Independent Australian Jewish Voices

You seem to speak a lot about these "uncontroversial facts", when clearly the facts of what happened in 1948 are hotly contested. Such deceptive simplifications are typical of your style.

However, while we are speaking about "uncontorversial facts" here is one for you.In 1947 the Jewish people accepted the partition plan and the Arab states rejected it.

Therefore the tragedy was avoidable had the Arab states accepted that the Jewish people had a right to their historical homeland, a land that occupied only 1/625th of the entire area of the Middle East. Instead as Rubesntein states the Arab states went to war in an effort to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews.

Perhaps its my patholigical chutzpah speaking or pehaps its just history...

Mark,

Yes, of course, you are correct to say that the facts of what happened in 1948 are hotly contested, but it's worth making an important distinction about where the hot contest is taking place. It's in the mainstream media and the propaganda generated by the Israeli government and its willing diaspora Lobbyists like Rubenstein. I agree that it's provocative to baldly refer to "uncontroversial facts" but this is shorthand for what respectable historians pretty much agree about - such as the basic facts about 1948. I usually cite Benny Morris here because, in fact, he is an extreme right-wing expulsionist who seems to think that they didn't go far enough to expel all the Arabs. Nevertheless, his story is pretty much the same as Ilan Pappe's - except for some disagreement about whether the expulsions and atrocities were deliberate or some kind of unplanned by-product of war. So, I can understand why you describe what I said as my typical style of "deceptive simplification" but, after all, I couldn't repeat all of Ilan Pappe's book or Benny Morris' in a blog entry.

On your second point: You seem to share the moral blind spot of Rubenstein if you seriously suggest that the Arab's should have just happily accepted the theft of their land by the earlier British decisions and the UN under pressure from the US. Of course the Arabs rejected it. Why do you make it sound as though they were somehow crazy for doing so and the Jews were just innocently setting up camp. You say that they had "a right to their historical homeland" - the usual refrain, but perhaps you can explain what principle gives them this right in 1948 to simply take away the villages, homes, olive groves and all the territory they were given - not to mention the extra bits they took then and, of course, in 1967. And that's not to mention the atrocities by which the expulsion was achieved. How can you and Rubenstein seriously use the term "ethnic cleansing" for the resistance by the Palestinians and Arabs for this theft of the land? Should Kuwait have settled happily for Saddam's Iraqi invasion? Should the East Timorese have happily settled for a "two-state" solution after the Indonesians invaded in 1975? What principles do you think should govern international affairs in this regard?

Peter,
Once again your argument is full of generalisations and simplifications which effectively mask the truth behind emotive and scholarly terms.

Firstly you state that pretty much all "respectable historians" agree that Israel expelled and committed atrocities against the Arab population of Israel/Palestine in 1948. According to you the only people who dispute the historical findings of these "respectable historians" are Zionist propagandists. However the historians you cite are not that reputable at all.

Funnily enough Benny Morris whom you state agrees with Ilan Pappe has this to say about his work:

"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication...This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography... The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe's historical methodology and his political proclivities..."

For more of what Morris thinks about Pappe see http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The%20New%20Republic-1.pdf, he wrote a whole article about Pappe’s poor scholarship.
Indeed Morris is not the only historian who doesn't find Pappe so reputable, see Efraim Karsh the director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London http://www.meforum.org/article/897

As to Benny Morris. You label him an "extreme right-wing expulsionist", yet in his own words he states" I have consistently voted Labor or Meretz (a Zionist party to the far left of Israeli politics)" Perhaps to you anyone who doesn't vote for the Communist Party like Pappe is an "extreme right-wing Zionist"? (For the source of these comments see http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The%20New%20Republic-1.pdf)

Indeed if we truly examine Benny Morris, someone who you label a "respectable historian", then we see that while Morris certainly found evidence of Israeli atrocities, he argues that many of the Arabs left Israel by choice, told by their leaders that they would return once Israel was destroyed (or the Jews were ethnically cleansed). See his interview in Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986

Do you deny the assertions of this “reputable historian”?

