Post by Salem6 on Feb 22, 2004 10:42:41 GMT
"As Judah Magnes observed, the two peoples of this land are simply too interconnected to separate into rigid, ethnocentric polities .."
By ROGER H. LIEBERMAN
The Israel historian, Benny Morris – the very same Benny Morris widely credited for exposing the organized expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Zionist forces in the 1948 War – has recently set a new low in discourse on the Middle East crisis. In an opinion piece published without a second thought by the Los Angeles Times, Morris made the outrageous argument that if Israel had “finished the job” in 1948 by conquering all of Palestine and expelling the rest of its native population, there would actually be “peace” in the region today. And if that’s not disgusting enough, this Israeli version of Mr. Kurtz – the sadistic villain of Joseph Conrad’s immortal novel Heart of Darkness – advises Israel’s present regime to engage in further, intensified ethnic cleansing of Palestine at the soonest “practical” date.
I will not burden my readers with a lengthy denunciation of Mr. Morris, as there are surely many good men and women – Palestinians, Israelis, and others – who can accomplish that task more effectively than I can. Instead, I shall pose a different kind of historical question – one motivated not by hate and contempt for human rights, but by heartfelt concern for the well-being of all Middle Easterners, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. I shall then proceed to contemplate how our lives today might be far better had events half a century ago played out differently.
What if Palestine, the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, not been divided by sectarian strife in the late 1940s? What if the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 had rejected proposals to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State upon termination of the British mandate, and instead supported the creation of a single, democratic state guaranteeing equal rights for all of Palestine’s inhabitants? What if such a state had taken root in Palestine and succeeded? How would the Middle East, and, for that matter, the wider world, appear to us today?
The reader may react to this author’s query with incredulity. After all, it is taken for granted by mediocre commentators that divisions between Jews and Arabs over Palestine’s future were too irreconcilable for any alternative to partition to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, enthusiastic support for a one-state solution did exist in some circles – including among many respected Jewish thinkers. Judah Magnes, President of Hebrew University, argued emphatically that the human geography of Palestine made partition impossible without bloodshed, and that the historically tolerant relationship between Jews and Arabs made a single state the most desirable framework. Several members of the international commission then assessing the situation in Palestine shared Magnes’s views. It is therefore conceivable that, had the Palestinian Arab leadership showed genuine enthusiasm for a multiethnic Palestine – and greater sympathy for European Jewish immigrants seeking to rebuild their lives after the devastation of the Holocaust, sufficient support would have been present in the court of international opinion to overcome the Zionist campaign for a separate Jewish state.
If a democratic, secular State of Palestine, founded upon the principal of “one man, one vote”, had emerged to take its place among the nations in 1948, the groundwork would have been laid for a stable and just society in the Holy Land. Such a state would have adopted a sensible, non-discriminatory immigration policy, which would have allowed a fair number of Jewish refugees from war-ravaged Europe to settle and acquire Palestinian citizenship. The leading intellectuals, politicians, and businessmen of both the Arab and Jewish communities – that is, those with a shared belief in democracy - would have formed the backbone of the government. With the aid of responsible leadership, an interwoven society of Jews and Arabs – all identifying themselves as “Palestinians” – could then have evolved, rooted in a common love for scholarship, commerce, and the land itself.
The benefits of secular Palestinian democracy would have emanated far beyond Palestine’s borders, into the wider Middle East. Firstly, and most obviously, the emergence of a tolerant government based in Jerusalem would have prevented the outbreak of regional warfare, and the catastrophic Palestinian refugee crisis. Lebanon’s precarious political structure would not have been shattered by the fallout of an Arab-Israeli conflict – thus giving it time to evolve into a more just and cohesive society, instead of the charnel house of fratricidal warfare that claimed over 150,000 lives. The large Jewish communities of Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and other Arab countries would not have suffered the wave of intolerance they experienced in the aftermath of the first Arab-Israeli war, and would still be vibrant and active parts of those countries’ cultural, economic, and political life. Finally, no climate of perpetual military confrontation would have been present to foster appalling dictatorships such as Hafez al-Assad’s Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – thus, no excuse would have been available for a small-minded imperialist like George W. Bush to unleash his hordes on the region.
Some may find such speculation about alternative Middle East scenarios a waste of time, and many may find it depressing to ponder the good things that might have happened, but didn’t thanks to prejudice, greed, and stupidity. But, for me, such postulation has a serious purpose: to create a framework for building a better future. The fact is, that, even after 55 years, and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fundamental human reality of Israel-Palestine remains the same. As Judah Magnes observed all those years ago, the two peoples of this land are simply too interconnected to separate into rigid, ethnocentric polities. If anything positive has come of Ariel Sharon’s mad dash to build “Greater Israel”, it has been to reinforce this age-old truth.
I realize fully that zealous nationalists of both the Jewish and Palestinian Arab persuasions may take umbrage to my call for them to give up narrow, purist formulations of nationhood. But the dire nature of our times demands that I take such a stand. And what I ask of both parties in the struggle for Palestine does not mean giving up any freedom – except the “freedom” to act irresponsibly.
