israel arab conflict – gbj_hiltermann

Upload: hubert-luns

Post on 07-Apr-2018

229 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    1/12

    - 1 -

    Israel surrounded by the Arabs- They believe they have the right to a pinprick of land -

    by G.B.J. Hiltermann, a Dutch political commentator and historian

    (1914-2000); from Collected Notes from Journeys and Home - 1974

    Published by Europese Publiciteits Maatschappij E.P.M. - Amsterdam

    On 12th

    October 1969, in his Sunday radio programme De toestand in de wereld (The

    World Situation), which attracts a great many listeners, Hiltermann called the national

    daily de Volkskrant frankly antisemitic or at least anti-Israel. The newspaper sued

    him for libel. After the newspaper had lost a preliminary summary procedure, during an or-

    dinary court case it was decided that Hiltermann had to withdraw his allegation, which he

    did publicly. At the newspapers request the Raad voor de Journalistiek (Netherlands Press

    Council) dealt with the case again but after a year of deliberations declared the complaint

    groundless. Hiltermanns comment on this was The most prepared, the most qualified, the

    only truly expert institute, the Press Council, took my side. (1) In 1974, after the Yom

    Kippur War of October 1973, he commented on the affair in his series of publications Ver-

    zamelde Notities (Collected Notes), in which the born Catholic Hiltermann took a sublime

    look at the history of the birth of the modern state of Israel. It is this that draws our atten-tion. (In order to make it more readable, parts omitted from this considerably abbreviated

    text are not indicated.)

    1 Why did the newspaper rush to the law?

    The court cases that de Volkskrant initiated against me in 1969 touch on some funda-

    mental questions with regard to Israels right to existence and the nature of antisemitism.

    It all started to recall the beginning when, during a radio programme, I dared to ex-

    press my astonishment regarding the slovenly, partial and sometimes frankly wrong

    reporting in de Volkskrant regarding events in the Near East (about the war of attrition

    being waged against Israel by Egypt and the PLO). A report of this kind in the news-

    papers Saturday edition caused me to make the following remark in my radio programmeon Sunday morning: that de Volkskrant has become the plaintiff for Communism to

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    2/12

    - 2 -

    such a extent that this Catholic newspaper has become frankly antisemitic or at least

    anti-Israel and on this point provides information that is entirely false

    The reaction of this originally Roman Catholic newspaper was remarkable. It took no

    offence at the accusation of being pro-Communism. The accusation that it was providing

    its readers with false information left it cold. It objected only to the accusation of being

    antisemitic. And that despite the inseparable addition ofor at least anti-Israel. And

    the most remarkable thing was that the newspaper immediately ran to all available judges.

    Why did the newspaper rush to the law? Newspapers seldom call on the aid of the courts.

    Daily newspapers and other mass media generally see to their own affairs. Certainly

    when it comes to mutual differences. The remarkable thing the characteristic of the

    mass media is that they can turn to one another and attack one another in full publicity

    coram populo. The verdict is spoken by a jury of hundreds of thousands of readers and

    listeners. A manufacturer of washing powder, who cannot directly defend himself against

    what a newspaper or radio programme says about him, seeks out a judge. Why then

    should a newspaper with a reasonable readership turn against a speaker on the radio with

    a considerable number of listeners via the narrow hearing apparatus and mouthpiece of a

    trial?

    Ifde Volkskranthad challenged me to a polemic in which I should either prove the truth

    of my statement or explain it, I would not have hesitated to recognise that I did not intend

    to qualify the newspaper as antisemitic in the Hitlerian sense of the word. With my

    inseparable characterisation of antisemitic, at least anti-Israel I meant that the news-

    paper gave reason to seriously suspect it of antisemitic feelings, and if that could not be

    proven or if it could be shown to be far from the truth, then at least it had an exorbitantly

    hostile attitude towards Israel.

    It seems advisable to me to use a separate qualification for the criminal antisemitism of a

    Hitler, and not to oblige ourselves to ban the word antisemitism because of the memory

    of concentration camps and gas chambers. If we were not allowed to use the word anylonger then we would in fact be protecting the antisemitism that still exists. We would

    force opponents to use euphemisms. We would hardly be able to expose it any more. It is

    thus more sensible to assume that not everyone who uses the term antisemitism means the

    pathological, criminal, rabid destruction of Jews as practised by Adolf Hitler and Julius

    Streicher.

