Israel/Palestine: How did this happen?
On the post 51st: “State of our Union,” Jim P. asked @5/25: 1:35, “I’ve seen it stated that a still-existant Palestinian state was established at virtually the same time that modern Israel was established: the Kingdom of Jordan, which seemed to include, at the conclusion of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the West Bank of the Jordan River.”
The story of Israel/Palestine and the origins of the current issues are indeed complicated. From my reading yesterday and today, the following background context is important:
1. Israel/Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) and was a piece of the province of Syria. It was populated largely by Arabs who were Muslims (about 80 percent; Christians (a bit more than 10 percent; Jews (a bit less than 10 per cent). The province was a bit of a backwater. Jerusalem and surrounding Christian sites were no doubt the main interest of Westerners.
2. The Ottomans fought on the side of the Axis Powers (Germany, etc.) and were defeated in 1917 by General Allenby of the British Army. The end of the Ottoman Empire followed and for all intents and purposes the British were in charge until after WWII.
3. The British are central to the story from this point. The League of Nations divided up pieces of the Ottoman Empire, assigning this parcel to the British. The British had previously agreed in the Balfour Agreement to allow Jewish settlers (Zionists) to immigrate and settle there. The Zionists had actually been doing this from the end of the 19th century.
4. The British favored the Zionist settlement. First, because many of them were bible-reading Protestants who thought the Jews should return to “Zion.” And along with many Europeans, they thought this would settle the Jewish question by providing a homeland, a nation for them (in an era of high nationalist views).
5. In general the local population of Arabs were opposed to Jewish settlement both under the Ottomans and the British.
6. I think this is key: the Zionists were modernizers within their own Jewish community and certainly in contrast to the Arabs of Palestine who were largely an agricultural, herding society with several elite families more or less culturally and economically dominant. The Arabs were unprepared for the events that followed.
7. The Zionists, i.e., Jewish settlers bought up land from both the local elite and absentee landlords living elsewhere. This no doubt upset the local land usage practices and tenancy agreements.
8. Skip to WWII. The British having put down an Arab rebellion 1936-39 were deeply concerned about Arab loyalty and feared their alliance with Germany. To placate the Arabs, they banned Jewish immigration. Nonetheless, the Yushuv (Jewish community in Palestine) was well organized economically, politically, and culturally. Various Jewish military forces were organized to support the British giving the Yushuv well trained soldiers and various kinds of armaments of use in the 1948 war with the Arabs.
9. The end of the war and news of the Holocaust turned world opinion in favor of the establishment of the Jewish state.
10. The Arabs remained divided among themselves and were no match for the better organized Jewish community. When the British mandate ended, Israel became a state authorized by the UN; the Arabs protested mightily but seemed unable to either unite themselves or to effectively press their own legitimate claims to a state. While their “territory” was recognized in the UN ruling, it was actually to be part of Transjordan under the King–a plan the British favored.
What we have here is a struggle between the modern and not yet modern; between Jews with national aspirations and Arabs still existing in a quasi-feudal system. The Jews were favored by the West; the Arabs of Palestine had no effective support from the then nascent Arab League, formed after WWII.
This is a very capsule account. Corrections (real facts please!) welcome. This info is from three books:
Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2.
Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, Chapter 1.
Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine, Chapter 3.
Thanks for keeping our eyes fixed on this. If anyone reading is new to the topic, I will recommend a site that I often use as a way to introduce students to the history of the conflict. It’s for beginners, for sure, but it’s the best way I know of to get up to speed in less then an hour. It’s multimedia and has audio (i.e., don’t open it at work, if you’re supposed to be working).
http://www.cfr.org/israel/crisis-guide-israeli-palestinian-conflict/p13850
Yes, thanks to Commonweal in general and to Margaret in particular for the frequent threads about Israel.
(Googling the names of the recommended authors with “anti-Semite” will bring up some “real facts”.)
For those who have been to the Holy Land and have gone up on the Golan, it is very easy to understand the Jewish extreme discomfort with having that territory in the hands of those who could easily train weaponry on the land below and wreak great havoc. Israel shares a lot of the blame with the state of the current situation and that of the last 30 or so years, but they also have a history of knowing how indefensible their lands can be with the Golan in unfriendly hands.
I personally think that this problem is unsolvable. So long as Hamas and the likes of Netanyahu are in power in their respective camps, there will be no peace, no 2-country solution.
A couple of points …
Jewish immigration and the Jewish buying of land in Palestine were restricted – see the British White Paper of 1939 .
The Arabs weren’t all on their own with no other resources – While the British had control of Palestine, Iraq and Jordan, the French had control of what would be Syria, Lebanon, parts of Egypt, and while the Arabs disentagled themselves from France (1946), they allied with Germany – the leader of the Palestinians, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, went to Rome, then Germany in 1941, where he remained with Hitler, working towards keeping Jews from escaping to Palestine.
So long as Hamas and the likes of Netanyahu are in power in their respective camps, there will be no peace, no 2-country solution.
Agree, Jimmy.
—-
7. The Zionists, i.e., Jewish settlers bought up land from both the local elite and absentee landlords living elsewhere. This no doubt upset the local land usage practices and tenancy agreements.
