Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Time to Acknowledge Palestinian History
By David Judd
PUBLISHED APRIL 28, 2008
Illustration by Ramsey Scott
This week, Palestinian students and others at Columbia will be mourning al-Nakba—the Arabic word used for the catastrophe suffered by Palestinians in 1948, when more than 700,000 were driven from their homes. Unfortunately, if recent events are any guide, some Columbians will not simply fail to respect this remembrance, but will rule out any discussion of what befell these refugees.
On April 14, Esti Tsal, an Israeli peace activist, and Lubna Hammad, a Palestinian lawyer, spoke at Columbia. The event was cosponsored by a wide range of groups, with two notable absences. Organizers invited both Hillel and one of its subgroups, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, to endorse. Representatives of each said initially that they were interested, and PJA appeared enthusiastic. However, when Hillel leadership learned more about the event, it not only refused a Hillel endorsement, but successfully discouraged PJA from participating.
(Despite pressure, the choice was ultimately PJA’s. Hillel president Emily Steinberger told me that the Hillel e-board “had a conversation” with PJA, but “it was their decision.” Alana Krivo-Kaufman of PJA wrote that the group’s decision was “autonomous,” “made in relation to an already stressed working climate and ... possible alienation from progressive constituencies” within Hillel.)
The reason for Hillel’s disassociation? Although neither Steinberger nor Krivo-Kaufman would discuss specifics, according to sources among various involved groups, the problem was just five letters in an early draft of an announcement for the event: the forbidden term “Nakba.”
What’s wrong with the word? Bizarrely, there is not even really a factual dispute. While the Israeli establishment spent decades denying that Palestinians had been forcibly displaced in 1948, the opening of Israeli state archives in the 1980s made continued denial essentially impossible. Israeli New Historians, such as Benny Morris, counted hundreds of Palestinian villages that had been violently emptied. Even the New Historians’ harshest critics, like Ephraim Karsh, are now reduced to protesting
unconvincingly that this violence was not the product of a premeditated central plan.
Rather, Hillel’s problem with “Nakba” is purely a matter of an ideological framework. Hillel is an affiliate of a national organization which, as official policy, is “steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State” (their capitalization). In the case of the April 14 event, I’m told this policy was cited against any Hillel association with the claim that Palestinians suffered a historical wrong in 1948. Whatever happened that year, it cannot be labeled a “catastrophe.” Harm done to Palestinians cannot, apparently, be acknowledged in this framework as an ethical offense. Where it cannot plausibly be denied nor justified, absolute silence on the subject must suffice.
This implication may seem a stretch from the formal wording of Hillel policy—and indeed, it is unlikely that, should Hillel or PJA have cosponsored, either would have suffered any direct sanction. But deriving an imperative from the Hillel formula for the exclusion of Palestinians from ethical consideration does not require too strained a reading.
Israel’s existence as a “Jewish and Democratic State” is widely understood to be incompatible with the possession of full Israeli citizenship by Arab residents of Gaza and the West Bank, let alone a right of return for exiled descendants of the 1948 and 1967 refugees. I, like every person with a Jewish grandmother, possess a legal right to become an Israeli citizen, though I am an atheist raised with minimal connection to Jewish tradition. The possibility that every Palestinian might obtain this right is viewed by most defenders of the original Zionist project as tantamount to the destruction of Israel, precisely because it could make the “Jewish and Democratic State” no longer Jewish.
A fundamental illiberality to Zionism’s traditional understanding of the essential nature of Israel is made clear by its inability to encompass al-Nakba. We do not normally grant anyone the right to run a nation-state under the control and in the exclusive interest of one race, ethnicity, or religion—a basic principle not of some utopian internationalism but of liberal democracy. This privilege is incompatible with the egalitarian recognition of an intrinsic human dignity.
Whether or not one draws from this incompatibility what I view as the logical conclusion—that a one-state solution is the only fully just alternative—one should recognize that the discounting of Palestinian humanity has tragic consequences.
