Middle Eastern Facts

A “made up” response to the compelling facts of “Arabian Fables (I)”

Middle Eastern Facts By Eyas B. ALSharaiha and John G. Mikhael A while ago, we were presented with an advertisement, written in the form of an article, which was published in numerous newspapers, ranging from the New York Times to MIT’s own “The Tech”. The ‘article’ was created by and paid for by “FLAME”, the Facts & Logic About the Middle East organization, a group that can be described as nothing less than a radical propaganda machine. Recently, an article referred to as “Arabian Fables (I)” was published, calling the Palestinians essentially homogeneous with the rest of the Arab World, confederates of Hitler, and – get this – a “myth” as a people. Let us being dissecting claims set forth by their message:

The Existence of the Concept of Palestine As a name “Palestine” existed in ancient times, a continuation of the land of Canaan, itself mentioned and referenced by Ancient Egyptians, when Philistines, supposedly from Crete, entered the land sometime around 1100 BC. Indeed, the name “Palestine” itself was not used commonly by Arabs; the Historical Land of Palestine was commonly referred to “the holy land” by contemporaries of that time or, as was the custom at the time, distinct cities will be mentioned as opposed to the collective region. It is indeed also true that the main revivers of the name “Palestine” were the British. So we have established the fact that the name “Palestine” is historically valid. What can this ever have to do with the ArabIsraeli Conflict of the 20th and 21st centuries? Nothing, really. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the Land which now encompasses The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the State of Israel included a population 70,000 Jews, making up a mere 10% of the population. Newer estimation gives local Jews a population of 83,740, giving the Jewish a percentage slightly north of 11%. (Smitha, 1998) (Gilbert, 1998, p. 5) (See Figure 1) These Jews were local inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, and probably Arabian Caliphates before that. They were Arabs in culture, living in harmony, and they – too – were “Palestinians” under the British Mandate of Palestine. Palestinians, ethnically, had Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Figure 1

After the illegal immigration movement of Jews into Palestine (referring to the land of the British Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River), a Jewish community grew and with the news of the then-secret Balfour Declaration, social tension between the two fragments of the Palestinian society grew. To assume that the original inhabitants of the region were Jewish simply because a Symphony Orchestra was comprised entirely of Jews is like believing all the people of Cambridge are terrible at numbers, just because Harvard’s there. The name Palestine, indeed, is a name that “stuck” onto Arabs of the Historical region of Palestine. Same as we call English people English, as opposed to Anglo Saxons, same as Franks became French, and Mesopotamians became Iraqis. Language and terminology evolves, Arabs of Palestine or Arabs of Canaan are called Palestinians, and that does not change who they are. The truth is, Arabian Muslims and Christians lived in this historical land of Palestine for a minimum of an uninterrupted 1300 years as a vast majority. Through such period of time, Arabs of Palestine have developed a distinct culture that revolves around the geography of Palestine and the Holy Places. More importantly, in the 1900s Arabs were predominantly farmers and herders, who had inherited their lands, crops, and olive trees from their parents and grandparents. And while it is true Palestinian Arabs share much common identity with other Arabs of neighboring countries – in the realms of history, religions, culture, and language of course – it is an overstretch to make the analogy that Palestinian Arabs are to other Arabs as Minnesotans are to Wisconsinites. But even if we assume the analogy is true for the sake of argument, what on earth can convince a local of Wisconsin or a farmer in Wisconsin to give up his land, home, or city and move to Minnesota because a “national homeland” for some minority must be set up, effectively making him a non-citizen in his own land. True, people of Wisconsin have 49 other States to move to, many with similar cultures, but how can that even begin to justify kicking a local individual from his or her land of birth and work? So even if we consider the culture of Palestine to be similar to that of surrounding Arab states, how would that justify kicking out locals to neighboring countries because a national homeland must be established for neighboring Jews? Because they have 21 other Arab States to go to, you say? Wisconsinites have 49, yet for them it still doesn’t justify anything. Also, saying “many of the “Palestinians,” or their immediate ancestors, came to the area attracted by the prosperity created by the Jews, in what previously had been pretty much of a wasteland” is only based on a statement by Theodore Herzl, who referred to Palestine (as he called it) as an “empty wasteland”. The response to that is a description of the geography of Palestine, which resembles that of Fertile Crescent (for instance, Jordan is 70-90% desert). The majority of the Arab population lived in farming lands away from the deserts; they lived densely near each other.

Palestine need not be an independent nation historically for it to have a right to exist as an independent Arab entity. The land of Palestine was under Muslim and Arab control for some 1,300 years and had a majority-Arab population. That, however, is a reason for it to be an independent Arab nation in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries; a nation’s government needs to be representative of its people and majority. Israel is representative of its majority, but only because the majority of Arabs were persecuted by illegal gangs such as the Hannah and Stern Gang in the past and by the IDF presently exponentially, starting years before 1948 and continuing through 1967 to this day.

