Way back in 2003 (when cell phones were used mainly for phone calls and a 10 lb. laptop was considered "conveniently light"), I was serving as Executive Director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival. I was asked to write an article for Vancouver's Jewish newspaper in response to a controversy over a documentary film on the festival circuit called, "Palestine is Still the Issue." The subject is still relevant, and I've never posted the article so here it is, as it appeared in the April 11, 2003 edition of The Jewish Bulletin:
Is every documentary propaganda?
A filmmaker can use myriad techniques, including omission of facts, to support or refute practically anything. MOREY ALTMAN SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Film analysis is a tricky business. As Greg Felton, in a letter to the editor ("An exercise in propaganda," Bulletin, March 14), suggests, even a review of a slanted film might itself be slanted. Such is the case with the provocative British documentary film Palestine is Still the Issue, Pat Johnson's problematic review and equally problematic rebuttal by Felton.
That the film Palestine is Still the Issue is propaganda should come as no surprise to anyone, even Felton. After all, propaganda is simply the dissemination of a particular view or outlook with the aim of altering other people's beliefs. A quick review of filmmaker's John Pilger's 25-year career in journalism provides ample evidence of his political leanings. His film simply reflects those opinions. Incidentally, his boss, the chairman of Carlton Television, Michael Green, has suggested even bigger problems with the film: "We do present programs that give differing points of view. It [Palestine is Still the Issue] was factually incorrect, historically incorrect. Unfortunately, you can't always agree with him [Pilger]." ("Carlton chairman criticizes its own documentary on Israel," Paul Peachey, the Independent, Sept. 20, 2002) But it should be noted that this opinion has been seriously challenged.
But, so what? It's not like this is the first propaganda film ever made. In fact, it could be argued that every documentary is propaganda of sorts. There is a certain misconception that a documentary film is, in fact, a document, with an obligation to be balanced. Although documentaries are expected to adhere to certain conventions – real people, real events – this is not always the case. Robert Flaherty, director of the landmark documentary Nanook of the North (1922), believed, "Sometimes you have to lie. One often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit." ("Robert Flaherty: Nanook of the North," by Derek Malcolm, the Guardian, April 13, 2000)
A skilful filmmaker can use myriad techniques, from selective omission of facts to a careful choice of quotes, to support or refute practically anything. Simply by diverting our attention towards or away from a subject, a filmmaker can alter our emotions and impressions. The camera sees only what it's supposed to see. Or not see.
But there's a big difference between works that are simply unbalanced as opposed to deliberately dishonest, despite Flaherty's admission. A good documentary must have a voice; otherwise it's merely a news story. No one could debate the ferocity of German pride celebrated in German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Using brilliant camera work, lighting and staging techniques, she created one of the most powerful political films ever made, but make no mistake; fine camera work doesn't make Triumph of the Will any less a propaganda film. In fact, it is what makes the film even more seductive and appealing.
The same could be said of any of the recent works of Oliver Stone. In films such as JFK and Nixon, Stone masterfully manipulates and even recreates actual events to support his particular visions of these political figures. Was JFK historically accurate? Of course not. But, it was damned entertaining.
All of these films are visually stunning and, without a doubt, unbalanced. But are they untruthful? In the case of Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl herself has revealed that "the preparations for the party convention were made in concert with the preparations for the camera work." In other words, the city of Nuremberg became a huge set for the film. All of the activities and movements were staged for the camera. It is this combination of purpose and technique, and not just the one-sidedness of the film, that makes it true propaganda, as we know the term.
It is also impossible to analyze propaganda without appreciating the context in which the film is created and exhibited. Palestine is Still the Issue was produced by a man with a record of imbalance (or strong opinion, depending on how you look at it). Since its original and highly controversial broadcast, the film has only been exhibited by political organizations whose mission is the distribution of information supportive of a very specific political belief, that is, the end of Israeli occupation of the disputed territories. These are relevant facts in any review. It might be true that the film is "propaganda" but the imbalance must be proven. This is especially true with a film that is defamatory and deceptive. Ultimately, the responsibility is on the journalist to choose words carefully, and back them up with facts and not just opinion.