First and foremost, of course, ongoing brutality toward the Palestinian people is legitimized. Israel is almost always described in the corporate media as engaged in “defense” or “retaliation,” even as the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed last year reached 40 to 1. Furthermore, American and Israeli inability to recognize Palestinian grievances is a decisive barrier to any genuine reconciliation. Without such recognition, the “peace process” will remain a farce, a series of photo ops good for nothing but favorable press. Finally, routine rhetorical dehumanization corrupts discussion beyond its initial scope, with Israeli experience now cited to justify everything from the torture of “War on Terror” detainees to a fence along the Mexican border.
Unfortunately, while I am not aware of anyone who claims to believe in universal human rights and yet defends Saudi Arabia’s religious repression or Dubai’s second-class treatment of non-Arab residents, Israel’s commitment to a Jewish majority at any cost, which is premised not only on repression but on ethnic cleansing, has innumerable allegedly egalitarian defenders. Hillel’s leadership is merely an example, one of too many. We must hope that the current “Nakba week” begins, at least at Columbia, to break down this sort of chauvinism and forces us all to come to terms with what U.S. and Israeli policy inflicts on Palestinians.
David Judd is a senior in the school of Engineering and Applied Science majoring in computer science.The Point, However runs alternate Mondays.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 14)
Post a Comment
Will the Arab and Falisteen groups co-sponsor Yom HaZikkaron programs next week, which commemorate the 1% of the Jewish population of Israel killed in the 1948 war. One out of every 100 Israelis died in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, a war in which the Arabs were the aggressors. They failed to accept the Partition Plan and they decided to go to war in order to destroy the Jewish state at its birth. The refugee problem created by that war is the responsibility of the Palestinian Arabs who first attacked the Jews and the the Arab states who attacked the new Jewish state. Abba Eban, a rather dovish Israeli politician, commented on the Arab claims after 1948 by comparing them to a "child who kills his parents and then begs for the mercy of an orphan." Why should any pro-Israeli (or pro-humanity in general) student group commemorate the failed attempt by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arabs states to ethnically-cleanse one million Jews?!!
Benny Morris, whom the author refers to, said in an interview with Haaretz, "a society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it’s better to destroy." Later on in the interview, when referring to the massacres perpetrated by the Israelis, he added, "when you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well." There have been a lot worst refugee problems in the twentieth century that have been solved. Wars displace people and that is just the nature of battle. More than 12 MILLION ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after WWII. About 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries since 1948 and they were immediately admitted into Israel. It does not make sense to me how the Arabs were the aggressors, lost and now Israel is blamed for the outcome. What should Israel have done, not fight back. Morris notes how "it was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on." Remember this is the same Benny Morris that the author of the article referred to to support his point.
You cannot start and lose and then not expect bad outcomes. The same applies to the Six Day War. Abba Eban's quote is dead-on regarding the Arab mentality. The Arabs were the aggressors and they are the ones to blame. The Arab states are the ones who must resettle the Palestinian Arab refugees. There shall be no 'right of return' and ideally no withdrawals from territory gained in the Arab aggression of 1967. You fight a war and lose, then you lose. Whatever is lost is lost. There is no return to the beginning. War is not a video game. Any territorial concessions made by Israel should be looked upon by the international community as proof of Israel's intense desire for peace and relations with her neighbors.
A truly one-sided, misleading article. And what a lot of hateful comments coming from this academic community!
Regarding issues relating to Palestinian refugees, supposed "right of return" demands, misunderstandings on other related issues, I suggest you read the following:
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_...
As a holocaust survivor, I am sad to read this article, ignorant of context and balance. Mr. Judd writes a one-sided article, full of pronouncements that leave out relevant factors. Of course Hillel, and every other Jewish organization, are correct to keeps distance from a memorial to "al-Nakba", which has meanings you don't really understand, it seems - the term also refers to mourning the failure of the Arab countries to wipe out Israel, as was their plan.
