Showing posts with label Palestinian politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian politics. Show all posts

Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Great Plunder of Safed, 15 of June - 17 of July 1834

Translator's Prologue:

On May 22, 1934, when the massacre of the Jewish community in Hebron in 1929 was still fresh in memory, the Hebrew daily newspaper Haaretz reminded its readers that pogroms took place in the land of Israel before 1920. The author, Eliezer Rivlin, chose as an example the event known as “The Great Looting of Safed,” which took place 100 years earlier. It began at June 15, 1834. The day was 8 Sivan on the Hebrew calendar. Translating this story was not simple, because of the biblical Hebrew of the author and the brutalities described. A choice had to be made between maintaining the style of the original and keeping the English understandable. I believe I was able to do so, but the English will appear odd, just as the Hebrew will be to a present-day Israeli.


The Great Plunder of Safed/ Eliezer Rivlin, Jerusalem

What has been said repeatedly in journals and books-- that until 1920 there were no pogroms against the Jews of the land of Israel -- is a mistake. For there have been such as these decades and centuries ago, even before the English conquered the land. The Jews have called it “looting” or “plunder” (in Arabic “nahib”).

In the chronicles of the Jewish community, the “plunder” and the earthquake of 1837 are the most shocking events.

The earthquake and the plunder were always a matter of conversation for the old men and women of the land of Israel, and they told it many times to their children and grandchildren.

The plunder erupted in Safed along with the revolt of the Arabs of the land of Israel against Muhammad Ali, the governor of Egypt, who took the land from the Turks and the government of Kushta (Istanbul) in 1834. He imposed mandatory military duty on all Muslim inhabitants of the land of Israel. This was something that they were fiercely against.

The first to call for a revolt were the people of Nablus, by the command of their minister Kassam Lakhama. They were joined by fellahin from the nearby villages, and rose upon Jerusalem to conquer it and take it out of the hands of the governor of Egypt.

On 22 Iyyar, (May 31), the rebels occupied Jerusalem and took control of the city. The fear among the Jews was great, for, according to Arab tradition, plunder is allowed during rebellion. And those breaking in already began looting and plundering. But to their rescue came the head of the rebels, who declared in the streets of Jerusalem that, “the Arabs, the Jews and the Christians are brothers and the one who touches any of them shall be put to death.“ This severe command was helpful in saving the lives and properties of the Jews and Christians in the Jerusalem. And after a week, on 28 Iyyar (June 3), came Ibrahim Pasha, the general of Muhammad Ali, to Jerusalem, and a large force with him, and the rebels fled the city.

Very bad was the fate of Safed, which had the largest Hebrew community in the land. All other communities in the land, including the one in Jerusalem, were its subordinates. (There were about 2,000 Jews then in Safed.)

The governor of the city of Safed aided the rebels, and the Jews of Safed bore the brunt of the guilt of Muhammad Ali and his government. The Jews became the target for rebels from within the city of Safed and from the surrounding villages and towns.

The rebellion in Safed was declared on 8 of Sivan (June 15, 1834). From all the nearby towns and villages Arabs and Bedouins came to the city drunk from revolt and began delivering havoc on the Jews. With large and small shields, lances and rifles, the first thing they did was to attack the Jews. They stripped the clothing from men and women, tore pillows and featherbeds, and spread the feathers around, tore Bible books, raped a man and a woman, destroyed houses and synagogues, and murdered many people from Israel.

Gentiles came to the domain of the Lord, in the little holiness of our temples and synagogues, and defiled the chamber of our holiness and threw all our cherished books of the Torah to the ground. They tortured righteous women upon them, and all holiness of our homes, phylacteries (tefilin) and doorpost (mezuzah) looted and plundered and thrown. And they took from the Bible books to make straps for their horses and shoes for their feet… they destroyed our homes, beating the Jews blows of death and loss. And many of them became blind and invalids, and from among them, several souls died strange deaths.

