UPDATE: The UNRWA has issued this statement:
Statement attributable to UNRWA Spokesperson, Chris Gunness
14 May 2013
East JerusalemUNRWA categorically rejects accusations in the media that the Agency is “erasing Israel from the map” because its officials and stakeholders stood next to a map which does not show Israel. The map in question is an embroidery depicting a pre-1948 map and therefore ante-dates the creation of the state of Israel. The allegations are therefore completely false.The organization that originated the accusation has made similar allegations in the past about UNRWA’s neutrality and was forced to retract after the agency showed them to be false.I again request that any media organization making similar accusations check with us first before they go public with reports that have consistently been shown to be false.
(Remember that website?) Anyway, it surely doesn’t help when, as pn-news (a Palestinian news site) reports, a United Nations official poses with a map of the Middle East that is completely missing the state of Israel, and is also toting a handbag showing a Palestinian Jerusalem surrounded by a Palestinian headscarf design.
The Elder of Ziyon gives an English explanation:
At the official launch of two German-funded UNRWA [JAC: The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] The projects in southern Lebanon, Director of UNRWA Affairs in Lebanon, Ann Dismorr, posed with a map that erases the State of Israel and presents all of it as “Palestine.”
The map includes both the Palestinian Authority areas as well as all of Israel. Above the map is the Palestinian flag and the inscription “Arab Palestine.” The text at the bottom of the map also says “Palestine.” The neighboring countries Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are all named on the map as is the Mediterranean Sea. Israel is not mentioned or designated anywhere. Several places and cities, both in Israel and from the Palestinian Authority, are included on the map of “Palestine”: The Negev desert, Be’er Sheva, Rafah (Gaza), Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Tiberias and the Dead Sea.
The map was presented at the launch of an UNRWA project to improve the water supply network and rehabilitate shelters in the Rashidieh Camp, and was a gift from the “Palestinian Women’s Union,” the Palestinian news site pn-news.net reported.
Notice that UNRWA’s smiling Ann Dismorr is also carrying a handbag or souvenir bag depicting a Judenrein Jerusalem surrounding the Dome of the Rock, with a decorative keffiyeh pattern that symbolizes “resistance:”
here’s the handbag:
Although the UNRWA is a good thing (see UN description below), Ann Dismorr is a dupe.
UNRWA is a United Nations agency established by the General Assembly in 1949 and is mandated to provide assistance and protection to a population of some 5 million registered Palestine refugees. Its mission is to help Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank and the Gaza Strip to achieve their full potential in human development, pending a just solution to their plight.
What message does it send to Israel when the head of a UN organization tacitly endorses an Israel-free Middle East? Or didn’t she look at the map?
The UN lost its credibility/legitimacy long ago, in being rabidly anti-Israel, condemning their every move, yet ignoring atrocities across the rest of the Middle East (and beyond.)
The UN description of UNRWA is a good thing, but in practice, it isn’t. There are many good articles about the issue, here’s one: http://www.cjhsla.org/2013/04/11/unrwa-nursery-of-terrorism-resents-being-attacked-jillian-becker/
You fooled me, Jerry! I read the post title and thought you had some sort of update about Tom Johnson. I wonder if he’s still yelling at people these days for not helping.
See, this is an example of what I was getting yelled at for over on the other Israel thread yesterday. A European (a Swede in this case), who I’m sure has perfectly good intentions, has a tin ear for the sensitiveness of these issues. Why? Who knows, exactly, in this case. But my experience with very well meaning Europeans is that they tend to overcompensate in their sympathy for the Palestinian cause, which they identify as the underdog, ignoring fairly overt symbols of anti-semitism and other kinds of hate and propaganda.
My suspicion is that, in part, this has to do with living in societies that have very few Jewish people and little Jewish culture. Anti-semitism is something they think happens only in isolated places (like the Ukraine or whatever), or long ago in history.
This is why polls like the one Jerry posted yesterday reflect much greater disapproval of Israel in well-educated European countries than in the US. Is that because Germany and France are socially more advanced than the US? I doubt it. I think people, when polled, in the US will be more likely to express the “both sides should be criticized” position, because they are more likely to be aware of the perspective of Jews–even Jews who are critical of the Israeli government’s policies–and recognize that anti-semitism is real.
This has nothing to do with censoring criticism of Israel. It has to do with the fact than in Europe–far more than in the US–there is an undeniable bias against Israel, and it manifests itself in this kind of farce.
I’m more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Why? Because they’re the ones who got booted off their land.
Why did they get booted off their land? Because some well-meaning people decided that the religious claim to the land was more valid than the people currently living there claim.