Disagree, Margaret. There’s plenty of doubt.
http://www.think-israel.org/meir-levi.settlements.html
From that:
“Far from driving out any Arabs, stealing their land or ruining their economy, the work of the Jewish pioneers in the 19th and early 20th centuries actually enabled the population to quadruple, the economy to enter the modern era, and the society to slough off the shackles of serfdom that typified the Effendi-Fellah (land-owner/serf) relationship of the Ottoman era. An Arab working in a Jewish factory or farming community could earn in a month what his father earned in a year eking out a living as a subsistence-level farmer using medieval technology. Arab infant mortality plummeted and longevity increased as the Jews shared their modern medical technology with their Arab neighbors.
“Much of the land that the Zionists purchased was desert and swamp, uninhabited and deemed uninhabitable by the Arabs. Modern agrarian techniques and the blood and sweat of thousands of idealistic Jews reclaimed that land and turned it into prime real estate with flourishing farms and rapidly growing communities sporting modern technology and a healthy market economy. As a result, Arab migrants poured into the region from surrounding states, with hundreds of thousands seeking a better life and greater economic opportunity. Based on the above, it is fair to suggest that a significant plurality, if not a majority, of Arabs living in Israel today owe their very existence to the Zionist endeavor.”
Thanks for the history, it reminded me of something I have always wondered: what in the world was the United Nations thinking in 1948? And, yes, I mean in regard to the displacement of existing people by the establishment of the State of Israel. Is there any public record of discussions regarding that at the time? Surely, the UN would have at least paid lip service to the issue? Did they presume that they could just set up a government as previous French and British colonialists had done, and the Arabs would have nothing to say?
Crystal, your link doesn’t say that al-Husayni was the leader of the Palestinians. It says that he was the “Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”. The article goes on to say that the position was created by the British. al-Husayni was not a leader elected or chosen by the Palestinian population at large (or rather, he was elected by a committee created by the British) and as a Sunni, he really can’t be said to have been the leader of the Shiite Palestinians or the Christian Palestinians. He did engage in the anti-Jewish things that the article lays out. But you look to me like you are trying to draw some sort of connection between the Palestinians and Nazi Germany. There isn’t one.
“Much of the land that the Zionists purchased was desert and swamp, uninhabited and deemed uninhabitable by the Arabs. Modern agrarian techniques and the blood and sweat of thousands of idealistic Jews reclaimed that land and turned it into prime real estate with flourishing farms and rapidly growing communities sporting modern technology and a healthy market economy. As a result, Arab migrants poured into the region from surrounding states, with hundreds of thousands seeking a better life and greater economic opportunity. Based on the above, it is fair to suggest that a significant plurality, if not a majority, of Arabs living in Israel today owe their very existence to the Zionist endeavor.”
This is very interesting in the way that it is written. It implies that Palestine was worthless; that the Arabs thought so too; that the Zionists bought this worthless land and developed it; that somehow Arab migrants poured into the region to take advantage of this (although since the land was developed by and therefore owned by the Zionists, one wonders how); that since these Arabs “poured into the region” they aren’t originally from the region; and that in effect the Zionists were the ones who created Palestine in the first place. It’s a beautiful skillful narrative.
“Did they presume that they could just set up a government as previous French and British colonialists had done, and the Arabs would have nothing to say?”
Short answer: yes.
“This is very interesting in the way that it is written. It implies that Palestine was worthless; that the Arabs thought so too; that the Zionists bought this worthless land and developed it; that somehow Arab migrants poured into the region to take advantage of this (although since the land was developed by and therefore owned by the Zionists, one wonders how); that since these Arabs “poured into the region” they aren’t originally from the region; and that in effect the Zionists were the ones who created Palestine in the first place. It’s a beautiful skillful narrative.”
—
I wonder if anyone has any real facts to refute it. Sometimes those who unload a worthless piece of land, undeveloped for millennia, on a naive buyer, get jealous later when the desert is made to bloom.
I saw an amusing documentary about an urban housing project. Not a high-rise. Each tenant had a little plot of land in front of the unit, about 10 x 10. Most of the little yards were barren, trash-strewn, etc. But one woman worked and grew flowers and vegetables and made her little plot beautiful. Oooh, the neighbor was sooo annoyed: “Why didn’t they give US a garden?”
The first paragraph of the wikipedia page for Mohammad Amin al-Husayni states …
“Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني, often rendered using the French transliteration al-Husseini;[1] born 1895 or 1897; died July 4, 1974) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in the British Mandate of Palestine. As early as 1920, he was active in opposing the British in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab state and led violent riots opposing the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.[2] From 1921 to 1948, al-Husayni was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, using the position to continue his promotion of Palestinian nationalism ….”
I didn’t mean to say every Palestinian worked with Hitler, but that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni did.
“I didn’t mean to say every Palestinian worked with Hitler, but that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni did.”
Fair enough. But what’s your point?
Actually, I think I hadn’t read Margaret’s post carefully enough. I thought she was saying that the Jews were being supported by Britain/the West but that the Arabs were more or less on their own. I wanted to point out that the French were involved too and that in WWII the Arabs were with Germany. But after reading what she’s written again, I see that what I wrote wasn’t really to the ppoint – sorry.
General Marshall (of the “Marshall Plan”" warned President Truman about giving the land to the Zionists. He said it would cause perpetual problems.
Crystal, the French were part of the same process of off-loading the Ottoman Empire onto to Western powers by the League of Nations. The French were put in charge of Syria, which at the time also included Lebanon. The British and French were, of course, somewhat competitive in trying to maximize their piece of the pie.
