et al,
The professor (Ilan Pappe) makes it very clear in the beginning of his presentation, that --- in the formative years, especially during his advance education experiences, that he was heavily exposed to the Arab Palestinian perspective. For those of us who have been to college - away from home, we know how the need to bond becomes so strong. He recounts this like some many that have been held under duress --- as if a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome. I have seen this before, and we are likely to see it again (many times). I have no question that he strongly believes his perspective is the only logical perspective to hold, to the point he has become evangelistic in its presentation.
As a point of order, his work is singularly special, and quite scholarly. And I believe it will play a part in the development of the history, once the conflict is settled. But I'm not sure his perspective is the way to interpret the historical record. And even he admits that it leans in favor of the Arab Oral History, as appose to the Jewish Oral History which he questions.
We must respect his work, yet it is important to remember that even great works can be flawed. Just as we respect Johannes Kepler
(the great German mathematician and astronomer) for his work on the original laws of planetary motion; yet we know they were flawed - we still study him and his reasoning.
Ladies...the TOPIC please...lets get back to Ilain Pappe...don't think robots are part of that
(COMMENT)
Professor Pappe cites three very important point which he interprets in his own way.
- The "myth" between the force projection capabilities of the Combined Arab Forces in comparison to the Israel Forces.
- The idea is that the Arab Armies never had a chance at defeating the Israelis; but, that the Israelis propagandized the 1948 war as the "eve of destruction" to garnish political support.
- If the Arab League understood at the outset that they had no chance of defeating, why did they initiate a coordinated attack?
- The March 1948 decision to displace the Arab Palestinian population; and the prior agreement made between the Israelis and the Jordanians over the West Bank and its disposition.
- Notice that the March date is stipulated. That would be the month following the solemn oath threat by the Arab High Committee:
(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.
(b) The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
(c) It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.
(d) The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.
(e) The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.
(f) The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.
(g) The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.
- This would be following the pre-arranged plan for a member of the Arab aggressor force (Jordan) to occupy the West Bank in exchange for not attacking Israel.
- If Israel moved the Arab Palestinians, was it a countermeasure to the threat to: "wipe them out — man, woman and child?" (A solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history.)
- Did the pre-arranged agreement indicate a certain duplicity between members of the Arab League and Israel?
- It is also implied that (in the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and presentation) that Plan Dalet was a "blueprint for ethnic cleansing."
- It doesn't assume that the coming conflict needed an over all strategy for dealing with the potential hostile Arabs in the region of conflict; rear area protection.
- And the discrepancy between the Israel and Arab Palestinian on who was extending the olive branch in hand and who rejected the overture.
- The implication is that the Arab League and the Arab High Committee, after failing to achieve territorial control over the Israeli territory by force, should then accept offer to accept the original Partition Plan arrangements under GA/RES/181(II).
- The Arab State percentage.
- The Jewish State Percentage.
- The Internationalization of Jerusalem.
(Stated explicitly in his presentation.)
- This flies directly into the face of the 15 February 1948 Solemn Oath by the Arab Higher Committee, and suggests that it was Israel that refused to negotiate.
5. United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine said:
On 8 and 15 November 1949, the report declared, the Israeli and Arab delegations respectively communicated (A/1113) to the Commission their Governments position with regard to the required guarantees for the protection of and free access to the Holy Places outside the Jerusalem area. The Arab delegations submitted a joint declaration guaranteeing the protection of and free access to the Holy Places. The Israeli delegation reiterated its readiness to give similar guarantees.
With respect to the territorial question, the Commission reported that the Arab delegations still adhered to the terms of the Protocol of 12 May and saw no reason to deviate from the proposals which they had already presented. The Israeli delegation reaffirmed its desire to open direct peace negotiations with each of the interested parties; it subsequently informed the Commission that since the whole future of the Conciliation Commission was under discussion in the General Assembly, it would be preferable to await the outcome of that discussion before embarking upon any long-term planning of the conciliation effort in the future.
SOURCE: YEARBOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1948-49
It is fairly clear, that two (or more) reasonable people can look at the facts, and the "oral history" (Professor Pappe's current focus) and interpret them differently. It is just as clear, that there was a mixed purpose to the motives behind the invasion by certain members of the Arab League alliance.
While Professor Pappe's work is relevant and illuminating in some respects, it is still a personal perspective in which he accepts certain oral histories and rejects others that do not conform to the position and agenda he holds. His work holds many truths, but what those truth lead to as a conclusion, is still subjective.
There is no question that there are zionist (both then and now) that have an objective beyond the intentions of the Partition Plan. But there are also those that are motivated by the necessity to take certain actions in the protection and preservation of the Jewish National Home, called Israel.
Just as important, it the question of penalties and reparations for the aggression demonstrated by the Arab League and the hostile associated parties in the 1948 War. The Arabs Palestinians cannot expect that they can just invade a country, lose the war, and then call time-out and attempt to reset the field with out an consequences. The Arab Palestinian, as hard-lined as they are, must clearly see that there are consequences for their actions; without regard to the errors in judgment and political mistake made by the Israelis in the heat of a War of Independence.
Most Respectfully,
R
