some cases in which the self-determination principle founders over disagreement over “the precise area to which it was to be applied.” He elaborates:

According to the principle of national self-determination, as generally understood by its advocates, a significant criterion for the exercise of national political rights is place of birth. That is why Judis believes that a great political wrong was done to the Palestinians when they were denied by Zionism the ability to determine their own destiny in their own land.

One expects that Wasserstein will challenge this, presumably arguing, somehow, that the alleged “difficulties contained within the concept of self-determination” will undermine Judis’ argument that the Palestinians were wronged by the creation of Israel.  That is not, however, what Wasserstein does–rather, he simply shifts the grounds to a quite different issue, for in his next sentence he asks: “But are such rights heritable?” Do “third- and fourth-generation” inhabitants of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria who still think of themselves as Palestinian refugees, he continues, have an inherent right of return to Palestine? That’s a fair question and I will address it shortly, but in this context it is a non-sequitur, for it has nothing to do with the issue of whether the creation of Israel in 1948 cost the Palestinians their legitimate right to self-determination.

In any case, while Judis doesn’t explicitly address the Palestinian right of return issue, by clear implication he is not arguing for it, for he writes that “The history of Palestine and Israel’s founding cannot be changed,” and he favors a two-state settlement of the conflict rather than a bilateral Jewish-Palestinian one.

Moral Errors

An elementary error in moral argumentation is to confuse what is (reality) with what ought to be (morally right), or to fail to distinguish between empirical and normative arguments. Yet, in his discussion of the right of return issue, in another not entirely clear passage Wasserstein seems to make this error when he concedes that “Israel’s Jews had gained a world of their own but at the expense of another people,” but then immediately adds:

History, of course, often works that way. And if the people who are vanquished disappear, or are relatively weak and few in number, the victors can eventually lay aside the memory of what they have done. Few Georgians today remember or regret having driven the peaceful Cherokee Indians off their lands.

But the Palestinians are not the Cherokee Indians: they have not disappeared, and while weak compared to the Israelis—a moral nonsequitur, unless one is arguing that Might Makes Right–they are hardly few in number. In any case, of what possible moral relevance is the fact—if it is a fact–that the Georgians—that is, the Israelis—may not remember or regret driving the Palestinians off their lands? Does that mean that no moral judgments should be made about the Georgians/Israelis? As I have said, while Wasserstein’s writing is murky here, that does seem to be his implication.

Continuing his criticism of what he wrongly believes to be Judis’s position on the right of return issue, Wasserstein writes: “How long do such rights inhere? The great majority of so-called Palestinian refugees were not, after all, themselves driven out of their homes in 1948. If Palestinians’ rights as refugees are heritable through the generations, is there some end point, or does that right endure, as Palestinian nationalists claim?”

A few sentences later, Wasserstein concludes:

 Perhaps the Cherokees and the Palestinian refugees deserve to have inherited rights recognized…. But if so, does that not pull the rug out from under one of the chief complaints that is made against Zionism by its critics, including Judis—namely, that the Jewish claim to Palestine is based on an illegitimate appeal to inherited ancestral rights of residence and ownership? Does not Judis…want to have it both ways?

Not at all, for surely the passage of time is crucial. The Jews are claiming permanent rights to Palestine because they were its primary inhabitants two thousand years ago before they were driven out—itself an historically dubious claim, but leave that aside. By contrast, the parallel Palestinian claim, which is not historically questionable in the slightest, is based on events less than seventy years ago—indeed to a significant degree actually less than fifty years ago, for many Palestinians (some of them refugees from 1948 as well) were driven or fled from the West Bank when Israel conquered it in 1967.

How, then, should we think of the right of return? Since there is scarcely any place in the world that has not at one time been conquered and populated by a different people, a kind of common sense moral statute of limitations on land claims by right of previous inhabitance has evolved. Of course, there can be no precision in its application, and certainly there are hard cases. The Zionist claim, however, is not one of them.

A morally plausible range might look something like this:

*The passage of a few months or years is not enough to wipe out past rights.

Thus, no unbiased observer challenged the moral right of the Bosnians and the Kosovar Albanians to have reversed Serbian ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia in the 1990s–even though the use of force was sometimes necessary..

*Sixty or seventy years or so creates a complex problem, both in principle and in practice. Thus, the question of whether the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes and villages in what is now Israel is one of the most vexing issues in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

* A hundred and fifty years is too long. For example, while there is no doubt that in the 19th century Americans drove the Native Americans off the land, it does not follow their descendants have the moral or legal right to reclaim those lands.

*And if that is persuasive, then two thousand years is preposterously too long, especially when different peoples have populated the land during all that period. There are some good arguments for Zionism, but that is not one of them.

Thus, even though Judis is at least implicitly arguing that in 1948 the ancestral rights of the Palestinians outweighed those of the Jews, by criticizing the Zionist claim he is not “wanting to have it both ways,” but merely recognizing plain common sense distinctions.

All this said, I do have several disagreements with Judis’s arguments and judgments, some of them relatively minor but one very important one. Judis believes—as do I—that in principle the Jews had the right and the existential necessity to create a Jewish state, but the excruciating moral dilemma was that by 1947 there was no place to put it; as I have already quoted, Judis writes that  “The trouble came when Zionists specified where that nation should be.”

I share his view that the question of whether the establishment of a Jewish state, per se, was legitimate must be separated from the issue of where it could have been established. The key question, in my view, is whether there was any way to have a Jewish state in Palestine without the Zionist resort to “ethnic cleansing” of the worst possible kind, namely the wholesale violence that forced some 750,000 Palestinians to flee the country because of their entirely justified fear that if they didn’t they might be driven out with just the clothes on their backs or even massacred—just as happened at Lydda, Deir Yassin and in a number of other Palestinian villages.

This issue can be illuminated by examining the issue of “transfer.” In July 1937 the Peel Commission, a high-level British committee tasked with examining what could be done about the increasingly violent conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine, issued its report. Its main recommendation was that Palestine should be partitioned, but this could only be made feasible if there was a substantial exchange of populations, to ensure a large majority of Jews in the Jewish state and Palestinian Arabs in the Palestinian state. The Peel Commission put it this way: “If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population… voluntary or otherwise. (emphasis added)[1] The Commission supported its argument by citing previous precedents in which “compulsory exchanges of population” had succeeded in preventing civil or international conflict.

It is also instructive that Reinhold Niebuhr, perhaps America’s most eminent liberal thinker and theologian in the second half of the 20th century, also endorsed transfer, or “a large scheme of resettlement.” Judis discusses Niebuhr’s position, but considers it to be wrong and inconsistent with his liberal principles. There is another way to look at it, however, for reasons I will discuss below.

