In Defense of Israel’s Legitimacy
Aug 18, 2010
George Weigel
Last month, I was happy to join with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, Nobel Peace Prize laureate David Trimble, Italian philosopher and political leader Marcello Pera, and several other international figures in launching a global “Friends of Israel” Initiative, which debuted in the United States in a July 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed article. The initiative, begun under Mr. Aznar’s leadership, intends to challenge the campaign of moral and political delegitimation to which the State of Israel has been subjected in recent years—a campaign which my colleagues and I believe has grave moral and strategic implications for the entire West.
As we stated in our joint Journal op-ed, we are an eclectic group: none of us speaks for any Israeli government; all of us have our disagreements with Israeli policy. More importantly, however, we are agreed on the following, basic points:
• Israel is a mature, established democracy and an integral part of the community of democracies that is centered historically in the West; as such, Israel deserves to be treated as any other normal western country.
• Israel’s right-to-exist was established by international law (United Nations Resolution 181) in 1947. That decision recognized that the Jewish people had a right to establish a sovereign state on a land in which they have lived, and to which they have had a historic claim, for millennia. To dismiss this decision as a matter of guilt over the Holocaust—a common theme in the current campaign of delegitimation—is to misread history and to undercut the authority of international law.
• Israel, which has a clear right to self-defense, is beset today by a unique combination of threats: it must defend its people from attack while defending its very right to exist. No other state in the world faces this dual challenge. To deny Israel’s right to confront some of the world’s most vicious terrorist groups in order to ensure the safety of its citizens is to corrode international norms from within—a process that is already well-advanced at the United Nations, to that organization’s shame.
• The assault on Israel is one part of a more general assault on the West, on democracy, and on the moral and culture heritage that grew from the fruitful interaction of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. One especially threatening part of this assault is the effort to use human rights claims and claims of universal criminal jurisdiction as weapons against Israeli democracy. Should these efforts succeed, similar efforts will certainly be turned against other western democracies.
• Peace in the Middle East, to which all of us are firmly committed, is not a matter of Israel-and-the-Palestinians only. Responsible Israelis and responsible Palestinians both know that there will be no peace in the Middle East absent a pan-Arab recognition of Israel’s sovereign legitimacy.
• Israel and the West are both confronted with two particularly grave threats in the early twenty-first century: the threat of Islamist jihadism, which has already caused enormous suffering while altering patterns of daily life throughout the world, and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, led by men who believe that a new holocaust of the Jews will hasten the advent of the messianic age. Israel must not be put into a position of facing these threats alone. Those in the West who do not understand this should ponder the lessons of the late 1930s more carefully.
• The campaign of delegitimation against Israel includes aspects of that anti-Semitism that has fouled parts of western culture for centuries and that must be forthrightly condemned by all who share the moral values of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
The “Friends of Israel” initiative is no blank check for the present Israeli government, or for any future Israeli government. Rather, it is an effort, by men and women across the spectrum of responsible political opinion, to restore a measure of moral integrity to an international environment that is becoming increasingly toxic because of untruths and rank prejudices. The success or failure of such an appeal to moral reason promises to be an interesting bellwether.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Resources:
Comments:
8.18.2010 | 6:09am
Max says:
Oh bravo, Mr. Weigel! This is a long overdue intiative. Well done to all the FOIs for speaking the truth to politically correct and craven power.
8.18.2010 | 10:06am
Maria says:
God bless you Mr.Wiegel and all who want to help to bless the children of Abraham !
Seems like the coaltion can be a powerful force , to bring lasting peace , to the world at large by continuing in footsteps of H.H John Paul 11 , by furthuring cause on unity , lessening of misunderstandings between The Churches ..that could also be the best reparation for the holocaust ..and what could lift Europe out of its malaise !
Seems like the coaltion can be a powerful force , to bring lasting peace , to the world at large by continuing in footsteps of H.H John Paul 11 , by furthuring cause on unity , lessening of misunderstandings between The Churches ..that could also be the best reparation for the holocaust ..and what could lift Europe out of its malaise !
8.18.2010 | 11:55am
Richard says:
Mostly good points. But what do we do about the problem? Weigel doesn't mention that in defending itself Israel often attacks excessively by any reasonable standard of self defense. And I suspect this writer will be in favor of Israel essentially starting a war with Iran in the near future. He might even be in favor of this country embarking on an invasion.
