I wrote this lengthy guide because I’d seen a lot of repetitive comments covering the same ground. Most of us who have followed Israel/Palestine discussions for any length of time have witnessed furious debate on each and every one of the topics below. “Pro-Israel” is in quotes because I (and many others) don’t believe the people making these arguments (most on the right wing) have the true interests of the Israeli people at heart.

This post would not have been possible without numerous enriching exchanges with many, many articulate and reasoned voices on Daily Kos. It is the best place I have found to engage in a reasoned, yet pationate debate on Israel-Palestine.

I try to be fair, but not at the cost of calling a spade a spade. My sympathies lie with those who are suffering and it has disproportionately been Palestinians for the vast majority of the past 70 years. This suffering has been at many hands, Israel’s primarily, but the US has played a key role, and the neighboring states have not been blameless. This is intended for an American audience, both our public sympathies and official policy have been weighted towards Israel for over 70 years. US support was instrumental in creating the state of Israel from a partition of mandatory Palestine, and US support has been crucial at various points in Israel’s existence. The US has demonstrably not been even-handed in this conflict. Much of this diary will question both US public opinion and official policy, which has been mostly unfair towards Palestinians and biased towards Israel.

It’s also important to recognize that about 15% of West Bank settlers are immigrants from the US, and this includes some of the most radical, violent elements.

This lengthy post is organized as a set of claims that I’ve seen made at various times by those presenting the pro-Israel viewpoint. These statements are examined/refuted, clearly all the wording is mine. The claims are organized in groups and listed in the introduction. A more detailed discussion of each is past the orange separation barrier.

Much of the discussion of Palestine/Israel focuses on the statements and actions of governments and political leaders. We shouldn’t forget though that the region is home to millions of people who have little interest in grand political maneuverings and simply want to live their lives in peace and security. My sympathies lie with the people living on both sides of the many fences.

Unlike many others, I do not fault non-violent Jewish settlers for wanting to live peacefully on land they feel an intimate connection to. But I do not believe justice is served until Palestinians have the equal right to return to the towns and villages they, their parents and grand-parents were expelled from. Without that right, Israeli settlements are yet another piece of an ongoing ethnic cleansing. I’m agnostic, but I will not deride the strong religious feelings and motivations of many in the conflict as long as they are peaceful. It is not our place to pass judgement on the validity of another’s sincere beliefs. This dispute has many tribal elements to it, so I should disclose my own tribe is that of secular humanists. I have an interest in the region that was sparked two decades ago, and then re-kindled after the IDF’s large-scale bombing of Gaza last year.

My sympathies lie with ordinary people who want to live their lives in peace in a land they feel connected to. These people exist on both sides of the many fences. In the context of the I/P debate within the US, I’d be considered pro-Palestinian.

In general, many pro-Israel talking points should be examined critically by translating them to similar struggles for self-determination and equal rights. Examples from the US Civil Rights movement, US policies towards American Indians, the ANC’s struggle for equality in South Africa, French rule in Algeria, the Indian National Congress and Muslim League’s struggle for Indian independence are the most representative, but there are numerous others.

Here’s what I will cover:

From the UN “vote” on partition to Apartheid today.

Appeals to Diplomacy and two-state process

Palestinians refused the state offered them in 1948

Palestinians do not recognize Israel’s right to exist

US support for Israel

Unilateral moves by Palestinians are unhelpful

But there is a two-state peace process, we should let that proceed without outside pressure

Appeals to empathy

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East

Israel respects LGBT rights

Arabs/Muslims have 30 states, Israelis/Jews have one

Israel was founded because of the Holocaust, Jews have no other place to go

Arab states expelled millions of Jews

Israel is in a tough neighborhood

Christian/Jewish holy sites will be desecrated under Palestinian rule

Settler Colonialism and undermining Palestinian identity

There is no such thing as Palestine

Palestine was a barren desert before Israelis arrived

All “Palestinians” are nomadic Arabs

Israel is not a settler-colonial state

Settlements

The post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was a response to an existential threat

Settlements as a conscious policy to grab land

PLO instituted a death penalty for selling land to Israelis

Settlement are legal, they’re built on state land

The settler movement (or settler violence) is an outlier/exception

Apartheid, Discrimination and Equal Rights

Israel is not practicing apartheid because Palestinians are not citizens

Palestinians citizens of Israel are treated equally

The expulsions were long ago

Collective punishment of Palestinians

Military vs. Civilian judicial regimes

Right to Return

Palestinian Resistance: Violence and Non-Violence

Palestinians elect terrorists

Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?

BDS has double standards

Why don’t Palestinians adopt non-violent resistance?

Hundreds of Israeli civilians died in bombings by Palestinian terrorists

Palestinians are not poor, Arafat had billions

Palestinians are radical Islamist Jihadists and cannot be trusted

We’ll have pece when Arabs love their children more than they hate Israelis

But the Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1957, 1967, 1973

The Israeli Army and armed Palestinian factions

Methods used by IDF and armed Palestinian factions (Fatah, Hamas, etc.)

The IDF is the most moral army in the world

Israeli forces fought valiantly and justly in 1948

The Israeli army does not knowingly target children

Gaza bombings are a response to rockets

Israel nuclear program & military industry

Palestinian forces use human shields

Hamas killed 160 children to build tunnels

Gaza is not occuppied

Palestinians and their leaders are dastardly and/or untrustworthy

Palestinians celebrate and bake cakes when Israelis are killed

Yasser Arafat (Abu Ammar) was a terrorist

Palestinian grand-mufti al-Husseini allied with Hitler in WW-2

Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of Israel

Palestinian schools teach hatred of Jews

XYZ Palestinian (or other Middle Eastern figure) has called for genocide of the Jews

Sources and Further Reading

Palestinian Voices

Israeli Voices

Joint Voices

American Voices

Current Events

As an aside, numerous pro-Israeli talking points and argument derive from the directions provided in Frank Luntz’s The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary. It was produced after the 2009 bombing of Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) and the intention was to provide a handbook for Israeli PR personnel speaking to US audiences in particular. It was leaked to Newsweek and the whole guide is here.

From the UN “vote” on partition to “Apartheid” today.

Many Israelis are defensive about their country’s portrayal in the press as a militant, oppressive state. This does not match what they perceive as a multi-ethnic, tolerant country, as viewed from Tel Aviv. In some ways, this is similar to the reaction many Americans have to portrayals of our own country. Of course, a state can be tolerant, protective and fair in its domestic policies, while exhibiting none of these in dealing with non-citizens. The heart of the matter is that Israel controls the lives of millions of such non-citizens who happen to be Palestinian, many of them refugees displaced from their homes by Israel’s conquests over the past 70 years.

Well meaning people will sometimes say “Palestinians deserve a state of their own”. Whether you are a believer in a one-state solution, or believe a two-state solution is best, the appropriate terms are “have a right to”. Using the word deserve implies there are cases where certain people are “undeserving” of universal human rights. Palestinians have a right to govern themselves, determine their own future, pick their own leaders and equality, which may mean a state of their own if they so decide.

Feigned concern for Palestinians, in the form of statements like “they deserve better leaders” are systematically used by Israeli spokespersons to obscure the fact that any leaders (good or bad) Palestinians choose do not have the ability to improve their lot since Israel controls what happens in Palestine. Palestinians do deserve leaders and government better than the ones Israelis elect, but this will not come without freedom from Israeli rule or the ability to vote in Israeli elections.

Such statements are also meant to suggest that Palestinians are somehow “not ready” to govern themselves. This is an offensive, paternalistic, prejudicial argument, it has also been utilized by virtually every colonial power seeking to maintain control over a colony. It was used by Britain in India (and in North America), it was used by the apartheid-era South African government, it was employed by France in Africa and South-East Asia.

Appeals to Diplomacy and two-state process

The two-state peace process has been underway for over 30 years now. Many argue that it should be given yet another chance and success is right around the corner if only we could get enough well-tailored suits into the right set of conference rooms in Geneva or New York. As you’ve likely gathered, I don’t believe this is a persuasive argument but there are numerous of threads to this argument that are worth covering.

Palestinians refused the state offered them in 1948

At the end of the First World War, Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were made mandated territories by the League of Nations. The relevant provisions of the League’s Covenant (Article 22) referred to these territories as “certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire [which] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative assistance and advice by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. All but one of these Mandated Territories (categorized as class “A” Mandates) whose independence was provisionally recognized became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to “the rendering of administrative assistance and advice” the Mandate had as a primary aim the implementation of the “Balfour Declaration” issued by the British Government in 1917, conveying that Government’s support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. This commitment was included in the mandate for Palestine, formally allotted in 1922 to Great Britain by the League of Nations, without having ascertained the wishes of the Palestinian people, as required by the Covenant. — UN report The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917–1988

The partition of Palestine was opposed by Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. The partition was favored by the Jewish community in Palestine and others who supported the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. Though there were opponents too, including Benjamin Netanyahu’s father who wanted Jewish dominion over all Palestine. See my prior diary: Silly Palestinians, if only they’d accepted the state offered in 1947. I will focus on the UN general assembly vote for partition of Palestine in 1947 here.

