There are about two million Native Americans in the United States. Let us imagine that they decide to commemorate one of the cruelest chapters in their history, the forced expulsion of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia in 1838 and 1839. They were marched a thousand miles to Oklahoma, where those who had survived the march were resettled. The episode is referred to as the Trail of Tears, and it is not difficult to imagine that American Indians might want to make it a special memorial day.
Then let us suppose that the secretary of state of the United States denounces the idea, and proposes that it be outlawed, that anyone taking part in a commemoration of the Trail of Tears will be subject to an imprisonment of up to three years.
Preposterous, no?
Preposterous, yes. But though the analogy is at best imperfect, that is roughly what is happening in Israel right now. Yisrael Beiteinu, the political party headed by Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has proposed just such a law with regard to the day on which many Arab citizens of Israel mark what has become known as al-Nakba — the catastrophe — when Palestinians recall their displacement during Israel’s War of Independence.
Not so fast, you might say. After all, do we not know that the Arabs left Israel back then because their leaders told them to get out of the way while the fighting was going on, that as soon as the Jews were defeated they’d be able to return to their homes? And that some left on their own, out of panic? That’s totally different from the Native American experience.
Note well: At least since the 1979 publication of Yitzhak Rabin’s memoirs, we’ve known for sure that a significant number of Israel’s Arabs were forced out of their homes and their towns and villages; Rabin, following David Ben-Gurion’s orders, engaged in what he himself called “driving out” the Arabs of Lydda and Ramle. (The passages dealing with this issue were actually omitted from the early editions of Rabin’s memoirs at the insistence of Israeli government censors, though the content of his account from the original manuscript was reported at the time by The New York Times.)
Debate still swirls regarding how many of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees left their homes for this reason, how many for other reasons, how much of whatever policy that was employed was improvised on the spot, how much was centrally planned. We do know, however, that Israel decided very early on that those who left their homes would not be allowed to return. And for the Palestinians, that meant: catastrophe.
Ought not we, who “weep when we remember Zion,” even though the particular exile from Zion that gave birth to those words ended 2,547 years ago, understand why a people might wish to remember? Sure, there are and will be those who seek to politicize the remembering, to use it as an occasion to denounce Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank or even Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. So? You can’t legislate memories, and you shouldn’t regulate their expression, even when you find their expression offensive.
The day may yet come when Lieberman and those who think as he does decide to require that Israel’s Palestinian citizens — the people promised in Israel’s Declaration of Independence “complete equality of social and political rights… irrespective of religion, race or sex” and guaranteed “freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture” — be prepared to sing out loud Israel’s national anthem. After all, is that not a minimal expression of loyalty?
Check the words: “As long as deep in the heart the soul of a Jew yearns, and forward to the East, to Zion, an eye looks out, our hope will not be lost, the hope of 2,000 years: To be a free nation in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”
Alright, perhaps even Lieberman would not be so insensitive as all that. Maybe his current proposal, the one declaring it illegal to mark the Nakba, will sufficiently satisfy his demagogic instincts for a while. (Why demagogic? Among other things, the law would surely not be enforceable. Declare public commemoration of the Nakba illegal, and you guarantee that almost all of Israel’s one million Palestinians — and, presumably, a decent number of Jews — will violate the law, some out of commitment to memory, others out of commitment to freedom of speech and of conscience.)
The sad and stubborn fact is that Israel in its 61st year is no closer than it was in its first year to figuring out how it is supposed to feel or what it is supposed to do about the fact that 20% of its own citizens are not Jewish. Most of the Palestinians and some of their Jewish “post-Zionist” supporters say it is time for Israel to redefine itself as “a state of all its citizens,” meaning a state that does not provide preferential treatment to Jews — more bluntly, not a Jewish state.
Others concoct plans to “remove” some large fraction of the Palestinians, whether, like Lieberman, by redrawing Israel’s boundaries to exclude the areas of their densest settlement or by in some other way “encouraging” their departure. Very few people have spent much time or energy in thinking through what a Jewish state that genuinely seeks to do right by its non-Jewish minority must do. Must it change the words of its nation’s anthem? Must it develop a comprehensive program of national service? Must it end all forms of discrimination in government programs? Must it offer some measure of cultural autonomy to the minority? And so forth.
One reason so little thought has been invested in these kinds of questions is that trying to come up with responsible answers is sure to produce a headache. There are no easy answers, no neat precedents that offer guidance on what the words “Jewish state” imply. There are, to be sure, dozens (if not hundreds) of NGOs in Israel seeking to foster productive co-existence between Jews and Palestinians, but they hardly set the tone for the culture at large.
One might even say that in this perplexing arena, there is only one certainty: The provocateur Avigdor Lieberman is a Nakba — a catastrophe — for the State of Israel.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You've successfully signed up!
Is this is a joke? Is this from the Plo website? Leonard or Ahmed needs to learn the real history of Israel and not the revisionist history of Arab and Muslim groups. First of all there is no such thing as "Palestine" or "Palestinians." Palestine is just another name for Israel. The Romans re-named ancient Israel Palestine which has no connection to the Arabs. Jews were the first to be called Palestinians. Golda Meier, like all Jews who lived in Palestine before it became Israel again, was referred to as a Palestinian.
There has never been a Palestinian country, people, language, culture! These Arabs are originally from Arabia where all Arabs originated. The Arabs stole the name "Palestine" in the 1960's for propaganda purposes and to steal the Jewish homeland. The Arabs who left Israel/Palestine after Israel was re-born left because they were told to by their Arabs leaders. The Arabs were mostly wandering tribes and had no attachment to the land.
Leonardo or Ahmed needs to apologize to the Native American Indians for comparing them to the Arab colonizers of Israel. It is the Jews who are the Native Indians of the Middle East. The Forward needs to apologize to everyone who reads their newspaper or website. If I wanted to read hamass propaganda I would go to their website instead of coming to a site that claims to be Jewish. Avigdor Lieberman is a great man and a great Jew. Something that Leonard or Ahmed wouldn't know anything about.
Mr Fein - Why do you even take Lieberman's proposal seriously? There will not be a Knesset law about outlawing anything that is in the realm of the freedom of speech. Now, if the Knesset had already passed such an unimaginable law against marking the "nakba", then I could understand your attack. Why do you trouble yourself for things that are not going to be? Perhaps, we could discuss some real issues. By the way, your comparison with the American Indians was very poor - you didn't propose a date for commemorating the forced expulsion of the Cherokee Nation. Suppose that the date of mourning was the 4th of July. Suppose that the native Americans wished to state that the very establishment of the American nation symbolizes the destruction of their world? I would imagine that many Americans would be very insulted that people are mourning an event that is the essence of American pride. The Arabs mark "nakba day" on May 15. They are not saying that they lost their homes on that very date; rather, they are protesting the establishment of the State of Israel.
And, yet, it's fine in Israeli society that Arab citizens protest the existence of our state. We really are a democratic society that has tolerance for such positions that express obvious hostility towards us. Actually, Israel deserves a few words of praise for such "bending over backwards" tolerance in the midst of an ongoing violent conflict. It's actually quite unusual - even in the democratic world. Anyway, the Lieberman idea won't even come up for a vote in the Knesset. You yourself admit that "the law would surely not be enforceable". Quite true. Maybe now we can talk about real problems (assimilation, Jewish illiteracy in America, etc).
Palestiniansareamyth:
"There has never been a Palestinian country, people, language, culture!"
The British could have said the same thing about Americans during the Revolutionary War. People are "a people" when they believe themselves to be so. By your logic, the Palestinians could argue that Jews are merely a religious group, not a people entitled to their own state. Ironically, the Palestinian national identity was forged in large part through the confrontation with Zionism.
"The Arabs who left Israel/Palestine after Israel was re-born left because they were told to by their Arabs leaders. The Arabs were mostly wandering tribes and had no attachment to the land."
This has been debunked by a number of Israeli historians, including Benny Morris in "Righteous Victims." Most of the Arabs were not wanderers, and many left not of their own free will, but under pressure from Israeli forces.