Many of the Jews fled immediately to the near and the faraway fields and mountains, outside the city, many among them naked and barefoot. Others ran to the synagogues to die a holy death there. “In the house of learning (beit midrash) of the Pharisees many gathered with their Rabbi, Rabbi Israel, author of Pe’at Shulhan –- and among them many were already wounded and injured – and they where blowing in the shofar.” And many found cover in neighbors’ yards, with Arab acquaintances and in basements.

The eruption of the rebellion came suddenly and caused much panic. Home dwellers fled in many directions, the husband ran to the field outside the city, the infant stayed lying in the cradle, and the mother in her hideout -– and the cries of the miserable -– oi father! Oi my son – tore the heavens.

At the head of the community of Safed stood then the Rabbis: the gaon (wise man) Rabbi Israel of Shklov, author of “Takalin Haditin” and “Pe’at Shulhan, student of the Vilna Gaon (Ha’gaon Rabbi Eliyahu), head of the school of Pharisees, the gaon Rabbi Margalit of Skalit, and the gaon Avraham Ba’ar from Ovruch, heads of the Hassidic schools. These three eyes of the community stood at the head of the defense and rescue of the Jews of Safed, even in time of peril, and every one of them helped his community and surroundings with great devotion.

Rabbi Gershon Margalit used the school money to bribe the qadi of Safed (chief of the religious judges) and they gathered at the qadi’s court, the rabbi and about a thousand of his parishioners.

Rabbi Avraham Ba’ar from Ovruch and with him several hundreds of his people fled immediately to the top of one of the mountains and entered a large ruin with iron gates and two wells.

Rabbi Israel of Shklov entered first with hundreds of his men from the Pharisees to the house of learning (Beit Hamidrash) of the Pharisees and blew the shofarot (ram's horns) and cried to the Lord. But the rioters came in after them to the synagogue, and beat them and robbed them. Rabbi Israel they wanted to kill, because they knew he had money from the school of the Pharisees. They said he hid it in the ground at his home. He cried and begged for his life and paid them seven reds of gold.

Then Rabbi Israel and his people fled outside the city into the vineyard field by the ancient cemetery, except the old and the frail that could not run. They remained in the synagogue and in the city streets were thrown to the ground, trampled down by the rebel rioters.

In one cave at the cemetery Rabbi Nathan Neta, son of Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Shklov and others of the Ashkenazi Jews had found refuge. But even there they were not left alone, because the rioters came after them, searching specifically for Rabbi Israel of Shklov, determined to kill him for the school money he had. They caught Rabbi Nathan Neta in the cave and they gouged out his eye. The Jews were forced to leave the vineyard and run to the great ruin on the mountain where Rabbi Avraham Ba’ar and six hundred of his people were already inside. And the ruin could not contain all the refugees, and there too they were afraid for the life of Rabbi Israel, whom the rioters chased in order to kill. Three of the Pharisees -- Rabbi Moshe Khishis, and his son in law Rabbi Shmuel Shalom of Pinsk, and Rabbi Reuben Cohen –- went to the village of Ein Zeitim, and pleaded there with the heads of the village for a large sum of money, and they were permitted to bring Rabbi Israel and some of the Pharisees, and they were there in Ein Zeitim until the order in the city had been restored.

The rebellion continued for thirty-three days, and all that time the Jews were persecuted inside and outside the city, and they were not allowed to come out of their hideouts. The exceptions were those individuals, who by acquaintances and friendship, or by giving large amounts of money, found refuge for themselves and their family members in the homes of Ishmaelites (Arabs) and in the homes of Christians. The refugees who were outside the city, and in the fields under the open sky, suffered greatly from the great cold in the mountains of Safed, and the harsh dew in this part of the country. And their hearts dropped from fear at the sound of the rebels' cries and debauchery.

And the many that hid at first with Rabbi Gershon at the qadi court had no rest either, for “their number was large” in the eyes of the qadi, and after a few days he chased out from his court the greater part of them, and they were forced to flee to the fields and mountains outside the city.

