There Could Have Been Two Independence Days
Rick Richman - 04.20.2010
Today is the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, which commemorates something as close to a miracle as we are ever likely to see — the re-creation of an ancient state in the Land in which it stood 2,000 years before, the resurrection of an ancient language to provide for common discourse, the ingathering of millions of exiles who had no other place to live, the creation of a democracy that extended citizenship not only to Jews but also to Arabs in the midst of an Arab war to destroy the state, the safeguarding of all holy places of all religions and the provision of free access to them, the creation and maintenance of a free and vibrant civil society while under continuous terrorist attack and multiple genocidal wars, and the growth of the nation from a third-world economy into one of the most technologically advanced in the world. It is no exaggeration to say, in the words of Hillel Halkin, that “for all its shortcomings and mistakes, Israel is and will always be one of the most glorious historical adventures in the history of mankind.”
But didn’t this new state cause the creation of a new group of refugees, whose own plight remains unresolved 62 years later? The short answer is “no,” but the longer answer is one that many have forgotten or in some cases may not have been permitted to know. The Jewish Press excerpts on its front page Israeli UN Ambassador Abba Eban’s November 17, 1958, speech to the General Assembly’s Special Political Committee (worth reading in its entirety), which began as follows:
The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 and 1948. … If there had been no war against Israel, with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.
Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged. …
“This will be a war of extermination,” declared the secretary-general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of six Arab states, “it will be a momentous massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.”
The assault began on the last day of November 1947. From then until the expiration of the British Mandate in May 1948 the Arab states, in concert with Palestine Arab leaders, plunged the land into turmoil and chaos. On the day of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by contingents from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, crossed their frontiers and marched against Israel.
The tragedy of the Palestinians is that they could have been celebrating today the 62nd anniversary of their own state as well. But 62 years ago, they rejected a two-state solution and commenced the first of multiple wars to extinguish the other one. They have rejected multiple offers of a state since then. Six decades after their first war, they are left without a state but with the refugees created by their attempt to destroy the Jewish one. It is a nakba, but it is not one that Israel caused.
Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/281211
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Richman: There Could Have Been Two Independence Days
DoD report to Congress: By 2015, Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the U.S.
Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015, a report delivered to Congress Monday night asserts.
"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," the report by the US Department of Defense states.
It adds that "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
The report indicates that while Iran has a sizeable conventional military force, it would be no match for a “well trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies" in the event of armed conflict.
"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," the report by the US Department of Defense states.
It adds that "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
The report indicates that while Iran has a sizeable conventional military force, it would be no match for a “well trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies" in the event of armed conflict.
Abu Toameh: Fayyad nice guy, can't deliver peace
The Palestinians: Why Salam Fayyad Cannot Deliver
Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power.
by Khaled Abu Toameh April 20, 2010
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be a good man with good intentions, but those who think that he will be able to persuade the Palestinians to make peace with Israel are deluding themselves.
In Palestinian culture, it is more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from the University of Texas at Austin.
Fayyad never spent a day in an Israeli jail. Nor did he or any of his sons take an active role in the “struggle” against Israel.
The first question that people would ask Fayyad -- when and if he runs in a new election -- is, “What sacrifices did you make in the struggle against Israel?”
Palestinians will want to know if Fayyad has ever been detained or targeted in any other way by Israel. They would want to know if any of Fayyad’s sons had participated in demonstrations or attacks against Israel. This is why Palestinians who have sat in Israeli prisons for security offenses now hold senior positions in the Palestinian Authority.
Many Palestinians see Fayyad as someone who was “imposed” on them by Americans and Europeans and are willing to accept him as long as he is dealing only with the economy and infrastructure. But Fayyad, who appears to be more popular in Washington and London than in the Gaza Strip’s Jabalya refugee camp or Hebron in the West Bank, will never be able to sell a peace agreement with Israel to his people.
