In a letter to Green Left Weekly, printed in issue #469, Yula Geredov continues to claim that I misrepresent the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by presenting a "one-sided, biased account" of the current situation. The questions she poses to me, however, indicate that she is the one who has been inculcated with the official Zionist version of Palestinian history.
Yes, there are "two-sides to every story" in politics, but the whole point of attempting to understand reality is to work out which one accords with the facts.
Geredov states: "The Palestinians would now be living in their own state if they had not rejected the UN's proposal in 1947 (to create two states) and did not march on Israel in 1948 (the War of Independence) together with Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon."
This statement is the classic myth of the Zionist movement: Palestinians were too greedy, they should have accepted a fair and equal resolution in 1947, but instead they decided to invade in 1948.
The UN partition and the 1948 war
What are the facts of the matter? In late 1947 the United Nations proposed that the British-ruled territory of Palestine be divided into a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The UN partition plan recommended that 55% of Palestine, the most fertile region, be given to the Zionist settlers who compromised 30% of the population and owned 6% of the land. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise an independent homeland for the indigenous Arabic-speaking population (the other 70% of Palestine's inhabitants).
Moreover, the territory allocated to the Jewish state included the coastal plain extending from Akka to Ashdod and other fertile lands, while the Palestinians were left mainly with mountainous and poor regions. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was unjust and it was to be implemented regardless of their wishes. The plan was not submitted to a vote of the inhabitants of Palestine, thus denying the Palestinian nation its right to an act of self-determination.
Geredov claims that the Arabs "marched on Israel in the [May 1948] War of Independence". The truth is that by May 1948 the Zionist colonisers had already invaded and occupied large parts of the territory allocated by the UN to the Palestinians. The Palestinian inhabitants of these areas were forcibly expelled from their homes and villages and Zionist massacres of Palestinian villagers occurred before May 1948 (for example, the notorious massacre at Deir Yassin where 120 Palestinians were killed on April 9, 1948).
The evidence that the Zionist colonisers started the 1948 war comes from Zionist sources. The History of the Palmach (a Zionist pre-state militia), which was released in portions in the 1950s (and in full in 1972), details the efforts made to attack the Palestinians and secure more territory than was allotted to the Jewish state by the UN partition plan (Kibbutz Menchad Archive, Palmach Archive, Efal, Israel).
Zionist forces were implementing their "Plan Dalet" to "control the area given to us [the Zionists] by the UN in addition to areas occupied by Arabs which were outside these borders and the setting up of forces to counter the possible invasion of Arab armies after May 15" (Qurvot 1948, p. 16, which covers the operations of Haganah and Palmach, see also Ha Sepher Ha Palmach, The Book of Palmach).
The following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the major military operations the Zionists mounted before the British evacuated Palestine and before military forces from the neighbouring Arab states entered Palestine: Qazaza (December 21, 1947); Sa'sa (February 16, 1948); Haifa (February 21, 1948); Salameh (March 1, 1948); Biyar Adas (March 6, 1948); Qana (March 13, 1948); Qastal (April 4, 1948); Deir Yassin (April 9, 1948); Lajjun (April 15, 1948); Saris (April 17, 1948); Tiberias (April 20, 1948); Haifa (April 22, 1948); Jerusalem (April 25, 1948); Jaffa (April 26, 1948); Acre (April 27, 1948); Jerusalem (May 1, 1948); Safad (May 7, 1948); Beisan (May 9, 1948).
In an address to US Zionists in Jerusalem on September 3, 1950, Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, stated: "Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah [the official Zionist militia linked to the Israeli Labour Party], under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, New York, Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530).
Israeli historians have also refuted the claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Benny Morris uncovered a June 30, 1948, report from the Israeli Defense Force Intelligence Branch which shows that it was Zionist policy to attack to expel the Palestinians (Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948", Middle Eastern Studies, XXII, January 1986, pp. 5-19).
Barak's proposal
Geredov claims that the Palestinians rejected a generous offer by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (the Camp David proposal) which would have given them control over 95% of the West Bank and seen the dismantling of most of the Israeli colonial settlements in the Occupied Territories. This too, is an oft-repeated myth peddled throughout the mainstream media and by Israeli government spokespeople. It is designed to place the blame for the current intifada on the Palestinian people rather than the Israeli occupation.
The figure of 95% is entirely misleading. It excludes the Jerusalem area, which under Israeli definition makes up around 10% of the West Bank and cuts a large swathe into the West Bank.
Barak's "generous offer" also included the annexation of around 10% of the West Bank to Israel. This area included the settlement blocs in which there are already more than 150,000 Israeli settlers.
What would the results of such a plan be? A Palestinian state in name but not in practice. This state would consist of four cantons in the West Bank: Jericho; the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem", a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm); and a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons would be completely surrounded by territory to be annexed by Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration would be under Palestinian administration, but not real control.
Barak's proposal would mean that Palestinian movement would be cut by Israeli settlement blocs, army checkpoints and Israeli-only bypass roads. Barak's "generous offer" was nothing more than an Israeli version of apartheid.
Even more importantly, all the Israeli plans include a critical point — abandonment by the Palestinians of the demand that Palestinians (and their descendants) who were driven out of the territory seized by the Zionists in 1948 be allowed to return.
Rejection of this demand is the crux of Israel's negotiation strategy.
On the point that Barak offered the Palestinians "control over parts of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount", Jerusalem is under Israeli occupation and was annexed in the wake of the 1967 war. This fact is even recognised by the UN Security Council (see UNSC resolutions 465, 904). The Camp David proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the Israeli occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem.
Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighbourhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighbourhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli settlements and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian territory. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.
Moreover, Barak's proposals gave Israel control over all borders. The Israeli army would have patrolled the proposed Palestinian state's eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period.
Finally, Geredov asked me to justify a quote from what she called, "Al Hagat Al Judida — official Palestinian Authority daily". This newspaper is actually called Al Hayat Al Jadeeda, and it is not an "official" PA daily. It is a privately run newspaper and is about as official as the Sydney Morning Herald.