Ok, I know this post is ridiculously long but I spent a long time writing a couple of responses to this rabid lefty loony who wrote in to my place of work and complained about a publication of ours. I think I raise some interesting counter-arguments to her rants. Enjoy.
Sir/Madam,
You are complaining that the CESR publications on the 'Israeli-Palestinian
conflict' campaigns "demonize Israel" and erase the "context of terrorism":
I shall remind you that you invaded Palestine, seized it in 1948, finished
the conquest in 1967 and have been OCCUPYING it ever since: According to
International Law, you are an illegitimate, terrorist state and your
Palestinian VICTIMS have every right to resist your MILITARY OCCUPATION. You
possess the powerful lethal weapons, they have NOTHING.
You have been killing, arresting, expelling, expropriating, humiliating and
demonizing them ever since you first set foot in THEIR COUNTRY: Count the
massacres!
You will have no peace until you learn to live as peaceful immigrants on the
land of the Palestinians.
Get a conscience!
Mrs X Earmocn
UK/Europe
Dear Mrs Earmocn (I changed her name to protect her identity...and dignity)
Palestine* was not seized in 1947. The San Remo Conference of 1920 (text finalised in 1922) enshrined into international law the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Palestine. On 29 November, 1947, the United Nations voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, to create TWO states in what had been Mandate Palestine; one for Arabs living in that territory, who numbered in1947 roughly 900,000 people and one for the Jews living in that territory,who numbered about 600,000 people. Contrary to your rather hysterical letter, this is clearly not an invasion but an utterly legal method of establishing a country and Israel is therefore a totally legitimate entity in international law. You will remember that the Arab nations rejected the plan, launched a war against Israel, which they lost, after which the Kingdom of Transjordan occupied and annexed the West Bank for nineteen years.
At the beginning of June 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser (the Egyptian President) had deployed 80,000 troops and 900 tanks in the Sinai Peninsula, expelled UN peacekeepers from the Egyptian-Israeli border and had crucially closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (which was undoubtedly casus belli). Israel had every legal right to launch a pre-emptive strike against Egypt and Syria in view of their huge armies compared to Israel's, Israel's tiny geographic size and the bellicose and illegal actions of the Arab states. In contrast, Jordan had no right whatsoever to attack Israel during the Six-Day War as Israel had not initiated hostilities against it. Jordan's attack was completely illegal according to international law. Israel repulsed the Jordanian attacks and expelled the Jordanians from the West Bank which they had illegally annexed in 1950, an annexation
recognised only by the United Kingdom.
You should also know that since there has never been a sovereign state of Palestine (since the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan) the term occupation is wrong. In international law, only sovereign territory can be described as occupied.
Furthermore, in the summer of 2000, before the Palestinians initiated their terrorist/guerrilla war against the State of Israel, there was no 'military occupation' of the West Bank. Under the Oslo Peace Process, Israel had transferred 40% of the West Bank territory to Palestinian Authority (PA) civil and security control. This included 90% of the Palestinian population, so the Palestinians were in effect self-governing and semi-autonomous. The Israeli army only re-entered the West Bank after the intifada (named thusly since it is a Palestinian-initiated war) broke out and scores of Israeli civilians were murdered on buses, in restaurants, at night-clubs and anywhere else that terrorists could find civilians to blow up.
The Palestinians have as much right to 'resist' as you say, or in less Orwellian terms, carry out mass-murdering attacks which specifically target and kill hundreds of civilians, as do the young men who blew up the London Underground on 7 July, 2005. That is, none. There is never any excuse or justification for targeting civilians in war and your support of such a tactic is morally reprehensible. How do you view the Omaha bombing? Was that righteous 'resistance'? Surely, Catholics in Northern Ireland, as victims, have every right to resist occupation, no?
Your comment that Israel has lethal weapons and the Palestinians do not is nothing short of ludicrous and I shouldn't really dignify it with a comment. Suffice it to say that 1,005 Israelis have not been killed by Palestinian throwing stones.
Your views are so blinkered, so rooted in the ignorant and twisted rhetoric of the Palestinian narrative and the extreme-left that it is painfully obviously you really have no idea what you are talking about with regard to this conflict.
