Palestine Betrayed, by Efraim Karsh
BOOK REVIEW
by M. D Roberts
Replete with references the Professor & Head of the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Programme at Kings College, London has provided an excellent, detailed, objective analysis of both the origins as well as the history surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In my own opinion this authoritative, timely and well written study is destined to become a classic in relation to this contentious subject. Those who have already embraced the revisionist history of the 'new historians' will probably want to give it a miss as the detail and depth of this work tends to blow their case completely out of the water.
Citing many documents which have been declassified over the past decade, both the Arab and Jewish perspectives of this conflict are addressed from the very start. The political/diplomatic manoeuvering of many prominent individuals on both sides and in the international arena are all given due reference.
Recent declassification of millions of documents from the era surrounding the British Mandate are shown to have been ignored or distorted by the 'new historians' in order to paint a picture that the author claims 'is completely at odds with the anti Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day'.
This compelling investigation makes it clear to the reader that Israel is being robbed of its political, historic and geographic legitimacy, whilst being made to appear to rob the Palestinians of the nation it never had.
At the outset the author draws attention to the differing positions of the then Jewish and Arab leadership leading up to the 1947 UN resolution calling for the partition of 'Palestine' into two independent states - Arab and Jewish - plus the internationalisation of Jerusalem.
From the easily readable text the reader can assess how the Jewish leadership openly accepted the detailed UN plans for partition while the Arab side utterly rejected any such plan and showed that compliance with any UN resolution was of no consequence as they declared all out war with the declared intention of eradicating the reborn Jewish state. Full quotes and detailed references from both sides are provided for the reader's attention.
The book reveals in no uncertain terms that if the Palestinian Arabs and the neighbouring Arab states had accepted the UN resolution there would have been no war and no dislocation of a single Arab refugee. The simple reason being that the Zionist movement was amenable to the co-existence with the Palestinian Arabs and a 2 state solution even at that time. The Arab world choosing to instead wage a war of annihilation.
Citing how such reality was to become erased from public memory by decades of relentless pro-Arab propaganda, the writer clarifies that it is to reclaim this and other historical truths that this book has been written.
A whole plethora of issues are addressed including those of a Zionist and Pan Arab perspective covering many decades prior to, and culminating in, the above. The role of the British and the Mandate is studied in some detail revealing much of the alleged British appeasement of the Arab world and it's 'White Paper' restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine while Jews were fleeing the persecution and slaughter within Europe during the rule of Hitler. References revealing how, while Jews were severely restricted and hampering from entering their ancient homeland, no such restrictions were placed upon Arabs entering/settling in 'Palestine' from their neighbouring Arab states.
Having studied the Balfour Declaration one aspect of alleged British appeasement of the Arab world that also receives attention is the British severing of a vast percentage of 'Palestine' east of the Jordan River from the prospective Jewish homeland to create the new Arab nation of Transjordan under the newly appointed Arab leadership of Emir Abdullah ibn Hussein.
Even what remained of 'Palestine' being targeted for division with the 'Palestinian' Arabs. Quotes and references showing that pan-Arabism viewed the 'Palestinians' not as a distinct people deserving statehood but as 'an integral part of a single Arab nation' which was bound by the common ties of language and religion etc.. The Jewish homeland eventually constituting less than 11 per cent of what was originally hoped for. The study's contents reiterating that even this was too much for the Arab world which rejected 'partition' and declared war to obtain it all.
Indeed from the historic details provided the reader is left with the unassailable deduction that the Arab grievance is not with the borders of Israel but with its very existence. Referring to the 'peace process' of the present day the book claims that, despite their vastly different personalities and political modus operandi, Yasser Arafat and his successor Mahmoud Abbas are "warp and woof of the same fabric". Both being shown from the text to be PLO veterans who have never "eschewed their commitment to Israel's destruction".