-Roger H. Lieberman recently received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology, from Rutgers University, in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040221070220483
By ROGER H. LIEBERMAN
The Israel historian, Benny Morris – the very same Benny Morris widely credited for exposing the organized expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Zionist forces in the 1948 War – has recently set a new low in discourse on the Middle East crisis. In an opinion piece published without a second thought by the Los Angeles Times, Morris made the outrageous argument that if Israel had “finished the job” in 1948 by conquering all of Palestine and expelling the rest of its native population, there would actually be “peace” in the region today. And if that’s not disgusting enough, this Israeli version of Mr. Kurtz – the sadistic villain of Joseph Conrad’s immortal novel Heart of Darkness – advises Israel’s present regime to engage in further, intensified ethnic cleansing of Palestine at the soonest “practical” date.
I will not burden my readers with a lengthy denunciation of Mr. Morris, as there are surely many good men and women – Palestinians, Israelis, and others – who can accomplish that task more effectively than I can. Instead, I shall pose a different kind of historical question – one motivated not by hate and contempt for human rights, but by heartfelt concern for the well-being of all Middle Easterners, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. I shall then proceed to contemplate how our lives today might be far better had events half a century ago played out differently.
What if Palestine, the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, not been divided by sectarian strife in the late 1940s? What if the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 had rejected proposals to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State upon termination of the British mandate, and instead supported the creation of a single, democratic state guaranteeing equal rights for all of Palestine’s inhabitants? What if such a state had taken root in Palestine and succeeded? How would the Middle East, and, for that matter, the wider world, appear to us today?
The reader may react to this author’s query with incredulity. After all, it is taken for granted by mediocre commentators that divisions between Jews and Arabs over Palestine’s future were too irreconcilable for any alternative to partition to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, enthusiastic support for a one-state solution did exist in some circles – including among many respected Jewish thinkers. Judah Magnes, President of Hebrew University, argued emphatically that the human geography of Palestine made partition impossible without bloodshed, and that the historically tolerant relationship between Jews and Arabs made a single state the most desirable framework. Several members of the international commission then assessing the situation in Palestine shared Magnes’s views. It is therefore conceivable that, had the Palestinian Arab leadership showed genuine enthusiasm for a multiethnic Palestine – and greater sympathy for European Jewish immigrants seeking to rebuild their lives after the devastation of the Holocaust, sufficient support would have been present in the court of international opinion to overcome the Zionist campaign for a separate Jewish state.
If a democratic, secular State of Palestine, founded upon the principal of “one man, one vote”, had emerged to take its place among the nations in 1948, the groundwork would have been laid for a stable and just society in the Holy Land. Such a state would have adopted a sensible, non-discriminatory immigration policy, which would have allowed a fair number of Jewish refugees from war-ravaged Europe to settle and acquire Palestinian citizenship. The leading intellectuals, politicians, and businessmen of both the Arab and Jewish communities – that is, those with a shared belief in democracy - would have formed the backbone of the government. With the aid of responsible leadership, an interwoven society of Jews and Arabs – all identifying themselves as “Palestinians” – could then have evolved, rooted in a common love for scholarship, commerce, and the land itself.
The benefits of secular Palestinian democracy would have emanated far beyond Palestine’s borders, into the wider Middle East. Firstly, and most obviously, the emergence of a tolerant government based in Jerusalem would have prevented the outbreak of regional warfare, and the catastrophic Palestinian refugee crisis. Lebanon’s precarious political structure would not have been shattered by the fallout of an Arab-Israeli conflict – thus giving it time to evolve into a more just and cohesive society, instead of the charnel house of fratricidal warfare that claimed over 150,000 lives. The large Jewish communities of Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and other Arab countries would not have suffered the wave of intolerance they experienced in the aftermath of the first Arab-Israeli war, and would still be vibrant and active parts of those countries’ cultural, economic, and political life. Finally, no climate of perpetual military confrontation would have been present to foster appalling dictatorships such as Hafez al-Assad’s Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – thus, no excuse would have been available for a small-minded imperialist like George W. Bush to unleash his hordes on the region.
Some may find such speculation about alternative Middle East scenarios a waste of time, and many may find it depressing to ponder the good things that might have happened, but didn’t thanks to prejudice, greed, and stupidity. But, for me, such postulation has a serious purpose: to create a framework for building a better future. The fact is, that, even after 55 years, and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fundamental human reality of Israel-Palestine remains the same. As Judah Magnes observed all those years ago, the two peoples of this land are simply too interconnected to separate into rigid, ethnocentric polities. If anything positive has come of Ariel Sharon’s mad dash to build “Greater Israel”, it has been to reinforce this age-old truth.
I realize fully that zealous nationalists of both the Jewish and Palestinian Arab persuasions may take umbrage to my call for them to give up narrow, purist formulations of nationhood. But the dire nature of our times demands that I take such a stand. And what I ask of both parties in the struggle for Palestine does not mean giving up any freedom – except the “freedom” to act irresponsibly.
-Roger H. Lieberman recently received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology, from Rutgers University, in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20040221070220483