zaterdag 29 september 2012

Leedroof?

 

 

http://zinenrede.nl/?p=2730

Posted by Frans Schütt opinie

sep272012

 

Een dagbladcolumnist die in zijn artikel precies dat doet, wat hij met zijn schrijven aan de schandpaal wil nagelen, dient vooraf beter in de spiegel te kijken en in ieder geval de loop van de geschiedenis juist weer te geven. Anton van Hooff zegt in de Gelderlander last te hebben van leedroof, omdat zijn eigen 'klassieke' woord holokaustos door de Joden wordt misbruikt om onvoorwaardelijke steun aan de staat Israël af te dwingen. Een staat die gesticht zou zijn als beloning voor de holocaust, een staat wiens (mis)daden het hem "inmiddels onmogelijk (maken) een herdenking van de Jodenvervolging bij te wonen waarbij ook de vlag van Israël wappert".

Uw artikel bevat een aantal onjuistheden en eenzijdige interpretaties van de geschiedenis, meneer van Hooff. Ter illustratie hiervan het volgende. De toezegging van een eigen nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk in Palestina is al in 1917 gedaan door de Engelsen in de zogenaamde Balfour-verklaring en werd in 1922 nogmaals vastgelegd in het mandaat dat Engeland van de Volkerenbond kreeg over het gebied; ver voor de holocaust dus en onderbouwd door het internationale recht.

Het levend houden van de holocaust is bovenal van belang om een herhaling van deze gruwelijke gebeurtenis uit onze recente geschiedenis te voorkomen en de (afstammelingen van de) slachtoffers een plaats te geven waar ze deze onmenselijke wreedheden kunnen verwerken. Door de stichting van de staat Israël als beloning van de holocaust te betitelen en het levend houden van de holocaust als een middel om de steun voor Israël te rechtvaardigen, berooft u deze mensen en ieder die deze gruweldaden herdenkt van de verwerking van hun leed, Anton van Hooff.

De auteur heeft bovenstaande reactie op Van Hooff's column aan de Gelderlander aangeboden. Het dagblad heeft de reactie drie dagen later (nog) niet geplaatst, zonder enige motivatie.

 

Syrië en de Onschuld van Moslims (cartoon)

 

Het is een inmiddels bekend fenomeen dat Israelisch geweld en anti-islamitische uitlatingen meer woede en verontwaardiging oproepen onder moslims dan de vele Arabische burgers die in Syrië worden gedood, de vele Irakeze burgers die door Irakezen werden gedood (de Irakezen die door Amerika werden gedood riepen wel woede op), de vele Soedanezen die door het regime en de Janjaweed werden gedood, de slechte behandeling en onderdrukking van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen in Libanon, etc. etc. etc.

Het is makkelijker een ander de schuld te geven, van het Westen dat zichzelf vrij en democratisch noemt verwacht men meer, en een diep gevoel van wrok en ressentiment zijn redenen hiervoor. Het blijft echter een wat bevreemdend beeld dat terwijl het Syrische leger kinderen foltert en vrouwen verkracht, duizenden moslims hun woede uiten over een filmpje op youtube. 

 

RP

--------- 

 

Meanwhile...Over 300 killed in Syria yesterday

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.nl/2012/09/meanwhileover-300-killed-in-syria.html

 

From AFP:

More than 305 people were killed across Syria on Wednesday, making it the bloodiest single day of the 18-month revolt, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

"This is the highest toll in a single day since March 2011. And this is only counting those whose names have been documented. If we count the unidentified bodies, the figure will be much higher," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP by telephone.

A total of 199 of Wednesday's dead were civilians, the Britain-based watchdog said.


This cartoon seems appropriate:

(h/t O)

 

donderdag 27 september 2012

Een andere invalshoek voor het vredesproces

 
Richard Landes richt zich hieronder tot de progressievelingen die een tweestatenoplossing willen en de schuld voor het uitblijven daarvan bij Israel leggen.
 
De oude wijsheid (het cliché) zegt dat waar twee vechten twee schuld hebben, en in dit geval geloof ik inderdaad dat beide partijen teveel hebben nagelaten om kansen op vrede aan te grijpen en obstakels aan eigen kant uit de weg te ruimen.
Israel wordt er met name op bekritiseerd dat het nauwelijks aktie onderneemt om de nederzettingengroei een halt toe te roepen, ook op plekken waarvan vast staat dat ze bij elk denkbaar compromis niet bij Israel zullen blijven.
De Palestijnen op hun beurt verdienen minstens zoveel kritiek op het feit dat ze, zelfs in gebieden die al jaren onder controle van de Palestijnse Autoriteit staan, de vluchtelingenkampen uit 1948 in stand houden, al staat vast dat bij elk denkbaar compromis de bewoners ervan niet naar Israel zullen kunnen terugkeren.
Een duidelijk begin maken met het ontmantelen van zowel nederzettingen als vluchtelingenkampen zou een krachtig signaal zijn, naar zowel de tegenpartij als de eigen bevolking, dat het (machts)spel over is en men zich bij een compromis moet gaan neerleggen waarin niet aan alle eisen kan worden tegenmoet gekomen, hoe gerechtvaardigd men die ook vindt.
 
Wouter
______________
 
 
Redesigning the Peace Process

Ignoring cultural difference and overestimating politics has left us without a resolution. We can do better.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/112728/redesigning-the-peace-process

Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, there hasn't been a moment when the punditocracy hasn't insisted that Israel needs to make a deal with the Palestinians—and soon. Otherwise, they claim, Israeli democracy, saddled with millions of Palestinians living under Israeli control without citizenship, will have to choose between the twin catastrophes of democratic suicide and apartheid. And since the solution that everyone knows is the eventual one–land for peace–is so clear, let's just get on with it.

It hasn't panned out. We're now approaching two decades of failure of the two-state solution. Every strategy for pulling it off—Oslo, Taba, Geneva, Road Map, Dayton, Obama/Clinton—has, despite sometimes enormous efforts, failed or died stillborn. And yet, with each failure, a new round of hope emerges, with commentators and politicians arguing that this time, if we just tinker with some of the details, we'll get peace right. (Or, as an increasing number have now come to believe, it's time we abandon the two-state solution entirely.)

The predominant explanation for this impasse in the West has focused on Israel's role: settlements that provoke, checkpoints that humiliate, blockades that strangle, and walls that imprison. Palestinian "no's" typically get a pass: Of course Arafat said "no" at Camp David; he only got Bantustans while Israelis kept building illegal settlements. Suicide bombers are excused as registering a legitimate protest at being denied the right to be a free people in their own land. In Condoleezza Rice's words: "[The Palestinians] are perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace … the great majority of people, they just want a better life." The corollary to such thinking, of course, holds that if only the Israelis didn't constantly keep the Palestinians down the world would be a better place. So, the sooner we end the occupation, the better, even if it means urging the United States to pressure Israel into the necessary concessions. It's for Israel's own good.

This line of thinking is driven entirely by politics. Oslo thinkers from Bill Clinton to Thomas Friedman believe that what was needed was a political settlement and the rest would take care of itself. In 2007, Rice reflected this outlook in a statement of faith that projected a peculiarly modern outlook: "I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."

