April 4, 2006

by Ted Belman

Public Broadcasting System has linked to IsraPundit in a singular way which we appreciate and has brought to my attention, Frontline’s profile of Olmert entitled, “Israel: The Unexpected Candidate”.

Please visit the site and view the videos and report back. Once on the site I noticed their view of Israel’s turbulent history and decided to fisk it.

The 10,000 square miles of land west of the Jordan River and north of Egypt is one of the most hotly contested patches of earth on the planet. To most contemporary political bodies, this land constitutes the state of Israel, created by the United Nations in 1948, in large part as a response to the Holocaust of World War II. To others — particularly Arabs — the lands belong to the state of Palestine, whose history in the region stretches back 6,000 years.

I am frankly surprised at the statement “To most contemporary political bodies, this land constitutes the state of Israel, created by the United Nations in 1948,”. Would that it were true. As for the rest, there was no state and is no state of Palestine to belong to and the suggestion that “others” believe that its “history in the region stretches back 6000 years.” attempts to give validity to a notion as ridiculous as the notion that the earth is flat. Why does PBS do that?

The current lands of Israel and Palestine consist of the official state of Israel and the occupied territories: the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. All of the Abrahamic traditions — among Jews, Muslims and Christians — have their religious roots in the Middle East and in the city of Jerusalem, now part of Israel.

Once again, PBS mentions the “lands of … Palestine”. To suggest that Muslims have religious roots in Jerusalem distorts its relative importance. The Koran never mentions Jerusalem whereas the Torah mentions it over 600 times. Muslims turn their backs on Jerusalem when praying whereas Jews face Jerusalem where ever they are praying. Jerusalem may be the third holiest site in Islam but a far distant one at that. For Jews, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are at the centre of Judaism and have been for thousands of years.

The Jewish religion incorporates the concept of the “promised land,” described by the biblical patriarch Abraham, a concept that, in the late 19th century, began to take the shape of Zionism. Theodor Herzl, an Austrian Jew, founded the Zionist movement, a political ideology that supports a territorial homeland for the Jewish people on lands roughly equivalent to modern Israel. In 1917, the British foreign secretary issued the Balfour Declaration, which “view[ed] with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Jews began settling in Palestine, even though Britain, the colonial ruler of the area, limited their immigration. Arabs were unhappy with the influx of settlers and attacked them, leading to the formation of the Jewish defense force, the Haganah. By 1947, battered by World War II, the British decided to pull out of Palestine, and the United Nations approved the 1947 Partition Plan to divide the land into two states.

It would be wrong to classify “Zionism” as a “political ideology” without mentioning that at its heart, was a religious ideology and narrative which Herzl wanted to actualize. Jews have lived in Jerusalem and Palestine continuously since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD after having lived there for a thousand years. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Jews started to migrate there in ever increasing numbers.

But to state, Zionism supports a “territorial homeland for the Jewish people on lands roughly equivalent to modern Israel.” is totally in error. Zionism sought to reclaim the original Jewish historical lands which included Jordan and all of Israel. The Balfour Declaration and The Palestine Mandate identified the same lands for a Jewish national home. Britain violated the Mandate and severed Jordan from it. The UN further violated it by recommending parttition and two states.

A Land Divided

David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel’s first prime minister, accepted the plan, but Arab leaders rejected it. Civil war erupted, with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq supporting the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the Israelis prevailed and in ensuing years captured more territory west of the Jordan River. The 1949 Armistice Agreements ended the war and established the “Green Line,” which designated a temporary truce line between Israel and its opponents. Most of the Arab population fled or was turned out during the war, creating 600,000 to 900,000 refugees. Waves of Jewish refugees flooded the country, more than doubling the Israeli population.

“Civil war erupted with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq supporting the Palestinians.”. This is such a distortion of history that it must be identified as a lie. Prior to the creation of Israel, all Jews and Arabs living in the mandate were called Palestinians. War didn’t “erupt”. The Arab countries which you have identified, all attacked Israel. It is important to note that the Arabs encouraged the local Arabs to flee.

In 1955, a new Egyptian government closed the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli ships in response to a perceived spy threat. The following year, Shimon Peres led Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula, aided secretly by Britain and France, and swiftly conquered the Egyptians. The United States and the United Nations intervened and forced the British and French to withdraw, promising that the waters would remain open to Israeli ships; however, Peres’ troops remained for a year. U.N. troops were stationed on the border to prevent guerrilla movement.

Compare this with this far more accurate account by the Jewish Agency for Israel. “In September 1955, in violation of international agreements and in what amounted to an act of war, Egypt sealed off access to the Israeli port of Eilat, effectively stopping Israel’s sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East. Then, on July 26, 1956 Nasser announced Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, most of whose shares were held by Britain and France. With diplomacy failing to reverse Nasser’s’s decision, Britain and France embarked on preparations to regain control of the Canal, and on October 29, 1956 together with Israel, launched a military operation in the Sinai Peninsula”. The slightest investigation will totally discredit the statement of PBS.