The UN vote to partition Palestine was heavily influenced by supporters of zionism who aggressively lobbied for partition. The initial vote was scheduled for November 26, but wasdelayed to gather additional support for partition (a two-thirds majority was required) and evaluate one-state solutions presented by Arab delegations and advocated by Palestinians. There were questions about whether the UN had the authority to impose partition and a proposal to refer that question to the International Court of Justice failed by one vote (20–21).

The Indian delegation reported offers of bribes and threats of physical intimidation to coerce a vote for partition. India eventually voted against partition, many Latin American and Asia nations chose to abstain rather than run afoul of the US or spark internal divisions between those who opposed colonization and others who favored the Zionist cause. The vote was delayed thrice when it was clear the required majority did not exist, and other nations, including Cuba reported being pressured. New Zealand, Holland, Luxemburg and Belgium changed their votes from abstain to yes on paritition on the day of the vote. New Zealand switched despite misgivings about the absence of an enforcement mechanism.

But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases… let us not think that the terror is a result of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s propaganda — this helps but the source of opposition is there among the Arabs. — David Ben-Gurion, Address at the Mapai Political Committee (7 June 1938) as quoted in Flapan, Simha, Zionism and the Palestinians.

The Liberian government switched its vote after Firestone’s president called Liberian officials (the company had extensive operations in Liberia, the delegate reported receiving physical threats. The Phillipine vote switched after US officials warned they might see a stop to foreign aid. The Haitian delegation reported receiving threats of US sanctions, and offers of loans, they voted for partition. The Thai delegation had voted against partition in committee, their credentials were cancelled the day after. The US Congress debated the pressure applied on various states and whether this compromised the vote. Bernard Baruch (special adviser to Wilson and FDR during the two world wars) told the French that post-war reconstruction aid would be withheld if France voted against partition. US Senators with influence over foreign policy sent telegrams to wavering foreign governments urging a vote for partition. Congress was concurrently debating a $590 million aid bill which included $60 million to China.

The Latin American delegations were heavily influenced by US support for the policy, they made up 13 of the eventual 33 yes votes. The US’s Western European allies voted for the partition (this was two years after the war and they were all reliant on US post-war reconstruction aid), they represented 8 votes. The Chinese delegation eventually abstained despite enormous misgivings (they had been an ally in WW-II and expected aid). The Soviet Union and four Eastern European states (recently liberated/allied with the US) also voted for partition. US/Soviety agreement on the measure was key in persuading many others. No Asian country apart from the Phillipines (which switched its vote after US pressure was applied) voted for partition.

The eventual vote was 33–13 with 10 abstaining. If two votes had turned to No (as Haiti, Liberia and the Phillipines had indicated), the resolution would have failed. Some delegations are said to have abstained instead of casting no votes, (Ethiopia, which was heavily indebted to the US and China which had been liberated from Japanese rule by US forces). There were attempts by the Arab delegation to influence or lobby for votes as well. But they were ineffective since they had little to offer or withhold in return.

We accepted the UN resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept? — David Ben-Gurion address to the Israeli cabinet (12 May 1948), as quoted in “One day that shook the world” by Ellli Wohlgelernter, in The Jerusalem Post (30 April 2002)

The vote is often presented as a clear mandate, after all it was 33–13. But a two-thirds majority was required for the resolution to pass so it was closer than it appears. This siteprovides the final vote count as a response to the claim that the “UN unjustly partitioned Palestine”. On the basis of the numerical vote, they decide this is a myth. The information on the final tally is accurate, but incomplete since there is no discussion of how flawed the vote itself was. Without US pressure, there would have been no partition of Palestine as Latin American delegates said quite clearly two weeks prior to the vote (though the Brazilian Aranha presiding over the GA acclaimed partition, saying “We will reach peace through truth”). Without stalling, the vote would have occurred days earlier and the resolution defeated. Alternate plans would also have been defeated, partly because it was not clear that the UN had the authority to decide Palestine’s fate without consulting Palestinians.

The US media was pretty clear as to how it viewed the lobbying, here’s the NY Times:

The United States delegation played its part in persuading the delegate in question not to present the motion for recommittal, and supporters of partition agreed that, after long hesitation, it had sincerely done its best to obtain Assembly approval of partition.

But it wasn’t beyond asking why more countries did not follow the US lead:

It was still difficult to account for the fact that Greece, which otherwise followed United States leadership throughout the long Assembly, voted against partition and that some Latin American countries abstained.

Domestic politics played a role in Truman’s decision to back partition aggressively. There was concern that the Democratic Party would attract fewer Jewish votes and fewer contributions unless Truman was seen to be ardently in support of the partition and Israel. The results of a 1946 by-elections were viewed by the Democratic party machine as clear indication of the risks. Some of the lobbying had begun during FDR’s tenure years earlier. There were countervailing concerns that US meddling in Palestine would compromise oil interests in the region. These concerns about businesses and personnel in the region helped stall efforts to get US troops on the ground, fearing that would spark “a holy war might spread from one end of the desert to the other.” The expense of maintaining Jewish refugees (DPs or displaced persons) in camps in Europe along with their wishes for eventual resettlement were discussed as factors favoring partition.

There had been pressure to change specifics of the partition as well. The State department initially opposed the allocation of the Arab city of Jaffa and much of the Negev to Israel. This was reversed after pressure from Zionist groups. The State department and various other delegations knew the UN would not be able to enforce the terms of the partition (a prophetic assessment) and suggested a US or UN trusteeship of Palestine. This was again overruled by the White House.

The Arab delegations had proposed many alternatives to partition, including federal and cantonal structures with provisions for limited Jewish emigration and full protection for all minorities. These received support from various participants, including FDR’s son, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., former advisor to the State Department on Middle-Eastern affairs. They were uniformly oppossed by the US and its allies. Various delegations expressed concerns over the lack of an armed force to maintain the peace and enforce an orderly partition (notably New Zealand). They too were ignored. The Egyptian representative said “if Arab blood is shed in Palestine, Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world despite all the sincere efforts of the governments concerned to prevent such reprisals” which was widely interpreted as a threat. Various countries opposed to partition noted it was a violation of the UN charter affirming the right to self-determination.

Harry Truman eventually characterized the lobbying efforts in these terms:

“The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed me.” — Harry Truman, 1946–52: Years of Trial and Hope, Volume 2

The Arab delegation noted the disparities in those voting for partition and those that did not. Luxembourg (population 296,000), Panama (pop. 893,000), Costa Rica (pop. 890,000) and Iceland (pop. 143,000) voted for partition under various forms of American inducement. Each of their votes counted for as much as India’s (pop. 370 million) No vote.

If you’ve followed along, you might also be wondering why there were so few votes cast. After all, the UN today has 193 members. That is perhaps the even more damning knock against the partition resolution. Here’s a map of the UN in 1945, (effectively the same as in 1947 when the vote were cast).

The countries in light blue are the founding members. The countries in grey were not members. The countries in dark blue were colonies or protectorates of the ones in light blue, they did not have a vote. Virtually all African nations were dis-enfanchised and did not vote. Neither did much of South-East Asia. They were all colonies of the European states intent on obtaining the UN imprimatur to partition another colony.

Four African nations did vote. Egypt voted against partition. Ethiopia abstained (reportedly after pressured by the US to which it was indebted), Liberia voted for partition (changing its vote after being pressed by the US and the Firestone company). Apartheid South Africa voted for partition as well.

Today, votes in favor of Palestine in the General Assembly have only two states voting consistently against them, Israel and the US.

Back in 1947, some delegates did understand the principles at stake, and said as much:

In the first place, all their claims are based primarily, on the Balfour Declaration, the root of the problem with which we are faced today. But the Balfour Declaration, in our opinion, is not legally valid because in it the British Government was offering something which did not belong to it and which it had no right to give. But even if we accept the Declaration as valid, the course of action that is contemplated goes far beyond its scope. The Balfour Declaration promised to the Jews a “national home” in Palestine, without prejudice to the civil rights of the Arab population; but it did not offer a free State, the creation of which must necessarily prejudice those very rights which the Declaration was trying to safeguard. Partition is also illegal when considered in the light of the League of Nations Mandate.One may question whether the League of Nations had any right to do what it did, namely, to order the establishment of a Jewish national home, with all the serious demographical and political consequences involved, in a foreign territory, without the consent of the inhabitants. But even if we admit that fact, the partition which we are now considering contravenes the terms of the Mandate, article 6 of which provides that the rights and position of the non-Jewish population of Palestine shall not be prejudiced. And it can hardly be maintained that these rights are not prejudiced when the indigenous population is to be deprived of more than half of its territory and hundreds of thousands of Arabs are to be placed under a Jewish Government, and forced to become a subject people in a land where they were once the rulers. Thirdly, we consider the plan illegal because it is inconsistent with the self-determination of peoples, an essential principle of the Covenant of the League of Nations. In fact, the plan would mean deciding the fate of a nation with-out consulting it on the matter, and depriving it of half the national territory which it had held for many centuries.Moreover, leaving aside the Covenant of the League of Nations, if we turn to the Charter of the United Nations, we find that the plan violates its provisions too; for the principle of self-determination of peoples is recognized in paragraph 2 of Article 1 in a general manner, and reaffirmed in paragraph, b of Article 76 which states, in connexion with Non-Self-Governing Territories, that the Trusteeship System (equivalent to the League Mandate) shall take into account “the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”. We are not convinced by the argument which has been put forward to the effect that Palestine is not a State and therefore is not subject to international law, because these provisions speak of peoples, not States, and there can be no doubt that the inhabitants of Palestine are a people. — Ernesto Dihigo y López Trigo, Cuban delegate (later ambassador to US) in the UN debate on parititon of Palestine.

