Another Round With The Israeli Right

Nothwitstanding the acrimonious denoument of my earlier discussions with Yuval and company (posted here, here, here, and here), and my own admonition to myself to refrain from getting involved in such discussions again, I couldn't resist, and I got involved in another debate this week, this time with Rob Vincent. The following is not the complete debate. At one point, I got tired of being called obtuse, ignorant and bigoted, and started responding to the tone of Rob's message rather than their substance. Although I think this interlude is actually sort of amusing, I have omitted it here.

Background: On Saturday, February 5, I (and many others) received an e-mail from Yuval, forwarding -- with extravagent praise -- an essay by Dr. Michael Anbar entitled "A Constructive Solution." The essay makes for interesting reading, but is a bit long for inclusion here and I have been unable to find a link to it. However, it took the position that, in addition to the conditions President Bush has laid out for the creation of a Palestinian state (in Anbar's characterization: a permanent stop to Arab terrorism, dismantling of terrorist organization, and the establishment of genuine democracy in the proposed new Arab state, which is expected to live in peace with the Jewish sate of Israel):

there must be two additional, absolutely necessary conditions to allow Israeli recognition of that new Arab state. These conditions are:

1. That the Arabs recognize that their new state includes major parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, even if for the sake of peace the Jewish nation is ready to give up sovereignty over those territories. . . . [and]

2. That Jews can continue to live on legally acquired property in the new Arab state [i.e. the West Bank and Gaza settlements can continue to exist] and that this centuries-old legal right of residence of non-Muslims in the Holy Land will not be abrogated by the government of the new Arab state.

Andar concludes his essay with the following:

Ideal peace in the Middle East will take place only when the whole world, Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, will agree that in the Land of Israel, no Jew lives on "Arab land". On the contrary, it is the Arabs who live on ancient Jewish land. This situation can not be changed, even if Arabs are granted political sovereignty over parts of this land.

I agree with none of this, of course, especially the part about there being no such thing as Arab land in Palestine, but I refrained from replying. Then, on Wednesday, February 9, Rob Vincent forwarded to me (and others) the following sermon, apparently broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television on February 4, 2005 by Imam Ibrahim Mudyris, who, according to the report Rob forwarded (from the Palestinain Media Watch) is senior Islamic cleric delivering the official PA Friday sermon (note: the ellipses are in the original from the PMW):

We do not love any land more than the land of Palestine. Had the Jews not expelled us from it with their planes, their tanks, their weapons, their treachery around us, we would never leave you, O Palestine. [Quotes Muhammad, who promised he would return to Mecca as a conqueror].

We tell you Palestine, we shall return to you, by Allah's will. We shall return to every village, every town, and every grain of earth which was quenched by the blood of our grandparents and the sweat of our fathers and mothers. We shall return, we shall return. Our willingness to return to the 1967 borders does not mean that we have given up on the land of Palestine. No!

We ask you: Do we have the right to the 1967 borders? We have the right. Therefore, we shall realize this right with any mean it takes. We might be able to use diplomacy in order to return to the 1967 borders, but we shall not be able to use diplomacy in order to return to the 1948 borders.

No one on this earth recognizes [our right to] the 1948 borders [before Israel's existence]. Therefore, we shall return to the 1967 borders, but it does not mean that we have given up on Jerusalem and Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramla, Natanyah [Al-Zuhour] and Tel Aviv [Tel Al-Rabia]. Never.

We shall return to every village we had been expelled from, by Allah's will. Why? All the international laws deny the Palestinians their real borders. We might agree, but in the name of Allah, our grandfathers' blood demands that we return to them [the borders]. Your fathers' blood was shed there, at the villages, at Ashqelon, at Ashdod, at Hirbia [a village between Gaza and Ashqelon, where Kibbutz Zikim is located today] and at others places, hundreds of villages and towns. [Their blood] demands it from us, and it shall curse anyone who will concede a grain of earth of those villages.

Our approval to return to the 1967 borders is not a concession for our other rights. No!... this generation might not achieve this stage, but generations will come, and the land of Palestine... will demand that the Palestinians will return the way Muhammad returned there - as a conqueror."

Rob offered the following comment on this speech:

Well, obviously, this whole "peace honeymoon" that has been ushered in since the PA elections last month is a complete sham. Unless the PA leadership takes the step of formally recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, to include amending the Palestinian Charter accordingly, as well as making the requisite public declarations over their own media in Arabic, their alleged moves towards peace are little more than a painful charade to watch.

Even these steps would only be a beginning; the Palestinians would have to follow through with a lot of measures beyond mere formal recognition if they were really serious about peace, but the fact is that they obviously won't do even this.

