Semites, unite
Sir: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. With the best intentions in the world George Gale (24 January) has fallen hook and sinker for the Arab line. His basic premise is wrong. Israel was not, as he maintains `created and maintained by force of arms'. It was created by the sovereign will of the Jewish nation in Palestine acting in further- ance of the United Nations decision of 29 November 1947.
If there was a 'naturally hostile environ- ment' at the time of the Balfour Declaration beyond the barren and rock-strewn soil and the malarial swamps it was not very appar- ent at the time. The Arab leadership from the Emir Feisal on down was quite happy with the arrangement provided that the Arabs got the bulk of the liberated Turkish territories. If, moreover, Palestine had not been set aside by Lord Balfour as a Home- land for the Jewish people it would have become either part of a Greater Syria under French control or a Greater Kingdom of Jordan under British tutelage. At no time was a Palestinian entity mooted apart from the concept of a Jewish territorial dominion.
Mr Gale's proposition that peace will come only 'when the Israelis become Pales- tinians first and Jews second; and the indi- genous Arabs do likewise' reveals the same hopelessly muddled thinking that is prevent- ing the Arabs from seeking a reasonable solution to the conflict. It shows a total failure to understand the basic motivations for the Jewish presence in Palestine. If what Jews had wanted was tolerance they would have sought instead entry to countries like Britain and the United States where condi- tions were much more opportune for suc- cessful settlement, integration and assimila- tion. And if for a moment the Israelis ever took Mr Gale's proposition seriously what prospects would they be able to look for- ward to—that of the Copts of Egypt rele- gated to the status of political and economic outsiders; or that of the Assyrian Christians and the Kurds of Iraq; or are they to choose as a model the strife-torn Lebanon, where the Christian community lives in permanent fear of a Moslem takeover? Does Mr Gale seriously contemplate that the Jews of Israel would ever sacrifice their hard-won freedom, independence and democracy for the doubt- ful benevolence of some oriental despotism mellowed by the thoughts of Nasser, Brezhnev or Mao?
Jacob Gewirtz Literary Editor, Jewish Chronicle, 25 Furni- val Street, London Ec4 Sir: In a rather tendentious way, George Gale wriggles round certain irrefutable his- torical facts before coming out in support for a Semitic union in Palestine on El Fatah's terms (24 January). What are these facts?
(1) Since the destruction of Judaea by force, Palestine (a non-Semitic name!) has never belonged exclusively to either Arab or Jew.
(2) The majority of Palestinian Arabs have never left Mandate Palestine despite the dislocations of the 1947/8 and 1967 wars. To move from Haifa to Hebron, from Acre to Jericho is not to be dispossessed of your country. It is no more or less than to move from Lancashire to the South-East if you are unemployed.
(3) Today, the Arab and Jewish popula- tions in Mandate Palestine are about equal.
If the Palestinian Arab felt a stranger in the Arab part of Palestine until 1967, he did so because he did not feel at home as a Jordanian under Jordan, ust as he does not today under Jordan and Israel. If George Gale really wishes to help the Palestinian Arab rather than contribute towards El Fatah's aim of destroying Israel, be should learn that Arafat is no different from Beigin —both wishing exclusive possession of Pales- tine. Why is it that neither George Gale nor Arafat can accept self-determination for Palestinians in Arab Palestine without deny- ing Israeli self-determination in the rest of Palestine? Surely, Arab national exclusivism is no better than Jewish national exclusiv- ism? Both parties have equal national rights.
MacMoolson 51 Hollycroft Avenue, London Nw3
Previous page