So to say the Palestinians or Arabs “rejected” the 1948 partition obscures many aspects of the partition and the UN vote. The UN partition proposal was largely an American led effort (aided by Europeans) to impose a settlement desired by zionists onto the population of Palestine. Among other things, Palestinians objected to the allocation of 56% of mandate Palestine to the Jewish state (Jews constituted 33% of the population but additional refugees were expected) and the inducements offered for votes at the UN. We should not be surprised that Palestinians and their Arab neighbors resented this process and rejected it. Arab delegates also objected to the re-settlement of refugees from what they perceived as a European war in Israel and noted that various Jewish communities in Arab countries would face risks from riots. Predictions of widespread violence included threats of holy war/Jihadfrom numerous Arab voices and did not help the Arab case. A day after the vote, the US embassy in Damascus was attacked by a mob that tore off the US flag.

“A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. … I am certain that we well not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreements with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. . . [If the Arabs refuse] we shall have to speak to them in another language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state.” — David Ben Gurion [As quoted in Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle (pp 190)]

Today, the US Congress condemns efforts to base any peace agreement on the partition plan. Israeli forces conquered territory that had been allocated for the Palestinian state in 1948, (taking the North and shrinking the West Bank/Gaza) and expelled large numbers of Palestinians. The UN mediator (Folke Bernadotte) sent to observe the partition wasassassinated reportedly on the orders of a man who went on to become Prime Minister of Israel (Yitzhak Shamir). The investigation went nowhere, and those arrested were released within months.

US involvement in Palestine has never been impartial and most have known this since the beginning. That includes the UK, which held the original mandate for Palestine. The United Kingdom abstained in the UN vote. But debated the vote in Parliament:

I want to quote from the “Philadelphia Record” of 3rd December, 1947: Only a few people knew it, but President Truman cracked down harder on his State Department than ever before to swing United Nations votes for the partition of Palestine. Truman called acting Secretary of State Bob Lovett over to the White House on Wednesday and again Friday, warning him he would demand a full explanation if nations which usually line up with the United States failed to do so on Palestine. Truman had in mind the fact that such countries as Liberia” — which, incidentally, was anti-partitionist on 26th November — wholly dependent on the United States; Greece, which would fall overnight without American aid;” — she voted against partition — Haiti” — which was against partition one night and for it the next — which always follows Washington’s lead; and Ethiopia, also indebted to the United States, were stepping out of line on Palestine. Half a dozen Latin-American countries were doing likewise, and Truman had inside word that the reason was secret sabotage by certain State Department officials. Mrs. Roosevelt was among those who urged Truman to get busy … In the end, a lot of people used their influence to whip voters into line. Harvey Firestone, who monopolises the rubber plantations of Liberia, got busy with the Liberian Government. Adolph Berle, Adviser to the President of Haiti, swung that vote, Frieda Kirchwey, Editor of the Nation, called Foreign Minister Cal Berenson of New Zealand on the Trans-Pacific telephone and won New Zealand’s vote. China’s Ambassador Wellington Koo warned his Government that he would resign if China failed to take a stand on Palestine. He did not succeed. French Ambassador Bonnet pleaded with his crisis-laden Government for partition, despite Moslem threats in North Africa which face harrassed France. He did succeed. However, the two men who swung the most important influence were Foreign Minister Evatt of Australia, who was defeated for the Presidency of the United Nations, and his friend Oswaldo Aranha, who defeated him — both of whom worked together to put across Palestine partition. Had the vote been taken on 26th November partition would have been defeated. It was delayed until 29th November while the pressure was put on, and so it was carried through. That is the background of what is supposed to be a fair and proper decision. When it was discussed whether the United Nations could legally decide this problem the vote in favour of United Nations legality was only carried by 21 votes to 20. In other words, very nearly 50 per cent. of the nations. […] Having said that, and put that on record, let me say that the Arabs still want a peaceful solution. They still believe that if somebody would take the lead, a way would be found out of the difficulties. They have offered every kind of federalisation, and they have offered security to the Jews, with whom they intensely desire to live at peace; but they are not going to agree to partition of any kind whatever, and they wonder if it is not possible for an approach to be made between the Americans and the Arabs or the Arabs and the Jews, even at this late hour, in order to prevent what will certainly be a long and bitter period of bloodshed. — Richard Stokes, (MP, Ipswich 1938–1957) from Hansard’s House of Commons debate, December 11, 1947 on Palestine

The lobbying continued well after the vote, heading into the parition on August 1948. British vacillation on partition was roundly denounced in the US. There were suggestions that Truman might face a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination if the US changed its position on partition towards a UN/US trusteeship (the State department preference). 41 Democrats wrote a letter to the State department protesting the “lack of vigor” in supporting partition, asking for arms shipments to Jewish forces.

Palestinians do not recognize Israel’s right to exist

The PLO recognized Israel in 1993, Arafat sent an official letter to Yitzhak Rabin that stated:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. […] In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.

Hamas does not recognize Israel, but has on multiple occassions proposed a long-term truce with Israel based on the pre-1967 borders.

This is yet another distraction, since no government of Israel has recognized Palestine though135 nations have. The official platform of Likud (the ruling coalition) does not accept Palestinian sovereignity over the West Bank (Judea/Samaria):

Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

This position has never been officially repudiated though on occassion, Likud leaders havemade speeches saying they might in the future accept a certain form of Palestinian self-government short of sovereignity. At other times, they have said they will not permitPalestinians to form a state.

Likud has ruled Israel for 30 of the 48 years since 1967.

Related Diaries:

- Weekend read: Excerpts from UK House of Commons debate on Palestinian statehood

US support for Israel

If Israel’s policies are so wrong, why do all 100 senators support it?

US government support for an entity should hardly be considered a validation of the regime (see Saudi Arabia, Indonesia under Suharto, South African apartheid-era governments, Chile under Pinochet, Egypt under Hosni Mubarak).

US support for Israel has seen its ups and downs. It was instrumental in passing the UN resolution advocating a partition of Palestine (see discussion above on the partition). However, as US strategic interests in the middle-east changed, support was less than automatic. During the Suez crisis, Eisenhower forced Israel (and the UK/France) to return captured Egyptian territory in 1957 (potential Soviet intervention and fears about the view in former European colonies impacted policy). In 1982, Reagan condemned the actions of the Begin regime in Lebanon, deliberately using the word “holocaust”. Famously, George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state James Baker is reported to have said about support for Isrel “F — k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway”.

More recently, post 9–11, an ideological alliance between Israeli right-wing hawks and Republican neo-cons has influenced US policy in the middle-east. This is the source of much contention and may be changing the nature of US/Israeli links and how each of the two major parties look at Israel. The succession of right-wing governments that have run Israel in recent years have colored perception of Israeli policies, but the changing views also have to do with the left’s views of settlement activity, disproportionate bombings in Gaza and human rights concerns. Some GOP support for Israel also derives from the evangelical wing of the party, which appears to support Israel based on biblical prophecy, apocalyptic visions and plain old religious jingoism. That said, there are pro-Palestinian voices within the evangelical community too.

Related Diaries:

- Liberal Zionism’s impending demise: as narrated by the NYTimes magazine.

- Obama is being “nasty” to Netanyahu says the Anti-Defamation League

- Tom Cotton likes Bibi’s Iran “strategy” and hearts collective punishment too.

- House GOP committee chair blows dog-whistles for Israeli settlers, says West Bank is “Judea/Samaria”

Unilateral moves by Palestinians are unhelpful

The UN resolution of 1948 divided mandatory Palestine into two entities. One Israel, was highly militarized and declared itself a state unilaterally (i.e. without Palestinian agreement/acceptance). The other too has only achieved statehood via unilateral declaration (over 150 countries recognize the state of Palestine).

A significant portion of Israeli leadership has never intended to return control of the West Bank to any Palestinian led government and has acknowledged as much since the 1970s. The reasoning revolves around defense. Without control of the West Bank of the Jordan and the hills of Hebron, the IDF has limited ability to defend the plains on which most Israelis live.

Israeli leaders have been making “unilateral” moves for decades, so it is remarkable that their protests about the Palestinians doing the same are given a hearing.