Holy and heroic Jews, heroes of strength and courage of heart, gave their lives for the sanctity of the Lord and the duty of the city and community and did not leave the city nor ask for hideouts, and the outlaw murdering bandits trampled them down. Among them many famous righteous rabbis, “the Rabbi Ha’magid from the holy congregation of Satanov, and the rabbi from Piotrkow,” had the strength to hold against the bandits and to be remembered in the list of the author of “Korot Ha’Etim” (‘The history of the times’ or the ‘Chronicles’): “ The rabbi Mo’har Ya’acov Hirsh from Mohilov, and with him a Sephardi scholar, who prepared self-defense, closed the opening to their yard and piled a large number of stones on the roofs of their homes to throw at all those coming closer to their yard. This made their assailants angry and they opened fire at them. The Sephardi scholar died instantly and rabbi Ya’acov Hirsh was severely wounded. Later the attackers entered the yard looted and plundered”.

Beseechers and public activists were found, who gave their lives helping their brothers who were in great distress. And they pleaded in every way they could to ease the misery and to end the situation. They fed the hungry, returned babies to the bosoms of their mothers, buried the dead, dressed the wounded, bribed the Gentiles, and pleaded by way of messengers and letters to the consuls and authorities in Acre and Beirut. They even gathered and hid the remnants of the books and phylacteries and doorposts, which the savages desecrated.

Rabbi Lieb Cohen and Rabbi Shalom Hayat and Rabbi Mendel of Kamnitz went from street to street, from hideout to hideout, and returned little children to the bosoms of their mothers, buried the dead, and rescued those who were robbed by the rebels. These three excel in courage of spirit, and in their specialty in understanding the ways and manners of the Arabs. They were close to the Arabs and used gifts, prayer and war. According to the testimony of Rabbi Mendel of Kamnitz, “Rabbi Lieb Cohen wrestled with the bandits that attacked him, and yet did not stop from looking after the hiding persecuted Jews and rescue them.” And Rabbi Shalom Hayat was the acquaintance of many Muslims, whose clothes he used to tailor. “…and once, in the days of mayhem, when Rabbi Shalom and Rabbi Mendel walked together, a soldier caught them and put his sword on the neck of Rabbi Shalom in order to kill him, but Rabbi Shalom did not panic and with pleasant talk and pleading told the bandit, 'remember our old love, when I tailored your clothes, but know that I do not fear from my death, because my kind sir, I am old, but please let me die on my bed.”

After the initial days of panic passed, a rescuer and a savior came to the Jews of Safed. This was Rabbi Israel of Shklov, who, from his hideout at Ein Zeitim, with sums of money and gaining the heart of the sheik of the village, was able to get into his service fellahin who went to the city and mounted on their donkeys the sick and wounded that lay out in the streets. And with the fellahin coming into the city, came in also Jews dressed as fellahin and they took out money that they hid before leaving the city.

In each day that passes the rebels who conquered the city were afraid that the army of Ibrahim Pasha will come, take vengeance on them and put an end to their misdeeds. They were also concerned about attacks from savage Bedouins and other villagers from nearby who demanded from them a share in the loot they took from the Jews. And this fear did not give them the strength to unleash all their fury on the Jews. And in one of the days of riots the rebels gathered to a public meeting and there were found among them some who wanted to benefit the Jews, and they sent messengers to the markets and streets declaring “taman,” meaning the riots are over. And the Jews were about to return to the town, but very quickly they had found out that it was not the opinion of the majority of the rebels. And they attacked the Jews again on the road, forcing them to return to their hideouts and lie in the vineyard and in the ruins.

There were also many deceivers among the Ishmaelites, from among those who made their living from the Jews, and among them a known slave who promised to take the Jews from the vineyard and the ruins to the qadi’s court in exchange for a large sum of money, and he led them under his protection to the edge of the city. There he told his brothers to attack them and rip their clothes off.