As is well-known, the Zionist leadership seized upon the “transfer” solution and it became deeply embedded in Zionist ideology—and behavior—thereafter. Thus, the central moral issue is whether transfer could have been implemented in a nonviolent manner that still would have ensured a large Jewish majority in the new state of Israel. How might this have been done? One way would have been serious efforts to buy out the Palestinians with very generous offers, or if one prefers, “bribing” them to leave, as Roosevelt had briefly considered[2]: surely the international community as well as wealthy Jewish supporters of Israel would have been willing to provide the funds.clip_image001

To be sure, it is likely that some Palestinians would have refused to voluntarily leave no matter how well they were compensated, so that compulsory relocation would still constitute an injustice to them. Even so, differences in degrees of injustice matter a great deal. First of all, numbers matter: of the 220,000 Palestinians who would have to have been relocated if the Jews were to attain the 80% majority that Ben-Gurion considered essential to ensure Jewish rule, surely some significant number of them would have done so if they had been offered very generous compensation. Those who refused such an offer could have been informed that, in due course and with plenty of advance notice, they would be required to leave, could choose where they wanted to go, and would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and receive additional financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.

In short, in order to ensure that there would be a large Jewish majority in the new state of Israel, some relatively small number of Palestinians might have had to be expelled (“transferred”), unwillingly but essentially nonviolently, to areas just a few miles away, with essentially the same geography, climate, history, religion, language, and culture. Yes, that would still be an injustice, but radically less so than the violent ethnic cleansing of 750,000 people that actually took place.

In my judgment, then, it is necessary to make distinctions between degrees of injustice and to strike some kind of balance between conflicting moral claims. If I believed that there were no alternatives to what the Israelis actually did, had it genuinely been the case that the only way a Jewish state could have been established in Palestine was by massive and brutal ethnic cleansing, it would have been better to have done without a Jewish state. However, if the inevitable injustice to the Palestinians had been limited to a compulsory but generously recompensed relocation of far fewer people, in that case the existential need of the Jews for a state of their own, which in practice by 1947 could have been established in no other place but Palestine, would have outweighed the rights of those relatively few Palestinians whose involuntary relocation might have been necessary.

In sum, my differing views on one issue aside, in my view Genesis is a major work which not only will surely have a continuing impact on future scholarship about American policy in the early years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is also directly relevant to the contemporary debate over U.S. policy.

[1] The full text of the Peel Commission report can be found at https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

[2] Steven L. Spiegel, The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 13

This piece first appeared on Slater’s website yesterday. 

Jerome Slater
About Jerome Slater

Jerome Slater is a professor (emeritus) of political science and now a University Research Scholar at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has taught and written about U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nearly 50 years, both for professional journals (such as International Security, Security Studies, and Political Science Quarterly) and for many general periodicals. He writes foreign policy columns for the Sunday Viewpoints section of the Buffalo News. And his website it www.jeromeslater.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

63 Responses

  1. March 9, 2014, 11:45 am

    Jerome Slater writes that such responses to arguments that imply criticism of Israel “reflect a kind of intellectual and moral blindspot about Israel and Zionism that are characteristic of a number of otherwise learned and eminent intellectuals”. Indeed, this widespread reflexive, irrational and crazed behavior of Zionists in the academy and in the media also reflect a kind of linguistic fraud that has a suppressive effect on discussion and understanding of Israeli hostilities against the Palestinians. One advance is that the old canard of antisemitism is losing credibility because it has been willfully abused against so many critics of Israel. But as Slater has outlined there are other linguistic tricks that have replaced antisemitism such as nitpicking and hair splitting which are relentlessly amplified to imply unrealistic levels of incompetence. Sincere thanks to Jerome Slater for his excellent analyses of these attempts to delegitimize and demean sincere commentators on the Israel/Palestine issue.

  2. Jim Holstun
    Jim Holstun
    March 9, 2014, 11:55 am

    Remarkable to read this in Mondoweiss: a defense of kinder, gentler ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that there were two competing moral claims, with the claim of diaspora Jews to ethnic supremacy in a land of their own outweighing the claim of Palestinians to continue living in their homes.

    It’s even more remarkable that Professor Slater feels no compulsion to defend this argument. He simply assumes it, on unexamined ethno-nationalist grounds, while ignoring the myriad alternatives to ethnic cleansing in the late forties–for instance, offering Jewish DPs asylum in the United States, or the other European nations in which many of them chose to remain.

    He states that “to ensure that there would be a large Jewish majority in the new state of Israel, some relatively small number of Palestinians might have had to be expelled (‘transferred’), unwillingly but essentially nonviolently, to areas just a few miles away, with essentially the same geography, climate, history, religion, language, and culture.”

    Professor Slater and I both live in Erie County, New York, just across the Niagara River from Ontario. If he and I were given six months to prepare for a transfer to already-occupied Ontario, so that the Roma people, long-suffering survivors of the Porajmos, might establish ethnic supremacy in Erie County, then the similarity of geography, climate, history, religion, language, and culture in Ontario would be small consolation.

    There is always an alternative to ethnic cleansing; it is never a grim necessity to be embraced with a quick and sloppy argument in support.

  3. Hemlockroid
    Hemlockroid
    March 9, 2014, 12:09 pm

    The Cherokees and the Palestinian comparison is poor.
    Library of Congress has it by 2080AD only %8 of ‘Native Americans’ in the USA will be 1/2 Indian or better. The genocide will be complete soon after. That’s not at all true for
    Muslims.

    • Betsy
      Betsy
      March 10, 2014, 9:46 am

      But the Palestinians are not the Cherokee Indians: they have not disappeared, and they are hardly few in number

      This is a very problematic statement about Native Americans in US. The Cherokee have not disappeared. And, this line of argument implies a generalized dismissal the role & importance of Native Americans in US life — that is also very problematic. There are well over 300,000 people in the official roles of the Cherokee nation, and many more hundreds of thousands who identify culturally or religiously. The official census roles show just under 3 million Native Americans in US — and again, there are many more Americans beyond that who value their Native roots. Native American culture is very much alive. In several states (like Arizona, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, New Mexico) Native Americans make up sizeable minorities (from about 5-10%) which are visible and valued parts of the civic fabric of those states. While Native Americans have suffered much, they have not ‘disappeared’. One of the things I hate about Zionism, is that it creates a discursive field that pulls one towards demographic comparison — as if mere numbers are what matter. The number of Native Americans in US is not very different from number of Jewish Americans — but mere numbers shouldn’t be emphasized like this. This sort of demographization of our thinking about who ‘matters’ and who has ‘disappeared’, simply does not reflect the best of who we are as Americans.

      There is a persistent tendency on Mondoweiss to make analogies to indigenous experience (recurrent use of language re/ the ‘tribal’, problematic analogies to violence against indigenous peoples), while showing little concern for the living realities (or sensibilities) of indigenous communities.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        March 10, 2014, 11:13 am

        Great comment, Betsy. Thanks. I’ll try to internalize your last para.

  4. peterfeld
    peterfeld
    March 9, 2014, 12:15 pm

    Um. Up to “all this said” this is a much-needed corrective to Wasserstein, who was getting a free pass on account of refraining from wild personal attacks. The section on trivial errors and especially the “duration” section are really careful and on point.

    Then we get to the idea that compulsory but compensated transfer would have been ok. I guess this demonstrates that no matter how well intentioned, Zionism always reduces itself to a willingness to deny someone else’s rights (and destroy communities, etc.) based on your belief that you need/deserve it more.