Related:

- The Two-State Solution is a Zombie

Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Labour MP): Israel itself was established and recognised by unilateral act. The Palestinians had no say whatever over the recognition of the state of Israel, still less a veto. I support the state of Israel. I would have supported it at the end of the 1940s. But it cannot lie in the mouth of the Israeli Government, of all Governments, to say that they should have a veto over a state of Palestine, when for absolutely certain, the Palestinians had no say whatever over the establishment of the state of Israel. The traditional Labor party doctrine was expressed by Prime Minister Golda Meir in addressing new Soviet immigrants in a meeting on the Golan Heights in September 1971: “the borders are determined by where Jews live, not where there is a line on a map.” The guiding views were elaborated by her Minister of Defense, the influential planner Moshe Dayan, often considered something of a dove. He repeatedly emphasized that the settlements are “permanent,” the basis for “permanent rule” by Israel over the territories: “the settlements are forever, and the future borders will include these settlements as part of Israel.” — Noam Chomsy, Middle East Diplomacy: Continuities and Changes

But there is a two-state peace process, we should let that proceed without outside pressure

The two-state process has been “underway” in some form for the past 40 years (or 70 if you include 1948). Six US administrations (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) have expended resources towards a two-state US-mediated peace-process. LBJ’s administration immediately said Israel had to return the territories captured in 1967 as part of the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Every US administration since has adhered to this formula in some sense, to no effect.

The UN general assembly first proposed and passed (ignoring 1948) a two-state resolution in 1974, which the US voted against. The US continues to vote against UN two-state resolutions (joined by only Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau).

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Labour MP): There were no boundaries when the state of Israel was created, so there should be no prerequisite for the recognition of a Palestinian state.

The US position is that bilateral talks are the way to go. They have resulted in the devolution of municipal control to Palestinian bodies, but only within Gaza and about 20% of the West Bank. Israel retains absolute control of the rest of the West Bank (already shrunk from the plan envisioned in 1948). The closest the parties came to a final resolution was at Taba, when Israeli (Ehud Barak’s administration and Palestinian (Yasser Arafat’s PLO) negotiators had agreed on most terms, including joint sovereignity over Jerusalem. Barak lost the election to Sharon, who had made a much publicized visit to the Temple Mount, triggering the second intifada.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Labour MP): For Israelis, the right of recognition and to self-determination are not the subject of negotiation but something they have demanded as a right and that they were given as a right more than 65 years ago.

Expulsions and Everyone Else Did The Same Thing

This is an argument about the establishment of nation-states along ethnic/religious lines. Somewhat similar events occured across Eastern/Central Europe (and in many other places) a century ago, and in other settler-colonies (USA, Australia, Canada etc.) prior to that.

Israeli forces did not expel Palestinians

A full treatment of the events of the war of 1948 can be found in Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe’s work.

After 1948, it was clear to observers that Israeli forces had expelled Palestinians from their homes en masse. By the 1950s, Israeli authorities became rather sensitive to public response to expulsions and attempted to suppress reporting on them. Israel’s Censor Board refused to allow Yitzhak Rabin to publish his account of the expulsions of Palestinians from Lod and Ramle. For many years, Israeli government spokespeople claimed that most Palestinians had abandoned their homes following instructions from Arab leaders to clear out ahead of advancing Arab armies. Erskine Childers challenged this view:

Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was “documented”; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates, names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.

Instead, Erskine found repeated appeals on Arab radio for “everyone to stay at their homes and jobs” and condemnations of “Jewish agents” seeking to “create chaos and panic”. Following news of massacres by Israeli forces, various Palestinians called for the evacuation of women and children from villages. Many villagers evacuated to towns from which they were later expelled (the IDF officer in charge of Nazareth refused such an order). They fully expected to return to their homes when the violence died down. The Israeli decision to prevent this return in 1948 and subsequent actions to destroy hundreds of villages to prevent such return are responsible for the “Palestinian refugee problem”.

At this point, the historical record is quite clear. Expulsions of large numbers of Palestinians by the nascent IDF did occur, and they were done with a specific objective, minimizing the number of Palestinians who would be resident within Israel’s borders. Pro-Israel voices occassionally continue to assert that Palestinians left their homes “incited by their Leaders”.

Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department in 1940. From “A Solution to the Refugee Problem”: “Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries — all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.” — Murray Rothbard: War guilt in the Middle East (1967)

See:

- The day the Nakba arrived at Khirbet Khizeh. (a diary about the powerful Israeli novel Khirbet Khizeh which describes an expulsion)

- Sam Harris’s socially acceptable apologia for killing children, ethnic cleansing & apartheid

Expulsions were the natural result of partition

The UN resolution on the partition contained specific provisions to protect the rights of the population. Including the following text: “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes.”

Israel’s borders as envisaged by the partition plan included 56% of Palestine. Israel’s borders after the armistice encompassed 78% of mandatory Palestine, including the entire north.

Historians are wont to describe the ensuing war as an invasion of Israel by the Arab states, heroically rebuffed by Israel, but since all of the fighting took place on Arab territory, this interpretation is clearly incorrect. — Murray Rothbard: War guilt in the Middle East (1967)

The quote above is not entirely true, since Arab forces (and Palestinian militia) did engage in actions on territory granted to Israel in the UN partition plan. There were attacks on Israeli targets, including attacks by the Egyptian air force on Israeli aircraft and on civilian targets in Tel Aviv. But most of the fighting did occur on the Palestinian side of the fence. A map from Vox might help to visualize the conflict:

The expulsions were a conscious Israeli policy to reduce the Arab population within the borders envisaged by the partition plan and within territory gained during the conflict. They were not inevitable.

700,000 Palestinians were displaced in the conflict, some left voluntarily to escape the fighting, others fled hearing rumors of massacres, and there are well documented incidents where Israeli forces forcibly expelled others. About 150,000 Palestinians remained within Israel’s expanded borders of 78% of mandate Palestine. 10,000 Jews fled their homes as well.

Well so what, the USA also ethnically cleansed Native Americans

This is true. Successive US governments engaged in a systematic campagin to dispossess the indigenous people of North America of their lands and resources.

In 1924, all Native Americans were granted full citizenship and they enjoy all the rights of US citizenship (though more can be done to improve access to the polls).

Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza do not have such rights.

The population transfer in Israel was similar to the Indian partition

The Indian partition is sometimes presented as an analogous event, but it is different in several crucial respects. For one thing, the partition resulted in the creation of two (now three since East Pakistan broke off to become Bangladesh) sovereign states. For another, there were virtually no instances of Indian or Pakistani armed forces forcibly expelling people. Lastly, the Indian partition was not meant to create a home for an immigrant population (from Europe or elsewhere).

The Jewish population of Palestine in 1947 was 630,000. A majority were immigrants who had arrived in the 30s and 40s, fleeing increasing discrimination and war in Europe. In contrast, India’s muslim population had been part of the sub-continental milieu for hundreds of years in relatively stable numbers. The population transfers during the Indian partition were relatively small (though the numbers were significantly larger). 14–15 million people out of a total population of 390 million were displaced, 3–4% of the population (mostly in Punjab and Bengal). 7.8 million Indian Muslims moved to Pakistan, while over 35 million stayed in India (20% were displaced).

In contrast, 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinians (over 80%) were displaced from the territorial extent of Israel in 1947/48. Of the 1.2 million Muslim and Christian Palestinians living in mandate Palestine in 1947, over 60% fled their homes and became refugees when prevented from returning by Israeli forces. The UN registered over 720,000 displaced Palestinians in 1952, but this was an undercount.

The Indian partition was further complicated by the existence of the “princely states”, which acceeded to one or another country. There are some similarities between Israel and Pakistan. Both had avowedly secular founders who wished to create national homes for their communities. Both states have taken on a more religious character over time. Both were attempts to create relatively homogenous homelands from geographies where adherents of various faiths lived. The relative numbers of expulsions/refugees is also similar, most of West Pakistan’s non-Muslim population left the country (Hindu Sindhis are an exception).

Arabs/Palestinians expelled the Jewish populations of Hebron/East Jerusalem

The reference is most likely to the 1929 Hebron massacre, when over 67 Jewish residents of Hebron (including women, young children and at least twelve Americans) were killed in a pogrom. Students in the Slobodka Rabbinical college were targeted by the Arab mob andtorahs were burned. The victims were disproportionately Ashkenazi and there were reports of the mob targeting Zionists, though some survivors also reported being sheltered by Arabs. There were unconfirmed reports of mutilations. The massacre was part of a series of reprisal attacks, rioting, military action by Britain (including arial bombardment of Arab villages) in mandate Palestine which left over 130 Jews and over 100 Arabs dead. 18–20 Jewish residents of the northern town of Safed were killed in another pogrom a few days later.

The massacre is considered a seminal event for the Jewish community in Palestine and some observers believe it transformed relations between the Zionist Jewish immigrants and Mizrahi Jews who had lived in Palestine for centuries (some of whom were descendants of refugees from the Spanish inquisition). It also marked the onset of universal dissatisfaction with the British administration of Palestine, which was seen as impotent or complicit in the pogrom.

The entire Jewish community in Hebron (700 people out of the population of 20,000) wasevacuated by British troops after the 1929 riots and the few who returned were evacuated again during the 1936–39 Arab uprising against British colonization and mass Jewish immigration. There was essentially no Jewish community in Hebron till it was re-established in 1968.