    There is another form of antisemitism. There are people, as Professor Philip Kohnstamm

    (among others) wrote in his magnificent analysis The psychology of antisemitism, of

    them who do not like Jews. Some frankly proclaim it. There are those for whom the

    Jewish accent is unpleasant or who object to the Jewish appearance and sometimes even

    the Jewish way of doing things or whatever. This is permitted or at least not for-

    bidden. But anyone who thinks that waydoesnt like them and is against the Jews, isalready an antisemite, one whom we should be allowed so to name without being pu-

    nished for doing so. That does not, however, mean that he is accused of criminal and

    active antisemitism, nor even that he strives to limit Jewish influence in society.

    However no polemics took place. Only the small group of those who read the court

    proceedings took cognisance of my remarks following on some statements made by my

    opponents. There is then to start with the Israel is a state like any other theory. Why

    should it not be permitted to express criticism of Israel? Why should we have to handle

    Israel with kid gloves? Israel is, after all and wants to be a normal state. I would

    suggest that this first apparently undeniable simplification is not valid in general, be-

    cause there is no such thing as a normal state. Every state is a piece of regulated society.

    With civil servants, and therefore bureaucrats, awkward customs officials, disagreeablepolicemen, terrible taxes and so on But if we are talking about essentials, every state is

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    3/12

    - 3 -

    still a sacrosanct institution and even its name carries strong emotional overtones.

    Almost all states are the highest individual collective expression of illusions and longings,

    of the potential and history of its people. When he speaks of La France a Frenchman

    thinks of something different than does an American talking about the States.

    2 Israel is not a state like any other

    Every state somewhat resembles an artwork. States can inspire people to hefty outpou-

    rings and still can. No wonder that Providence was long considered the only founder of

    states. A state cannot be compared with an association representing the interests of its

    members. Secular states do not exist, at least not for long. This applies all the more so to

    Israel. For more than one reason! The first is that this is an exceptional nation. The Jewish

    people are not the only ones who have managed for centuries to remain in existence

    without having their own state. That is also the case with the Basques, the Druses, the

    Kurds and perhaps we should also reckon the Armenians and Lithuanians in this group.

    However, none of these peoples were scattered. Only the Jewish people were scattered all

    over the world as a people in time, as the Spanish diplomat Salvador de Madariaga once

    said and yet succeeded to maintain its special characteristics and properties.

    Moreover the Jewish people have made a fundamental contribution to the foundation of

    the culture in which we still live. The Christian faith, Christian ethics and the history of

    Christian churches and their influence on the affairs of the European cultural area cannot

    be understood without knowledge of the Jewish contribution to the emergence of Chris-

    tianity. Even now, when Christian beliefs and Christian ethics are undergoing a thorough

    process of reappraisal, a study of the spiritual contribution of the Jewish people as the

    basis of our civilization is required. Unlike other nations, the Jews also continue to pro-

    duce thinkers who contribute to our spiritual wealth. Their theological researchers further

    explored the antiquity of their religion, which has strongly marked our culture. Old

    scrolls, found in the Holy Land, which our eyes also focus on if we want to reflect on the

    origins of our culture, have further enriched our understanding.

    Jews have continued to make important contributions to new philosophies along the

    lines of Hasidism and through Martin Buber and Henri Bergson, to the personalism and

    existentialism of our era. It is characteristic of the Jewish talent, the Jewish-Dutch scien-

    tist Henri Prague has said in a convincing presentation, to make a direct link between the

    individual self and the greatness of the universe, whether it be God, another person or a

    thing. The Jews have always excelled in making this direct relationship. Which is why its

    people are a people unlike any other and their state too, an aspect that was again stressed

    during the last world war.

    But much more startling than what happened then, we should call the creation of the state

    of Israel, witnessing to an unimaginable will to live and to the vitality of that ancient and

    persecuted people, that always focused on mental activity with a vitality that we can only

    perceive in primitives, freeing itself from the ruins of the Second World War and turning

    the state of Israel into a viable entity. We can therefore safely say: Israel too is a state.

    But that does not mean it is a state like any other! In the same sense, on October 21st

    1969

    there was a headline to an editorial in the liberal daily the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant:

    A State with a background. With a background indeed.

    3 - The official Arab position: Israel must be destroyed

    An important point in the Israeli problem is that here the maxim audi et alterem partem

    let us also hear the other side is to be fully respected. Undoubtedly, after the SecondWorld War the Dutch showed little interest in the Arab world. Nor did the Arabs make it

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    4/12

    - 4 -

    any easier for us. Their states supplied little information. Access was made difficult for

    travellers. Representatives of the mass media, radio and television, were often denied

    access, or their work was made impossible. The old links faded. The number of Arab

    experts in this country decreased. No more candidates came forward for the Leiden Uni-

    versity chair that the Orientalist Snouck Hurgronje had made world famous and no more

    candidates applied for administrative positions in the Muslim Dutch East Indies. From

    their midst our diplomatic representative in Jeddah was usually chosen to oversee the

    welfare of thousands of pilgrims annually going from Indonesia to Mecca.