Two recent films from Israel illustrate the subtleties that distinguish between films that are simply unbalanced as opposed to bona fide propaganda. Purity (Tehora) by Anat Tzuria examines some of the difficulties Orthodox women face in adhering to the Jewish purity laws. All of the women featured in the film are real. The film offers little in the way of rebuttal from religious authorities or even women who embrace the purity laws with pride. There is no question that the film is unbalanced, but is it dishonest? Well, in a sense. The director neglects to mention in the film that she interviewed more than 100 women who observe tehora until she found three willing to speak against it. Nor does she mention that she herself was raised in a secular Jewish home and only follows the purity laws to please her Orthodox husband. In a world of diverse opinion, it's possible to find three people to support or refute almost anything. Watch any episode of the Jerry Springer show if you don't believe me.
Jenin, Jenin is another matter altogether. The film looks at recent operations in the town of Jenin by the Israel Defence Forces and the allegations that a massacre took place there. The subject of a ban by the Israeli Film Censorship Board, the film is now being seen outside of Israel at various festivals and special screenings by pro-Palestinian organizations. The board banned the movie "because it presents the events in a distorted way under the guise of a 'documentary.' " In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Muhammad Bakri, the director of the controversial film has said he hopes to "open eyes and minds and make people think about what's going on." Perhaps, but this hasn't stopped five reserve soldiers who served in Jenin from filing suit for libel against Bakri and the two Israeli theatres that screened the film. There is also some indication that the film has now been highly self-censored by the director (or distributor) before being released internationally, possibly to avoid having to defend the more obvious distortions of truth.
As the director of a Jewish film festival, I can tell you that these are the sorts of concerns that come up when we select films for the festival. To minimize bias, every submission is seen by at least four people. We then compare notes and make decisions based on the festival's mission and mandate. But even this process creates challenges. If we screen a film that explores a particular political position, are we irresponsible if we do not provide a forum for discussion following the film, or is it preferable to let viewers arrive at their own conclusions? What about films that are hurtful to only one segment of the audience? Can a film be useful for some but misleading for others? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the accuracy of the information in the films we screen? What role does a film festival play in the community? To entertain? To educate? To inform?
Although it's impossible to verify every detail of every film we screen, we do make a concerted effort to "background check" our films; it's not too difficult to find information on the more contentious ones. Since exhibitors can be held liable for their presentations, we don't screen films like Jenin, Jenin or Palestine is Still the Issue. On the other hand, we have shown controversial films like How I Learned to Overcome my Fear and Love Arik Sharon and Time of Favor (Ha-hesder), a film touchy enough to be dropped from the schedules of a number of other Jewish film festivals. For the record, we've also rejected films that are blatantly deceptive in favor of Israel. The goal is to avoid propaganda for either side and find films whose artistry and integrity speaks for itself.
But, as I've said, all of this is tricky business. The hope is that by educating ourselves, and challenging our biases, we can tell the difference between a documentary with a slant and a film that needs lies to support its argument, which makes it no documentary at all.
Morey Altman is director of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival.
Canada has just taken a bold, unilateral step by announcing it will no longer fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This move will undoubtedly draw the ire of Palestinian supporters who consider such financial aid essential and sacrosanct. Nevertheless, UNRWA has drawn criticism for decades, and at the very least, the organization has needed a shake-up for a long time.
Canada, it should be remembered, was present at UNRWA’s birth in December 1949; indeed, the agency’s first director was a Canadian*. That Canada should be the first major donor to pull out of UNRWA funding is significant at many levels, and the move will undoubtedly affect G8 support of the organization.
The real challenge, however, may be the present Conservative government's ability to survive long enough to see any change. Many expect the Conservatives, whose draconian domestic policies have ruffled feathers across Canada's left-leaning populace, to lose the next Federal election. Support for the Conservatives, which presently rules with a minority government, has been falling. A recent poll shows them essentially tied with the Liberals who, if in power, would almost certainly reverse the UNRWA decision.