After WWI, both held onto to their colonialist aspirations. Nonetheless, it became clear that many of their colonial possessions, including Syria (French) and Palestine (Britain), were not going to settle back into being the possessions of Western powers. This leads up to the establishment of the state of Israel, and today is part of the poison of colonialism that favored the Zionist enterprise, and that leads Arabs to see Israel as a colonial post in the ME. Obviously history has moved on, but the terribly complex situation in which Jews and Arabs now find themselves comes from this history that is seen by each in a very different context.
P. Flanagan @ 5:40 pm: “what in the world was the United Nations thinking in 1948? And, yes, I mean in regard to the displacement of existing people by the establishment of the State of Israel. Is there any public record of discussions regarding that at the time? Surely, the UN would have at least paid lip service to the issue?”
My impression is that the UN was very much a vehicle of the victors in WWII; and it was the follow-on organization of the League of Nations. The General Assembly was full of colonial powers not post-colonial nations, as today. In this case, the British were very much in charge of making any case that was to be made about the disposition of Mandate Palestine (as it was called). They were also mightily annoyed at the U.S. which criticized their policies in Palestine, but held back from taking any responsibilities for helping to settle matters between Arabs and Jews. It seems that the Brits at some point abandoned their responsibility for matters and more or less told the U.S. to put up or shut up.
Truman, I deduce, had little real feel for the situation in Palestine and ended up supporting the Zionist plan to allow 100,000 emigres to come to Palestine. Truman’s motives are disputed; but a U.S. election was coming up and he understood the importance of the Jewish vote in the U.S. Of course, he may have had enormous sympathy for the Jews living in DP camps after the war. Those are the people the Zionists wanted to welcome.
Bill Mazzella points out that the U.S. government was not of one mind on the matter. It is possible that the State Department and people like Marshall understood better than Truman the position of the Arabs and foresaw the struggle that continues to today.
After WWII, the British did all they could to block the founding of Israel. A good reference is “A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel” by Allis & Ronald Radosh.
Agree!
http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Haven-Truman-Founding-Israel/dp/0060594640/ref=lh_ni_t
I recall learning in college about the King-Crane Commission, a U.S. research effort that involved conducting surveys with Middle East inhabitants, with the goal of gathering data to inform U.S. policy regarding “Palestine”. This was in 1919 during the Paris Conferences (themselves a fascinating event). The timing of the research was poor (secret deals had already been worked out with Britain and France), but the report eventually was leaked. I don’t have a link to the full report, but here’s one quote and the link to the wiki summary.
“nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Crane_Commission
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=jewish+editors+at+wikipedia+banned&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=49bdb39a15d213e5&biw=1084&bih=519
“Jewish editors at Wikipedia banned”. True or false?
There are a few wonderful books about the experience of Palestinian Christians that might be of interest to some readers – namely, “Blood Brothers” by Elias Chacour and “I Am a Palestinian Christian” by Mitri Raheb. It is enlightening to read about the Theology of the Land that is claimed by Zionists yet also claimed by US American Christians (consider reading about Palestinian Liberation Theology.) Other excellent reading: “The Question of Palestine” by Edward Said… also, the UN maintains a repository (UNISPAL) on The Question of Palestine, which in itself is rhetorically indicative of the problem. Most people believe Palestine is a question, relegating it to this limbo status; the people of Palestine are living and breathing, and for the most part, refugees in their own land. It is an enormously complicated issue, with theology intertwined with politics and simple geography. I hope the resources I have mentioned help you with your own discernment. Pax et bonum.
Thank you, Margaret O’Brien Steinfels for an excellent reminder of the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I have posted the following comments of mine on another Blog, but I hope that my thoughts will contribute something constructive to the discussion here at Commonweal.
When I was in Catholic grammar school (pre-Vatican II) I remember learning that the Jewish state of Israel was founded in 1948. My first thought was: “It will never last because the Jews were condemned to wander the face of the earth and never have a homeland, because they killed Christ.” (“May His blood be on us and on our children.”)
Of course, later on when I became acquainted with the document of Vatican II, “Nostra Aetate”, I realized the fallacy of what I had thought and, obviously had, been taught.
A few years later I read a comment by a woman, who was married to a Palestinian. She said and I can only paraphrase: Christians in Western Europe have persecuted the Jews for centuries and they are making the Palestinians do penance for it.
Around the same time, I was travelling in Israel on a personal pilgrimage. I met a man in typical Arab garb in a taxi we were sharing. He asked me about my nationality. I told him that I was an American. Then he leaned over and whispered in my ear:
“When we get the power we’re going to wipe them out. Don’t forget that I told you.”
Four months later, a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria launched a joint surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism.
A relative of mine is a journalist in the Middle East. He has provided me with a good deal of information on rights of the Palestinians. I try to balance his comments with the right of the Jews to a homeland.
Despite the fact that I am sharing personal comments on this issue, I try to be logical and reasonable. Both sides of the issue have to be considered. Both sides have a lot of forgiving to do. It’s complicated.
Ms. S., Ms. Heater, and Ms. McDevitt-Smith,
You all raise the theological issue which, I think, is the root of the problem of Israel/Palestine. The issue is even pre-feudal, it is Biblical.