Jews have no more right to Israel than I have to Windsor Palace. And quite specifically all those Russian, Ukranian, and other eastern European Jews who hadn’t lived in Israel for centuries.
It would quite literally be like a Native American whose family had been living in Canada since 1776 knocking on my door with a police officer behind them saying “get out”.
Yes, I’m more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Except when they involve a religious reason as to why they deserve the land more than the Jews. Then, I could not care less.
But Holocaust or no, the reasoning behind the inception of the state of Israel was a horrible one. Absolutely 100% designed to result in the circumstances we find ourselves in right now.
And let’s be honest — the Europeans and the Americans and anyone else involved in this decision-making were doing exactly the same thing that non-Jews had been doing for 2000 years. Turfing their “Jewish problem” to somewhere else. The decision was anti-Semitic in its own right.
Bully for you, Kevin. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. You do win the prize, though, for profound oversimplification.
But I’m just curious: you basically agree with the notion, then, that Israel has no right to exist? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. “And quite specifically all those Russian, Ukranian, and other eastern European Jews who hadn’t lived in Israel for centuries.” What was happening to those Jews around the time that Israel was created? Any ideas?
Actually, it was more like the “Jews had been persecuted and driven from one place to another, and then nearly systematically exterminated” argument, more than a “religious” one. The initial Zionist settlers in Palestine weren’t even very religious. It just seemed like the only place they could go.
You’re damn straight the Americans and British didn’t really care about the Jews, and just wanted to push them off somewhere else. If there’s one thing Jews know, it’s that nobody’s going to look after them but themselves. I’m just wondering, since you’re making grand historical proclamations, what you would have suggested to the thousands of Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors? Buck up and try assimilation in Europe again? Move to Madagascar?
“Holocaust or no.” Nice one.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: your analogy with Native Americans is nonsensical. WHY would it be unreasonable for a Native American to demand you move out of your home? Because, damn it, someone stole that land fair and square! You’re living there now! Apparently, based on your argument, possession is 10/10ths of the law. So, pray tell, how exactly does that support your argument that the Jews don’t belong in Israel? How is that ANY different than a Palestinian doing the same thing?
Yes, us Europeans stole the native American lands. We did.
And our treatment of native Americans has been just as abysmal as the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The difference being there was a lot more barren land in North America for us to force the natives onto.
Until, of course, the natives discovered casinos.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Israel was built on stolen land. Land that it claimed only because of a religious heritage. That’s bizarre.
How many “returning” Israelis had had first, second, or third-generation relatives from that area? I’ll bet in terms of the total of the immigrants a vanishingly small percentage.
I agree with the notion that Israel has no religious reason to exist.
The political reason for Israel to exist was what is known as a bad idea. One that anyone with even an ounce of common sense could see would result in exactly the situation we’ve been living in since 1948.
Now, here’s the thing. Israel exists. There’s no unmaking that bed. The decision — as abysmally bad as it was — has been made.
Just don’t go all high and mighty about Jewish “rights” to the land.
And please don’t then extrapolate to any assumption that I would unmake the bed in terms of a Middle East with no Israel. You can’t do that — any more than you can’t unmake the United States so there’s no Ohio.
The problem is that the Palestinians are still there, still being shat upon 50 years later, and nobody seems to give one hoot about them and their quite legitimate grievances.
The Jews should have been able to live in peace with their neighbors right exactly where they were.
Why should they have moved in 1948? The Holocaust was over. Had been over since 1945. And still Jews are immigrating to Israel as if the Holocaust mattered to them personally.
Please. You’ve played the Holocaust card a little too often. Time to reshuffle the deck. It’s not a trump card anymore.
Nobody denies horrible things were done to German, Polish, French, Dutch, and Czech Jews. Why then does that mean that Russian Jews get to move somewhere else by right and at the expense of people who did not participate in the Holocaust? Again, that’s a bizarre notion. And a fundamentally religious one.
Yeah, a whole three years. Ancient history. Oh and bad things totally stopped happening to Jews in Europe on May 8th 1945 on the dot. Oh wait:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
Am I right in thinking the formation of Israel was in part motivated by ongoing antisemitism: “Give them a place of their own so that they don’t live here”?
“Nobody denies horrible things were done to German, Polish, French, Dutch, and Czech Jews.”
Yes, but some people are apparently ignorant of the horrible things done to Iraqi, Moroccan, Algerian, Yemeni, and Egyptian Jews in the early years of Israeli Statehood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
As long as Arabs in Israel are safer than Jews in Arab countries, my sympathies will always be with Israel.
The irony is that Arabs in Israel are safer then Arabs in most other Arab countries (due to sectarianism, etc.).
Exactly, Kevin.
