[NOTE: This article was published in Craccum, Issue 4, 2006. I was obliged to give equal weight to both sides of the argument and hence wasn't completely free to argue Israel's case, or critique the Palestinians', more passionately. See ADDENDUM for more comments]Events occurring in the Middle East have long captured interest, stimulated debate and roused emotions of people the world over. As Klaus Bosselmann of our fair university’s Faculty of Law stated in his introduction to this seminar, there has been misunderstanding about elections, motives and retaliations on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was therefore not surprising when two esteemed scholars of the calibre of Stephen Hoadley, Associate Professor from the Political Studies department of the University of Auckland and Zaeem Baksh, a Berkeley-educated sociologist now resident in the Waikato are prepared to debate the explosive situation (excuse the pun) in front of a packed lecture hall of students and interested members of the public. The purpose of the evening’s discussion, Bosselmann declared, was to identify the obstacles from the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives and to examine America’s stance on the matter.
Hoadley gave a brisk, dispassionate but informative history of the contested region from an Israeli/Jewish perspective. The Jews consider the region their ancestral homeland, as recorded in the Old Testament (Hoadley identifies this as the Jews’ title deed, but it is certainly not the only one). After being exiled by the Romans and living 2000 years in diaspora, they retained a bond with the land their enemies renamed Palestine. Jews also continued to live there throughout the years. The Zionist movement was born in the 19th century, out of the belief that Jews needed a haven from the persecution they had been facing. A state in their biblical homeland seemed the logical solution.
Following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Britain governed Palestine as a mandate, promising to respect the national ambitions of both Jews and Arabs in the region. Yet the British, as Hoadley opined, were ambivalent to the Jews and restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine at a time many could be saved (i.e. during the Nazi Holocaust). After the Second World War, Britain handed control of what was left of the Palestine mandate – Hoadley presented a map indicating it had included what is now the kingdom of Jordan – to the United Nations, who partitioned it into two states: one Arab, one Jewish. The Jews accepted the plan, whereas the Arabs rejected it; the idea broke down, and fighting between the two populations broke out. In May, 1948, the Jews declared the independence of the State of Israel, and were immediately attacked by surrounding Arab states. The outcome was a hollow victory for Israel, as there was little prospect of peace with its neighbours.
1948 was only one in a series of armed conflicts between Israel and the Arab states. After the Six Day War of 1967 Israel came into possession of the West Bank (from Jordan) and the Sinai and Gaza Strip (from Egypt), which in time came to be known as the Occupied Territories. UN Resolution 242 was passed, calling for an Israeli withdrawal from land captured, but Hoadley argued there have been differing interpretations as to how much land should be returned. A withdrawal from the Sinai region won Israel peace with Egypt, but the relationship between Israel and much of the Arab world has remained hostile. Once again Israel has given land for peace, having ceded Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005.
As for the Palestinian Arabs who fled or were expelled from what became Israel, Hoadley drew our attention to “a fact that is not often appreciated”: that a near equal number of Jews fled or were expelled from the surrounding Arab states at around the same time, thus amounting to an exchange of populations.
Hoadley also spoke about the origins of and reasons for US support for Israel. That Jews should return to their biblical homeland was a notion entertained by numerous American Christians. Some in the US continue to support Israel as they believe the two countries share a similar history and values. Contrary to what many think, says Hoadley, Israel is not dependent upon US aid for its survival (the US has also given aid to the Palestinians on humanitarian grounds), and the relationship has not always been as cordial as many would believe.
Israelis are weary of dealing with a Palestinian Authority whose maps don’t show an Israeli state, and with the continuous suicide bombings and rocket attacks, mistrust in the negotiation of peace has increased.
It has been tried before: a renewal of talks in 2000 between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak broke down, resulting in the second Intifada which continues to this day. Israel has long regarded Palestinian organisations, especially Fatah and Hamas, as terrorist and now that the latter is in power, many Israelis are anxious about their future: how can they negotiate with people for whom the destruction of their country is the supreme political goal? American voices have been more optimistic, suggesting that Hamas may go the way of Ireland’s Sinn Fein and develop a political wing of responsible leaders. Only time will tell.
Hoadley ended his section by detailing an outline for a lasting peace based on negotiation. Once we get around the refusal of Israel’s enemies to recognise its right to exist, a condemnation of terrorism should follow. Palestinians must organise their militia groups into a single unit just as Israel did with theirs in its formative years. Israel must put a stop to the growth of settlements and IDF presence in Palestinian areas. Sounds promising; however nothing in the Middle East comes that easily, what with the contest over Jerusalem and the Palestinians’ demand for the right to return.
As to the ownership of Jerusalem, Hoadley didn’t suggest a solution, but as to the right of return, he saw no “well-established precedent” as people throughout the ages have been displaced as a result of war or border clashes and have started new lives elsewhere. A reasonable alternative, to his mind, is for Palestinian claimants to petition the Israel government for compensation of property lost, as part of a final peace settlement. Once problems have been redressed, we can look forward to two sovereign states for two peoples, side by side.
It was evident from the beginning that Zaeem Baksh, in contrast to Hoadley, subscribes to a Marxist view of history and, particularly, the media and its influence. After greeting the audience, inclusively, in Maori, Arabic and Hebrew, he declared his wish to “go beyond” history and statistics, and invited the audience to think critically about what we have absorbed from the news media, which broadcast, not the objective truth, but “facts” as the “multinationals” would have us believe. He produced a newspaper clipping of the recent Israeli air-strike on Gaza, and voiced his frustration that the words “other people” were used to describe the three people killed in addition to targeted militants. According to Baksh, it is in the ruling class’s interests that we are kept from knowing who these “other” people were.