In the parliamentary election that took place in January 2006, Fayyad ran as an independent candidate at the head of a party called “Third Way”. His number two was the prominent Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. The party got less than two percent of the votes. Like Fayyad, Ashrawi never spent a day in an Israeli prison. Nor had she or her daughters been involved in anti-Israel violence. This is the main reason “Third Way” did not appeal to the Palestinians. Because both Fayyad and Ashrawi lived and studied abroad for many years, they still have no grassroots following in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fayyad’s “Third Way” won only two seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, turning him and Ashrawi into lawmakers. But shortly after the election, a sharp dispute erupted between the two and Ashrawi chose to break away. Since then, “Third Way” has been a one-man party headed by Fayyad. The party has since been completely paralyzed, and some say it no longer even exists.
If Fayyad runs in a new election, both and his party and he are unlikely to get more than the two percent again that they got in the last vote. While he may have done wonderful things for the economy in the West Bank, Fayyad continues to lack popular support. Moreover, the two major parties in the Palestinian arena, Fatah and Hamas, have a common interest in preventing Fayyad from rising to power.
Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power. In fact, Fatah officials have long been accusing Fayyad of working, with the help of the Americans and Israelis, to undermine Fatah’s authority in the West Bank. Fayyad has been accused, among other things, of cutting off funds to Fatah figures and institutions. On a number of occasions, disgruntled Fatah activists have distributed leaflets denouncing Fayyad as a “collaborator” with Israel.
Hamas, at the other end, considers itself to be at war with the Fayyad government. The Islamic movement has held Fayyad responsible for the massive crackdown on its members and institutions in the West Bank over the past three years. Hamas has even demanded that Fayyad be removed from his post as a pre-condition for achieving “national unity” with Fatah.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be a good man with good intentions, but those who think that he will be able to persuade the Palestinians to make peace with Israel are deluding themselves.
In Palestinian culture, it is more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from the University of Texas at Austin.
Fayyad never spent a day in an Israeli jail. Nor did he or any of his sons take an active role in the “struggle” against Israel.
The first question that people would ask Fayyad -- when and if he runs in a new election -- is, “What sacrifices did you make in the struggle against Israel?”
Palestinians will want to know if Fayyad has ever been detained or targeted in any other way by Israel. They would want to know if any of Fayyad’s sons had participated in demonstrations or attacks against Israel. This is why Palestinians who have sat in Israeli prisons for security offenses now hold senior positions in the Palestinian Authority.
Many Palestinians see Fayyad as someone who was “imposed” on them by Americans and Europeans and are willing to accept him as long as he is dealing only with the economy and infrastructure. But Fayyad, who appears to be more popular in Washington and London than in the Gaza Strip’s Jabalya refugee camp or Hebron in the West Bank, will never be able to sell a peace agreement with Israel to his people.
In the parliamentary election that took place in January 2006, Fayyad ran as an independent candidate at the head of a party called “Third Way”. His number two was the prominent Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. The party got less than two percent of the votes. Like Fayyad, Ashrawi never spent a day in an Israeli prison. Nor had she or her daughters been involved in anti-Israel violence. This is the main reason “Third Way” did not appeal to the Palestinians. Because both Fayyad and Ashrawi lived and studied abroad for many years, they still have no grassroots following in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fayyad’s “Third Way” won only two seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, turning him and Ashrawi into lawmakers. But shortly after the election, a sharp dispute erupted between the two and Ashrawi chose to break away. Since then, “Third Way” has been a one-man party headed by Fayyad. The party has since been completely paralyzed, and some say it no longer even exists.
If Fayyad runs in a new election, both and his party and he are unlikely to get more than the two percent again that they got in the last vote. While he may have done wonderful things for the economy in the West Bank, Fayyad continues to lack popular support. Moreover, the two major parties in the Palestinian arena, Fatah and Hamas, have a common interest in preventing Fayyad from rising to power.
Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power. In fact, Fatah officials have long been accusing Fayyad of working, with the help of the Americans and Israelis, to undermine Fatah’s authority in the West Bank. Fayyad has been accused, among other things, of cutting off funds to Fatah figures and institutions. On a number of occasions, disgruntled Fatah activists have distributed leaflets denouncing Fayyad as a “collaborator” with Israel.
Hamas, at the other end, considers itself to be at war with the Fayyad government. The Islamic movement has held Fayyad responsible for the massive crackdown on its members and institutions in the West Bank over the past three years. Hamas has even demanded that Fayyad be removed from his post as a pre-condition for achieving “national unity” with Fatah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)