Overestimating the power of politics and dramatically underestimating the importance of culture has actually hindered the possibility for a political solution. For Jews, especially progressive Jews, the early second decade of the 21st century poses a particularly interesting and painful meditation just in time for Yom Kippur: In our quest for "fairness," for splitting the blame evenly, for misidentifying problems as political and therefore easily solvable—so easily solvable they could be dispatched with a simple email, as one exasperated BBC anchor put it recently—are we actually working against both parties in the conflict?

I believe the answer is yes. And those who wish to pursue a peaceful resolution need to take a hard look at the cultural difference between Israelis and Arabs—and craft policy that confronts it.

***

Any approach that pays heed to cultural issues yields a very different view as to why the conflict persists. The zero-sum logic of Arab attitudes toward Israel does not represent merely the choices made by politicians, but Islamic religiosity and deep-seated cultural mores. From the Arab perspective, the very existence of Israel represents a stain on Arab honor and a blasphemy to Islam's dominion in Dar al Islam. Some, like the Palestinian Authority, may have made a tactical shift in which they will, despite the shame of it, talk with Israelis and even make public agreements. But they have treated such engagement as a Trojan horse, a feint to position for further war. Within this cultural context, the peace process has actually served as a war process.

Well-meaning Oslo proponents, afraid that criticism of, and demands on, the Palestinians would delay the peace process, denounced anyone who made these kinds of observations as enemies of peace. So, when Arafat said "no" at Camp David in the summer of 2000, and a wave of suicide bombers came pouring out of the belly of the horse, these same Oslo supporters, including many an alter-Juif, rather than admitting they had called it wrong, preferred to blame Israel.

But bitterest of ironies, in so doing, they fed the very culture they denied. Palestinian hatred has festered under the guidance of Oslo-empowered elites, unopposed by the very actors one would expect to have the courage to call out such vitriol: journalists, human-rights organizations, and progressives. Instead, these groups have gone out of their way not to inform their readers of this culture of hate.

By constantly reinforcing a Palestinian sense of grievance against Israel, activists like the late Rachel Corrie, journalists like BBC's Jeremy Bowen and CNN's Ben Wedeman, and Israel-obsessed organizations like Human Rights Watch have unwittingly contributed to the very war that rages. And as a result of this consensus, Israel appears to most in the West as a terrible oppressor when the sad but redeeming truth is that the Israelis are the best enemies one could hope for, and they face the worst.

Nothing illustrates the cultural gap between Israel and Palestine better—and offers a more immediate and constructive way out—than the problem of Palestinian refugees. They are the symbol of Arab political priorities. When faced with the catastrophic humiliation of 1948, when the combined Arab nations, fully confident of a glorious victory, failed to destroy the upstart Jewish nation in the heart of the Muslim world, the Arab leadership unanimously chose to herd Arab refugees into prison camps so that they could serve as a symbol of Israeli crimes and a breeding ground for the counter-attack.

For over 60 years, Arab leaders have blocked any efforts to remove these people from these wretched camps because to do so would be a tacit acceptance of Israel's permanence and would acknowledge the humiliating defeat. (By contrast, Israel rapidly moved the even larger number of Jews chased from the Arab world in 1948 out of their refugee camps.) The Arabs thus went from a zero-sum loss (the establishment of Israel) to a negative-sum solution: sacrifice your own people on the altar of your lost honor. No negotiations, no recognition, no peace.

Not only do Palestinian negotiators insist on the return of 5 million refugees to Israel (it was one of two key deal-breakers at Camp David), but the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon recently explained that Palestinian refugees not residing in the future Palestine would not be citizens in that state. In other words, Palestinian refugees still captive in camps in Lebanon and Syria and Jordan only have a right to citizenship in Israel.

So, here's my proposal to those who somehow feel we must revive the peace process now, before it's too late. Call for the Palestinians to show their good intentions, not toward the Israelis, but toward their own people. Get those "refugees" out of the prison camps into which they have been so shamefully consigned for most of a century.

Begin at home, with the over 100,000 refugees in Territory A, under complete PA control. Bring in Habitat for Humanity and Jimmy Carter to help them build decent, affordable, new homes. Let us all participate in turning the powers of Palestinian ingenuity away from manufacturing hatred, fomenting violence, and building villas for the rich and powerful, while the refugees live in squalor as a showcase of Israeli cruelty, and start to do good for a people victimized by their own leadership.

To take this position, so aligned with progressive values, however, we would have to confront two obstacles. First, overcoming our immense reluctance to criticize and make demands on the Palestinians. That would also mean we'd also have to renounce the impulse to attack as racists or Islamophobes those making the demands. We also have to consider, especially true for journalists in the field, the possibility that we're intimidated, afraid to criticize people with so prickly a collective ego. Second, it would mean overcoming the widespread hunger for stories of "Jews behaving badly." After all, if it weren't for the appetite for moral Schadenfreude, the whole idea of pinning the miserable fate of the Palestinian refugees on Israel rather than on their Arab jailors would never have taken hold in the first place.

***

Such introspection and self-criticism can be a little like chewing glass, but I can think of no more important communal task this Yom Kippur.

How often have I gone overboard, how often have I accepted a lethal narrative in order to save face with my friends who expect me to rise above being an "Israel-firster"? How often have I admitted to crimes on behalf of my people without checking to see if they were accurate? How often have I failed to speak out against the depravity of the Palestinian leadership, out of fear of being called an Islamophobe? In the answers to those questions lies the path to a real peace in this troubled, blessed land.

Do we outsiders who say we want peace want it badly enough to confront our own comfort zones? Let's hope. Those Palestinians and Israelis who are ready to live in a win-win world depend on it.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine's new content in your inbox each morning.


Richard Landes is a professor of history at Boston University. He blogs at the Augean Stables.

 

De Holocaust: leedroof door Anton van Hooff (IMO)

 

IMO Blog, 2012

http://www.zionism-israel.com/blog/archives/00000700.html

Soms doet een column pijn. Ik had een tijdje niks meer van Anton van Hooff gelezen, en dat had ik misschien zo moeten houden. Maar ik werd op zijn column vorige week in de Gelderlander gewezen (jawel Van Hooff, de Joodse lobby aan het werk), en had de indruk dat hij zichzelf in venijn richting Israel en de Joodse gemeenschap in Nederland, overtrof. Ik citeer:

"Soms doet een woord pijn. Zo kreeg ik onlangs een steek van 'leedroof', deze term werd in 2011 gebruikt door rabbijn Rafael Evers. Hij beklaagde zich erover dat anderen het waagden hun verdriet te vergelijken met dat van Joden over de zogeheten holocaust. Elk jaar doen zich weer incidenten voor waarbij zelfbenoemde vertegenwoordigers van de Joodse gemeenschap het monopolie op herdenken opeisen."

Daarna volgt een tirade tegen leden van Federatief Joods Nederland, die naar de rechter waren gestapt om het voornemen van het Vier Mei Comité in Vorden om bij de dodenherdenking ook een rondje langs de daar begraven Duitse soldaten te maken, te laten verbieden. Je kunt het daar mee eens of oneens zijn, maar het lopen langs graven van Duitse soldaten op 4 mei is niet alleen kwetsend voor nabestaanden van Holocaust slachtoffers, maar evenzeer voor verzetsstrijders en anderen die in de oorlog onder de Duitse bezetter te lijden hadden. Joden eisen geen monopolie op, maar wel een belangrijke stem en zij zijn ook het hardst getroffen in de oorlog en het meest systematisch uitgemoord. De laatdunkende manier waarop Van Hooff zich uitlaat over hen en hun lijden relativeert, is grof en beledigend. Natuurlijk mag ook Israel in deze tirade niet ontbreken:
Telkens zien we weer dat critici van Israel de mond wordt gesnoerd met een beroep op het unieke lijden van Joden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog.

