DOCSLIB.ORG

Israel and Palestine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Israel and Palestine ISRAEL AND PALESTINE ISRAEL AND PALESTINE Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations Avi Shlaim V VERSO London • New York Earlier versions of the chapters included in this volume have appeared in the following publications: Chapter #1, in Wm. Roger Louis, ed.. Yet More Adventures with Britannia (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005); #2, in Mary Coll, ed., Faithful Companions: Collected Essays Celebrating the 25th Anniversary o f the Kate O’Brien Weekend (Limerick: Mellick Press, 2009); #3, #5, #8, #15 Journal o f Palestine Studies; #4, #6, #7, #9, #10, #12, #13, #18, #20, London Review o f Books', #11, #29, Guardian; #14, in Jane Davis, ed., Politics and International Relations in the Middle East (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1995); #16, in Louise Fawcett ed.. International Relations o f the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); #17, #26, New York Review o f Books; #19, Israel Studies; #21, The Nation; #22, in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne eds., Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future ofWorld Order (London: Palgrave, 2002); #23, Logos; #25, Islámica; #27, in Adel Iskandar and Hakem Rustom, eds., Emancipation and Representation: On the Intellectual Meditations o f Edward Said (Berkeley: University of California Press, forthcoming); #30, Jewish Chronicle First published by Verso 2009 © Avi Shlaim 2009 All rights reserved The moral rights of the author have been asserted 1 3579 10 8642 V erso UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201 www.versobooks.com Verso is the imprint of New Left Books ISBN-13: 978-1-84467-366-7 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Typeset by Hewer Text UK Ltd, Edinburgh Printed in the US by Maple Vail To Tamar Contents Introduction ix Chronology xvii M aps xxii Partit 1948ifldAfta 1 T h e Balfour Declaration and its Consequences 3 2 Hie Civil War in Palestine 25 3 The Rise and Fall of the All'Palestine Government in Gaza 37 4 D id They Leave or Were They Pushed? 54 5 Husni Zaim and the Plan to Resettle Palestinian Refugees in Syria 62 6 All the Difference 77 7 Israels Dirty War 84 8 The Struggle for Jordan 93 9 Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal 104 10 Sleepless Afternoons 114 P a rt l i t To Oslo and Beyond 11 Hie Pace that Launched a Thousand MiGs 123 12 Arab Nationalism and its Discontents 128 viii CONTENTS 13 Israel and the Gulf 141 14 Changing Places: The Madrid Peace Conference 152 15 Prelude to the Oslo Accord: Likud, Labour and the Palestinians 168 16 The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process 187 17 Woman of the Year 210 18 Overtaken by Events 224 19 The Likud in Power: The Historiography of Revisionist Zionism 235 20 Capital Folly 253 Part III: The Breakdown of the Peace Process 21 The Lost Steps 263 22 George W. Bush and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 277 23 Ariel Sharons War Against the Palestinians 285 24 Palestine and Iraq 296 25 Israels War Against Hamas: Rhetoric and Reality 307 Part IV: Perspectives 26 His Royal Shyness: King Hussein and Israel 321 27 Edward Said and the Palestine Question 343 28 Four Days in Seville 357 29 Benny Morris and the Betrayal of History 361 30 Free Speech? Not for Critics of Israel 366 Notes 373 Acknowledgements 381 Index 383 Introduction he Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most bitter, protracted, violent and seemingly intractable conflicts of modern times. This book brings together my writings on T the Palestine question over the last quarter of a century. With the exception of the chapter on the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the time span of this volume begins with the Palestine War of 1948 and ends with the savage war launched by Israel on Gaza in December 2008. Between these melancholy dates fall nearly all the events discussed in the following pages. The chapters in this book, although they were written at different times, have one thing in common: they are a testimony to an alternative view, to a more critical way of looking at the past. They are also grounded in the belief that the past is our best guide for understanding the present and for predicting the future. Only by coming to grips with the tangled and tortured history of this conflict can we make sense of it. Alongside the political conflict between Israelis and Palestinians runs a parallel conflict between two distinct national narratives. Only by taking full account of these two narratives can we form a true picture of the character and dynamics of this tragic conflict, and of the prospects for its resolution. X ISRAEL AND PALESTINE I belong to a small group of scholars who are sometimes labelled the ‘revisionist Israeli historians* and sometimes the new historians’. The original group included Benny Morris of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and lian Pappé of Haifa University. We were called the new historians’ because we challenged the standard Zionist version of the causes and course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. More specifically, we challenged the many myths that have come to surround the birth of Israel and the first Arab—Israeli war of 1948. Benny Morris, who coined the term ‘the new historiography, radically changed his views on the nature of this conflict following the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000 and the Palestinian resort to violence and suicide attacks. He began to lay virtually all the blame for the failure to reach a