During the thirty-three days of the riots the Jewish community was dwindled and ruined. Many were beaten to death and fell in the open streets, many were severely wounded, their eyes blinded, men and women were tortured. Thirteen synagogues the Jews had in Safed, and in them five hundred books of the Torah, and all were destroyed then, the precious books of Rabbi Isaac Abuhab were lost, the synagogue of the Ha’ari Ha’kadosh (The holy lion, Rabbi Isaac Lurya), and the book of the Torah at the synagogue of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai at Meron. The homes of the Jews were emptied, and many were destroyed down to their foundations, because the bandits searched them for treasures of gold and silver. Many houses were burned. The printing press of Rabbi Israel Beck, which was in those days the only printing press in the entire land of Israel, with all its publication, the five books of the Pentateuch, and other books were destroyed and burned, and Rabbi Israel Beck was bitten many times, and he was sick in his legs for the rest of his life. Most of the Jews were left without a robe to cover their skin.

With great efforts Rabbi Israel of Shklov sent from his hideout letters to the consuls of foreign states in Beirut and informed them of the details of the troubles that befell the Jews, many of whom were the subjects of foreign states. The consuls encouraged Ibrahim Pasha to come to Safed, repress the rebellion and save the Jews from eradication. Ibrahim Pasha sent the emir of the Druze, Emir Bashir, from the Lebanon to the Galilee, and on 10 Tamuz (July 17) the emir came to the gates of Safed with a large force and repressed the revolt. Most of the rebels fled, and their leaders were caught and put to death in the open streets. And the Jews of Safed had a relief; they returned to their homes and gathered their few remaining belongings. The consuls tried to raise sums of money as compensation for their subjects and made lists of the damages, but the victims received only seven percent of the value of the damage.

In the month of Tevet (January 1,) 1837 there came upon Safed the great quake, and in Tamuz 1838 came a second plunder, and these three blows destroyed the Jewish community in Safed. But not many days later and the Jews renewed the settlement of Safed with hope, that “God shall build the Galilee.



Epilogue: brief historical notes.
According to the English traveler Alexander William Kinglake, the plunder had begun by a local Islamic clergyman named Muhamad Damoor, who incited the Moslems to attack the Jews. In sermons that he preached at the market of Safed, he gave a date for the attack and called upon them to take the treasures of the Jews, since they were thought to be very rich. Source: History of Safed/ Nathan Schur, Dvir & Am Oved publishing, Israel 1983. - Hebrew.


This tragedy is a forgotten historical event, and even in Israel few know about it. Those who do know about it mistakenly attribute it to the Druse. The attack on the Jewish community of Safed by a contingent of Druse mercenaries was in 1838, and it was a part of a quarrel they had with Ibrahim Pasha. They too thought the Jews had hidden treasures, and were encouraged to do so by local Moslems, who afterwards forced the Jews to give them a written oath that they had protected them.


This second plunder had nearly ended the existence of the community even though it was shorter, lasted only three days, and with no fatalities. After two deadly blows, the first plunder of 1834 and the earthquake of 1837, it was simply one blow too many. Thanks to the effort of the famed Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Haim Montefiore, the community recovered. Source – Nathan Schur, p. 192 – 193.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

US Israel relationships: the making of the Israeli exclamation mark, part 2; unbalancing outreach with go-between

Sixth in a series of seven
parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Given the state of relationships between the United States and the Muslim world during the Bush era, president Obama's outreach is understandable and logical from both the moral and strategic points of view. But as more gestures were made towards the Arab world the more shunned and alienated Israelis felt. It is not hard to understand why it happened; it is basic human psychology. When one is trying to win over one side that is engaged in a conflict, the other party to that conflict will be apprehensive. And the best oratory and charisma are more likely to magnify this rather then contain it. Contrary to the popular belief oratory and charisma have their limits. There are only two persons that are believed to be able to cross boundaries of conflict and mutual suspicion. They are Jesus and the anti Christ, and president Barack Obama is none of them.