General discontent over the Balfour declaration, and unrest in Jerusalem caused bycompeting claims over the al-Aqsa/Temple Mount complex are accepted as the trigger for the pogrom and the wider rioting (the Shaw Commission report found al-Husseini, the Mufti chosen by the British administration had increased tensions but had not played a direct role in the rioting). There were also reports that a Jewish banker and his family were murdered in the belief this would erase Arab debts to them. The riots hardened lines between Palestinians and the Jewish community in Palestine.

The 1929/1936 riots are sometimes used to support settlements in the West Bank. The claim is that Jewish residents are simply returning to a place from which they were expelled. The question to ask is whether the 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes in 1947–48 (and their descendants) should enjoy similar rights to return to their homes/land as the 600 strong Jewish community (and their descendants) who were evacuated from Hebron.

The only just answer I can settle on is yes. People should be able to live where they wish in safety and security. A lasting peace is only possible when this happens.

“No understanding between you and us is possible unless the Balfour Declaration is nullified. There shall be no understanding before you realize that Falastin is not part of Wild Africa, and murdering people is not as easy as in Rhodesia and the rest of the countries settled by Negroes, who do not put up any resistance.” — Filastin, September 1929

As you evaluate this episode it is important to keep in mind that similar horrific pogroms occur with some regularity. Eight years prior to the Hebron massacre, between 150 and 300 people were killed in race riots in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The vast majority of them were black.

In 1994, Hebron was the scene of another horrific attack, when an American-Israeli doctor named Baruch Goldstein (a follower of Meir Kahane) killed 29 Palestinians and injured 125 others while they were praying at the Ibrahimi Mosque. His grave has become a site of pilgrimage for some, and there are still extremists who publicly support him.

In response, the Israeli authorities closed the street leading to the mosque to Palestinian traffic, impacting all Palestinian businesses along it. There has been constant debate on whether the closure is a punitive measure.

Appeals to empathy

Pro-Israel voices will occassionally seek to present the positive aspects of Israeli society and government to counter Palestinian oppression. Within Israel, such efforts are called hasbara and understood as an attempt to influence the conversation in a way that portrays Israeli political moves and policies, including past actions, in a positive light. Like all societies and countries, Israel has both positive and negative aspects. Some of the more common talking points are:

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East

This is somewhat, but not wholly true. Turkey is a democracy where citizens enjoy many civil liberties. Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia are also democracies to varying degrees. Many other Middle Eastern countries have public elections and non-hereditary leadership. Many of them are flawed in one way or another, but so is Israeli “democracy”.

Israel disenfranchises about 4 million people of Palestinian descent who live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza under Israeli military rule. They cannot vote in the elections for the government that controls their lives and this state of affairs has existed since 1967, or 70% of the time since Israel’s modern founding in 1948.

Israel respects LGBT rights

Israel is undeniably the most liberal Middle-Eastern country when it comes to LGBT rights. However, there is significant opposition/discrimination within Israel towards the LGBT community. Right wing Israeli members of the Knesset have referred to its gay pride parade as a “March of the Beasts” and “abomination march”, and called the LGBT community “abnormal”. There have been violent hate crimes. The history of gay rights in the Middle East as a whole are also more complex than commonly appreciated. The Ottoman empiredecriminalized homosexuality in 1858, when much of the Middle East was under its rule.

It is also crucial to note that institutional protections for LGBT citizens of Israel do not prevent Israeli security forces from targeting Palestinian LGBT individuals. Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet has blackmailed gay Palestinians in the past, putting their lives at risk to turn them into informants. Israel’s intelligence community systematically targets LGBT Palestinians for surveillance and to recruit them as collaborators.

Arabs/Muslims have 30–50 states, Israelis/Jews have one

This is an exercise in obfuscation. Many Palestinians would identify as Arab, but that does not mean they want to pack up their bags and live in a random “Arab” state. They want to live in the land that is their home and that of their parents and grand-parents. Many Spaniards would identify themselves as “European”, but have no interest in decamping for Lithuania. Though Spaniards have the right to live and work in Lithuania if they wish, the status of Palestinians in other “Arab states” is much weaker. Palestinians are treated as stateless refugees in most countries, though Jordan has granted citizenship to the Palestinian refugees within its borders .

Secondly, many Palestinians are Christian, and some practice other faiths. About 10% of the Palestinian population prior to 1947 was Christian. There are over one million Palestinian Christians alive today, many in diaspora communities across the world.

The one thing that Americans must not be lured into believing is that Israel is a “little” “underdog” against its mighty Arab neighbors. Israel is a European nation with a European technological standard battling a primitive and undeveloped foe; furthermore Israel has behind it, feeding it, and financing it, the massed-might of countless Americans and West Europeans, as well as the Leviathan governments of the United States and its numerous allies and client states. Israel is no more a “gallant underdog” because of numerical inferiority than British Imperialism was a “gallant underdog” when it conquered far more populous lands in India, Africa, and Asia. — Murray Rothbard: War guilt in the Middle East (1967)

Israel was founded because of the Holocaust, Jews have no other place to go

This is a rather complicated subject, but a few basic facts should be clarified. The Zionist project to settle Jews in Palestine began in the 1890s. The intention was to create a Jewish state along the lines of relatively homogeneous ethno-religious states that arose in Europe as the Austro-Hungarian empire decayed over the next few decades. With the rise of ethnic nationalism, diaspora communities like the Jews (the Roma are another example) encountered increasing attempts to remove them from the national identity of places and cultures that they considered home for centuries. The holocaust changed the views of many among the Jewish community in Palestine, and injected a genuine urgency to create a national home for other Jews. Some who might have been unwilling to resort to violence and expulsion now felt compelled to do so in the interest of creating a secure home for their co-religionists.

However, it is important to note that more people of Jewish faith live outside of Israel than in it. Jewish communities have made a home for themselves in the US (which has a similar number of Jews as Israel). Descendants and survivors of the holocaust in Western Europe and the US outnumber those in Israel. The majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi or Sephardic, i.e. from Asia or Africa, though the political and economic elite are still largely Ashkenazi (i.e. European).

As with all diaspora communities, Jews in the US and Western Europe find themselves faced with many pressures to assimilate into the culture. This pressue creates a raging debate over authenticity and how long a distinct Jewish identity can survive outside of a national home like Israel. There are no easy answers to such questions and many other communities face similar challenges. Including for example American Indian tribes and the Sami peoples of Europe’s sub-arctic regions.

Though this topic must be approached with much sensitivity, we can say a few things in good confidence and fairness:

- the foundation of Israel in 1948 was the culmination of a long process, hastened somewhat by the world’s horror at the Holocaust.

- many Jews (among other persecuted minorities) have made a home for themselves in the US, Latin America and western Europe.

- The genocide perpetrated by the Nazis during WW-2 cannot (and should not) be used to excuse or justify the persecution and dispossession of Palestinians today (or in 1947–48).

Related Diaries:

- The failure of the Evian conference and Likud’s insistence on a “Jewish State”.

- Israel plans to build West Bank settlements to house Jewish immigrants from France

- Henk Zanoli 91, helped save a 12 year old child from the Nazis and Dutch man 91 returns ‘Righteous Among the Nations’ award after his family was slaughtered in Gaza

Arab states expelled millions of Jews

This is a complex topic, prone to a lot of incomplete allegations on either side. There were definitely instances where Jews residing in the Middle East and North Africa were forced to leave, some after pogroms and threats from avaricious neighbors or authorities who wished to impound their property. It is important to recognize that this is not the “fault” of the Palestinian people.

It is also important to note that Middle-Eastern Jews (Mizrahim) were also “pulled” by the Israeli state which was keen to augment the Jewish population. The circumstances surrounding each individual and their family’s decision to leave were varied and no universal explanation is entirely valid. Many Mizrahi immigrants remain conflicted about their departure from places and cultures they had called home for generations. Some have complained of enduringracism, disdain for their culture and worse in Israel.

Most Jewish immigration from non-European countries occured in 1949 or later, i.e. after the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and villages in 1948. This statement of fact is not meant to justify the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands, only to clarify the sequence of events since they are sometimes presented as if they happened concurrently or the Mizrahi immigration to Israel preceded the expulsion of Palestinians.

Only 4,000 Mizrahim moved to Israel in 1948 from all of Asia. 71k immigrated in 1949, 58k in 1950 and 102k in 1951 (when the Baghdadi Jewish community was evacuated). The Jewish community in Egypt only emigrated during the Suez Crisis of 1956. In some cases (particularly in later decades from countries such as India), the motivation may have been primarily economic.

Some historians have suggested the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 was pre-meditated, pointing to internal Hagannah discussions of Plan Dalet, and analyses by Zionist leadersof the political situation in Palestine, going back to the 1800s. In any case, Israeli authorities razed hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground to prevent the return of their residents. The homes of Palestinians in urban centers were re-assigned to Jewish immigrants.