As for the creation of the refugees, in 1948 Israel was in a war of survival, after being attacked by Arab neighbors who refused the UN two-state plan. Refugees are ALWAYS created by all violent conflicts - look at the millions who were displaced everywhere after the Second World War. For example, are you aware of the Jews who were forced by violence and anti-Semitism to leave the Arab countries after 1948, by estimates in the 700,000 range as well, leaving behind their businesses, homes, and lives in places they had occupied for hundreds of years. These people had to go somewhere, and most went to Israel.
As for Israel being a Jewish, exclusionary country which according to you practices "ethnic cleansing" - perhaps you're unaware that 20% of its citizens are non-Jews. Also, you don't seem to remember the reason for its founding - as a place of safety, refuge, and independence after not just the Holocaust, but innumerable and consistent victimization throughout the centuries. Arabs have 22 countries of their own, Israel just this one sliver of a country the size of Delaware - sounds more than fair to me!
Perhaps you should do a little reading, Mr Judd, and stop taking literally what is preached by your heavily Arab-funded Department of Middle Eastern History. Having grown up in the safety of this unique country, you obviously fail to appreciate the trials and tribulations of your supposedly Jewish ancestors. I suggest you start with Paul Johnson's much-lauded "History of the Jews." It is a fairly written book, not especially partial to one side or the other, but providing the context you so obviously lack in your outlook. Online, look at "CAMERA.ORG", which exposes faulty reporting by people such as yourself - it might provide some insights you currently lack.
1) claims like "as a holocaust survivor" are always a little suspicious coming from anonymous people on the internet. no offense, but if you want to get credibility from who you are you need to attach your name.
2) your post would be clearer if you didn't mix your audience between "mr judd" and "you". this mixed tense indicates you probably wrote it while angry, without taking time to think, which is rarely a good idea.
3) neither the existence of Jewish refugees (who guess what *also* have the right of return under international law), nor the fact that some Palestinians were not expelled, nor the possession of states by various Arabs who are not Palestinians and who frequently mistreat Palestinians, obviates the historical crime that was the violent expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948. throwing out a mess of red herrings cannot hide that simple fact.
4) besides the fact that Judd doesn't cite anyone from Columbia, dismissing pro-Palestinian professors at Columbia because some very small proportion of their research is funded by Arabs is no better than dismissing pro-Israeli professors because Robert Kraft is on the board of trustees. shame on you.
5) you're advocating CAMERA as a source for context and impartial reporting? who, exactly, do you think you're kidding?
excellent column, david!
@anon 4/28/08 11:08 pm
You claim that Judd is pulling History out of context to make political claims and then proceed to do the very same. Your discussion of history leading up to the partition of Israel is so one sided it's laughable.
Here is some light reading that would provide a more balanced look at this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
The links above highlight massacres carried out by both parties. And before anyone goes on about how Wiki is a biased source, I'm be extremely surprised if there aren't just an equal number of pro Israel and pro Palestinian editors out there.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.
No better way to throw out real dialogue than to hide behind the manipulation of people's emotions—and I won't beat around the bush—namely the guilt or pity people feel about the Holocaust, and continue to play the victims. There's a Zionist country, funded heavily by American citizens. America fights a proxy war for Israel in Iraq and pumps billions into Israel's economy. Then, as if all that weren't enough, silence any critics of this blatant betrayal of American interests by talking about "anti-Israel propaganda" or call critics "anti-Semites" to make their arguments seem unreasonable. It's a shame the truth has to come shrouded by an anonymous post here, a shame that I don't feel comfortable speaking my mind because of the industry that's been made of keeping America from having free reign over it's own destiny.
One thing that's sad about this (article among many other things) is that Krivo-Kaufman has put her own reputation and relationships within Hillel on the line in order to seriously question the way Jews and non-Jewish Arabs (don't) interact both on and off campus. She's gotten a lot of flak for it from within the community, too, but now to get flak from the other side, as well? Not cool.