In Cairo on June 4 2009, president Obama had the opportunity to put Israel’s case in front of the Muslim world as a part of his outreach. He used the same arguments George Bush Sr. used on September 23rd 1991, when he got the General Assembly of the United Nations to revoke its infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism. Both of them cited the entire Jewish history of persecutions including the holocaust, as a reason for Israel’s existence. George Bush Sr. was talking to the whole world and convinced most of it, except the Muslim world. Barack Obama was talking only to the Muslim world, the result was the same; no one from that part of the world was convinced.

As far as Israelis are concerned, Israel’s right to exist is not based on pity, but on the right of self-determination. But arguing for that right in front of the Muslim world is risking shaking it and destabilizing it, since many Arab and Muslim countries contain separatist movements within their borders. The office of the American presidency has its limits. So while the Cairo speech was an important effort it gained no political capital, not from the Muslim world and not from the Israeli public opinion.

George Bush Sr. Address to the 46th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City:
UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations

Barack Obama, Cairo speech, June 4th 2009:
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On this background came the Obama's administration new ideas for the peace process. They went as follows, Israel will make gestures to the Palestinians and the Arab countries will repay her by increasing normalization with her. This idea raised more then a few eyebrows in Israel. Why should Israel accept the normalization with other Arab countries in exchange for the concessions it is making to the Palestinians? Shouldn’t the Palestinians offer something in return?

On the Arab side it had a more concrete impact. Usually normalization is something that happens with little to no third party public encouragement. A handful of Arab countries initiate low-key normalization with Israel as a response to progress in the peace process and because of their economic interests. And countries like the United States, or some other European country, do what they can to help. It is always done behind the scenes or with low-key media exposure to avoid pressure from opposition groups and hardline Arab and Islamic countries. By making it a publicly declared US interest the market value of normalization increased. And the Arab states withdrew their product, the normalization that was already taking place, in order to get a better price for it, and the peace process took a step backwards. This forced the United States to invest time and energy in reestablishing the normalization between Israel and the moderate Arab world at the expense of the Israeli-Palestinian track.

Probably in order to put some substance in their overture towards the Muslim world the Americans made their opposition to Israel’s activities in East Jerusalem publicly known, and condemned every Israeli activity there. And they did so even if it meant attacking decisions made by Israel’s supreme court, which meant attacking Israel’s sovereignty. Right or wrong aside, they were introducing a new component to the peace process, micro commenting. They were loudly condemning minor events, the kind of which previous administrations had ignored or made non-confrontational protest against. And this new policy was definitely one sided, because other previously ignored events, such as Hamas motivated rioters throwing stones and bricks from Al Aqsa mosque on Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall, were still been ignored. When Israeli and Jewish representatives asked about this one-sidedness, criticism of the Arab side did come, but it was a part of another one-sided routine. A routine in which Israel was been lambasted publicly, in front of Israeli leaders and representatives and in front of Arab leaders, while the Arab side was been criticized only in front of Israelis or American Jews, with very little media attention. As a result Israelis naturally drifted farther away, but even at the Palestinian side the results were not constructive.


Ignored by the Obama administration.
Hamas motivated rioters throwing cinder blocks on Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall from the Al Aqsa Mosque.
 Source, Yediot Achronot, March 7th 2010, originally from AP & AFP

In the long history of Palestinian internal politics there has always been a competition as to who is the toughest guy against Israel. When both Hamas and Fatah have no military options the competition is mostly verbal. Now the Americans became a third competitor in that contest. And since the Palestinian Authority could not afford appearing less patriotic then the Americans, they took the only harder line position they could, and refused to sit in the same room with the Israelis. Thus the peace process went seven years backwards, as it was before the Aqaba summit, when the leaders of both sides where unable to sit together and talk because of Arafat’s brutal and unreliable policies. Fortunately this time it was only in the diplomatic level and without accompanying brutal violence on the ground.