What will it take before people realize and face up the the plain, obvious truth about the Arabs generally and the Palestinians in particular?

And, with that, we were off to the races:

From: Patberg, William
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:32 PM

Rob --

I don't know if you sent this to me on purpose or by accident, but if the former, let me make a brief observation. To my ears -- as an outsider with no particular ax to grind in this debate -- the Imam's] speech . . . seems indistinguishable (except in direction, of course) from the thesis advanced in Michael Anbar's essay "A Constructive Solution" that Yuval distributed -- with high praise -- last Saturday. (copy attached). If there is a difference, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

Bill

From: Robert Vincent
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:31 PM

Bill,

It was on purpose, and the differences are huge.

First, Dr. Anbar is not necessarily against Palestinian Arab sovereignty over the disputed territories, he clearly does not rule this out. He only asks that the Arabs recognize that these areas include pieces of real estate that are associated with the traditional Jewish homeland. In so doing, they would thus implicitly concede that there is indeed such a thing as a legitimate, historically supported political/geographic entity as a Jewish homeland.

Second, he only asks that Jews who currently live in areas that might become part of a future Palestinian Arab state be afforded the same basic human rights that Arab Israelis living in pre-67 Israel now enjoy, which is to be treated at least nominally, before the law, as citizens with the same rights as their Arab neighbors, and this includes the right to own property (something that is expressly forbidden to Jews by the Jordanian constitution, for example). Unless Jews are living on land that has been directly and forcibly appropriated from Arab owners, as is sometimes alleged, why should they have to leave, as the Arabs frequently and noisily demand? If they want to live near areas of religious significance to them, and if they are willing to accept local Arab sovereignty, why shouldn't they be allowed to stay and enjoy equal rights and protection under the law?

By contrast, the speech by the Imam quoted below asserts that Israel, as a Jewish state apart from Arab sovereignty, has absolutely no legitimate right to exist, and must be eliminated in total. (Some might argue that a call for the Israelis to "return to the borders of 1948" might mean that they require Israel to return to the borders set out by the original UN partition plan, which is about half the size of even pre-67 Israel. Even this is obviously neither just nor practical, but even if this were what was meant, why won't the Palestinians even formally acknowledge the right of Israel to exist in any form? Why do all of their maps and their textbooks depict all of what we know as Israel as "Palestine", inclusive of these areas?)

Have I sufficiently clarified this issue?

Regards,

-Rob

From: Patberg, William
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:21 PM

Rob --

Well, maybe I am reading the sermon too literally, but I don't see where it calls for the destruction of Israel or asserts that "Israel, as a Jewish state apart from Arab sovereignty, has absolutely no legitimate right to exist, and must be eliminated in total." Read literally, it asserts only an intent to "return" to the lands the Palestinians lived on in 1948, and it does not, explicitly at least, rule out the possibility that Israel will retain jurisdiction over these areas.. True, the last three words of the speech promise that the return shall be "as a conqueror." However, a charitable reader (which I understand you are not inclined to be) could chalk this up to a recognition that Israel would never agree to allow such a "return". However, if Israel would agree, as Dr. Anbar suggests the Palestinians should agree to his proposal, then the speech can be read simply as an insistence (to modify Dr. Anbar's proposal slightly):

1. That the Israelis recognize that their new state includes major parts of the ancient Palestinian homeland, even if for the sake of peace the Palestinian nation is ready to give up sovereignty over those territories.

2. That Palestinians can continue to live on legally acquired property in the new Israeli state and that this centuries-old legal right of residence of non-Jews in the Holy Land will not be abrogated by the government of the new Israeli state.

As to your broader question: I don't think it's particularly useful to talk about "the Palestinians" as if they were an undivided entity. Like "the Israelis," "the Palestinians" speak with many voices and have many views on the future of relations between the two peoples. Many of those voices clearly do recognize Israel right to exist. And, as to the Palestinian leadership, I think it has formally recognized Israel's right to exist in at least one forum: the Oslo accords. Moreover, the negotiations between the PA and the Israeli government that have occurred and are occurring constitute a pretty convincing de facto recognition as well.

On the issue of maps and text books -- and the founding documents of the PLO and other groups purporting to represent the Palestinian people -- I sympathize with you. They are and will continue to be big, big impediments to a reduction in the level of mistrust by the Israelis. But, what is it you would have them do here? Create maps that show Israel but do not show any Palestinian state? Create maps that show a Palestinian state that does not exist? Do Israeli maps show a Palestinian State on them? Does that mean that Israel does not recognize the right of such a state to exist? My sense is that neither side is doing a very good job of trying to reassure the other that it recognizes the right of the other to exist.