    I guess the reason Zionists like Judis and Shavit are able to help expose Israel’s founding myths is precisely because they believe doing so doesn’t undercut modern Israel’s moral foundation. (Meanwhile, modern Israel is blowing up homes and shooting soccer players in the feet, but that doesn’t undercut their view of its moral foundation either — like Beinart, they expect that that will be taken care of by enlightened pressure from those in the US who love Israel most. Never is it considered that today’s demolitions and night raids are the 100% inevitable consequence of what Weizmann and Balfour and Ben Gurion set in motion in the 1910s.) It’s a kind of confessional Zionism.

    • Nevada Ned
      Nevada Ned
      March 9, 2014, 8:58 pm

      Peterfeld discusses Slater’s musings about a “compulsory but compensated transfer” of Palestinians, necessary to guarantee a Jewish majority..

      I wonder what Slater would think of a “compulsory but compensated transfer” of Israeli Jews, necessary to guarantee a Palestinian majority.

      After all, if it’s a discussable issue for the goose, it ought to be a discussable issue for the gander.

  5. jayn0t
    jayn0t
    March 9, 2014, 1:00 pm

    “Remarkable to read this in Mondoweiss: a defense of kinder, gentler ethnic cleansing” (Jim Holstun). But you can often read on Mondoweiss arguments for the “two state solution”, “end the occupation” – these solutions keep the Jewish state, the fruit of the ethnic cleansing of 1948, in place.

    Slater does defend his argument – he says two states is the only realistic solution. That’s beside the point. It’s not for American people to tell people in Palestine to conform to the facts of American politics. It’s for us to change those politics.

  6. GJB
    GJB
    March 9, 2014, 1:01 pm

    This is an important and illuminating commentary, and I have always admired Prof. Slater for his scholarship and his values. However, that “kinder and gentler” ethnic cleansing bit disturbs me. I suppose one could compare that sort of “transfer” to the idea of eminent domain, moving citizens around for the common good. But in that case, people are at least ostensibly chosen fairly, on geographic terms, say a block where everyone has to move to make way for a highway. But if this were done as Prof. Slater suggests, it is more as if some of the residents of the block were moved out due to their religion or ethnicity, while the others remained. It would be an odd highway route indeed. Personally, I am agnostic on the issue of one state or two, as long as the democratic and human rights of all of the state’s (or states’) citizens are respected. But the idea of even “gentle ethnic cleansing” reveals the basic flaw in liberal zionist thinking, that this sort of thing can ever really be fair.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 9, 2014, 3:03 pm

      Personally, I am agnostic on the issue of one state or two, as long as the democratic and human rights of all of the state’s (or states’) citizens are respected. But the idea of even “gentle ethnic cleansing” reveals the basic flaw in liberal zionist thinking, that this sort of thing can ever really be fair.

      You need look no farther than the Indian Removal Act. Despite the fact that the Cherokees have been granted citizenship and, as such, are free to return and take up residence in the state of Georgia, most people still feel that the Indian Removal Act was a wrongful act of state and fundamentally immoral.

      Yet it mirrors the proposal outlined by Prof. Slater above. It was a compensated land exchange:

      “for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there;

      The fact is that a simple exchange wasn’t adequate to replace ancestral lands, the Congress recognized the need to guarantee the title to the new lands to the Indians and their posterity forever:

      That in the making of any such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them;

      An exchange of land that had been cleared and improved with homes or buildings for unimproved land elsewhere would clearly not be equitable. So compensation was authorized for any improvements:

      That if, upon any of the lands now occupied by the Indians, and to be exchanged for, there should be such improvements as add value to the land claimed by any individual or individuals of such tribes or nations, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such value to be ascertained by appraisement or otherwise, and to cause such ascertained value to be paid to the person or persons rightfully claiming such improvements. And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and paid for, shall pass to the United States, and possession shall not afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe.

      And of course, the Indians were given every assistance when they were voluntarily driven into exile:

      That upon the making of any such exchange as is contemplated by this act, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such aid and assistance to be furnished to the emigrants as may be necessary and proper to enable them to remove to, and settle in, the country for which they may have exchanged;

      That it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=459

    • Jerome Slater
      Jerome Slater
      March 10, 2014, 10:48 am

      A general comment on the problem of “kinder and gentler ethnic cleansing”:

      If one rejects–even in principle–the argument that the Jews needed and were justified in having a state of their own, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, it obviously follows that there was no moral dilemma inherent in the creation of that state in a partitioned Palestine–it wouldn’t matter how many or how few Palestinians were displaced, nor how that was done.

      If, however, one accepts the principle of a justified Jewish state, then there clearly was a tragic moral dilemma: justice (and for many, sheer survival) for the Jews clashed with justice for the Palestinians. To consider highly compensated relocation, even compulsory for some, of a relatively small number of Palestinians as merely “a kinder and gentler” form of “ethnic cleansing,” apparently morally barely distinguishable from the Zionists’ resort to terrorism, massacres, and forced marches to drive out 750,000 Palestinians–that is, REAL ethnic cleansing–is to deny the possibility of moral distinctions.

      Put differently, if one rejects the bedrock principle of Zionism in its entirety, then no further discussion is necessary or even possible. But if one accepts this principle–like we “liberal Zionists” do–but detest not only the Nakba and all other Israeli crimes since, then one has to consider whether there was another way. That’s what I have tried to do.

      Here’s a thought experiment: suppose, as I have suggested, that the Israelis, the international community, and others offered to buy out the some 220,000 Palestinians that would have to be relocated to neighboring Arab states in order to create a large Jewish majority within the boundaries of the Jewish state. Suppose the offer was quite generous–say, $1,000,000 per family–and that all or nearly all the affected Palestinians were happy to accept it, and move (in most cases) just a few miles into the Palestinian state that was supposed to have been created by the UN partition resolution of 1947, or perhaps into another Arab state?

      In that case, the whole process would not only have been nonviolent, it would have been a negotiated settlement acceptable to all the Palestinians that accepted the terms. Would that also have been merely a “kinder and gentler” ethnic cleansing?

      It won’t do any good to say, well, some of them wouldn’t accept, so they would have to be forced to leave–though still compensated generously, in my proposal.
      How many wouldn’t accept, even though highly compensated? Who knows? Out of the total of 220,000, maybe 5000, 10,000, 20,000? The numbers, together with the economic compensation, become critical, for if it is illegitimate to compulsorily transfer any Palestinians at all, then you are denying justice to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Jews who need a Jewish state as a refuge against future murderous anti-Semitism.

      To repeat, those who reject the very notion of a necessitated Jewish state will have no problem with this thought experiment–an injustice to a single displaced Palestinian outweighs the moral claims of the Jewish people. But for the rest of us who see a moral dilemma, both numbers and methods become morally critical.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 10, 2014, 11:04 am

        The problem is not getting most Palestinians to leave their homes and lands on terms beneficial to them; the problem is the creation of a supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for its Jewish citizens and for people of the Jewish faith elsewhere in the world – instead of a secular and democratic state of and for all citizens of that geographic region, equally.

        >> … for if it is illegitimate to compulsorily transfer any Palestinians at all, then you are denying justice to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Jews who need a Jewish state as a refuge against future murderous anti-Semitism.

        What any person or group needs as a refuge against injustice is justice and accountability, not a supremacist state.