Then came the Ramat Shlomo crisis. That crisis came to be because the American administration claimed Israel offended them when it announced the planning of 1600 new apartments in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem, at the same day Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting. The Americans objection to the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is well known. Been offended by a statement made by a zoning committee of the Jerusalem municipality, a low level of authority, is understandable, but to turn it into an international crisis? Over something that is virtual, since the construction is scheduled for two years after that announcement? Won’t such precedent hijack international relationships by statements made by any low-level functionary or politician?

What turned this puzzlement into a credibility gap was the fact that it did not happen in a vacuum. At that same day the Palestinians were naming a square in Ramallah after one of their heroes, a 19 year-old terroris by the name of Dalal Mugrabi. She was a member of a Palestinian commando unit responsible for the worst terrorist attack on Israeli civilians prior to the era of suicide bombings. In that attack her unit, which landed on the Israeli coast north of Tel Aviv, hijacked two buses, took their passengers hostage, fired at passing vehicles and killed 38 civilians, 11 of them children, ages 2 to 17. The first person they murdered, on the beach they landed on, was the American photographer Gail Rubin. The idea that the glorification of this crime, which took place 32 years to the date prior to Vice-President Biden’s visit, was less offensive then 1600 virtual apartments, is problematic. Why would the glorification of a brutal crime that had happen be less offensive then an announcement of a planned housing project that may or may not take place in the future? What happened to the American stand against terrorism?

terror victim
Gail Rubin

For this unreliable offense the Americans demanded concessions in the city itself. This demand was backed by another argument that was circulated in the international media and the Israeli media. It claimed that after 43 years the United States could not afford looking the other way on this issue. The problem is that this explanation has no legs to stand on. The reason the United States rarely engaged in a head-on confrontation with Israel over the settlements and East Jerusalem was because with Soviet-backed Arab and Palestinian rejectionism the Americans had no alternative to advance. With both the Cold War and the first Gulf War behind him, Secretary of State James Baker had good reason to believe he had such an alternative, and a confrontation between him and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s hardline position did occur. This confrontation ended when Shamir lost the 1992 elections. Later, President Clinton and the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin implemented a similar alternative, the Oslo accords. When Arafat literally blow up the peace process that alternative vanished. While it is not clear if under Mahmoud Abbas this alternative had returned, the current security co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian forces makes that possibility probable. However it does not include East Jerusalem, since the Palestinian positions on Jerusalem were never clear. Not during the Oslo years and not now. And the Second Initifada erupted over their rejection of any compromise over the city.


Ramat Shlomo:
Small, and close to the Green Line, even when compared to other Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.


With no indications that the current Palestinian leadership had changed its position over Jerusalem the Americans had no alternative to advance. Yet in the Ramat Shlomo/ Dalal Mughrabi crisis, they did just that, pushed for concessions without a corresponding alternative. Without an alternative to offer the only other alternative the general public in Israel could look at was the past. And that past is violent and traumatic. By forcing one-sided concessions in Jerusalem they have awakened the memories from the time Jerusalem was divided by an unstable border. This was a border that threatened the existence of Israel and Jerusalem was its political epicenter. By erasing that border the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem represent a political and psychological rejection and prevention of that past, as well as an expression of a national consensus that sees the unification of the city as a fundamental national right.

The glorification of terrorists like Dalal Mughrarbi is a part of the incitement that creates terrorism, presenting a crime against humanity as an act of heroic patriotism. The Obama administration eventually did protest against that, but made no international crisis out of it. This discrepancy created the impression that this act of incitement is legit or tolerable in the eyes of the American administration. Thus opening the fresh wounds from the spate of suicide bombings produced by such incitement. Since Dalal Mughrabi and her crime is a part of this crisis, her era echoed as well, the era of Ma’alot, Savoy Hotel, Munich, and other Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians during the 1970’s. This administration acted as if it has forgotten that the reason to oppose the settlements is to safeguard and maintain the possibility of a vibrant continuous Palestinian state, and not to reawaken Israel’s collective security traumas. Instead they’ve glued themselves to three of the worse of them.