    The Arabs and we are estranged. Both have failed. To the disadvantage of both parties.

    This has undoubtedly influenced our attitude towards the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not, how-

    ever, as regards the main concern. Whoever says that we have little investigated the posi-

    tion of the other party suggests that many have succumbed to an excessive affection for

    Israel, many of them inspired by feelings of admiration, pity and guilt. Thus it would also

    be that the reasonable convictions of the Arabs deserve our attention.

    The reasoning may seem logical, but it makes it wrongly appear that an Arab position

    has always existed with regard to Israel. As if there were an Israeli view to which an Arabview could be compared! And that it would be Israels contempt for the Arab position,

    that would make a solution to the dispute difficult to find. Until the Yom Kippur war of

    October 1973 this was certainly not the case (Hiltermann wrote in 1974). For the Arab

    position until the last round of the war was simple and absolute: We do not want Israel!

    Whenever someone accepts Israels existence as a fact, his understanding of that Arab

    position becomes impossible. The state of Israel must be destroyed that was the official

    position. At the summit of Arab leaders in Khartoum, after the defeat of the Arabs in the

    Six Day War in 1967, that point of view was again deliberately and emphatically reite-

    rated. Thrice NO no recognition, no negotiations, no peace was once again the Arab

    policy. Only briefly, during the last months of the life of the Egyptian leader Gamal

    Abdel Nasser (who died in September 1970), did it seem as if at least two Arab countries,the United Arab Republic and Jordan, were willing to accept the fact of Israels exis-

    tence. But then no shape was given to this apparent willingness. Reluctantly, the position

    of Khartoum during the Geneva conference, immediately following the Yom Kippur war,

    was somewhat abandoned, indicating a possibility of a reversal (2).

    4 - Not Germany but Russia, gave impetus to the aliyah

    Nevertheless, showing understanding for the Arab position up to the end of 1973 also

    meant showing understanding for the view that Israel as a nation cannot and should not

    exist. Therefore many, willing to support the Arab case, spread views on the creation of

    Israel that take away the latters simple right to exist. One of these was Isaac Deutscher, a

    British journalist with a Polish-Jewish background and inventor of the parable of the

    jump from a burning house into someone elses garden, thereby breaking your neigh-

    bours leg! This parable suggests that Israel owes its existence to the criminal antise-

    mitism of Adolf Hitler and that the Jews jumped from the burning Nazi house into an

    Arab garden, which they took by force from the original owner. Superficial listeners, una-

    ware of Israel's history, may see this story as believable. I have to disappoint them. It is

    not even a simplification that has some leeway: it is an outright falsification in violation

    of the actual historical developments. For it was not the German antisemites, who called

    themselves National Socialists, that gave the impetus leading to the creation of a Jewish

    settlement in Israel, nor were they the ones who set in motion the proclamation of a Je-

    wish state. No, it was Israels current mortal enemies, the Russians, who caused the Je-

    wish colony that is now Israel to come into existence. The pogroms in Russia from 1881-1884, looked upon by the civilised world with horror and dismay, caused many Jews to

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    5/12

    - 5 -

    decide to devote their lives to finding a better home for the persecuted people. Leading

    Russian advocates for Jewish assimilation, such as the famous physician Leon Pinsker in

    Odessa, deeply affected by the pogroms, saw the futility of their struggle for emancipa-

    tion. From the Russia of the Tsars the first settlers turned back to the land of their ances-

    tors, to the Promised Land, in what is called the aliyah (ascent, immigration).

    The leap from the burning house or the jump from a sinking ship

    How is it possible to not embrace Zionism?they ask, if one recognises the Stateof Israel as an historic necessity? wrote Isaac Deutscher in 1954: What aDifficult and painful question to answer! From a burning or sinking ship peoplejump no matter where on to a lifeboat, a raft, or a float. The jumping is for theman historic necessity, and the raft is in a sense the basis of their whole existence.But does it follow that the jumping should be made into a programme, or that oneshould take a raft-State as the basis of a political orientation?