The second question you pose is a more fundamental one. You essentially deny the claim of Jewish people to Israel, holding that the Arabs have a higher claim.

I am no expert on international law and so I can't answer your question from a legal perspective, but I will address it on a purely logical basis.

In 70 C.E. Jewish people were expelled from Israel by the Romans. After the land changing hands many times the Ottoman Empire gained control. This is when the Arab population of Israel moved in. After Turkey lost WWI all of their land was divided amongst the victors. Lebanon which was mandated to France was given to the Lebanese, Jordan to the Jordanians, why not then Israel to the Jews. After all aren't they are the original indigenous people.

Further you seem to imply that the Jews all of a sudden appeared in Israel. This is not true; despite being expelled there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in Israel for 3000 years. Indeed for the past few hundred years Jerusalem has always had a Jewish majority. The Jew’s historical claim to Israel is sound and strong.

Your final question was “Were the Arabs crazy to reject Israel?” I’d say probably not. In fact it was probably a smart move. They have successfully used Israel as an excuse for their refusal to absorb their cousins as legitimate citizens of their own states.

However the question should not be were they crazy, but rather where they correct?

The answer to that is a resounding no. Israel takes up 1/625th of the Arab land of the Middle-East. Why do Jews not have a historical right to their homeland, just as every other people?

However these issues are all in the past. The real question remains where to in the future? As Israel has shown time and time again all they want is to live peacefully within safe and secure borders. Unfortunately their Arab counterparts refuse to do the same. The day Kassam missiles stop falling from Gaza and suicide bombers cease coming from the West Bank will be the day there will be peace

The two issues we differ about can be easily settled. The question of the consensus of historians can be figured out by reading them and not by citing Morris' abuse of Pappe. In fact, nothing you say contradicts Morris' own important contribution to the "new" "revisionist" history of Israel/Palestine - basically overturning the myths that you and others still seem to believe. Morris tells a story that is quite horrible enough about how 1948 came about and your benign view may be comforting but is morally callous. More generally, the method of sorting out the history is to read the strongest critical accounts and juxtapose them to the most favourable ones. So, compare Norman Finkelstein with Alan Dershowitz and decide for yourself where the truth seems to lie. Or read Chomsky's 'Fateful Triangle' which is the most comprehensive history of events. Then there is Avi Shlaim's 'The Iron Wall' - another important historian. Your view that Jews just wanted to live in peace alongside their "cousins" is impossible to reconcile with the facts. You refer to the Arab's "refusal to absorb their cousins as legitimate citizens" but this is just a delusional way to describe what happened. Read the late Israeli scholar Tanya Reinhart's two books on what happened since 1948 - which she points out is available in Israel's daily Ha'aretz. On whether Jews have a right to their "homeland", I find these historical claims the most bizarre of all as a way of justifying the dispossession of the Palestinians. Read the ways in which Jewish immigration gradually grew, the role of the JNF in expropriating Palestinian lands etc. The story can't be told as a benign wish to live in peace alongside their "cousins". I've quoted Herzl, Ben Gurion, Dayan and others - all of whom were clear about expelling the Palestinians. But let me ask you the analogous question. You presumably won't deny that Aborigines have ancestral claim to all of Australia - including your house and mine. Their claim is surely more recent and more clear than any ancient Jewish claims on Judea and Samaria. On your own view, Aborigines should now have a right to re-claim all their ancestral land and expel white invaders. And then, they could wonder why we might be upset about it. Are you ready to give up your place?

As to the question of historical truths it seems we will never agree. I have read both the works of Norman Finkelstein and extracts of Noam Chomsky as well as Dershowitz and his friends. While you conclude that the earlier historians are more accurate, I am convinced by the later. However I did not comment on this blog to convince you but rather point out the logical inconsistency in your argument. You label both Pappe and Morris reputable historians who present an accurate account. Yet one of these reputable historians completely disagrees with the methodology and conclusions drawn by the other. How is it that you can say Pappe presents “uncontroversial facts” when another historian who you applaud completely disagrees? It seems that you are ready to label anyone who criticises the traditional understanding of Israel’s history reputable, despite their faulty methodology and bias.

