Book Review, Christian Zionism and the Restoration
of Israel: How Should We Interpret the Scriptures? By Dr. Chapman Chapman
Matters of history
Dr. Chapman has written a follow up to his original
book, “Whose Promised Land?” This new book is supposed to correct any
errors in the original, and interact with the feedback it generated. The book
starts with a brief look at the conflicting narratives of history concerning
Israel and the Palestinians, and then turns to address a number of important
Biblical questions again concerning the restoration of Israel.
This article will examine his conflicting narratives
of history.
This section is a little tricky to deal with, as Dr.
Chapman presents it simply as his presentation of the two contradictory
narratives (Palestinian and Jewish/Israeli), and seemingly makes no attempt to
impose any rigour or evaluation of what he presents. We seemingly do not hear
his voice. Two things however need to be noted.
1. Dr.
Chapman makes no secret that his sympathies lie with the Palestinians.
2. He
presents the Israeli views first, and then in each instance, presents a
Palestinian answer to this claim. The Palestinian answers are always longer
than the Israeli comment they respond to. In one case, 3 lines of Israeli
comment is answered by 14 lines of Palestinian reply. Overall, his supposed
Israeli narrative takes up 982 words, his Palestinian reply takes up 1813
words. These Palestinian replies are presented as the last word, the definitive
correction of the earlier, false Israeli claim. This is not a neutral section,
but rather an attack on the Israeli narrative. Israelis do not get to rebut any
Palestinian claim, rather the Palestinians get to rebut every Israeli claim. No
references are provided for any of this material.
I will therefore go through a number of the more
egregious responses (which are presented in italics). The references for this
material can be found in the relevant sections of my blog-posts; http://colinbarnesblog.blogspot.com/2018/05/where-do-christian-palestinians-fit-in.html
and http://colinbarnesblog.blogspot.com/2019/12/inter-communal-muslimchristianjewishrel.html
I have included a number of references where the material is particularly important.
On page 19, we read; “for 1,300 years there was
hardly any friction between these small Jewish communities and their Arab
neighbors within Palestine.”
This is totally false. Dr.
Chapman should not have allowed such a blatant untruth to go unchallenged in
what is presented as a reasonable response. The local Jewish community suffered
greatly from the Muslim community. To quote from firsthand accounts;
1816, “these persecuted people.”
1836, “the persecuted and despised Israelites. … My Jewish friends
conducted me around their miserable quarter.”
1839 “the melancholy aspect of the Jews in Jerusalem. The meanness
of their dress, their pale faces, and timid expression, all seem to betoken
great wretchedness.”
1852 “This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word; it
is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so
great, that it possesses no rights. … he is spiritless from oppression,
… a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar.”
In 1854 Karl Marx wrote; “Nothing equals the misery and the suffering of the Jews of Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town . . . [They are] the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks [Orthodox], persecuted by the Latins [Catholics].”
1856 “the Jews are humiliated.” The town cesspit was situated in
the midst of the Jewish quarter. “It was distressing to behold the timidity
which long ages of oppression had engendered.”
1879 “Likewise it is impossible for Jewish women to venture into
the streets because of the lewdness of the Muslims. There are many more such
sufferings that the pen would weary to describe. These occur particularly when
we go to visit the cemetery [on the Mount of Olives] and when we pray at the
Wall of lamentations, when stones are thrown at us and we are jeered at.”
The 1834 looting of the Jewish communities of Safed, Tiberius, Jerusalem and Hebron were followed by anti-Jewish pogroms in Jaffa (in 1876), and three times in Jerusalem (in 1847, 1870 and 1895). Throughout this time, Jews were forbidden to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. In Hebron, (as a sign of their degradation) they were permitted to go up to the seventh step of the entrance outside it. As they went up these steps, Muslim boys were encouraged by their elders to hit and throw stones at them, to remind them of their proper place.
Nor, shamefully, was this persecution and hatred limited to the Muslim community. A wide range of sources all state that the local Christians treated the local Jewish community with loathing.
1836; “of all the Christians and other sects in Syria [are] against them.”
1852; “if he [a Jew in Palestine]
turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite.”
1854; Jews are “insulted by the Greeks,
persecuted by the Latins.”
1887; “Jerusalem’s Muslims were
more tolerant of its Jews than were its Christians”.