In a passionate, dramatic style, replete with emotive language and pregnant pauses, Baksh presented the Palestinian narrative. He argued that Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites and it would therefore be tragic if they were to give up hope of returning to what used to be Palestine.
That Israel claims that it carries out its military operations, as well as the Occupation, in the name of its people is sad. This is not the fault of the Israelis, he attests, but the “elite ruling class”; by building the wall, the powers that be have not only trapped the Palestinians, but Israelis as well. He asserted that America – whose friends in the region also include Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan – supports Israel for economic, rather than humanitarian reasons and its support could eventuate in a nuclear war if it is not careful.
In describing Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories, Baksh used the dramatic analogy of drunken home invaders harassing a defiant home-owner. He alleged that “Israel has successfully destroyed Palestine” and, like Hoadley, Baksh used maps to illustrate his history. His first set showed how much Palestinian land had supposedly been lost to Israel since 1946, with what ever is left reduced to “bantustans”. Another map displayed a Middle East including Israel but not Palestine (to be fair, the West Bank and Gaza were demarcated).
Baksh also made clear his dissatisfaction of the 2-state solution. The West Bank and Gaza, being two non-contiguous pieces of land, are infertile ground for a viable state to take root, with Palestinians having to go through “choke points” to get from Areas A to B. Furthermore, he pointed out that Israel has control of the region’s water and other natural resources, and it would be outrageous for this to continue.
Any debate on the Israeli-Arab conflict is known to ignite the passions of both sides, and naturally, the atmosphere went from hot to hotter during the Q and A section. Baksh fielded the lion’s share of the questions. One gentleman took umbrage to his representation of the conflict, particularly his views on suicide bombers. After Baksh voiced his ambivalence toward such acts, a member of the audience desired to know why he should not forsake his comfortable existence and don a bomb belt himself. “I’m a coward,” was his reply.
In answer to a query over the one-state solution, Baksh further asserted his opinion of it being the most “practical” outcome to the conflict. Quizzed on the point whether it is viable, given the intense animosity between the two peoples, he claimed, idyllically, that hatred can be unlearned. In response, one audience member voiced the opinion prevalent among Jews and Israelis: that to ask Israel to cease being a Jewish homeland would be an act of “chutzpah” (audacity) as it would mean giving up its raison d’etre.
Israel and Palestine: two peoples forced together by history in a land immersed in conflict, misunderstandings, anger and passion. Yet with dialogue, the kind of which took place at Wednesday’s seminar, we can gain understanding and compassion, and build peace. Thank you, Stephen Hoadley and Zaeem Baksh for your perspectives.
ADDENDUM: My article, as it appeared in Craccum was accompanied by the above-mentioned series of maps illustrating the Palestinian loss of land from 1946 to the present day. It is with a heavy heart that I reproduce it here:
To the uninformed mind, this image would seem to illustrate perfectly the injustice of Israel and Zionism. It appears, judging by these maps, that the Jews/Israelis have usurped the Palestinians' right to their land and have been encroaching onto more and more of it as the years have progressed. It's a powerful image, but is it representative of historical reality? Some points:
Firstly, "Palestine" was a region enclosed by artificial boundaries drawn up by Britain after World War I. Though the first map gives the impression of a unitary territory - "Palestine" - the area shown is simply what was left of the Palestine mandate once the Brits lopped off the big bit of land east of the Jordan river - what is now Jordan.
Secondly, the first map gives the impression that the "Palestinians" owned everything barring what was owned by Jews. This was not the case, as
CAMERA points out in response to Hanan Ashwari:
Regarding the ownership of land pre-1948, Ashrawi has alleged:
You want to go back to 1948, 1947 –– Jews owned 7 percent of the land, Palestinians owned 93 percent of all of Palestine. ("The Connection," WBUR, Jan. 18, 2000)
Ashrawi routinely propagates the common but false claim that land not owned by Jews in Palestine in 1948 belonged to Palestinian Arabs. In fact, historically, under Ottoman and British rule, most of the land was government owned. According to statistics from the Survey of Palestine, which was published in 1946 by British Mandate authorities, and later republished by the PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, Jews owned 8.6 percent of the land and Arabs owned 28.6 percent. But the Arab total included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Not counting Bedouin grazing land and waste land, Arab owned land totaled only 6.8 percent. But, even if one counts land in these categories as Arab owned, the majority of land in Palestine in 1948 was state land, which did not belong to Palestinian private owners. Because there was never a sovereign Palestinian Arab state, this state land cannot be said to have ever have been “Palestinian owned.”
There was never a sovereign state owned and run by Palestinians (who did not, in 1946, consider themselves a distinct nationality but rather part the greater Arab nation, or more precisely, south Syria), with defined national boundaries, at any time in history - despite what the first map would have one believe. Now, if land ownership had been represented accurately by the cartographer, the first map would depict both white and green isolated clusters against a different coloured backdrop representing "no man's land". Of course, if the Arabs had accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, there would have been a sovereign Palestinian Arab state existing alongside Israel to this day.
Finally, with regard to the third map, the land was not owned by Palestinians during the years 1949 and 1967. The West Bank was controlled by Egypt, while Gaza was in Egyptian hands. It was only after the Six Day War that Israel came into possession of the territories. Funnily enough, you wouldn't know from these maps that any wars had been fought (and lost) at all.
Sneaky, eh?