8.18.2010 | 1:33pm
Bob G says:
On the whole I support Mr. Weigel’s defense of Israel. But the question may soon become academic if Israel feels compelled to do us a favor by taking out Iran’s nuclear capacity. That act would transform the diplomatic and mid-East landscape in highly unpredictable ways.
I don’t believe the Jews’ past residence in the area gave them a right to push Palestinians off ground they occupied. Would “Native Americans” have a right to push whites out of the U.S. if a world authority demanded it? This Jewish “divine right” to Israel seems far-fecthed.
But now we’re dealing with a “fact on the ground”: Jews have been there over half a century and have nowhere else to go. Since the creation of Israel was no more unsavory than the creation of most states, Jews have a right to remain.
My hunch is that the situation in Iran will most affect Israel’s international standing. Even half the muslim world would line up with Israel against the Shiites.
I don’t believe the Jews’ past residence in the area gave them a right to push Palestinians off ground they occupied. Would “Native Americans” have a right to push whites out of the U.S. if a world authority demanded it? This Jewish “divine right” to Israel seems far-fecthed.
But now we’re dealing with a “fact on the ground”: Jews have been there over half a century and have nowhere else to go. Since the creation of Israel was no more unsavory than the creation of most states, Jews have a right to remain.
My hunch is that the situation in Iran will most affect Israel’s international standing. Even half the muslim world would line up with Israel against the Shiites.
8.18.2010 | 2:45pm
"This Jewish “divine right” to Israel seems far-fecthed."
I would change the word "right" above to "gift".
Then I would counter:
God's divine gift to Israel is in the Scriptures.
I would change the word "right" above to "gift".
Then I would counter:
God's divine gift to Israel is in the Scriptures.
8.18.2010 | 3:46pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Wow, its hard for me to believe that such intelligent people actually can be so blind to the human rights record of the state of Israel. It's as if the Palestinians don't even exist.
Israel's history has also been one of expulsion, torture and violence towards the Palestinian people, of which the flotilla massacre is the latest manifestation. All of this is well documented. Tons of UN resolutions against Israel, condemnations by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and leading human rights organizations. And all you can say is "Israel has a right to defend itself." Wow.
This sort of xenophobia is what ultimately discredits an otherwise insightful journal. It also gives credence to those who think secular liberalism is the only basis for tolerance. Once in a while its good to listen to the other side.
Israel's history has also been one of expulsion, torture and violence towards the Palestinian people, of which the flotilla massacre is the latest manifestation. All of this is well documented. Tons of UN resolutions against Israel, condemnations by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and leading human rights organizations. And all you can say is "Israel has a right to defend itself." Wow.
This sort of xenophobia is what ultimately discredits an otherwise insightful journal. It also gives credence to those who think secular liberalism is the only basis for tolerance. Once in a while its good to listen to the other side.
8.18.2010 | 6:06pm
Elliott says:
Ed utters complaints commonly heard nowadays about Israel. But many of the complainers may be unaware that when Muslim Arabs controlled the land of Israel, they oppressed the Jews there. None other than Karl Marx, paraphrasing the French historian and diplomat Cesar Famin, wrote about this in an article in the New York Tribune of 4-15-1854. Famin's book had been published in 1853, at which time, Famin avers, Jews were a majority of the
Jerusalem population. See link:
http://hnn.us/articles/56698.html
It is curious indeed that Ed lashes Israel but seems unaware of the far worse, documented lack of human rights in Arab states generally.
But Ed's assertion that Israel is somehow guilty of HR violations because "tons of UN resolutions" say so is simply hilarious. Ed, is the UN or any UN political body anything other than a political assembly where states vote for their own interests and where Arab and Muslim states far outnumber Israel and therefore can offer their support to non-Arab, non-Muslim states in exchange for the right vote against Israel???
As to HRW, it has been exposed as pandering to wealthy Saudis for contributions, on a fund raising trip encouraged by the Saudi government. And Saudi Arabia is a land where the laws do not recognize human rights even in principle.
Ed, be kind to me. Too much laughter may be harmful to my health.
Jerusalem population. See link:
http://hnn.us/articles/56698.html
It is curious indeed that Ed lashes Israel but seems unaware of the far worse, documented lack of human rights in Arab states generally.
But Ed's assertion that Israel is somehow guilty of HR violations because "tons of UN resolutions" say so is simply hilarious. Ed, is the UN or any UN political body anything other than a political assembly where states vote for their own interests and where Arab and Muslim states far outnumber Israel and therefore can offer their support to non-Arab, non-Muslim states in exchange for the right vote against Israel???