The Six Day War and Yom Kippur

Tension continued, however, and fighting broke out again in 1967. A young Yasser Arafat had stirred up liberation hopes in occupied Palestine, and border skirmishes began to escalate. In May of that year, Egypt requested the withdrawal of U.N. troops and, upon their departure, once again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. A blockade is generally viewed as an act of war, and this one proved no exception. On June 5, Israeli forces under Ariel Sharon commenced a massive air strike against Egyptian airfields, effectively eliminating them. In the days that followed, Israeli troops conquered the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian troops defending Sinai. By June 10, Israel had agreed to a cease-fire, but during the attacks it had taken control of Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Once again, you refer to “occupied Palestine” as though such an entity existed. And once again you failed to describe that the Arabs led by Arafat attacked Israel. Instead you simply say “tensions continued” and that “border skirmishes began to escalate.” Why not say Arabs attacked Israel?

“A blockade is generally viewed as an act of war, and this one proved no exception.” Why not just say, “a blockade is an act of war.” And to suggest that the Arabs were “defending” Sinai when they started the war is laughable.

The Six Day War of 1967 proved that Israel had the military might to dominate its neighbors. Now in control of three new territories, Israel had shifted the balance of power in the region in its favor.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria joined in a war against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, in an effort to regain the territories lost in 1967. After several weeks of fighting, Arab forces were rebuffed by Israeli and U.S. troops. The war led to a Saudi oil embargo on the United States; gas prices skyrocketed; and the notorious fuel shortages of the 1970s began.

What a way to put it. “Egypt and Syria joined in a war against Israel”. Why not say they attacked Israel.

Negotiations Begin

In the late 1980s, fed up with occupation and Jewish settlements in former Palestinian territories, the Arafat-led Fatah party began the first intifada in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The skirmishes stayed mostly at the local level and were brought to an end by the landmark 1993 Oslo Accords, which established self-rule under the Palestinian National Authority in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. The accords were set up as an interim agreement that would be a precursor to the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel, however, accelerated the growth of settlements in the West Bank, and although Palestinians had agreed to forgo violence, attacks on settlers continued.

For the umpteenth time they are not “former Palestinian territories”. These territories were part of the Palestine Mandate that was to be the Jewish homeland. These “skirmishes” as you call them did not come to an end with the Oslo Accords. In fact Arafat escalated them into deadly violence and bombings. I also object to your juxtaposition of phrases. The Oslo accords did not in any way restrict Israel’s right to settle the land but that suggestion is inherent in your statement. You seem to be suggesting that Palestinian violence is a result of Israel settlement activity. Arab violence and terrorism preceeded any settlement activity by decades. Also it is wrong to identify these attacks as “attacks on settlers” when the attacks were on Israelis in Israel.

Gaza-West Bank negotiations began in 1999 but were interrupted by the second intifada. Violence and chaos overtook the settled areas. The emergence of suicide bombers and the increasing instability within the Palestinian leadership further derailed the talks, and Ariel Sharon’s declaration of the hotly contested Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif site as eternally Israeli further enraged Palestinians.

Here we go again; negotiations were “interrupted” by a second intifada, and suicide bombers “emerged.” Come on now. Arafat planned and ordered attacks on Israel. You make it sound so benign. Arafat educated his people to hate and to kill which they did on command. That’s not worthy of a mention but you took the opportunity to suggest that because Israel claimed the Temple Mount, the Arabs were enraged leading to the violence. Thus the violence is the fault of Israel.

In 2002, President George W. Bush said that the “road map” for Arab-Israeli peace would entail a two-state solution, becoming the first American president to formally call for the formation of a Palestinian state.

Nevertheless, in that year, Israel started to build a controversial West Bank barrier — part wall, part fence. The purpose, according to the Israeli government, was to prevent Palestinians from attacking Israeli civilians. After some dispute about where the barrier would go, it was redrawn to correspond closely with the Green Line. While Israel maintains that it is a security border, others worry that the barrier will serve as a political division that will isolate Palestinians from social services.

What is glaringly missing from this is the fact that in 2002, suicide bombings ordered by Arafat claimed many lives and that was the reason Israel began building the fence. But PBS doesn’t accept this as the reason and by saying “according to Israel” suggests that maybe Israel is lying. By the way, what “social services” is PBS referring to.

PBS also fails to say the Bush made the creation of Palestine conditional on the PA choosing leaders not tainted with terror.

Arafat died in November 2004, and in January 2005, Mahmoud Abbas was chosen as the new Palestinian leader. This, along with the formation of a multipartisan Israeli government and the 2005 Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip, raised hopes for a solution to the turmoil in the Middle East.

It remains to be seen if Israel and the international community will accept the militant group Hamas in any future peace negotiations, following the group’s landslide victory in the January elections.

Why not say “It remains to be seen whether Hamas will recognize Israel and eschew violence.” The Arabs can do whatever they want but the pressure and onus is always on Israel.

If PBS gets the basics so wrong, how can it be relied upon to get any program right?

What is clear throughout this piece, is the unwillingness of PBS to blame the Arabs for all the wars and the violence while at the same time endorsing the false idea that the territories are Palestinian lands and always have been.

Sources: BBC News, CIA Factbook, MidEast Web, Palestine History, Wikipedia.(Note: Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia that it is written collaboratively by people from around the world.)

As for the sources, that is the subject matter of a whole other article.