* "Canada subsequently voted for the establishment of the Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) in the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1949 whose first director was General Howard Kennedy of Canada. ..." (Zachariah Kay, The Diplomacy of Prudence: Canada and Israel, 1948-1958 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996): 24-28.)
The National Post has an editorial on the decision here.
In this still from a Reuters video, terrorists are seen loading weapons into a UN ambulance.
Here are a few articles for background information on UNRWA's controversial history. How UNRWA became a barrier to peace Jerusalem Post By Jonathan Spyer, 27 May 2008
Israel has been getting some much-deserved attention for its relief efforts in Haiti, as well as the usual small-minded aspersions. While most of the reports on Israel's rapid deployment to Haiti, following the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince and killed thousands, have been positive there have been some that have rushed just as quickly to say that Israel's efforts were nothing but a PR stunt. A few crackpots have even suggested that the earthquake was a man-made attack by the US and Israel. That sort of nonsense obviously doesn't deserve a response.
Israel's forté, earned through the blood of her injured and killed soldiers and civilians, is battlefield trauma aid and logistics. That an Israeli IsraAid team is able to arrive at a moment's notice with doctors and equipment is something which we can take pride in, however, not at the expense of others who have also been doing what they can. Look, we have doctors; we have state-of-the-art medical equipment (we invented much of it) but that should in no way diminish the contributions of other countries.
Both the detractors and the devotees need to keep things in perspective. While Israel's advanced set-up was impressive, there were other field hospitals; Cuba had several but they were handling basic first-aid (and amputations). Norway also had a small set-up with around 20 staff. Argentina was able to provide immediate aid because they had a an medical station in Haiti before the earthquake. There were also a number of doctors already in Haiti whose three Doctors Without Borders aid stations were destroyed by the earthquake. I believe they joined up with the Israeli unit but I'm working on confirming that. Canada, for its part, dispatched two warships - the HMCS Athabaska and HMCS Halifax - loaded with humanitarian aid, as well as several military transport planes.
I was in close touch with the Jamaicans, who were flying aid into Haiti and preparing to receive refugees (and I'm going to write more on Jamaica's efforts over the few days). It's worth remembering that a number of Caribbean nations provide on-going support to the beleaguered nation. They were there before the cameras showed up, and they'll be there, I expect, long after. That they can't provide the kind of high-tech care that Israel can provide is irrelevant; they do what they do and it deserves to be acknowledged.
But the Israeli hospital was receiving (indeed, it was seeking) the most difficult cases, and because they had electronic equipment probably better than many hospitals in the area, they got a lot of press. Frankly, much of the coverage has been, in my opinion, more the result of American hurt pride than any desire to promote Israel; they just don't like when others show them up. (and most of the over-generous reports are coming from the US, not Israel. Who in the international community watches Israeli TV? Even most Israelis don't!)
Criticism of the US (and other western states) has not been fair; they've been prepping the USNS Comfort, a massive hospital ship capable of handling hundreds of patients, which has just arrived in the region. The US could take the time to adequately prepare the ship (which includes a crew of 900, and helicopters for ferrying victims) because they knew the Israeli team would be there within hours (and the recon team was there before doctors arrived).
And now that US (and Red Cross) relief is arriving en masse (and it should be noted, A French hospital ship, the Siroco, has also arrived), the Israelis, and other teams, will go home. In the words of one Israeli officer, "We provided timely medical care to about 1,000 people, we conducted 300 operations and delivered 16 babies. In the past few days the Americans arrived and then you can put things in proportion and become more modest in the face of their airlift and the scope of their aid. You need to understand that those who will continue to treat the main suffering there are the Americans." It's exactly this sort of cooperation between the US and Israel that highlights the importance of the relationship, a fact often lost on those who dwell on financial support or Arab intransigence.