Your argument appears to be (please correct me if I’m wrong) that possession is all that matters. In that case, the Israelis are currently in possession so, by your logic, you should be supporting them.
In my book that means that might is right, something that I personally do not agree with.
I don’t think I am that Swede, at least I have no memory of arguing about Israel & Palestine much.
This strikes me as odd:
Quick Wikipedia browsing tells me US has ~ 2 % jews, France ~ 0.7 % and Sweden with ~ 20 000 “halakhic” jews (seems to mean religiously associated) ~ 0.2 %. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Sweden ]
This seems to be a gradual scale without steep qualitative degrees. And in fact France places 3d as region with significant populations [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews ], while Sweden seems to be around place 20 or so. “Yiddish is an officially recognized, non-territorial minority language in Sweden.”
Also, as seen by the 1st link, there is both ancient, WWI, WWII and recent increasing anti-semitism in Sweden. It has been a recurring news theme the last couple of years, unfortunately.
Yeah, that’s just a theory. I’m certainly not saying it applies to every European, or to you personally.
I’ve always thought it was, at least in the US, due to the fact that we have given Israel tens of billions of dollars in military aid, and maybe that allows us to be more critical of their actions. Currently it is about 3 billion dollars a year.
Ok, systematically:
“Yes, us Europeans stole the native American lands. We did. And our treatment of native Americans has been just as abysmal as the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.”
Right. So the “Palestinians” were the original occupants of the land? No. That was land that has been “stolen” back and forth for the last several thousand years. Whose is it, then? You’re going to have to find some other argument for this one.
“Land that it claimed only because of a religious heritage. That’s bizarre.”
Not exactly. Read up on the early history of Zionist settlement of Palestine and then come back.
“The political reason for Israel to exist was what is known as a bad idea.”
I see. So giving the Jews some place to go after having been nearly exterminated was a “bad idea.” I’m still waiting for your “good idea.”
“Just don’t go all high and mighty about Jewish “rights” to the land.”
Never did. You just made that up. All I was doing was pointing out the illogic of your arguments.
“nobody seems to give one hoot about them and their quite legitimate grievances.”
That’s a flat out lie. Actually, lots of ISRAELIS give a hoot, as do I, as do plenty of people. Criticizing Palestinian terrorism and anti-semitism is not the same thing as denying their human rights.
“The Jews should have been able to live in peace with their neighbors right exactly where they were.”
OMG. Do you mean in the middle east, or in EUROPE? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the Jews are somehow at fault for not “living in peace” with the people who had just tried to exterminate them? And if you’re talking about the middle east–and I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you are–then you’re going to have to explain several decades of attacks from their neighbors.
“Why should they have moved in 1948? The Holocaust was over. Had been over since 1945. And still Jews are immigrating to Israel as if the Holocaust mattered to them personally.”
Like, it’s 1948 and the the Holocaust is so over. I mean, that was three whole years ago that people rounded up your family and murdered them, along with everybody else you knew. Get over it already!
“Please. You’ve played the Holocaust card a little too often. Time to reshuffle the deck. It’s not a trump card anymore.”
Don’t I know it. But it’s just so much fun to play the “Holocaust card,” since it brings back so many good memories. But seriously, you’re right. For the rest of this conversation, the Holocaust never happened. Wait, did it? Maybe you know something I dont…
“Nobody denies horrible things were done to German, Polish, French, Dutch, and Czech Jews.”
Oh, ok. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Sorry, just to clarify this is a response to the delightful Kevin.
Kevin’s point seems to be, “Silly Jews, always causing trouble and bringing all this hate and violence upon yourselves. Why can’t you just shut up and get along? No one’s killing you *right now* so, like, get over it. And stop trying to have a functioning democracy where misogynistic, authoritarian, theocracies belong. You guys ruin everything. If only we could think a Final Solution to this problem…”
I was gonna reply to Kevin’s bullshit (anti-Jewish?) victim-blaming, but you did a good job.
But these two really did piss me the fuck off:
“The Jews should have been able to live in peace with their neighbors right exactly where they were.”
Are. You. Fucking. KIDDING ME?!?
Hey Kevin… if someone spent years wiping out your entire fucking family and just left you, would be able to live “peacefully” next to ’em just three years later?
Fuck you.
“Why should they have moved in 1948? The Holocaust was over. Had been over since 1945. And still Jews are immigrating to Israel as if the Holocaust mattered to them personally.”
‘Cause… you know… the Holocaust was just some small little skirmish. It totes didn’t result in the death of 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews. Nosirrybob.