Hierop volgt de bekende riedel tegen Israel: landroof, etnische zuiveringen, waterdiefstal en het illegale bezit van atoomwapens. Hij vervolgt:
Mij is het inmiddels onmogelijk een herdenking bij te wonen waar de Israelische vlag wappert. Ook heb ik een gruwelijke hekel aan het woord holocaust, zeker als het op zijn vet Amerikaans als 'hollokost' wordt uitgesproken.

Ook hier weer die minachting voor zowel de Joodse staat als Joden die nog steeds worstelen met het onbeschrijflijke leed van de Holocaust. Hij schreef dit overigens jaren geleden ook al. Na een verhandeling over de Griekse betekenis van dit woord komt dan de uitsmijter:
Holocaust impliceert dus dat het om een uniek offer gaat; het zou beloond zijn door de stichting van de staat Israel. Daarom worden ook in alle grote Amerikaanse steden holocaustmusea gesticht. Gruwelijke foto's moeten de Joodse Amerikanen, die doorgaans geen familie-ervaringen met de shoah hebben, tot onvoorwaardelijke steun aan Israel bewegen.

De classicus Van Hooff kent zijn klassieke talen niet, want hij zou moeten weten dat 'Holocaust' in de Engelse taal al eeuwen gebruikt wordt om massale moordpartijen aan te duiden. De Joden zelf spreken juist bij voorkeur van '(Ha-)Shoah', een Hebreeuws woord voor '(de) ramp'.

Van Hooff suggereert via deze valse premisse dat de Joden hun lijden in de Holocaust exclusief willen houden en uitbuiten om daarmee de stichting van de staat Israel en haar misdragingen te legitimeren en kritiek af te weren. Die lijn doortrekkende was het een geluk bij een ongeluk voor de Joden, want nu hadden ze wel mooi een eigen staat, en dat op land waar ze helemaal geen recht op hadden. En wat is meer, ze kunnen in die staat voor eeuwig hun gang gaan en uitspoken met de lokale bevolking wat ze willen, en een ieder die er wat van waagt te zeggen wordt als antisemiet neergesabeld, of beter nog door de Mossad onschadelijk gemaakt. Joden trekken zich toch al zo weinig aan van wat de rest van de wereld vindt, en voelen zich als Uitverkoren Volk boven de wet en ons gojim verheven. Via de Holocaust kunnen ze lastige kritiek afweren zich verzekeren van steun. Die Holocaust kwam ze dus eigenlijk best goed uit, en was een aanvaardbaar offer; het deed even pijn, maar dan heb je ook wat. Dat is de hele tendens van Van Hooffs schrijfsel.

Ik hou niet van de antisemitisme beschuldiging, maar ik vind het moeilijk om deze column niet als antisemitisch te zien. Wat Van Hooff schrijft is niet alleen onjuist, maar ook kwaadaardig. Onjuist omdat Israel al lang voor de Holocaust 'in the making' was, en in de jaren 30 al als semi-staat functioneerde. Onjuist ook omdat de Volkenbond in 1922 Palestina als mandaatgebied aan de Britten toewees, met als provisie dat hier een Joods Nationaal Thuis gesticht zou worden. Onjuist omdat de Holocaust op bijzonder tragische wijze de noodzaak van Joodse zelfbeschikking aantoonde, maar deze juist bemoeilijkte omdat het zonder de miljoenen Joden uit Europa moeilijker zou worden om een Joodse meerderheid te vormen in Palestina.

De idee dat Israel is gesticht vanwege de Holocaust, dat de Palestijnen daardoor boeten voor Europese misdaden, en dat de Joden eigenlijk geen recht hadden op een staat, wint steeds meer aan terrein maar is pertinent onjuist. Terwijl de Joden er steeds vaker van worden beschuldigd de Holocaust te misbruiken, een in zichzelf al vrij walgelijke aantijging, wordt de Holocaust zo juist tegen de Joden ingezet: 'Zij moeten nu extra bescheiden zijn want vanwege de Holocaust kneep de rest van de wereld een oogje dicht terwijl ze de Palestijnen het land uit gooiden.' Dat er geen oog werd dicht geknepen en er ook niet zomaar Palestijnen werden verjaagd is van ondergeschikt belang. Daar komt dan vaak het cliché bij dat juist de Joden, die als geen ander weten wat het is vervolgd en vertrapt te worden, een ander volk nu niet mogen onderdrukken. Ook deze canard ontbrak niet in Van Hooffs column. Origineel zijn is ook een vak.

De 'leedroof' van rabbijn Evers sloeg erop, dat tijdens herdenkingen van de Holocaust en de oorlogsslachtoffers alle mogelijke doden uit de oorlog en andere conflicten erbij worden gehaald, en alle hedendaagse incidenten en gevallen van discriminatie en stigmatisering. Omgekeerd wordt bij hedendaagse bloedbaden te pas en te onpas de Holocaust als spook aangeroepen. De Holocaust op de Joden is inderdaad uniek, qua omvang en systematiek. Het heeft geen pas om bij een herdenking hiervan aandacht te vragen voor foute Nederlanders of Duitse soldaten die 'ook maar door de omstandigheden gedreven' aan de verkeerde kant stonden en daarbij het leven lieten. Of om vergelijkingen te trekken met Palestijnse doden of andere bloedbaden elders, evenmin als met discriminatie van moslims, met vermeende hetzes tegen ultra-orthodoxen en kolonisten, of met kritiek op Israël.

Zeker zijn er ook Joden die te pas en te onpas de Holocaust erbij halen, en iedereen die meer dan voorzichtige kritiek op Israel uit voor antisemiet uitmaken. Dat is deels begrijpelijk omdat het nou eenmaal zo'n enorm belangrijke gebeurtenis was voor de Joden, en ze hebben ervaren waar antisemitisme toe kan leiden. Er zijn ook Joden die zichzelf werkelijk als uitverkoren volk beschouwen en neerkijken op anderen. Arrogante zakken heb je nou eenmaal overal, en binnen iedere religie dreigt onverdraagzaamheid. Juist de Joden daarop aanspreken en juist van de Joden verwachten dat zij zich extra ethisch en bescheiden gedragen, is behoorlijk arrogant. Juist niet-Joden zouden uit het verleden lessen moeten trekken en een wat minder grote mond opzetten.

Ratna Pelle

woensdag 26 september 2012

Yom Kippoer, dag van twijfel en vergiffenis

 
Vandaag is Yom Kippoer, een dag van bezinning, zelfreflectie en vergeving voor Joden. Dat kan over kleine tekortkomingen gaan zowel als over groot onrecht.
 
Blogger Elder of Ziyon heeft een kant en klaar lijstje van zaken waarvoor hij zich verontschuldigt:

I unconditionally forgive anyone who may have wronged me during this year, and I ask forgiveness for anyone I may have wronged as well.

Specifically (as enumerated in previous years, courtesy of The Muqata):

  • If you sent me email and I didn't reply, or didn't get back to you in a timely fashion -- I apologize.
  • If you sent me a story and I didn't publish it or worse, didn't give you a hat tip for the story -- I'm sorry. (I sometimes get multiple tips for the same story and I usually credit the first one I saw, which is not always the earliest.And I cannot publish all the stories I am sent, although I try to place appropriate ones in the linkdumps.)
  • If you requested help from me and I wasn't able to provide it -- I'm sorry.
  • I apologize if I posted without the proper attribution, with the wrong attribution, or without attribution at all.
  • I'm sorry if any of my posts offended you personally.