A bigger issue is the future of Haiti as a society, as a people. The earthquake was really just rubbing salt in the wound of a place already knocked down time and again. Haiti, ultimately, isn't Israel's responsibility but everyone's, and how the world continues to support this place, after the cameras and temporary aid stations have packed up and left, will be the real test. Long after emergency teams have returned home, it will be countries like the US and Canada which will be providing long-term assistance to Haiti; indeed, Canada is hosting an international conference in Montreal today aimed at coordinating rebuilding efforts and to "physically get the Haitian government back on its feet." Haiti is already the largest recipient of Canadian long-term development assistance in the Americas and the second largest in the world.
What's really been missing is a coordinating agency that assigns nations in emergency situations according to their special capabilities. This was recognized after the Tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, when poor coordination between international aid agencies resulted in surpluses of some supplies and equipment and acute shortages of others. That this sort of coordination is still not happening is yet another failure of the UN, which would rather spend its money (which is really G8 money) on canapés and Landcruisers.
One can be proud of the Israeli team, and cognizant of the tremendous efforts of others; the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I was told there were representatives of 30 countries (now numbering in the thousands) working in Haiti as of a few days ago. Many flew there on their own dime and are working with little support. That also deserves some praise. If not more.
As for those who choose to diminish Israel's humanitarian work for partisan reasons (or the breathtakingly petty: "they're acting TOO proud!"), it really just points to a pathological need to sully the Jewish state, and an inability to proffer any sort of mature line of reasoning. Not the first time, either.
Slightly jet-lagged, but otherwise unscathed, I'm back in Israel, back on the computer, back at work. I was covering a conference in Kingston, Jamaica ("The Jewish Diaspora of the Caribbean") for the Jerusalem Report but took the opportunity to investigate other interesting and relevant stories. Of course, the biggest story of the week occurred nearby while I was there: the devastating earthquake in Haiti. We felt the earthquake in Kingston, but it was no worse than a minor Vancouver rumble, and most people didn't even realize that's what it was until reports started to come in a few hours later.
Several colleagues and I immediately assessed ways of getting there, and that story will follow in a few weeks, when I'm able to freely describe the bureaucratic rigmarole that tripped us up. Over the next few days, I'll be writing fairly extensively on Jamaican relief efforts, and on an interesting Shabbat. What do you get when you put together a Baghdadi Jew from the US, an Israeli/Canadian Ashkenazi, a Sephardic Panamanian and a Jewish Reggae artist from New York. Not the beginning of a joke; I'm describing last week's Kabbalat Shabbat service!
In the meantime, I invite you to consider a question: why would a 320-year old Jewish gravestone feature a skull and crossbones?
Unfortunately, we've been moved to a different meeting hall where internet access in unavailable so no live blogging today. In stead, I'll do a short wrap-up next week, and of course, there will be a much more in depth review of the conference and feature on the Jewish diaspora of the Caribbean in a future issue of the Jerusalem Report.
For those who were following for my updates on the Haiti disaster, it is, of course, an ongoing concern here in Jamaica. There's a tangible concern and outpouring of grief and love for their fellow islanders; Jamaican businesses (including ScotiaBank which has a presence in Jamaica) are actively fundraising and collecting emergency aid for survivors. As well, this morning Jamaica's PM and staff are on route to Port-au-Prince to do a first-hand assessment. The expectation here is that Jamaica, and other islands, are about to receive refugees numbering in the thousands. At the very least, we're expecting that the UN, and other agencies, will have to set up tent cities in Haiti and neighbouring Dominican Republic. Confounding this effort will be destruction the UN itself has suffered. Dozens of UN peacekeepers have been reported dead, including the UN's mission chief, Hedi Annabi, and his chief deputy, Luis Carlos da Costa.
I'll try to post more on this later. Back to the conference.
There's only one synagogue left in Jamaica, Sharei Shalom Synagogue, the United Congregation Synagogue. After a devastating earthquake in 1882 destroyed the Sephardic and Ashkenazi synagogues, these groups came together and founded a new congregation. A synagogue was built but destroyed in a fire in 1907. A new building was completed in 1912, and it's still in use today, although the community has diminished and changed over the years. I'll be writing much more on this beautiful place, one of a handful of synagogues with a sand floor, in the near future.