Yehuda:
"I would imagine that many Americans would be very insulted that people are mourning an event that is the essence of American pride."
So what? Americans wouldn't have any right to complain about American Indians mourning July 4th. Historical events mean different things to different people. There's nothing in the constitution that says you can't "insult" others.
And you're missing the point of Fein's article. The issue isn't that Lieberman's proposal will be passed--you're right, it won't (at least not now). The issue is that something so undemocratic and insensitive to another group's feelings and experiences was even proposed in the first place. And proposed not by someone on the fringe, but by the foreign minister of Israel.
Lee - I actually do understand Mr Fein's article. A lot of politicians say lots and lots of nonsense. Perhaps, this makes it easy to find a topic for a weekly column. All in all, the large majority of Mr Fein's publication in the Forward is focused on criticism of some aspect of life in Israel (which is fine, of course - I just wish that once in a while we could discuss problems of Jewish life in America as well). Still, if you were following the election campaign in Israel earlier this year, both Lieberman and the Arabic parties were in competition in insulting each other. However, both sides were actually very happy about the arrangement. The Arabic parties had been fearful that their voters wouldn't show up on election day. Lieberman was interested in defining a line that would differentiate him from the Likud. Both had political success - so, it's hard to take the declarations seriously, even after the elections (since the next elections are always quite soon in Israel).
In your other entry, you comment that the Palestinians "could argue that Jews are merely a religious group, not a people entitled to their own state". Well, actually, that is their ideological position.
This Fein fellow is an abomination. Why is this far-far-left crack-pot prominently published by the Forward? OK, Fein, how about celebrating a "Denial of Holocaust Day" (you know that almost half of Israeli arabs deny its existence). Or lets sympathize with a "Nazi Memorial Day", to commemorate their grief for their disasterous loss to the Allies in WWII. (You know that Germany has properly criminalized such behavior in its country.)
Sensitivity and concern for Jew-haters is a "progressive" perversion, and its expressions should not be supported by a "Jewish" publication. That is truly a "Nabka".
Frank,
People like you are so full of hatred it's disgusting. You make me ashamed to be Jewish.
Lee, Frank is just telling the true.
Beside what about the Nakbe of the Jews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxKcFo_h5Eg
Educate yourself.
Lee, Benny Morris debunked both Arab version and Jewish version. he debunked the Arab version that the responsibility for this is only on the Jews. There was NO Jewish plan to expel any Arab, however there were actions of individual. Let me remind you that during this war the arabs expelled the Jews from every inch they conquered.
moreover there was Jewish Nakba as well.
856,000 Jews that lived in the Arab land were forced to leave their homeland. They were forced by official policy, unlike the case with Israel. The Arab government forced the Jews to leave and took their land and property. Read this interesting story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7421961.stm
The Arabs as you can see will never recognize what they have done to the Jews. Everyone talk about the Arab nakba, what about the Oriental Jewish Nakba.
Oren,
It is simplistic to compare the exodus of the Jews from Arab countries with the Palestinian exodus from what became Israel. For many of the Jews their immigration to Israel was not a "nakba" but the opportunity to fulfill a dream of Zionism. And many did take substantial property.
I suggest you read this article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=329736&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
And I didn't say that there was a premeditated plan to expel the Palestinians. That doesn't mean that they weren't often expelled in practice.
Lee, you are very wrong. The Jews were forced to leave. Thre is no doubt about this.
but the difference was that this Jews were not involve in any fighting against there Arab government.
The Palestinians on the other hand participate in the fight. Many of them left their land in order to open their way for the Arab army.
And everything that happened to the Arabs was product of their decision to open a war against the young Jewish state.
Moreover every inch that was conquered by the arab armies was cleansed from the Jews and there were Jews in the west bank before 48. Jordan expelled them all.
As for the article you offered me to read is opinion article. It has similar opinion to yours.
However the fact is that many of this Jews were forced to leave. This is historical fact.
Here you can see Canadian parliament member explain this: http://www.muhammadtube.com/video/432/What-about-the-Jewish-refugees-from-Arab-countries?
It is OK if you want to recognize what happened to the Palestinians. It is disgrace to deny that tragedy that happened to the Jews that lived in the Arab world.
Oren,
"And everything that happened to the Arabs was product of their decision to open a war against the young Jewish state."
It depends on one's point of view. From the Jewish perspective, you are right. The Arabs would argue they were acting in self-defense, and that the Jews were the aggressors for creating a state in Palestine without the consent of the Arabs--the majority population.
well, the UN decided to divide that. The part that was given to the Jews was already enjoyed from Jewish majority.
The Jews had no plane in that point to attack anyone. However the Arab quickly decided that they don't want any Jewish state on "their" land and decide to attack.
They could have agreed to the plan.
The problem was not to have Palestinian state or not. The problem is that they think they have God given right on this land.
now you are going to tell me about fanatic Jews that believe the same. They are minority.
For most Jews back then, they only wanted small piece of land, and given that the Jews were already majority in the part that the UN decided to give them, the demand was only fair.
By the way, the Nakba is not much about the refugees as much as it is about simply the creation of Israel. That was the catastrophe in their eyes.
Lee - You're very careful to be "academic", accepting both sides as having equally valid arguments (as in your response to Oren: "It depends on one's point of view. From the Jewish perspective, you are right. The Arabs would argue they were acting in self-defense"). Yes, it's absolutely true that both sides have differing perspectives, and each side believes that its position is just. Generally, however, it is a bit more interesting to hear one's true point of view, to see where one actually places oneself - especially if there is some new insight.
Yehuda,
Well, the truth is that I think both viewpoints have merit. But I also think that if the goal is peace, it's actually irrelevant what I or any other onlooker thinks. What I think is important is for each side to understand the perspective of the other, instead of just demonizing them.
Lee well I don't think Yehuda deionize them.
But what I see that while you talk about "both viewpoints have merit", de facto you fully accept the Palestinian view point and totally reject the Jewish one.
anyway there is opinion and there are facts. It is fact that in 48 the Jews accepted the UN decision and the arabs rejected it and opened the war. This is fact.
"Creation of Israel = aggression" is an opinion and an opinion that I don't think should be accepted.
If for peace the Jews need to recognize what happened to the Arabs then the Arabs should recognized what they have done to the Jews.
And what the Arabs did to the Jews was crime. They took lands and property from the Jews.
Here is a good document about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz9LPfB2ytM&feature=channel_page
This is part 1. But you can find in this user all the other 5 parts.
There is no doubt that the Jews in the arab states suffered not less than the Palestinians if not more.
The difference is that the Arabs had and still have interest to keep them as refugees.
mind you the Jews were 1/3 of Baghdad population. now there number can be counted with one digit: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3710979,00.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0hX7M7nIwc&feature=related
fixing of first link:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3710979,00.html
The Jewish claim to Palestine is a myth, just like your claim to Peru or Palau. Go to your homeland, Las Vegas or Belarus. Israeli indepndence day and Jerusalem day are just brazen celebrations of theft, and should be outlawed, just like your holiday of Passover where you absued the Egyptians and your holiday of Purim where you defrauded the Persians
Lee,
I am saddened to have to agree with you, "from the Jewish perspective" you should be "ashamed to be Jewish".
But for our own sake we should understand the other side's perspective. (And please, feel free to not be constrained by facts.) Why don't you share with us the Nazi perspective, and the Holocaust deniers' perspective? (particularly the ones that "have merit".)
to the very ignorant Raed; The Arab and Muslim claim to Israel/"Palestine" is the biggest myth of all. Arabs need to go back to their homeland of Arabia where you belong. Jews were in Israel, named Palestine a thousand years later by the Romans, thousands of years before the Arabs set foot in the land. Israel is the Jewish homeland, end of story! The truth is the truth and you can't change it no matter how hard you try.
Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Jewish artifacts, thousand of years old, have been found there almost daily. The Koran never mentions Jerusalem once. Mecca is your capitol and that's where your people should worship.