Since 1840, the Christians have tried to provoke a massacre of Jews in Palestine at least five times by accusing them of a blood libel. This was also done in Damascus in 1840, and in several other places in Lebanon. In 1847, the Greek Orthodox clergy threw their full ecclesiastical and social weight behind such a claim. In open court before the Ottoman ruler they demanded, on the basis of their ancient books that ‘the Jews were addicted to non-Jewish blood.’ “The Greek ecclesiastical party came down in great force and read out of Church historians and controversial writings of old time direct and frequent accusations levelled against the Jews for using Christian blood in Passover ceremonies.” This then was not simply a mob action, but rather one championed by the highest Christian religious authorities in Jerusalem, all for the purpose of gaining official sanction for mass murder! “In the meanwhile, “Greeks and Armenians [Christians] went about the streets insulting and menacing the Jews, both men and women, sometimes drawing their hands across the throat, sometimes showing the knives they generally carry with them,’”
The traditional Christian communities also fought to affirm their right to beat up, and even kill any Jew who walked into or even just past the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Instances of this are recorded in 1846, and also in 1927 (by a group of monks).
You cannot summarize this history by writing; “for 1,300 years there was hardly any friction between these small Jewish communities and their Arab neighbors within Palestine.”
In 1923, Dr. Alexander Paterson
reflected in general upon the inter-communal relations: “It was this age-long
incompatibility, this irreconcilable enmity, that was more potent for evil than
any other single factor, and harder to be dealt with than any other obstacle to
mission work. The Moslem and Christian hated the Jew for denying and slaying
the Messiah, the Christ. The Moslem and Jew hated the Christian for worshipping
three gods. The Jew and the Christian hated the Moslem for his arrogance and
fanaticism and oppression, from which they never felt safe. Of course, they
commonly existed in an armed truce; life otherwise were impossible. But an
anniversary or an indiscreet word, an un-equal deal in business, or a false
report, and their passions were in full cry, too often the cry for blood.”
The sentence from the above quote is important; “Of course, they commonly existed in an armed truce; life otherwise were impossible.” Concerning the Jewish community during Ottoman times, Yaari writes; “subjected throughout to severe disabilities, restrictions and humiliations, they were as a rule not seriously molested.” Conditions did vary, both from place to place and over time. There were positive relations between members of the different communities, but everyone still understood the rules and knew the boundaries. Decent Muslims hid Jews during the 1929 Hebron massacre, but still the Muslim mob murdered 67-9 Jews. Likewise, during the 1834 pillaging of the Safed Jewish community, it is reported that Rabbi Menachem Mendel fled to the house of a Christian to escape the mob. These positive, welcome exceptions do not nullify the more general situations described above.
“The Arabs bitterly regret that land was often sold to Jews out of purely selfish motives. They also point out that much of the land was sold by absentee landlords living outside the land, many of whom were not Arabs, and that much of the land now owned by Jews was not acquired by legal purchase, but by expropriation or by war.” P20
Up until 1949, ALL land owned by the Jewish community
had been legally acquired. The Ottomans and the British both enforced the law. The
Ottomans clearly favoured Muslims, while the British made large areas of
Palestine off limits to Jewish purchase. By 1948, the Palestinian Arabs had
rejected three peace plans. The Jewish community accepted each of them, even
though they fell far short of what they wanted. The Palestinians then launched
an all-out war against the Jewish community, with their main strategy being to
cut off all food, water and electricity to the 100,000 Jewish civilians of Jerusalem.
Even as the fighting was turning in their favour, the Jewish community accepted
an extension of the Red Cross cease fire. The Palestinians again rejected this,
and lost territory. To then blame the Jewish community, who accepted every
peace plan, for the consequences of a war wholly started by the Palestinian
community hardly seems fair!
“The Arabs insist that at first they
welcomed the Jewish immigrants, and lived peacefully alongside them for many
years. They only began to be more hostile when they realized that many of the
immigrants were seeking more land and greater political power. Hostility
inevitably led to violence,” P20
The first wave of modern Jewish
immigration began in 1881. As seen, neither the Muslim nor the Christian communities
liked the Jews who were already there. With happy exceptions, the majority of
these communities saw no reason to welcome new additions to this community.
Opposition to these immigrants was actually remarkably fast in appearing.
In 1891, local Christians initiated an official protest against Jewish immigration to the Ottoman Government. The pre-WW1campaign against the sale of land to the Jews was likewise initiated by Christians in the north.