Welcome to everyone from Kingston, Jamaica. I'm doing something new, liveblogging from the Jewish Diaspora of the Caribbean conference at the beautiful and impressive Pegasus Hotel.
If you have any questions for the participants, add a comment here, and I'll do my best to get an answer. I think tomorrow, I'm going to add some sort of live blogging software to the page, perhaps Coveritlive. What do you think?
Day 1, January 12, 2010
11:00am The conference started this morning and runs the next two days. It's an amazing coming together of academics, genealogists and local Jews interested in sharing their stories.
Ainsley Henriques opened the conference with a shehecheyanu blessing and a welocme to everyone.
Jane Gerber, conference co-chair and Professor of Jewish history and former director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York spoke on the importance of this sort of event. Most importantly, the importance of having the conference in the Caribbean rather than, for example, New York. it's vital to not only talk about the synagogue of Jamaica but also to walk on its sandy floor; there is the hope that the conversations that are generated by the event will be open-ended, flow from the room to the coffee break and beyond....also papers will come from these deliberations. There are many subjects to discuss: we hope to engage in discussions on forms of identity..multi-dimensional, multiple jewish identities; building of nations of the peoples in the area. what roles did the Jewish community play in the development of the region?
Swithin Wilmot is the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Education and Senior Lecturer at the University of the West Indies: Dr. Wilmot welcomed the guests and asserted that "there's no doubt that the Jewish community is at the heart of the history of Caribbean history and culture." We will explore so many aspects of this history over the next 3 days.
11:30 am
Speaking now is Gerard Nahon from the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, in Paris. He's discussing Amsterdam and the Jewish nation in the Caribbean during the 17th century.
Holly Snyder from Brown University is now speaking on the subject: What Jewish Merchants contributed to Jamaican culture, 1670-1831.
Ms. Snyder is North American History librarian at Brown University's John Hay Library where her responsibilities include Modern Judaic Studies. She's currently working on a book-length manuscript entitles "Geographical Destinies: jews, Conversos and Crypto-Jews in the Age of Mercantilism, 1500-1800.
12:30pm LUNCH BREAK
2:00pm Rachel Frankel is talking about new technologies DIARNA, and the importance of cemetery research.
Diarna is an initiative of Digital Heritage Mapping, a 501c3 non-profit organization using technology to map and preserve cultural heritage sites around the world. “Diarna” means “our homes” in Judeo-Arabic, a version of Arabic mixed with Hebrew spoken by Jews across the Middle East in numerous local dialects. Read an overview article about Diarna in AJS Perspectives, the magazine of the Association for Jewish Studies. (from the Diarna website)
There's a fascinating new book on the subject called: The Knell of Parting Day, by Marilyn Delevante.
Are you a descendant of Caribbean Jews? Let me know. Have a question for an expert IN JAMAICA? Send me a message or comment here.
2:30pm
Naomi Feuchtwanger-Sarig speaks on the mourning customs of Portugeuse Jews, their rituals, including the use of the colour black. The iconography of Jewish grief suggests the use of black as a sign of mourning is very old; but its origin as a ritualistic colour is vague. Texts in the mishnah record the use of back during the 30 days of bereavement (sheloshim); this custom was maintained in Spain for generations, and continues in Sephardi Jewish communities to this day. Some really interesting questions coming out of this talk: what is the origin of the iconography of the skull and crossbones in the Caribbean, and about the image of a tree being felled common on tombstones in Jamaica. I'll address these questions later, perhaps in the Jerusalem Report article.
That's it for today. This has been fun, and tomorrow I'll be set up a little differently. If you know anyone else who may be interested, please pass along the web address. I'm hoping I'll get a few questions tomorrow which I'll bring to the attention of the relevant guest speaker. Tomorrow's speakers include: Mordechai Arbell, Ronnie Perelis, Hilit Surowitz, Judah Cohen and Ed Kritzler, whose book Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean, I reviewed for the Jerusalem Report last year. I'll try to add pdfs of the review later.