Lee; I doubt you're actually Jewish because it's obvious you are very ignorant about the history of Israel. Unfortunately you actually believe the lies and propaganda of the Arab and Muslim radicals. The Arab Fakestinians were created to steal the Jewish homeland and justify their terrorism against the Jews. A 7-ft. man can constantly refer to himself as a midget but that doesn't make him one.
I fear not in the slightest Lieberamn for it may be the VERY Israeli Justice System HE SEEKS TO CHANGE that decides that such a man who has done such deeds as he is accused of will be prosecuted. Mind you, there are so many dark corners of corruption in the Israeli state, but then there are also enough real "mensch" who stand by the Jewish Ethic to bring them down. While I fear for the Palestinians as much as I fear for the Israelis, it is the brightest, strongest and most just of both sides who will in blinded defense-offense act so visciously as to make these two related families never one again. And that would be tragic. The Israelis are a gift from Allah to the Arab region while the Palestinians are their future disciples that would take the good news to the Arab cousin families and tribes. For the cost of a Jewish state for Sabras who now know no other home, the Palestinians can be rewarded with education and collaboration of the highest standard in a sister state that has under a ficticious racial oneness brought together people from inumerable lands and cultures and meled them into one, the nation of Israel. This would be quite a model for the Arabs to follow. Many of the newcomers were not even Jewish and many still couldn't give a fig about that. Yet, they have kept enough of the flame of the faith alive to be ruled by one Torah and the ethics of several thousands years evolving. The genes are as varied as anywhere else in the species homo sapien, but the sense of right and wrong is one for both, for the Muslim comes from the Jew, deviating in sacred text only a bit. So no one in those sands can say that anyone else does not belong, for all are a miraculous mishmosh that holds to a common standard of decency.
As for Lieberamn, his type I know well. He's no Jew, he's no Israeli. He is the East European hustler type I've known all over the world. We are people of many gifts, we East Europeans. But while some use their mental gifts to achieve the standards of the West for themselves and their societies, others work the shadows and never amount to much, though they talk a line of bull that never seems to end. Follow the money. Like the alQaeda terrorists, the Lieberman types live on "valuta" in their veins. But the Liberman types are all talk and, except for crime, never really dangerous. Look at Moldovia, would you ever think of such an Israel; well, that's the only cesspoul in which his type can do his thing. Israel and Palestine will never reach THAT level, never again! But what marks Israel a violent criminal, as marks the Palestinians terrorists, is not avarice like Lieberman's. It is fear, fear of extermination, fear of humiliation and fear of inadequacy to the tests that lie ahead. In that sense Lieberman is dangerous, for he can freigthen people to do things such as suicide vengence that Israel cannot survive. The more Israel massacres Palestinians in response and preventive manner, the more the American $placenta on which it sustains breaks loose. So, at worst, Lieberman can be a catalyst for the self-destruction in fear of both peoples. But he is a shell game player who pulls up stakes when the cops pass around the corner or when one of his duped victims figures him out. He runs, he's not the type to stand and fight or take his punishment like a man. He talks big, but then he has no fear of concequences because his answer to threat is to move on running. When he goes abroad, he goes to feather his nest, just incase Cohen gets him. Those in his party who stand ready to raise their stones and sticks at Lieberman's urging will find that there will be no Nakba, just the lingering smell of manure left behind by the leader who ran with the party's cash box. Alas, East Europe has a way of making a lot of those types, whatever their ethnicity. FOR THEM NOT TO BE A SOURCE OF EVIL TO YOU ALL JUST REMEMBER ONE THING: THERE IS NO WORSE CAUSE OF FEAR THAN FEAR ITSELF!
Oren,
"But what I see that while you talk about "both viewpoints have merit", de facto you fully accept the Palestinian view point and totally reject the Jewish one."
I don't agree. I am writing on a forum in which everyone (it seems) accepts the Jewish one. So when I point out the other side, this is interpreted as "fully accepting the Palestinian viewpoint." If I were writing on a Palestinian website, I would point about the Jewish perspective, and the people there would say I totally accept what the Jews say.
"It is fact that in 48 the Jews accepted the UN decision and the arabs rejected it and opened the war. This is fact."
But it is not a fact that the Arabs were morally required to accept the partition. And the legality of the partition has been questioned as well.
Sorry, it should have been "...would point out the Jewish perspective..."
"Israel is the Jewish homeland, end of story!"
Well then I guess the US (and every other country in the Americas) is the American Indian homeland, end of story.
To me, the most important sentence in Dr. Fein's article is: "The sad and stubborn fact is that Israel in its 61st year is no closer than it was in its first year to figuring out how it is supposed to feel or what it is supposed to do about the fact that 20% of its own citizens are not Jewish."
This is sad but true, and the matter requires resolution if Israel is to move into the future.
Lee - It is interesting that you compare the Jews to the American Indians. Generally, you present the Arab view as a balance to the equally legitimate Jewish viewpoint ("to understand the perspective of the other"). Well, you should note that the Arab viewpoint is that the Jews are not the native population of this country. Their claim is that the native population of the ancient Middle East was Arabic speaking.
Joel A. Levitt - So, what in your opinion should Israel do in order "to move into the future"? It's easy to stand on the sidelines and shake your head. It's a bit more impressive to take a stand and to be a bit more concrete. It's even more impressive take a stand and then to actually shoulder the responsibility of that stand. One of the wise sayings of the Mishna (Avot 1:17) is: "Lo ha-midrash iqqar, ella ha-ma'aseh" (loosely translated as "the interpretation of the Torah is not the essence, rather one's deeds are").
Yehuda, I don't have a good idea at this time, but, perhaps, if we focus on the issue, we will come up with something worth cosidering. One thought is that, assuming the formation of a Palestinian state, the answer lies in equal treatment of Jews in that state and of Arabs in Israel.
Joel A. Levitt - Will there be any Jews in the future Palestinian state? No, there won't be any. Israel, obviously, will continue being a state of mixed populations (Hebrew and Arabic), but the Palestinian state will not allow for any Hebrew presence. Also in Jordan, it is forbidden by law that a Jew be a Jordanian citizen. In Israel, under the conditions of "end of hostilities", obviously all will be more than fine. It will continue being a Jewish nation-state with all the Jewish symbolisms thereof. So, there will always be those who will interpret this Jewish character as "discriminatory". It will be an ironic situation, of course: the state that won't allow for the presence of a national minority (the Palestinian state) won't have to answer any questions about equality. The state that already is functioning quite nicely as a parliamentary democracy (even now in the midst of an historic national conflict) will constantly be under the microscope.
Have you ever been here?
Lee - It's true that the Arabs were not "morally obligated to accept partition". However, it is nevertheless the only case in history that war was conducted against a UN resolution. Others have rejected UN decisions, or protested them. The decision to go to war to foil a UN decision by force was unique - and it deserves condemnation (even from those who are trying to be balanced). Moreover, it is also true that there are those who question the legality of the Partition Plan. The Palestinian National Covenant defines the plan as "null and void". However, questioning its legality doesn't mean that such questioning has real merit.
Yehuda, I believe that some few of the West Bank settlements are legal, and the right of Jews to reside in a Palestinian state and the rights that they should enjoy there are matters for negotiation, as are so many other matters.
Just to satisfy your curiosity, yes, I was last in Israel during October and November of 2008.
Lee you say:
But it is not a fact that the Arabs were morally required to accept the partition. And the legality of the partition has been questioned as well.
Well that partition divided the land that was under to British control into two part. The part that was offered to the Jews was already enjoyed from Jewish majority and the Jews in that part that were the majority demand themselves to have their state.
It was the morally obligation of the Arabs to accept the wish of the majority in that region.
Oren,
"It was the morally obligation of the Arabs to accept the wish of the majority in that region."
Well, the Arabs were the majority in Palestine as a whole. And the "parts" that were offered to the Jews were not preexisting, distinct regions in Palestine that just happened to have Jewish majorities. The partition divided up the land as it did specifically in order to create areas with Jewish (and Arab) majorities.