    After the Six-Day War of 1967 Deutscher demanded that Israel withdraw from theOccupied Territories (the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, Golan, Judea and Samaria). In an

    interview given to the New Left Review on the second Friday after the war, he sta-ted: A man once jumped from the top floor of a burning house in which manymembers of his family had already perished. He managed to save his life; but as hewas falling he hit a person standing down below and broke that person's legs andarms. The jumping man had no choice; yet to the man with the broken limbs hewas the cause of his misfortune. () You will, I am sure, recognise yourselves Isaid to my Israeli audience, the remnants of European Jewry in Israel in the manwho jumped from the blazing house. The other character represents, of course, thePalestine Arabs, more than a million of them, who have lost their lands and theirhomes. They are resentful; they gaze from across the frontiers on their old nativeplaces; they raid you stealthily and swear revenge. You punch and kick them mer-cilessly; you have shown that you know how to do it. But what is the sense of it?And what is the prospect? The responsibility for the tragedy of European Jews, for

    Auschwitz, Majdanek, and the slaughters in the ghetto, rests entirely on our own western bourgeois civilization, of which Nazism was the legitimate, even thoughdegenerate, offspring. Yet it was the Arabs who were made to pay the price for thecrimes the West committed towards the Jews. They are still made to pay it, for theguilty conscience of the West is, of course, pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. And howeasily Israel had allowed itself to be bribed and fooled by the false consciencemoney. (3)

    So no jumping from a burning house and not into anyones garden. Only after much

    hesitation was it decided to build the Jewish house in Palestine, which was still under

    Turkish rule, and at the time generally regarded as part of Syria. That would not have

    been decided at the time, had it not been shown that Palestine was virtually depopulated.Around the year 1850 the land had less than 200,000 inhabitants. In the Negev Desert

    wandering nomads and robbers undertook raids in the surrounding area. Reliable infor-

    mation on this subject from non-Jewish sources can be found, inter alia, in a report of

    the United States Consul T.G. Wilson of October 1881. Returning from a reconnaissance

    trip he reported that the plains were empty and neglected. In Jaffa no more than a hundred

    poverty-stricken families survived in huts together with their cattle. In his Recollections

    of Travels in the East (1830), John Carnet describes the inhabitants of Palestine as

    fearful and apathetic primitives (barbarians). The agricultural population suffered from

    malaria and the eye disease trachoma. In 1850 Haifa, the countrys second largest city

    after Jerusalem, had about four thousand inhabitants. This information can be found in the

    book Palestine Land of Promise by Walter Clay Lowdermilk (1944) (4), and it is repea-

    ted in Israel (1949) by Jozeph Milkman (5).

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    6/12

    - 6 -

    So it was not in someone elses garden, but in an almost deserted region that the settlers

    came. After having been eroded by the felling of trees, it was abandoned by the large

    landowners. This ravaged area seemed so unpromising that the Jewish agency often

    argued against settlement in Palestine, because the colonists, it was thought, would per-

    haps not be able to make the wasted lands fruitful once more.

    5 - Do not jump into someone elses land

    Is Palestine an Arab region? what is more: is it a sacred Arab region? It is difficult to

    condemn someone elses declaration that a particular place is sacred. The so-called Holy

    Land is undoubtedly a holy place for the Jews. The significance of Jerusalem for Chris-

    tendom is less, but it exists nonetheless. Why the Arabs called the city the noble sanctu-

    ary (al-Quds al-Sharif) is more difficult for us to understand. In my opinion the holiest

    places of Islam are in the Hijaz (Western Arabia). I can understand that the seats of the

    dynasties of the great caliphs are revered. But the Arab inclination towards Jerusalem

    seems frankly a bit odd to me - unless the country is revered as the home of the Jewish

    holy prophets because they are thought to have announced the revelation of Mohammed.

    But that is not exclusive: as the home of the prophets the land is holy for all of us. Why itis assumed that precisely from Jerusalem Mohammed ascended to heaven on a stairway

    of light is not easy for me to accept. But I have no right to reject this view. However I do

    think that I can conclude that the linking of Islam to Jerusalem should not be valued any

    more highly than that of Jews or Christians to that city, so that internationalisation of the

    holy places should be sought as a solution.

    Furthermore, I find it difficult to speak with much conviction of someone elses garden

    and Arab land, because if you wish to go back further in history, even though the He-

    brews did not inhabit the land from the time of the creation of the earth, they did live

    there long before the flood of Arabs arrived there in the 7th

    and 8th

    centuries AD. And

    Jews have always lived there since then: continuously since classical times there were

    Jewish colonies in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem.