The Jewish people will never be immigrants in the Land of Israel. The Jewish people have a history in this land stretching back 3000 years. King David was building palaces in Jerusalem (you can come and take a guided tour if you like) before anyone in the British Isles could even write and while they were still living in huts made of mud and animal excrement.
Whenever, you, CESR [a group my place of work criticised about which her original letter was sent in response] or any other organisation tries to whitewash, distort or re-write history we seek to bring this to the attention of the donors of such an organisation and ask them if their funding guidelines are commensurate with the operations of their grantees.
Thank you for your letter,
Yours sincerely
The Cantankerous Camel
* The term Palestine is rather amorphous. Before 1918, 'Palestine' did not exist. The territory you refer to was simply part of the Ottoman province of Syria. Indeed, one of the most influential and important Palestinian leaders, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actually advocated for the inclusion of the territory on the west bank of the Jordan River (now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza) into the French Mandate of Syria.
Mr Cantankerous Camel,
As I was expecting, a supporter of the beleaguered 'Arabs' is 'blinkered, hysterical, ignorant, twisted and of course extreme-leftie': I usually get 'ranting' as well. Let us sum up: 'Backward Arabs' versus 'Clever Zionists'! I do know indeed about San Remo, Resolution 181 etc., but I do not read 'history' as taught in 'Israeli' schools. The fact is that, during WW1, the indigenous 'Palestinians-who-did-not-exist', together with their neighbours, were promised SELF-DETERMINATION by their 'liberators' who treacherously cut up the Middle East and installed the Zionists in a 'Land-without-a-people'...populated by some 700,000 HUMAN BEINGS. The 'nasty peasants' rose up against the invaders, when the traitors (British, French and friends) signed the 1922 agreement - utterly illegal, therefore null and void, since the indigenous inhabitants were NEVER consulted. It is amazing how 'laws' are fabricated! The same goes for UNGAR 181 - not endorsed by the UN Security Council – only passed on a SECOND vote, after extensive lobbying from Truman, his aides and 'diplomats', arm-twisting dozens of small nations (e.g. Greece and France threatened, Liberia and Latin American countries bribed). It is interesting that 'Israel' has NEVER accepted any UNSCR, e.g. 194 demanding the REPATRIATION of all those who had been brutally expelled (Beg your pardon, they 'left of their own accord'!). 1967: "'Israel' defends itself"...by seizing more land from neighbouring countries and UNSCR 242 is ignored. So, Palestine, after being OCCUPIED by the Ottomans, was...not occupied by the Zionists aided and abetted by the British? Of course, the British alone were the 'occupiers of Israel' and later, had to be taught a lesson! Who are you trying to fool? Now, on 28 Sept. 2000, the notorious General Sharon (of Sabra and Shatila fame) makes a 'private visit' to the Dome of the Rock, with his militia: 'Just a little incident' after the systematic colonization and ghettoization of the 'disputed territories': How inconsiderate of the Palestinians to turn into 'terrorists', instead of being meek lambs content with 40% of 22% of their native country (sorry 'not-country')! Let us see: Since 28-09-2000, at least 4,000 'Arabs' have been 'executed' by the 'Israeli' Occupation Force (well over 700 children, many of them direct hits). 'Never mind that lot'! As for Ireland: indeed, the Irish have had every right to RESIST the British Occupier, and I sincerely hope that there will be soon a United Ireland, as I wish for a single Palestine/'Israel', where all would live in a truly democratic state, after the refugees have recovered their towns and villages stolen from them in 1948 and 1967. Now for immigration: If I am not mistaken, in about 1250 BC, some Hebrew tribes invaded the Land of Canaan, whose indigenous inhabitants were slaughtered to make room for the 'Chosen People' who managed to have a kingdom for about 100 years. How history repeats itself! I do like the story about King David whose 'Palaces' can still be visited and who probably invented writing (5,400 years ago?). How lucky you are, not to be the descendant of those primitive Europeans, just as bad as those 'Arabs' polluting the Land given by God to superior-beings who have 'returned' to 'civilize' the local 'morons', oh so gently. Thanks for your history lesson: I shall pass it on to my friends.