Judaism is a religion of choice. That is part of its moral fortitude. But there is no choice without doubt. There is no choice without trying to understand the other side's position as well. The ability to ask for forgiveness is also the ability to accept the other; to accept the fact that he is different and has his own justice. We ask forgiveness not only for our bad deeds, but for the fact that at the time we committed them we did not realize they were bad.

One day of doubt

Op-ed: On Yom Kippur God reminds us that most atrocities are committed in the name of 'justice'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4285779,00.html

Yair Lapid

Published: 

09.25.12, 13:45 / Israel Opinion

More than anything else, Yom Kippur is a lesson in humility, because it not only demands that we ask for forgiveness, it also forces us to recognize that we make mistakes and that we are not as righteous as we would like to believe.

 

This demand is painful because it forces us to doubt ourselves. Admitting that we made a mistake is not our first instinct. Most of the time we prefer to walk around in this world with a high opinion of ourselves and believe that we are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

But God knows that He alone should be in charge of justice, because humans will eventually abuse it. Most of the terrible events in history occurred because people were certain they were right.

 

So once a year God reminds us that most murders, wars and injustices were committed by people who told themselves they were fighting for justice.

 

It may seem impossible in our eyes, but our worst enemies are also convinced that they are right. The human filth that surrounds us – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, jihadists, al-Qaeda – if you hook them up to a polygraph and ask them if they are right, the needle won't move when they say "yes."

 

And when asked why they are so certain they are right, this despicable bunch will reply, "Because God told us." Or as we say in the Middle East: "My God is better than your God."

 

There is no point in telling them they are wrong and that they are merely trying to justify atrocious acts, but after thousands of years of blood and Qassam rocket fire it is hard to blame God for not trusting mankind. We have an innate inclination do bad things in his name.

 

'Where did I go wrong?'

Even within Israel we have dozens of versions of God: The god of the Ashkenaz ultra-Orthodox, the god of the hasidim, the god of the Lithuanians (who do not consider the Hhsidim to be Jews), the god of those who wear knitted kippas, the god of those who wear big white kippas and the god of those who wear their small kippas on the side of their heads.; there is the god of that hill in Samaria which must not be evacuated; the god of the Military Rabbinate, which buries Russian soldiers outside the cemetery's grounds; the god of the Reformist women who want to pray at the Kotel wrapped in a tallit and the god of the religious Jews who want to throw stones at these women.

 

Shall I continue? There is the god of those who kiss mezuzot and those who pray at the tombs of the righteous; the god of the traditionalists who go to a movie immediately after Kiddush; the god of the 'Taliban mothers' and the god of Beitar Jerusalem fans, who will defeat the god of Maccabi Haifa's supporters; there is the god of those who refuse to admit Sephardic girls to their schools because God (what God?) told them personally that is was okay to do so.

 

These groups are so different from one another it is sometimes hard to believe they are all part of the same nation, the same book, the same set of laws. The only thing they have in common is that they are all convinced their version is the correct one and that everyone else is talking nonsense.

 

Such arrogance.

 

This exaggerated pride is the reason we need Yom Kippur so much. So that all those who told themselves that only they understand God will have to ask for forgiveness.

 

Because the God of Israel decided to save us from our own weaknesses and gave us Judaism's holiest day to keep us from becoming the victims of our own hubris. He gave us one day a year on which we must stop everything and remind ourselves that no one is allowed to speak in His name.

 

God commanded us to put everything on hold and look at ourselves with courage and honesty. Then you will realize that I did not say any of those things, you did, He said. This is not my justice, but your self-righteousness. This is not a decree from the heavens, but your need to feel superior to others.

 

I will not allow you to use me, God said, to justify racism and sanction violence or use me as an excuse to unleash your darkest instincts.

 

Judaism is a religion of choice. That is part of its moral fortitude. But there is no choice without doubt. There is no choice without trying to understand the other side's position as well. The ability to ask for forgiveness is also the ability to accept the other; to accept the fact that he is different and has his own justice. We ask forgiveness not only for our bad deeds, but for the fact that at the time we committed them we did not realize they were bad.

 

Why do we need a special day in order to look inward? Because normally we don't. Because it is easier to tell yourself that you are right; that they don't understand; that God told you.

 

But God did not tell you anything. Instead he sent us to synagogue on this day so that we will torture our souls with the question "Where did we go wrong?"

 

As I analyze this decree I am filled with respect for the divine wisdom. Because people who ask themselves, "Where did I go wrong?" are inherently better than those who tell themselves, "I am right!"

 

dinsdag 25 september 2012

Ehud Barak stelt eenzijdige terugtrekking Israel voor uit grote delen Westoever

 

Barak bevindt zich in goed gezelschap met dit voorstel. Niet alleen oud premiers Sharon en Olmert stelden dit eerder voor, ook Ben Goerion was fel tegen de bezetting en prefereerde een eenzijdige terugtrekking zonder vrede boven een bezetting zolang de Arabieren niet klaar waren voor vrede. In Baraks plan houdt Israel echter strategische plaatsen en de grote nederzettingen blokken, en zouden voornamelijk kleinere, meer geisoleerde nederzettingen worden ontruimd. Voor deze nederzettingen is geen toekomst weggelegd als er een twee statenoplossing zou komen; het zal voor Israel moeilijk genoeg zijn om de grote blokken te kunnen behouden en Joodse wijken in Oost Jeruzalem. Aangezien Israels officiële positie is dat er een twee statenoplossing moet komen en de Palestijnen het recht hebben zichzelf te besturen, is er weinig tegen dit plan in te brengen, en zou de regering het serieus moeten overwegen. 

 

RP 

"It would help us not only with the Palestinians, but with all the countries in the region, with the Europeans and with the American administration, and of course it would be beneficial to us," the defense minister said. "This is not an easy decision, but Yom Kippur is a good time to take a long hard look at the facts and say 'we are no longer a young country. We are 64 years old. We haven't been in Judea and Samaria for a year or two. We've been there for 45 years. It is time to make decisions not just based on ideology and gut feelings, but on an accurate reading of reality."

--------------- 

 

Barak floats unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5880

In an interview with Israel Hayom, the defense minister outlines a plan proposing that settlers outside of large blocs be evacuated, or allowed to remain under Palestinian rule.

Shlomo Cesana, Yoav Limor and The Associated Press

 

 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is urging the government to examine a plan for unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. Under the plan, secluded settlements and outposts in Judea and Samaria would be evacuated by the state, and any Jews wishing to remain in the region would be permitted to live there under Palestinian rule. 

 

In a special interview with Israel Hayom, to be published in full on Tuesday, Barak outlined the details of his plan and explained the logic behind it. Under Barak's plan, the settlement blocs of Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel would remain intact. These blocs house some 90 percent of Judea and Samaria's Jewish population. Strategic areas (such as the Samarian hills overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport) would similarly remain under Israeli control, and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley would be ensured. The remainder of the territory would be handed over to the Palestinians to establish a state. Dozens of small Jewish communities would have to be evacuated.