As to HRW, it has been exposed as pandering to wealthy Saudis for contributions, on a fund raising trip encouraged by the Saudi government. And Saudi Arabia is a land where the laws do not recognize human rights even in principle.
Ed, be kind to me. Too much laughter may be harmful to my health.
8.18.2010 | 7:16pm
Richard says:
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur,
Thank you for the food for thought. No doubt we need to think more seriously about the Palestinian side of the issue in the West. But what would you answer in response to the claims of Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews, who then fled to Israel in great numbers? Perhaps both sides need to listen more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands
Best,
Richard
Thank you for the food for thought. No doubt we need to think more seriously about the Palestinian side of the issue in the West. But what would you answer in response to the claims of Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews, who then fled to Israel in great numbers? Perhaps both sides need to listen more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands
Best,
Richard
8.18.2010 | 11:06pm
MarcH says:
Richard wrote, "in defending itself Israel often attacks excessively by any reasonable standard of self defense".
Did you mean, for example, in Jenin (http://www.adl.org/israel/jenin/)?
Israel is at war with enemies who are not only flout the Law Of Armed Conflict but revel in calculated sadism. Would you care to point to another army which practices a more "reasonable standard of self defense" under similar circumstances?
Did you mean, for example, in Jenin (http://www.adl.org/israel/jenin/)?
Israel is at war with enemies who are not only flout the Law Of Armed Conflict but revel in calculated sadism. Would you care to point to another army which practices a more "reasonable standard of self defense" under similar circumstances?
8.18.2010 | 11:08pm
Solomon B says:
The "Friends of Israel Initiative" is spot on and this ffort is long overdue lest the world continues its trend to turn the factual truths upside down, as Melanie Phillips pointed our in her recent book "The World Turned Upside Down."
As a matter of fact, the legitimacy of Israel does not derive from UN Resolution 181, of November, 1947. The legitimacy of Israel derives from the "recognition of the HISTORICALconnection of the Jewish people to [the land known as] Palestine and the grounds for RECONSTITUTING their NATIONAL home there", as was entrenched in international law at the San Remo Conference in 1920, at the same time that the neighbouring Arab countries of Syria/Lebanon and Iraq were equally recognized in their sovereignty.
As a matter of fact, the legitimacy of Israel does not derive from UN Resolution 181, of November, 1947. The legitimacy of Israel derives from the "recognition of the HISTORICALconnection of the Jewish people to [the land known as] Palestine and the grounds for RECONSTITUTING their NATIONAL home there", as was entrenched in international law at the San Remo Conference in 1920, at the same time that the neighbouring Arab countries of Syria/Lebanon and Iraq were equally recognized in their sovereignty.
8.18.2010 | 11:29pm
Eric Giunta says:
I have a question, guys:
Was the "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine" a legally *binding* document? Just where does the United Nations get its legal authority to partition borders for countries? Anyone?
Was the "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine" a legally *binding* document? Just where does the United Nations get its legal authority to partition borders for countries? Anyone?
8.19.2010 | 2:59am
Elliott says:
Eric, you probably know the answer to your own question. Be that as it may, the answer is No. General Assembly resolutions are merely recommendations. See UN Charter, articles 10-14.
8.19.2010 | 12:46pm
David says:
Two prophetic quotations:
(1) In a letter he sent in 1902 to Theordor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, Lord Rothschild explained why he could not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He wrote that he “should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish colony pure and simple; such a colony would be Imperium Imperio; it would be a Ghetto with the prejudice of the Ghetto; it would be a small petty Jewish state, orthodox and illiberal, excluding the Gentile and the Christian.”
(2) In 1944, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, expressed himself as follows: "The concept of a racial state - the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences."
(1) In a letter he sent in 1902 to Theordor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, Lord Rothschild explained why he could not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He wrote that he “should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish colony pure and simple; such a colony would be Imperium Imperio; it would be a Ghetto with the prejudice of the Ghetto; it would be a small petty Jewish state, orthodox and illiberal, excluding the Gentile and the Christian.”
(2) In 1944, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, expressed himself as follows: "The concept of a racial state - the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences."