The most basic problem here is whether the Jews are *entitled* to a homeland in the geographical area we now call “Palestine”/”Israel”? But DO they have such a right? Should their Biblical claims trump the de facto laws of today? Those who believe in literal interpretations of the Bible say Yes, but not everyone does, and, in fact, relatively few do. (And why would belief in the Bible even be philosophically/legally relevant in the multi-religious political world we live in now?
Even without the Biblical/theological complication, I’m not even sure there *can* be answers to questions concerning :”ownership of native lands”. As Ms. S. has already wondered, how does one decide if the Indians still own Manhattan? And do they still “own” the Gulf Coast? Or the Great Plains? Or the United States?
Even asking that question brings up issues of ownership and self-identification and rights of self-determination. These are terribly difficult questions philosophically, and no wonder the philosophers seem to have avoided them. But until they are faced, I fear that the problem of “Israel” will remain.
The most basic problem here is whether the Jews are *entitled* to a homeland . . .
___________________
It is clear that there is an even more basic problem here, one that you totally ignored in responding to Ms. McDevitt-Smith. And that is the comment from the taxi passenger about exterminating the Jews.
Before we get to issues of homelands, before we get to issues of nationhood, we must confront the basic issue of a right to exist — not merely the state of Israel having a right to exist, but Jews having a right to exist, a right to life.
And the history of this conflict has demonstrated that far too many are more interested in killing Jews, far more interested in stockpiling weapons in Palestine for use against Jews, than they are interested in whether Palestinians have an internationally-recognized nation.
Bender –
I agree that is a basic question. But we do not have absolute rights to exist, do we? If we did then capitol punishment and war would in every single case be wrong. It is possible to forfeit our right-to-life.
It seems to me that from the Arabs’ point of view the Israelis have forfeited their right to exist. So how do you answer them? We’re back to history and to the historical/moral claims of both sides.
I don’t think the basic problem is theological, any more than the problem with the irish and the English is Catholicism/Protestantism – the problem is about land/power/existence. There’s actually a wikipedia page on the right of nations to exist :) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
Bender –
To ask whether Jews have a right to exist is different from asking whether *Israel* has a right to exist. No one denies the right to exist of individual Jews, at least not in the West, and I’ve never even heard of Arabs denying individual Jews the right to exist. Only Hitler did that.
Israel has a different sort of existence, a corporate one, and it can be destroyed when individual Jews are not. Same goes for individual Palestinians and Palestine, if there were such an entity.
Further, there is the question of a “nation” which is some sort of entity whose members share a biological origin/culture/language/”homeland”, but which has no national boundaries.
Then there is “Islam”. And how ot define that???
Even talking about these problems is daunting.
So thanks again to Ms. S. for keeping us up to date on the present and for this latest thread especially which helps clarifies a most complex backstory.
Thanks, Margaret, for the capsule history. Understanding history is vital to understanding the present.
Margaret writes (05/27/2011 – 8:25 pm):
“Obviously history has moved on, but the terribly complex situation in which Jews and Arabs now find themselves comes from this history that is seen by each in a very different context.”
Yes, I wonder how many Arabs/Palestinians understand the history well. After all, very few of them lived through it. I imagine that, like most people, by far most probably understand only what they’ve been told throughout their lives by the loudest voices. Perhaps a very good place to begin the healing in this area would be to educate everyone about what happened, when, and why.
Ann Oliver writes (05/28/2011 – 3:44 pm)
“The most basic problem here is whether the Jews are *entitled* to a homeland in the geographical area we now call “Palestine”/”Israel”?”
I disagree, Ann. When we use words like “entitled”, “rights”, and “justice” and “injustice” we’re in the world of opinions, not of facts. What’s needed here isn’t another war of opinions, it’s an honest and open colloquy based on history and reality. History helps us understand how we got here, and reality helps us understand the practical and humane limits on our ability to solve our problems.
David S. –
How would you conduct your enquiry without considering such moral entities as rights and entitlements and homeland? Or do you think there are no such things as rights, entitlements, and homelands? And if there aren’t, how would you settle arguments? By sheer force? That’s what we’ve got now, and it doesn’t work.
David S. @5/28, 6pm: “I wonder how many Arabs/Palestinians understand the history well. After all, very few of them lived through it. I imagine that, like most people, by far most probably understand only what they’ve been told throughout their lives by the loudest voices. Perhaps a very good place to begin the healing in this area would be to educate everyone about what happened, when, and why.”
In reading from the three books cited on the post, I realize that in some respects each side has its own history. Rashid Khalidi points out that there are few publicly accessible archives available for writing the history of the Palestinians. Documents, etc., were either destroyed or taken by the Israelis army and are now in Israeli national archives, available to some extent, but to Israeli historians. So to your point do Arabs/Palestinians understand this history? Well, they understand the history of their defeat by Israel. Do they understand why it happened? Probably not.
Do young Israels understand their history? Perhaps more than the Palestinians. Benny Morris cited above is regarded as a “new historian” and part of a revisionist stream of Israeli historians (as such, I believe, he has been subject to nationalistic criticism). There is an enormous amount of information in his book about the Arabs and the Palestinians. It reflects their lack of unity and strategic thinking vis a vis the Yushuv. This may be accurate, but it still reflects a certain disdain for the Arabs, as if they deserved to lose. That can’t be such a useful lesson for young Israelis.
Though this post is about the history of the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, it may be that for peace to ever exist between them, much of this history will have to be overcome, and even obscured for the two sides to agree that neither will win the argument from history. They will have to want to end the conflict, perhaps from exhaustion, or perhaps from international pressure.