      • Jim Holstun
        Jim Holstun
        March 10, 2014, 1:01 pm

        “If, however, one accepts the principle of a justified Jewish state” (which entails the necessity for ethnic cleansing to establish the Jewish majority) “then there clearly was a tragic moral dilemma” between establishing a Jewish state and ethnic cleansing. In other words, if one accepts the necessity for ethnic cleansing, then ethnic cleansing is, regrettably, necessary.

        Alas, this is where even the most genteel ethno-sectarian supremacism leaves us: knee deep in tautologous thinking. And Professor Slater has still not established the crucial assumption of his argument: that an ethno-sectarian state founded in ethnic cleansing was the only possible protection for the Jewish survivors of the European Holocaust. In 1997, the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office estimated that, of 960,000 Holocaust survivors, 380,000 lived in Israel, 580,000 elsewhere.
        http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/holostats.htm

        So Professor Slater is willing to contemplate with equanimity the forcible transfer of Palestinians out of their homeland, but not a modest increase in emigration numbers of Jewish DPs to other safe and welcoming states, or their staying in or returning to their states of origin?

        Palestinians are not furniture: you don’t get to move them around at will and expect no consequences.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 10, 2014, 11:49 am

        They probably needed a state but in Europe.
        They chose Palestine because they thought the Arabs would be a walkover. And they would never have dared claim Antwerp or Moscow.

      • Jerome Slater
        Jerome Slater
        March 10, 2014, 12:02 pm

        Seafoid: Sure Europe would have better, and in many ways. But that wasn’t being offered. Nor did they choose Palestine because they thought the Arabs would be a walkover, as opposed to ideological, religious, and even practical reasons. The fact of the matter is that by 1947 there was no possibility of establishing a Jewish state anywhere but Palestine.

        Indeed, even large-scale emigration to the U.S. was not possible, given American attitudes.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 10, 2014, 12:06 pm

        “Sure Europe would have better, and in many ways. But that wasn’t being offered.”

        Palestine wasn’t offered, either. In fact, the Palestinians made it clear that the zionists were not welcome there.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 10, 2014, 12:39 pm

        They weren’t offered Palestine either. The Zionists needed a space that they didn’t have to pay for and the only way they had was to take it from a weaker people – like they needed an existential shag and the easiest woman to rape was Palestine.\

        Climate change is going to show the idiocy of choosing Palestine.

      • American
        American
        March 10, 2014, 1:37 pm

        ‘The fact of the matter is that by 1947 there was no possibility of establishing a Jewish state anywhere but Palestine.

        Indeed, even large-scale emigration to the U.S. was not possible, given American attitudes.””….Salter

        Untrue. Other places were considered –as I am sure you know–but Palestine was chosen because they thought the “Israel’ of Judaism would rally more support from religious Jews.

        As for American attitudes–the quotas after the War , just as during the war, were not set up ‘just to keep Jews and no one else out”—the quotas were for the purpose of limiting immigration, period.
        But of course America was anti semitic wasn’t it…that’s why we took in 2 million Jews between 1900 and 1924 and have half of the world’s Jewish population living here, including you.

        ”Ingratitude is the essence of vileness.”
        Immanuel Kant

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 10, 2014, 12:04 pm

        “If, however, one accepts the principle of a justified Jewish state, then there clearly was a tragic moral dilemma”

        All you’re doing here is gratuitously emoting to concoct a narrative that reduces the evil that was done to the Palestinians, probably to reducing the ego damage to your own self image. There’s nothing “tragic” here, except it is psychologically easier for you to pretend there is (or to concoct unhistoircal fantasies of these million dollar payoffs) in order to justify your willing acceptance of the naked theft and injustice inflicted on someone else because it benefits you and your people.

        Because once you find desirable or defensible the change from 1) the desire of the Jews for a state to 2) the achievement of that state, you are accepting as desirable and defensible that thousands or more innocent people who live on the land you are coveting will be killed and many more will be robbed, in order to achieve that end. That bloodshed is unavoidable, so fantasies about how it could have been “less unjust” is frank nonsense. The only way it would have been anything but unjust to the Palestinians is for them not to have been the victims.

        But the real deficiency in your thinking is manifest in the end when you suggest that the moral calculus is between the Palestinians in the security of their lives, country and community as it existed and the interest of Jews to a state in Palestine. In doing so, you put the onus on the Palestinians — and only the Palestinians — to accept a compromise of themselves to yield to the desire of the Jews. Notably missing from your calculus is any notion (aside from the fantasy of massive cash prizes) that the Jews were morally obligated to reduce or adjust their demands so as to reduce the injustice to the Palestinians. Nowhere do you even appear to consider and recommend the moral alternative situations that the Jews could have and should have accepted. Rather, you appear to suggest that the moral cost was either total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians or “kindler and gentler ethnic cleansing,” which contains with it the correlary that, no matter what, the Jews were going to achieve thier state and the only issue is how much damage was to be done to the Palestinians in the process. If this was really a serious moral examination, and not a shoddy job of slapping justification for domination over your senstive ego like you’re slapping spackle over a hole in the wall, than that examination of what the Jews could have and should have done to reduce the injustice to the Palestinians was mandatory.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 10, 2014, 12:52 pm

        Maybe a Jewish state was justified but the Palestinians had superior rights to the land. And still do.
        Zionism was theft. Is theft.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 12:47 pm

        To repeat, those who reject the very notion of a necessitated Jewish state will have no problem with this thought experiment–an injustice to a single displaced Palestinian outweighs the moral claims of the Jewish people.

        You’ve just described Recommendation XII of the UNSCOP Commission. It noted that provision for limited and controlled Jewish immigration during the transition period was made in both the partition and federal State proposals, so Jewish statehood wasn’t really an issue:

        “In the appraisal of the Palestine question, it be accepted as incontrovertible that any solution for Palestine cannot be considered as a solution of the Jewish problem in general.”
        Comment

        (a) Palestine is a Country of limited area and resources. It already has a considerable settled population which has an unusually high rate of natural increase. It is, therefore, most improbable that there could be settled in Palestine all the Jews who may wish to leave their present domiciles, for reasons of immediate displacement or distress, or actual or anticipated anti-Jewish attitudes in the countries in which they now reside.

        (&) In any case, owing to the factors of time, limited transportation, and local ability to absorb, it could not be anticipated that Palestine alone could relieve the urgent plight of all of the displaced and distressed Jews.

        (c) Further, serious account must-be taken of the certain resentment and vigorous opposition of the Arabs throughout the Middle East to any attempt to solve, at what they regard as their expense, the Jewish problem, which they consider to be an international responsibility.

        (d) With regard to Jewish immigration into the Jewish areas of Palestine during the proposed transitional period, it is to be noted that provision for limited and controlled immigration during such period is made in both the partition and federal State proposals set forth in Chapters VI and VII respectively.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

        I’ve pointed out in the past that the Jewish Agency Executive were not concerned with bringing all of the Jewish people, as such, to Palestine in the first place:

        A representative of the Jewish Agency has stated that in the event of partition the 400,000 Jews in the Arab states outside Palestine may have to be sacrificed in the interest of the Jewish community as a whole.

        http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000256628.pdf

        The Jewish Agency had nearly 30,000 unused immigration certificates that it refused to issue to refugees on the SS Patria and the Struma when it gambled with their lives and lost.

