By Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist ——Bio and Archives--April 13, 2010
Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“You acknowledge that "the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 (i) called on Israel to withdraw its armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict' " but went on to argue that "the resolution deliberately omitted the word 'all' before 'territories' in (i) above to allow the parties to negotiate". Sir, I could argue that you are hiding behind an ambiguity, but what ambiguity. The text of UN Security Council Resolution 242 is totally clear. It requires the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Your lie ring even more hollow when one is reads the text that precedes the above statement in UN SCR 242 where the Security Council "emphasiz(es) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". The rest of your article is filled with myths from the 1950s, all of which were fully discredited by Israel's own new historians. You are in serious need of education in Israel's history. I recommend any book by Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, or Illan Pappe. As for Norman Finkelstein, what separates him from you sir is the fact that Finkelstein rejects violence and terror, whereas you reject terror only when it suits you. That is a trait you share with apologists for every violent criminal regime in human history, including, the current Iranian regime.”First, let us take a look at the ambiguity that I am supposedly creating all by myself out of the language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calling on Israel to withdraw its armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” I pointed out the omission of the word 'all' before 'territories.' To prove that this was a deliberate omission, I will take the word of those who were actually involved in the drafting and negotiation of Resolution 242 rather than the word of after-the-fact revisionists. Eugene V. Rostow (former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs), was one of the U.S. officials involved in drafting Resolution 242. He has stated:
“Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved.”The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated:
“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.”The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated:
“The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure.”Security Council Resolution 242 was drafted to provide the parties room for negotiation, not to ratify what the Arabs had managed to seize illegally during the 1947-48 conflict. As for the “myths from the 1950s” which I am accused of perpetuating, the author of the e-mail critical of my article cites no examples. He just suggests that I read “Israel's own new historians” to educate myself about “Israel’s history.” My question to him is whether these “new historians” have unearthed some archeological evidence to show that Israel, not Jordan and Egypt, was really in total control of the West Bank and Gaza respectively during the 20 year span between 1948 and 1967. Even taking Norman Finkelstein’s account alleging that Israel “invaded the Egyptian Sinai and occupied Gaza” in October 1956 at face value (citing “new historian” Benny Morris), he admitted that “in March 1957 Israel was forced to withdraw from Gaza.” So at most, Israel occupied Gaza for 6 months out of a 20 year period before the 1967 war. And the West Bank remained firmly in Jordan’s hands for the entire 20 year period. Did the “new historians” unearth evidence of the creation of an independent Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan itself) during those 20 years of Arab administration of the disputed areas, which Israel then immediately destroyed after the 1967 war? If so, I would love to see the evidence. The fact is that the Palestinians’ Arab neighbors did not want an independent Palestinian state on their borders (Jordan had annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and wouldn’t absorb many of the Palestinian refugees into their countries. Those relying on a new Israeli historian like Benny Morris may want to delve a bit deeper into Morris’ thinking. Admitting that there was no master Israeli policy or government order to transfer Arab populations (while claiming that such an idea was in the “atmosphere”), Morris is quoted as making this astounding observation in an interview which does not help those who cite Morris in support of the Palestinian cause:
“Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands. Moreover, if he [Ben-Gurian] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations… There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history… If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential…”Morris went much further than certainly anything that I have said in my articles. He is quoted as referring to the Palestinians as “barbarians” and adding:
“The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks… At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers.”With regard to Norman Finkelstein, whom the e-mail writer praises for his fair-mindedness, consider this excerpt from a New York Times review of Finkelstein's "Holocaust Industry." The reviewer was Omer Bartov, author of ''Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide, and Modern Identity'' and the John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University:
“There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid. This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts."Finally, considering that the e-mail writer characterized “the current Iranian regime” as a “violent criminal regime,” I can’t help but wonder why he chooses to be on the side of terrorist organizations that this “violent criminal regime” supports with funds, training and arms – namely, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.