Whilst we can't agree on your first propistion, am I sensing agreement in your second? Are you finally willing to acknowledge that Jews, like Australia’s Aboriginal population, have the strongest historical link to Israel?

It’s odd that you assert “it seems we will never agree” regarding the historical issues. That’s a peculiar conclusion to arrive at given that we currently disagree. Rational people should assume that a disagreement may be resolved on the basis of the evidence and arguments. Why have you decided that we will “never” agree? Can’t you be persuaded that you might be mistaken and that your sources are not reliable? I wouldn’t make your dogmatic assertion and that’s why I bother to engage in debate. Perhaps I’m mistaken and, following J.S. Mill’s famous precepts, I rely on the most diametrically opposed views to challenge my own precisely in order to see if my arguments can withstand the strongest criticism. All you need to do to convince me is to give me compelling evidence and arguments to counter the ones I currently find convincing. You have the odd idea that there is no way to adjudicate between opposing authorities or sources such as Finkelstein and Dershowitz and, moreover, I am logically inconsistent in citing divergent historians’ accounts. This is just a simplistic understanding of the problem posed by the disagreements between Pappe and Morris. Surely it’s not a matter of just picking sides with the sources one prefers as you accuse me of doing, but seem to be doing exactly this yourself. After all, it is you who asserts that we can never agree. For my part, I think that the disagreements between Pappe and Morris are open to consideration and adjudication in the light of other accounts following the usual procedures of historical, political analysis. To be sure, it’s not mathematics where definitive, certain answers are possible but you surely can’t believe that there are never “uncontroversial facts”. You don’t take Holocaust deniers such as Irving or Faurisson seriously since I am sure you also believe that some historical facts are sufficiently well attested to deserve the label I have used – “uncontroversial facts”. Of course, when I said that, it was convenient rhetorical shorthand, though I admit the “facts” might turn out otherwise.

In regard to the current issue, you over-simplify the situation when you pretend that Morris “completely disagrees” with Pappe. Despite Morris’ dismissive ranting about Pappe, his actual historical research is overwhelmingly consistent with Pappe’s and the differences are matters of emphasis and relatively minor dispute about whether the Palestinians were butchered and expelled without deliberate plan (Plan Dalet etc.) but just through inadvertent by-product of warfare. So, contrary to your assertion, I am quite happy to rely on Morris himself despite his moral position on expulsions and his attacks on Pappe. There is no inconsistency here, as you imagine. So, the question for you, then, is where you stand in relation to the account that Morris gives. If you agree with Morris, you and I are largely in agreement except for relatively minor matters. Above all, Morris’ account shockingly overturns the rosy mythology that Israel Lobby propagandists are still trying to run in the media – like Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes and Melanie Phillips - or in the Age yesterday by Abramovitch. These are fantasy that hide the truths that even Morris has recorded as a serious and reputable historian. That’s the very reason I’ve been citing Morris: Not because I prefer his account in every detail over Pappe, but because you do! There is no inconsistency in this, as you imagine. It’s simply to ask you how you can agree with Morris and still take the moral stance you take.

As for the historical link, you evidently miss the point of the very example. I am not denying ancient historical claims – though presumably you will agree that whatever happened 2,000 years ago is just more uncertain than what happened 200 years ago. But let’s concede the historical link to the land at some point back in time (however arbitrary this may be). My point is that we don’t even acknowledge the Aborigine’s right to our houses and land after only a couple of generations! How much less claim can any group have if they can only cite some dubious ancestors millennia back in time. What kind of absurd and morally offensive notion is it that would give priority to such claims over the recent continuous occupants who currently live on the land. I cited the case of the Aborigines precisely because I suspect you don’t recognize their rights to your house even after a mere 200 years. So how can you seriously claim that Jews have any rights over Palestine? You seem to have missed the force of my point – my agreeing with historical occupation but denying that it confers any right to dispossess current inhabitants. If you seriously tell me that you would give up your house in favour of today’s descendants of the Aborigines that lived there, I will begin to take seriously your case for Jewish claims over Palestine.