political settlement at the door of the Palestinians. lian Pappé and I, on the other hand, held on to our belief that Israel bears the primary responsibility for both the persistence and the escalation of the conflict. Many different issues are explored in the chapters that follow, which are arranged in only a rough chronological order. As such, it might help the reader to know at the beginning of the journey that much of what follows turns on three main watersheds: the creation of Israel in May 1948; the Six-Day War of June 1967; and the Oslo Accord signed on 13 September 1993. Each of these episodes is the subject of heated debate among scholars, and among the protagpnists on both sides. The first debate is about 1948. I believe that the creation of the State of Israel involved a terrible injustice to the Palestinians. But I fully accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. My critics claim that these two statements are contradictory, that a state based on injustice cannot be legitimate. My reply is as follows. As a result of the creation of Israel, the Palestinians suffered dispossession and dispersal. Over 700,000 Palestinians, roughly half of the indigenous Arab population, became refugees. The name Palestine was wiped off the map. This outcome of the war constituted not merely an injustice but a profound national trauma, a catastrophe or al-Nakba, as it is called in Arabic. But the Jews also suffered an injustice, perhaps the greatest injustice of the twentieth century - the Holocaust. The Jews are Introduction x i a people and, like any other people, they have a natural right to national self-determination. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the moral case for a Jewish state became unassailable. In the circumstances of 1948, after the hideous suffering inflicted on the Jews of Europe by Nazi Germany, it was an inescapable fact that something on a titanic scale had to be done for them and there was nothing titanic enough except Palestine. This was the background to the UN resolution of 29 November 1947 for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The UN resolution provided an international charter of legitimacy for the Jewish state. True, the Arabs were not responsible for the barbaric treatment of the Jews in the heardand of Christian Europe. Most Arabs consequendy felt that the gift of part of Palestine to the Jews was illegal. However, a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly by a large majority cannot be illegal. It may be unjust but not illegal. Injustice and illegality are not the same thing. What is legal is not necessarily just. Moreover, in 1949 Israel concluded armistice agreements with all its Arab neighbours: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. These are the only internationally recognised borders that Israel has ever had. And these are the only borders that I regard as legitimate. The second great watershed in the modern history of the Middle East was June 1967. In the course of its spectacular victory in the Six-Day War, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. On 22 November 1967, the UN Security Council passed resolution 242. The preamble emphasised the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and the resolution itself called on Israel to give up the territories it had captured in return for peace with its neighbours. For the first time in its history Israel had something concrete to offer the Arabs in return for recognition and peace. But Israel preferred land to peace. Within a matter of months after the guns fell silent, Israel began to build civilian setdements in the occupied territories in blatant contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel became a colonial power. For my part, as I have said, I still accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel within its pre-1967 borders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meeting with MK Yossi Beilin
    Meeting with MK Yossi Beilin On the evening of Thursday, March 22, 2007, Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin addressed the Meretz USA board. He discussed current events surrounding the Winograd Commission, the formation of the Palestinian Unity government, and what the US should be doing, among other issues. Below is our staff summary of his remarks, supplemented by my observations– Ed. Winograd Commission & Government Corruption Dr. Beilin spoke first about an event that occurred on Thursday. Following a petition from Meretz MK Zahava Galon, the Israeli Supreme Court decided to publish the minutes of the Winograd testimonies. On Thursday, Shimon Peres’ testimony was made public. In it, Peres said he had been against the Lebanon war from the beginning , a fact that is also reflected in the Government Cabinet meeting minutes. Today, a rally of students asked him why, if he was against the war, did he vote for it? Peres answered that, as the Deputy Prime Minister, he did not feel that he could vote against the Prime Minister. In response, Dr. Beilin released a statement saying that those individuals who saw the danger of the war, but voted for it anyway, misled the country. Dr. Beilin also predicted upcoming changes in the Israeli government, although he said he did not believe there would be new elections. He indicated that most parties currently in the Knesset would not benefit by risking an election now. If Prime Minister Olmert is forced to step down by the corruption inquiry against him or by the Winograd Commission findings on the conduct of the recent war with Hezbollah, either Peres or Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni might replace him.
