[Peace-discuss] NIMN Letter to Editor

[David Green]

This letter, from Joel Finkel of Not In My Name in
Chicago, was written in response to two articles that
appeared side-by-side on the front page of last
Sunday's Chicago Tribune Perspective section. Finkel
accurately characterizes and cogently critiques the
content of these articles.

To the Editors,

Rabbi Ira Youdovin, in his commentary on the potential
for Israeli-Palestinian peace (June 1, 2003), teaches
us a very important lesson:  perception is more
important that truth.  To emphasize this, he closes
his remarks with as quote from Proverbs, “Where there
is no vision, the people will perish.”  In an
interesting juxtaposition, M. Cherif Bassiouni, the
author of the accompanying commentary, chooses to
close his remarks with a Talmudic exposition on Rabbi
Gamaliel, “…if justice is realized, truth is
vindicated and peace results.”  For Rabbi Youdovin,
the goal is the preservation of a people, and for this
there must be a vision.  For Mr. Bassiouni, the goal
is peace, and for this there must be justice.

At stake is the health and welfare of millions of
people whose future is undeniably intertwined.  This
is not a trivial discussion.  It requires an open and
honest appraisal of historical facts.  If such a task
is forsaken, if one’s vision of the past is obscured,
then one’s vision of the future is sure to be mere
fantasy.   

While Rabbi Youdovin understands the importance of
examining the Palestinian narrative, in the end he
argues that what is really important is for the
Palestinians to abandon it and to accept that of the
Israelis.

It is necessary to scrutinize Rabbi Youdovin’s
argument, even without examining in full the myriad
facets of mythology in his narrative, including such
inaccuracies as Zionism was a widely accepted movement
(it was a tiny movement that was opposed by the
majority of religious and secular Jews), Jews longed
to return to the birthplace of Judaism (there had
never been any major movement, political or religious,
to return to Jerusalem, even in the worst of times;
the “longing” was a religious metaphor: a longing for
the coming of the messiah), there was no Palestinian
identity (even Vladimir Jabotinsky, the fascist leader
of Revisionist Zionism, recognized the existence of
the Palestinian identity as early as 1923, when he
wrote The Iron Wall—We and the Arabs), and that there
was no organized project to expel Palestinians (“Plan
D,” organized by the Haganah in March 1948, strove to
capture Palestinian cities and destroy Palestinian
villages, and justified the forcible expulsion of the
indigenous population, according to Benny Morris’ The
Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949).

Rabbi Youdovin’s perspective on the Palestinian
refugee status reveals the crux of his argument.  The
Palestinian narrative, which is corroborated by
numerous Israeli and international historians who have
had access to the primary historical materials (Simha
Flapan, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, to name
a few), is consistent.  The majority of the 700,000
Palestinians who were made refugees were expelled
before the war began in May of 1948.  There were no
radio broadcasts telling them to flee.  There were
massacres and bombings and it was made abundantly
clear that if they did not leave, and quickly, they
would be in mortal danger.  They were prevented from
returning when they tried to.  The crops they planted
were harvested by Israeli Jews.  Their homes, if they
still exist, are now inhabited by Israeli Jews.  About
450 villages were wiped off the face of the earth. 
This is the Palestinian narrative, in brief.

What would have happened had there been no expulsion? 
With 700,000 non-Jews in the new country, there would
have been a “demographic” problem.  That is, the Jews
in the new state of Israel would have been a minority,
by far.  As the Haganah captured more Arab land during
the war in 1948, it also would have “captured” more
Arabs, making the initial imbalance potentially even
greater.  This would have been unacceptable. 
Expulsion was required in order to create a Jewish
majority; otherwise Israel would simply not have been
a Jewish state.

However, according to Rabbi Youdovin’s narrative,
while the situation is somewhat complex, he claims
that “What happened in 1947-1948 was not unique. 
Non-combatants fled from a war zone, as non-combatants
often do.”  Therefore, it seems that in his narrative
at least some of the refugees were like refugees
anywhere in the world.  Yet, sadly, the rabbi would
not even extend to these people the common decency to
be allowed to return to their homes.  Why? 
Furthermore, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to
leave any country, including his own, and to return to
his country.”  Yet Rabbi Youdovin declares that there
is one group of people in the world to whom this
cannot apply: the Palestinian non-combatants who fled,
“as non-combatants often do,” from a war zone in
1947-1948.  Why? 

Youdovin puts these non-combatant refugee Palestinians
in this unique position because to grant them the same
right as every other group in the world would
supposedly cause the “death [of Israel] by
demographics.”  In other words, Rabbi Youdovin is
arguing that maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel
is more important than the basic human rights of the
Palestinian refugees who fled in the same way “as
non-combatants often do.” 

More importantly, however, it is not enough for
Youdovin alone to take this position.  The
Palestinians, themselves, must take this position. 
They must be willing to forfeit their basic human
right—as non-combatants who fled a war zone—in order
to maintain Jewish majority in Israel.   

Now what exactly does “maintaining a Jewish majority
in Israel” really mean?  It means that the Jews in
Israel must be allowed to maintain political and
social preeminence over the non-Jews.  Another word
for preeminence is supremacy.  And we should at least
be honest enough to admit to exactly what we are
talking about. 

This would be difficult enough to swallow, but
Youdovin goes still further.  He states, “The revision
required in the Palestinian narrative to make this
[Youdovin’s] approach [to peace] palatable would be
minimal.”  In other words, not only must the
Palestinians place the interests of Jewish supremacy
in Israel above their own interests, they must now
discard their own narrative and accept the Israeli
myths about their own history.  And, in his opinion,
this revision in “minimal.” 

It is sad and discouraging enough to see American
Jewish religious leaders continue to abrogate their
responsibilities by perpetuating historical myths. 
However, as a Jew, I find it unconscionable to witness
such bold effrontery that insults an entire people.  

No one can demand that the Palestinians place the
interests of the Israelis before their own.  This will
not lead to peace.  Neither can one demand that the
Palestinians accept myth after myth about their own
history, for none of them will accept it.  Nor should
they.  We Jews are rightfully outraged when people
with a political agenda attempt to deny the Holocaust.
 We should expect the Palestinians to be rightfully
outraged when people with a political agenda attempt
to deny al-Nakba (the Catastrophe).    

Peace will not come from people with a vision that is
clouded by deceit.  It will come from people who
thirst for justice: for without justice there will be
no peace.  Justice in the Middle East will begin when
people, particularly Jews, understand that
Palestinians are real people with a real history and
real grievances that require real resolutions and real
reparations.  The Palestinians have to forfeit
nothing, least of all the truth.   

A process that provides a just resolution to the
Palestinian refugee problem can be created within the
context of broader peacemaking.  It is not up to
American Jews, even our rabbis, to dictate the terms
to these refugees and their children.  They have
suffered enough and do not need to told by us what
they must sacrifice.  For they have already been
forced to sacrifice 78% of their homeland, three
generations to their exile, and two generations to the
oppression of occupation.

Peace can only come when Israel’s leaders decide to
abandon all of the settlements that have been built on
Palestinian land captured in June of 1967, and when
all their troops are removed from these Territories. 
There is absolutely nothing that prevents Israel’s
military leaders from pursuing a true policy of
peacemaking.  And there never has been.  They can, at
any time, choose to abandon the project of building a
Greater Israel and embrace the project of building a
peace.   

To do so requires that they embrace the idea that
their future is truly intertwined with that of the
Palestinians, and it requires that they finally
embrace the concept of justice.  For “if justice is
realized, truth is vindicated and peace results.” 

Joel R Finkel




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com