    So no wild leap into a neglected garden. Until 1948, only by purchasing did land come

    into Jewish hands. Not an inch was forcibly taken from the owners. Thus there may be no

    feelings of resentment among the Arabs because of this. How this all went is compre-

    hensively and credibly set down in Joseph Klausners biography of Menahem Ussishkin,

    the great man of the Jewish National Fund (another leader who did not quit Hitlers Third

    Reich, but left Russia), the son of the wealthy merchant Reb Moshe Ussishkin Zevi, who

    initially lived in Dubrowna in Belarus, then in Moscow and through years of pogroms

    was moved to Zionism. During 1920 Ussishkin began negotiating the purchase of the

    Jezreel Valley in Palestine. This consisted partly of swamps, where malaria mosquitoes

    ruled. The price was much higher than for the same land in Southern California. (6) Un-

    acceptably high many thought, but Ussishkin managed to persuade his friends to buy. No

    price is too high for this holy land, he argued. Moreover, we will rehabilitate the land and

    then it will be worth the price. That is what happened. (7) The influx of Jews incited some

    Palestinians to return and it attracted many Arab settlers, because the Jewish immigrants

    brought activity. (8) Prosperity increased. Years later, after the establishment of Israel,

    the Palestinian refugees strongly condemned these land transactions. Their anger rightly

    focused more on the Arab sellers (who were often rich people from Lebanon) rather than

    on the Jewish buyers.

    6 - An Arab state of Palestine has never existed

    Not with a leap, not into anyone elses house, very definitely not into anyone elses state.An Arab state of Palestine did not exist and, indeed, has never existed, not even under a

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    7/12

    - 7 -

    different name. The reason for this is that the Arabs were so late in amalgamating to form

    nations. In the course of their history they did not feel the urge to found nations as we

    know them. Their prophet Muhammad did not do that, nor did his immediate successors,

    who served as an example for what followed later. During the Ottoman or Turkish rule,

    administrative circles did form with some central authority but no nations in the modern

    Western sense. The current Arab nations are young formations arising from Western ini-

    tiatives. Most date from the twentieth century. The Arabs were given the opportunity

    after having been liberated from Turkish rule provided that a period of British, French,

    Italian or Spanish colonisation preceded the formation of the state. As for the land of

    Palestine, for the part now called Israel, it was only possible to turn it into a state once the

    former Turkish province ceased to be under British mandate.

    The horrible tragedy of the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel is that they failed

    to assess the importance of the events. At the crucial moment they refused to participate

    in the new state because Jews were involved though not taking any initiative themsel-

    ves thereby failing to realise that they were missing their opportunity. In 1947 and 48

    the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine rejected outright the mixed Jewish-Arab state,

    which some of their leaders were to desire so ardently a quarter of a century later. (9)

    Can we say that the Palestinians are to a certain extent right in rejecting the Jewish role in

    the formation of the state? Were they not saddled with Jewish fellow inhabitants because

    during World War I Balfour had promised the formation of a Jewish national home in

    Palestine, thus buying the support of international Jewry in the war with the Central Po-

    wers? I think that such an argument reverses the facts. The Jews did not go to Palestine

    because of the Balfour Declaration, though that declaration was made possible and useful

    because the Jews had already been returning to Palestine for a long time. Jews who had

    been returning to the old country since the late nineteenth century took part in the forma-

    tion of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians were given ample time to reflect on it, because

    the formation of the state took place at snails pace.

    After the First World War Britain used its promise to the Jews as a pretext for governing

    Palestine by mandate. Britain was expected to monitor the implementation of that pro-

    mise, but does not seem to have kept itself very busy. (10) After World War II, to be

    exact on January 18, 1947, the British government announced that it could find no for-

    mula for peaceful coexistence of the Jewish part and what was called by way of conve-

    nience the Arab part. Britain saw no way of decolonising the colonised area that is, of

    getting rid of its Jewish settlements.

    7 - The Arab rejection of the partition plan was the real cause

    Since England withdrew on April 28th

    1947, it became the task of the United Nations to

    solve the Palestine puzzle. At that time the UN enjoyed great authority. The hope of the

    civilised world was fixed on it. After the rough war years, when injustice and arbitrari-

    ness ruled, the General Assembly was looked up to with great reverence as the global

    forum of representatives of peoples believing in law and reason and peace.

    The United Nations itself was not one to come up with false promises. The organisation

    set up an independent commission to draw up a report. The commission visited Palestine,

    including Jordan, and expressed its findings and recommendations in Geneva. The majo-

    rity concluded that it had to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. A minority pro-

    posed a federal solution. The Palestinian Arabs had boycotted the work of the commis-

    sion and wanted to know nothing of its final recommendations. The commissions plan to

    partition Palestine was ratified by the United Nations after many deliberations. It was onthe agenda from October to late November 1947. Finally came the historic decision. On

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    8/12

    - 8 -

    November 29th

    1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the plan with

    a two-thirds majority. This meant that the most authoritative body, the most represen-

    tative body in international politics, had at the time voted for a division, and thus for the

    establishment of a Jewish state and also for the establishment of another Arab populated

    area. There we see how the moment could have come for the creation of what is now

    widely advocated: a Jewish state and an Arab state, whether federal or not. The response

    of the Arabs: No! I believe the Palestinian non-Jews left unused a momentous occasion in

    the history of humankind at least as far as they were concerned.