    [Show full text]
  • Likud and the Oslo Process: Implications of a Hebron Accord
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 114 Likud and the Oslo Process: Implications of a Hebron Accord Jan 3, 1997 Brief Analysis f negotiators overcome eleventh-hour Palestinian demands and conclude an agreement on Hebron I redeployment, this accord would mark a milestone in the Middle East peace process: the first signed agreement between a Likud government and the Palestinians. With significant U.S. encouragement, the two sides will have managed to overcome the intense acrimony and bitterness that only three months ago claimed scores of lives and took the peace process to the precipice of collapse. The nearly hundred days of haggling since the Washington Summit -- sparked by the Netanyahu government's demand for improved security arrangements for the some 400 Israeli residents of Hebron and then fueled by Arafat's desire to take advantage of global sympathy to win concessions on non-Hebron issues -- may come to be seen by future historians as a critical turning point in the peace process, i.e., the moment when the Likud abandoned elements of its core ideology for the sake of accommodation with the Palestinians. The Hebron Conundrum: Israel's redeployment in Hebron completes the implementation of IDF withdrawals from the seven major Palestinian population centers, as called for in the September 1995 PLO-Israel accord (Oslo II). For the agreement's original Israeli negotiators, Hebron was such a thorny issue that its provisions outlining IDF redeployment from the city were separate and significantly more complex than those delineating withdrawal from other cities and towns in Gaza and the West Bank. Indeed, pulling IDF troops out of four-fifths of Hebron was seen as so potentially explosive and politically costly, that the Labor government of Shimon Peres balked at fulfilling that provision of the Oslo II accord.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatah Congress: Will New Resolutions Mean a New Direction?
    PolicyWatch #1569 Fatah Congress: Will New Resolutions Mean a New Direction? By Mohammad Yaghi August 14, 2009 PolicyWatch #1569 is the second in a two-part series examining the political and organizational implications of Fatah's recently concluded General Congress. This part explores Fatah's external dynamics, specifically how the group's new political program will affect its relations with Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. PolicyWatch #1568 examines Fatah's internal dynamics, particularly in regard to its top leader Mahmoud Abbas. At its recently concluded General Congress, Fatah established a new political program that will affect both its terms of reengagement with Israel and its relations with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Fatah's new constraints on negotiations with Israel, however, may harm Mahmoud Abbas -- PA president and the party's top leader -- who needs to respond positively to international peace initiatives that may conflict with the organization's new rules of engagement. Abbas might ignore these congressional decisions, believing its program is intended only for internal consumption to fend off the accusations of the party's hardline members. Fatah's renewed efforts to reunite the West Bank and Gaza could lead to an escalation with Hamas, since many observers doubt unity can be achieved peacefully. Fatah's Political Program According to al-Ayyam newspaper, Fatah's new political program sets demanding terms for reengagement with Israel, even more so than those Abbas has been stating publicly since Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office earlier this year. The new terms include a complete halt of Israeli settlement construction, especially in East Jerusalem; an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian cities, reverting back to the status that existed before the September 2000 intifada; a clear and binding timetable for negotiations; a refusal to postpone negotiations over Jerusalem and refugees; and an insistence on a defined mechanism for arbitration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Party and the Peace Camp