Bill

From: Robert Vincent
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:07 PM

Bill,

Yes, I think you are taking this sermon a bit too literally, to put it charitably. The implications are obvious. Take the quote below

"No one on this earth recognizes [our right to] the 1948 borders [before Israel's existence]. Therefore, we shall return to the 1967 borders, but it does not mean that we have given up on Jerusalem and Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramla, Natanyah [Al-Zuhour] and Tel Aviv [Tel Al-Rabia]. Never."
Now, he is talking about "borders" here. By borders, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that he is talking about sovereignty, not merely a "right of return". The following quote is even more explicit:

"Our approval to return to the 1967 borders is not a concession for our other rights. No!... this generation might not achieve this stage, but generations will come, and the land of Palestine... will demand that the Palestinians will return the way Muhammad returned there - as a conqueror."

When he is talking about what future generations will accomplish, he is pretty obvious in his intentions. I don't think refugees merely asking for a "right of return" would use the word "conquerer" in the same context, as even you concede. Taken along with the rest of this polemic, c'mon, what other conclusion can one reach, Bill??

Now, as to your little hypothetical below, it is utter nonsense. The Palestinians simply cannot call Israel, the disputed territories, or anything else for that matter, their "ancient homeland".

I do not deny that the Palestinians Arabs constitute a national ethnic group. As such, I concede that as such, they have existed since 1964, when the PLO was formed. Prior to that time, I challenge you, or anyone else for that matter, to come up with anything resembling convincing historical evidence that a coherent national ethnic entity known as the "Palestinians" existed before that time.

There never was a self-governing nation known as "Palestine". Not in antiquity, not ever. They never had a king (as the ancient Jews did), they never coined money (as the ancient Jews did), there are no references whatever prior to the second half of the twentieth century to distinctly identified "Palestinian" Arab authors, artists, leaders, philosophers, etc. Prior to the establishment of modern Israel, the Arabs that lived in what is Israel today were known as simply that - Arabs - not "Palestinians" as a distinct segment of Arabs. I challenge you to prove to me otherwise.

The region wasn't even referred to as "Palestine" until the Romans kicked the Jews out, and they (the Romans) only gave it that name in order to underscore the fact that the Jews had been kicked out, in order to "add insult to injury", as it were. The Ottomans who succeeded them, and who ruled the region for a longer unbroken period of time than anyone else, didn't even call the area "Palestine". They called it (or the bulk of it) "Southern Syria". What is commonly understood as "Palestine" today was divided among several Ottoman provinces: the provinces of Beirut and Damascus respectively, while Jerusalem was administered as a separate district that reported directly to the Ottoman sultan.

The name "Palestine" itself is derived from the word "Philistine", a name given by the Jews of antiquity to one of a number of Aegean peoples ("Sea Peoples", as they were referred to by the ancient Israelites) who had established themselves on the coastal plain of present-day Israel, with whom the ancient Hebrews competed for local control of the area. In all likelihood, these "Philistines" were not even ethnic pre-Moslem Arabs at all, but could very easily been Hellenic peoples.

The Palestinians, as a distinct people, were established in the wake of the creation of Israel, in direct opposition to the same. OK, this is not the first ethnic/national/political grouping to develop a distinct identity in opposition to someone else (after all, we Americans found our national consciousness within the context of rebellion against British colonial rule, although far be it for me to flatter the Palestinians with a comparison to our Founding Fathers). Everyone has to start somewhere, and that having been said, I'll concede that the starting point for the "Palestinians" is 1964. They are a national group, but one of very recent vintage. So puleeeze, don't feed me this crap about the Palestinians' "ancient homeland" within the borders of Israel. You want to uncritically accept their bullshit propaganda hook line and sinker, that's your choice, but don't expect me to buy that line. Looking at the broad sweep of history (not merely the last fifty years), by any of the basic measures of what constitutes a "nationality" -unique language, common history/folklore, common point of geographic origin - the Jews have this in spades, and the Palestinians have, well, bopkess (that's "goat shit", in case you didn't know).

To the extent that the Palestinians DO have a strong, robust claim to a "national homeland", I'd say that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a place called JORDAN. After all, Jordan was part and parcel of the British Mandate of Palestine, and the clear majority of the inhabitants of present-day Jordan are Palestinian Arabs. They are ruled over by a monarchy, the Hashemites, imported from the Arabian peninsula, and installed by British colonial authorities in the 1920s. Over the course of 1970-71, elements of the PLO, then based in Jordan, agitated to overthrow the monarchy and establish majority - though hardly democratic - rule. In July of 1971, they were crushed mercilessly by the Jordanian Army. Thousands of civilians killed, the PLO kicked into southern Lebanon, where they then proceeded to destabilize THAT country, leading to civil war, invasion by Israel provoked by their terrorism, etc., etc. Rather curious how little one hears about all of this........

