Guardian UK: We're not celebrating Israel's anniversary

EDIT: This is a letter to the Guardian, not an editorial position by the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/israelandthepalestinians

We're not celebrating Israel's anniversary

In May, Jewish organisations will be celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. This is understandable in the context of centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, we are Jews who will not be celebrating. Surely it is now time to acknowledge the narrative of the other, the price paid by another people for European anti-semitism and Hitler's genocidal policies. As Edward Said emphasised, what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba is to the Palestinians.

In April 1948, the same month as the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin and the mortar attack on Palestinian civilians in Haifa's market square, Plan Dalet was put into operation. This authorised the destruction of Palestinian villages and the expulsion of the indigenous population outside the borders of the state. We will not be celebrating.

In July 1948, 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in Lydda and Ramleh in the heat of the summer with no food or water. Hundreds died. It was known as the Death March. We will not be celebrating.

In all, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Some 400 villages were wiped off the map. That did not end the ethnic cleansing. Thousands of Palestinians (Israeli citizens) were expelled from the Galilee in 1956. Many thousands more when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Under international law and sanctioned by UN resolution 194, refugees from war have a right to return or compensation. Israel has never accepted that right. We will not be celebrating.

Continued...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/israelandthepalestinians

___________________________________________

Mike Malloy reads the letter, 4.30.2008;
http://media.putfile.com/Mike-Malloy-reads-Guardian-Letter---4-30-2008

Thanks for posting it.

into the next millenium?

Do you care about the almost 5 million Sudanese who have become refugees since the early 1990's?

Over 850,000 Jews lost their homes in 1948, more Jews than Arabs.

Why are these Palestinian refugees more important than any other refugee on the planet?

Is it because no Arab country will take them in and give them citizenship, and they wallow in refugee camps on global aid, to give the arab leaders a reason to hate Israel?

It's a pity that people lost their homes.

Other people have lost their homes, in far greater number.

I don't see anyone getting too upset about the other refugees.

Read this yesterday, thought it was an interesting observation.

The definition of "nakba" depends on the audience

Most Westerners would say that when Palestinian Arabs refer to the "nakba", or catastrophe, that they are referring to the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their homes in 1948, and their defeat in the 1948 war. Certainly pro-Palestinian Arab Westerners use the term that way, and Palestinian Arabs speaking to Westerners seem to keep that definition as well.

Wikipedia: Nakba Day, meaning "Day of the catastrophe" is a annual day of commemoration for the Palestinian people of their displacement and dispossession as a result of their defeat in the 1948 Palestine war.

Electronic Intifada: Every year Palestinians commemorate the Nakba ("the catastrophe"): the expulsion and dispossession of hundreds of thousands Palestinians from their homes and land in 1948.

Nakba Archive: During the 1948 war with the nascent state of Israel it is estimated that around half of the 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes or fled, to neighboring Arab states. This period of Palestinian history has come to be known as al-Nakba, ‘the catastrophe’.

To the West, this makes sense - it can certainly be seen as catastrophic that a large group of people become homeless in the space of a year, no matter the circumstances.

There is another definition of Nakba, however, one that Westerners do not see nearly as much.

Palestine News Network: The Israelis are gearing up to celebrate 60 years since the inception of their state, what the Palestinians refer to as the Catastrophe, Al Nakba.

Gulf News: Not quite two weeks from now, on May 8, Palestinians will commemorate the Nakba, when their homeland was dismembered exactly 60 years ago that day.

In other words, to Arabs, the Nakba is more associated with the establishment of Israel than with any negative events that occurred to Arabs in Palestine.

A little reflection shows that the idea that the Nakba is meant to show solidarity with Palestinian Arabs and not just antipathy to Zionist Jews is ludicrous. After all, the Palestinian Arabs have been kept in stateless limbo due to the direct actions of their Arab brethren and their own failed leaders, who cynically use them as pawns - to pressure Israel.

It is most instructive that "Nakba Day" is timed to coincide with the anniversary of Israel's independence, not with the anniversary of any notable acts of dispossession or massacres like Deir Yassin. The true catastrophe, in Arab thought, is the creation of a Jewish state and not the tragedies that happened to the Arab citizens who fled or died.

Palestinian Arabs cannot even conceive that there is a difference between the two concepts; that Israel's establishment was not meant to displace hundreds of thousands of people. They cannot imagine that the Jews at the time were far more interested in surviving and in building a viable state where they could live in peace than in hurting others - to Arabs of Palestinian descent, force-fed a steady diet of lies and propaganda, the Jews' entire purpose was destructive and not positive. (This is, of course, another aspect of their own projection of their desires vis a vis the Jews of Palestine in 1948.)