8.19.2010 | 1:55pm
David says:
The Partition Plan (UNGA Resolution 181, Nov. 29/47) was recommendatory only and contrary to the terms of the British Mandate, i.e., devoid of legal status. While the 1917 Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the 1922 British Mandate, the British government did not intend for there to be a "Jewish State" in Palestine. In fact, the mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, meaning that its purpose was to assist Palestine as a whole "until such time as [it is] able to stand alone."
The Partition Plan was also grossly unfair to the native Palestinians, who despite massive Jewish immigration (primarily from Poland and Russia), still made up about 70% of the population and owned 94% of the land, including state land. (Palestinians also owned 99.5% of East Jerusalem/the Old City.) Jews who made up about 30% of the population - only 30% of them had taken out citizenship and 10% of the Jewish population consisted of native anti-Zionist Palestinian/Arab Jews. Jews owned a mere 6% of the land. Despite these facts, the Partition Plan recommended - due to well documented pressure from the Truman administration - that the proposed Jewish state be given 56% of Palestine, including its most fertile areas. Jerusalem, Bethlehem and evirons were to be a corpus separatum with the result that the Palestinian state would have consisted of only 42% of Palestine - outrageous beyond words. Between passage of the Partition Plan and the declaration of the state of Israel on 15 May 1948, Jewish forces expelled 350,000-400,000 Palestinians (Plan Dalet), e.g., 60,000 driven out of Haifa in late April; 70,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May as well as 60,000 more from West Jerusalem in March and early May. Indeed, the situation was so grave that at the behest of the US, the UNGA was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favour of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine when Ben-Gurion et al. declared the "Jewish state." The massive and accelerating expulsion of Palestinians together with Israel's rejection of a US cease-fire proposal (agreed to by the Arabs) necessitated intervention by outnumbered and outgunned Arab state armies. During the ensuing war Israel seized 72% of Palestine, expelled a further 400,000-450,000 Palestinians and destroyed about 450 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries. AL NAKBA!!
The Partition Plan was also grossly unfair to the native Palestinians, who despite massive Jewish immigration (primarily from Poland and Russia), still made up about 70% of the population and owned 94% of the land, including state land. (Palestinians also owned 99.5% of East Jerusalem/the Old City.) Jews who made up about 30% of the population - only 30% of them had taken out citizenship and 10% of the Jewish population consisted of native anti-Zionist Palestinian/Arab Jews. Jews owned a mere 6% of the land. Despite these facts, the Partition Plan recommended - due to well documented pressure from the Truman administration - that the proposed Jewish state be given 56% of Palestine, including its most fertile areas. Jerusalem, Bethlehem and evirons were to be a corpus separatum with the result that the Palestinian state would have consisted of only 42% of Palestine - outrageous beyond words. Between passage of the Partition Plan and the declaration of the state of Israel on 15 May 1948, Jewish forces expelled 350,000-400,000 Palestinians (Plan Dalet), e.g., 60,000 driven out of Haifa in late April; 70,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May as well as 60,000 more from West Jerusalem in March and early May. Indeed, the situation was so grave that at the behest of the US, the UNGA was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favour of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine when Ben-Gurion et al. declared the "Jewish state." The massive and accelerating expulsion of Palestinians together with Israel's rejection of a US cease-fire proposal (agreed to by the Arabs) necessitated intervention by outnumbered and outgunned Arab state armies. During the ensuing war Israel seized 72% of Palestine, expelled a further 400,000-450,000 Palestinians and destroyed about 450 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries. AL NAKBA!!
8.19.2010 | 3:23pm
David says:
Correction:
In my last post I wrote "During the ensuing war Israel seized 72% of Palestine..." I meant to write "During the ensuing war Israel seized 78% of Palestine..."
In my last post I wrote "During the ensuing war Israel seized 72% of Palestine..." I meant to write "During the ensuing war Israel seized 78% of Palestine..."
8.19.2010 | 8:01pm
Solomon B says:
It is not difficult, as David does, to lift a couple of dissenting Jewish opinions from the overwhelming majority of Jews around the world who welcomed the Zionist project and paraded by the tens of thousands in New York, London, Toronto and elsewhere in May, 1920, to celebrate the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference two weeks earlier. David should know that Jews, to their everlasting credit, are anything but a monolithic group.
As to the rest of David's posting, I would invite him to read the contemporary reports by the British, American and Arab media who all recognized that the vast majority of the Arabs who left Palestine in 1948 did so either on their own volition or at the instigation of their Arab leaders. Even Mahmoud Abbas, the present president of the Palestinian Authority recognizes that fact. If there was a "nakba", it was largely one of their own making.