The most probable reason for that misguided decision-making process is an ill-prepared attempt to combine outreach with the position of the go-between. It is possible that these two different goals can be combined; there is simply not enough information in the historical record to say either way. As far as this experiment goes, the result is a failure. The outreach gave no results, but the position of the go-between, essential to the facilitation of a peace process, was jeopardized. Now they are trying to fix that, though they won’t admit it. They are trying to manage the peace process as much as possible by the book of past experience, but there is no book on how to fix a mismanaged peace process.

Dvar Dea


US Israel relationships, the Palestinian component

Third in a series of seven
parts: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Why is the Israeli Palestinian peace process so difficult?
There are of course many reasons for that. One reason, which many veteran American diplomats and negotiators acknowledge with a sigh of desperation and exhaustion, is the tendency of both sides to bicker like children during the negotiations. This is not something that is easy to admit but it is apart of the problem.

Another reason, one that has no comical side to it, is the fact that in any such negotiations Israelis are asked to entrust their personal security in the hands of their enemies. This requires a huge leap of faith even under more promising conditions. Nowadays it means retaking security risks involving fears and anxieties no parent should relive. But these are Israel’s political realities, realities Israel must engage no matter how impossible they are. At the same time these realities don’t create trust out of thin air, and without trust the peace process cannot move forwards. This is where the negotiator, who is also a good friend and a close ally, comes in. As a participator in the negotiations, and co signatory with reputation on the line, the significant but not unlimited trust Israelis have in such a negotiator allay some of their concerns.

Camp-David 1979

This is why the famous picture from Camp David I, of the three heads of states had a reassuring effect. This is why President Bill Clinton's support for the Oslo accords helped maintain a large pro – peace vote in Israel in spite of three waves of Palestinian initiated violence. And that is why George W. Bush's support for the disengagement from Gaza helped get the support of a majority of already skeptic Israelis. Since the results of the disengagement from Gaza are what they are, if George Bush or Bill Clinton, as leaders of the United States, were to ask Israelis for something similar their chances of success would have been very small. For any other person in that high office less so, and for Barack Obama even less. This is evident from a June 2010 survey, quoted by CBS’ Katie Couric in her Benjamin Netanyahu interview. That survey found that 71% of Israelis dislike President Obama. This finding is an indicator of deep mistrust; since no US president had such low approval rating in Israel. This means that the most likely Israeli answer to the question whether they trust President Obama won't be just “No”; but rather “No!” A “No” with an exclamation mark, at least for the time of the survey.

There are three main phases building up to that “No!” The first is the public debate discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this series, which was more of an aggravating factor. The second is the Palestinian Authority discussed here below. The third is the Obama administration policies prior to Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in July 2010, discussed in the sixth article in this series.

Defenders of the Palestinian Authority have said that it is fulfilling its obligations under the Oslo Accords, fighting terrorism and governing the major cities in the West Bank where Israel allowed their police forces to redeploy. Even if this is true grave concerns remain:

1) The Palestinian Authority is doing NOW what it was supposed to do in the 1990s. If they are really fulfilling their commitments, they are doing it only after a wave of brutal violence they had initiated. What assurances does Israel have that if the Palestinians sign new agreements, let’s say about Jerusalem, they won’t implement them the same way, after another run of violence of their choice and making?

2) How do the Palestinians implement this alleged cooperation? With the help of a deep American involvement. There is a Palestinian American Prime Minister, with no constituency of his own other than the American and international support, and a security force commanded and established by an American general. If the Americans ease or cease their involvement will this continue or fade as if it never existed?

3) Why are they cooperating? At least a part of the answer, and not a small part, is because of fear of Hamas that is literally pointing a gun at their temple and kneecap. As solid as Hamas’ rule over Gaza currently appears, a successful missile strike into Israel or a successful terror attack against Israelis in the Sinai will lead to an Israeli military intervention that has a good chance of removing that regime, or contributing to its demise. Once that happens, and this motivation to cooperate is gone, what will encourage the Fatah/Palestinian Authority to continue their cooperation? Would the international fiscal support be enough or will they just take it and hide it, the way Yassar Arafat did?