        Weizmann never considered many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community he was building in Palestine:

        Dr. Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency, stated that he had come to this country, with Palestine as always uppermost in his mind, to raise $4,000,000 outside the United Palestine Appeal for strengthening the Jewish community in Palestine.

        It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of these perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives were behind them-”who were but little more than dust”. He believed that it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of these refugees, so far as possible those with a future, one-fourth on the land, the remainder as an addition to the urban population.

        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1940v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=837</blockquote

        Here are a number of cites from Boaz Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260-261 regarding the deliberations and correspondence of the Zionist Executive on the subject of the Evian Conference on Refugees:
        *The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Evron wrote that: “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing'.

        "We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.”

        *Evron quotes from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938: I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts.

        *There was also the statement made by Menachem Ussishkin head of the Jewish National Fund in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum: “He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.”

        The statement by Ben Gurion and the letter to Rabbi Wise were also cited in S. Beit Zvi, Hatzionut Ha-Post-Ugandit Bemashber Ha'shoah (Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust), Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178, 181, 182

  7. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    March 9, 2014, 1:28 pm

    Every settler who moves into the West Bank (record numbers in the first 3 monthes of 2014) adds another nail to the coffin of the 2ss. No small number of settlers and soldiers have said they’ll vacate “Judea and Samaria” only in a hail of bullets. The day is fast approaching when Zionists will have to pick their poison – a civil war or one person one vote.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      March 10, 2014, 1:18 pm

      dbroncos:

      Every settler who moves into the West Bank … adds another nail to the coffin of the 2ss.

      Every settler who moves into the West Bank also adds another nail to the coffin of any democratic 1SS.

  8. American
    American
    March 9, 2014, 2:52 pm

    What to say, what to say, what to say about post….hummm
    I guess say one Jewish supporter of Israel analyzing the critique by another Jewish supporter of yet another Jew’s book on Israel/ Palestine/ USA-Truman.
    Would take way too long to seriously get into all said in this.
    And I find it not surprising at all that, as always, you have nothing to even mention about the ramifications on the US and Americans of Truman supporting the creation of Israel in a book about a weak US President forced by Zionist politics to support Israel.
    If there is one thing we have learned about the Israel supporters of Israel its that its all about them, them, them alone.
    No wonder you could only create a Jewish ruled state, not a democratic one.

  9. American
    American
    March 9, 2014, 3:36 pm

    I swore I wasnt going to get exasperated by and respond to this kind of pilpul any more but I have to say it again….
    The Jews do not have moral claim ‘ equal’ to the Palestine’s claim for the land of Palestine.
    The Jews had no 1948 moral right or claims to Palestine to begin with.
    The ‘only’ moral claims the Jews had for anything was against the Nazis and their collaborators.
    And as for the ‘degrees of injustice ‘ theory….numbers don’t determine the degree of injustice, the number only bring more attention to the injustice, that’s all.
    Israel cant be justified morally at all –the only way Israel can be justified today is on practical grounds—the problem of totally dismantling the country’s government structure and immigrating the Jews to other countries for those that refuse to remain in a Non Jewish ruled Palestine state—that’s the only real world justification for Israel remaining in Palestine.
    That is the reason I supported a 2 state solution.,,not having to uproot a population.
    But since Israel wont let a Palestine State come into being, to hell with it.
    Make it One state and over run it with Palestines and Muslims and Christians and let the Jewish State go into the dustbin of history.

  10. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 9, 2014, 3:50 pm

    American Zionist movement which, while led by strong liberals such as Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and others, abandoned their principles by privileging statehood for the Jews in Palestine over democracy and self-determination for the Palestinians. If they had been true to their principles, Judis argues, they would have recognized their moral obligation to support the few leading Zionists in Palestine, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber, who argued for the creation of a democratic binational state

    The fact is that the representatives of the Zionist Organization to the Paris Peace conference opted for incorporation in the new state of Palestine. Ethnic and national groups do not have the right to independent statehood on the basis of the right of self-determination. See:
    * Article 2 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action;
    http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/vienna.aspx
    * The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
    http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
    * Articles 5 and 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (pdf) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1514%28XV%29

    Those UN positions regarding the limitations on the exercise of the right of self-determination restated part of the findings of the League of Nations Aaland Islands Commission (1920):

    THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLES.
    Although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.

    On the contrary, in the absence of express provisions in international treaties, the right of disposing of national territory is essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of every State. Positive International Law does not recognise the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish, any more than it recognises the right of other States to claim such a separation.

    Generally speaking, the grant or refusal of the right to a portion of its population of determining its own political fate by plebiscite or by some other method, is, exclusively, an attribute of the sovereignty of every State which is definitively constituted. A dispute between two States concerning such a question, under normal conditions therefore, bears upon a question which International Law leaves entirely to the domestic jurisdiction of one of the States concerned. Any other solution would amount to an infringement of sovereign rights of a State and would involve the risk of creating difficulties and a lack of stability which would not only be contrary to the very idea embodied in the term “State,” but would also endanger the interests of the international community. If this right is not possessed by a large or small section of a nation, neither can it be held by the State to which the National group wishes to be attached, nor by any other State.

    — October 1920, League of Nations—Official Journal, Report Of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question. (pdf) http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup10/basicmats/aaland1.pdf

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      March 10, 2014, 4:44 am

      Hostage has done a valuable service. I would add that farther into the Mandate era, mainstream Zionists — not only fringe players — raised various federation/confederation proposals. They are documented in Yosef Gorny, From Binational Society to Jewish State: Federal Concepts in Zionist Political Thought, 1920-1990, and the Jewish People. All were rejected by the Arab side, as have Israeli proposals ever since. It’s more than sad to see contemporary Palestinian rejectionism win the backing of Westerners who take pride in the modi vivendi that they’ve worked out to manage their once-bloody conflicts.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 1:43 pm

        All were rejected by the Arab side, as have Israeli proposals ever since.

        That’s a ludicrous suggestion. During the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly on the Question of Palestine, that had been convened by the Security Council, the Arab side proposed that the form of government in Palestine should be based upon the model of the US Constitution:

        “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        The US representative confirmed the fact that similar proposals had previously been made in both the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committees and that they had not been deemed acceptable.

        Ironically enough, it was the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, US citizen Rabbi Abba Silver, who claimed that the US Constitutional model was unacceptable to the Jewish people.

        FYI, during the UN Ad Hoc Committee hearings in 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proposed a democratic government that would observe human rights, fundamental freedoms; equality of all persons before the law; and protection of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities. That proposal was also deemed unacceptable by the representatives of the Jewish people. On 29 September 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

  11. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 9, 2014, 5:25 pm

    “First of all, numbers matter: of the 220,000 Palestinians who would have to have been relocated if the Jews were to attain the 80% majority that Ben-Gurion considered essential to ensure Jewish rule, surely some significant number of them would have done so if they had been offered very generous compensation. Those who refused such an offer could have been informed that, in due course and with plenty of advance notice, they would be required to leave, could choose where they wanted to go, and would still get generous compensation for the loss of their homes and receive additional financial assistance in picking up their lives wherever they chose to go.”

    They never offered them anything. Israel doesn’t pay for stuff.
    And look at the state of play now.