And if "the majority in that region" is to automatically hold sway, does that mean that Abraham Lincoln was obligated to respect the wishes of the majority of Southerners who wanted to leave the Union before the Civil War?
Lee, Palestine was not a state back then. It was what left from the British mandate.
So to say they were the majority in Palestine as a whole doesn't say much. Beside even if they were in specific area they were not and in that area the people have the right to decide to separate themselves.
And let it make it very clear to you, Palestine was NOT a state that lost anything. Palestine was what left from the British mandate after they gave the eastern bank to jordan. Before the British mandate it was part of the Ottoman empire.
It is not like they ever had a state and lost it.
As for: And if "the majority in that region" is to automatically hold sway, does that mean that Abraham Lincoln was obligated to respect the wishes of the majority of Southerners who wanted to leave the Union before the Civil War?
The wish of the majority was contraction to democracy. The same go for the Arab wish to deny the Jewish right for self definition. The Arab demand was undemocratic demand.
"The partition divided up the land as it did specifically in order to create areas with Jewish (and Arab) majorities." The majority was already there.
Lee you say: "I don't agree. I am writing on a forum in which everyone (it seems) accepts the Jewish one. So when I point out the other side, this is interpreted as "fully accepting the Palestinian viewpoint." If I were writing on a Palestinian website, I would point about the Jewish perspective, and the people there would say I totally accept what the Jews say."
If a Palestinian website you wont be able to show any Israeli point view by they are closed society and they wont allow you.
Second this very article show that the Forward does show the Palestinian side. In fact it even support in the Palestinian side.
Oren,
"The wish of the majority was contraction to democracy. The same go for the Arab wish to deny the Jewish right for self definition. The Arab demand was undemocratic demand."
Again, that depends on your definition of "democratic." If democracy is every religious or ethnic group doing what it wants, then yes it was undemocratic. But if the definition is based on the principle of "one man, one vote," then it was not.
And so what if Palestine hadn't been a state? The Arabs were still the majority of the population in the entity that was proposed for partition. There's no getting around that.
Oren,
There is nothing to suggest that the Forward supports the "Palestinian side." This is a straw man put up by people like you who are close minded. According to this mentality, any challenge to anything one side has to say amounts to supporting the other side. It's a very black and white way of thinking.
"Oren,
There is nothing to suggest that the Forward supports the "Palestinian side." This is a straw man put up by people like you who are close minded. According to this mentality, any challenge to anything one side has to say amounts to supporting the other side. It's a very black and white way of thinking."
Lee until now you have shown blank support in the Palestinians.
Lee said: "Again, that depends on your definition of "democratic." If democracy is every religious or ethnic group doing what it wants, then yes it was undemocratic. But if the definition is based on the principle of "one man, one vote," then it was not.
And so what if Palestine hadn't been a state? The Arabs were still the majority of the population in the entity that was proposed for partition. There's no getting around that."
My answer: No, democracy is not very religious or ethnic group doing what it wants. However democracy is the will of the people in the region. And if in specific region the Jews were the majority then you don't go and expand it until they become minority again. The will of the people in the specific area that was offered by the UN was to have a Jewish state.
The same way that the Kurds who are majority of specific place in Turkey but not all Turkey, want to have their state.
Moreover the Arab revolt against the Ottoman empire to have their Arabic state. If they think they have their right to remove the Ottoman from controlling them then why would the Jews have the same right regard the Arabs.
Mind you again, this so called entity was pure product of British imperialism. There is no reason to talk about "all this entity" because where you stop. You not talk about all the region of Ottoman empire, why talk specifically about small area that was controlled by the Births.
It is democracy that if there is a group that is majority in specific place and want to have their separate state, it is democracy to give it to them.
But the Arabs never cared from democracy.
Frank,
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a case of right against wrong. It's a case of conflicting rights, like "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. This is what you are apparently incapable of understanding. And this is what distinguishes it from WWII. There was nothing to be said for the Nazis' attitudes and behavior. And there is nothing to be said for Holocaust denial--the Holocaust is simply a fact. But as much as you desperately want to believe it, there is something to be said for both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Oh, and by the way, you are a wonderful example of why there is still no peace.
Oren,
"Lee until now you have shown blank support in the Palestinians."
No I have not. I have heard the Jewish perspective from you and others, and I have simply pointed out the other side. You're apparently not smart enough to understand what I'm saying.
Lee, Frank and Oren,
In the heat of your discussion you have written about the "Jewish perspective" and the "Palestinian perspective" as though they exist. They don't. There are many Jewish and Palestinian perspectives, particularly, a vast number of Jews who are concerned with the survival and flourishing of Israel care about assuaging the pain and anger of both Jews and Palestinians and focus on who is doing what to whom today.
Joel A. Levitt:
I agree with you. I can't speak for the others, but when I use "Jewish perspective" and "Palestinian perspective," I mean that most (not all) people of that group see certain issues a certain way. I did not mean to overgeneralize.
"Oren,
"Lee until now you have shown blank support in the Palestinians."
No I have not. I have heard the Jewish perspective from you and others, and I have simply pointed out the other side. You're apparently not smart enough to understand what I'm saying."
This article already shown the Palestinian perspective. There is no need for you for that.
Not that I even needed the article to know the Palestinian perspective.
I am waiting for comment from Oren, Frank, Lee and Joel on Raed Kami's response. It is the most authentic talkback on this thread and really deserves a response
Herbert Kaine
I don't know anyone that claim Palestine is myth.
However Palestinian state never existed and in 48 even the Arabs didn't ask for it. They wanted big Arab state. In March, 1971 the Dutch newspaper Trouw published a revealing interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in which he stated: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222
In fact Palestinian nationalism is by product of the creation of Israel or Zionism if you want. no Israel then there would be no Palestine.
Now today Palestinian nation do exist, thanks to Israel. But if the Arab armies had won in 48 then there would be no Palestinian state.
Joel A. Levitt - I would be curious to hear what is the criterion for a legal settlement. Legality is often a topic for discussion in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lee, for example, raised the topic of the legality of the Partition Plan in this week's debate. However, legality is really just a tool in the propaganda war, a part of the struggle over legitimacy. The conflict, if it will ever be resolved, will come to an end in a political agreement, and the whole international community will accept whatever it is that is agreed upon. So, for example, if the two sides agree on a two-state solution, and they agree on mutual land exchanges - then the border will be fixed in such a way as to include most of the settlement population within Israel. Suddenly, as if by magic, all these "illegal" settlements will be legal. Those settlements on the Palestinian side of the agreed border will be destroyed. There is no doubt that not a single Jew will be a resident in the new Palestinian state.
Legality vis-a-vis the Partition Plan is likewise a discussion about legitimacy; i.e. it is part of the propaganda warfare. In essence, however, the whole issue is political. It was a gigantic politic victory for the Jewish side that the plan was adopted, and it was a gigantic political blunder of the Arabs to have rejected the plan through an act of war. Obviously, if the Arabs had succeeded in their war effort, no one would be busy with the legality of their war of defiance against an international decision. The results of war would have dictated the political reality, and it would have been final. In the end, Israel was successful. Her acceptance to the UN one year later (even though her territory exceeded the UN Partition Plan proposal) only proves that it is not a question of legality. The new state was a political fact.
Sadly, it's very obvious that there will not be a peace agreement. Israel's agreement to the founding of a Palestinian state will be possible only in the context of end of conflict. The Palestinian side cannot accept such finality. The Jewish side is seeking an arrangement that it can live with (i.e. a reasonable compromise); the Palestinian side is seeking "justice" (i.e. what it defines as justice, not an objective justice).
Yehuda:
"The Jewish side is seeking an arrangement that it can live with (i.e. a reasonable compromise); the Palestinian side is seeking "justice" (i.e. what it defines as justice, not an objective justice)."
Remember what Joel said about there not being "a" Jewish or Palestinian perspective. It's obvious, for example, that many right wing Jews in Israel want to so thoroughly populate the West Bank with settlements that there will never be able to be a Palestinian state at all.
all poll show that majority of Israelis support two state solution. In fact even among Likud voter 48% support two state solution. Moreover Palestinians were already offered a state over most of the west bank and all Gaza and they rejected it.