While many believe that the reason for the continuous state of war between Israel and the Arabs is because Israel is allegedly 'occupying Arab land' the study shows how through endless repetition, the engraving upon people's minds of this line of political propaganda has deceived the populace from the fundamental truths behind this conflict. It clearly being shown that the Arabs were making war against Israel even when the Arabs held the land and that is how they came to lose it in the first place.
Individual readers must make up their own minds upon the many aspects of this investigation, some aspects of which may be seen as controversial by some. However, I have no hesitation to recommending this work to anyone remotely interested in the Middle East conflicts.
4 comments:
This particular issue is very interesting to me, but I fail to understand a few points.
Where is this "pro-Arab" or "anti-Israeli" sentiment or propaganda you speak of? Living in America, at least, people lose their jobs just for suggesting Israel is wrong or that Palestinians got a raw deal. I think you are misrepresenting the established narrative, at least the one I have experience with. I suppose if I lived in Lebanon, it might be different.
Again, I also understand that the land currently partitioned as "Israel" was occupied by Muslims and Jews... and Christians and Druze for that matter. What I do not understand is how the actions of some Arabs justifies the collective punitive measures, let alone the expansion of Israel through force. I know it has been America's policy to bomb the home nation of anyone who attacks us, but I find this approach to be fundamentally self-defeating and abominable.
I will have to check this book out, but I still have to wonder if my questions can truly be answered in a satisfactory manner. I don't think of Israel as a "land stealer," but I see a common belief (at least in action and international acceptance of said action) that any violence initiated by an Arab against an Israeli deserves a blatant over-reaction, while nothing Israel does is questioned.
You have been on college campuses and have not encountered Anti-Zionism and Pro-Palestinian propaganda? There are several organizations and speakers but I'd rather not give them more publicity.
I have never heard of anyone losing a job for suggesting Israel is wrong. Israel is questioned and criticized all the time by world leaders, U.N., political pundits, academics, Joe Citizen, etc.
I would love to hear your wife's views on the Flotilla incident. Most Israelis regardless of their politics are pulling together on this. And now Iran is sending ships to try to break the Gaza blockade. I am very concerned.
I have been doing lots of reading on this current event (Mavi Marmara) from a wide variety of sources, and as a result of the skewed reports, I am seeing how the history of the past could have been interpreted various ways depending on one's bias, perspective, or agenda.
Hopefully Karsh will cut through the mishmash in his new book and provide an objective, fact-filled and documented analysis of the history that led up to this point in time.
Collective punishment? What alternative would you suggest that addresses Israel's security and her right to exist in her homeland? Concerning the blockade on Gaza as an example:
“Our principle is clear,” one senior official said. “To prevent weaponry and material from reaching Gaza that could help Hamas, but at the same time to allow the transfer of civilian goods to Gaza’s civilian population.”
The official said that as long as Hamas declares war on Israel, as long “as it considers every Israeli civilian a legitimate target,” Israel reserved the right to maintain economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip.
“Sanctions are a perfectly legal and legitimate tool in a situation of conflict,” the official said, “and whoever says it is collective punishment does not know what they are talking about. No one can expect that business will continue as usual with the Hamas regime.”
“We will not allow everything in, since Gilad Schalit is still held in Gaza and Hamas is still attacking us,” he added.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178081
Nice to hear from you, and I will read your blog postings on Israel/Palestine.
Collectively punishing a group of people for the actions of a few is injustice, and a people punished in such way are not villains if they then stand up to it. Israel's actions are making heroes of terrorists, and that disturbs me to the core.
I want to look down upon Muslim fundamentalists, who oppress women and homosexuals while denouncing non-believers like myself as infidels. The problem is, they cling to their faith because they have nothing else. I understand their hopelessness and cannot fault them for lashing out in frustration.
The Palestinian sympathizers continue to avoid the question of coming up with a better solution to the conflict than Israel is now employing.
Maybe they think Helen Thomas had the only practical and wise solution. It is beginning to look that way.
Post a Comment