Issue Of The Conflict Between Israel And The Palestinians - Essay Example

Issue Of The Conflict Between Israel And The Palestinians For the current generation the seemingly endless conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has lost all historical perspective. As King Abdullah (1948) writes in his prophetic letter, the idea that the central issue in the conflict was and still is ethnic hatred of Jews by their Arab counterparts would be the usual response from most Americans if asked. Abdullah, however, presents some interesting and at times well founded exceptions to this idea that explain the conflict in a way that removes much of the onus of responsibility from the Palestinians and places it firmly on the Israeli, American and British governments. Of all his arguments forwarded, the most significant and well founded are political criticisms of the United States and Britain and their respective roles in the formation of the state of Israel. Films such as Exodus, together with the horrific images that emerged from Germany’s concentration camps left an indelible mark on humanity, and rightly so. The effects of these images have also played a crucial role in what has evolved into a crisis in the Middle East that has one party, the Palestinians, crying foul, and the other, the Israelis, claiming rights to land Palestinians have lived on for 1300 years. In assessing any perspective, the temptation to see things from one side or the other is a very real problem. The Zionists, searching for Palestinian roots, wrote their history of the Jews in Palestine in the Middle Ages; the European Christians did the same. As Barnai (1992) suggests, history is often written through nationalistic eyes and as such may be rife with distortions that favor the side writing it. Abdullah’s and other arguments must be subject to that scrutiny. His first argument that Jews and Arabs lived in harmony for centuries, and that “For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab” is faulty. His contention that current animosities have nothing to do with tribal enmity is doubtful as well from a historical perspective. What Slovan (2010) refers to as the Jewish insistence that Judenhass, or Jew Hate is largely responsible appears to have weight when evidence is examined. While few reliable documents from very early times exist pertaining to the Jewish presence in Palestine and their treatment there, documents from the Ottoman Empire of the sixteenth century indicate they were there in significant roles. Barnai (1992) writes, “Jews were quickly integrated into the Ottoman Empire... [and] acquired key economic positions and were active in...industry, trade, and finance” (p.11). Jews even then were persecuted by local Arab officials. Barnai found, [There were] “laws discriminating against the Jews...prohibitions on buying land, on building houses and synagogues, and on riding horses, and restrictions in matters of dress and inheritance...” (p. 13). They were also forbidden to bury their dead on Mt Olive. Abdullah’s claim that Arabs are not anti-semitic does not seem a valid argument when considering these historical accounts. It is worth noting here that Dershowitz (2003), a lawyer, in his justification of the Jewish State does not bring this into the argument. Regarding Abdullah’s claims, and despite his protestations to the contrary, it seems probable that a strong element of institutionalized Judenhass [anti-semitism] is at play in the conflict. Looking at the Inquisition, the Holocaust and the Russian pograms, his claims that Jews suffered more in Christian Europe is undeniable and somewhat works as a counterargument against those who allege that Palestinian hatred of Jews supersedes the Palestinian right to the land. As an aside, his contention that the history of the Jews as a nomadic tribe does not hold much weight, since many of the tribes that eventually settled in one region or another were also nomadic at one time. A stronger argument supporting Abdullah’s position can be made considering the Arabs were the dominant culture in Palestine for many centuries and Britain’s autonomic acceptance in the 1930s of the Jewish historical connection as valid. It seems selective. The influx of immigrants, aided and abetted by the Americans after the war, in that sense can certainly be seen as forced and somehow legalized invasion. A report by the Esco Foundation (1947) in referring to the 1921 Carlsbad Resolution and the British sponsored Balfour Declaration, provides a clear indication of the resettlement policies over the wishes of indigenous Arabs as if nothing else, extremely naïve on Britain’s part. The Declaration states “... [the] question...of a Palestine in which the Arabs are reduced to a status falling short of full equality, is implicit in the emphatic assertion on the Jewish side of 'the basic principle that...neither of the two peoples shall dominate or be dominated by the other” (800). In the same report, however, we find statements regarding Jewish Agency policy that directly counter the former. “...that if in due course the Jews should form a majority in Palestine, no veto should be placed on Palestine becoming as Jewish state...” (p. 801). In context it should be mentioned that the British in 1946 did try to prevent what Halamish (1998) terms “Jewish illegal immigration” into Palestine as counter to agreements under the earlier Balfour Declaration. (p. xx) The degree of takeover, helped along by various failed attempts by the United States to broker a peace agreement, would not be obvious until 1991, and would see Abdullah’s worst