This is a little too uncomfortably close to Holocaust-denialism for me, quite frankly. I don’t know what Kevin’s thinking, but he really needs to back off and think about what he’s saying before he says something blatantly antisemitic.
Yeah. My assumption (hope?) is that Kevin is just very young, and hot-headed, and wasn’t thinking about what he’s saying. Notice he hasn’t come back here to defend himself… Maybe he learned something, as frequently happens on this site!
That’s my hope, as well, but we’ll see.
if someone spent years wiping out your entire fucking family and just left you, would be able to live “peacefully” next to ‘em just three years later?
Not to mention the neighbours who stole your possessions and refused to give them back when you came back from the concentration camp, the caring Christians who raised the children you entrusted to them as Christians, the government that refused to give you back your art collection that the Nazis stole, the cold shoulder you got from society in general because ‘you know, we have all suffered here, so get over it’.
Exactly. That’s actually why I don’t give much truck to the whole “look at what the Catholics did for the Jews during the Holocaust!”
You… raised their children as Catholics and denied their Jewish heritage?
Yeah. That was really nice of you, fuckwads.
I have seen maps of the US that leave a large blank space where you might expect Canada to be!
Not to mention Mexico. Most USians think it’s not even part of North America.
Possibly so, but since the US and Canada are peaceful neighbours who mutually recognise each other’s right to existence, such maps don’t carry much political baggage.
If UNRWA really wishes to avoid the media accusing it of wishing to erase Israel from the map then this was a particularly clumsy piece of PR.
For all its faults, Israel is certainly the most sane country in the Middle East (true, a marginal distinction).
What bothers me in the US, however is how politicians seem to be beholden to declare undying support for Israel, while no similar pressure demands such support for Britain, Canada or other allies. No politician can criticize Israel and survive here.
The recent hearings for Chuck Hagel seemed to center around how strong his support for Israel was… Sheeesh he was being nominated for Secretary of Defense for the UNITED STATES, but it seems his defense of Israel was more important.
I seen a map of America pre-1492. I doesn’t change the now.
This kind of reminds me of an episode (part of it) of West Wing where the president receives a a medieval map of the area as a gift but isn’t allowed to hang it up because it is pre-Israel, except this could be more deliberate on the part of the Palestininians.
No, the argument is that the Holocaust was committed by the Germans, and in recompense most of the countries in the world who were allowed to vote on it (i.e. excluding those countries still occupied by colonial powers) decided to give them Palestinian land in recompense.
Like if I’d committed a horrible crime against somebody,and my friends and I agreed to give them your house to make up for it.
When Israeli officials give a map to UN or any other officials showing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, then I’ll get shocked about this.
The decision to give Jews a possibility to self-rule was not taken after the Holocaust. It was taken 1922 by League of Nations after collapse of Ottoman Empire. Many new countries were created out of the territories ruled previously by Turks. (The same happened in Europe after the collapse of German and Austrian Empires.) League of Nation decided then that in this upheaval and mass movement of people even Jewish demands to be independent after centuries of persecution in Europe and in Arab world should be met. The only place in the world Jews were ever independent was the Turkish province of Syria – now Israel, West Bank and Jordan. It is worth noting that over a half of Jewish population of Israel are refugees and their descendants from Arabic and Islamic countries.
Never in history was there an independent country called Palestine. There was never an independent country called Jordan either, so a Palestine can be created, like Jordan was created by British, as soon as Palestinian leaders agree to live in peace with a Jewish state – Israel.
The nation state history is not as important as they way the political forces at the time treated the domestic population living in the area. This is a far trickier question to justify within the context nation state politics.
For whatever reason in 1922 there was a mixed population living in the region. Like Jews in Europe, many lived there for many generations and were forcibly removed, simply because they were not the desired ethnic, religious or political flavor.
This is the same to what happened in former Yugoslavia. Croatia, for example, kicked out its entire Serbian population by military force, many who have lived there for generations, claiming them to be an “alien” “invading” presence. The same was done to many other ethnicities elsewhere, we generally call these practices ethnic cleansing. Let’s not start making “oh but they’re X” excuses. These are individuals.
For example, you could argue that Israel had once been an ethnically homogeneous state and this land was misappropriated by some ancient ancestor of an individual. This type of ethnic homogeneity is naive and totalitarian in by itself but even so, proof is required and ancient maps don’t cut it. Any prior Jewish state does not justify the removal of any particular individual from their land that is not Jewish; did the ancestor live in that state even if they were not Jewish? Did the state have a Jewish majority, or was it a ethnically pure Jewish state? Considering population distribution patterns, most likely not.
One can be pro-Israel as a nation state as long as it stands by secular humanitarian principles with equal rights for all that live within it. We do disservice to humanity and peace when we start to rob the rights of people because of nation state politics, history, religion and ethnicity because they are not “one of us”.