The Claim that Arabs Were Confederates of Hitler To say that Arabs were confederates of Hitler is to say that you have never picked up a WWI textbook in your life. The Ottoman Empire supported the Axis, and the Arab region in question was under Turkish rule. The Arabs, in fact, supported the Allies, and aided British troops in their victory. This Arab support to the allies was, indeed, what sparked the Great Arab Revolt which is what returned power to Arabs. Thus, saying that Arabs supported Hitler is as invalid as saying that Africans supported apartheid; it is a statement assuming that the oppressor is a righteous representative of the oppressed. The truth is: Hitler basically possessed anti- Arab sentiments as much as he possessed anti-Jewish ones. Had there been Arabs in Germany, they probably would’ve been equally persecuted.

The Concept of the West Bank The “West Bank” was never claimed to be a historical name related to a Palestinian state, nation, entity, city, or region. The West Bank, indeed, is a modern name, a direct translation of “āl diffah al gharbiyyeh”, referring to the western region the River Jordan. Such a name was especially helpful to use since the Emirate of Transjordan is actually known in Arabic as “the Emirate of Eastern Jordan”, also known as the “East Bank” at that time. The West Bank, similarly, was a complementary term to refer to the region which Israelis did not occupy in 1967 and thus remained under Arab control.

Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank and Persecution of Jewish Institutions The Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank was not a military occupation; the Jordanian Army (then known as āl jaish āl `arābi meaning the Arab Army) was part of the Arab movement which, in 1948, attempted to revoke Israeli control of the land designated as the British Mandate of Palestine. The result was an Arab loss, indeed, not due to a god-like miracle, but due to the little known fact that wars are sometimes lost. Since the Palestinian institutions were lacking, Egypt annexed Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank, neither country attempted to refer to each region as a historically significant region. Indeed, it has always been clarified by Arabs, that the West Bank is simply “what is left for the Palestinians” after the Israelis irreversibly seized the lands of 1948. During the annexation in the West Bank, Palestinians of the West Bank and refugees both within the West Bank and Jordan were given permanent citizenship that corresponds to that of existing residents. Furthermore, the government of the kingdom was formed of sixty seats, divided equally between residents of the East Bank and the West Bank. Is this occupation?

As for Persecution of Jewish Institutions, a quote by Sydney J. Harris is spot-on: “We evaluate others with a Godlike justice, but we want them to evaluate us with a Godlike compassion.” Israelis point out faults in an Arab-led Jewish Persecution of Jews and Jewish institutions, thinking that the Israeli and Jewish persecution of Arabs, Muslims, and their respective institutions is acceptable. Well, it isn’t. Between the period of 1948 and 1967, Jews remaining in the West Bank were persecuted, indeed, an unfortunate fact. But would it be a horrendous assortment to say that such persecution is a response to the depopulation of 426 Arab villages in Palestine1? Or the Massacres committed against Arabs by the Irgun, Stern Gang, and the Haganah, of which an immense number of Arabs were killed, tortured, raped, and humiliated, many of which happened before the 1948 war itself? So while there were mistakes on the part of the Arabs, more often than not, they pale in comparison with the offensive on the other side of the conflict.

The Occupied Territory is… Occupied If illegal, void, and double-crossing treaties such as the Balfour Declaration are to be taken as a source of legitimization of Israel’s status, then why not take the countless designations by the United Kingdom and the League of Nations as valid as well? As it has been discussed in “The Existence of the Concept of Palestine”, the land, roughly defined by the borders of the British Mandate in Palestine, is Arab. When the Ottoman Empire fell apart, the entire region now known as “the Arab World” was de facto Arab, including Palestine. Jerusalem was ruled by an Arab city council which exercised some control over Palestine. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 was a continuation of a form of an Arab rule and Presence in the Palestinian West Bank, the occupation of such areas by Israel in 1967 is an act of occupation and cannot be seen as otherwise. Second of all, the Balfour Declaration doesn’t designate borders of a Jewish State, it instead merely gives the green light for Jewish citizens to establish homes, and be citizens of, the Mandate of Palestine and any autonomous state that comes afterwards. It is not to be understood that such autonomous state would be a Jewish state, as that contradicts with the declaration’s specific request not to trespass the rights of Arab Muslims and Christians in the region, which, by virtue of the definitions of such terms, cannot be included in a Jewish state.