But it seem that for you not matter what they are doing they are always right. If they accept the proposal then they are of course right. If they reject it then they are still right. Palestinians can never be wrong no matter what they do.
Well Palestinians elected Hamas, as Islamist party that want to create Taliban style state.
Once upon a time, a poor wretched man was given a choice of punishments to be meted out to him. He could eat rotting fish, OR he could be whipped, OR he could be chased out of town. It seemed to him that being chased out of town was "out of the question", so he decided to eat the rotting fish. As soon as he bit into the fish, he was overwhelmed by the horrible taste. He changed his mind in a moment, and asked to be whipped instead. But the pain of the whipping was just pure torture. It was simply unbearable. "I agree to being chased out of town..." So, in the end, he ate some rotting fish, AND he received some blows of the whip AND he was chased out of town.
We all hope that the determined efforts of the Obama administration will bring about the desired results of peace. There is a possibility, based on past experience, that things will not work out so well. Israel will face three possible scenarios: She could negotiate with the Palestinians, knowing that the talks might end unsuccessfully (and Israel will probably be held accountable for this failure, the price of her being the stronger party). OR another scenario could be that the Palestinians renew the terrible suicide bombings. OR, of course, the third possibility could be a continuation of the present status quo.
Well, everyone seems to think that the status quo is "out of the question". So, Israel will negotiate, obviously. The talks will indeed end up in failure, but the Islamic Jihad and/or the Hamas will be eager to renew the suicide bombings to be certain that there will be no atmosphere of peace-making. In the end, Israel will find the military solution to bring the new wave of suicide bombings to its end, and to re-establish the former status quo. So, we will have failed negotiations, AND we probably will have to go through another round of suicide bombings, AND we will end up continuing the present status quo. Shver tzu zayn a yid (it's hard to be a Jew).
Oren,
"But it seem that for you not matter what they are doing they are always right."
I do not believe everything the Palestinians do is right. I do not believe Israel should be destroyed. But that doesn't mean that I believe that on every point of contention concerning the entire conflict, everything that people who are pro-Israel say is right, and everything people who are anti-Israel say is wrong. Again, it's either all or nothing with you, isn't it?
Lee - Kol ha-kavod, you have made your point: All sides have good arguments, and all sides have poor arguments. It's quite true. Perhaps, the time has arrived, and you could state your true beliefs vis-a-vis our very interesting conflict. What is your insight? For example, is peace a possibility? There are lots of ideas to exchange and analyze beyond just defining and redefining the nature of political debating and polemics. People identify with something. People have a sense of right and wrong. It would be nice to hear where you stand on such a central issue in the history of the modern Jewish people. It seems that you don't wish to express your true position; rather, you simply find it challenging to prove to others that all opinions can be questioned (with the exception of your opinions, because you never articulate them).
Yehuda,
Well, here's what I think. I think the Zionist movement was very naive to imagine it could establish a state in the Middle East without significant Arab opposition. While I sympathize greatly with the rationale for a Jewish state, I actually think it would have been much better if such a state had been established in the United States (or a comparable country like Canada or Australia). There are counties in Montana and Wyoming comparable in size to Israel! Such a scenario would have been much better than creating a state on land already populated and highly valued by another group of people. Many people (including my own mother) say that there had to be a Jewish state so Jews could be safe from persecution or worse. But if safety is the goal, it doesn't make sense to establish a state that itself is in constant danger.
But at the same time, I think that all of this is moot now. Israel is a nation whose people have their own identity just like those of the U.S., France, Germany etc. And neither Israeli nor Palestinian/Arab nationalism can be wished away for the sake of convenience. I am certainly not in favor of Israel being destroyed or forcibly dismantled in any way. Regarding a solution to the conflict, I am not very optimistic for a peace settlement because neither side really acts like it wants peace. Denying the Holocaust is hardly a good way for Palestinians to achieve peace with Israel. And continually building Jewish settlements in the West Bank--on the grounds that God gave the Jews that land--is hardly conducive to peace with the Palestinians. When you really want peace, you don't constantly do things to needlessly inflame your adversaries. But both Israel and the Palestinians do this all the time. So while I can't predict what will happen in the future, I'm not optimistic at all.
Herbert Kaine - Raed Kami is one of too many people who, despite earnest journalists and historians, believe only what they want to believe. I would respond to his comment if I knew any way to inform him or to comfort him.
Yehuda - All law is political, and political is not a pejorative term. Law is the evolving code to which the people of a jurisdiction pay allegiance and agree to enforce. For me, settlements that have been established on formerly Jordanian lands or that have been established on lands that have been purchased without duress are legal.
Correction: In my just previous comment "Jordanian lands" should read "Jordanian state lands."
Lee - Why has the Land of Israel attracted such a large population? Half of world Jewry lives here already, despite a century of conflict and hardships. You can check out on the home page of the Forward "looking back" of this week. There you will see that the newspaper editorialized 100 years ago that Zionism is a fantasy. No one can complain that the Forward's prophecy skills are poor. No one can know the dynamics of historic events, yet there is something that the Forward didn't understand then or today. It's something that you don't understand either: Jewish identity.
Many people think that Israel was founded as a save haven from persecutions. Hence, you can argue that Wyoming would have been safer. Well, go ahead. Found a youth movement that brings kids around the campfire, and instills in them the ideal of "renewal of Jewish national life" in such a place. Good luck to you. Explain to them how practical the idea is, and how safe it is as well. You will find out that the youth is motivated by lofty ideas, not by practicalities.
The Land of Israel ignited the imagination of idealists. The Jews are an ancient people that has its own historic memory. This memory is a major component of Jewish identity. Read Israel's Declaration of Independence. The writing of the Bible in this Land, establishing the very identity of the Jewish people, is the very first idea that appears. Then it evokes the memory of exile and the hope of return. The document ends dramatically, calling upon the Jews to realize the "age-old dream for the Redemption of Israel". It can make your heart skip a beat - but only if your core identity was shaped by the Jewish world.
After a century of integration into American culture, most Jews have an American core identity. Some, like you, view Israel only from an American perspective. Is it worth the trouble? For an outsider, it seems to be only a political issue. Mr Fein only analyzes Israel as such. Rarely, would you hear a comment from him about Israel's Jewish creativity, about the impact of her Hebrew language revival. But for an insider, for one whose central identity is a continuity of the historic Jewish identity of peoplehood (including one's own narrative, one's own language - and the memory of a homeland), the essence of Israel is the Hebrew-speaking society that could only have risen in this country.
You speak of "Israeli nationalism". No one uses such a term. The term is "Jewish nationalism", obviously. The Six-Day War was an event in Jewish history - no one would say "an event in Israeli history". You use "Israeli", because you are viewing us from the point of view of American identity. Indeed, from such a view, Wyoming might serve as a "haven". Our motivation was the renaissance of the Jewish collective experience. It's quite a different point of view.
good article about The Jewish Nakba: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgpc4hc9_121fzjnqchj&hl=en
Yehuda:
"You speak of "Israeli nationalism". No one uses such a term."
Go to Google and you'll get thousands of hits under "Israeli nationalism."
Yes, Lee, right after I entered my comment to you, I thought that there might be a misunderstanding. We, the Jews, (or we, the Hebrew speaking community about whose nationalism we are now speaking) say "Jewish nationalism". No one says Israeli nationalism, which is terminology only of an outsider.
Many thanks to Leonard Fein for his thoughtful article. Here is another:
Rabbis Remembering the Nakba May 17, 2009 by Rabbi Brant Rosen
“These I remember and I pour out my soul…”
Last Thursday night I welcomed 14 people – 9 Jews and 5 Palestinians – into my home for what turned out to be a powerful and sacred experience. The timing of our gathering was significant. May 14, 1948, the date of the State of Israel was declared, is a joyful milestone for Israel and Jews around the world. For the collective memory of the Palestinian people, however, this date represents their displacement and dispossession – an event they refer to collectively as the Nakba (”catastrophe.”)