Barak's plan elicited a harsh response from the right on Monday, with Likud Minister Yuli Edelstein saying that "this is not a disengagement plan we are talking about. This is our survival. Ehud Barak is continuing to make rookie mistakes. After supporting the disastrous Oslo Accords, orchestrating the escape from Lebanon and advancing the withdrawal from Gaza, which put a million Israelis in bomb shelters, Barak is now willing to put millions more in harms way just to get more votes." 

 

"Barak needs to understand that the State of Israel, and the residents of Judea and Samaria in particular, are not marionettes in his absurd puppet show. I hope that when the full interview with him is published on Tuesday, it will come with a note explaining that the remarks therein are (again) the product of the interviewee's feverish imagination and are not intended to offend the readers." 

Meanwhile, Barak's evacuation plan proposes several options: One option would be to provide monetary compensation to individuals and families who would be evacuated from their homes. Another option would be communal evacuation to an existing community in the settlement blocs or within the Green Line. A third option would be to remain in the settlements, under Palestinian rule, for a five-year trial period.

"It would be best to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but barring that, practical steps must be taken to begin the separation," said Barak. "It is time to look Israeli society straight in the eye and say 'we succeeded in keeping in Israel some 80% to 90% of the Jewish population that have come there over the years with the encouragement of the Israeli government. That is a huge accomplishment, if we manage to bring them inside Israel's permanent borders.'" 

 

"It would help us not only with the Palestinians, but with all the countries in the region, with the Europeans and with the American administration, and of course it would be beneficial to us," the defense minister said. "This is not an easy decision, but Yom Kippur is a good time to take a long hard look at the facts and say 'we are no longer a young country. We are 64 years old. We haven't been in Judea and Samaria for a year or two. We've been there for 45 years. It is time to make decisions not just based on ideology and gut feelings, but on an accurate reading of reality." 

 

Barak stressed the immense importance of maintaining dialogue with the population that would be slated for evacuation under his plan. "The settlers are truly people who arrived with the sense that they were on a mission on behalf of the various Israeli governments, or with the government's full approval. As defense minister, I cannot ignore their vast presence in the front lines of any combat unit in the Israel Defense Forces." 

 

Barak insisted that he has consistently proposed this plan of action for the last 12 years and that he is not just pandering to voters in the face of early election talk. He argued that Israel must continue to bolster Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, saying that "he is definitely a partner. I don't know if this will work; I'm very realistic in that sense. I am not harboring any illusions. I don't think that a desire for peace is enough to make peace. In this regard I think the government is right. The onus is mainly on the Palestinian side."

 

 

maandag 24 september 2012

Conferentie over Joodse vluchtelingen uit Arabische landen bij VN

 
De volledige toespraken bij de VN zijn te beluisteren hier of hier (totale speelduur 2 uur).
 
___________________
 
 
Peace only possible if plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries is addressed, Lauder tells UN

23 September 2012

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/12336/peace_only_possible_if_plight_of_jewish_refugees_from_arab_countries_is_addressed_lauder_tells_un

As part of its effort to raise awareness of the plight of Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries after 1948, the World Jewish Congress has hosted two conferences in Jerusalem and at the United Nations. WJC President Ronald S. Lauder urged the international community to recognize the suffering of Jewish refugees. "Now is the time to set the historical, diplomatic and legal record straight. Lasting peace can only be built on historical facts - both the issues of the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees must be addressed.” Lauder added that "only addressing the historical facts can help bring about peace."

According to Israeli Foreign Ministry figures, approximately 850,000 Jews from Arab states across the Middle East left their native countries following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 due to state-sponsored persecution. Most were forced to abandon their property and possessions.

On 10 September 2012, WJC Secretary General Dan Diker, together with Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon and Senior Citizens Deputy Minister Lea Nass, welcomed 200 participants from around the world at Jerusalem’s David Citadel Hotel for a symposium on ‘Justice for Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries’. The conference heard a greeting by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, discussions by experts on the subject, including parliamentarians from various countries, as well as testimonies from former refugees.

A declaration by the two ministries and the WJC was released at the conclusion of the symposium, calling on the United Nations to place the issue of Jewish refugees on its agenda and that of its affiliated forums. Moreover, Israel's Foreign Ministry has instructed its embassies around the world, including at the UN in Geneva and New York, to raise the matter in all official government meetings and with parliamentarians. “Jewish refugees from Arab lands deserve to have their story told, their history known, their rights recognized and the justice of their cause accepted, not just for the sake of memory, but to stand in opposition to the Arab narrative, which has been allowed to stand uncontested for too long, Ayalon - pictured below, second from right, with Dan Diker, second from left, and US Congressman Jerrold Nadler, on the right - told the conference.

More information on the conference, including speeches and materials, will shortly be available on the special event page - please click here.

Lauder: UN must recognize that Arab Jews were "persecuted, assaulted and forced from their homes"

On 21 September 2012, the WJC, together with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hosted a conference at United Nations headquarters entitled ‘The Untold Story of the Middle East’. Keynote speakers included World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder, Deputy Minister Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli envoy to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. Personal testimonies were given by Rabbi Elie Abadie and Edwin Shuker.

In his speech, Ronald Lauder (pictured left with Deputy Minister Ayalon and Israel's UN envoy Ron Prosor) said: "Israel’s detractors have spent decades infusing the courts of international public opinion with a one-sided history of the Middle East refugee problem. This will not bring justice or closure to this painful conflict. It is now time to set the historical, diplomatic, and legal record straight. Lasting peace can only be built on historical facts - both the issues of the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees must be addressed.” The WJC president added: “It is time for the international community to recognize that with the birth of the Jewish state in 1948, Jews in Arab countries were persecuted, assaulted and forcibly exiled from their homes, personal and communal property confiscated and stolen.

"The world has long recognized the Palestinian refugee problem. After 60 years, the United Nations should finally recognize the 850,000 Jewish refugees who suffered during those times. The World Jewish Congress calls upon the secretary general of the United Nations and all world leaders to acknowledge the truth, and place the plight of the Jewish refugees of Arab countries on the agenda together with the rights of all the refugees. Only addressing the historical facts can help bring about peace," Lauder emphasized.

Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said that "between the walls of the UN, we are starting to bring justice to the Jewish refugees who were tortured, persecuted and driven away, and whose rights were revoked.

In addition to the WJC and Israeli efforts, the Knesset – Israel’s parliament - is slated to vote soon on a resolution to establish a day commemorating the history of Jews from Arab lands and to found a museum focused on that history.

 

Interview Benny Morris: 'Palestijnen niet geïnteresseerd in tweestatenoplossing'

 
Benny Morris zegt op te houden met zijn onderzoek naar en geschriften over het Israelisch-Palestijns conflict, en gaat zich nu met de Turks-Armeense geschiedenis bezig houden. Jammer, want in het gepolariseerde debat was zijn stem zeer waardevol. Hij mag dan zijn bijdrage aan de polarisatie hebben geleverd, hij deed dat met een enorme feitenkennis en goede historische onderbouwing, waarbij beide kanten niet werden gespaard. 
 