As an aside, conspiracy theories about Israel abounded across the Middle East in the later 1940s. They were given a credulous hearing by people who had just seen a historically Arab province/country turned over to Israeli settlers, seemingly with the connivance of major western powers and the UN. This view lingers in diatribes against “Zionism” within the Middle-East.

Assuming the right of peoples to self-determination, Arab Palestine was not for the British to give to the Zionists. Finally, justice does not presuppose that if A oppresses B, then B may oppress C; thus, the genocidal policies against Jews by German Nazis would not justify Jewish Zionist punishment of Palestinian Arabs. Victims of the Holocaust have claims for compensation and territory against former supporters of Nazism, not against guiltless Palestinian peasants. The same principle repudiates the population-exchange theory which asserts that, because Arab states expelled Jews from their Arab homelands after the Zionists expelled Arab Palestinians from their homeland, everyone has “gotten even.” Collective guilt of all Arabs cannot be based on acts by some Arab states; Zionists cannot justify their initial expulsion of Palestinians because Arab states (not Palestinian Arabs) later carried out repressive policies against Jews. — Stephen Halbrook: Alienation of a Home-land: How Palestine Became Israel From a Jewish-Zionist point of view the immigration of the Jews of the Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the fulfillment of a national dream — the “ingathering of the exiles.” Since the 1930s the Jewish Agency had sent agents, teachers, and instructors to the various Arab countries in order to propagate Zionism. They organized Zionist youth movements there and illegal immigration to Palestine. Israel then made great efforts to absorb these immigrants into its national, political, social, and economic life. For the Palestinian Arabs the flight of 1948 was completely different. It resulted in an unwanted national calamity that was accompanied by unending personal tragedies. The result was the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic. No wonder that the Arabs look at what happened very differently. — Yehoshua Porath: Mrs. Peters’ Palestine (NY Review of Books, 1986)

This is not strictly true. Many Mizrahi (“Oriental” in Porath’s dated phrasing) Jews continued to pine for the homes they had made in other Arab countries. One such story is related in Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land: The Triump and Tragedy of Israel.

Related Diaries:

- Iran is home to 10–20 thousand Jews. What’s their life like?

Israel is in a tough neighborhood

This contention is often advanced as a justification for harsh security actions, pre-emptive strikes or assassinations by Israel. The claim is rarely made or accepted in the opposite direction. We seldom hear the proponents of this claim saying Iran is justified in maintaining an extensive military program because “it is in a tough neighborhood”. Nor do we hear a defense of Fatah or Hamas arming themselves or conducting raids because “they’re dealing with a tough, militant neighbor in Israel”.

Most of the region’s instability can be traced to European/American meddling which includes the Sykes-Picot agreement, US/Soviet support for various pliant strongmen and a desire to cotnrol strategic trade routes (Suez) and resources (oil). Yet, part of what makes their immediate neighborhood “tough” are the actions of successive Israeli governments, which have sought to acquire strategic or desirable territory starting in 1948. This continued in 1957 towards the South (Suez Crisis) and again in 1967 towards the West & South (Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai during the Six-Day War). Attempts were made to put a pliable regime in place during the (1982 Lebanon war, an intervention on behalf of the Phalangist militia. Palestinian refugee populations (created by the 1948 and 1967 expulsions) have been a destabilizing force in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Israel has been a lasting source of instability in the region (though by no means the only one).

The implicit argument being made (whether the proponents know it or not), is that Israel is a “civilized” country in a region populated by “savages” and is therefore justified in resorting to disproprotionate responses, belligerance etc. This is very similar to arguments made in most settler-colonies to justify the expulsion and oppression of indigenous peoples. The samestereotypes were promoted in the US during conflicts with Native Americans. A similar argument is made to explain away enormous civilian casualties from our own wars overseas.

Perhaps the clearest exposition of this “tough neighborhood” argument is the short eulogy Moshe Dayan gave on the death of Roi Rotenberg. Roi was the 21 year old security officer of Kibbutz Nahal near Gaza and he was killed by Palestinian gunmen on April 29, 1956.

Yesterday at dawn Roi was murdered. The quiet of the spring morning blinded him, and he did not see those who sought his life hiding behind the furrows. Let us not today cast blame on his murderers. What can we say against their terrible hatred of us? For eight years now, they have sat in the refugee camps of Gaza and have watched how, before their very eyes, we have turned their land and villages, where they and their forefathers previously dwelled, into our home. It is not among the Arabs of Gaza but in our own midst that we must seek Roi’s blood. How did we shut our eyes and refuse to look squarely at our fate and see, in all its brutality, the fate of our generation? Have we forgotten that this group of young people dwelling at Nahal Oz is bearing the heavy gates of Gaza on its shoulders? Beyond the furrow of the border surges a sea of hatred and revenge, revenge that looks towards the day when the calm will blunt our alertness, the day when we shall listen to the ambassadors of malign hypocrisy who call upon us to lay down our arms. To us and us alone cries out Roy’s blood, from his mangled body. Because we swore a thousand times that our blood will not be spilled lightly — and yet again yesterday we were tempted, we listened and we believed. Let us take stock with ourselves. We are a generation of settlement and without the steel helmet and the gun’s muzzle we will not be able to plant a tree and build a house. Let us not fear to look squarely at the hatred that consumes and fills the lives of hundreds of Arabs who live around us. Let us not drop our gaze, lest our arms weaken. That is the fate of our generation. That is our choice — to be ready and armed, tough and hard — or else the sword shall fall fro our hands and our lives will be cut short. Young Roi, who went forth from Tel Aviv to build his home at the gates of Gaza to be a bulwark from his people — the light in his heart blinded his sight and he failed to hear the voice of the murderer waiting in ambush. The gates of Gaza proved too heavy for his shoulders, and overcame him. — [Moshe Dayan’s Enduring Gaza Eulogy: This Is the Fate of Our Generation, Chemi Shalev in Haaretz July 20, 2014 or Doomed to Fight, Aluf Benn in Haaretz, May 9, 2011]

Dayan’s eulogy has many redeeming qualities, one is plainly admitting why Israel finds the neighborhood “tough”.

Related Diaries:

- Thomas Friedman daydreams about Israel and Iran.

- The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East

Christian/Jewish holy sites will be desecrated under Palestinian rule

Jewish extremists have on a number of occassion, desecrated mosques and churches. The attacks have involved arson, graffiti and the desecration of graves. Israeli authorities have been remarkably lax in prosecuting these attacks, many of which are conducted by the “price-tag” settler movement.

Palestinians Muslims and Christians lived together for decades and centuries prior to the establishment of Israel. Palestine is a Mediterranean culture, influenced by all the regions within a few day’s sail of it’s shores. That is the root of its cosmopolitan nature. There were urban/rural divides, the urban elite was tied to the Ottoman empire as a political entity that ruled over many disparate people prior to WW-1.

Settler-Colonialism and undermining Palestinian identity

This group of arguments is properly understood in the long tradition of colonial rhetoric and its embedded biases/privilege/ethno-centricism. They are similar in intent and impact to founding myths concerning the “discovery” of the Americas by Columbus, the arrival of “civilization” on Australian shores, characterizations of Native Americans (or other indigenous peoples) as “savages”, and branding their traditions/nationhood/legal systems/property rights as somehow less worthy of respect.

Pro-Israel voices will sometimes point to the history of settler-colonialism in the US and say “you did the same thing”. This is a powerful critique. One cannot counter arguments for Israeli settler-colonialism unless one has come to terms with our own country’s (mis)treatment of its indigenous population. Incidentally, this parallel is why Steven Salaita was appointed to a program in Indian American studies. This concordance was noted at a very early stage by Zionists (advocates for re-establishing a sovereign Jewish nation in Palestine):

They [Palestinian Arabs] feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies. […] Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel.” — Ze’ev Jabotinsky (The Iron Wall, 1923)

There is no such thing as Palestine

There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. — Golda Meir, As quoted in Sunday Times (15 June 1969) also in Washington Post (16 June 1969)

This argument seeks to conflate the political organization of the area with the self-determined identity of the people who inhabited it and their rights as individuals. Palestinians considered themselves Palestinians both during the British mandate, and prior to that under Ottoman rule. That the political entity (as recognized by Europeans) may have had a different name, or been larger than the region is irrelevant to the rights of individuals who inhabit the area. Manhattanites would be distressed if they were forced from their homes to Syracuse and told this was justified because they were New Yorkers and there is no political entity named “Manhattan” (both the borough and county are named “New York”).

Palestine is a Greco-Roman term for the region/nation called Philistine in the Hebrew bible. The Arabic term, “Filastin” has the same origin. A newspaper named Filastin was published in Palestine from 1911 to 1967. Israeli leaders briefly considered using Palestine/Filastin as the Arabic name for Israel. Prior to 1948, the region was called Palestine by all, including the mayor of Tel Aviv departing for Palestine.

Denying or diminishing the existence of a people as a people is common in settler-colonialist endeavors. During the settlement of the Americas and Australia, the political structure and national identities of the indigenous people were denied and questioned (though the US constitution was profoundly influenced by Native American political organization).

