That piece that you pointed was labeled "Opinion." It is a one sided view lacking historical perspective.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
Not so. Or perhaps better, a one sided exaggeration. Actually, Arab states practiced far more severe ethnic cleansing in the 1940s and 1950s than Israel did. Not only were more Jews than Arabs forcibly displaced from Arab countries in that time, but more property was taken from them and a higher percentage of Jews--who had lived in those countries for centuries--were kicked out. For example, there are only hundreds of Jews left in Iraq now out of a population of about a quarter million in the mid 1940s. Arabs are something like 20% of Israel on the other hand. Not everyone left, and of those who left, not all them were forced to leave. Were some of them? Undoubtedly. Stuff like that happens in wars. But question: where are the refugee camps of the 800,000 or so Jews who were forced out of Arab countries? They are nowhere to be found. Those Jews were resettled in Israel. The Jews that I know at least don't say no crimes occurred in the late 40s. They say, though, that they weren't the only ones to commit those crimes, sorting it all out is difficult if not impossible, and Jews who were displaced have at least as much to complain about as Arabs.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports.
I'd like to see those reports. Simply put, I don't believe him. His one sided account of things I can check makes me dubious about other claims that have not been made in accounts I have heard--even from people sympathetic to Palestineans in general, though clearly not as rabid as this person is. I googled Yusuf Rahil's name, and got this as one of the hits:
MORE ON STRINDBERG
Yaakov Har-Oz: “I'm going to keep it down to two points: (1.) Anders Strindberg claims that, ‘Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored “blue line” on an almost daily basis.’ I don't know what reports he is relying on – he quotes ‘UN reports’ without giving any detail – but he does give one and only one concrete example, claiming that earlier this year ‘15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon.’ Did you happen to Google Yusuf Rahil? I did. It got 67 hits. All but one were cites to various versions of Strindberg’s article on the Web! (The 67th, tellingly enough, was a cite to a character in a movie.) It’s a bit hard to believe that this event actually happened, but wasn't reported on anywhere. (2.) You suggest that the land should have been purchased. Ummm . . . much of it was. According to the Survey of Palestine of 1946, more than 70% of the land (pre-1967)[EDIT: I'm pretty sure he means 1947 here] was owned by the British Mandate, which was the successor to the Turkish Ottoman occupiers. (Most of this devolved to Israel after 1948 and the remainder became Gaza and the West Bank.) Land in the area now known as Israel owned by Jews amounted to some 8.6%. Land owned by Arabs who left the country amounted to 16.5%, and owned by Arabs who remained 3.3%.”
andrewtobias.com
So it turns into a "He said, She said" thing, but as the above author notes, surely if the incident actually happened, it would have been reported in other news sources.
So you actually think that Syria left on its own?
Give me a break. Syria didn't leave on its own. But no, I don't think Israel had anything to do with it. |