In 1899 the Jerusalem Mufti proposed that the Jewish newcomers be “terrorized and expelled.” This is serious opposition from the leader of the Muslim community in Palestine! In 1905 Najib Azoury, a Maronite Christian originally from Lebanon wrote against Zionism from a nationalistic and religious viewpoint. In 1909, Farid Kassab (an Orthodox Arab from Beirut) responded that Azoury was a “Catholic bigot” believed that Jews were diecides and therefore eternally damned, and “not only anti-Jewish from the religious point of view, but also anti-Semitic.” Kassab also defended the Jews of Palestine as being “peaceful and inoffensive, belonging to the same race as the Arabs. Whatever good their industry and agriculture did by reviving their ancient and barren land benefited both the Empire and themselves.” A moderate minority indeed saw no fundamental conflict, and assumed Jews and Arabs could live together.
Interestingly, more Arabs than Jews immigrated into Palestine from elsewhere during this time. [1]
Nevertheless, Jewish advancement/prosperity did offend many. In 1908 about 46 Jews were hoping to move to a vacant sand-dune outside of Jaffa. Having legally bought the empty land, their plans were delayed when the Ottoman government built a police barracks in the middle of the area. When the station was completed, “a festive procession was arranged by the Muslim and Christian Arabs, … it included sheikhs, imams and Christian priests, and also a band. The Arab youths were overjoyed. They sang and danced … and hurled abuse at the Jews.”
I don’t see the welcome here!
“The Arabs point out that they were not
in any way responsible for the persecution of the Jews in Europe, and ask why
they should have to suffer for the crimes of Europe.” P20-21
The Palestinian
leadership acted as allies of Nazi Germany during the war. They did so
specifically and explicitly because they supported Hitler’s anti-Jewish
policies. The Mufti (Al-Husseini) was a personal friend of Hitler’s, visited
and approved of concentration camps, and requested that, should the Nazis reach
Palestine, that they would build concentration camps there to murder all the
Jews of Palestine. During the war, he recruited Muslims from Nazi occupied
Europe to fight for the Nazis. In Iraq, the Al-Husseini led a pro-German
revolt, which included the Farhud massacre of hundreds of Iraqi Jews.[2] On June 1940, the Mufti, from
Iraq, sent a letter to the German embassy in Turkey. It congratulated Hitler on
his victory in France, and asked that he now address the Arab question. He
signed it as the president of the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine. In August
1940, he sent an envoy to Berlin. The Mufti wanted “a recognition of the Arabs
right to solve the Jewish problem in Palestine in a manner which conforms to
the national interest of the Arabs.” On November 28, 1941, in response to a
request from the Mufti, Hitler stated that the objective of a German advance in
the Middle East would be the destruction of Judaism in Palestine. During the
war, the Mufti broadcast on over 6 stations, telling his listeners across the
Middle East to “kill the Jews.”
Palestinian attitudes
The Palestinian community was initially sympathetic to Hitler because he hated Jews. In 1933, just after Hitler took power, the Mufti “conveyed his admiration and support to the Hitler government, praising in particular the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis.” Indeed, the Mufti contacted the German consul to declare his support and to offer his services. The Palestinian newspaper al-Jami’a al-Arabiyya, the official paper of the Supreme Muslim council, wrote in 1933; “As is well known, Herr Hitler and his party are the most violent adversaries of the Jews … As far as the position of the Arabs … because the Jews are our enemies our wish and our hope rest of course on Hitler.” Indeed, Palestinian notables met with the German Consul in Palestine in 1933 as they wished to learn more about the German boycott of Jewish goods, and to offer their help in this. The Consul reported that the Mufti wanted to join the boycott and offered to spread the word through special emissaries if necessary. That is, from the very start, the Palestinians were well aware of the Nazi anti-Jewish policies, supported the Nazis because of them and even offered to help them internationalize them.
Mary Wilson, a teacher at Biezeit throughout the revolt, noted that most of her students were pro-Nazi and approved of Hitler. One of the first public opinion polls in Palestine, conducted by Sari Sakakini, on behalf of the American consulate in Jerusalem in February 1941, found that 88 percent of the Palestinian Arabs favoured Germany and only 9 percent Britain. These feelings were reciprocated. In September 1938, Hitler told the Sudeten Germans; “Take the Arab Palestinians as your ideal. With unusual courage they fight both England’s British Empire and the world Jewry.”