No matter what Israel's detractors may say, one thing should be clear by now: The State of Israel is where it is now "as of right and not on sufferance" (Churchill, 1922).
As to the rest of David's posting, I would invite him to read the contemporary reports by the British, American and Arab media who all recognized that the vast majority of the Arabs who left Palestine in 1948 did so either on their own volition or at the instigation of their Arab leaders. Even Mahmoud Abbas, the present president of the Palestinian Authority recognizes that fact. If there was a "nakba", it was largely one of their own making.
No matter what Israel's detractors may say, one thing should be clear by now: The State of Israel is where it is now "as of right and not on sufferance" (Churchill, 1922).
8.20.2010 | 7:05am
Krakow says:
Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo are certainly impressive members of the “A” list. Are there any prominent Orthodox Christians signing on?
Lobbyists have said, “It’s Iran first; it’s not Palestinians first.” OK, but without the inclusion of Orthodox Christians in the Judeo-Christian confrontation with the Persians, it will be a mess. We should let the Orthodox Christians go ahead of the Persians in the negotiations. So the order of the Judeo-Christian negotiations would be with Orthodox Christians first, with Persians second and with Palestinians third.
Some are suggesting that the Orthodox Christians aren’t ready to make an initial proposal to the Judeo-Christians. Maybe Orthodox Christians sold nuclear fuel to the Persians to force the Judeo-Christians to make the initial proposal instead. What should the Judeo-Christians initially offer to the Orthodox Christians? How about if the Judeo-Christians offer to buy oil from Orthodox Christians over next 25 years for $100 per barrel? A war with the Persians will cost at least $100 billion per year and it will last a decade or two. It’s cheaper to buy oil at $100 per barrel. And as part of the first negotiation, agree to replace Judeo-Christians with Orthodox Christians in the subsequent second and third negotiations. It is likely that the Orthodox Christians will pacify the Persians and the Palestinians in the second and third negotiations. At that price per barrel the Orthodox Christians might even accept the pope as their ecumenical patriarch, on a trial basis, over the next 25 years or so. What a bonus.
Alas, if expanding the negotiations from 3 parties (Judeo-Christians, Persians, Palestinians) to 4 parties (3 plus Orthodox Christians) makes things too complicated or $100 a barrel is too high then we will have to bluff the American public that a strategic strike will disarm the Persians and that the total cost of the subsequent skirmish will not exceed $50 billion or so. That’s a pretty big bluff. Trusting the Orthodox Christians might be more palatable than the big bluff especially if the Ukrainians lean West. But I could be wrong…
Lobbyists have said, “It’s Iran first; it’s not Palestinians first.” OK, but without the inclusion of Orthodox Christians in the Judeo-Christian confrontation with the Persians, it will be a mess. We should let the Orthodox Christians go ahead of the Persians in the negotiations. So the order of the Judeo-Christian negotiations would be with Orthodox Christians first, with Persians second and with Palestinians third.
Some are suggesting that the Orthodox Christians aren’t ready to make an initial proposal to the Judeo-Christians. Maybe Orthodox Christians sold nuclear fuel to the Persians to force the Judeo-Christians to make the initial proposal instead. What should the Judeo-Christians initially offer to the Orthodox Christians? How about if the Judeo-Christians offer to buy oil from Orthodox Christians over next 25 years for $100 per barrel? A war with the Persians will cost at least $100 billion per year and it will last a decade or two. It’s cheaper to buy oil at $100 per barrel. And as part of the first negotiation, agree to replace Judeo-Christians with Orthodox Christians in the subsequent second and third negotiations. It is likely that the Orthodox Christians will pacify the Persians and the Palestinians in the second and third negotiations. At that price per barrel the Orthodox Christians might even accept the pope as their ecumenical patriarch, on a trial basis, over the next 25 years or so. What a bonus.
Alas, if expanding the negotiations from 3 parties (Judeo-Christians, Persians, Palestinians) to 4 parties (3 plus Orthodox Christians) makes things too complicated or $100 a barrel is too high then we will have to bluff the American public that a strategic strike will disarm the Persians and that the total cost of the subsequent skirmish will not exceed $50 billion or so. That’s a pretty big bluff. Trusting the Orthodox Christians might be more palatable than the big bluff especially if the Ukrainians lean West. But I could be wrong…
8.20.2010 | 5:22pm
Frank Adam says:
The land split is an old chestnut. Just because the Jews owned 6% as private property does not mean the Arabs owned - or were entitled to privately own the rest! 70% of Western - Cisjordanian - Palestine was state, or other public lands or "waste" especially in the "southern triangle" of Beer Sheba Sub-District deliberately drawn to exclude settled land by the British. BS S-D is half the country and the biggest factor in all apparent imbalances in the land share out.