  12. talknic
    talknic
    March 9, 2014, 7:33 pm

    “The best solution, Truman thought—and this is clearly Judis’s own preference—would have been the establishment not of the Jewish state of Israel but of some kind of binational Jewish-Palestinian state or federation”

    In effect such a state already existed – see Art 7 LoN Mandate for Palestine

  13. Naftush
    Naftush
    March 10, 2014, 4:36 am

    Mr. Slater writes, “As is well-known, the Zionist leadership seized upon the ‘transfer’ solution and it became deeply embedded in Zionist ideology—and behavior—thereafter.”
    Unsupported. Gratuitous. Unworthy.

    • Jerome Slater
      Jerome Slater
      March 10, 2014, 1:05 pm

      Naftush: You don’t think that “transfer” was part of Zionist ideology–and implemented mercilessly in 1947-48? You might try learning a bit about the history of your country (I assume it is Israel). Your position is not a serious one.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 11, 2014, 8:07 am

        @ Jerome Slater & Sibiriak

        Naftush has identified himself as a Zionist, observant Jew, and Israeli since 1977. Perhaps he will respond to your comments revealing his ignorance or lies? Don’t hold your breath.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      March 10, 2014, 10:03 pm

      Naftush:

      Mr. Slater writes, “As is well-known, the Zionist leadership seized upon the ‘transfer’ solution and it became deeply embedded in Zionist ideology—and behavior—thereafter.”
      Unsupported. Gratuitous. Unworthy.

      Completely supported and meticulously documented in Nur Masalha’s book, “Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought 1882–1948.”

  14. RoHa
    RoHa
    March 10, 2014, 4:49 am

    “two-state solution, the only one that in his view (and mine) is morally justifiable and has any chance of being implemented.”

    The only moral justification for it would be that it might be better than the current situation. And it seems that Israel has no intention of ever allowing it to be implemented.

    “By contrast, the parallel Palestinian claim, which is not historically questionable in the slightest, is based on events less than seventy years ago—indeed to a significant degree actually less than fifty years ago, for many Palestinians (some of them refugees from 1948 as well) were driven or fled from the West Bank when Israel conquered it in 1967”

    Palestinians are still being driven out of their homes. The process has not stopped.

    “that in principle the Jews had the right and the existential necessity to create a Jewish state, but the excruciating moral dilemma was that by 1947 there was no place to put it;”

    I contest the principle , but since there was no place to put it, there was no actual right to create a Jewish State.

    “some relatively small number of Palestinians might have had to be expelled (“transferred”), unwillingly but essentially nonviolently,”

    One wonders how this might have been done.

    This whole thing still reeks of “Jews are more important than other people”.

    • American
      American
      March 10, 2014, 2:53 pm

      “that in principle the Jews had the right and the existential necessity to create a Jewish state, but the excruciating moral dilemma was that by 1947 there was no place to put it;””

      I’m just curious what exact principle and right he’s citing there for the right to a nation.
      What I’ve heard cited by Zionist for their rights to a nation are:

      1) Ancient anti semitism and victimhood-Herzl
      2) The Holocaust
      3) Peoplehood self determination based on some kind of hodgepodge of religion + race ,or ethnic and genetics.

      ‘principle’ in the way he is using it would be defined as …”a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth’ .

      1 and 2 would be have to be some kind of principle based on victimhood. But since there is no universally established principle that applies to all victims the right to create a nation of their own as compensation—–only legal system justice—–I don’t know what principle he’s claiming there.

  15. Donald
    Donald
    March 10, 2014, 1:36 pm

    What were the choices available for Jewish refugees in 1947 outside of Palestine? I’m genuinely asking, not making a rhetorical point.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 10, 2014, 2:10 pm

      @Donald – Simple. Stay home or, if not already done, return home. For those feeling adventurous, or the rabid anticommunists, emigrate to a country that would officially accept you as a resident, provided you live under its laws. Like, say, the US. Or Argentina. Immigrating to Palestine with a gun, as a terrorist, with British authorization not the Brits’ to grant, or even without that, with the declared intention to invade, dispossess, institute a racist dictatorship and clear the country of its owners was definitely not kosher. Even though it’s very old, it’s not a rhetorical answer.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 10, 2014, 4:30 pm

        I’ve heard conflicting things on the refugees and I need to go back and read up on it in a serious way. To hear people at Mondoweiss, it’s as if there was no problem for Jewish refugees at all. They could go to America or Argentina. (I’m not so sure Argentina would have been such a great choice, given the ideology of the rulers in the late 70’s).

        “Simple. Stay home”

        Seriously? If I were Jewish there’s no way in hell I’d have stayed in much of Europe after WWII. Of course it depends–some countries were better than others.

        This doesn’t justify throwing Palestinians out of their homes if one fled to Palestine, but I can’t blame postwar Jews for wanting to go wherever they could.

        “or the rabid anticommunists,”

        You wouldn’t have to be a very rabid anti-communist not to want to live under Stalin or one of his puppets, I don’t think.

        “mmigrating to Palestine with a gun, as a terrorist, with British authorization not the Brits’ to grant, or even without that, with the declared intention to invade, dispossess, institute a racist dictatorship and clear the country of its owners was definitely not kosher.”

        This seems harsh to me. I’d make a distinction between the Zionist leadership, (some of whom I’ve heard didn’t necessarily want all Jewish immigrants anyway, only the strong useful ones) and people who have just barely escaped genocide and might have been willing to flee anyplace that would take them. Now sure, some of those refugees might then have become terrorists, but I suspect the majority just wanted to get out of a continent where they had nearly been exterminated for the crime of being Jewish. This doesn’t justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, not by a long shot. Nothing could. But to my mind, Jewish refugees in the 40’s had a definite claim to sympathy and the right to get the hell out of Europe-of course their rights end at the point where some of them start forcing out other innocent people from their homes. But I mean actual forcing out–a person doesn’t commit a human rights violation by moving from point A to point B, unless he then forces out people at point B.

        Let me repeat something to be clear–nothing justifies ethnic cleansing. But that doesn’t mean that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who came to Palestine were guilty of ethnic cleansing. They’re guilty if they participated in the Nakba or supported it. If you say they were illegal immigrants, maybe. It’s still true that they’re not guilty of other crimes unless they commit those crimes.

        The problem with the I/P conflict is that people on both sides sometimes think in terms of collective guilt or innocence. This is how one ends up justifying either collective punishment or collective guilt. There’s no such thing.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 10, 2014, 4:47 pm

        @Donald – You can make all the distinctions and sub-distinctions you feel like making. When you boil it down to essentials, that’s what we are left with. As for wanting to remain in your country with all the war’s destruction and changes and death, for the Nth time, *it *is *not *only *about *Jews *but *everyone. So, no special passes.
        As for the “Jewish nationals” referred by Hostage that stupid fictional category was recognized by some governments, which doesn’t make it logical in any way or wise.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 6:45 pm

        As for the “Jewish nationals” referred by Hostage that stupid fictional category was recognized by some governments, which doesn’t make it logical in any way or wise.