Good piece of anti-Israel propaganda.
Like always, out of context. Let's take TIME TO CLARIFY PALESTINIAN HISTORY with mainstream history supported by primary documents rather than Judd's personal collection of radical, inciting half-truths.
Most important to understand is Zionists bought lands on which they settled from absentee landlords. In some cases, Zionists even paid tenants. As the Hope Simpson Report explains, "They (Jews) paid high prices for the land, and in addition, they paid certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." Judd would like us to believe that Zionists aggressively stole land. Hence, the reason for why the following acts of Arab aggression took place cannot be justified by merely saying “Jews took Arab land.”
1920-1921: Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini incited Jewish massacres. In 1920, 6 Jews were murdered, and 200 were wounded. In 192, 43 Jews were killed, and 147 were wounded. This led to the formation of the Haganah, the precursor to the IDF. Historian Yaacov Lozowick explains that settlements with Haganah members were able to defend themselves.
1929: Massacres incited again by Haj Amin al-Husseini. Most notably was the attack not on Zionists, who could protect themselves, but on the defenseless Jews of Hebron whose inhabitance predated Zionist immigrations. 67 Jews were slaughtered. This shows that the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism made by Arabs is not always so sincere.
1936-1939: Another series of massacres at the hand of Arabs
1947: Resolution 181 which called for partition of the land. The land offered to Jews was 13% of the entire mandate and 60% of that land was arid desert. Palestinian Arabs, who had already received Transjordan, would get more land in Palestine. The proposed Palestinian land had access to the Jordan river and was more fertile what was offered to the Jews. Nevertheless, Jews accepted the offer while Arabs rejected. The deal was more than fair. Any current negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians will not come close to what was offered in 1947. The Palestinians missed a golden opportunity because they refused to accept the existence of a Jewish State. It’s important to note that accepting Resolution 181 would have prevented al-Nakba.
1948: Israel declares her statehood. The next day, 5 Arab armies invade (Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria). Palestinians are advised to leave the battle ground until the “war of extermination and a momentous massacre” is over (quoted Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League). Unfortunate for the Arab aggressors, Israel survived. Arabs call this loss “al-Nakba”. There is a secret meaning to “al Nakba” that Arabs don’t mention for PR sake. This meaning should be obvious now: The fact that Jews were not eliminated from their homeland is also meant when Arabs say “al-Nakba”.
As you can see, al-Nakba resulted from Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish right to self determination. By skewing history and blaming al-Nakba on Israel, I don’t blame Hillel and the Progressive Jewish Alliance for not co-sponsoring the event. In fact, I would be surprised if any group other than anti-Israel group would sponsor such a event that disregards history.
"Israel's overt racism against the mudblood Semites"---I didn't know Harry Potter had turned so political, I hope Dumbledore doesn't try to retaliate!
Mr. Judd fails to mention in his polemic that Benny Morris did not claim that there was a policy to force Muslims from their homes in 1948. Fear was a major factor that motivated the refugees to take flight.Claiming that they were "driven from their homes" is very misleading without proper, factual explanation and, therefore, inflammatory and unfair. This is unbecoming to a person of intelligence.
Joking on the Iranian side, the memory of al-Nakba by the Jews is about as sparse as memory of the Third Reich holocaust is for the Iranians. This tit-for-tat intellectual exchange between the two countries need not come to nuclear blows when Israel decides to blow up the Chinese portion of the Iranian-Pakistani-Indian gas pipeline next month. While Israeli has raised the price of their gasoline to $8 at the pump to show solidarity with the economic war that has been declared against the West because of Israel's overt racism against the mudblood Semites, their long term contract with Egypt has not driven up the price of their gasoline.
Did the President of Iran say, "Dirty little Kite Yids.?
Post new comment