The gathering in my home was one of four events that took place throughout the country on Thursday evening sponsored by “Rabbis Remembering the Nakba” – a new ad hoc group of rabbis and rabbinical students who seek to create a Jewish context for remembering this tragic event. Even more crucially, we believe it is critical that the Jewish community find a way to honestly face the painful truth of this event – and in particular, of Israel’s role in it.
In the words of a statement that was read at each gathering:
Our gathering tonight, “Rabbis Remembering the Nakba” is part of a series of programs occurring simultaneously around the country. It was originated by an ad-hoc group of American rabbis who desire to seriously reflect upon the meaning of Israel’s Independence Day. We are united in our common conviction that we cannot view Yom Ha’atzmaut – or what is for Palestinians the Nakba – as an occasion for celebration. Guided by the values of Jewish tradition, we believe that this day is more appropriately an occasion for zikaron (memory), cheshbon nefesh (“soul searching”) and teshuvah (“repentance.”)
These spiritual values compel us to acknowledge the following: that Israel’s founding is inextricably bound up with the dispossession of hundreds of thousands indigenous inhabitants of the land, that a moment so many Jews consider to be the occasion of national liberation is the occasion of tragedy and exile for another people, and that the violence begun in 1948 continues to this day. This is the truth of our common history – it cannot be denied, ignored or wished away.
Jewish tradition teaches that peace and reconciliation can only be achieved after a process of repentance. And we can only repent after an honest accounting of our responsibility in the wronging of others. While it is true that none of the Jews present tonight were actively involved in the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes in 1948, it is also true that if we deny or remain silent about the truth of these events, past and present, we remain complicit in this crime. In the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, “In a free society some are guilty, but all are responsible.”
Our gatherings this evening bring together Jews and Palestinians in this act of remembrance. This coming together is an essential, courageous choice. To choose to face this painful past together is to begin to give shape to a vision of the future where refugees go home, when the occupation is ended, when walls are torn down and where reconciliation is underway.
In addition to the event I hosted in Chicago, “Rabbis Remember the Nakba” gatherings were held simultaneously in Berkeley (led by Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb), New York (Rabbinical Student Alissa Wise), and Philadelphia (Rabbi Linda Holtzman). Though each event was organized separately and involved the additional participation of various local peace and justice groups, each gathering was linked by a few important common factors: each was led by a rabbi or rabbinical student, each involved the participation of both Jews and Palestinians, and each incorporated aspects of Jewish ritual in their ceremonies.
At the Chicago gathering, the guiding value of our ritual was zikaron – remembrance. As part of our ceremony, we bore witness by reading the history of the eight Palestinian villages that were destroyed on May 14, 1948. (In all, over 400 villages were depopulated of their inhabitants over the course of that year.) In addition to learning about the events that transpired on the Nakba, we also learned about the history, culture, and communal life of each village. (Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi’s exhaustive and highly recommended work, “All That Remains” was an essential resource for our ceremony.) After hearing the history and fate of each village, a memorial candle was lit and we recited the following line from the Yom Kippur liturgy together: ”These I remember and I pour out my soul.”
On the whole I would describe our evening as a modest first effort that nonetheless contained some profound and indelible moments. By incredible coincidence, one of the Palestinian participants, Shafic Budron, mentioned that his wife’s family was from al-Bassa – one of the eight villages we commemorated in our ceremony. (Al-Bassa was a large village in Acre District, near the northwest coast of Palestine.)
As we read about al-Bassa’s fate during the Nakba, we learned this tragic account relayed by Palestinian eyewitnesses: after occupying the village, Haganah forces lined up some of the townspeople outside a church, shot them, and ordered others to bury the bodies. Shafic said he has heard numerous stories about al-Bassa from his mother-in-law over the year, including her traumatic recounting of the massacre on May 14. He added that his mother-in-law now has Alzheimer’s and has lost most of her adult memory – her only remaining memories are of her childhood village.
After our ritual, other Palestinian participants spoke at length about the stories of their own families. One man told us about the experiences of his mother, who was a survivor of an infamous massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, outside Jerusalem. Our gathering also included a Christian Palestinian from the north of the country, who experienced the Nakba personally. Another Palestinian participant told us about his father who was saved by a Jewish friend during the Irgun’s attack on Jaffa.
In the end, the Palestinian participants were quite obviously moved that they were given this opportunity to have this conversation with Jews, as part of a ceremony convened by a rabbi. To put it mildly, it was obviously something quite unprecedented in their experience. For the Jewish participants, there were a myriad of complex and powerful emotions. I’m personally still trying to sort through them all.
Whatever cognitive dissonance I might feel over this issue, I truly believe that this kind of reckoning is utterly essential for us as Jews. When it comes to the Nakba, most of us tend to respond through denial, avoidance, or dismissive rationalization (”that’s just how nations are made – what can you do?”) The reason seems fairly clear: to face the painful truths of this history means to admit that our people – a people who has been the victim of dispossession and dehumanization for centuries – has now become the perpetrator. And if we do indeed manage to face these truths, where does that leave the Zionist narrative that has been so deeply cherished by so many of us for so long?
I don’t know where we will go from here, but everyone present agreed that this was the tentative beginning of something enormously important. Our humble gathering resonated with a myriad of implications that ranged from the personal to the political. But by the end of the evening, it was clear that whatever happens next, Jews and Palestinians must do it together.
PS: Just learned that Yisrael Beiteinu, the party of Avigdor Lieberman, seeks to make it illegal for Arabs in Israel to commemorate the Nakba. This is what it has now come to: memory is not only denied, it is now deemed against the law… ___ http://rabbibrant.com/2009/05/17/rabbis-remembering-the-nakhba/
Rabbis Remembering the Nakba May 17, 2009 by Rabbi Brant Rosen
“These I remember and I pour out my soul…”
Last Thursday night I welcomed 14 people – 9 Jews and 5 Palestinians – into my home for what turned out to be a powerful and sacred experience. The timing of our gathering was significant. May 14, 1948, the date of the State of Israel was declared, is a joyful milestone for Israel and Jews around the world. For the collective memory of the Palestinian people, however, this date represents their displacement and dispossession – an event they refer to collectively as the Nakba (”catastrophe.”)
not only is the Naqkba not recongnized, but neither is the devastation to Germany infliced by the Allies upon Jewish instigation not recognized. The denoazification of Germany, disbanding of the SS and Wehrmacht caused untold economic hardship on German families. The Berlin zoo, containing endangered species, was devastated. The firebombing of Dresden contributed to global warming. Next Yom Kippur, I will invite 9 veterans of the SS and a few jews to my apartment for a reconciliation ceremony. Pork sausages and sauerbraten will be served as authentic German cuisine, and jews who are offended by the possibility of pork on yom kippur will have to get over it. I plan to invite some nationalistic Iranians too. Im sure something sacred and powerful will arise from this
Leonard Fein's cogent editorials somehow always bring the rabid foxes out of their holes. He needs to be reminded that there are many who appreciate his rational, knowledgeable voice. Reasonable disagreement, always; fulminating, angry, hateful speech never.
Judith,
Amen.
Rabbi Rosen has made a beginning, but, as Rabbi Jutner’s comment demonstrates, it is only a beginning. In addition we need to change our terms of reference.
In ’48 and ’67, the Israeli Jews and the Arabs were each sure of the justice of their side, and their intentions were equally murderous. The difference was that the Jews won, and, therefore, have had the opportunity to commit the greater offenses since. So, there is a need for the Jews to acknowledge our culpability, and there is a similar need for the Palestinians to acknowledge theirs. We would also do well to review the history of what the Jews and the Arabs have done to and for each other.
Discussing these issues in terms of Israelis vs. Arabs is a formula for fury and stonewalling. Remember most of the ’48 combatants are dead, and many of the ’67 combatants are focused on the future of their grandchildren. It will be easier to make progress if we think about Mahmoud, whose family was driven off their land, and Moshe, whose child was killed in a bus-bombing.