    The Labor Party and the Peace Camp By Uzi Baram In contemporary Israeli public discourse, the preoccupation with ideology has died down markedly, to the point that even releasing a political platform as part of elections campaigns has become superfluous. Politicians from across the political spectrum are focused on distinguishing themselves from other contenders by labeling themselves and their rivals as right, left and center, while floating around in the air are slogans such as “political left,” social left,” “soft right,” “new right,” and “mainstream right.” Yet what do “left” and “right” mean in Israel, and to what extent do these slogans as well as the political division in today’s Israel correlate with the political traditions of the various parties? Is the Labor Party the obvious and natural heir of The Workers Party of the Land of Israel (Mapai)? Did the historical Mapai under the stewardship of Ben Gurion view itself as a left-wing party? Did Menachem Begin’s Herut Party see itself as a right-wing party? The Zionist Left and the Soviet Union As far-fetched as it may seem in the eyes of today’s onlooker, during the first years after the establishment of the state, the position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union was the litmus test of the left camp, which was then called “the workers’ camp.” This camp viewed the centrist liberal “General Zionists” party, which was identified with European liberal and middle-class beliefs in private property and capitalism, as its chief ideological rival (and with which the heads of major cities such as Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan were affiliated)­.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatah and Hamas: the New Palestinian Factional Reality
    Order Code RS22395 March 3, 2006 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Fatah and Hamas: the New Palestinian Factional Reality Aaron D. Pina Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary For the first time in its history, the Palestinian parliament is set to be led by Hamas, which the United States and European Union have designated a foreign terrorist organization. Although some lauded the generally free and fair election in January 2006, others criticized the outcome and accused Hamas of “hijacking” democracy. This report provides an overview of the new political realities in the West Bank and Gaza after the election, the challenges Fatah and Hamas face, and possible implications for U.S. policy. This report will be updated as warranted. For more information on the Palestinians, see CRS Report RL33269, Palestinian Elections, by Aaron D. Pina, CRS Issue Brief IB91137 The Middle East Peace Talks, by Carol Migdalovitz, and CRS Report RS22370, U.S. Assistance to the Palestinians, by Jeremy M. Sharp. Background On January 25, 2006, Palestinians voted in parliamentary elections and Hamas emerged as the clear winner, with 74 out of 132 parliamentary seats. Fatah, the dominant party in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), won 45 seats, and 13 seats went to other minor parties. Since then, several governments, including the United States, have cautioned that unless Hamas disavows terrorism, recognizes Israel, and accepts all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, diplomatic and economic relations with the Palestinian Authority may be circumscribed or ended altogether. Hamas1 During the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinians experienced a rise in political Islam, embodied in Hamas, founded in 1987 by the late Sheik Ahmad Yasin.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake E≠Ect? a Research Team Explores the Dynamics of Naturally Occurring Greenhouse Gases in the Great Lakes
    STRANGE SCIENCE MOMENTOUS MELIORA! LESSONS IN LOOKING An astrophysicist meets Highlights from a Where poet Jennifer Grotz a Marvel movie signature celebration found her latest inspiration UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER /NovembER–DecembER 2016 Lake E≠ect? A research team explores the dynamics of naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the Great Lakes. RochRev_Nov2016_Cover.indd 1 11/1/16 4:38 PM “You have to feel strongly about where you give. I really feel I owe the University for a lot of my career. My experience was due in part Invest in PAYING IT to someone else’s generosity. Through the George Eastman Circle, I can help students what you love with fewer resources pursue their career “WE’RE BOOMERS. We think we’ll be aspirations at Rochester.” around forever—but finalizing our estate FORWARD gifts felt good,” said Judy Ricker. Her husband, —Virgil Joseph ’01 | Vice President-Relationship Manager, Ray, agrees. “It’s a win-win for us and the Canandaigua National Bank & Trust University,” he said. “We can provide for FOR FUTURE Rochester, New York ourselves in retirement, then our daughter, Member, George Eastman Circle Rochester Leadership Council and the school we both love.” GENERATIONS Supports: School of Arts and Sciences The Rickers’ charitable remainder unitrust provides income for their family before creating three named funds at the Eastman School of Music. Those endowed funds— two professorships and one scholarship— will be around forever. They acknowledge Eastman’s celebrated history, and Ray and Judy’s confidence in the School’s future. Judy’s message to other boomers? “Get on this bus! Join us in ensuring the future of what you love most about the University.” Judith Ricker ’76E, ’81E (MM), ’91S (MBA) is a freelance oboist, a business consultant, and former executive vice president of brand research at Market Probe.