… The United Nations Agrees Indeed, the United Nations agrees on both facts: that Palestine was formerly Arab and that the 1967occupied lands are actually occupied. An important example to see worldwide validation of Arab existence in the region is the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the areas that were to be retained for Arabs were largely similar to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, both areas in which Arab population is dense. The resolution was a non-binding General Assembly resolution rejected by the Arab states, and Palestine and many other 1

counted from (Wikipedia contributors, 2009)

Arab countries were not represented in the UN at the time, so the UN Partition Plan cannot be seen in any way as a means of legitimizing an autonomous Jewish state either. More importantly, however, in showing the validity of the use of the term “occupied territories” to describe Israel’s rule over the West Bank and the Gaza strip is the consideration of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Indeed, the binding United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on the 22nd of November, 1967, after the Six Day War. (United Nations Security Council, 1967)

Figure 2

Sub clause 1-(i) seen above represents the United Nations’ position regarding the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from the Six-day war until the present day: such lands were illegally occupied by Israel. Let me rephrase that: the international community, including all fifteen members of the Security Council in 1967, views Israeli presence in lands occupied beyond the armistice line as an occupying force. If the Balfour Declaration has any legitimacy to begin with, shouldn’t it pale in comparison with the overwhelming legitimacy of the world in its entirety, and the United Nations as a body? Arab bias in UN resolutions can be mentioned, and might apply to the Commission on Human Rights or General Assembly forums, but when the Security Council – a body that includes Israel’s most important ally – agrees to a resolution, then that should definitely be seen as a sign of some sort of ‘bipartisanship’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Similarly, in 1973, the United Nations authors Security Council Resolution 338, which, among other things: “Calls upon, the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;” SC Res 338 (United Nations Security Council, 1973) Other UN resolution, including the binding Security Council Resolution 252 of 1968 declares invalid Israel’s efforts in unifying Jerusalem (East Jerusalem, the part that contains the holy sites, is part of the

West Bank and is thus recognized as rightfully Palestinian) as a Jewish capital. Other resolutions include Security Council Resolution 446 in 1979 stating the Israeli Settlements are contrary the Geneva Conventions (this issue persists in 2009, with Obama practically saying the same words, and Israel ignoring), also Security Council Resolution 605, adopted in 1987, condemns Israeli policies that ignore Palestinian human rights. Resolution 605 is particularly of interest, because it shows that Israel is no stranger to violating treaties, amongst them the Balfour Declaration, who, itself, conditioned the existence of Jews in the area with the guarantee that Arabs living in the area are not harmed or violated.

The Balfour Declaration: Invalid The Balfour Declaration has been referenced multiple times already. ‘Sadly’, perhaps, the idea that the United Kingdom could grant a land that wasn’t theirs to the Jewish Diaspora still seems as ridiculous today as it did almost a century ago. It is important to understand here that British and French imperial presence in the Middle East in the early twentieth century was not a form of colonialism as has been the custom in the past. British and French presence was in the form of a “mandate”, a peculiar word, referring at the time to a “League of Nations Mandate”. The British Mandate of Palestine is referred to as a “Class A mandate” these are states that: “*…+ have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. The Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22 (The League of Nations, 1924) That means that the mandate power must comply with the wishes of the local communities, and it also means that any class A mandate, regardless of its nature, is expected to “be able to stand alone” after some time. This reveals some interesting missed facts: a) The British had no authority to designate the land of Palestine as a place where a Jewish ethnic homeland is to exist since that was contrary to the wishes of the people, who, as it was discussed before, of an Arab majority. b) The League of Nations expected that the land of the British Mandate on Palestine would be free, independent, and autonomous one day. With an Arab majority, this can clearly be seen as an affirmation that, referring to lands annexed by Israel after its birth as “occupied territories” is correct. These two pieces of information makes reaching any other conclusion virtually impossible: the Balfour Declaration had absolutely no authority to designate the land of Palestine as a homeland for any group, be it Jewish or other.

The Founding of the State of Israel violates the Balfour Declaration itself! Upon reading the Balfour Declaration, a phrase jumps out of the screen, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Civil rights. That means right to self-determination (that is a basic human right, after all) – autonomy. Anyone can attest to what a great job Israel is doing at that.

Conclusion In conclusion, a recurring “hate-advertisement” has, unfortunately, recently found its way to our own newspaper, spreading fundamentally misconceived disinformation, propaganda, and emotionallycharged hate speech into its unsuspecting readers. Our goal in this article was to highlight the factual flaws that are not only used by this Articles to directly “bash” Arabs, but also by a big portion of people in the Israeli public as a justification and explanation of the history of the modern state of Israel. As Arabs, this is of grave concern towards us; our Israeli neighbors are sometimes so misinformed about their history that Arabs immediately become a demonized figure and often a subject of hatred. Hate in the region is breeding more hate, more harsh policies, and more abrasive negotiations, putting the dream of peace and harmony further and further into ‘the unlikely’.

Works Cited Gilbert, M. (1998). Israel: a History. New York: William Morrow. Smitha, F. E. (1998). Jews and Arabs in Palestine, to 1939. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from MacroHistory: World History: http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17jeru.html The League of Nations. (1924, December). The Covenant of the League of Nations. ("Yale Avalon Project", Ed.) Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Avalon Project: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22 United Nations Security Council. (1967, November 22). UN Security Council Resolution 242. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Official Documents System of the United Nations: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement United Nations Security Council. (1973, October 22). United Nations Security Council Resolution 338. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Official Documents System of the United Nations: http://daccessdds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/288/65/IMG/NR028865.pdf?OpenElement Wikipedia contributors. (2009, November 9). List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Arab_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_ 1948_Palestinian_exodus&oldid=324859394