I personally against this law but not because the reason that were mention in this article or by Lee and the other. It is just an issue of free speech. Here is what legal expert have to say about this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3720926,00.html
Anyway Lee's argument that although Jews were majority in their area they were minority in a bigger area and therefore had no right to split is false. Because that bigger area that back then was the ?British mandate of Palestinian was not colonial entity but also area that was divided from the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs can play it double, on the one hand they wanted to split from the Ottoman, on the other hand to take that right from the Jews.
Moreover Lebanon was taken from Syria because in that area back then the Christians were majority, they were majority in Lebanon not in all Syria, yet the world (or France for that matter) decided to plit the area.
If the Jews were majority in a specific area and the UN decided to give it to them then there is no logic to expand it until the you get a bigger area in which they are minority. Such logic is anti democratic logic and is only a tool to deny rights.
if in specific area the majority want to have their state then they should get it. Especially if they live in a place that didn't yet formed as state. And that was indeed the situation in 48.
So no, the Arabs had NO right to attack the young Jewish state and what happened to them is their fault and product of their actions.
Israel for itself did everything it could for peace. Israel offered them most of the west bank and all of Gaza. Arafat rejected it. Israel left Gaza, a painful step for the Israeli society. and yet they continue to fire rockets on the resident of the south. They did before the siege.
So I don't know how they can blame Israel, the Palestinian have unreasonable demand that Israel will never accept. That is because they are suicidal.
correction for the link:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3720926,00.html
Joel A. Levitt you wrote: "In ’48 and ’67, the Israeli Jews and the Arabs were each sure of the justice of their side, and their intentions were equally murderous."
I am sorry I don't know from you get those ideas, but this is bullshit. The Jews had no murderous intentions.
Had they had such intention they could have done it.
It was the Arabs that wanted to throw the Jews to the sea, but failed.
I see that people here feel the need to make an equation and to say that both side are equally fault. The true is that the Jews had no choice given the circumstance, the Arabs had a choice and they choose to fight the Jews.
Frank,
"But a venomous antisemite "rabbi"?"
It's laughable that you're calling anyone else "venomous."
Perhaps, we need to try to find a common definition of progress. For me, progress is movement toward an Israel:
that is militarily and politically secure in the Middle East;
that is economically secure in the world, at large;
whose average citizen is prosperous, and
that is a source of undiluted pride for Jews around the world.
If we can find such a common definition, then we can evaluate all proposals as to whether they seem to lead to progress.
Joel A. Levitt I accept your definition.
TO Mr Levitt I suspect that you think my comments were sarcastic. I am absolutely serious about reconciling SS veterans and jews on Yom Kippur. I believe it is time for jews to explore different narratives of the holocaust. The Germans would not have killed large numbers of jews without provocation. I think we need to explore what our provocations to the Germans are, and we need to explore what our provocations to the Palestinains are. If you are in SF on Yom Kippur, you are invited to attend our reconciliation, provided that you are able to put aside traditional jewish tribal atavistic rites
Lee you talk about respecting other opinion but when someone talk about something you don't like you retreat to "Screw you."
You know how they say it in Hebrew: הפוסל במומו פוסל
In other words if you want civil discussion then behave in a proper way.
Oren,
I see what you're saying, but remember the expression "if the shoe fits, wear it." As far as I'm concerned, Rabbi Jutner, and Frank as well, are as hateful as David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.
To "Rabbi Tony":
Leonard Fine, is that you? LOL!
Rabbi Jutner,
Many Jews cannot accept a universe in which the Shoah could happen, and many cannot think of relating to Germans because of their hatred or because of their fear of being disloyal to the memory of their murdered relatives.
If you are similarly troubled, it may be useful to know that most of today’s Germans still feel guilty about the crimes of their parents. Also, the Shoah is especially frightening because it was carried out for the most part by a modern and supposedly enlightened western nation, but sadly campaigns of extermination are nothing new and continue today. We must each of us work to reform humanity, and we must also try to remember the sentiment of Devarim 24:16, “Children shall not be punished because of the sins of their parents; a person shall be punished only for that person’s own sin.”
Joel A. Levitt - Official Germany still feels guilty over the Holocaust. By "official", I mean the government. I don't think that you would be able to generalize and claim that the Germans in general feel guilt. Many Germans will tell you that "it was a long time ago", or "it was before we were born", etc. Moreover, in my limited experience of working in Germany, most people know very little about the Holocaust. It is not presented very seriously in school.
Rabbi Brant Rosen's marking of Nakba Day (as reported by Michael) seems to be quite a break with the Jewish legacy. On Pesach, the Egyptians were punished by the ten plagues, and their army was drowned at the Red Sea. The Midrash tells us a wonderful story in which the God of Israel expresses His displeasure at the Israelites' song of victory that appears in Exodus 15. "The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you sing?" Indeed, at the seder, we pour out the drops of wine to remember the suffering of the Egyptians - but the celebration of Pesach goes on (it is probably the most popular of all Jewish celebrations). No one would say: "How can we celebrate our freedom that came at such a terrible price of enemy suffering". Obviously, I regard the whole issue of Jews' marking the nakba as terribly misguided. We have the right to celebrate Yom Ha-'Atzmaut, and we have the right to celebrate our incredible success in fulfilling the age-old dreams of the Jewish people. Peoples all over the world celebrate victories and take pride in themselves. Our story is even more dramatic that most. However, if Rabbi Brant Rosen feels some sense of discomfort that the "Israelites are singing at the Red Sea while others have suffered", then during his Yom Ha-'Atzmaut he can pour out a few drops of wine from his cup of praise. He can be part of the collective Jewish drama together with all of the people of Israel, while at the same time he can note that no happiness is entirely complete.
Perhaps, the rabbi is the ideological continuity of the opposition of the "Classical Reform" to the founding of a Jewish state. The American Council for Judaism was quite active in the 1940's in an effort to prevent the founding of Israel. The nakba protests the very founding of the state, and this simple fact is obvious to anyone marking the day.
Yehudah – Your experience must be broader than mine. I hastily generalized from the nine German nationals I know. Also, I agree that we have every right to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzmaut. Since Kaplan was one of our staunchest Zionists, in the manner of Achad Ha Am, I think that your speculation about Reconstructionist Rabbi Rosen must be wrong.
I hope that, in addition to Oren, some of you other participants in this discussion would respond to my comment about needing a common definition of progress. Per the definition that I proposed, lamenting the losses experienced by the Palestinians, whether in Rabbi Rosen’s mode or in some other, is a first step toward reconciliation, i.e., toward Israeli security, and is, therefore, a progressive action.
Joel A. Levitt - The conflict is still in progress. Israel is still fighting for her right to exist. It's very much a propaganda war, but also the physical threats to our existence are very real. When the conflict ends and it becomes history, then and only then could you express sorrow over the suffering of your former enemies. They, too, should express their sorrow over your suffering. Right now, with a propaganda war waging everywhere, trying to annul our legitimacy as a people and as an independent state (sadly including the participation of Jews in this propaganda war), with Iran threatening to wipe us off the map and Hamas clarifying that "Palestine will be the graveyard of the Jewish people" (i.e. genocide), etc. - it's obviously wartime. The book of Qohelet 3:8 is a bit wiser than Rabbi Rosen: "There is a time for love and a time for hate; a time for war and a time for peace". There is a context to our lives. For some odd reason, when it comes to Israel everyone forgets this. You want Israel to be a "source of undiluted pride for Jews around the world". But it's wartime. We're in the midst of a complicated conflict. You want pride as if we're are not at war, as if we don't face the difficult dilemmas of survival in a very hostile world. Moreover, you are insisting that others cause you to have pride. You have no responsibilities in this drama. You didn't have to go to war to protect the Jewish people and its interests, nor do you send your son to lie in ambush so that others can sleep at night. People with no responsibilities, how amazing, never make bad (or good) decisions. No one has to call upon them to do something that will arouse the pride of other Jews in the world. Rabbi Rosen lives in a world where the Jews are not a distinct society, and they have no collective decisions to make that have an impact on the world around them or on the outcome of the very central drama of today's Jewish history. So, there are no Jewish dilemmas, no testing of their value-system. What is the meaning of a Jewish value-system in which someone else fights a war, and your job is just to ask for a source of pride? Bishvil kavod, tzarikh la'avod ("for pride, you have to go to work").
