Sla,—Mr. Edelston (March 25) asks me for examples of 'normally
established States with a normal history' (I had said that Arabs do not regard Israel as one, and cannot be expected to). Mr. Gershlick's letter raises the same essential and frightful problem. May 1 try to answer, in all sincerity and not in rhetoric, by turning the question about? By every standard we have elsewhere applied in the modern world, an alien State composed of aliens— aliens by 2,000 years, even on Zionism's religious- racial-historical criteria—was imposed on Palestine. Her Arabs, in 88 per cent. majority in 1922, and still 64 per cent. in 1946, were not allowed self- determination. Israel was imposed upon them, by arms and our sanction, despite their passionate, violent, continuous protest—and their kindred neigh- bours. Had such a State been imposed on Wales, would Welshmen and England regard it as nor- mally established with a normal history? Would Canadians if it had been done in Canada? French and Dutch if in Belgium? In the process, all but 200,000 of the indigenous People became refugees. 1 plead that no Israeli sYtn. Pathiser should advance the standard story that this was because 'their own leaders ordered the Arabs to evacuate.' One of the most horrible ex- periences I have known has been to determine, by Months of research, and incontrovertibly, that this ten-Year-old story is false; that the Arabs fled in Panic and at Zionist bayonet-point. Palestine Jews themselves, venerated old pioneers like Nathan Chofshi, of Herzila, have testified to this in deeply moving shame 9, gshame and anguish (Jewish Newsletter, 1959, New York). Again: had this hap- Pelted in Wales—or Belgium or Canada—would we regard the State and its leaders responsible for it as normally established with a normal history?
„
In 1947, Dr. Weizmann solemnly testified to the uN. that a Jewish State including the Negev and Galilee could hold two million people. The UN Itself, even in voting Partition, declared it 'incontro- vertible that any solution for Palestine cannot be considered as a solution of the Jewish problem in etierat.' But today, Israel's leaders proclaim an Immediate, active goal of a population of four millions; and the State, in its very laws, is dedi- `eted to piomoting the ingathering of over ten Millions. If, in Wales, there had been only 57,000 Leas in 1917; 700,000 by 1947; a Jewish State by 1948; 1,800,000 and a leadership proclaiming vast new Population goals by the mid-1960s, would England regard this as normal; safe; respectful of the UN; outrageous not to accept and make peace With?
Israel was sanctioned by the world on humani- tarian grounds. Hq,w many of us know that at this moment, if a Rumanian Jew reaches Vienna, penni- less and propertyless, and tells the Zionist 'relief' agency that he wishes to find out whether he could "nmigrate to Canada or the US, that agency in- stantly abandons him? Is this what we meant in our humanitarianism?
In 1949, having added 35 per cent. more territory to the UN's partition award, Israel signed armistices; accented UN membership as a peace-loving State;
and convinced most of the world that she would gladly make peace with the Arabs within her de facto frontiers. Yet by 1952 Mr. Ben-Gurion was writing in official Israeli Yearbooks:
Israel is a State identical neither with its land nor its people . . . it has been established in only a portion of the Land of Israel. Even those who are dubious as to the restoration of the historical frontiers, as fixed and crystallised and given from the beginning of time, will hardly deny the anomaly of the boundaries of the new State.
In her 1955 Yearbook, Israel officially claimed that 'the creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historic Eretz (ancient) Israel.' And when, in 1956, Israel invaded Sinai, her Government claimed it as 'part of Palestine.' Mr. Ben-Gurion congratulated his troops for having 'brought us back to the place where the Law was given and we were commanded to be a Chosen People' (Knesset, November 7, 1956).
If these messianic, expansionist claims and mili- tary assaults were made by a State within the Western world, would we regard it as normally established, with a normal history? Is this kind of conduct what we mean when we invoke inter- national morality and peaceful relations?—Yours faithfully tlr
Previous page