Dear Mrs. X Earmocn,
If you generally write in the manner that you wrote to me I fail to see how you can feel aggrieved when someone calls you hysterical. If you are trying to prove your cold objectivity, shouting at me the words ‘resist’, ‘occupation’, ‘military occupation’, ‘human beings’ and so forth hardly seems the best way of achieving this goal. If people respond to your polemics by describing you as ranting then, from all the evidence I’ve seen, they may well have a point.
May I also commend you on your wily rhetorical skills. Your attempts to straw-man me are cunning although I understand your resort to such tactics, in light of the absence of real fact to support your political and historical claims. When did I ever say or imply that the Arabs are backward? When did I say or imply that the Arabs are morons or pollute the land? When did I ever, in any manner whatsoever, assert any racial connotation to the Arab-Israeli conflict? I do not appreciate this slur and find it rather offensive.
I also have to say that I am shocked that you do not repudiate the view expressed in your first letter that targeting civilians is a legitimate strategy and your support for both Irish and Palestinian terrorism. I still do not know how you square this with, for instance the terrorists who blew up the London Underground, which I presume (hesitantly) you do not condone. As I said previously, this position is a repugnant moral inversion, one which international law, the United Nations and all human rights organisations condemn.
Your attempts to obfuscate history are also noteworthy and, again, born of a desperate lack of facts to support your positions.
As you obviously know, prior to World War One much of the Arab World was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. The British never made any promises to any Palestinians. The reasons for this are two fold.
Firstly, Palestinians as a political entity simply did not exist. Nor for that matter were there any Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudi Arabians and so on. The notion that Arabs living in the Ottoman Empire could be divided up into the national groupings we find today is simply not one grounded in fact. As I mentioned in my previous email, much of what became Mandate Palestine was part of the former Ottoman Vilayet of Syria (also know as the Vilayet of Damascus). The rest of Mandate Palestine was taken from the Vilayet of Hejaz , the Vilayet of Beirut as well as the Sanjak of Jerusalem. In a similar manner, Iraq was pasted together from the Vilayets of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra but this does not imply that there was any national Iraqi identity at that time either, a fact apparent from the problems there today.
Secondly, I’m guessing that when you say the Palestinians ‘were promised self-determination by their “liberators”’ you were referring to the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. This correspondence was made between the British and Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca of the Hejaz. The Hejaz, as I’m sure you are well aware, is in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Hussein was a Hashemite leader of the Hejaz and not a Palestinian. Furthermore, the Sanjak of Jerusalem or any other specific reference to the territory of what would become Mandate Palestine is not mentioned anywhere in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In fact, in McMahon’s first letter to Hussein he said ‘with regard to the questions of limits and boundaries, it would appear to be premature to consume our time in discussing such details in the heat of war’. Pressed on the issue, McMahon wrote on October 24, 1915 ‘the two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded’. In the White Paper of 1922, Churchill stated that the territorial reservation made in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence ‘has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the Vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge [to the Arabs]’.
Since there was no political or national entity representing ‘Palestinian’ national interests (because, as, I mentioned, Palestinian nationalism did not yet exist) the division of the defeated Ottoman Empire by the British Empire and sanctioned by the League of Nation was not, as you claim illegal since there were no national institutions to consult.
Nevertheless, due to Britain’s promises to the Hashemites, the British did indeed create an Arab state from the territory of Mandate Palestine in 1922. It was called Transjordan (known since 1949 as Jordan after Jordan’s illegal occupation and annexation of the West Bank) and comprised 79% of Mandate Palestine. Jewish settlement was expressly forbidden east of the Jordan River, a racist law which remains in effect today.
Just a brief aside, your contemptuous reference to the notion of a land without a people was not so obvious to the Russian Jews of the First Aliyah since the population of the entire territory in the late 1880’s was between 400,000 and 600,000 people. Bearing in mind that there are currently 7,000,000 Israelis and 3,500,000 million Palestinians now living in the same area, the early Jewish pioneers may be forgiven for having thought the region a little under-populated.
Regarding UNGA Resolution 181, since the resolution was a recommendation to the Mandatory power, Britain, which accepted the result of the resolution, there was no need for Security Council endorsement. Britain duly complied with 181, terminated its Mandate and withdrew on May 15, 1948.