Besides, "divorce," courts also consider what the spouses brought to the marriage as dowry and work. In this respect the British Palestine Jewish community paid 2/3rds the tax revenues and as 1/3 rd the population were therefore paying 4x the tax contribution of the Moslem and Christian Arab communities between whom the Christians contributed more pro rata than the Moslems who gave them a grand kicking in 1948 whent he Christian Jerusalemites' numbers were halved from 24 k > 12k.
There are also sloppy-logic confusions over the Palestinian "Arab Jews" not all of whom were anti-Zionist in the same way that not all the ultra religious anti-Zionist Jews were local born either.
By May 1948 the British retreated into Haifa town then the port - excepting their forces in the hill country & Jerusalem which had already driven south along the watershed road to Egypt via El Arish - so their police reports and the press reports are reliable witness in Haifa rather than hearsay. Till the British left - mostly by April 48 admittedly - the Arab forces had the upper hand and the putative Israeli forces could barely hold their own defending convoys to their villages. For most of Dec 47 - Mar 48 British presence prevented "Israelis" mustering in numbers . The Haifa Arabs - and many Jaffa Arabs qv consular reports - wanted to leave for the same sensible civilian reasons that all civilians flee if they can when shooting starts for which the Arabs owe their people an explanation rejecting UN 181 in Nov 47 as promised since early summer 1947! I have family stories about Poland in 1915, France in 1940 and Londoners skipping the Blitz and the doodle bugs.
As regards demolitions what are wars about if not clearing fields of fire? Try explaining the Arab demolitions of Jerusalem synagogues, Etzion Block villages and the Dead Sea Works and villages at the N. end. When I was in British OTC's in the early 60's we were taught a thing or two by people who had served in WW II - and in Palestine post '45. In 1948 Palestine neither side had the numbers nor uniforms till June to identify "regular combatants", nor hold cleared buildings; and so till the Second Truce at the end of June, it was entirely legit military practice to demolish seized buildings to prevent enemy infiltrators returning, qv Cassino or Normandy press pics. Do not whinge about mosques either as Arabs sniped Tel Aviv from the Hassan Bek's minaret and in 1967 it took Israel a week to clear the Jordanian magazine from the El Aqsa - just as Turks had used the then Parthenon Mosque as a magaziine - which is why it was ruined by a mortar shell in about the 1680's.
Finally the Separate Jerusalem was a gerrymander including the outlying villages to rig even Arab and Jewish populations. With due respect to "the good pope" John XIII who repaired a lot of fences, in 1948 not just Arabs, but nobody, wanted Jewish government in Jerusalem and Pius XII's Vatican canvassed the Latin American states to vote against UN181; then after the 1949 armistice Jordan broke it not allowing jewish access to the Western Wall or the use of the university.
Besides, "divorce," courts also consider what the spouses brought to the marriage as dowry and work. In this respect the British Palestine Jewish community paid 2/3rds the tax revenues and as 1/3 rd the population were therefore paying 4x the tax contribution of the Moslem and Christian Arab communities between whom the Christians contributed more pro rata than the Moslems who gave them a grand kicking in 1948 whent he Christian Jerusalemites' numbers were halved from 24 k > 12k.
There are also sloppy-logic confusions over the Palestinian "Arab Jews" not all of whom were anti-Zionist in the same way that not all the ultra religious anti-Zionist Jews were local born either.
By May 1948 the British retreated into Haifa town then the port - excepting their forces in the hill country & Jerusalem which had already driven south along the watershed road to Egypt via El Arish - so their police reports and the press reports are reliable witness in Haifa rather than hearsay. Till the British left - mostly by April 48 admittedly - the Arab forces had the upper hand and the putative Israeli forces could barely hold their own defending convoys to their villages. For most of Dec 47 - Mar 48 British presence prevented "Israelis" mustering in numbers . The Haifa Arabs - and many Jaffa Arabs qv consular reports - wanted to leave for the same sensible civilian reasons that all civilians flee if they can when shooting starts for which the Arabs owe their people an explanation rejecting UN 181 in Nov 47 as promised since early summer 1947! I have family stories about Poland in 1915, France in 1940 and Londoners skipping the Blitz and the doodle bugs.