As to some of your other points:

"De facto" recognition, as you call it, means absolutely nothing. Even if there are some Palestinian individuals who recognize Israel's right to exist (and I've yet to hear of any who say this unequivocally, as in, "right to exist as a Jewish State"), if they are not in positions of authority, this is pretty meaningless in practical terms. And no, like I told you a while back, the Palestinians never did recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state at Oslo. All they did in 1993 was to make a promise to amend their charter to reflect this, but they never actually got around to doing this. In 1996 they held a conference at which they were supposed to do this, but while they debated the issue, they never did ultimately modify their charter. Anyway, I will not belabor this point any further. Don't take my word for any of this. Just watch the news, and watch how all of this unfolds. Here's what will happen over the next few months:

-Abbas and/or Hamas will make very vocal demands that the Israelis concede on some point that they cannot possibly concede on (e.g., right of return for all Palestinian refugees, plus their descendants, to anywhere in Israel, and/or sovereignty over the Old City in Jerusalem [that's three quarters of Jerusalem, including the Wailing Wall]).

-In parallel to the above, Hamas or some other terrorist group will use the cease fire to begin preparations for a new wave of attacks.

-This second item noted above will put the Israelis in a very difficult position. The Israeli intelligence services will surely detect these preparations. What will they do? Break the cease fire and attack the terrorists? Or allow innocent Israelis to be killed first just so as to avoid being accused of breaking the cease fire? Put in a different light, what do you suppose we would do? Suppose the EU or China offered to broker a deal between the U.S. and Al Queda, we found out they were preparing another 9-11, but we were hesitant to react because we didn't want to be accused of breaking this hypothetical "cease fire". Doesn't that sound absurd??? Yet this is the position Israel is being placed in!!

-And consequently, using the failure of the Israelis to meet their ridiculous demands as an excuse, one way or the other, the fighting erupts again, and in the eyes of many, manipulated by the Arabs and their useful idiots elsewhere, Israel is the "bad guys" again. Just like after Camp David in 2000. Like Lucy snapping the football out from under Charlie Brown yet again. Why do so many fail to see this pattern? Why don't you, Bill??

Your observation regarding Palestinian textbooks is absurd. What would I have them do? Well, if their intention indeed is to create an independent state in the disputed territories that lives side by side with Israel, in peace, then the maps in their textbooks can damn well reflect this intention: their "Palestine" in the disputed territories, and at the very least, pre-1967 Israel right next door. This is a no-brainer. "Do Israeli maps show a Palestinian State on them?"...Well, of course not, as there is as yet no Palestinian State as such! And if one is created, I'm sure the Israeli cartographers will oblige them accordingly. But you see, there IS a currently existing Israeli State, and the Palestinians can't even so much as acknowledge this basic reality to their schoolchildren (along with much of the rest of the Arab and Moslem world..do you perhaps see a pattern here?!) Truly, your arguments are very tedious at times, Bill........

Which brings me to a final point for you, Bill. I understand that you are an attorney. So is my brother. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of that profession is that one of the most critical, fundamental skills that is required of an attorney is the ability to read, understand, and objectively analyze and interpret written documents. With that in mind, I am amazed that someone of your training would read Dr. Anbar's piece on the one hand, and that Imam's sermon on the other, and conclude that these two documents are merely "mirror images" of each other. I am further amazed that someone of your profession, one that places a premium on precedent, factual evidence, etc., would weigh in on this subject as you have with such a complete and utter ignorance of the historical and factual context that surrounds this issue.

You say that you have "no axe to grind" either way with the parties involved, but your communications betray quite the contrary, that you are more than ready to engage in mental gynastics worthy of a gold medal on behalf of the Palestinians, while casting as pejorative an eye as possible against the Jews. At the very least, like so many who aspire to be "fair-minded" about this issue, you appear to lack the moral courage to go beyond this seeming compulsion to treat both sides in this conflict as "morally equivalent". All the while, you completely miss the obvious point that the idea of acting as an "honest broker" between the two sides in this conflict would be tantamount to the U.S. acting as an "honest broker" between Britain and Germany circa 1940. Will you open your eyes already??