    Thus if the idea of creating a home in Palestine was a reaction to the Russian pogroms,

    the emergence of Israel was not the answer to the German gas chambers but to the Arab

    rejection of the partition plan of the United Nations. And whereas on November 29th

    1947 the United Nations took their major decision, on 14th

    May 1948 less than six

    months later David Ben Gurion proclaimed the Declaration of Independence for the

    new republic called Israel. It was the Arabs themselves who, by their uncooperative and

    aggressive reaction, gave the final push to the creation of the republic of Israel.

    The new nation, known as Israel, was accepted by the world. Eleven minutes after the proclamation, President Truman approved the country de facto and not 48 hours would

    elapse before the Soviet Union even de jure recognised Israel. The new state joined

    the United Nations. In December 1948 five of the eleven members of the Security Coun-

    cil (France, Britain, Canada, Belgium and China) abstained when Israel submitted its

    membership application; Syria voted against. In March 1949 the Council recommended

    acceptance; only Egypt was still against. England submitted a blank vote because Israel

    had made no promises about the fate of the Arab refugees and an international status for

    Jerusalem. In May 1949 a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly admitted Israel as

    the 59th

    member of the UN. Nevertheless the Arab world continued to deny the existence

    of the new country. Only a quarter of a century later, from a few utterances of prominent

    Arab leaders at the conference in Geneva already referred to, could it be inferred that the

    Arab world is perhaps willing to resign itself to the existence of the fact of Israel.

    8 - The Palestinian refugee problem

    Today (wrote Hiltermann in 1974) it has not become any easier to make acceptable

    arrangements for the Palestinian non-Jews, in particular for the refugees. That problem

    has since been overgrown by myths. Let me first state that a number of Arabs had begun

    to leave the mandate area before 1947. These included the wealthy landowners and the

    well-to-do. At the time the Arab world was and is also largely still very elitist and has

    a capitalist structure. Many, afraid of what would happen when England ceded the man-

    date, took off of their own accord, without being encouraged to do so by anyone else.

    This exodus swelled into a mass flight following the decision of the General Assembly to

    partition the country. The emerging clashes between Jewish security organizations, vigi-

    lante groups, gangs and their Arab opponents, resulted in 1948 in a joint attack on the

    new state by the armies of the surrounding Arab countries. When the UN ordered a cease-

    fire, the parties accepted and the ceasefire lines became the borders of Israel; but groups

    of displaced people found themselves outside the Arab region.

    There is still a fierce debate over the question of who is responsible and therefore res-

    ponsible for the fate of the hundreds of thousands of refugees. On the Israeli side it has

    been suggested that Arab radio broadcasts encouraged these people to leave the field of

    war only to return after it was purified of the Jews. I do not think this discussion is quite

    relevant because I believe that it is not decisive which radio station or what authoritycaused the refugees to flee. Just like the tens of thousands who, in 1940, fled to France

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    9/12

    - 9 -

    from the Netherlands and Belgium to escape Hitlers armies, the Arabs were not given a

    diktat or marching orders to pack their bags. No less than refugees in Europe they attemp-

    ted to escape in terror from the war. It was not the one advising them to flee who can be

    held responsible for their fate but rather those practising violence. It was the war that the

    Arabs were fleeing from. It is certain who initiated the struggle in 1948: not the Israelis

    but the Arab Leage countries.

    What is certain is that at the time the BBC Radio quoted the Secretary-General of the

    Arab League at a press conference in Cairo as follows: This will be a genocidal war and

    a great slaughter, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Cru-

    sades. Exaggerated language of course. But what could the simple Arab population

    think other than that a horrible time was about to come?

    From descriptions by BBC correspondent Erskine Childers (11), who sympathises with

    the Arabs, it appears that there were 650,000 refugees, and that is definitely the maxi-

    mum. The lowest estimate is 300,000. Which means that initially there were no more re-

    fugees than there are people living in a large Dutch city.

    In theory it would have been extremely easy to collect them together and to set them

    down somewhere else, but in practice things were different. It is matter of abstract theory.

    To the outside world all Arabs feel like brothers and show mutual solidarity. Internally,

    things are different, because the fabric of their societies consists of families, clans, tribes

    and a few nations. Brethren from elsewhere are not easily incorporated into these struc-

    tures. This is true not only for those displaced from Palestine. Thus the poor devils from

    Yemen are welcome to join their affluent brethren in Kuwait as guest workers, but

    nothing more. Palestinian refugees are therefore not absorbed into the neighbouring and

    sparsely populated Arab commonwealth. Rather they have obtained a higher profile in

    their dispersion. Yet, it must be said, they have gained a place in the Arab world. It is in-

    correct to say that it is the Israelis who have created their problem: the Arabs themselves

    have done it.