        That stupid category wasn’t fictional, it was legally binding, and in many cases the countries in question were simply complying with the post war international peace treaties. For example, the Czechoslovak Jews could claim to be Jewish by nationality even if they lacked knowledge of a Jewish language or membership in the Jewish religious community. That status was guaranteed by the official interpretation of Article 128 of the Czechoslovak constitution of 1920 and the requirements regarding national, religious, and racial minorities in the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919). https://archive.org/stream/cu31924014118222#page/n48/mode/1up/search/128.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 10, 2014, 9:23 pm

        @Hostage – Of course it is a legal category and generally recognized by different governments, judges, juries, clerks and what will you.
        It remains fictional –being admitted in law or whatever you lawyers call it doesn’t make anything real; just like the legal categories that in the Middle Ages allowed for the trial of pigs and cows. There can’t be a “Jewish” nationality, as the only common thing between Ashkenazis, Urban Western Eueopeans, Spaniards, Arabs, Bukharans, Ethiopians etc. is strictly religious an liturgical. Accepting this fiction as real is as crazy as establishing a “Martian” nationality (which is as easy to do on paper as the one in discussion.)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 10:54 pm

        Of course it is a legal category and generally recognized by different governments, judges, juries, clerks and what will you. It remains fictional –being admitted in law or whatever you lawyers call it doesn’t make anything real;just like the legal categories that in the Middle Ages allowed for the trial of pigs and cows. There can’t be a “Jewish” nationality, as the only common thing between Ashkenazis, Urban Western Eueopeans, Spaniards, Arabs, Bukharans, Ethiopians etc. is strictly religious an liturgical.

        I think you are spinning your intellectual wheels. I any event, I didn’t say there was only one Jewish nationality or Jewish national culture. The groups themselves have employed various national terms to identify their communities, including Sephardi (Spain), Askenazi (German), Romaniote (Byzantine or Greek), & etc. FYI, the notion that a common culture or language automatically results in a common nationality doesn’t apply to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants from the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand – and there’s no law of nations which limits Jewish people to a single nationality either.

        People who think that Judaism is just a common religion aren’t very familiar with the subject. Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Secular Humanistic Judaism are not a common religion.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 11, 2014, 2:29 am

        @Hostage – It seems as if we do agree that the “Jewish” nationality is totally fictive. A legal fiction in this case.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 10, 2014, 4:53 pm

        “Let me repeat something to be clear–nothing justifies ethnic cleansing. But that doesn’t mean that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who came to Palestine were guilty of ethnic cleansing. They’re guilty if they participated in the Nakba or supported it. If you say they were illegal immigrants, maybe. It’s still true that they’re not guilty of other crimes unless they commit those crimes.”

        I would suspect that most of the Jews who came from Europe to Palestine post-1945 did so with the explicit aim of completing the project started some decades previously to establish a Jewish-dominated state in the Palestinians’ homeland. If they willingly joined that polity (by not returning back to their European homelands), they bear guilt for the crimes committed against the Palestinians. Not all equally, of course. But those who didn’t do the actual mass murders and terror still bear guilt for their own role in establishing the zionist state, even if that role is simply providing an increase in the demographics.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        March 10, 2014, 4:31 pm

        @ puppies… In very few words, perfectly elucidated. Nothing could have been simpler. Thank you!

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 10, 2014, 3:03 pm

      What were the choices available for Jewish refugees in 1947 outside of Palestine? I’m genuinely asking, not making a rhetorical point.

      Most of them were quickly repatriated. They were considered Poles, Czechs, and etc, under the terms of the LoN minority treaties, but the remainder asked to be segregated into their own autonomous camps and recognized as Jewish nationals. Most ended up in the United States and Palestine. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005418

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 10, 2014, 4:34 pm

        “Most ended up in the United States and Palestine.”

        Could they have all come to the US if they chose? I looked at your link–it wasn’t clear, unless I missed something.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 4:53 pm

        Could they have all come to the US if they chose? I looked at your link–it wasn’t clear, unless I missed something.

        Initially, they were treated as “displaced persons” with a right of repatriation. Those that had a legitimate fear of persecution in their country of origin (refoulment) were treated as refugees in line with the practice codified in the 1950 Refugee Convention, which cited several earlier international resolutions pertaining to European refugees. They had their own autonomous camps under Allied protection which were supported by the UN. In theory, if they were willing to wait for a quota, they could have all come to the USA. The majority of them didn’t end-up in Palestine in any event.

      • American
        American
        March 10, 2014, 5:15 pm

        @ Donald

        All countries had immigration quotas.
        The Jews and DPs were given special consideration under the “Truman Directive,” in December 22, 1945.
        The directive required that existing immigration quotas be designated for displaced persons.
        Under that Directive, 22,950 WWII DPs were accepted into the US—– two-thirds of them were Jewish.

      • tree
        tree
        March 10, 2014, 5:29 pm

        Could they have all come to the US if they chose?

        Eventually, if they had waited in the DP camps. Increases in the US immigration quotas (which were determined by country of origin, not religion or ethnicity) were not passed until after the creation of Israel, at which time, American Zionist organizations, which had previously opposed the increases, put their weight behind the new legislation, along with other organizations that had been pushing for more liberal immigration policies prior to 1948.

    • tree
      tree
      March 10, 2014, 5:18 pm

      Donald, I’d suggest that you read “In the Shadow of the Holocaust” by Yosef Grodzinsky which deals exclusively with the refugees in the Jewish DP camps in Europe post WWII. He’s an Israeli professor who, having grown up being told that all the Jewish DPs wanted to come to Israel and that Israel saved them all, but found instead that in fact the majority of them went to other countries, not Israel, and that Zionist organizations, which often ran the camps ( because the US wanted to give the Jewish camps some sense of autonomy) engaged in actions meant to discourage Jewish refugees from going to other countries even when the offers were out there, and also engaged in coercive actions (withholding food rations or jobs, or even engaging in physical violence) in order to get “volunteers” to join the Hagganah/IDF forces in Palestine/Israel. The original title of his book, in Hebrew, was “Good Human Material”, which was a term regularly used by Zionist officials to differentiate the type of Jews they wanted in Palestine/Israel.

      It should also be noted that in 1947 there was still a British quota on Jewish immigration to Palestine, and the Zionists, who had always been given the right by Britain to determine who would receive the immigration certificates, had their own selection criteria, which prohibited any Jew from immigrating if it was determined that he/she would be a burden on the Jewish community/State, so in 1947 Palestine was not a particularly easy choice for Jewish refugees either. And in 1948, even though the British quotas were no more, Israel was discouraging immediate immigration of any Jew who could not be useful for its war effort. This was eased in late 1948 and essentially disappeared in 1949, which saw the largest ever amount of Jewish immigration in order to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes, but the “Right of Return”, which guaranteed the “right” of any Jew anywhere to come to Israel as a citizen, was not passed until 1950. From Zionism’s very beginning up until 1950, a selection process meant to ingather only “good human material” was in effect in Palestine/Israel.

      It should also be noted that there were over 2 million European refugees in DP camps after the War. A little under 340,000 of them were Jews. 140,000 of those Jewish DPs went to Israel, 120,000 went to the US, 20,000 went to South America, 15,000 went to Canada, 10,000 went to Australia, 20,000 chose to stay in Germany, and 8,000 went to Western Europe. (these figures are taken from Grodzinsky, and he notes that any discrepancy was purposely resolved in favor of Israel to estimate the absolute highest possible number of Jewish DP camp immigrants to Israel.