Hitler’s persecution of Germany’s Jews was also widely reported in the Palestinian Jewish press. Outside of Germany itself, of all peoples, it was the Palestinians who had the greatest exposure and access to information as to what was happening to the Jews of Germany – Palestine was where many of these desperate refugees were going! They just had to ask!
How then did they respond to Jewish claims of persecution in Germany, especially as these persecutions were being used to justify Jewish immigration into Palestine? ‘Isa al-‘Isa, Sakakini, a prominent Palestinian Orthodox Christian, mocked them as paranoid; they were “always wailing about being persecuted by the Germans.” Nor did this change when confirmed by the facts. Sakakini could not “forgive the Jews, even when he learned that the Nazis were killing them.” His daughter, Sari-al-Sakakini wrote at the time that the Arab national movement was pro German, not because of bribes or German agents, but because the Germans opposed the Jews, and so “the Arabs had turned to Germany.” Indeed, after German army successes of 1939/40, Hitler was described as “an Arab hero.”
The Palestinian community
knew that Hitler was persecuting the Jewish people. They did not express
horror or outrage, rather they gave massive approval. They inquired as to how
they might assist and emulated them.
Aware of their persecution, in 1936 Palestinians started the Arab Revolt, whose main demand was that no Jews be allowed to find refuge among them. This revolt led the British to ban Jewish refugees trying to flee Europe to Palestine. Jewish migration to Palestine dropped from over 66,000 in 1935 to 12,000 in 1937 and stayed low even as Hitler’s persecution of them intensified. There was a whole year after Kristallnacht before the war, when Jews were both most desperate and should have been able to leave. The Palestinians knew they were being killed, and they responded violently, shutting the doors to escape in their faces. Local Christian leaders played a prominent role in the 1936 General Strike, a fact approved of by many in the Christian the anti-Israel crowd of today. On August 19, 1936, Palestinian Christian leaders appealed to the world to halt the Jewish immigration. They used traditional anti-Semitic arguments to insist that the international Christian community should prevent Jews from “defiling” the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and prevent the neglect of the holy sites that supposedly would occur under Jewish rule. “An impressive list of Christian leaders from the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Maronite communities signed a ‘Call of Palestinian Christians to the Christian World to Save the Holy Places from Zionist danger.’”
Given that those
Jews were trying to flee the genocide of the Holocaust, that those who could
not flee were murdered, how should we view this Palestinian stance?
Palestinians need to own up to their Jew hatred and repent.
Different options, anti-Zionism verses anti-Semitism
Given that Jewish refugees arriving in Palestine during the British Mandate desired the formation of a “Jewish national home” within Palestine (something which occurred in no other land where Jewish refugees went), one can posit the proposition that in rejecting the arrival of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, the Palestinian community were anti-Zionist, but not necessarily anti-Semitic.
This could be a complicated theoretical discussion,
but history gives us a clear, unambiguous answer. Basically, to be anti-Zionist
but not anti-Semitic, the Palestinian Arab communities would have objected to
the idea of Jewish national home within Palestine, but wished Jews well,
elsewhere. To be anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, they would have had to not only
oppose the Jewish community within Palestine, but to also oppose Jews wherever
they lived.
Were the Arab communities
then simply anti-Zionist, opposing the creation of a Jewish State, but wishing
Jews elsewhere well? If so, then they would then have opposed an ideology
(Nazism) which was responsible for increasing the very thing, Jewish
immigration, that they were struggling with. Christian (and Muslim) Arabs could
well have decided that their best option was to help ameliorate conditions for
Jews in Germany, as this would vastly reduce the number wanting to flee. While
by no means an ideal position (due to the zero percent chance they would be
able to change Nazi policy) it could have been an option. A better option would
have been welcoming and valuing the fleeing refugees.
They did not have to make common cause with Hitler.
His early anti-Jewish measures harmed the Palestinian cause. No Arabs viewed it as such, however – attacking Jews was an obvious reaction against the possible creation of a Jewish state. This distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is largely a Western construct devised by people who wish to hate the Jewish state, but not suffer the opprobrium of anti-Semitism. The Palestinian Arab community, like the Arab communities in general, had no qualms about hating Jews in general and see such hate as part and parcel of their struggle against the Jewish State. The minute distinctions between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (or Jew-hatred) are simply not a pre-occupation for the vast majority of Arabs That was a European reaction to the Holocaust.