    There was also a counter-current that was

    silently taken up in Israel. When it was

    stated in no uncertain terms that the Je-

    wish communities were no longer wel-

    come in the Arab host countries where

    they had been staying until then, an even

    larger number of Palestinian refugees fled

    to Israel, an aspect that is usually ignored.

    (12)

    It may be a good thing in order to burythat garden myth once and for all to

    think on the following: the entire Arab-

    Muslim population has 112 million people. That is a generous estimate, if the criterion

    Arab is readily accepted also for mixed peoples because they were represented at a

    meeting such as that held in Khartoum. This multitude possesses 11.6 million square

    kilometres. That is a huge expanse more than 280 times the size of the Netherlands and

    more than 500 times that of Israel. On this vast plain, 2.5 million, 20% of world Jewry,

    ask for a piece of land the size of a postage stamp. The Jews in the world are a mere

    particle. They believe they have the right to a pinhead of space

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    10/12

    - 10 -

    Remark by Luns: On the map at the beginning of this article and the one above part ofIsrael is coloured differently. That is actually Israels heartland, covering Judea and

    Samaria, generally indicated by the misleading term West Bank. This area was occupiedin the 1948 War of Independence by the Jordanian army and remained so until 1967 when, consequent on the Six Day War, it was once again united with the rest of Israel(then too the military-strategic Golan Heights were annexed, see movie Israel's Criti-cal Security Needs for a Viable Peace). Led by Glubb Pasha, an Englishman who wasactually named John Bagot, in 1948 Jewish inhabitants were expelled with brute forcefrom the biblical Judea and Samaria.Jewish cemeteries were desecrated and synagogueswere destroyed or violated by using them as stables or chicken coops, and even as toilets.Between 1948 and 1967 Jordan did little or nothing to develop these areas. Section 6 ofthe Jordanian Constitution explicitly stated: Any person, except a Jew, can be a Jorda-nian citizen and can live in the Jordanian controlled areas. Judea and Samaria, whenoccupied by Jordan, were thus off limits to Jews! There was, however, some Arab occu-pation. It was also the case that large areas were accessible to military personnel only.

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    11/12

    - 11 -

    What many do not know is that the large influx of settlers did not take place until between1974 and 2000, something that played no role when Hiltermann wrote his piece. Duringthis period an estimated 400,000 Arabs from Syria and Jordan moved here, often on onlya tourist visa. If it turned out that the social conditions and wages were much better thanat home, they decided to stay. The Jews returned after 1967, first to Hebron, where theJewish community was massacred in 1929, and also to the places around Gush Etzion,

    which the Arab Legion had destroyed in 1948. It was only after 1973 that the Jewish pio-neers began to settle in the deserted areas of Samaria, Benjamin and Jordan Valley, whilethe incoming Arabs went elsewhere. In 2010 about 1.3 million Islamic Arabs lived inJudea and Samaria as well as 400,000 Jews and an estimated 60,000 Christians.

    Notes written by Hubert Luns / April 2009

    The case against Jaffe Vink, a trial against Hiltermann(1) In 2008, a similar trial took place because of the imminent publication of a satiricalletter Balkenendes Secret Speech. It contained an alleged speech given by Dutch PrimeMinister Balkenende during a secret meeting with thirty prominent figures of his party, in which a comparison was drawn between Islam and Christianity and in which Islam wasqualified as a problem. This caused the Prime Minister to take out an injunction againstOpinio, with the Dutch State demanding on pain of fines the withdrawal of the text andthe publication of a rectification. The judge ruled that the article, written by editor JaffeVink, was obviously an invention designed to caricature the (lack of) controversy and toact as a provocation. The judgement stated literally: In so far as this is a critical treat-ment of Mr. Balkenende, it is something that he, as Prime Minister and leader of theChristian Democrat party, will have to put up with. At the time, one of the employees ofOpinio was the well-known politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali.(See article:The End of the Bal-kenende Era).

    The Rabat conference had not yet been held(2) When Hiltermann wrote his piece, the Rabat Conference in October 1974 betweenthe Arab leaders had not yet taken place. In the final communiqu of this conference themoderate position was buried and the old argument was reiterated: that the conflictwould continue until Israels destruction was achieved.

    (3) Source: The Non-Jewish Jew and other essays by Isaac Deutscher - Oxford Univer-sity Press, London # 1968 (pp. 112, 136-37).