      I don’t have absolute numbers on how many non-Jewish DP camp inhabitants were allowed to immigrate to the US, but it appears to be in the 250,000 to 300,000 range, meaning that although Jews were a sixth of all DP camp inhabitants, they were between a third and a half of all DP inhabitants allowed to emigrate to the US. Non-Jewish DP camp members often also feared repatriation to their former countries in Eastern Europe and some of those who were forced to return did in fact suffer imprisonment or execution by the Soviets, so the dire situation in the DP camps was not a condition that was peculiar only to Jews.

      • American
        American
        March 10, 2014, 6:59 pm

        @ tree

        The numbers sound accurate to me from what I remember of the US Gov Records from the Committee for DPs that was established after the war and existed till all the DPs were placed.
        I posted it with the link on here but it was long ago and I don’t want to have to rummage thru several years comments to find it.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 11, 2014, 5:49 pm

        Thanks tree. I think I’ve heard of Grodzinsky’s book, but haven’t gotten around to reading it or seeing if it’s in the local library system. Sooner or later I’ll get to it.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      March 10, 2014, 9:33 pm

      Donald:

      What were the choices available for Jewish refugees in 1947 outside of Palestine?

      Another question: What would have been the choices available for Jewish refugees in 1947 outside of Palestine if Palestine had not been a viable choice?

      • tree
        tree
        March 11, 2014, 3:08 pm

        Another question: What would have been the choices available for Jewish refugees in 1947 outside of Palestine if Palestine had not been a viable choice?

        I think this is a very important question. If we are going to conduct various fantasy scenarios about voluntary compensated transfer in 1948 and justify it in terms of Jewish needs, then I think it behooves us to ask what would have been the outcome if all the time and very considerable Jewish money spent creating a separate Jewish ethnic state in Palestine had instead been spent saving European Jews and pushing for more liberal immigration laws in the US and elsewhere. It seems to me that the result would have been much better for Jews and certainly much much better for the Palestinians, whose welfare should count just as much.

        And as for the proposition that an ethnic Jewish state provides safety for Jews, I think its proven otherwise. Jews are more endangered in Israel than elsewhere, not because they are Jews, but because they are living in a state which has violently oppressed the Palestinians. By its actions, self-proclaimed to have been done in the name of all Jews, it alienated Arab Jews from their home countries and then treated them like second class citizens in Israel. There is also a conflict between the haredi and the secular in Israel that could spiral into violence in the near future. And Israel is ever bemoaning some “existential threat” which is meant to imply danger to all Israeli Jews. It is claimed to provide safety for Jews, but depends on the actions of Jews outside of Israel for its protection, as well as depending on the power of the United States. Not a particularly strong case for the “need” for a Jewish ethnic state in Israel. And given the violence and persecution its visited upon the Palestinians to maintain this, there is no legitimate moral rationale for such a state.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 11, 2014, 4:50 pm

        @ tree
        Thanks for sharing. I’ve never heard the bigger thing on this subject explained with quite your handle on this subject. It’s really quite convincing in its aggregate and connective tissue.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      March 10, 2014, 10:37 pm

      Some Jewish refugees who couldn’t get into any other country may well have gone to Palestine just to get away from Europe, but the key point is what they did when they got there. If they failed to oppose the Zionists, they themselves stopped being refugees and became invaders.

      And it seems that most of them did support the Zionists.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 11, 2014, 4:59 pm

        @ Roha
        I recall a video interview from a couple of years ago; it was with a very old former European DP Jew, who finally agreed to talk on camera, and he broke down on camera when he thought of what he and his peers did to the natives once they arrived in the mandate land. He said he could bear to describe the horror. He said he, they, did it all pretty much without thinking, believing what the Zionists had told them at the DP camp, and all along, when they were talked into going to Israel and then told what to do once there. He had been a common grunt in the service of fighting to establish Israel as a Jewish state.

  16. puppies
    puppies
    March 10, 2014, 1:56 pm

    “The Commission supported its argument by citing previous precedents in which “compulsory exchanges of population” had succeeded in preventing civil or international conflict.”
    Big gob of hypocrisy. The Peel Commission was obviously inspired, at least in lsarge part, by the then recent “compulsory exchange of populations” forced in 1992-23 by Turkey, victorious over Greece who had been abandoned holding the bag in Asia Minor by the British-French-Italian alliance after divvying the Ottoman spoils. It was a nice disaster, started by the massacre of some 150,000 Greeks, followed by the overnight expulsion of around one million more, and, icing on the cake, the forced “exchange” immigration of a good number of ethnic Turks, expelled from Greece by the same “compulsory” treaty enforced with British help. Even though the more horrible “exchange” of populations in India had not yet taken place, one wonders where a conflict had been “prevented” by such barbarism, as the examples they had were taking place after horrible “conflict” and only represented the ruthless enforcement of ethnic cleansing to top the massacres.

  17. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    March 10, 2014, 6:00 pm

    RE: “Second, Wasserstein argues that Judis is wrong in his claim that the British deliberately sought to exacerbate the Jewish-Arab conflict in pre-1947 Palestine, in pursuit of a divide-and-rule policy. I don’t know who is correct . . .” ~ Slater

    I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT QUALIFIES AS A “DIVIDE-AND-RULE POLICY”, BUT THIS DOCUMENTARY MIGHT BE RELEVANT:
    Promises & Betrayals: Britain and the Struggle for the Holy Land, History Channel Documentary (2002)
    An intriguing documentary about British double-dealing during the First World War in the Middle East, misguided strategies and how conflicting promises to both Arab and Jew created a legacy of division.
    This lucid film recounts the complicated history that led to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In the words of the former British Ambassador to Egypt, it is a story of intrigue among rival empires and of misguided strategies. It is often claimed that the crisis originated with Jewish emigration to Palestine and the foundation of the State of Israel. Yet the roots of the conflict are to be found earlier.
    In 1915, when the Allies were besieged on the Western front, the British wanted to create a second front against Germany, Italy and the Ottoman Empire. Turkish nationalism had spread to the rest of the Ottoman Empire and the British exploited this feeling. They promised Arab groups their own independent states, including Palestine. Secretly, the Allies planned to carve up the Ottoman Empire: France would get “Greater Syria;” Britain would get Iraq for its oil and ports, and Haifa, to distribute the oil; Palestine would be an international zone; Russia would get Constantinople.
    The next British government under Lloyd George believed that “worldwide Jewry” was a powerful force, and that the Jews in the new Bolshevik government could prevent the Russian army from deserting the Allied side. This mistaken strategy, along with other factors including the persuasiveness of Chaim Weitzman, led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which endorsed a national home for the Jews in Palestine. At the same time, the Arab leader Shariff Hussein was promised that Palestine would be part of a new Arab state. This contradiction has contributed to the ongoing struggle for control in the Holy Land.
    SOURCE – http://www.islambosna.ba/forum/english/history-channel-documentary-promises-betrayals/?wap2

    Promises & Betrayals: Britain and the Struggle for the Holy Land , History Channel Documentary (2002) [VIDEO, 52:48] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2sm0iR0E8

Leave a Reply