In fact, they voted with their hearts. The Arab communities across the Middle East (in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere), including the Christian Arabs in Palestine, saw in Hitler a kindred spirit, someone who shared their hatred of Jews, and they embraced him as such. Hitler got it. He understood. He shared their worldview. For this reason, they gave him their love. Al-Husseini, the official leader of the Palestinian Arab community, advised Hitler that the best way to win Arab hearts was to preach hatred of the Jews.
The Mufti and the Holocaust
In November 1941, the Mufti arrived in Berlin, where he would stay till the end of the war. He was given an official reception, luxury accommodation at the Castle Bellevue, and an annual stipend of the equivalent of $12 million a year.[3] In their first meeting, Hitler agreed with the Mufti that they were fighting a common enemy, “the Jews,” and told the Mufti “The Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power.” The Mufti approved of and visited concentration camps and desired one for Palestine.[4] Already in 1937, he had issued an ‘Appeal to all Muslims of the World’, urging them to “cleanse their land of the Jews.”[5] By May 1942, both Hitler and Mussolini had officially agreed to his request to liquidate [murder] the Jews of Palestine.[6] In November 1943, the Mufti said: “It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries…. Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.”[7] This was global genocidal anti-Semitism.
The Mufti pressured the Axis forces to murder the Jews of the Middle East wherever they were able. Walter Rauff, who had invented the mobile gassing vans, was appointed head of the Gestapo in Tunis, and in this capacity murdered 2,500 Jews in Tunisian, and deported to Europe a further 350. After the war, he worked for Syrian intelligence. On June 24, German forces crossed into Egypt. The next day al-Husseini’s “Voice of the Free Arab” radio station told its listeners in Cairo to start making lists of the home addresses and workplaces of every Jew there, so they could all be annihilated.[8] The Mufti wrote that Eichmann (the architect of the Holocaust) was “a rare diamond, … the best redeemer for the Arabs.”[9] He also intervened numerous times to prevent Jews from fleeing Axis lands and specified that they should be sent to Poland instead, a destination he knew equated to death. Writing of his efforts to prevent Jewish Bulgarian children from being allowed to flee Europe, German Foreign Office Councillor, Wilhelm Melchers, who worked closely with him in this, stated “the Mufti was a sworn enemy of the Jews, and made no secret of the fact he would rather see them all killed.”[10] Writing of these events after the war, the Mufti viewed them favorably “my letters had positive and useful results for the Palestinian problem.”[11]
After the war
The Mufti was not in Palestine during the war, so his views and actions are not necessarily representative. That he would return to Palestine after the war (as a wanted Nazi war-criminal) and is revered by them to this day (his photo is given pride of place in the offices of PA president, Mahmoud Abbas) is what makes his actions during the war of wider significance.
On June 2, 1946, the Mufti returned to the Middle East and resumed leadership of the AHC. Concerning the Nazi collaboration of the Mufti and his circle; “al-Husseini and the other Arab and Muslim collaborators would emerge from the war not only unscathed but with their political careers intact. Indeed, their prospects actually improved.” In 1948, Anwar Nusseibeh wrote that the Mufti had not gone beyond the principles of Arab patriotism by collaborating with the Nazis. Whatever false claims for Palestinian ignorance during the war existed, none exist now, yet still there was no repentance, no second thoughts. In 1945, the Christian Arab community at least could have said to the Jewish refugees; “In 1936 we ignored your cries for help, we shut our doors in your faces, and now we know that you died there in your millions. Please forgive us, come, your survivors will always have a home with us.” Rather, in 1947 a conference in Jerusalem of the Arab Orthodox clergy sent a telegram to the Arab Higher Executive, led by Haj Amin al-Husseini (the wanted Nazi war criminal) expressing “absolute confidence in its leadership.”
To this day, Hitler and Mein Kamph remain popular across the Middle East, and among Palestinians. In 1999 for example, Mein Kampf was “sixth on the Palestinian best-seller list." Recently a Palestinian journalist was fired from the BBC for posting that “Hitler was right.”[12] There is a deluge of posts on Facebook, TicToc etc by Palestinians proclaiming their love for Hitler In Gaza there is a fashion store named Hitler, (Young Palestinians who visited the shop told Reuters they were drawn to the place as a symbol of their solidarity "The name of the shop is 'Hitler' and I like him because he was the most anti Jewish person.”)[13] and recently the “official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida had warm words for a member of the Atwan family who chose to name his son Eichmann, after SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann, one of the key Nazi major officials who propagated the Holocaust.”[14] This popularity is iconic. It is not because of the political and economic theories laid out in Mein Kampf, it is due solely to Hitler’s hatred and murder of Jews, a hatred and a goal shared by far too many. They continue to recognise in him a kindred spirit. This again gives lie to the idea that Palestinians are anti-Zionist, but not anti-Jewish. Had they been so, they would have opposed Hitler and hoped that the Jews remained happy in Germany.