RP
---------- 

 

Benny Morris on why he's written his last word on the Israel-Arab conflict

The historian, best known for exposing IDF atrocities from 1948, now says it's the Palestinians who are not interested in a two-state solution.

http://www.haaretz.com Weekend Magazine 

By Coby Ben-Simhon | Sep.20, 2012 | 2:22 PM

 

After 30 years, he's giving up. "This is the last book I will write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," declares historian Benny Morris, sitting on the balcony of his home, overlooking distant lush hilltops covered with cypresses and pines. A pioneer in researching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and one of the most prominent Israeli historians of his generation, he has had his fill of the exhausting and bloody cycle that he has documented for the past three decades. "The decades of studying the conflict, which led to nine books, left me with a feeling of deep despair. I've done all I can," he says. "I've written enough about a conflict that has no solution, mainly due to the Palestinians' consistent rejection of a solution of two states for two peoples."

This weary feeling about the bitter encounter between the two sparring peoples is given profound expression in the new Hebrew edition of his book, "One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict" ‏(first published in English in 2009‏). In the book, Morris describes − for what he says is the last time − another chapter in the history of relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Given the circumstances, he concludes his research with an incisive political essay that could be read as an indictment. "It's a historical essay that has a political purpose and a political explanation," he admits. "My aim is to open readers' eyes to the truth. The objective is to expose the goals of the Palestinian national movement to extinguish the Jewish national project and to inherit all of Palestine for the Arabs and Islam."

To Morris, a professor of history in the Department of Middle East Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, his book is akin to a dead-end journey. Rather than sketch a way out, he seeks to entrench himself within a sober-eyed view of a hopeless reality. "The book deals with the various objectives and solutions that have been proposed throughout the history of the conflict," he explains. While at the start, the two movements − Zionist and Palestinian − sought to establish their own state on the entire territory, a shift occurred at a certain point. The movements followed different trajectories in terms of their intentions.

"The Zionist movement started out calling for the establishment of a Jewish state on all the territory of the Land of Israel, but from 1937 on, its leaders gradually abandoned the claim of 'it's all mine' and adhered to the ambition to form a sovereign Jewish state in part of the territory of the Land of Israel. Thus it changed its approach and consented to territorial compromise: that is, to the idea of two states for two peoples, a decision that derived in part from the logic of dividing the land between the two peoples living in it."

Hands resting on a wooden table, Morris cites venom-filled quotes from the Palestinian National Charter, the Fatah constitution and the Hamas charter. He asserts that, unlike the Zionists, since its inception the Palestinian national movement has never retreated from its demand to establish a single state in the disputed territory.

"The Palestinian national movement has remained unchanged, throughout the different periods of the struggle, whether under the leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husayni or his successor, Yasser Arafat," says Morris with near-palpable disgust. "It did not even change during the years of the Oslo process. In the end, both sides of the Palestinian movement − the fundamentalists led by Hamas and the secular bloc led by Fatah − are interested in Muslim rule over all of Palestine, with no Jewish state and no partition."

A couple of charming dogs scamper about in the shade of the fig and olive trees. After Morris gets the two to calm down, he goes back to making his argument: "In the Zionist movement, they understood − under the impress of Hitler's deeds and rising anti-Semitism in Europe − that the Jewish people needed a refuge and a state. Because of the urgency, and because they had to save the nation, the Zionists were prepared to abandon the dream of Greater Israel and to make do with part of it. The same policy was supported by the major powers that also strove for compromise. This impact − the Holocaust, the demand of the major powers and even a sense of justice − led the Zionists to conclude that two states for two peoples should be established here. This conclusion was manifested, of course, in the acceptance of the UN Partition Plan in 1947."

But the Zionist movement didn't always support the idea of compromise.

"This was the guiding line of the Zionist movement in the years 1948-1977, and has been again since 1992. Aside from a few years of euphoria in which the right held power and propounded the idea of Greater Israel, the Israeli position was one of compromise. The brief euphoria dissipated very quickly. Since the first intifada in 1988, about two-thirds of Israelis support territorial compromise. The Palestinians, no. They have consistently − even if outwardly they seemed ready for compromise − never accepted the legitimacy and the claims of the Zionists. The Palestinian movement doesn't care about Jewish history. They deny the connection between the Jews and the Land of Israel. The Jewish narrative is completely foreign to them."

You write in the book that the Palestinians' basic claim is that the land belongs to the original inhabitants who were here before 1882. In other words, before the first aliyah. For this reason, they view the Jews as thieves with whom there can be no compromise. But some would say you are describing a monolithic Palestinian voice, as if all Palestinians are radical Islamists.

"It's true there's a difference between the extremists, who say directly that they want to wipe out the State of Israel, and the secular nationalists, who outwardly say they're ready for a compromise accord. But actually, both of them, if you read their words very carefully, want all of Palestine. The secular leaders − if you can call them that − like Yasser Arafat and President Mahmoud Abbas, are not prepared to accept a formula of two states for two peoples. So as not to scare the goyim, they project a vagueness about it, but they think in terms of expulsion and elimination."

What do you mean exactly when you say "in terms of expulsion and elimination"?

"Arafat, since the '70s, after Fatah's guerrilla warfare failed to yield results, concluded that the liberation of the homeland would be accomplished through a 'policy of stages.' The idea of the 'struggle in stages' was meant to achieve the gradual elimination of Israel and a solution of a single Arab state. In other words, the Palestinian Liberation Organization leaders continually put on a conciliatory face in order to please the West, but actually their goal was to eliminate Israel in stages, since they couldn't do it in one blow.

"The same staggered strategy, which sees the establishment of a state in the occupied territories as the first stage in the conquest of the entire land, was, in their view, better than a direct strategy of endless military confrontation. Abbas says it day in and day out, and continues to demand the right of return."

Isn't it legitimate for the Palestinians to demand the right of return for some of the refugees?

"The realization of the right of return essentially requires the destruction of the Jewish state. For the same reason, Abbas currently refuses to hold negotiations with the Israelis. Because negotiations could lead to a resolution to the conflict. He has no desire or intention of reaching a solution of two states for two peoples."

The book was first published in English in 2009. The general spirit of the book, as you yourself describe it, has been echoed repeatedly by Israeli politicians and journalists, who fixed the image of the Palestinian side as "no partner," while the Israeli side was making a maximum effort to reach an accord. In this regard, do your arguments add anything to the public discourse?

"The book was written several years after the end of the second intifada [in 2005], under the impression that it [had] left. The book is relevant to the extent that the Palestinian discourse and the Palestinian objectives have not changed, and their actions, i.e. terror, are continuing by means of the rockets that are being launched almost daily, and could also return when circumstances warrant by means of suicide bombers.

"In this context, it is vital to show the continuous, historical line of thinking that characterizes the Palestinians − which, at its base, does not give Jews any legitimate right to this place. The first section of the Hamas charter says, 'In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate ... Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.' It is important that we recognize who we are facing."

The public debate about the conflict is mired in prejudices. Don't you feel you're adding fuel to the fire with such a demonic depiction of the Palestinians? After all, we, too, like the Palestinians, outwardly talk about compromise, but meanwhile settle in their territory with the clear intention of preventing a solution to the conflict. Some of our people torch mosques, and shoot at innocents. We're not exactly saints.

"The demonization is not equal on the two sides. In the Israeli education system, in general, there is no demonization of the Arab. He might not be described positively, but he's not the Devil. There, the Jews are completely demonized. The Palestinian authorities are busy deeply implanting the demonization. The Palestinian people think we can be made extinct. We don't think that about the Palestinians. What I am doing is describing the history; I'm not demonizing. The book describes the Palestinian position. If there's demonization in it, it simply derives from the things that they themselves say and do. I'm only letting them express themselves. What they say is what has adhered to their image."