In any case, there is a country called Palestine today. It is recognized and has bilateral relations with 135 other nations, and has non-member observer state status at the UN. The EU Parliament passed a resolution supporting the recognition of Palestine, as has the UK House of Commons. Palestine is under military occupation by the neighboring state of Israel and its borders are not defined.

The implication of Golda Meir’s statement is that because there was no country called Palestine in the past, there should therefore be no country called Palestine in the future. Let’s take that thought to it’s logical conclusion.

Let’s assume (incorrectly) that there’s never been a country named Palestine in the past, and the implicit suggestion is that there should therefore not be any country named Palestine in the future. What then is the proposal for the 4 million individuals who live in the West Bank and Gaza? Permanent military occupation? Expulsion to other places that presumably did exist as countries in the commenter’s view? Equal rights in a country called Israel? Unless one can answer these questions, this is a throw-away comment that has the added flaw of being hopelessly inaccurate. You could just as easily say “before the British arrived, there never was a country called India”. That is technically true since Hindustan/Bharat are the closest terms ever used for states that spanned the sub-continent. Yet it is completely irrelevant to the question of a population’s right to self-determination.

Related:

- Weekend read: Excerpts from UK House of Commons debate on Palestinian statehood

Palestine was a barren desert before Israelis arrived

This is a lie. British Mandatory Palestine in 1890 had a population of 532,000 spread out over roughly 26,500 sq km (42,000 of them were Jews, mostly orthodox who had been in Palestine for generations). Mandate Palestine had roughly the area of Maryland and was 10% larger than Vermont and New Hampshire. Maryland had a population of one million in 1890, New Hampshire had 376,000 and Vermont 322,000. Much of the population was concentrated in and around important towns like Jaffa, Jerusalem, Hebron, Haifa, Bethlehem, Nazareth.

Since 1948, there have been deliberate attempts to erase Palestinian identity and history from Israel. This included the demolition of hundreds of villages depopulated of their residents during the 1948 expulsion/exodus. This was done both to ensure the people could not return, and to “forget” they were ever there. Zochrot (an Israeli human rights organization) publishes the interactive map to razed Palestinian villages, the iNakba App. The JNF (Jewish National Fund) has had a long-running campaign to plant trees in Israel. In many cases, these have been planted over the ruins of Palestinian villages. Israeli planners have also been accused of building roads over former Palestinian villages to destroy the ruins.

The PLO argued that the theft of their Research Center’s library in 1982 by the IDF was part of this effort, though it’s more likely the Israelis hoped to find intellignce information there. In many other cases, there is simply a lack of resources or interest in Palestinian history, rather than active suppression. This too is rather similar to other settler-colonial enterprises. In the US, appreciation for the oral history and traditions of Native Americans continued to be rather sparse through the middle of this century.

We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here. In considerable areas of the country we bought the lands from the Arabs. Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Haneifs and Kefar Yehoshua in the place of Tell Shaman. There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. — Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. [as quoted in Said, The Question of Palestine, also at camera.org). Said notes that the total land area purchased by Jews in Palestine was about 6%. This statement is often misquoted without the words “we bought the lands from the Arabs”.] Palestinian Arabs were not nomads but agriculturalists; long before Israel, they “made the desert bloom.” The “nomad” theory was convenient Zionist propaganda, and nothing more. Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs are “savages” because they live miserable lives in hovels on the desert; but they do so because — one and a half million of them — they were driven out of their homes and properties by the Zionists, and they remain in dire poverty as refugees. Miss Rand’s strictures are chillingly reminiscent of the English who drove the Irish out of their farms and lands by force, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and then looked down their noses at the “wild, savage” Irishmen who unaccountably spent their lives wandering around the forests. — Murray Rothbard, Rand on the Middle East (1971)

All “Palestinians” are nomadic Arabs or recent immigrants themselves

The ancestors of most Palestinians have lived in fixed settlements (villages or towns) for many generations. It is true that many nomaidc Bedouin call Israel/Palestine home. The Israeli government has sought to limit their nomadic range and permanently settle them, this is arguably an attempt to gain control over Bedouin lands. This is very similar to the Chinese policies towards nomads, or our own policies towards semi-nomadic Native Americans.

Occassionally, you will hear the claim that most Palestinians are recently arrived immigrants from Arab countries. The genesis of many of these claims is the 1984 book by Joan Peters From Time Immemorial. She made the case that Palestine was largely unsettled and Arab immigrants only flocked to it once the saw the economic opportunities offered by Jewish settlers. It was initially enthusiastically received by many in the US, but has been the subject of severe criticism by a number of scholars for misrepresenting the demographics of Palestine. Anthony Lewis surveyed the criticism in an article titled There Were No Indians and concluded “But Miss Peters’s ‘’evidence’’ is cooked. That is what a growing number of scholarly critics have said. It is what I believe.” Yehoshua Porath’s review in the NY Review of Books is damning as well.

The 1931 census found that 2% of Muslims, 20% of Christians and 58% of Jews of the total 1,033 million population had been born outside of Palestine. By 1947, the population had grown to 1.97 million, but fully half of the increase was among the Jewish population, which went from 175,000 to 630,000. That was an increase of 260% (8.3% annualized), largely via immigration. The Christian population increased 60%. The Muslim population increased 55%, or an annualized growth rate of 2.7% (high but not unreasonable). The claim that the Arab population of Palestine was composed largely of recent immigrants is mostly false.

Related Diaries:

- A Modern Day Trail of Tears in Jerusalem

Israel is not a settler-colonial state

An understanding of settler-colonialism is necessary to engage in such a discussion. Settler colonialism seeks to permanently settle a region by importing relatively large numbers of settlers. The exercise often entails depopulating the region so as to replace the native, indigenous population with a settler population. This is distinct from colonization, consider the different paths followed by colonized nations (India, China for example) with settler-colonial nations (USA, Australia for example).

Some will argue that Israel is not a settler colony since Israeli Jews are simply returning to the homeland their forefathers knew two millenia or so ago. This leads to the claim that Israeli Jews are the true indigenous people of Israel. It is important to acknowledge this argument since it played such an important role in the founding and history of Israel. Unfortunately, I have nothing important to contribute to discussions of events that occurred 70 generations ago. Many settler colonies utilize visions of a promised land in big ways and small.

Zionism was a consciously settler-colonialist endeavor from the get go. Some of its earliest proponents occassionally indulged in utopian thinking:

“When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example.” — (Theodore Herzl, The Complete Diaries, page 88)

While others were pragmatic in their understanding of what needed to be done to realize their vision.

The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. […] Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators. — Ze’ev Jabotinsky, 1923 (The Iron Wall)

Jabotisnky consciously compared the Zionist endeavor to the settlement of North America by European nations. His views were adapted by many Israeli leaders.

Israel was a settler-colonialist enterprise from the get go, and its founders recognized it as such. Over the years, various commentators within Israel have been at pains to re-iterate this:

“It is the duty of the leadership… to tell the public, openly and bravely, truths which have been obscured and blurred over time. One truth is that there is no Zionism, and no settlement activity, and no State of Israel, without displacement of Arabs and seizing and fencing off their lands. Another truth is that, in the war against the Arabs — including the terrorists — Israel has never undertaken and could never undertake to harm only [his emphasis] regular or irregular combatants. And a third truth is that, given the assumptions above, Israel has tried in the past, and will surely continue to try in the future to avoid, as far as is possible, killing innocent civilians and displacing Arab inhabitants outside of legally constituted instructions and arrangements.” — Yeshayahu Ben-Porat, Yediot Ahronot, 4 July 1972. (this quote is often mis-attributed)

But quite apart from the words and intentions are the actual events and actions on the ground. And there is no real controversy over the exodus of Palestinians, the actions taken by the Israeli state to further that exodus and prevent the return of refugees and the resettlement of the land with Jewish immigrants who arrived later. This is settler colonialism.

Related Diaries:

- The Salaita Affair: How angry tweets on Israel got a professor fired and what happened next.

- This exchange was one of the best I’ve ever had on Daily Kos.

Settlements

Few people on most moderated sites are willing to defend Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank, or settler violence. This is far more common in other communities, or on the wild Interwebs. The debate on sites like Daily Kos tends to be around specific facets of settlement/occupation.

The post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was a response to an existential threat

“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” — Israeli General Matityahu Peled (and later peace activist) in Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972 as quoted in Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict

US assessments did not point to an impending Egyptian attack either.

Related:

- Tony Judt knew the two-state plan was dead. In 2003.

- Elections have consequences: Netanyahu just won a mandate to kill the two-state process

Settlements as a conscious policy to grab land

Successive Israeli governments have utilized West Bank settlements and those in Gaza, prior to the disengagement, to establish control over Palestinian lands. This process continues today by utilizing the separation barrier to enclose Palestinian lands that Israel finds desirable.

There is a natural resource element to the land grab as well, with control over aquifers and water playing a role.

The collapse of the effort has distressed many West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, who fear that time for compromise is running out in the face of the extensive settlement construction by the Government of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. About 30,000 Jews now live on the West Bank, where about 800,000 Arabs reside, and about two-thirds of the land has been effectively declared off-limits to Arab construction, residence or agriculture.