Conclusion
So, when Dr. Chapman writes; “The Arabs point
out that they were not in any way responsible for the persecution of the Jews
in Europe, and ask why they should have to suffer for the crimes of Europe,”
he is leaving out a lot!!
He ignores that in 1936, when they already knew what
was happening to the Jews of Germany they started a four/year violent Revolt whose
primary goal, and the only one fully supported by the Christian Palestinian
community, was to prevent Jewish refugees from being able to find refuge among
them. During the war, their leader intervened repeatedly with Hitler and other
top Nazi officials to prevent thousands of Jews from being allowed to flee, and
rather, to be sent to the gas chambers. Without these actions by the
Palestinian people and leadership, tens of thousands of Jews who perished in
Europe (quite probably hundreds of thousands) would rather have escaped and
survived. And that is with a Nazi defeat! Had the Nazis won, they had an
agreement that he would murder the entire Jewish population of Palestine as
well. They loved him then and they love him now. Do not tell me they were
innocent! Dr. Chapman concludes his discussions of the Holocaust with the
words; “Jews have shamelessly used the Holocaust as a justification for
their expansionist goals.” p. 25.
Dr. Chapman’s writing here is unacceptable. It is
profoundly inadequate to hide behind “I am simply presenting the Palestinian
narrative.” Without any corrective from him, leaving this up as the final word,
he is rather spreading Palestinian lies and disinformation to a trusting
Western readership.
Significance
Even such repugnant behaviour as evidenced above would
not justify Israelis attacking and driving out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
That however is not what happened (see below). The significance of the events
surrounding the Holocaust for Israel/Palestine is quite different. The leader
of the Palestinians during 1947-8 (a wanted Nazi war criminal who is still revered
by the PA and many other Palestinians today) had made his views on what he
wanted as a solution to the problem clear. The total destruction/mass murder of
the Jewish community. No wonder they rejected peace plans, partition and
compromises! This before the war of 1947/8 even started.
We talk about the Palestinians rejecting every peace
plan/compromise offered, but these plans were only offered because of
Palestinian violence towards their Jewish neighbours! See 1921, 1929, 1936-9
etc. Partition was never a Jewish desire. They wanted simply to live together
as equals. The Palestinian population were supportive of Hitler because of his
violence towards Jews way before the events of the so-called Nakba. That
is not the root of the problem. It was the Palestinian refusal to live at peace
with the Jewish community, as shown in their support of Hitler before, during
and after the war, which is the root cause of the problem. Jews were despised dhimmis,
how dare they act like equals! Arab Christian desires for equality with the
Muslims had likewise seen 1.5 million of the murdered 1894-1924. Before any
violence had been visited upon the Palestinian community, they were already
dreaming of the genocide of their Jewish neighbours. This is the significance
of the events surrounding the Holocaust.
When Palestinians (mainly Christians) propose one
democratic, secular state over all of the 1930 Palestine, they ignore that this
was the reality which the Palestinian people rejected with mass killings. The
chance of it succeeding now, with all the additional history since then, and
the chance of the Muslim community accepting and living up to it now, when they
rejected it in much better times then, is non-existent.
“In the fighting before and after the
establishment of Israel in May 1948, many Arabs were encouraged by their
leaders to leave.” “This myth—along with many of the other founding myths of
Israel—has been exploded by Israeli Jewish historians who have documented the
process of ethnic cleansing, based on the concept of ‘transfer,’ which was
intended to leave as few Arabs as possible within the new state.”
Dr. Chapman here, in his own version of the
Palestinian narrative, has the Palestinians quoting Israeli historians. An
article in the Irish Times, by one of those very Israeli historians, responds
to just such an accusation as Dr. Chapman makes (and is well worth reading in
full, as is his book, 1948). “Israel-haters are fond of citing - and
more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer
some corrections.” And, after an excellent discussion, he concludes “The demonisation
of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews
during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection
between the two. I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some
history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shop-worn Arab
propaganda.”[15] Morris
also correctly notes that “Most of Palestine's 700,000 ‘refugees’ fled their
homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would
shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it
is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla,
from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.”
