“Four Facts That Everyone Should Know About
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”
#1: The
challenger acknowledges that our first fact, “The Jews never left,” is
“factually correct,” but calls “highly tendentious” our “conclusion” that
“according to scholars, this gave the Zionists ‘real title deeds.'” The
challenger asks, “And what kind of ‘scholars’ [in quotes] are referred to?”
The main scholar [no quotes]
referred to is respected British historian and theologian James Parkes, who
wrote on page 266 of “Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine” that
although the Zionists are fond of citing the Maccabees and Bar Kochba, “their
REAL TITLE DEEDS” [emphasis added] were written by the less dramatic but
equally heroic endurance of those who had maintained a Jewish presence in The
Land all through the centuries, and in spite of every discouragement.”
Samuel Katz, quoting this
very passage of Parkes’ “Whose Land?” in his important work “Battleground” (2d
ed., xv-xvi), lamented as an “astonishing area of Jewish neglect … the gap
between what is generally known and the facts of the continuity of Jewish life
in Palestine since the destruction of the Second Temple.”
#2: Our
challenger dismisses our second fact, “Who are the Palestinians? Us,” which we
cast as a rebuttal to Palestinian Arabs’ claim of Canaanite descent, by
labeling our “arguing about whether Jewish or Arab inhabitants of Israel are
descended from the prehistoric Canaanites” as “surely a fruitless quest.”
Eminent archeologists, for
scientific, not political, purposes, don’t regard the quest “fruitless.” They
seriously debate whether the Israelites, first identified in the land c. 1200
BCE, had “Conquest” or “Indigenous Origin” roots. Finkelstein &
Silberman, respected members of the latter camp, wrote in “The Bible Unearthed”
(p. 118): “The early Israelites were – irony of ironies – themselves originally
Canaanites!”
Regarding our citations of
Palestinian Jews’ use of “Palestine” and “Palestinian” in reference to
themselves and their institutions in the 20th century, versus Arabs’ avoidance
of the term during much of that span, our challenger does not contest our
citations but simply calls “the question of ethnic continuity” and “the
political question of which groups have described themselves as Palestinian”
as “confusingly mixed.” On the contrary, such 20th century respective use and
avoidance of the term “Palestinian” is part and parcel of the Jews’ real title
deeds.
#3: Our
challenger contests our objections to both of the terms “West Bank ” and “East Jerusalem .” He says “talking about Judea
and Samaria ” other than in an historical context “assumes a
certain outcome of any peace settlement.” But what of the term “West Bank ,” which Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger wrote in Israel Hayom (12/16/11 ) was conjured in 1950 by the Jordanian occupation “to
assert Jordanian rule and to expunge Jewish connection to the cradle of Jewish
history”? He pointed out that until 1950, Ottoman, British and prior records
referenced “Judea and Samaria ” [as did the U.N.’s own 1947 partition resolution]
and not “the West Bank .”
We plead guilty to our
challenger’s indictment that our article “seems to be suggesting” that
Jerusalem’s Jewish rule in ancient times, current [since the mid-1800’s] Jewish
majority population, and that “Arabs have not controlled Jerusalem since 1099
and even then were not local Arabs,” combine to “justify” Israeli rule of the
city.
#4: Our
challenger acknowledges our fourth fact, “The Arab-Jewish Conflict created more
Jewish than Arab Refugees,” to be a statement that “may well be true,” but
asserts that the import of this fact is somehow dissipated by “the massacre of
Arab villagers at Deir Yassin by a Jewish extremist group.” What happened to
Arabs at Deir Yassin is contested and rightly so, as per testimony of many
Arabs who witnessed the battle and testified to the truth, while what happened
to Jews at Hebron, Jerusalem and countless other places in the land of Israel
and Arab lands throughout the centuries, including the mid-twentieth century,
is not. The Arabs who left tiny Israel are remembered, while the greater number (about a
million Jewish families) of Israel-absorbed Jewish refugees from vast Arab and
other Muslim lands, forcibly expelled leaving property and businesses behind,
are forgotten. Nor is it remembered that in instances, as at Haifa , Jews made significant pleas to Arabs who were
fleeing at the urging of the invading armies of the Arab states’ while Jews urging
them to stay.
We began our “Four Facts”
article: “Most Westerners, including many Jews, are unaware of four fundamental
facts about the Jewish homeland of Israel that would greatly increase their support for the
Jewish State.” The letter forwarded by reader Cohen shows how deeply
misunderstanding of these facts prejudices perceptions of Israel .
If anything it may need to be
re-incorporated or re-patriated.
Let me pose an interesting scenario. If you
had a country and it was conquered by foreign powers over a period of time.
After many years you have taken back you country and land in various defensive
wars. Do you have to officially annex those territories. It was always your
territory and by retaking control and possession of your territory it is again
your original property and there is no need to annex it. The title to your
property is valid today as it was many years before.
Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.
Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.
YJ Draiman
Jews hold title to the
No comments:
Post a Comment