This week, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that Palestinians in the West Bank must be able to use Highway 443, which connects the city of Modi'in (and several other smaller communities) to Jerusalem. Although Modi'in is in Israel proper, the highway, which runs along an ancient route (while constructing the highway, builders found a tomb containing ossuaries inscribed with the name Hashmonaim) described in a multitude of a old texts, cuts through a corner of the West Bank.
Admittedly, local Arabs could make use of the 443 for quick access to a number of Arab villages adjacent to the highway. Unfortunately for them, the IDF deemed it necessary to disallow vehicles without Israeli plates from using the road after a series of shootings that killed six people during the second Intifada. To prevent access, the army placed concrete barriers where the highway meets village access roads. Since the closure, Palestinians have been required to leave their vehicles behind these barriers and walk up to the highway so they can catch rides, or walk to nearby villages (or use alternate roads.)
As the Supreme Court has decided, this situation has not been fair, and I'm admittedly conflicted on the subject. There's no question that denying anyone the use of this road has been as infringement of human rights; but as human rights go, nothing can be more important than the protection of human lives. I recognize the obvious inconvenience of my Arab neighbours; but, I must reconcile their inconvenience with the safety of my friends, and more importantly my wife who travels this road several times a week.
It's a complex issue, and the Supreme Court, recognizing the security needs of travellers, has postponed implementation of the decision for five months, so that the IDF can find another solution.
Yaacov Lazowick has written a useful backgrounder, which provides historical context and describes some of the political aspects of the problem.
I've been known to criticize journalists because too many are lazy, or lacking the skills or backgrounds to adequately fulfill their assignments. Nevertheless, for most reporters, those who aren't making millions on CNN, it can be a thankless, low-paying job. And as I've mentioned before, I'm particularly sensitive to the dangers experienced by field journalists.
Last week, Alberto Velazquez, who worked for the Mexican newspaper Expresiones de Tulum, was gunned down as he left a party, making him the 12th reporter killed in Mexico this year. Dozens more have been beaten, harassed or abducted.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an American-based non-profit organization established in 1981, reports at least 69 journalists have been killed in 2009. That number does not include Calgary Herald reporter Michelle Lang, who was killed Wednesday along with four Canadian soldiers when an IED detonated next to their armoured vehicle.
"Lang, on her first assignment in Afghanistan for Canwest News Service, had arrived in the country little more than two weeks ago. She won a National Newspaper Award last year for coverage of health and medical issues for the Calgary Herald." Colin Perkel, THE CANADIAN PRESS.
My condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.
This is the time of year (hint: December 25) when stories abound of Israel's unfair persecution of Christians. Unsurprisingly, Reuters, for example, attempts to put the damper on the holiday spirit by once again castigating the separation wall (which has dramatically reduced incidents of terror) as the author of Christian misery in Bethlehem. In the end, the best writer Erika Solomon can come up with is a quote denouncing the wall as a "huge visual impediment" and the old line that it represents a "land grab and a tool to consolidate Israeli control of Jerusalem." Like most uninformed writers, she fails to mention that the United Nations did exactly the same thing when it recommended the internationalization of the Jerusalem district (see my previous post), which included Bethlehem! Writers also fail to mention the effectiveness of similar separation walls, such as one in Belfast which has reduced tensions and violence between Catholics and Protestants.
Nevertheless, it's worth saying a few words about the status of Christians in Israel, Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It goes without saying, concern for Christian welfare in the region goes way back; I don't need to say too much on the origins and events of the Crusades. During the later centuries of Muslim rule, Christian communities enjoyed some good years and suffered some bad. Christians were subject to the same oppressive Dhimmi laws as Jews which required them to pay special taxes and obey rules meant to humiliate them into conversion. In many places Jews actually fared better; Christians were seen by many Muslims as idol-worshipers.