Morris, the preeminent Israeli historian writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was born in Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh in 1948 to parents who were immigrants from England − "passionate Zionists," as he describes them. His father was the first secretary of the Hashomer Hatzair movement in England, and later served as Israel's ambassador to New Zealand.

"They came here just before the founding of the state," says their son, at his home in Srigim Li On, in the Elah Valley. "After a brief time on Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh, my parents were part of a group that founded Kibbutz Yasur, which was built on the ruins of the village of Al-Birwa, the birthplace of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish. That's why I feel a certain connection with Darwish," he notes casually and laughs.

His childhood was spent between Jerusalem and New York. "A year after I was born, my parents left the kibbutz and moved to Jerusalem. My father, who'd been the kibbutz driver, got a job with the Jewish Agency. Later on he joined the Foreign Ministry and worked in information [hasbara]. When I was 9, he was sent as a consul to New York. I remember very little from my childhood there," says Morris, without any noticeable regret. "I remember getting mugged in the park and having my chessboard stolen. I remember that at Ramaz, the school I went to, they mixed together Talmud, Bible, Jewish history and general studies. It was a private school, one of the best in New York. Most of the graduates went on to top universities like Harvard and Columbia."

But Morris took a different path. Although he thought about continuing his studies in the United States, after high school he returned to Israel and enlisted in the Nahal, serving in the 50th ‏(Paratroop‏) Battalion. "The period of my military service was relatively quiet. They shot at us a little bit in the Jordan Rift Valley, there were a few ambushes, but not the experience of real combat. The only event possibly worth noting was in '67, at the start of the Six-Day War, when I took part in an operation that's recorded as a footnote in the history books. While Golani and the 8th Brigade breached the Syrian lines in the northern Golan Heights, we new recruits carried out a diversionary action in the southern Golan Heights. Our battalion commander was killed by a Syrian bombardment."

In the War of Attrition, Morris took a more significant part in the fighting and was sent to an outpost on the Suez Canal. There, in 1969, he was wounded by Egyptian shelling, which led to his early discharge from military service. After that, he began studying history and philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

"I didn't think about becoming a doctor or lawyer, or a historian for that matter," he says, taking a piece of watermelon from a bowl. "History simply interested me. After three years I saw that philosophy didn't interest me, so I decided to pursue a doctorate in history. I studied in Jerusalem for another year and then I continued at Cambridge University."

He returned to Israel in 1977. When he was unable to find a teaching position, he began working as a translator and for the classified ads section of the Jerusalem Post. Not long afterward, when he was 28, he moved from the classified section to the news pages and began a new career, first as an education reporter and later as the diplomatic correspondent. But Morris soon found that journalism didn't satisfy him. "As a journalist, I felt a need to do something 'more serious,'" he says. "I thought about writing a book that would tell the story of the Palmach [the elite strike force of the Haganah, the prestate underground Jewish militia]. I contacted the Palmach Generation Association and they gave me access to their archive, which was still classified at the time in the IDF Archive [where there was a copy of everything]. I got down to work."

But his Palmach book − which he started working on at the end of 1982, just as the first Lebanon war was unfolding − did not reach fruition. "I'd started working on the Palmach archive, but after about two months of work, when I was sitting one day in the library in Efal, this Palmach political commissar − a man called Sini, Yisrael Galili's former aide − came up to me and said: 'You know what, Benny, we've decided that one of our people will write the history of the Palmach. You're fired.'"

But Morris wasn't ready to give up on his ambition of publishing a book. "Ironically, while working in the Palmach archive, I was exposed to material that dealt with the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. For example, I came across the expulsion order for the residents of Lod and Ramle, issued by Yitzhak Rabin on behalf of Yigal Allon. These materials were linked somehow to the war in Lebanon, when for the first time I saw refugees from the Al-Rashidiya camp − some of whom I interviewed. The Lebanese refugees captured my imagination. I felt that the Palestinian refugee phenomenon could be a good subject for a book. In fact, if I hadn't been prevented from finishing the book on the Palmach, I probably would have spent years writing a totally different book."

In addition to his journalistic work, in the early 1980s Morris began writing "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem." The book, which caused a sensation, made mincemeat of the official Israeli version of events that said Palestinian refugees had fled their homes of their own accord, and put Morris at the center of a raucous public debate. Relying on a range of documents, Morris showed that the Palestinians who fled their homes between 1947 and 1949 did so largely due to Israeli military attacks, undermining the official story. He also noted that there was no deliberate policy of expulsion, but says now that "the senior Israeli command did carry out expulsions in certain areas."

The book contained harsh findings that stained the image of the 1948 Israeli soldier. Morris described incidents of rape and slaughter that occurred in the shadow of the War of Independence, including an incident in Acre in which four soldiers raped a woman and then killed her and her father. In another incident, a female captive in the village of Abu Shusha, near Gezer, was raped repeatedly. Morris described, in chilling detail, massacres that included the arbitrary killing of hundreds of innocents − old men walking in a field; a woman in an abandoned village − and orderly executions carried out against a wall or next to a well. "I felt then, while I was writing it, that this was a volatile subject," he says. "I realized that I was going to publish a different depiction than the usual depiction, than the familiar Zionist narrative. I felt that this was something different that broke with convention. And, in fact, there was a lot of anger when the book was published. Some were saying quietly that it was too early to publish what I wrote, since it would blacken Israel's image while it was still in a struggle with the Arab world. They said the kind of things I described could give ammunition to our enemies. Today I see that there is something to that. I understood it then, too, but at the time when I was writing, Israel seemed secure. In the 1980s, it appeared as if Israeli society could weather such ‏historical‏ criticism."

That pioneering research also defied the historians who'd chosen to refrain from describing the harsh facts. From this standpoint, your writing caused a real earthquake in academia, because you undermined the familiar basic knowledge.

"It was a paradox. On the one hand, the academic world quite quickly related very positively to the book. But there were also people who were discomfited by it. The research exposed the work of many scholars as whitewashing and lies. It exposed the 'old' Israeli historians, as I referred to them, as not having done serious history. About the same time my book appeared, works in the same vein came out, written by others − including Avi Shlaim, of Reading and then Oxford University; Tom Segev of Haaretz; and Simha Flapan, a Mapam activist. None of them emerged from or worked in the Israeli academic establishment. But subsequently, it became far more difficult for Israelis to write 'scientific' history − that is, history not based on archival material and suppressing unpleasant elements of the historical truth. Historians felt they had to fall in line with this 'New Historiography' in terms of modus operandi, and it became far harder to evade or distort the past. In subsequent years, even books published by the Defense Ministry included descriptions of massacres by Israeli troops."

But your work proved to be a double-edged sword for you. While it made you a star, all the doors were closed to you.

"I was treated like an enemy of the state. This image stuck. I was ostracized. I wasn't invited to conferences and, of course, I wasn't offered a university position. It was a tough time. I couldn't support myself and my family. For six years I had no job, until − with the intervention of President Ezer Weizman − I was hired at Ben-Gurion University in 1997. I lived off loans from friends. I had no money. In 1991 I was fired by the Jerusalem Post, which was taken over by right-wing millionaires ‏(including Conrad Black‏), who dismissed all the paper's left-leaning veteran staff. I spent the years writing further histories, published by Oxford University Press and Am Oved. But I had no job."

Today you say you were stuck with an image that was inaccurate. But in fact, during the first intifada, just months after the publication of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," you refused to serve in the territories. In those years, that was a highly controversial act.