What depressingly sad irony and short memory… The politics of this region turns people blind towards their own prosecution and each other. This applies to ALL sides. Birth place of Jesus.. pfft..
The problem is with your vision of Jews forcibly removing indigenous population. From the middle of 19th century Jews were buying land there from the Ottoman Empire and from (mostly absentee) landlords. They had great troubles with it because neither Turks nor Arabs wanted more Jews in this land. However they did sell (one can add: for exorbitant prices) the land which was deemed unfit for cultivation – deserts and swamps. When Jews dried the swamps and watered the deserts and this totally neglected backwater of the Ottoman Empire started to develop economically, many Arabs from surrounding, very poor areas flocked into the land. Later, during British Mandate, there was the White Paper, severely curtailing Jewish immigration and putting no limits on the Arab immigration. There are documents backing all this: the documents about sale of the land, the documents about movements of people, the reports of contemporaries (not only Jews). During this whole period no indigenous population was displaces. Then came 1948 and announcement of Israel’s independence. All neighboring Arab countries were preparing for war on Israel. Rich people from the area (which also meant communities leaders) removed themselves from the future war theatre (quite voluntarily, among them the family of Mahmoud Abbas). When the Arab armies went to the attack there were calls for Arab population to let those armies operate unhindered, and flee somewhere else. They were promised to return in a week to a country free from Jews. Many listen to them and fled and they were the bulk of Palestinian refugees. But there were also people forced to flee by Jews – villages which were hostile and took part in fighting (for example village of Zorin – much was written about it). So yes, some Arabs (a minority of refugees) were forcibly removed from their homes by Israeli Jews after they and Arab armies started the war which had as stated aim to clear the country of the Jews. The knowledge of historical facts, not tainted by Arab relentless propaganda, does help to understand better this extremely complicated situation.
As an atheist I couldn’t care less for Jesus birthplace, god’s promises to Moses or whatever. I do care however for historical accuracy and for Jews to have an independent country and not to be condemned to the tender mercies of Christians and Muslims alike.
Yes, Ottoman Empire was politically Islamic, this usually does not bode well for other ethnicies, especially for Jews who alway been the first ones to get prosecuted. That’s why it’s crap.
We must be careful of the propagandists on all sides, though. They do not work in the interests of peace by painting a picture that makes one side look impervious to human failings. The “us” and “them” trap here is to seductive especially for those who are looking to confirm their bias.
Painting an absolutist picture of the regional politics is not in the best interests of anybody especially some poor schmo tiling his field who could care less.
Of course it’s complicated but nothing is complicated about eviction based on ethnicity. It’s wrong, whether it happens to a Jews, Serbians, Muslims, etc. for whatever reason.
If we apply rules globally, we should agree that eviction policies are land reclamation based solely on ethnicity is wrong. Otherwise, we will fight endless wars about stolen land. (Germany, France, Russia, Croatia, Hungary.. who else will want some?)
This is the modern ethic, a jew who stole muslim’s goat 50 years ago is really not important with respect to jewish and all human rights.
I agree that eviction based on ethnicity is wrong. This is though not the policy in Israel and has not been earlier either. During the war 1948 Jewish authorities begged their Arab neighbors not to flee. Golda Meir was running up and down Haifa’s piers (and others were doing it elsewhere) telling fleeing Arabs that they can stay and become citizens of Israel. This is also documented by both sides though now most people conveniently forgot about it.
However, as a Pole, I have one problem – in the time of war and with a hostile and fighting population some rules do not apply. We have taken a huge part of Germany and forcibly (and cruelly) evicted millions of ethnic Germans from the land they were occupying for centuries. But it was done after 5 years of the most cruel occupation in my country where full 20% of the population was killed by Germans (3 million ethnic Poles and 3 million ethnic Jews, all Polish citizens). At the same time USSR annexed huge parts of pre-war Poland (I’m a refugee myself from the Eastern part of Poland, which went to USSR). So for an Israeli army which during the war evicted a village which occupants were shooting into a Jewish village below, there should at least be extenuating circumstances.
And when we are talking about those tragic migrations we definitely should not forget about almost a million Jews from Arab and Islamic countries who were evicted or forced to flee by persecution . There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees.
Not all Israeli’s agree with you, in particular some of the left wing. Here’s an article about Golda and the Arab exodus.
http://972mag.com/the-nakba-addressing-israeli-arrogance/71504/
A copious amount of self-criticism opens dialogue. Palestinians need to engage in this as well (especially the points regarding Hamas and Islamism) and then we’ll get somewhere. Always defending your position, regardless, is not a way to make progress.