As the Zionist enterprise picked up steam during the mid-20th century, Arab Christians (most of whom are actually descendants of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians) were undoubtedly expected to take up the Palestinian cause. But, it's also likely many, especially those who had been living and working amongst Jews in Jerusalem and Haifa, were frightened of the prospect of an Islamic Palestinian state under the authority of Grand thug Al-Husseini. Most of the Christians appear to have sat out the war of independence; that's not to say they relished Jewish rule, but the alternative seemed so much worse. In Israel proper, Christians generally stayed put while their Muslim neighbours fled north and east. In the West bank, demographics changed overnight. Villages which had been predominantly Christian, such as Bethlehem (80% Christian before 1948) and Ramallah (90% Christian before 1948) became Muslim. Many Christians, who were generally well educated and enjoyed more economic prosperity during the British Mandate years, took any opportunity to leave.
As the 1948 war raged, Christian communities outside the region expressed concern for their brethren. British MP Thomas Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford riding, July 5, 1945 - February 23, 1950) made their case in the House of Commons:
The Christians of today in the older cities of the Middle East present a varied picture. They live dangerously. They live almost as the Christians of the pre-Christian Roman Empire lived. They follow cults and rituals of considerable perplexity. Some of them are Catholic, some Orthodox, and many of them most certainly heretical. Massacres live in their memory, and they are very much on the look-out at the present time for protectors. I think that it is quite natural that they should be critical of the Muslims among whom they live. There are the Syrian Jacobites, the Syrian Catholics, the Greek and Armenian Orthodox, the Latin and Armenian Catholics, the Maronites, whose figurehead is his Beatitude Arida, a man nearly 90 years of age, and many others.....
...The position of many Christian communities in the Middle East is especially precarious in these days. The traditional tolerance of the Arabs towards minorities in their midst has been very much strained, and has not lessened since the recent developments in Palestine, or since the announcement of the withdrawal of British troops from that country and Egypt and Iraq. Even though these people are perforce siding at the present time with the Arabs among whom they are living, this country, and I hope my right hon. Friend recognises it, should use its utmost influences to check all hostile tendencies towards them and remind the Arab States that we should view the actual persecution of all minorities in their midst with the gravest disfavour."
There's good evidence local Christians still suffer humiliation and harassment. A Feb. 2008 National Post Editorial described Palestinian Christians as living in "constant fear." ‘Abd Al-Nasser Al-Najjar, columnist for the Palestinian daily, Al-Ayyam reported last year that
"Christians are being persecuted...in most Arab countries, regardless of their numbers there. The problem is that it is not only Arab officials who are remaining silent [in the face of these crimes] - [they do so] because their primitive mentality is centered on the cult of the ruler - but, alarmingly, so are Arab intellectuals, the elites, non-government organizations, and leaders of the private sector. All these groups look on at these unprecedented [acts of] folly without apprehending the danger with which these crimes are fraught."
"Furthermore, there has been an attempt to marginalize Christian culture in Palestine, even though it is rich and deeply rooted [there]. This began with [accusations] of unbelief [against Christians] - a move that ultimately harmed Palestinian society as a whole...
"Despite all the injustices [against the Christians], no one has seen or heard of any constructive action to curb it and to [defend] the Christians' rights - whether by the elites, by any of the three branches (executive, legislative, and judiciary), by non-government organizations, or even by the political factions themselves. [Such action should have been forthcoming] not out of kindness and compassion, but [due to] regarding Palestinian Christians as indigenous to this land, and [therefore] no different from us, with the same rights and obligations [as Muslims]. "
"a systematic campaign of persecution...in the Gaza Strip, and to a lesser extent in the West Bank. The general silence surrounding this campaign aids its perpetrators. The victims are Palestinian Christians, in particular the small Christian community of Gaza."
"The trend became noticeable with a series of attacks on the Palestinian Bible Society's 'Teacher's Bookshop' in Gaza City last year. The shop was the subject of a bomb attack in April 2007. Its owner, Rami Khader Ayyad, was abducted in broad daylight, and found dead on October 7, 2007.