As noted, in 1947 the Arabs rejected compromise and
peace, and started a war where ethnic cleansing and possible genocide were
their preferred outcomes. Ismail Safwat, who was in charge of coordinating the
invading Arab armies, telegraphed the Arab League that the war’s objectives
were “To eliminate the Jews of Palestine, and to completely cleanse the country
of them.” In March 1948, the Mufti, the leader of the Palestinians, said that
the Arabs would “continue to fight until the Zionists are eliminated and the
whole of Palestine is a purely Arab state.”
Had they rather accepted peace, there would be
no refugees. Where successful, Arab forces expelled, killed or imprisoned
all Jews from areas captured, and not a single Jew remained. This included the
Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and 12 other Jewish communities which were
captured and totally destroyed. In view of this, it is concerning that later,
without shame, has his supposed Palestinian respondents say that “And
if there is ever to be peace, the victors have to make significant concession
and not impose a settlement on the weaker party.” It
would seem that the Mufti did not get that memo! Israel however did
not expel all the Arabs in the territory it occupied, and today 20% of the
population of Israel is Arabic.
The first stage of the war, November 47 to March
48, saw 100,000 Palestinians leave. During this stage of the war, the Jewish
forces were on the defensive, repelling Arab attacks and trying to get food to the
increasingly desperate Jewish civilians of Jerusalem. No Palestinian areas or
villages were captured in this phase. Those who left at this stage were largely
upper-middle class families. They left because the general situation was
deteriorating, Arab gangs had moved into many Arab areas to both protect and
loot them, and if you can, why stay in an area where war is threatening. “During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the
Palestinian-Arab middle class in the three larger cities – Jerusalem, Jaffa,
and Haifa – was among the first groups to leave the country, in the initial
stage of the war.” Almost all Arabs believed that they would quickly defeat the
despised Jews, and then things would settle down and they could return. An IMEU
review of a new book, speaking about the Arabic author’s mother in Jerusalem in
1948, writes; "Mona’s mother went to stay with an aunt supposedly
temporarily, but then could not return."[16] There
is no hint of violence here, rather, why stay in a difficult situation when you
can leave temporarily (they likewise assumed that the Arabs would win). Once
they have dealt with all the Jews, we can return. If they are able, civilians tend
to leave war zones during a war – this is a natural human reaction. Blame the
war for this reality, and those who started it, not those who had accepted the peace
offered.
Across Palestine, the drift of the middle class out
of Palestine, especially the sending of their sons to get them away from the
war, concerned the AHC. On March 8, 1948 the Mufti raised the issue with the
governments of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. He wrote about the preference “of a
great number of Palestine’s sons to leave their cities and settle in
neighbouring Arab countries.” He wrote that the AHC had decided that no one
would henceforth be allowed to leave Palestine without its approval, and that
“the numerous Palestinians who had left since the start of the fighting” were
to be compelled in the national interest to return. Typical of the corruption
that has always been endemic to the Palestinian leadership, the Lebanese consul
to Jerusalem wrote in the same month of the growing bitterness among the
population towards the AHC, whose leaders were fleeing the country.
The example of Haifa.
In March, after the defeat of the local Arab
militia, the AHC ordered the removal of women and children from Haifa. Shabtai
Levy, mayor of Haifa, who had tried to negotiate a local truce in December 47,
now issued another plea to his Arab colleagues to return to the city. On the
eve of renewed fighting, sparked by news of a British withdrawal from major
parts of the city, the Arab military commander and two of his deputies also
fled the city, prompting a new wave of Arab departures.
On April 22, 1948, after having been defeated
militarily in Haifa, the remaining Arab leadership (a mixture of Muslim and Christian
notables, led by the local Muslim Brotherhood leader, Sheikh Murad) asked the British to negotiate a
truce with the Jews. Under the auspices of the British,
the leaders of its Arab
community then met with the leaders of the
Jewish community. The Jewish community offered them a future “as equal and free
citizens of Haifa.” The Jewish Mayor, Shabtai Levi, further expressed his
desire that the two communities continue to “live in peace and friendship” and gave “an impassioned plea for peace and reconciliation.” After breaking to consult, the Arab notables, now
all Christian, re-assembled and stated that could not sign the truce, and that
the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa. Levi begged them to reconsider,
he said they should not leave the city “where they had lived for hundreds of
years, where their forefathers were buried, and where, for so long, they had
lived in peace and brotherhood with the Jews.” Both the Jewish mayor and the
commander of the Jewish forces in Haifa then asked the Arab negotiators to
reconsider this course of action. They said they were committing “a cruel crime
against their own people”, and that, if they stayed, “they would enjoy equality
and peace.” The British mediator at the talks added; “You have made a foolish
decision. Think it over, as you will regret it afterwards. You must accept the
decision of the Jews. They are fair enough. Don’t permit life to be destroyed
senselessly. After all, it was you who began the fighting and the Jews have
won.” The Christian Arab leaders replied that they had no
choice, and within a few days, only 3,000 Arabs remained within the city.