Yes, I do know that Israeli far left tries to find whatever dirt they can on Israel. BTW there is enough dirt without the need to invent some or deny the good things that really happened. Therefore I prefer to rely on contemporary documents and reports, not so ideologically biased. The efforts of Israeli government of that time to convince Arab population that they do not have to flee is well documented by Jewish, British, American and Arab contemporary sources.
Columns of humanity, families, women and children (as witnessed by G.Meir herself) leaving to live in the luxury of refugee camps. Come on, people were frightened.
Well, you better start those edits on Wikipedia because it seems even the IDF doesn’t agree with your analysis: “The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
I never said that it was not a tragedy for those fleeing people. I never said they were not frightened.They were left more or less without their community leaders, there were plenty of rumors, there was fear that Jews will retaliate for massacres committed 1929 and 1935-36. There is a video made by 2 years ago by an Arabic TV, an interview with 92-years old Palestinian woman, refugee, who talks about how her father was taking part in the massacre of Jews in Hebron and how frightened they were 1948 that Jews would retaliate, and that is why they escaped. There is a video of a prominent PLO activist who, reminiscencing those days, says: We did a grave mistake. We exaggerated the massacre of Deir Jassin, hoping that people will fight. Instead they escaped. (I do not have exact wording in front of me, so this is just the gist of his words.) War is horrible, what did you expect? If Arab League accepted UN proposal, if 5 Arab armies didn’t attack Israel, there would be no refugee problem and there would be a Palestinian state celebrating its 65th birthday.
I don’t know why, but I’m reminded of how various papers on fossil reptiles from ‘Ein Yabrud referred to it as being in Israel. Of course science isn’t political at all, but the US-based as well as Israeli scientists involved failed to mention the ‘P’ word until some Australian guy looked at a map.
‘cynically’ looked at a map, I should have said.
I’m sorry, but you’ve basically missed the entire point. Those are Palestinian refugees; people who were displaced from their homes and land in 1948. They are presenting an official with a map of Palestine pre-1948. It doesn’t send a political message anymore than Circassians presenting a map of their country that doesn’t read “Russia”, or Native Tribes presenting a 14th century map of their territories without it reading “United states of America”. This is simply a commemoration of the event that set this conflict in motion, and that had tremendous impact on their lives and livelihoods as refugees to this day. Remembering history doesn’t “legitimize” Israel (regardless of how many times it is claimed that it does). It legitimizes the justice of their plight as refugees. As for the bag, I’m not sure what the problem is: the dome of the rock is one of the most important landmarks in Jerusalem, and a symbol to Palestinians both Muslim and Christian. The Keffiyah was part of the national custom and a symbol long before Israel was even born, and long before it became a symbol for resistance.
*Remembering history doesn’t “DElegitimize” Israel…
Can you imagine a UN representative standing with a gift from some German delegation with a pre WWI era German Empire map, then stand next to it and smile?
Ok, perhaps the analogy is stretching it a bit but I think you get the point. It isn’t helping and is just bound to piss people off. You would expect a UN ageny to be aware of these sensitivities.
I don’t see how the analogy is even remotely connected. A German delegation wouldn’t be a refugee delegation that was made stateless by the collapse of the German empire in WW1, and would have no reason to commemorate or honor that event.
Yes, it isn’t helpful, but why must everything Palestinians do be “helpful”. Those people are simply honoring a part of their history as a dispossessed group. As a matter of fact, I would argue that the continued denial of their grievance and outrage heard whenever they express any part of it is counterproductive to true and lasting peace. You don’t build peace by denying history, you build it by acknowledging it.
Actually, there are German refugee organizations that would do exactly that, even today.
Anyway, I said it was a stretch and the analogy is more related to the emotion it can evoke then comparitive accuracy.
UNRWA’s explanation is somewhat strange. Between 1516 and 1917 this territory was NOT called Palestine, but was divided into three districts: Sanjak Acre, Sanjak Nablus and Sanjak Jerusalem. Later the whole area (Israel, West Bank and Jordan) were called British Mandate of Palestine with the territory of Jordan called Eastern Palestine and the territory of Israel and West Bank – Western Palestine. A map from 1922 is calling todays Israel and West Bank (as depicted on the picture shown by UNRWA reprsentative) has a caption: Jewish Palestine. I doubt Palestinian Arabs were embroidering Jewish Palestine!(It is worth remembering that until the creation of Israel Jews living in Palestine were called Palestinians and Arabs living there were called Arabs.) Maps from 1940’s show the territory with clear marking which areas were Jewish and which were Arab. So what map from before 1948 was this embroidery supposed to show?