.
Margaret writes (05/28/2011 – 8:01 pm):
“Though this post is about the history of the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, it may be that for peace to ever exist between them, much of this history will have to be overcome, and even obscured for the two sides to agree that neither will win the argument from history. They will have to want to end the conflict, perhaps from exhaustion, or perhaps from international pressure.”
I hope a goal will never be to obscure. Too much obscuring has no doubt contributed to the angst they have today. History, I think, needs to be remembered and understood, and we owe it to the actors to try to empathize with all of them. They all had their uniquely valid sense of justice, right and wrong, and, to use Ann Oliver’s term, entitlement. We do disservice not only to our forebears but also to ourselves when we forget – or deliberately obscure – how they thought and felt and why they acted as they did. We may wear out our pet dog so he’ll relax and sleep, but humans need to stay awake and think.
.
.
Ann writes (05/28/2011 – 7:38 pm)
“How would you conduct your enquiry without considering such moral entities as rights and entitlements and homeland? Or do you think there are no such things as rights, entitlements, and homelands? And if there aren’t, how would you settle arguments? By sheer force? That’s what we’ve got now, and it doesn’t work.”
By sheer dialogue, I think, Ann. Lots of patient, honest, open, respectful, intelligent talk.
Moral considerations about specificities – as opposed to generalities – are best left in our hearts, I think. They’re personal opinions, judgments, akin to aesthetic preferences. If you try to erect a political edifice on them, you risk the safety of the inhabitants.
.
Facts, history and reality aren’t much more simple concepts than theology. Whose history? Which facts? Starting when? How far back? The same literal reading of a key, and to some sacred, source that tells us about a Promised Land tells us the same Deity demanded His Chosen People take land by force, slaughter women and children, and commit genocide. If we read that “history” literally, that is. So how far in the past is too far to go to understand the facts of history?
As Mary suggests, history is not written from on high. It is written by particular people from particular points of view with the availability or not of documents, eye witness accounts, archeological evidence, etc. History is usually written by the victors. When I say that history may have to be obscured for peace to emerge in Israel/Palestine, I mean the history of the victors (Israelis) and the history of the defeated (Palestinians) will have to be set aside, i.e., any resolution cannot depend on the resolution of differing historical accounts. Presumably if peace ever comes and there is a resolution of outstanding issues a history can be written that is able to tell the whole story (or at least as much as the remaining documentation and other sources can tell).
Mary, Margaret, I don’t subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as objective history. There is – you just have to dig around and read multiple accounts of more or less the same time – as well as contextual stuff. It’s there. To deny that is, I think, to deny that life’s any more than people constantly fighting over rights and wrongs. That’s a dismal picture of reality. The notion of objective relativism – or whatever it’s called – makes sense in certain lights, but not in the very real world we all live in and share.
I do not know much about this situation, but there are a couple of “big picture” considerations I can point to.
1> Arabs traditionally are nomads, and that has an influence. We can argue about whether Israelis or Palestinians are entitled to a particular piece of land, without noticing that the nomads are arguing about whether land belongs to anyone. The story of the Israelis making deserts bloom has to be understood as already deciding in favor of those who want the deserts to bloom, who want the the traditional nomads to tend gardens instead of wander deserts.
(Related to this: history is written by those who have books. “Victory” is less important than memory.)
During the British involvement in Palestine the British Empire was being challenged in India. British, Muslim and Jew were arguing at the same time as British, Muslim and Hindu. I imagine any two state solution will be influenced by the two state solution for India that gave us Pakistan. How successful was that?
It all reminds me of a certain man who had tow sons. When the one son returned after becoming impoverished and homeless, the older son got angry and refused to celebrate the return. As long as the story is about two sons, or two states, envy and anger will color every conversation. When we read the story from the vantage of the Father, of the commonalities between the two sons, we have a greater chance for peace.
Hi, David,
Even if one subscribes to the notion that we can arrive at an account of “what happened” that has so much intersubjective agreement we might as well call it Historical Fact with all the caps imply, in the matter at hand it has proven thus far to be a virtually impossible task, since we can’t get the parties to agree about the relevant time-frame (5000 yrs?) or whether one group’s sacred text counts as historical evidence and if so with what weight, among other things.
I agree with what you said above about the importance of honest colloquy and continued dialogue; I just think notions of “history,” “rights” and “justice” are all in what you’ve called the world of opinion and I agree with Margaret that resolution of the problem isn’t going to happen if we expect it to emerge from a shared understanding of history.
.
Mary, the immediately relevant history of modern Israel goes back only about a hundred years. The Zionists didn’t take the land – the British and the UN gave it to them. Nothing subjective about that. Religions and cultural histories form only the back story.
The “right ownership” of any bit of land is always disputable. You can’t base any negotiations on “rights” – people will always argue about that. Maybe that’s become the principal stumbling block here – the Palestinians keep insisting on their rights, which in the real world don’t matter all that much – unless you can manage to use your outrage as a hook to attract sympathizers or others who find the emotional appeal to injustice useful as a tool. In the end, feelings are useful in land negotiations only if they can be converted into leverage.
.
. . . history will have to be overcome, and even obscured . . .
———-
Ludicrous.
No, the point is that what counts as “relevant” and “immediate” history and what is mere “backstory” is a matter of opinion and not uninformed by ideology.