predictions come to fruition. Miller (2008) writes, “...historic Palestine had pretty much disappeared into a division among Israel, Jordon and the occupied West Bank and Gaza. The remnants were separated from one another with no guaranteed access anywhere on any given day” (58). As charged by Abdullah, American Jewish money funded much of the illegal immigration to Palestine with the subtle consent of the government itself. Chomsky (1983) writes, “opinion and attitude have been dominated in the U. S by...’supporters of Israel’ (p.4) Halamish (1998) writes, “About 30,000 of them [illegal immigrants] made their way to Palestine [just after the war] on the nine ships purchased in America and manned by crews of American Jews” (16). The action was meant to stave off criticism by the British, who were then fighting the illegal mass immigration. America knew would be reluctant to legally challenge the actions because it was done under its auspices. (Halamish, 1998). In short, America was flexing its political muscle in promoting the illegal immigration. Another interesting and probably little known side to America involvement in Palestine was political. Peretz (1997) cites a quote from the Chicago Tribune. “"within a few days Jerusalem will fall into the hands of the British. Now comes the glorious news that Palestine will be given to the Jews. This is part of the plan to make the world safe for democracy" Peretz adds that there was considerable support for creation of a Jewish homeland long before the advent of the Jewish lobby. Perhaps the most cogent and reliable commentator on the subject of America’s involvement is Aaron David Miller, state department advisor to several presidents on the Middle East and public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Miller is also the author of the seminal work, The Much Too Promised Land (2008), an exhaustive personal chronology of American involvement over the years. Miller, as stated on a recent NPR interview, summed up the U.S. role quite sarcastically yet unalterably descriptive. “The United States has become Israel’s lawyer,” a position, he maintains, that is inconsistent and counterproductive with its role as chief mediator in the peace process. Chomsky (1983) writes, “...it is hypocritical to condemn Israel for establishing settlements while we pay for establishing and expanding them” (p. 1). Israel receives the highest per capita aid from the U.S. of any other country. (p. 9) Abdullah would say that the U.S. places itself in the same position as Britain in maintaining the Jews historical right to a homeland, then tries to negotiate peace terms from there. That the homeland happens to be in Palestine is really no concern of ours [U.S.], since, as Abdullah rightly if sardonically and naively points out, “the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself” (Abdullah, 1948). His argument is off the mark, since as everyone including Abdullah knew, the Jews did not want a U.S. homeland but one in Palestine, the place they believe to be theirs by historical right. Conclusion Research on the various sides of this argument is so extensive as to have a dizzying effect on any subsequent argument. Yet to argue Abdullah’s points it may be said that his perspective on the immigration in 1948 was largely due to Britain and America’s opinion that Jews claim to the historical and biblical right to the land was selective and favored the Jews for both emotional, political and economic reasons—to numerous to get into here. Regarding the mass immigration as “illegal,” it is proved. His charge that America holds responsibility for it seems valid given information available. What strikes the researcher most is how this all relates to current problems in the U.S. Ironically, America today finds itself in a similar situation with the influx of millions of illegal immigrants from Latin America. In this instance, however, it is not being forced upon us from the outside but by our own government and its failure to enforce immigration policy. Abdullah’s questions about how America would like it if...rings very close to home, as communities struggle with providing services, and fears in some quarters that the influx will lead to a takeover of the culture by foreigners who are quickly becoming the majority. References Abdullah, H.M.K.(1947). As the Arabs see the Jews" The American Magazine, November, 1947. Barnai, J. (1992).The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: Under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine. (Naomi Goldblum, Trans.). Tuscaloose, AL: University of Alabama Press. Chomsky, N. (1983). The fateful triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Dershowitz, A. (2003). The case for Israel. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Esco Foundation for Palestine, Inc. (1947). Palestine: A study of Jewish, Arab, and British policies, Vol. 1. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Halamish, A. (1998). The Exodus affair: Holocaust survivors and thesStruggle for Palestine. (Ora Cummings, Trans.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Miller, A.D. (2008).The much too promisedlLand: America’s elusive search for Arab- Israeli peace. New York: Bantam Press. Peretz, D. (1997). Origins of American support for Israel. Palestine-Israel Journal, Vol. 4: 3&4. Retrieved May 5, 2010 from: http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=449 Sloyan, G. S. “Christian persecution of Jews over the centuries.” Retrieved May 5, 2010 from: http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/persecution/persecution.pdf Read More