History of Palestinian-Israeli conflict can't be ignored

By RAYMOND VONHARTEN

Transcribed from the clipping

David Harb (Letter July 17) asked how a Palestinian “right of return” would destroy Israel. I am not sure he understands the ramifications of this concept.

“Right of return” does not only refer to Palestinians returning to a future Palestinian state, or even to areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, but pertains to Israel proper, including the Israeli cities of Jaffa and Haifa. If this notion is implemented, the destruction of Israel would be a simple matter of demographics.

In order to maintain its status as a Jewish state, its population must remain predominantly Jewish. An influx of Palestinians would alter Israel's population and national character, which would effectively bring an end to the state. Second, the Palestine National Covenant and the harsh statements attributed to Arab leaders are not relics of 1948 as Harb indicated.

The PLO and its covenant were established in 1964 (not 1948) as symbolic gesture of the Egyptian government, which at the time was under intense pressure from other Arab states for not confronting Israel and for not providing enough support for the Palestinian cause. Of the 33 articles in the Covenant, as many as 30 directly or indirectly pertain to the destruction of Israel.

As to the recent amendment of the Covenant, it cannot be substantiated that the Palestine National Council (PNC) voted “to a man” to change its provisions. Article 33 of the Covenant states that only a majority of a two-thirds of the 572-member PNC (446 members) can modify the document.

I watched on Israeli television as Palestinian delegates in Gaza symbolically raised their hands in unison to vote for some resolution, but it is not known for sure who — or how many — actually voted for the measure. Thus, an ambiguous method of voting to rescind the disputed articles was presented, so this apparent Palestinian concession remains vague at best.

Furthermore, if the covenant has been changed, what are its new terms? The publication of such document would do much to clarify the matter and reassure the Israeli public of the PLO's peaceful intentions. Third, the much touted 1988 PLO denunciation of terrorism to which Harb refers is ambiguous, if not contradictory, as well.

While it did say it would reject any form of terrorism, the PLO stated in an accompanying resolution that it still had the right to “resist foreign occupation, colonialism, and racial discrimination” and the PLO had always claimed that its attacks on Israel were legitimate military operations, even those aimed at civilians.

The reason this statement was issued by the PLO was not to reconcile peacefully with Israel, but to impress the U.S. government, with whom the PLO desired to establish more formal dialogue at that time.

Harb fails to mention however, that the U.S. government severed relations with the PLO in 1990 after Arafat refused to reprimand a PLO-member organization that carried out a terrorist attack. It should also not be forgotten that Arafat and the PLO supported Saddam Hussein after the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait.

More recently, in September 1996, Palestinian civilians and security forces clashed with the Israeli military because Israel opened one end of an archeological tunnel in Jerusalem's Old City that provided an easier exit for tourists.

Some Palestinian leaders falsely claimed that the Israelis were destroying the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest site, which angered much of the Palestinian populace. Sixty-nine Palestinians and 14 Israelis were killed and more than 1,200 were wounded on both sides.

This use of incitement under false pretenses is perhaps indicative of the Palestinian leadership's inclination to use violence to further its political objectives. Fourth, in the spirit of providing factual information, I offer a clarification of Harb's reference to the 1948 Deir Yassen massacre, which, he writes, was an “Israeli military” operation. This is incorrect.

The Deir Yassen incident occurred on April 9, 1948, more than a month before the establishment of the State of Israel (May 14-15) and the formation of the Israel Defense Forces (May 26). The massacre was carried out by an extreme Jewish organization (known as the Irgun) that operated largely outside of the command structure of the principal Jewish military force, the Haganah.

Harb also writes that Palestinian women were raped during the massacre. In truth, events of that day remain largely unknown; whether rape did or did not occur is mere speculation and to make such claim appears sensationalist. I am also puzzled by Harb's statements about ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust.

It is a well-known fact that the Arab states did not engage in the systematic killing of Jews in Palestine as the Germans did in Europe, but to argue that the Arab states were not bent on driving the Jews out of region defies the fact that five Arab states did attack Israel with the intent of defeating the Israelis and destroying the Jewish state.

Harb is correct in writing that we should be working on current issues that can create a lasting peace in the region; however, the history of the conflict cannot be neglected and ignored in making decisions that have such a significant impact on both the present, and future, of the region.

Context added by this archive

A guest opinion answering a letter by David Harb printed in the same paper on 17 July 1999. Harb's letter is not in this archive and is an acquisition target. The tagline at the foot reads: Raymond VonHarten lives in Beaufort.

Cite this item

"History of Palestinian-Israeli conflict can't be ignored," The Beaufort Gazette, 16 August 1999. Covering Palestine archive, CP-1999-002. https://coveringpalestine.org/archive/cp-1999-002