As someone with a masters in history, I hate the idea that there’s no such thing as historical fact or that history is just opinion. Of course there are biases and conjecture and interpretations, but few (ok, except for guys like Bishop Richard Williamson) would question the basics of agreed-upon and relatively proven historical facts, and that’s even more true for recent history where we have primary sources and people still living who have participated in events.
Agree, Crystal.
Who is arrogant enough to decide which bits of the history of the residents of another country should be “overcome” and “obscured”? And how would that be done?
It’s supremacist, imho, to imagine oneself qualified or entitled to obscure someone else’s history.
I don’t know about others, but my point never relied upon there being no such thing as agreed upon historical fact or suggested that all claims about history are equal because they are “mere” opinion. The point was that it is simplistic (and, um, belied by history) to suggest that when it comes to Israel/Palestine, if we just stopped talking about fuzzy feeling-ish things like rights and justice and instead concentrated on hard facts of history we would find an easier way forward. Without basic agreement regarding what constitutes evidence, authority, context, and relevant time, no discussion regarding the historical facts can take place, even among those who agree objective history is possible. Having made that relatively uncontroversial point, I’m looking forward to getting back to the main topic…
Mary (12:26 am), there’s no way to avoid the “fuzzy feeling-ish things like rights and justice” in the Israel/Palestine mess for two reasons. First, it’s just about the only argument the Palestinians have. Reality is against them – or at least against the Islamic states that support their cause. It would obviously be simple for Arab states to absorb them and put an immediate end to all the troubles. That bit of hard reality can be countered only by insisting that the problem is fundamentally moral. The second reason why Palestinians and their backers will continue to push the “rights” button is that anyone who makes any sort of “rights”, “justice”, and “oppression” claim is likely to receive serious attention in the West these days; therefore, it seems likely that it can be used to undermine Western support for Israel.
So negotiations will have to be based both on hard facts and on the fuzzy stuff. Fortunately, diplomats are probably used to that. Maybe we should pray that the diplomats will be allowed to work their magic out of sight of the media, which are to diplomacy like bulls to China shops.
We all have written several things here: history is written by the victors; history is written by people who have books; history can be objective; history cannot be obscured or set aside, etc. This reminds me of our discussion of narrative, story, account event. Like history, they are human constructs. Some are reliable presentation of facts; some are factual but interpretive; some are mythological accounts, say of origins.
I wrapped up reading the last chapter of Benny Morris this morning. It sets out the end of the 1948 war between Israel and the Arabs. It reviews subsequent efforts to move beyond an armistice to a peace agreement (still working on that). It alludes to the subsequent wars and the outcomes (especially 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank in the war with Jordan). I am not an expert but it seems to me Morris has done a good job of ferreting out the facts about the Yushuv and then the follow on Israeli government. He seems to have a reliable account of the Palestinian and Arab weaknesses in the war. He tells us about the terrorist acts of the Irgun, etc; the retaliatory acts of the British; and the ineffective and unorganized Palestinian efforts. He’s been critical of everyone (does that make the history definitive?) But it is a history of the victors by one of its citizens. The Yushuv won, the Palestinians lost. Is that history now determinative? Or does that history, if not obscured, at least need an account from the losers.
I return to an earlier comparison: Manhattan and the Lenape Indians. As George D said the U.S. did concede by treaty Nationhood to some Indians and a certain degree of sovereignty in their territories. I have never met a Lenape in Manhattan. I live among the victors. Where are they? That’s part of what we’re discussing here. Who has written their history? Wikipedia (not always a reliable source) says the remaining Lenape live in Oklahoma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape
Hi, Margaret:
Your high regard for Benny Morris and other New Historians is not as widely shared as you may think/hope.
I think/hope that the people who read your frequent threads on Israel are sophisticated enough to know that the authors you recommend (because you think they bolster your own notions) can be countered by other authors.
In Benny Morris’s case, his early writings can be countered by his own later writings. (He changed his mind and recanted.)
See, e.g., http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-morris-and-the-reign-of-error
Or, see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians
Just starting points for anyone interested in the history of Israel. Dipping into the historiography first might be helpful.
Gerelyn: Only underlining my point that history is not written from on high. Historiography isn’t written from on high either, but you’re right, attention should be paid. As I said above. Wikipedia needs to be read with a teaspoon of salt; and the MEForum, I’d say a cup of salt. Just because people say things and write things doesn’t make them true (and I’d say that is particularly so with anything appearing under the auspices of Daniel Pipes, ed. of MEForum at least in the year of your cite, 1999).
Your on the side of the victors. That’s your “right.” Unfortunate that you are unwilling to consider other side(s) of the story, other possible views. Furthermore, the review to which you link is not of the book I refer to: 1948 is (c) 2008.
I didn’t vouch for the article I cited. To select one article to prove anything in this area would be as lame as selecting three anti-Israel authors to bolster anything.
As to which side I’m on? I’m on the side of the Jews.
Agree about Wiki. That’s why I posted above about the banning of people who edit the articles about Israel.
Wikipedia, great on many topics, is not so great in areas where duelling editors change articles on an hourly basis.
Those unfamiliar with reading history should, imho, notice who publishes a given historian’s book, then notice who publishes the reviews of it. Then notice who attempts to refute it, and who publishes the refutation, etc.