    [Show full text]
  • News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    News of Terrorism and the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict (November 9 – 15, 2016) Palestinians throw stones at Israeli vehicles as a manifestation of popular terrorism. Left: An Israeli vehicle damaged by stones thrown in the Halhul region, north of Hebron (Twitter account of Paldf, November 9, 2016). Right: An Israeli vehicle damaged by stones thrown near Bayt A'innon, east of Hebron (Twitter account of Paldf, November 13, 2016). O ve rv ie w Overview n Popular terrorism continues, this past week manifested by an attempted stabbing attack at the Hawwara Junction near Nablus. Stones were thrown at Israeli cars and buses in Judea and Samaria. Two Israelis were wounded; in some instances the vehicles were damaged. n Preparations are being made for the seventh Fatah conference, scheduled to take place on November 29, 2016. Nabil Shaath, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, said the movement's political platform would include support for the "popular struggle." At the previous conference, held in 2009, Fatah adopted the concept of "popular resistance," legitimizing popular terrorism, which peaked last year. 206-16 2 Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Terrorists Attacks n On November 9, 2016, a Palestinian went to the Hawwara Junction (near Nablus) with a screwdriver which he used to try to stab an IDF soldier. He was shot and critically wounded by the Israeli security forces, and evacuated to a hospital. The Palestinian media reported he was Muhammad Omar al-Jalad, 24, from Tulkarm (Wafa, November 9, 2016). Left: Muhammad Omar al-Jalad (Facebook page of Bethlehem al-Hadath, November 9, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • News Article on My Debate with Likud Supporter
    News article on my debate with Likud supporter I’m in the middle, sharing a light moment at the debate. Photo is by NJJN reporter Johanna Ginsberg. A lot more could have been said, both by the New Jersey Jewish News reporter and myself, but we faced limitations of space (in her case) and of time (in mine). This is the part of her article devoted to my debate with a Likud supporter (I comment further, below this): Senior Edyt Dickstein moderated the April 16 debate between attorney Mark Levenson, chair of the New Jersey-Israel Commission and a pro-Israel activist aligned with Likud, and Ralph Seliger, a writer who blogs for Partners for Progressive Israel (formerly Meretz USA). Seliger and Levenson disagreed considerably, not only in their positions but in their interpretations of the facts. On the question of settlements, Seliger said that 1995 negotiations between Israel’s Yossi Beilin and Palestinian negotiator Mahmoud Abbas yielded an agreement that would have allowed the 75 to 80 percent of the settler population in three major settlement blocs to remain where they lived. That agreement, he said, was derailed by the assassination that year of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. “At the end, because of his assassination and the fact that Shimon Peres, his successor, was not as adept a politician, the agreement collapsed and the so-called peace process slowed to a crawl,” said Seliger. “The settlements were not the problem. The problem is settlement expansion. Now Palestinians do not know where it will stop.” By contrast, Levenson said, “This so-called agreement Yossi Beilin reached with Abbas was not in a government framework.” No one from the Palestinian side, Levenson added, “is saying, ‘We agree, we will give up these three blocs.’ That is part of the problem the Israeli government faces.” Levenson also defended Peres.
    [Show full text]
  • Yossi Beilin, There's No Such Thing As a Jewish State
    Haaretz.Com http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-yossi-beilin-th... Yossi Beilin, there’s no such thing as a Jewish state Avraham Burg | Mar. 15, 2020 | 11:30 AM | 5 Yossi Beilin is almost everything to me – teacher and partner, beloved friend and challenging opponent. His last article in Israel Hayom outlines the core of the argument between us – the watershed between the broad Zionist camp and what is yet to be the new Israeli left. He blasts Joint List leader Ayman Odeh’s position that a Jewish majority is a racist term, stating that “if a Jewish majority is a racist term, then a Jewish state is also a racist term, and Zionism is racism as well.” Is that what this rational, pragmatic man thinks? I don’t know what Odeh thinks, but I, as one of tens of thousands of people who voted for the Joint List, say to Beilin explicitly – yes. What for you is a rhetorical question for me is a painful, penetrating reply – Zionism in Israel today means only one thing: racism! And here it is: There’s no such thing as a Jewish state. Have you ever seen the sticker that reads: “A Sabbath observing taxi”? Did you smile? Rightly so. What, does the taxi set aside a portion of dough before baking a challah? Does it go to the mikveh, light candles? Of course not. The taxi is only a tool. It does not operate on Saturday because the driver observes the Sabbath. Like it, the state is just a tool in the public’s hands.