Sigh…
The Sanjaks were created in the 19th century, not in the 16th. Prior to that, by many centuries, “Jund Filastin” was the proper name of “Palaestina Prima” (dating back as far back as the Romans). Both Arabs and Jews inhabiting “Palestine” prior to 1948 were known as “Palestinians”, and the Jewish minority (32%) that had been living there for centuries were recognized as “Arab Jews” (a significant proportion of the 32% were mostly recent immigrants, and as such were not considered “Arab”)
What the map is supposed to show is the land which, for many centuries, has been recognized as a distinct polity by all invaders and rulers, from which the Palestinian people come from, and which they regard as their proper homeland.
Obviously we read different historical books and documents.
Jund Filastin was Arab military district created in this territory after Arab conquest with a capital in Ramla (not Jerusalem), founded 716.
Sanjak was an administrative entity in the Ottoman Empire, created already in 14th century, and those names were given to the three districts of Palestine after Turkish conquest in 15th century.
Jews in Palestine were never called “Arab Jews”. This name was reserved to Jews living in Arab countries. Jews from Palestine were called “Palestinians”. Arabs from Palestine called themselves Arabs or Syrians.
You’re not reading “history books”, you’re reading propaganda. The Arabic language newspaper Filasteen (est. 1911), published in Jaffa, addressed its readers as “Palestinians” from the first days of its publications. The British mandate referred to all its citizens (Muslims, Jews or otherwise) as Palestinians (http://web.archive.org/web/20070222095422/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/c2feff7b90a24815052565e6004e5630!OpenDocument)
As for the Sanjak’s, here you go: “The rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 19th century” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OjuKhNEmFvoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false). The Sanjak’s were administrative divisions created in the 19th century, not before.
And regardless of what was the “capital” of Jund Filastin, the point is that it’s clearly a distinct polity going back as far as the 8th century, and even before that back to Roman times.
I would not say that books by, for example, Professor Bernard Lewis or Arieh L. Avneri are propaganda.
About sanjak of Jerusalem. You must have mixed Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, which was really created in 19th century, with sanjak. In the first sentences of the article to which you provided the link, you can read: “Through the Ottoman period and until early decades of nineteen century Jerusalem was regarded as an ordinary sanjak… it was part of the province of Sham (Damascus)”.
More independent Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem with special administrative status was created as an answer to Jewish interest in Palestine with the first stirrings of Zionism.
This is ridiculous. No wonder this conflict goes on forever.
The racist concept of ethically homogenous nation states in that region is a modern phenomenon.
It is acknowledged by all that there was a mixed ethnic mosaic of communities at the dissolution of the Ottomans.
Some called themselves Palestinian, some Israeli, some Jew, some Arab, whatever. Does it really mater? No!
It is religious and nationalistic forces that tore the region apart claiming some bullshit legitimacy from thousands of years ago as justification to oppress and drive “others” out and implement homogeneity. A typical European scenario.
What disheartens me is even today “rational” people, some whose ethnicities have a awful history of prosecution, are trying to legitimize these homogenous nation states and nationalistic/religious forces in a region that was quite clearly made of many nations historically.
It is the obligation of both modern day Israel and Palestine to restore the mosaic shattered many years ago and heal wounds instead of colonizing and displacing undesired populations. They both have this burden and BOTH should be roundly condemned without prejudice, especially the nationalist/religious extremists.
Delegitimizing ethnic identities serves no purpose but to dehumanize.
There are so many better things to talk about then maps and Sanjaks.
I have to admit that I do not understand your reasoning. There were Jews in Europe and in Arab/Islamic countries who were subject to persecution for centuries. When the movements of the right of people to self-rule started, those persecuted people wanted to have the right to self-determination and the only place in the world they could have it was Palestinian territories, where some Jews were living all the time. Muslims, who were ruling the country, wanted not so much ethnically homogenous country, as religiously homogenous, and were against the idea of giving those people a refuge.
But let’s see situation today: Arab countries are practically without Jews, nicely homogenous, while in Israel 20 % of population are Arabs. There are all possible religions (and ethnicity, inclusive Vietnamese) there, which are not persecuted (compare with Christians in Arabs countries). So who is homogenous and who isn’t?
The argument can be applied to too many situations and does not solely apply to that arid piece of land. It just happens to be the topic of this conversation.
It is a general human principle, there are no exceptions and despite whatever historical claims, Palestine & Israel are not exceptions either.
Let use antother example, the Kurdish homeland. Does the solution entail displacing the Turkish population from regions it claims as its acsetral home land to maintain ethnic majority? They have suffered perseuction for time immemorial, does it give them the right to expunge the Turkish, Iranian and Arabic ethnicities? No, the solution to Kurdish prosecution is not the prosecution of others.