Historiography isn’t written from on high either,
A list of an author’s published books is easily obtained and easily verified. And her/his methodology is easily examined and evaluated, as well. (Historians have powerful incentives to revise, so the work of revisionists, New Historians, et al. requires a little more scrutiny.)
——–
Just because people say things and write things doesn’t make them true (and I’d say that is particularly so with anything appearing under the auspices of Daniel Pipes, ed. of MEForum at least in the year of your cite, 1999).
More from and about Efraim Karsh (whose books are published by Routledge, Yale, et al.) and his views of Benny Morris:
http://tinyurl.com/3dlypwn (Googling “benny morris karsh”.)
http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=839 (Karsh in 2008, writing in Israel Palestina Info on “The Fight Over ’1948′”.) From that:
~~~~It is doubtful whether Mr. Morris even believed his own thesis. Certainly, in numerous press articles and media appearances over the past eight years, he has totally reversed the core of his historical narrative, claiming that while “the Zionist movement agreed to give up its dream of ‘Greater Israel’ and to divide Palestine with the Arabs” as long ago as the 1930s and ’40s, “the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a ‘Greater Palestine,’ meaning a Muslim-Arab populated and Arab-controlled state in all of Palestine.”~~~~
Karsh’s books at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=efraim+karsh&sprefix=efraim+karsh
The new one looks good. So does the 2000 one on the “New Historians”.
Unfortunate that you are unwilling to consider other side(s) of the story, other possible views.
Benny Morris has reversed his views. (See the Google page for examples.)
Correction: Karsh’s review of 1948 was in the New York Sun.
http://www.nysun.com/arts/fight-over-1948
Sorry.
The fundamental issues here are epistemologyical — can humans know objective truth? Completely? Partially? Not at all? If we can, then how do we get to it? Another crucial question: are there non-empirical realities such as rights and entitlement? If so, can we know them and how? Not to mention the great specifically historical problem: can we know what doesn’t exist (the past), and if so, how? (I would add: how could we NOT know at least something of the past, when all our concepts are dependent on very real memories, memories which persist even when we try to eliminate them from the sum of our experiences.)
To reject consideration of any of these topics out of hand is to risk rejecting the very realities we seek to understand, the realities we hope to reconstruct for the better through negotiation.
“…for the Jews” is not the same as “…for Israel” or “…for Zionism.” The claims of banning problems on wikipedia are also made by the other side (as if there are only two). That’s merely a way that type of site ends up working when it comes to controversial topics.
I recommend reading Charles Hill’s book “Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft and World Order”. Hills, a seasoned diplomat as well as an academic, argues that Literature may be better equipped in some ways to teach us truths about peoples and polities than History and Political Science is. This is not to disparage either of these disciplines, but I believe Hill is correct in asserting that literature provides a broader lens to gaze through than history or political science does. The Aeneid seems to be the touchstone work in Grand Strategies as Hill weaves his way up to the current time (Muriel Spark, JPII). Of course creative writing is even more susceptible to subjectivism, but at it least it doesn’t claim the mantle of empiricsim that History or Political Science does.
Agree, Mary, that both sides edit. Can’t imagine how many young men are crouched over their laptops at this moment frantically revising history
And it is men. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1
Denying that there can be historical reality independent of subjective bias is a way of trying to move the argument into the denier’s camp – all that’s necessary then is to win the rhetorical and dialectical battle. And, of course, the only referee is the denier. It seems to me inherently arrogant and exclusionary, since it denies the possibility of a common ground.
David Smith: “Denying that there can be historical reality independent of subjective bias is a way of trying to move the argument into the denier’s camp – all that’s necessary then is to win the rhetorical and dialectical battle. And, of course, the only referee is the denier. It seems to me inherently arrogant and exclusionary, since it denies the possibility of a common ground.”
May I ask: do you know what you’re talking about?
There is a reality that can be historically located. The French revolution broke out in 1789. John Kennedy was elected in 1960. Was John Kennedy elected because the Chicago political machine made sure he won Illinois? That issue has been a back and forth for 50 years. It is subject to interpretive and subjective views. Will we ever know for certain? Perhaps or perhaps not. It is one of those loose- hanging chads in history.
And then what exactly is being denied here? From reading the several chapters of Benny Morris cited throughout these comments, I would say that he and Rashid Khalididi might share a good deal of common ground on why the Yushuv won and the Palestinian community lost the war and have lost the argument. There is no referee here, only each of us willing to come back to the argument. I would say that the one denier of any interest in the Palestinian situation is intent on confusing the matter or sufficiently close-minded that he/she is simply functioning as an apologist, which is his/her habitual mode of discourse–must be a Catholic of a certain age!
Apropos of the discussion about history, look at “The Battle for History,” in Sunday’s (5/29) Time’s Book Review. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/books/review/adam-kirsch-on-new-books-about-world-war-ii.html?scp=1&sq=The%20Battle%20for%20History&st=cse
.
Margaret, (2:39 pm) that Kennedy was elected in 1960 is the only historical fact in what you wrote. The rest is open to interpretation and discussion. The French revolution can be said to have “broken out” more or less in 1789, something it’s convenient to call the Chicago Democratic machine probably played some part in Kennedy’s ascension to power, and what may be called the Palestinian community has no doubt changed continually in many ways over the years. Some things are facts and others are fuzzies. There are varying sorts of fuzzies, but they’re all anchored by facts. Facts are what make it all real.