But even deeper is the idea that Jews establishing a tiny state on their historic homeland itself is what they consider their disaster - even if not one Arab had left their home they would still regard Israel's Independence Day to be their catastrophe.

And they still do.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/04/definition-of-nakba-depends-on-audience.html

of the Nakba, not denying anything.

first you use the 1947-1948 numbers to minimalize the number of Palestinians expelled from Israel, and then maximize the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries by using the numbers from 1947-2000. In truth the 1947-1948 numbers for each group are near equal with there being slightly more Palestinians around 750,000 Palestinians vs around 711,00 Jews, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there. The Jews expelled from Arab countries found an immediate home in Israel because Israel needed a way to insure the newly expelled Palestinian population was permanently displaced, and had nowhere to come back too.

People getting forced out of their homes so that other people can live there is kind of a big deal.

And just because it has happened to others in no way invalidates the suffering endured, and it certainly doesn't make the wrongs committed somehow less wrong.

Finally, there are plenty of movements working for the human rights of other refugees. I've no idea why you don't see any of them but I can assure you they exist.

There are twenty million refugees worldwide, and you are the most concerned about the Palestinians?

The fact that it has happened to others is totally germane to the conversation, because the suffering of the Palestinans is not more painful than the suffering of any other refugee.

The only difference is that many other refugees were integrated into new countries, and the Arab nations have refused to allow citizenship to the Palestinians.

Are you on a board ranting about the Janjaweed or other Arab militias that have raped and pillaged the Sudan and sent over five million into refugee status (and had a genocide on another two million)?

Or is only evil Israel the source of your anger about refugees?

Who says the suffering of the Palestinians is more painful than the suffering of other groups?

Who says I or others are most concerned about Palestinians and unconcerned about other refugees?

The reason there may be a heightened focus on their situation is because people like you continue to deny what is taking place and continue to pretend like Israel shares no blame. As well as propagating the ridiculous notion that all Israel has ever done is defend itself, and that no action Israel ever takes might actually be just as terrorist as the actions of those they claim to be fighting against.

And you constantly post this inflammatory idea that "evil Israel" is the real source of the anger. Sorry to tell you, it just isn't true. The anger and frustration stems from the fact that people like you refuse to wake up and see what Israel has done to these people. Israel forced them out of their homes. Nobody else. Israel stole their land. Nobody else. Israel massacred 130 Gazans a couple months ago, most of them civilians. Nobody else. Israel even dumps their sewage on them. Nobody else. Then you wonder why people might be upset about these things happening? Trying to paint anyone that objects to the criminal atrocities as being anti-Israel, rather than owning up and accepting that Israel actually is responsible and should be held accountable.

That's all anyone here is asking for: accountability. It's shocking to come here of all places, and to find how extraordinarily difficult that is to achieve. That's the reason for the heightened focus on the Palestinians. The total lack of accountability, the denials, the excuses, the justifications. If there were people here constantly excusing and justifying war crimes against other groups of refugees, I can almost guarantee you would find a similar amount of passion amongst fellow progressives working to counter those justifications and denials.

But you don't find the excuses and justifications for any other war criminals, not around here anyway. That's what it comes down to.

just people protecting their citizens, who are at daily risk from suicide bombers, rocket bombers, other bombers and militants who delight in killing Israelis.

On other other hand, what the Janjaweed has done in Sudan is a real genocide and has created real refugees, five million or more.

No accountability accepted for the massacres, for the extremely disproportionate number of civilians killed, for the theft of land from the native people. No accountability for the collective punishment, the extrajudicial killings, the system of racism, or the "reckless disregard for civilian life" as described by Amnesty International.

Nope, no war crimes here. It's "just people protecting their citizens".

Unbelievable.

This is precisely why we have such a heightened focus, and the ongoing heated debate.

The crimes are right there in our faces. Documented, proven, without doubt. Yet we get the continued excuses, denials, justifications, and refusal to accept accountability.