Rob

[NB: It is at this point that things got a bit off track, but here's the reply I ultimately sent]:

From: Patberg, William
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:29 PM

Rob –

The problem with ancient history is just that: it’s ancient. The farther back in time one goes, the less and less power history has as a basis for present day claims of right. And, when you have to go back a thousand years or more to find a basis for a claim, the claim itself becomes extraordinarily tenuous because of all on the other, conflicting history that has intervened. When we are talking periods of years or even decades, perhaps it is true that “first in time is first in right.” But when we start talking centuries and millennia, the opposite is the case. Consider, in this regard, the Sioux vis-à-vis the Americans. The Sioux have only been displaced from their ancient homeland for a matter of decades. Yet even so, I think there are relatively few who would argue that they have a "right" to displace the Americans now living on those lands and recliam it as theirs.

The gist of your argument appears to be this (my responses are in [brackets]):

· The Jews lived and had a nation of their own in the land we presently called Palestine for thousands of years until being dispersed 2000 years ago, or maybe, as Mordechai argues, as recently as 1,000 years ago. [Agreed.]

· Throughout the period since the dispersal, the Jews have remained an identifiable (and identified) people with a distinct self-consciousness and a unique language, tradition, religion and culture. [Agreed.]

· Throughout that period the Jewish people have also (to quote Dr. Anbar) “maintained . . . their aspiration to regain sovereignty over their ancient occupied homeland.” [Not so sure about this one. I recognize that a belief in a Messiah who would re-establish a Jewish State in Palestine and rebuild Solomon’s Temple has always been a part of the Jewish faith. But, in practical political terms, the movement to establish a Jewish State in Palestine arose barely a century ago and did not become a widely accepted aspiration of the Jewish people as a whole until the Second World War and the Holocaust. Nevertheless, for present purposes, I accept this premise as well.]

· The “Palestinians”, by contrast, did not even exist as an identifiable people distinct from the rest of the Arab world until 1964, at the earliest. [We could quibble over dates, but I agree with the main point. Jewish distinctiveness and self-consciousness predates Palestinian – even Arab – distinctiveness and self-consciousness by thousands of years].

· Therefore, the Jews have a far superior right to Palestine – the ancient Jewish home land -- than the Palestinians do.

This conclusion, rather than the premises, is where we part company.

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not questioning Israel’s right to exist. What I am saying, though, is that this right does not arise out of natural law or morality or out of thousands of years of aspirations. It arises out of the fait accompli, out of the undeniable FACT that the Jews, by diplomacy, persistence, force of arms, hard work, sacrifice and, most important, force of will, did in fact create a country in Palestine. But, we have to recognize that it created this country out of lands on which other people were then living – and on which they had lived for centuries at least, if not millennia. I am not criticizing the Jews for doing this. That is exactly how the United States was formed. In fact, that is the way all nations are formed. Once formed, nations do have something like moral right to continue to exist But no nation has the right – moral or otherwise – to create (or expand) itself via the displacement of indigenous populations, whether or not those indigenous populations constitute a recognizable people or nation. The right to exist, in short, flows not from morality or aspirations or history (regardless of how ancient), but from the power to make existence a fact.

Israel’s problem today is that, unlike the Americans before them, the Israelis lack the power – indeed, even the desire – to complete the conquest and assimilation of the indigenous people who occupy the land they want. Those people have fought back, and continue to fight back, and despite losing battle after battle (as well as a lot of additional territory), they have succeeded, with the aid by Israel’s own moral compunctions, international pressure and the threat that demographics poses to the Jewishness of Israel, in bringing the expansion of Israel to a standstill at something approximating the 1968 borders.

Some Israelis and Israeli supporters (e.g. Yuval and maybe you) want or feel compelled to continue the struggle because (a) they feel that the goal of reclaiming for the Jews all of their ancient homeland is worth the suffering that the struggle imposes on Israelis; and (b) they consider the prospect for peace with the Palestinians to be illusory in any event. Others both within and outside of Israel (e.g. me) want Israel to give up on the dream and accept the creation of a Palestinian State defined by the 1968 borders because (a) the dream of an Israel that includes all of the “ancient Jewish homeland” is unattainable and not worth the cost even if it were; (b) unlike the unresolved conflicts in Tibet or the other countries Yuval mentioned in last Saturday’s e-mail, the continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians threatens vital interests of all of the “First World”; (c) the creation of a Palestinian State worthy of the name – while it does not guarantee peace – is the only path that offers even the hope for peace in our time, or maybe ever; and (d) because there is now considerable sympathy for the admittedly new but nonetheless now very real aspirations of the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza to have a state of their own.

Reasonable minds can differ as to how Israel should respond to this stalemate. However, we delude ourselves if we suppose that there is some “moral” imperative that dictates one outcome over another.