    [Show full text]
  • The Israeli-Palestinian Talks: an Agreed-On US Paper Is Still Possible
    Expert Analysis March 2014 The Israeli-Palestinian talks: an agreed-on U.S. paper is still possible By Yossi Beilin Executive summary The willingness of U.S. secretary of state John Kerry to settle for the minimal option – U.S. terms of reference (ToR) for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that will permit the parties to state their reservations – is a grave mistake. Such reservations would tie the hands of the negotiators because of the latter’s need to be publicly committed to them. Similar moves failed in the past, like the Clinton parameters in 2000 and George W. Bush’s road map in 2003. Kerry should go back to the drawing board and prepare a U.S. paper that contains another set of ToR that would refer to UN resolutions on the Middle East and focus on issues agreed upon between the parties regarding the goals of the negotiations, such as the establishment of a non- militarised Palestinian state, the willingness of such a state to permit foreign security forces to remain on its soil, and the understanding that the peace agreement would end the conflict and be the last word on the two parties’ claims. Such a document would not require the parties to express their reservations and would allow them to continue the negotiations in a much better environment. U.S. secretary of state John Kerry surprised many – both in reservations while continuing to negotiate until the end his own country and internationally – by his determination of 2014. to help achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. If initially his efforts were dismissed, today he finds himself The problem is that a paper that is not agreed to by the under severe attack by hawks on both sides, which pre- parties and allows them to state their reservations is not a sumably means that he is guiding the parties towards a substitute for a set of ToR that are agreed to and therefore moment of truth.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSUE 73 - AUTUMN 2000 Established 1971
    JOURNAL OF BABYLONIAN JEWRY PUBLISHED BY THE EXILARCH’S FOUNDATION Now found on www.thescribe.uk.com ISSUE 73 - AUTUMN 2000 Established 1971 A Happy New Year 5761 to all our Readers and Friends The procession of His Royal Highness The Exilarch on his weekly visit to the Grand Caliph of Baghdad, ALMUSTANJID BILLAH, accompanied by Benjamin of Tudela (12th Century) who wrote in his diary that the Caliph knows all languages, and is well-versed in the law of Israel. He reads and writes the holy language (Hebrew) and is attended by many belonging to the people of Israel. He will not partake of anything unless he has earned it by the work of his own hands. The men of Islam see him once a year. In Baghdad there are about 40,000 Jews “dwelling in security, prosperity and honour and amongst them are great sages, the heads of Academies engaged in the study of the Law. At the head of them all is Daniel, The Exilarch, who traces his pedigree to King David. He has been invested with authority over all the Jews in the Abbassid Empire. Every Thursday he goes to pay a visit to the great Caliph and horsemen, Gentiles as well as Jews, escort him and heralds proclaim in advance, ‘Make way before our Lord, the son of David, as is due unto him’. On arrival the Caliph rises and puts him on a throne, opposite him, which the prophet Mohammed had ordered to be made for him. He granted him the seal of office and instructed his followers to salute him (the Exilarch) and that anyone who should refuse to rise up should receive one hundred stripes.” THOUGHTS & AFTERTHOUGHTS by Naim Dangoor REFLECTIONS ON T H E as martyrs for the free world and should that G-d cannot do wrong, they try to put HOLOCAUST be remembered and honoured throughout the blame on the victims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Anti-Partitionist Perspectives in Palestine 1915-1988
    A history of Anti-partitionist Perspectives in Palestine 1915-1988 Submitted by Kaoutar Guediri to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Arab and Islamic Studies, February 2013. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I understand that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. .................................... 1 2 Abstract The diplomatic and political deadlock in what has come to be known as the Palestine/Israel conflict, has led to the re-emergence of an anti-partition discourse that draws its arguments from the reality on the ground and/or from anti-Zionism. Why such a re-emergence? Actually, anti-partitionism as an antagonism depends on its corollary, partitionism, and as such, they have existed for the same period of time. Furthermore, the debate between anti- partitionists and pro-partitionists – nowadays often referred to as a debate between the one-state and the two-state solution – is not peculiar to the period around 2000. It echoes the situation in the late 1910s when the British were settling in Palestine and authorising the Zionist settler colonial movement to build a Jewish homeland thus introducing the seeds of partition and arousing expressions of anti-partitionism. This dissertation aims to articulate a political history of the anti-partitionist perspectives against the backdrop of an increasing acceptance of Palestine's partition as a solution.
    [Show full text]