. . you're not making any progress here. Let's just look at your most recent claims in this last post.

a) "No accountability accepted for the massacres"

There have been no massacres since Israel has been a state. There have been Palestinians killed and sometimes civilians. There have also been Israelis killed and sometimes civilians. There is one reason for all those deaths. It is that the Palestinians insist on trying to kill Israels and refuse to stop. That causes armed conflict. Those are not massacres unless Israel (the state) intentionally tries to kill Palestinain civilians. You have provided no evidence that that has happened. Zero.

b) "No accountability accepted for the extremely disproportionate number of civilians killed"

First it's not extremely disproportionate. It's more like six to one for the two Intifadas. Extremely disproportionate would be more like like 10 or 50 or 100 to one. For example, about 400,000 Sudanese civilians have been killed in that conflict. I suppose a few Janjaweed have fallen off their camels or something which puts the ratio in that conflict at least at a few thousand to one. And the Sudanese villagers are not trying to kill the Janjaweed and kick them out of the country so they can have it. They are being killed in those horrendous ratios and absolute amounts simply because they are in the wrong tribe and because they are defenseless.

Both the ratio and the absolute numbers in the I/P conflict - which are really quite low for conflicts in this part of the world - are due to other factors. For one, in warfare armed defenders typically have a distinct advantage. Aggressors risk exposing themselves to get at the Israelis they want to kill. It's not uncommon for armed conflicts to have kill ratios disproportionate in favor of the defenders. That's why the US Marines suffered such heavy casualties in the Pacific in WWII. Gallipoli is another example. Finally, Israel has better and more modern weapons and a far better organized and trained military. Add those several factors and you easily get to the six to one ratio which is not exceptional at all.

Well actually, it is exceptional. I think you'd find that the ratio in Iraq is around 30 or 40 to one. That's because the US is not being nearly as careful nor being as patient as the Israelis in their efforts. The I/P conflict is exceptional in the relatively small numbers and low ratio of Palestinians killed over the years.

c) "No accountability accepted for the theft of land from the native people"

Leaving aside the fact that both Palestinians and Jews were indigenous to the land before the conflict started - there probably are cases on the WB where Israelis have taken over land illegally from Palestinian residents and some of that seems to be abetted by the occupation forces of the IDF. I agree that there eventually needs to be some accounting for that. If Israel was not forced to be the occupier of the WB then the problem would not have arisen. The Arabs did not want to become a state after the Six Day War when the Palestinians were offered reconciliation and complete Israeli withdrawal to mutually agreed borders. They refused to settle the issue choosing instead at Khartoum to hold out for the complete destruction of Israel. Notice that all Arab land in Gaza has been returned despite that. Israel is not at war with the people of the WB. Israel is administering the area and providing security for Israel against those who would attack Israel from the WB. Most Palestinians there are under the control of the PA. It's a murky area but it seems that Israel has every intention of accounting for these things as part of a final agreement leading to Palestinian statehood on the WB. For those reasons I don't think these accurately fall under the category of war crimes as you claim - but could well be civil crimes that should be addressed and the victims compensated and the perpetrators penalized where actual crimes were committed.

I realize you won't accept this view but it is a reasonable view of the situation. I think most realistic observers would agree.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Are you on a board ranting about the Janjaweed or other Arab militias that have raped and pillaged the Sudan and sent over five million into refugee status (and had a genocide on another two million)"?

Just what is your point here, this the Israel/Palestine forum or are telling pro_Palestinian posters to go elsewhere.

"The fact that it has happened to others is totally germane to the conversation, because the suffering of the Palestinans is not more painful than the suffering of any other refugee."

once again this the Israel/Palestine forum, that there are other refugees in the world is only germane as a form of distraction from the subject at hand

"Are you on a board ranting about the Janjaweed or other Arab militias that have raped and pillaged the Sudan and sent over five million into refugee status (and had a genocide on another two million)?"

Are you, you bring them enough here or is it just to distract and rationalize?
BTW the Janjaweed are not Arabs they are Black, the Janjaweed are Arabic speaking as are their victims, also all concerned are Islamic.

And despise their victims as Blacks. Doubtless it would bring a grin of shocked bemusement to an old Charleston auctioneer, who would have been happy to sell off job lots of either group, but that is the state of self-image at play here. There is a question of status involved, as Arabia is the origin of Islam, and Arabs its original exponents, and so a claim of Arab descent will be proclaimed by many, however tenuous its actual basis. In the minds of its participants, this is a race war within Islam, and there should be no mistake about it.

by the Janjaweed was due to there being some intermarriage with Bedouins a few hundred years ago. i was perhaps too blunt about it, however I have seen the Janjaweed called Arabs to incriminate all Arabs by association.