Strenuous efforts were then made by the Jewish community to convince the Arab population to stay. Bizarrely, the Arab leadership saw the departure (rather than agreeing to a truce), as a victory, and the Jewish community saw their leaving as a defeat. Force was used by the Arab leadership to compel some Arabs to leave. For example, “shortly after announcing their intention to remain in their workplace, the Christian employees of the British army’s northern headquarters began leaving en masse. Asked for the reason for their sudden change of heart, they said they had been threatened with severe punishment if they did not leave.”
“Without doubt, the notables were chary of agreeing to surrender terms out of fear they would be dubbed traitors or collaborators by the AHC.” One of the participants subsequently told how they had been instructed or brow-beaten by Sheikh Murad, who did not participate in this second part of the townhall gathering, to adopt this rejectionist position.
The reasons for the Arab decision to evacuate Haifa were stated at the time. The British withdrawal was almost complete, and once they left, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon would invade. Better to leave for a few days, than to shamefully sign a treaty with the soon to be defeated Jews. The Palestinian militias might have lost their battle with the Jewish forces, but the Arab armies were expected to win. One of the Arab negotiators told his Jewish counterpart; “they had instructions not to sign the truce … as this would mean certain death at the hands of their own people, particularly the Muslim leaders guided by the Mufti.”
Dr. Chapman’s paraphrase of the Israeli narrative “In
the fighting before and after the establishment of Israel in May 1948, many
Arabs were encouraged by their leaders to leave” might better have been
phrased as “many Arabs left of their own free will before and during the
fighting. Many of these were indeed encouraged to leave by their leadership,
others simply because they could. Others were indeed expelled by Israeli forces
during a bitter and unnecessary war brought upon them by the Palestinian
refusal to accept either compromise or peace.”
Dr. Chapman makes many other inaccurate comments in
what he has chosen to write as his version of the Palestinian narrative (my
discussions above are simply a representative sample). Sadly, he seems content
to let mistruths that he has written stand as the definitive reply to his
version of Israeli claims.
[1] https://www.cjpme.org/fs_181
[2] “The
Iraqi government established an investigation committee to look into the riots,
and the findings revealed that Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and
the Nazi Arabic-language propaganda broadcast on the radio from Berlin were the
main causes behind the massacre. .. In
his memoirs, he even justified the Farhud.” https://www.jewishideas.org/article/farhud-remembering-tragic-time-iraqi-jews
[3] Rubin,
Barry and Schwanitz, Wolfgang. Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the
Modern Middle East. Yale University Press, 2014., 5.
[4] Rubin and Schwanitz, 138, 163 see
also 123, 125, 127, 133.
[5] Rubin and Schwanitz, 94.
[6] Rubin and Schwanitz, 138.
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world.,
Black, 148, Rubin and
Schwanitz, 172.
[8] Rubin and Schwanitz, 140.
[9] Black, Edwin. The Farhud.
Dialog Press, 2010. 345.
[10] Black, 349.
[11] Black, 350. For insight
into the profoundly Islamic religious basis for this anti-Semitism, see Black, 338,
347, 309-10. See also Rubin and
Schwanitz, 95 and 165
especially.
[12] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/23/bbc-investigating-palestinian-journalist-tweeted-hitler-right/
[13] https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/name-of-shop-is-hitler-and-i-like-him-because-he-was-the-most-anti-jewish-person-432190
[14] https://www.jwire.com.au/pa-official-daily-lauds-family-who-named-son-eichmann-to-anger-zionism/
[15] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/israel-and-the-palestinians-1.896017
[16] https://imeu.org/article/mona-hajjar-halabys-new-book-and-the-journey-behind-it?fbclid=IwAR2nigy8BJYI5WCHASvicDHrzntqeDnLiOYTGBiO97Lmi4pJlkiyA_TT5A4
No comments:
Post a Comment