"True. I saw the first intifada that erupted in the winter of 1987 as an effort of a people to throw off a 20-year military occupation. This effort, in the main, was not lethal, and the protesters did not use live-fire weapons. They'd simply had enough; they wanted to be rid of the yoke of occupation − that is how I saw it. I did not feel it right to take part in the suppression of this nonlethal uprising, and I refused to do reserve duty in the Nablus Casbah. I felt that the Palestinian struggle for independence was legitimate and that the oppression was fundamentally illegitimate. The second intifada was a totally different story. Against the backdrop of the waves of terror attacks, the Palestinian uprising certainly looked like it was geared to destroying Israel. Therefore, today I am opposed to refusal to serve in the territories."

Following the repeated terror attacks and the failure of the July 2000 Camp David summit, Morris' positions in relation to the conflict changed sharply. In a 2004 interview with Haaretz Magazine, he claimed that in certain conditions, expulsion was not a war crime, and that there were circumstances in history when expulsions were justified − such as when the alternative was someone killing you.

You said that people were mistaken when they labeled you a post-Zionist, and you described Palestinian society as being like a "serial killer" whose people should be locked up "in a cage." You called Arafat a "liar" and the Arabs "barbarians."

"I may have gone a little overboard. I think that I wasn't careful enough in choosing my words, although I still stand behind what I said. I said that the Palestinians should be put in a cage so they won't be able to get here to place bombs in buses and restaurants. The word 'cage' did not go over well and perhaps it was the wrong word to use. Of course, I meant fenced off. As for the refugee situation, I still maintain that it was a requirement of the reality. Since the Palestinians tried and intended to destroy us, and their villages and towns served as bases in wartime, the winning side had to take over villages and expel populations. This situation was built into the nature of the war, even if people from the left have a hard time swallowing it. Massacres are always reprehensible, but the Jews behaved much better than other nations in similar circumstances."

You pointed out the dichotomy between the "new historians" who did not adopt the Zionist narrative, and the "old historians" who wrote from an establishment perspective. But your book and the general approach with which you wrote this essay definitely express the Israeli consensus, and perhaps an even more right-wing view than that. Some will say your historical analysis is more characteristic of the old historians.

"I don't see myself as an 'old historian' or as someone who is taking back any of his words. All of my writing, both before and after 2000, is faithful to the truth that comes out of the historical documents. I did not change the facts or the way of looking at the past, although I did learn to appreciate the depth of the Arabs' rejection of Zionism and the idea of territorial compromise. I definitely accept the Israeli narrative about Camp David, which says that the Palestinians were made − both by Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton − unprecedented offers, and that they turned them down. In my book I argue that this is essentially their consistent, perpetual line since the dawn of the Palestinian national movement. Just as they rejected the two-state offers in '37, '47 and '77, they rejected the offer in 2000."

One of Morris' most striking conclusions is that, regarding the past, there was no point at which the Israelis could have acted differently. "There are people who believe that we blew an opportunity here or there," he says. "There is even a hint of this, perhaps, in my book 'Border Wars,' about the peace talks between Israel and its neighbors after '48. But a more thoughtful look back shows that no opportunity appears to have been missed. There simply was no readiness for peace on the other side. They didn't want to accept us here. As long as the Jews wanted a state of their own, under their control, no acceptable accord could be reached with the Arabs. Not before '48 and certainly not afterward, when the Arab side was also prompted by vengefulness."

Revenge is one of the explanations that Morris places on the table to explain the intransigence of the Palestinian national movement. "Aside from revenge, the Palestinians have absolute faith in the justice of their side, which derives in part from religious faith. What God commands, and what his interpreters on Earth say that God commands, is the definite truth. While the Jews are much more skeptical about this sort of interpretation, the Palestinians feel that justice is on their side and that God doesn't want the Holy Land to be shared with another people. Another thing: They absolutely believe that time is working in their favor. And the Palestinians feel that they have the backing of 400 million ‏(or so‏) Arabs and another billion-odd Muslims around the world. So why compromise?"

In the second chapter of "One State, Two States..." you discuss the two main accepted models for a resolution of the conflict: two states for two peoples, or a single binational state of some kind in which Jews and Arabs live together. The problem is that neither of these models is realistic, in your view. At the end of the book you propose as a solution a federation between Jordan and Palestine.

"I say that the compromise proposals that have been continually put forward since '67, that are based on a Jewish state on about 80 percent of the territory of Mandatory Palestine and a Palestinian state on about 20 percent of the territory, are not realistic. The Palestinian leadership and people will not be satisfied with 20 percent of the territory of Palestine. A state composed of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem will not satisfy them. They will want to expand − to Jordan, to Israel, to Sinai, or in all three directions at once. In order to satisfy the need for growth and territorial expansion, a merging of the West Bank, Gaza and Transjordan might satisfy the Palestinian urge for more territory and constitute a more reasonable and durable accord."

MK Aryeh Eldad ‏(National Union‏) may be the most vocal proponent nowadays of such a confederation.

"But this was essentially the 'Allon Plan,' and the concept of the Labor Party in the '70s and '80s. Although never officially adopted by the party institutions, it was accepted by most of its leaders. According to this plan, Palestine would be divided into Israel − more or less along the pre-'67 borders − and an Arab state that could be called a Palestinian-Jordanian state, that would combine most of the territory of the West Bank and East Jerusalem with the East Bank i.e., the kingdom of Jordan.

"Ariel Sharon once talked about turning Jordan into Palestine − in other words, ousting the kings, putting the Palestinians in charge in their place and thereby solving the Palestinian demand for a state. But I am talking about something different: The bulk of the West Bank united with Transjordan in one state."

But from the moment Jordan washed its hands of the West Bank in the late 1980s, and said it viewed this as Palestinian territory, the rug was pulled from under the advocates of the Allon Plan, and since then the plan has rightly been gathering dust. Today as well, it is unreasonable to expect to convince the Jordanians, or the other nations of the world, to support this move, that would necessarily lead to a situation in which the royal family was ousted. If it's impossible to convince anyone to go along with this idea, what's the point of discussing it?

"Because it is still more logical than an accord between us and the Palestinians that is based on a division of Mandatory Palestine. The logic of a large Palestinian-Jordanian state is more valid than any partition plan − which I support, by the way. Justice and logic say that the Palestinians should have a state alongside Israel, but the portion of the land that is designated for them in a simple partition will not satisfy them. And so the territory east of the Jordan River also has to be inserted into the equation in order to give the Palestinians a vision of space. The West Bank, even without the Jewish settlers who are there now, is a very constricted space. Gaza is one big slum. Jordan-Palestine could be the basis for an accord that will last, even if it cannot be achieved in our time. For now it is impractical and unrealistic. So the message is certainly pessimistic."

Do you see any signs of light?

"The only optimistic thing I can say is that the history of the Zionist movement and of Israel is so unusual and unpredictable that the end of the story, or the next part of the story, could yet surprise us in a good way. Maybe. I yearn for such a surprise."

Since you've decided to quit researching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what do you plan to focus on now?

"I've already begun to write a history of Turkish-Armenian relations from 1876-1924, together with Prof. Dror Zeevi, an Ottomanist. The Armenian genocide will, of course, figure large in it. It's a whole new story."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/benny-morris-on-why-he-s-written-his-last-word-on-the-israel-arab-conflict.premium-1.465869