Anyway, Joel, let's wait for the end of the conflict for mourning and for embracing (again see Qohelet 3:5 - "a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing"). Right now, let's arrive at that day successfully.
Yehuda,
You wrote, “When the conflict ends and it becomes history, then and only then could you express sorrow over the suffering of your former enemies. They, too, should express their sorrow over your suffering.” and “Anyway, Joel, let's wait for the end of the conflict for mourning and for embracing ….”
You are right, they too should lament our suffering, but let’s not wait. Let us Jews, Israeli and non, try to promote peace, prosperity and ever increasing honor for Israel. Above all, too many have worked and died to establish and maintain a Jewish homeland for any of us to turn away in embarrassment or shame.
You are also right, I am not an Israeli. I continue to be unwilling to make Aliyah, joining friends who continue to support the ideas of Kahane and Kach. And, at age 68, in indifferent health and with an indifferent knowledge of Hebrew, I doubt that my presence would do Israel much good. What I am willing to do is to support organizations like the New Israel Fund and OneVoice, monetarily, and President Obama, politically. Of course, I realize that things have been much easier for me than for people who have had to live in the midst of the conflict and, particularly, those who have consequently lost loved ones.
Achieving a better future for Israel is probably in the hands of the next generation, not in ours, and I believe that it is most important to promote positive contact between young Palestinians and young Jewish Israelis, so that they will understand that they are all part of our common humanity and need not be enemies. So, I support Open House and Neve Shalom - Wahat al-Salam, and people like Rabbi Rosen, who set an example for the youth of both Israel and Palestine.
You also wrote, “Will there be any Jews in the future Palestinian state? No, there won't be any. Israel, obviously, will continue being a state of mixed populations (Hebrew and Arabic), but the Palestinian state will not allow for any Hebrew presence.” Perhaps, you are now less certain of this, in view of the statements of Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), who heads the Palestinian negotiating team with Israel, as just reported in the article “PA: Settlers can become Palestinian citizens” (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088237.html).
Joel - There won't be any Jews in the Palestinian state. The Palestinians regard the settlements as illegal, and insist that they be evacuated. Moreover, Jews would be very much afraid to stay even if it would be possible (and it won't be). The Israeli society and the Palestinian society are not parallel worlds. An Arab is not afraid to live in Israel. He might have his complaints and grievances, but he understands that it's a stable world. In the Palestinian Authority, it is a "crime" punishable by death to sell land to a Jew - and arrest and trial can last just a few minutes. No Jew will be a citizen there.
You make it sound as though an American Jew going to live in Israel is necessarily an extremist. Come on. You surely have more experience than that with Israeli society. You'll find all kinds of Americans Jews here, and you know it (you've been here). That comment was really a kind of tossing mud at very good people from America and elsewhere who have come to Israel to make a life here - and shape the destiny of the Jewish people. It was a way of claiming that staying in America is an ideological choice of goodness over extremity. Absolutely not. American Jews don't come to live in Israel because of their American identity which is central in life. Most have but a meagre background in Jewish education.
The basis of Rabbi Rosen's interaction with Palestinians is the acceptance of their narrative. He won't celebrate Israel's independence, but he marks "nakba". This is not dialogue or mutual understanding. It's saying: "I see the world in your eyes". The Palestinians have no problems with a "dialogue" that promotes their world view, that presents Israel as guilty. Peace will not be achieved in such a way. Quite the contrary. The Palestinians will only be strengthened in their resolve to continue the struggle, saying: "If even the Jews claim that their state was born in sin, then we have been right all along. That state must cease to exist!" (Indeed, nakba means just that).
Let's see a real dialogue that presents both narratives. Let's present the Palestinian side a clear statement that we are also the children of this land, and we have the natural right of self-determination in it. What is the point of dialogue in which both sides agree that the one side is at fault? We are equals in the world community. Our aspirations and our pride must be presented with a raised head.
Yehuda - I was writing about very particular and formerly very dear friends.
By the way, I have some other commitments coming up, and I won't be able to participate again until after 6/17.
Yehuda,
"Let's present the Palestinian side a clear statement that we are also the children of this land, and we have the natural right of self-determination in it."
This is one of my problems with Zionism. The logic you present here, that Jews have a "natural right of self-determination" in "this land," is not generally accepted with regard to other groups in the world (the Cherokees in Georgia, the Gypsies in India, etc.) Yet you expect Palestinians and other Arabs to simply accept it as a given with regard to Jews in Palestine. To put it mildly, that is unrealistic.
It would be much wiser to say that even if Israel was "born in sin," it doesn't follow that it shouldn't exist today. Most Americans today believe the seizure of land from American Indians, which was critical in the creation of the U.S., was wrong. Yet virtually none think the U.S. should cease to exist because of it. Taking this approach would be much better than demanding that the Palestinians, in effect, accept the idea of Zionism.
Lee - There's the American story and there's ours. We are here because of the Jewish narrative. This narrative includes the memory of the Kingdom of Israel, the destruction of the Temple, etc, etc. The whole Jewish identity was formed throughout the Middle Ages, based on our ultimate return. This idea is called "geullah" (redemption). Now, I know that there are many Jews in the Diaspora for whom this legacy is now foreign. The word "exile" is meaningless to them, just as they hardly understand why they break a cup on their wedding (as most elements of the Jewish civilization are now foreign to them). But there are Jews for whom this is their Jewish world. There is no understanding the birth of Israel without being aware of this culture.
Now, the American story is a story of colonization. The motivation to arrive in America was very different. There is no reason to pretend that it's all the same. Surely there is no reason to believe that if we pretend that we are foreign invaders, then the conflict will be any closer to solution. Indeed, the Arab position has always argued that a colonial project has brought a foreign civilization to this land. By your logic, they would have to accept its reality, just as no one today would question the existence of the USA. However, the Arab side doesn't share your thoughts. They think that Israel was founded by colonialism, and therefore it should not exist. It's true that they also reject my view of the world. They deny the existence of ancient Israel, they deny the peoplehood of Jews, and they deny our connections to the land. So, you're right: they will not accept the Zionist ideology - but they are not willing to accept your view either that "a birth in sin" becomes a permanent reality after the fact.
The truth remains the truth. Our motivation was the renaissance of the Jewish people. This means the revival of the Hebrew language and the re-establishment of Jewish national life here. Assimilated Jews don't understand such things. Hebrew for them is a foreign language. They think that Israel is a result of the Holocaust and antisemitism. Israel, however, was founded despite the Holocaust. The Holocaust murdered the population that was enchanted by the message of Zionism. Despite this tragic loss, the yishuv managed to achieve its aims.
An interview with Amos Oz was published in the Forward just last week. I hope that you have read it. He says it much better than I could: Israel was founded by a dream. People criticize Israel, so he claims, because Israel doesn't meet their image of that dream (not because there is something particularly wrong with Israel). He didn't say what that dream was, but it is obvious: The return to Jerusalem.
Oren,
"Anyway Lee's argument that although Jews were majority in their area they were minority in a bigger area and therefore had no right to split is false. Because that bigger area that back then was the ?British mandate of Palestinian was not colonial entity but also area that was divided from the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs can play it double, on the one hand they wanted to split from the Ottoman, on the other hand to take that right from the Jews."
I'm sorry, but your argument simply doesn't make sense. The Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI. The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923. All of the actual partition proposals for Palestine came after this. By the 1930s and 1940s, when partition was proposed, it was moot that Palestine had been part of the Ottoman Empire. What was now in question was what to do with land that was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. And the majority of the people living in this land were Arabs, not Jews.