Arabic countries are a basket case, stuck centuries ago, with respect to human rights and the acceptance of “the other”. By modern accounts, it seems that Sunnis and Shi’ite hate each other more then they do Jews. Egyptian Muslims, the Christians etc. It is all distasteful tribal hatred driven by religion and nationalism. Should it not be all regarded the same way without prejudice?
Israel is a shining light for human rights (internally) in this region as it treats its own Arab population (who are quite loyal) then most Arabic countries do their own. Nevertheless, it does have some accounting to do with actions of its past just as, for example, Canada is only starting to do with its native population.
I believe Israel is the basis for a democratic peaceful multi-ethnic one state solution in the region. I simply don’t see it coming elsewhere and I think its enivitable anwyay.
Concerning Bernard Lewis, he’s not taken seriously by experts on the Middl East (despite his reputation in the West). This is a man who claims “concubinage remain legal, in many Muslim countries.”, and who often displays complete ignorance of some of the realities of the middle east (e.g. status of women’s education). As for Arieh L. Avneri, never heard of him. After a google search, I can pretty much say: yes, that’s what propaganda is.
As for the Sanjak, that’s just a misleading reading of what it says (a Mutasarrifate and a Snjak are pretty much the same thing). Here: “The study begins in the years 1872, when the administrative organization of Palestine acquired the shape that was to last until the end of the Ottoman era….It’s geographic scope is defined by the boundaries of the district of Jerusalem which, during the Hamidian period, was often referred to as ‘Palestine’. Although the idea of Palestine as ‘holy land’ stretching from Lebanon down to the Sinai desert, was well know in Muslim and Ottoman circles, the Ottoman government deliberately cut the ‘Holy land’ into two units….Many documents from the time under survery, in Arabic, Ottoman Turkish, Hebrew and several European languages, refer to the Jerusalem district as ‘Palestine'” Johann Büssow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908
My point is rather simple, the map shows what was for centuries considered “Palestine”. Regardless of the Ottomans’ district naming conventions (Sanjaks, Mutasarrifates, Junds or whatever else), people at the time knew perfectly what “Palestine” was. Your point on the other hand, I’m not sure what it is other than splitting hairs on whether it was one kind of thing or another.
I understand. Professor Bernard Lewis is not a reliable source, a collection of documents from 19th and the first half of 20th century is propaganda and this sentence: ”Through the Ottoman period and until early decades of nineteen century Jerusalem was regarded as an ordinary sanjak… it was part of the province of Sham (Damascus)” from presumably reliable source, as you gave the link yourself, does not mean what it says, that Palestine was thought of – by it’s Muslim rulers – as a part of Syria.
*persecution
Anyway, I am going to keep up with some of the newer posts.
I will leave this video just as a reminder for what we should be fighting for.
Let’s not tarnish its memory by allowing nationalists and religious forces to twist it and use it as an excuse to promote their own agenda of bigotry.
(Great series)
http://youtu.be/j7br6ibK8ic
Oops.. didn’t mean to embed that.
“Squeeze Them Out” in that left-wing rag The Economist (May 4th p 42) raises questions as to who might be disappearing from the map and it certainly isn’t Israel. A nice picture of day to day reality.
Just to summarize:
Numerous Palestinian and Arab leaders – political and religious – state openly (those more „moderate” only in Arabic) that the fight with Israel is religious and not about territory, that Jews have no place in the Middle East and the fight will not end until the last Jew is dead. The latest such diatribe came a few days ago during the visit of Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi in Gaza Strip.
Senior representative of U.N., an organization of which Israel is a legal member, poses with a picture of a map from which Israel is eradicated. Both UNRWA and many rational, atheistic readers of this website attack Israel and its defenders stating that it was just a nostalgic map of how it was before 1948 (even though real maps of Palestine drawn before 1948 looked quite differently, because there was no Arabic rule on this territory for centuries).
How very strange.
“from presumably reliable source, as you gave the link yourself, does not mean what it says, that Palestine was thought of – by it’s Muslim rulers – as a part of Syria.”
No of course it means what it says. Palestine, is part of “Syria”, that doesn’t erase the fact that Palestine is also Palestine anymore than saying Texas is part of the Us erases Texas. That’s where your misreading is, and I’ve provided several sources on the matter. I don’t really know which sources you’re talking about; you have not provided any source whatsoever except dropping two names. And yes, Bernard Lewis is actually a a bad joke to anybody who knows anything about the Middle East (Edward Said’s deconstruction of “Orientalism” used him as a prime case study)