4) There is always a cloud over the Palestinian Authority’s ability to govern. Can what happened in Gaza repeat itself in the West Bank in a similar way or a different one? Will Fatah hold itself together once Mahmoud Abbas is no longer in charge?

5) Incitement continues under the PA. As the history of the Oslo Process had shown, incitement is the engine of terrorism. Territorial concessions created opportunities for both peace and war. But the history of the Oslo process had demonstrated that incitement from both the PA sources and opposition sources contributed to the turning of territories handed over by Israel into launching pads of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

6) The Palestinian Authority is Fatah; in recent history the Tanzim in Nablus, another part of Fatah, was on Hizbullah’s payroll and command. Along with the 'Karin A' affair this grounds in reality an Israeli concern that a corrupt Palestinian Authority will switch sides and starts working with the Iranians.

All of these suggest that the Palestinian leadership has a long way to go in order to prove itself an able and willing peace partner.

Salam Fayyad and Abu Mazen
Left to right, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Palestinian president Mahmoud  Abbas

These concerns are not something Israel should hide behind when expected to deliver its part in the peace process, and help and encourage further Palestinian self-rule. At the same time this is not something the quartet should ignore, especially not the United – States. The lack of easy answers as to how they should go about this is the reason why the peace process is difficult.

Dvar Dea

Previous  Next


US Israel relationships a seven parts series:
The public debate, correcting a favorable picture
The public debate, Israel and the war on terror
The Palestinian component
The right wing component
The Israeli exclamation mark, Obama's triple inheritance
The Israeli exclamation mark, unbalancing outreach w go-between
The peace process' beggars' choice

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

US Palestine relationships – same old intransigent

The sixth Fatah congress in Bethlehem is now over, passing not surprisingly, hardline intransigent resolutions. The right of return, which is the demand for all of Palestine from the river to the sea, preserving the right to fight by any means, an old slogan that harbors some of the worse atrocities in the past 50 years, Munich, Maalot, Savoi and many, many more. Yes, they’ve said that what they mean this time is the demonstrations along the security barrier at Ne’ilin and Bil’in, but those demonstrations are there to clear away the barrier so Palestinian mass murder organizations will regain the easy access they had to our population centers in order to resume their mass slaughter of our civilians. This time though they added a cherry to their demands, all of Jerusalem including the western part, that which is within Israel proper, within the green line, that part which they tried to take in 1947 and 1948 by trying to starve its 100,000 Jewish residents.
What is left of the Israeli left tried to defend this by calling it starting positions, but these are starting positions since 1993, and when they are that long, they are called intransigent and hardline non-compromising positions.
But the thing is, it is nothing new at all, cause no matter who was in the white house, whether there was a peace process or not, or whether the prestige of a US president was at stake or not, the Palestinians always did something intransigent, something non compromising, or worse, which was contradictory to what a peace process supposed to be.

During the time of George W. Bush we saw Hamas wining the parliamentary elections then taking over violently the Gaza strip, including the Rafah district, which they lost to Fatah.
During the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, Arafat himself gave the extremist punch line by blowing up the Camp David negations and then many of us israelis. During the time of George H. Bush Arafat allied himself with Saddam Hussein. The era of Roland Reagan began with more katyusha rockets attacks on communities in northern Israel and ended with the formation of Hamas. When jimmy Carter was president they rejected the peace between Israel and Egypt and continued their campaign of mass murder of Israeli civilians inside Israel and abroad as well as against Jewish targets, this was the presidency of Jerald Ford and Richard Nixon. And during the time of Lyndon Johnson the PLO came to be with the charters of 1964 and 1968 that called for the destruction of Israel and the violence to match.




So what’s the deal? What was old becomes new again?