Yes, I know what I’m talking about. But if your question was really a coded way of asking for academic bona fides, that’s a very different matter.
.
Speaking of using Wikipedia as a resource, there’s a good post on the subject by Duke Univerersity New Testament professor Mark Goodacre …. In Defence of Wikipedia
David Smith: Since I have no academic bona fides myself, I was hardly asking you or anyone else about theirs. From my editor’s and journalist’s perspective, I see many sides to a story; at least two anyway, and sometimes three or four or five…. I don’t see that History is any different. We may choose to hold to one version or another, but I am never surprised to see another emerge, e.g., the Times’ review about WWII I cite above. I would like to think it was a “good war,” fought for good reasons. But I’ve read enough to know that it had some very bad patches, e.g., the allied fire bombing of Dresden.
David S. –
A university degree is not the only way to get an education, just the easiest. The topic is irrelevant in this discussion. The question is: what are the best arguments and what is the quality of the evidence. Yes, there are expert authorities, and yes, they disagree among themselves. But in their arguments as well the criteria are the same: which are the strongest arguments with the best support?
With all the sturm und drang exhibited here, I am surprised that no one (as far as I can tell) has acutally contested any of the 10 points set forth in answer to Jim Pauwel’s question.
Ms. Steinfels – reviewed various blog posts dating back over a year ago.
Good chronological outline – might add notes such as the ill-fortunate Balfour Announcement; the treaty of Sykes-Picot to round out your chronology.
In terms of understanding goals/motivation of both Palestinians and Israelis – this is what I stated back in March 2010:
“….checked my notes and resources. Your 1967 chronology is correct; in fact, many if not most foreign policy leaned to trying to keep these areas neutral – see the efforts of the famous (now dead) long time mayor, Kolleck, of Jerusalem who was respected by both Jews and Palestinians.
This historical study and history timeline only underlies the shaky foundation and arguments of the current Israeli government. In many ways, it appears that the current state of Israel is paralyzed by what I would call a “Balkanization” movement – almost hundreds of different tribes, families, parties – divided religious (ultra-orthodox, radical Jews, orthodox, etc.); culturally; politically (from far right to far left); etc. This leads to no action. Would suggest that the only way forward for Israel is to make a stark division between the state and religion.
One of the best resources is this book: “Judaism does not equal Israel” by Marc Ellis. Here is a review link by Ted Schmidt: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1635
Highlights: “Ellis with his long exposure to Catholic Christianity (he taught at Maryknoll and worked at the Catholic Worker) is very adept at metaphors which resonate. For example, he describes the Jewish establishment, hardly represented of a majority of Jews either here or in the US and wedded to a state-religion alliance, Constantianian Judaism.Those who reject this he calls Jews of Conscience. There appears to be little common ground here. A third group standing midway between the two he calls Progressives.
With the rise of the work of the new historians like Benny Morris, Simha Flapan and Ilan Pappe, the fig leaf of Jewish innocence has vanished. The hard facts point to the “ethnic cleansing” of approximately 700,000 Palestinians to make way for Jews fleeing Europe. How would Jews deal with this injustice?”
Israel eventually faces a crisis – they are now one, if not two, generations past the Shoah. They are one or two generations past the re-establishment of Israel in 1948. The spirit and conscience of the Shoah victims and the Israel founders seems to be more and more obscured by new interpretations, political power moves, self-justification vis-a-vis “Never Again, Never Again!”. They sought Israel to gain freedom but now find themselves oppressing another people – the roles have changed in the Shoah. Victims would be ashamed.”
Might want to insert the writings of Tony Judt when examining this whole issue.
Have always enjoyed this chronology specific to Jerusalem by Juan Cole:
Juan Cole, professor of history at University of Michigan, specializing in Middle Eastern history: “… if historical building of Jerusalem and historical connection with Jerusalem establishes sovereignty over it as Netanyahu claims, here are the groups that have the greatest claim to the city:
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem….”
Cole’s more detailed account: http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/top-ten-reasons-east-jerusalem-does-not.html
B de H: And I was only worried about the Canaanites and Ebonites! Silly me. Thank you for the additions, citations, etc. Back to work.
.
Bill writes (4:14 pm):
“The hard facts point to the “ethnic cleansing” of approximately 700,000 Palestinians to make way for Jews fleeing Europe.”
Oh, my.
.
Mr. Smith – understand your post but this line is a quote that I took from a long article. It captures the “NEW HISTORY” approach….which reputable historians have questioned. As you point out – these types of conclusions 70 years or more after the events, can elicit statements that do not exactly help or support moving forward. But, it is a good example of the dangers of the “NEW HISTORY” approach – very little revisionist histories succeed.
Mr. Smith – this captures some of the feelings behind the statement you highlighted and reinforces the fact that most history is writtne by the victors:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/standing-peace-amid-yo-yos-us-congress
Highlights:
- “At the top of this piece, I quoted from Uri Avnery’s scathing critique of Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. A veteran of the Israeli peace movement, Avnery sums up the prime minister’s message in a single word: no. “NO to return to the 1967 Borders. NO to a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees. NO to military withdrawal from the Jordan River-meaning a future Palestinian state would be completely surrounded by the Israeli armed forces. NO negotiations with a Palestinian government by Hamas, even if there are no Hamas members in the government itself.”
And to Avnery’s list, I would add, NO to all the core issues for resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. NO to peace.”