But in a society in which a high value is ascribed to the Arab, the association will be clung to for its elevating quality. There is also some over-lap in mode of life: the people from whom the Janjaweed arise are nomad in inclination; the people they prey upon sedentary farmers. There are few greater contempts than that of the nomad for the farmer down the history of human-kind. Anything that can give it an edge will be employed, including a largely specious 'racial' division. It would not be wise to suppose looking down on Blacks is a purely Western affectation. Nor, for that matter, is looking down on Arabs: acquaintances of Pakistani and Persian heritage have said things about Arabs to me that would make people here who rant about "****-******" and the like feel right at home....

It does not seem to me that if the Janjaweed are named as they would name themselves if asked, it can be stated that is done with an intention of calling all Arabs into disrepute. Someone with a different inclination might declare insisting they were Blacks was done with the intention of calling all Blacks into disrepute. It is unfortunate when these things get caught up in niceties of political line that have no relevance to the actual events, which are horrific.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

'We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.'

Like Australia, New Zealand or the USA? And even the UK got to be the country that it is through plenty of violence, what would now be called terrorism, and the invasion and brutal conquest of the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans in 1066. And not even touching the extremely controversial treatment/ annexations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. And no, I'm not a particular supporter of their current nationalist movements; what was done was done. The UK arguably should not have come to exist in its present form - certainly not in the ways that it did - but that is not a reason for disbanding it now. You could probably say the same about any country whose history is carefully examined.

And there are the implied myths once again that Israel was founded mainly because of the Holocaust and that it is peopled exclusively by Europaean refugees and their descendants. While the Holocaust increased the perception of urgency, there had been plans for a State of Israel long before. And many independent states were created shortly after WW2, with the dissolution of the British and French empires - not just Israel. And as stated in another thread, many Israelis are Jews of Middle Eastern, not Europaean, origin.

I recognize and respect some of the signatories' names. I agree with their pointing out that it's important to respect the needs of Palestinians as well as Israelis; that they too deserve a state; and that Israel often doesn't treat them well (neither does anyone else). I support compensation for the refugees of 1948. Most of all, I agree with their last line: "We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East." But this cannot be achieved by oversimplifying the issues. It is important for *all* sides to negotiate; to work for peace; to respect each other's rights. It sometimes seems that this would require a few miracles - but miracles, as well as too often the opposite, have been known to happen.

and see the borders and names of countries in 1930, 1970, 2008, for comparison's sake. Actually look at any historical maps over the past two hundred years, and it is clear that there have been many changes.

There have been many population shifts, new countries formed, populations displaced. It continues to happen.

What is curious to me is why none of the other new independent states or countries brings out such venom as does the thought of a Jewish state: Israel.

It has got to be because it is a JEWISH state.

There really is no other reason.

Otherwise people would be equally as offended by the dissolution of the Balkan states, or the population transfers in the Soviet Union, for example.

So Messrs Fry, Rose, Pinter et al (Letters, April 30) will not be celebrating Israel's independence. Were this gesture to have meaning, it should be made in an Israeli newspaper. Expressing such sentiments in the Guardian is the secular Jewish version of preaching to the choir.

Indeed one wonders if the real point here is to establish that the signatories of this letter are not like "those Jews", us bad ones, who will always defend Israel's right to exist, and celebrate the survival of our families there. Yes, we would like to see a different Israel and an end to occupation: however, strutting and fretting this point on an English left-liberal stage, however satisfying, has no impact on Israeli opinion save to alienate the very people who must consent to an eventual peace settlement. It is the politics of "not in my name" - which recent history suggests to be a message easily ignored, most of all when delivered by diaspora liberals (among whom I count myself) to an Israel facing daily attack.

British Jews, being subjected to less anti-semitism than any other European Jewish population, are in no position to lecture those of our cousins in Israel who can say: "I have no other country."
Reuben Cohen
London

The Jews who signed the Guardian letter were in such a hurry to tell us how much they are not celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel that they stampeded through the truth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/02/israelandthepalestinians?gusrc=rss&feed=fromtheguardian

I particularly like Mark Glanville's comments:

'Rather than sitting piously in their green rooms, ivory towers and Holland Park homes pontificating about all that is wrong with Israel, why don't the signatories of your letter do something positive towards achieving the laudable goal of Arab-Jewish harmony they apparently yearn for? Daniel Barenboim's Divan orchestra, which brings together Palestinian and Israeli youngsters, provides a shining example of what might be done'

Exactly!

There is not much I believe in, but I believe in that. Problems are not solved by making people shutup.