As regards demolitions what are wars about if not clearing fields of fire? Try explaining the Arab demolitions of Jerusalem synagogues, Etzion Block villages and the Dead Sea Works and villages at the N. end. When I was in British OTC's in the early 60's we were taught a thing or two by people who had served in WW II - and in Palestine post '45. In 1948 Palestine neither side had the numbers nor uniforms till June to identify "regular combatants", nor hold cleared buildings; and so till the Second Truce at the end of June, it was entirely legit military practice to demolish seized buildings to prevent enemy infiltrators returning, qv Cassino or Normandy press pics. Do not whinge about mosques either as Arabs sniped Tel Aviv from the Hassan Bek's minaret and in 1967 it took Israel a week to clear the Jordanian magazine from the El Aqsa - just as Turks had used the then Parthenon Mosque as a magaziine - which is why it was ruined by a mortar shell in about the 1680's.
Finally the Separate Jerusalem was a gerrymander including the outlying villages to rig even Arab and Jewish populations. With due respect to "the good pope" John XIII who repaired a lot of fences, in 1948 not just Arabs, but nobody, wanted Jewish government in Jerusalem and Pius XII's Vatican canvassed the Latin American states to vote against UN181; then after the 1949 armistice Jordan broke it not allowing jewish access to the Western Wall or the use of the university.
8.22.2010 | 7:02am
Barry says:
Thank you, Dr. Weigel, for helping start this important initiative. It stands for honest appraisal of the Israel-Arab dispute, rather than the usual politically and economically based placation of Arab claims against Israel. This dispute is principally based on the Arab claim that Israel has no right to exist, since it exists in the midst of Arab lands, and the fictitious claim that Israel arose by taking land from Arab Palestinian residents. In fact, the original Jewish settlements that made up the State of Israel as of 1948 were constructed on previously unoccupied and unused lands in the British Mandate of Palestine. Since its creation, Israel has successfully defended itself from repeated attempts at Arab destruction of this democratic Jewish state. The very unfortunate situation of non-acceptability of a Jewish state by the Arab world has led to thousands of casualties on both sides.
This is my view. I wish you much success in searching for and promoting the truth about this state of affairs.
This is my view. I wish you much success in searching for and promoting the truth about this state of affairs.
8.24.2010 | 8:52pm
Nick Rawlinson says:
Mr. Weigel I applaud you for publishing a detailed, factual tool that supporters of truth can use to help defend Israel against slander, misinformation, and unjustified allegations questioning the state's very right to exist.
10.4.2010 | 10:02am
Edie Figart says:
In 1944, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, expressed himself as follows: "The concept of a racial state - the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences." Thank you for the food for thought. No doubt we need to think more seriously about the Palestinian side of the issue in the West. But what would you answer in response to the claims of Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews, who then fled to Israel in great numbers? Perhaps both sides need to listen more.
11.11.2010 | 10:23pm
EmersonPhyllis29 says:
When you're in uncomfortable position and have no cash to move out from that point, you would require to take the personal loans. Because that should help you unquestionably. I take collateral loan every time I need and feel myself good just because of that.
11.25.2011 | 10:38am
Steve Roberts says:
Alas, if expanding the negotiations from 3 parties (Judeo-Christians, Persians, Palestinians) to 4 parties (3 plus Orthodox Christians) makes things too complicated or $100 a barrel is too high then we will have to bluff the American public that a strategic strike will disarm the Persians and that the total cost of the subsequent skirmish will not exceed $50 billion or so. That’s a pretty big bluff. Trusting the Orthodox Christians might be more palatable than the big bluff especially if the Ukrainians lean West. But I could be wrong…
nitric oxide
nitric oxide
12.19.2011 | 4:02am
Urolog Zagreb says:
It is really hard to understand what is really going on in the Middle East, looking from the West. Articles like these make the world be aware on the situation more. Thank you for this! If you have time, you can visit my blog Urolog Zagreb
1.29.2013 | 1:28am
Frederick the modest says:
I am a practicing Catholic and I a saddened by this article. To me it weakens my faith in the Catholic Religion. Israel has hijacked Judiasm. The state of Israel is a Zionist State. Please look at this video and research Zionism. Zionism is not of God. May God Bless us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q