[…]

There is a widespread conviction among Palestinian Arabs that the Israelis want to make life miserable for them and thereby drive them out of the territories. This was reinforced by reported remarks Tuesday by the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Lieut. Gen. Rafael Eytan. Israeli radio, television and newspapers quoted him as telling Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that for every incident of stone-throwing by Arab youths, 10 settlements should be built. ‘’When we have settled the land,’’ he was quoted as saying, ‘’all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.’’ — New York Times, 14 April 1983 Everybody has to move, run and grab as many [Palestinian] hilltops as they can to enlarge the [Jewish] settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them. — Ariel Sharon, as foreign minister, in comments broadcast on Israeli radio in November 1998 as quoted in BBC News Three decades ago Winston Churchill’s grandson asked Ariel Sharon how Israel should deal with the Palestinians. “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich out of them,” he replied. “We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” — [The Nation]

Related Diaries:

- Tony Judt knew the two-state plan was dead. In 2003.

- It’s April 15: Can I Take a Tax-Deduction on My Donation to Israeli Settlements in Palestine?

Settlers buy land from Palestinians

This is true, there are sometimes legitimate land purchases. However, these have to be considered in context. First, the land being bought is in an area that is under military occupation, there are valid concerns as to whether the legal nature of the occupation permits such purchases. But more signifcantly, the israeli state has placed numerous restrictions on Palestinians that effectively limit trade and reduce their income. Under such conditions, land sales could be said to be done under economic duress.

There are numerous instances of setttlements built on land redeeded to Israeli using forged documents and on Palestinian owned land.

While the [Palestinian] peasants perceived their right to their land to be based on long-standing possession and cultivation, the Ottoman code regarded the ultimate landowner to be the Sultan, whose agents would terminate tenure for nonpayment of taxes or rent. Fellaheen were severely exploited by tax farmers, who, backed by troops, doubled as moneylenders at rates of 60% interest, and not surprisingly the State was regarded as an organized band of robbers. — Stephen Halbrook: Alienation of a Home-land: How Palestine Became Israel

See: Ayn Rand v. Murray Rothbard: A deep dive into the Libertarian view of Israel/Palestine (contains an extensive discussion of Ottoman era land titles and how they wer eused during early Zionist settlement).

Related Diaries:

- It’s April 15: Can I Take a Tax-Deduction on My Donation to Israeli Settlements in Palestine?

PLO instituted a death penalty for selling land to Israelis

The PLO treats land sales to Israelis as an act of treason. There have been numerous such verdicts handed down, with two instances where official executions have occured. In most cases the PA does not carry out the sentence. There are also reports of extra-judicial killings in such cases. For a fuller context, see above.

Settlement are legal, they’re built on state land

No external government or international body recognizes Israeli settlement activity as legal. From a very early date, the Israeli High Court attempted to stop the construction of West Bank settlements on legal grounds. It did not succeed. Arguments about “state land” are obfuscations since the military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza is by definition temporary. As an occupying power, Israel (a party to the 4th Geneva Convention) is prevented from re-settling or transferring its population into occupied territory.

Israel has not signed protocol I (which deals with armed conflicts under occupation/colonization) or II (internal armed conflicts) of the Geneva conventions. The legal status of the settlements does not depend on these though. It is covered by more general provisions making the theft of resources, property and land illegal for occupying powers. It’s basically a provision against pillaging.

This “state land” discussion is also a red herring in many other ways and quickly falls apart when we think about it. What people who propose it are saying is that since a particular patch of land was not owned by a person or non-governmental entity, Israel is free to take that. If this sounds familiar, it should. It was a devise used extensively during the colonization of the Americas to dispossess Native Americans of land settled collectivelly. This was only possible since the population had dropped dramatically (many modern estimates are in the 80–95% range) due to the encounter with old world epidemic diseases. In 1948, Israeli forces managed a similar depopulation by force. Once the population was reduced, both “state land” and private property were confiscated by the state. This included not just homes, but also personal property such as farm implements, books etc.

Let’s use an analogy to poke another hole in this claim. Say Russia invaded the US and occupied Alaska (which was Russian territory once). If Russian leaders were to resettle Russians onto US national forests, parks, and all other federal and state owned lands (which account for 90% of Alaskan territory), or build “separation barriers” around them, it would be similar to the claim advanced with respect to Israeli settlements.

The broader point is that land ownership differs across the world, and land reform movements have played an enormous role in transitions from feudal societies. The Ottoman empire had a long history of tax-farming (which was also common across much of Europe and Russia), with absentee owners extracting rents/taxes from local populations by force of arms thanks to cozy relationships with the central authorities. This brings into question many “private land sales” that Israel has claimed. More broadly, if you accept that natural resources, including parklands and fallow areas held by a state are held in trust for the inhabitants, then the theft of such lands would be understood for what it is, theft form the community as a whole. For a European example with shades of the same process, see the enclosure movement.

Laslty, Israel often demolishes Palestinian owned structures, condemning property to establish nature preserves which in later years can be turned into housing complexes exclusively for Jews.

The settler movement (or settler violence) is an outlier/exception

The settler movement exercises significant control over Israeli politics. This is largely due to the coalition politics of the Knessett. Recent right-leaning governments almost always have to rely on support from settler parties (Naftali Bennett’s Habayet Hayehudi in particular) to form a government. Likud was a proponent of settlements for decades and its cadres still regard settlements as an imperative. Politicians on the Israeli left were also sympathetic to the call for settlements.

We will make a great and awful mistake if we fail to settle Hebron, neighbor and predecessor of Jerusalem, with a large Jewish settlement, constantly growing and expanding, very soon. This will also be a blessing to the Arab neighbors. Hebron is worthy to be Jerusalem’s sister. — David Ben-Gurion, as quoted in Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel by Jerold S. Auerbach

40% of Israelis have never visited a settlement, and in some ways, the settlers are treated as pariahs by segments of Israeli society (42% say they’ve never met a Palestinian). Yet, some places within the West Bank and even in Gaza exert a powerful pull on many Jewish Israelis, even avowedly secular ones.

“The settlers have become one of the most ostracized bad words in Israel. Nobody talks to us. The more our communities feel vilified, we play the role. I really see that happening. People here are almost all religious on the Jewish side. They are not peaceniks. The people here would not be chosen for Seeds of Peace. But it’s clear here that we live together — more clear here than almost anywhere else in Israel that we’re living together.” “I’ve spent the last four years meeting Palestinians, hearing their side and learning how they see us. I realize, of course, that they hate us. They don’t believe that Israel is connected to the Jewish people. They think Israel is a colonial entity from the outside with no connection to this land. They construct a narrative of us just like we construct a narrative of them. For me it’s very important to bring people who are connected to this land to tell the story of what it means to be in the area of Bethlehem to Hebron for us. It has to be part of a dialogue.” — Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger as quoted in Haaretz, From Price Tag to Peace Tag, August 21, 2014

Related Diaries:

- Hundreds of Israeli settlers clash violently with police/army over Supreme Court demolition order

- Filastin: Despite literal “smoking gun”, settlers cleared of charges for shooting

- Grassroots peace: Israeli settlers and Palestinian villagers talk it out

Apartheid, Discrimination and Equal Rights

For some time now, many have made comparisons between Israel and South Africa or the Jim Crow South. The I/P dynamic is different in many ways (both better and worse) and the comparison is not always apt. The one redeeming quality of these comparisons is that they can bring moral clarity to a often chaotic situation on the ground.

Israel is not practicing apartheid because Palestinians are not citizens

There is some debate as to whether the Israeli occupation of Palestine should be labelled “apartheid”. Noam Chomsky contends Israeli policy is worse than apartheid:

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Noam, you say that the analogy between Israel’s occupation of the terrories and apartheid South Africa is a dubious one. Why? NOAM CHOMSKY: Many reasons. Take, say, the term “apartheid.” In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid. To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by “apartheid” you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There’s a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce. It was 85 percent of the workforce of the population, and that was basically their workforce. They needed them. They had to sustain them. The bantustans were horrifying, but South Africa did try to sustain them. They didn’t put them on a diet. They tried to keep them strong enough to do the work that they needed for the country. They tried to get international support for the bantustans. The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just don’t want them. They want them out, or at least in prison. And they’re acting that way. That’s a very striking difference, which means that the apartheid analogy, South African apartheid, to the Occupied Territories is just a gift to Israeli violence. It’s much worse than that. If you look inside Israel, there’s plenty of repression and discrimination. I’ve written about it extensively for decades. But it’s not apartheid. It’s bad, but it’s not apartheid. So the term, I just don’t think is applicable.

There are clearly some common elements, the Israeli policy of concentrating Palestinian populations within small portions of the West Bank/Gaza and advocating autonomy for those small micro-states is starkly similar to the South African “Bantustans”. Yet, as Chomsky notes, the Israeli actions against the Gazan population are much worse than anything the SA apartheid regime did.

As Chomsky himself demonstrates, the apartheid analogy can still be quite useful. For one thing, people generally accept apartheid was morally wrong, and that can help clarify a complicated situation. For another, it perm