    Lowdermilks round trip in 1938 en 1939(4) In 1938 and 1939, Walter C. Lowdermilk, an assistant chief of the US Soil Conser-vation Service, made an 18-month tour of Western Europe, North Africa, and the MiddleEast to study problems of soil erosion and land use. The research was done by his organi-sation at the request of a congressional committee. The main objective was to gain infor-mation in the interest of soil conservation in the United States. Palestine, Land ofPromise expresses Lowdermilks personal point of view and not necessarily that of theUS Soil Conservation Service (published by Victor Gollancz Ltd, London 1944; referen-ces pp. 60-61, 114).

    Jozeph Melkman, an important author(5) Jozeph Melkman, a Dutchman, changed his name to Joseph Michman after settlingin Israel. In 1957 he was elected chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust RemembranceInstitute. He died in early 2009. His son, Professor Dan Michman was made chief histo-rian of the Israel Finkler Institute for Holocaust Research in 1983.

    The land was sold for exorbitant prices(6) Ibid Lowdermilkp. 112:

    The Royal Commission Report points out that Jews, because of the pressure of(Jewish) refugee needs, pay far more than the land is actually worth. I found that

  • 8/6/2019 Israel Arab Conflict GBJ_Hiltermann

    12/12

    - 12 -

    they paid three or four times what similar plots cost in Syria and much more than thesame type of land would sell for in Southern California (in the US).

    The land was once more proposed to in marriage(7) As HenkPoot, a Dutch preacher and worker with Christians for Israel, expressed it:The land came to life once again. Nature bloomed and the birds came back. The land

    was once more proposed to in marriage by the sons and daughters of Israel!

    The activity attracted Arabs(8) Ibid Lowdermilkp. 110:

    The cost of living in Palestine is somewhat higher than in neighbouring countries,about 8 to 10 % above that in Syria, and 12 to 15 % above that in Iraq. Since wages inPalestine are more than double those in Syria and three times as high as those inIraq, Palestinian Arabs obviously enjoy a much higher standard of living.

    The lack of will on the part of the Arabs to sue for peace (9) The situation as expressed after the 1993 Oslo Accords and the accompanying RoadMap turned into a fiasco. Which proves that the Arab attitude has not changed, not even35 years after the 1974 Rabat summit. Every gesture on the part of Israel to achieve peace,

    such as the transfer of the Gaza Strip in 2005, is met with a lack of will on the part ofothers.

    How Transjordan was withdrawn from the Mandate(10) In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted Great Britain with the Palestine Man-date, recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine. Jewsand Arabs were commonly called the inhabitants of Palestine at the time, to be treatedirrespective of race and religion. In the Mandate no distinction was made between whatare now Palestine and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The whole region was calledPalestine and treated as one, at least in the mind of readers of the resolution, of whicharticle 5 states: The Mandatory (Great Britain) shall be responsible for seeing that noPalestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of,the Government of any foreign Power. Three months later, in a move to retain control

    over the Suez Canal, Britain and France agreed on a deal with the Hashemite family andKing Fuad of the newly independent state of Egypt. As a result, the territories east of theriver Jordan were ceded, called Transjordan, which comprised 77% of the original Man-date, and also the Golan Heights. It was a backroom deal and the League of Nations justrubber-stamped it in an apparent contradiction of its own resolution.

    Childers, a renowned commentator(11) In the 1960s Erskine Barton Childers was working for the BBC in both radio andtelevision. His broadcasts for the famous BBC World Service ranged on varying topicsfrom the Suez Crisis and Palestine of 1956 to the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963.The Suez Canal and Palestine issues would later form the basis of his often-quoted wri-tings. He was seen as one of the important writers in the West to challenge the view thatthe Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war fled their homes because of Arab evacuation or-

    ders. (See The Transformation of Palestine by Erskine B. Childers - Northwestern Uni-versity Press, Evanston # 1971, pp. 165-202).

    The Jewish exodus from the Arab countries(12) From 1948 until the early 1970s about 860,000 Jews left their homes in Arabcountries, where they had stayed for many generations and where they felt at home. Atotal of 260,000 reached Israel in the period between 1948 and 1951, and thereafter afurther 600,000. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled, while those of Iraq, Yemen,Syria, Lebanon and North Africa had to leave because of a coordinated effort by the Arabgovernments to create physical and political hardship. The exodus was the result of adeliberate policy on the part of the Arab League. Most were forced to abandon all theirbelongings without compensation. The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries(WOJAC) estimates the size of Jewish-owned real estate left behind in Arab countries at

    100,000 square kilometres, or more than four times the size of the State of Israel.