First allow me to address our differing understanding of history. While I am not 100% familiar with all of Morris’ writings, I (as you suggest) do not dispute his overall findings. Specifically, as Morris states I recognise that Israel did expel some Palestinians. I also accept his conclusion that many left out of choice. You present this opinion as if it would be controversial for anyone who believes in the tenants of Zionism to accept. However this is not the case. AIJAC, whom your organisation often criticises as the leading Zionist propagandist, published an essay by one of Israel’s most prominent historians Efraim Karsh attesting to this fact. In his essay Karsh states “None of this is to deny that Israeli forces did on occasion expel Palestinians” (http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/266/essay266.html) Further, the Israeli department of education approved a textbook recently (albeit controversially) that recognises “Some of the Arab residents were forced to leave their homes and some were expelled, and they became refugees in the neighboring Arab countries” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884899.html None of these conclusions are an affront to the views of Zionism, as you suggest.

While we can agree on these facts, what we cannot agree on is the way you automatically assume that because some Palestinians were wronged this delegitimizes the right of Israel to exist. Further, it is historically inaccurate and dishonest to jump the way you do from showing that some Arabs were expelled to assuming that these actions were the result of some master plan on the part of the Israelis to cleanse Israel of Arabs. Indeed in direct reference to your assertion, our favourite historian

Benny Morris has this to say:

Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections...

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they [the Palestinians] launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes...

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" ...was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing".

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

What you have attempted to do in this argument is typical of the way IAJV has acted in the past. You have presented facts which on the surface seem reasonable and benign but have coated these with hidden meaning. Accordingly I do not deny Morris’ findings but what I do deny is the implication that you have attempted to attach to my acceptance of his views, namely that the expulsion of SOME people were part of an overarching plan to expel all of Israel’s Arabs.

I say this is typical of the IAJV because this is exactly what you did when you released your motherhood statement. The statement contained a whole lot of seemingly uncontroversial ideas, the majority of which no member of the Jewish establishment would disagree with. However beneath the declaration your subtext was clear. By signing the statement the signer was effectively acknowledging that only the IAJV advocates “a just peace that recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all.” Of course this is not correct, but then as you attempted to do now, by agreeing to your seemingly “uncontroversial facts” you attempted to have me admit by implication the subtext of your argument.

As to the last issue concerning Aborigines. You state that the fact that I don’t recognise the rights of Indigenous Australians to my house, should pose some moral dilemma for me in recognising the historical claim of Jews to Israel. Let me tell you it doesn’t and this is why.

I raised the historical rights of Jews to Israel in response to your claim that Palestinians have a higher historical right. Nowhere did I state that this historical right automatically translates into a right to possess somebody’s house.

I recognise that the historical claim of Aboriginal people to Australia will always be superior to my historical claim to my house. This akin to my recognition that the historical claim of Jews to Israel (as its indigenous people) will always be historically superior to the Arabs. This is pure logic as in both cases the Aboriginals and the Jews were there first. However this historical claim doesn’t nor should it give somebody a legal claim to another’s property. If this were the case the guy who owned my house before me could come and eject me because he was there earlier. This would be ludicrous.

Common sense dictates that while earlier possession may implant a historical connection to the land this does not translate into a right of possession. Israel was given much of the land it possesses by the UN, just as other countries were created through similar declarations. The rest was either bought or won in wars. Both of these methods have long been recognised as legitimate means of possession.

While I have pity for the Indigenous inhabitants of Australia who lost their land due to a war they did not start in a war they did not have a hand in, I do not pity the Arabs. They were given the choice to accept a two state solution, where Arabs and Jews could live side by side, some in the same street. They rejected this proposition and instead went to war. As a result of their hostilities many lost their homes. The account that I have just recounted is one supported by Benny Morris, a historian whom you hold to be reliable.

Have you taken a change of heart Peter?