Israel/Palestine (to Patrick S. McNally)

To Patrick S. McNally:

I’m now trying to learn about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I don’t yet have a definite opinion about it, except that I mistrust the propaganda of both sides, and I’m wary of both sides’ tendency to dismiss the concerns of the other side.

Since you’ve studied this subject more than I have, I figure you might be a good person to give me a reality check on some Zionist talking points. (I would also appreciate comments from anyone else knowledgeable who happens to be reading this.)

I would be interested in your comments on an article I came across recently, The New Anti-Semitism by Bernard Lewis. Below are my own thoughts about it.

First, there’s the use of that term “anti-Semitism” to mean bigotry against Jews (or, by Lewis’s definition, “the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil”). Technically, “Semites” include Arabs as well as Jews, so I prefer the term “anti-Jew bigotry” or “Jew-hating” for what is commonly referred to as anti-Semitism. As a replacement for Lewis’s use of the term “anti-Semitism,” I guess I would use “demonization of Jews.”

Bernard Lewis says:

The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil. Complaints against people of other groups rarely include it. This accusation of cosmic, satanic evil attributed to Jews, in various parts of the world and in various forms, is what has come to be known in modern times as anti-Semitism.

Jews are far from the only people who have been demonized. Back in the days of the Cold War, Communists were demonized. These past several decades, the Christian religious right wing had demonized “secular humanists.”

Anyhow, the article contains a number of historical claims that I’m not very familiar with, and of whose accuracy I’m uncertain. I would be very interested in your critique. If you can provide links to relevant scholarly online resources, that would be even better.

What do you think of the following claims?

Bernard Lewis says:

The United Nations’s handling of the 1948 war and the resulting problems shows some curious disparities—for example, on the question of refugees. At the end of the initial struggle in Palestine, part of the country was under the rule of the newly created Jewish state, part under the rule of neighboring Arab governments. A significant number of Arabs remained in the territories under Jewish rule. It was taken then as axiomatic, and has never been challenged since, that no Jews could remain in the areas of Palestine under Arab rule, so that as well as Arab refugees from the Jewish-controlled areas, there were Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of mandatary Palestine, not just settlers, but old, established groups, notably the ancient Jewish community in East Jerusalem, which was totally evicted and its monuments desecrated or destroyed. The United Nations seemed to have no problem with this; nor did international public opinion. When Jews were driven out, no provision was made for them, no help offered, no protest made. This surely sent a very clear message to the Arab world, a less clear message to the Jews.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

Jewish refugees came not only from those parts of Palestine that were under Arab rule, but also from Arab countries, where the Jewish communities either fled or were driven out, in numbers roughly equal to those of the Arab refugees from Israel. Again, the response of the United Nations to the two groups of refugees was very different. For Arab refugees in Palestine, very elaborate arrangements were made and very extensive financing provided.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

This contrasts not only with the treatment of Jews from Arab countries, but with the treatment of all the other refugees at the time. The partition of Palestine in 1948 was a trivial affair compared with the partition of India in the previous year, which resulted in millions of refugees—Hindus who fled or were driven from Pakistan into India, and Muslims who fled or were driven from India into Pakistan. This occurred entirely without any help from the United Nations, and perhaps for that reason the refugees were all resettled. One could go back a little further and talk about the millions of refugees in Central and Eastern Europe—Poles fleeing from the Eastern Polish areas annexed to the Soviet Union and Germans fleeing from the East German areas annexed to Poland. Millions of them, of both nationalities, were left entirely to their own people and their own resources.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

Some other measures adopted at the time may be worth noting. All the Arab governments involved announced two things. First, they would not recognize Israel. They were entitled to do that. Second, they would not admit Israelis of any religion to their territories, which meant that not only Israeli Jews but also Israeli Muslims and Christians were not allowed into East Jerusalem. Catholic and Protestant Christians were permitted to enter once a year on Christmas Day for a few hours, but otherwise there was no admittance to the holy places in Jerusalem for Jews or Christians. Worse than that, Muslims in Israel were unable to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. For Christians, pilgrimage is optional. For Muslims it is a basic obligation of the faith. A Muslim is required to go on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina at least once in a lifetime. The Saudi government of the time ruled that Muslims who were Israeli citizens could not go. Some years later, they modified this rule.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

At the same time, virtually all the Arab governments announced that they would not give visas to Jews of any nationality. This was not furtive—it was public, proclaimed on the visa forms and in the tourist literature. They made it quite clear that people of the Jewish religion, no matter what their citizenship, would not be given visas or be permitted to enter any independent Arab country. Again, not a word of protest from anywhere. One can imagine the outrage if Israel had announced that it would not give visas to Muslims, still more if the United States were to do so. As directed against Jews, this ban was seen as perfectly natural and normal. In some countries it continues to this day, although in practice most Arab countries have given it up.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

After the 1967 war, the Israelis came into possession of the former Arab-occupied Palestinian territories, including a number of schools run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. These schools were funded by the United Nations. When the Israelis had a chance to look at the Syrian, Jordanian, or Egyptian textbooks that these UN-funded schools used, they found many examples of unequivocal anti-Semitism. Although the Israelis could do nothing about anti-Semitism in textbooks in Arab countries, they felt that they could do something about anti-Semitism in textbooks used in schools funded and maintained by the United Nations. The matter was referred to the UN, which referred it to UNESCO, which appointed a commission of three professors of Arabic—one Turkish, one French, and one American. These professors examined the textbooks and wrote a lengthy report saying that some textbooks were acceptable, some were beyond repair and should be abandoned, and some should be corrected. The report was presented to UNESCO on April 4, 1969. It was not published.

As far as you are aware, is this true?

I would very much appreciate any relevant info and sources you care to share.

One exception though: WordPress.com seems to have a lot of users in Western Europe, so I think we need to keep this discussion within the bounds of Western European law, even though I agree with you that such laws are ridiculous.