I would also like to briefly to address your distortions regarding the creation of the Palestinian refugees. Some, as in Lod and Ramle, were indeed expelled. Others such as in Haifa left of their own accord. As The Economist, reported on October 2, 1948, ‘of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades’. The example of Haifa is not a singular one. Near East Arabic Radio reported on April 3, 1948 that ‘it must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . .’. Your attempt to whitewash history is duly noted.
In your comment on 1967 I notice that you don’t try and argue with the fact that Israel was in mortal danger since it is hard to argue with historical fact but simply make snide comments about the outcome of a war the Arab states initiated. May I remind you of the Conference of Khartoum three months after the war where the Arab states issued their famous three no’s. No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel. This made it tough for Israel to enter into a dialogue with the defeated parties and to discuss peace and a return of captured territories, the declared intention of the Israeli government as of June 19, 1967.
You again justify the mass-murder of Israeli civilians when you argue that the Second Palestinian Intifada (terror-war) was a legitimate response to the visit of an Israeli politician to Judaism’s most holy place. Furthermore, the assertion that this one visit is the cause of nearly six years of unrelenting terrorism is laughable and fallacious. Arafat simply decided he did not want to make any concessions to achieve peace, or was not brave enough, and thought he’d try to achieve his maximalist aims by bombing Israelis into submission. The Palestinians started the Intifada and they can stop it any time they like. I note that you do not contest the fact that before the Palestinians launched the intifada there was no military occupation and they were self-governing and semi-autonomous. Clearly, their current predicament is entirely their own fault.
Your statistics are also wrong. According to B’Tselem, as of June 16, 3,441 Palestinians have died since September 2000. Of those 1,786 have been combatants, i.e. the majority. Israel, unlike the Palestinians does not, in your inflammatory words, ‘execute’ civilians. ‘Execution’ implies wanton targeting of civilians. I defy you to provide any proof that any command has ever been given by any Israeli commander or soldier to execute or target civilians. Your allegation is libellous and without foundation. Palestinian civilian casualties are incurred because of the complications of fighting a counter-terrorist war in which the terrorists use the civilian population as human shields. This picture is a prime example. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060627/ids_photos_wl/r2222548190.jpg There are many more.
Your reference to the biblical book of Joshua and how the Hebrew tribes invaded and ‘slaughtered’ the indigenous inhabitants is amusing. Since your faith in the bible is so deep you obviously also believe in the truth and legitimacy of the promises made by God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the book of Genesis that the Land of Canaan would be theirs as an eternal inheritance for their children.
The Israelites entered Canaan around the 13th Century BC and established a tribal federation. The Kingdom of Israel was truly united under the Davidic dynasty, established round about 1000BC. The Kingdom of Israel was split in roughly 930BC into the Kingdom of Judah in the south comprised of the tribes of Shimon, Judah, Benjamin and parts of Levi and the Kingdom of Israel in the north comprised of the other nine tribes. Despite these tribal divisions, the tribes intermarried and became assimilated into each other. The Kingdom of Israel fell in 721BC and the Kingdom of Judah fell in 587BC. However, in 537 the captives of Judah were allowed to return to their land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed by the Babylonians. The Kingdom of Judah was re-established with autonomy under the Persians, Greeks and Romans until the Romans removed autonomy from the Kingdom. The Bar Kochba revolt, which attempted to re-establish independence, was crushed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135, hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, and the majority were expelled. The final indignity was the change of Judah’s name to Syria Palaestina, named after the Israelites ancient enemies, the Philistines. The Arabs first arrived 500 years later. Once again, your attempts to distort and falsify history and erase over 1000 years of Israelite and Jewish history and presence in the Land of Israel are duly noted.
I never said that Kind David invented writing and I only invoked ancient history to counter your false claims that the Jewish people are immigrants in the region and to demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish people as opposed to, say, the English who can be considered to have been a nation for perhaps twelve hundred years at most. There was no racial connotation in my comments whatsoever.
I hope I have been able to clarify a few points of political and historical fact and would appreciate it if you pass this lesson on to your friends as well.
All the best,
The Cantankerous Camel
