Week ending August 18, 2012

I want to start this week by talking about "Palestine". I put it in quotes because there are a number of different definitions of this term, and, as we shall see, it's important to be clear about what one means when using it.

The term was originally invented by the Romans after they had thoroughly put down the Jewish rebellion against their rule and had utterly destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, which had been the center of Jewish life for at least a millenium by that time. They created a province called Palestina, naming it deliberately after the Philistines, ancient enemies of the Jews and a people who had already disappeared hundreds of years before that time. So, the term was born of ancient anti-Jewish animus.

The term continued to be used in the increasingly Christian and anti-semitic West. But, during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule, it was NEVER used by them to designate any kind of administrative area or province.

The next emergence of "Palestine" as a legal or political designation came with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent establishment, by the League of Nations, of the "Palestine Mandate". This area included virtually all of the area currently under Israeli control (except parts of the Golan), Gaza, and the current Kingdom of Jordan. The area was to be administered by the British in preparation for eventual self-rule. Also, it was specifically recognized as the homeland of the Jewish people, who were to be encouraged to settle throughout it.

Almost immediately, though, the British began backing away from the idea of Jewish settlement in "Palestine" (in this case, the Palestine Mandate), mostly as a result of fierce Arab opposition and violence against the Jews.

Already by the early 1920s, the British stripped away what is now the Kingdom of Jordan (well over half of the territory of the Palestine Mandate) and gave it to the Hashemite family (the current monarchy of that kingdom), who were actually originally from further south and had been the traditional guardians of the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina (which were given, instead, to the Saudi family, as they remain to this day).

In the remaining part of "Palestine" (the part west of the Jordan River), the British also began limiting Jewish immigration more and more, again as the result of Arab violence. This was particularly reprehensible during the 1930s and 1940s, when there was an URGENT need for a place where European Jews could flee from the Nazis. Hundreds of thousands of Jews could have escaped the Holocaust if the British had opened the gates of "Palestine" as they were actually obligated to do. Instead, some Jews managed to make it, either legally or illegally, but many perished. Meanwhile, the Jews who WERE in Palestine were busy building the economy, and that attracted many Arabs who could easily migrate from nearby Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan (now Jordan), and Egypt. These Arabs resisted being called "Palestinians", and, in fact, the term was used almost exclusively at that time to designate JEWS living in the territory! Indeed, a majority of the Arabs now living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (who now claim to be proud "Palestinians") are descended from these Arab immigrants (and are thus no more "indigenous" than the Jews).

Because of Arab intransigence, the British, and later the UN, decided that the remaining territory should be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. Neither side was very happy with this idea (which is one sign of a good compromise), but the Jews reluctantly accepted it while the Arabs vehemently and violently rejected it. The UN plan was supposed to be implemented when the British withdrew in 1948 despite the Arabs' complete lack of acceptance of it.

What actually happened instead in 1948 is that the British withdrew, the Jews proclaimed the State of Israel, and, the very next day, ALL of the surrounding nations (including some that didn't even BORDER on "Palestine") attacked the new state in a war which they loudly proclaimed would "push the Jews into the Sea". Of course, no such thing happened. The Jews, who were, after all, fighting for their very lives, managed to hold onto a significant part of the territory when a cease-fire (but NO peace treaty) was finally arranged. Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, and the Kingdom of Transjordan occupied Judea and Samaria (which they dubbed the "West Bank"), including part of Jerusalem and ALL of its holy places. Jews were killed or ethnically cleansed from ALL of these occupied territories. Most notably, NOBODY even considered establishing a state of "Palestine".

In the early 1960s, the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was established. Their definition of "Palestine" was quite explicit: it was ALL of Israel and NONE of the "West Bank", which they specifically recognized as belonging to the Kingdom of Jordan (renamed by that time because it was no longer only east of the Jordan River).

Only AFTER the Israeli capture (in another defensive war of survival) of the Gaza Strip and the so-called "West Bank" did these area begin to be referred to as "Palestine". Even now, though, this definition is only for Western consumption. In fact, the whole notion of a "Palestinian people" is mostly for Western consumption. For LOCAL consumption, "Palestine" is definitely ALL of the Palestine Mandate that was left after Transjordan was stripped off. And the "Palestinian" national identity is only a step to their REAL identity: Arabs. This brings us to our first article, which shows that the real definition of "Palestine" is essentially this: any area currently controlled by Jews. In other words, you really can NOT be "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" at the same time. How can you make any kind of compromise or durable peace with a people whose very definition of their country is exactly YOUR country?

Our second article this week takes all of this crazy double-talk and crystallizes it somewhat humorously but with deadly accuracy in a lexicon of "Palestinese". It may seem a little long, but it's well worth reading.

Meanwhile, as our third article details, Israel continues to provide medical help to those from Gaza who need more than is available there. This includes even the brother-in-law of the chief Hamas guy, even though that organization continues to call for nothing short of the violent and complete elimination of Israel!

Our last article for this week is humorous but dead on. Read the whole article, which is quite short, but here's a short quote to whet your apetite: "This time around, instead of having to travel thousands of kilometers by train to some God-awful place, instant death will be delivered to us in sleek, shiny missiles — and without the need to leave the country. Yes, you too can be annihilated in the comfort of your own home, and at no cost to boot!"

Israel "apartheid"? Not even close!

My beloved, David, was in the hospital for the past week, first here in Eilat and then in Be'er Sheva. As a result, I haven't had much time for reading. The drive to Be'er Sheva takes nearly 3 hours each way, and I was going there every day. He's out now, for which we're very thankful.

This is not the first time he has been hospitalized. In fact, he has now been in at least 5 different hospitals here in Israel. This has given me a close-up view of the medical system here, and so this week's political commentary will be mine and will be very personal.

EVERY hospital in Israel is COMPLETELY integrated -- patients, doctors, nurses, and all the other staff come from EVERY ethnic and religious group in the country. Arabs, Druze, Christians, Orthodox Jews, secular Jews are put in the same room together without any regard for their label. There are MANY Arab doctors and nurses who work right alongside each other and the Jewish staff. For example, the doctor on duty in the unit when David was admitted in Be'er Sheva was a young Arab, and all 3 of his roommates for the first few days also were Arabs (or perhaps Bedouins -- I only really know that they were speaking Arabic). Some of the other doctors were Jewish. The nurses were also from various groups. At the time David was released, one roommate was Arab (with a very devoted wife who came and spent a lot of time there every day), one was an Israeli soldier, and I think the fourth one was Jewish.

Contrast this with the situation under apartheid in South Africa. They had separate hospitals (not just separate rooms!) and even separate ambulances for Blacks and Whites. THAT is REAL apartheid. The situation in Israel does not even REMOTELY resemble that, and the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" is nothing short of an evil libel against the Jewish people. It simply is NOT true, and it is being used maliciously to slander an entire nation.

There ARE some nations nearby with practices that do resemble apartheid at least somewhat. For example, "Palestinians" who are descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 face serious discrimination in most countries, including Syria and, especially, Lebanon. Their possible occupations are legally limited, and they cannot own property in some cases. They certainly are NOT allowed to become citizens of the countries where they live, even those that were BORN there. Another example: in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not even allowed to ENTER the city of Mecca, and no religious symbols, books, prayers, or services of ANY other religion are permitted anywhere in the entire country.