Over the following year, a series of bomb attacks on Christian institutions in Gaza took place. Particular attention was paid to places of education. The Rahabat al-Wardia school run by nuns in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, and the American International School in Beit Lahiya were both bombed, most recently in May 2008. The Zahwa Rosary Sisters School and the El-Manara school, both in Gaza City, were also attacked this summer. The YMCA Library was bombed, as was the Commonwealth War Cemetery."
A few weeks ago, a delegation of activists led by Reverend Majed El Shafie, President of One Free World International (OFWI), visited Israel for a conference on human rights and persecuted minorities. According to El Shafie (who was born Muslim but converted), "every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries."
Sadly, there will be those who will choose to ignore centuries of Muslim harassment of Christians preferring instead to censure an Israeli wall or a few checkpoints. But, the history of the region speaks for itself; blaming these inconveniences for the eventual demise of this ancient community is like obsessing over a patient's hangnail while he slowly dies of cancer.
It's been a few years since the international community has attempted to unilaterally impose its will on Judaism's holiest place, the city of Jerusalem. I'm not speaking of the Crusades, although I will. The last time was 62 years ago when the United Nations presented a plan to internationalize the city and the surrounding area. The Partition Plan - which included an internationalization scheme for Jerusalem (Corpus Separatum) and its environs - was criticized by all sides, and summarily rendered null and void by the ensuing attack against the nascent state of Israel by surrounding Arab states that had rejected the plan wholesale.
It is important to remember that the Partition Plan, a product of an appointed 11-member committee (UNSCOP) and the UN General Assembly, was a compilation of recommendations only, and did not represent binding international law. In the words of the UN’s first UNEF Commander, Lieutenant-General E.L.M. Burns, the United Nations has "almost no powers to oblige any nation to make peace. More explicitly, it lacks the power to impose terms of peace or a general settlement. The Security Council can recommend only; the limitations are set out in Chapter VI of the Charter." Unable to defend its plan, it was doomed to fail. In a secret report, American Consul General in Jerusalem, Robert Macatee, warned US President Truman that, "if the UN expects to be able to partition Palestine without forces to help maintain order and to enforce partition, its thinking is most unrealistic and its efforts will be in vain."
Nevertheless, the Zionists welcomed the endorsement of establishing separate states for Palestine's Jews and Arabs. To that end, Palestine’s Jews did just that, proclaiming statehood upon Britain’s departure from Palestine and enforcing, to the best of their ability, the borders recommended by the plan. They did so, despite the problematic nature of the borders; they were, after all, meant to be borders between Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, a state rendered stillborn by Jordan`s occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. In a report to the UN Security Council, the Palestine Commission aptly described the problem: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." (Report to UN, Feb 16, 1948)
By the end of the war, there was no Palestinian state, and Jordan held territories designated to the district of Jerusalem. The UN's brilliant rapporteur, Dr. Ralphe Bunche, was able to negotiate an Armistice, approved by the UN Security Council, between Israel and Jordan which ended the fighting. As such, it could be argued that the Armistice Lines between Israel and Jordan carry more weight than the internationalization plan. More importantly, the Armistice was never meant to be permanent – just the opposite – and it demanded final status be determined through negotiations of the warring parties; in fact, just such negotiations resulted in the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty "guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers) and ...defined Jordan’s western borders clearly."
The EU has now declared its desire to see Jerusalem divided, ignoring historical realities and international law. In a statement on the Middle East (2985th FOREIGN AFFAIRS Council meeting, Brussels, 8 December 2009), the EU has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of two states based on "pre-1967 borders."
Of course, Jerusalem has been divided before; but the years between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied east Jerusalem and the Old City, were disastrous. Sniper attacks were common, Jewish Holy sites and synagogues were destroyed and Jews were denied access to the Western Wall, all violations of the Armistice Agreement and international law. No sensible person would voluntarily agree to repeat the debacle.
There are a number of salient factors which demand the EU's consideration:
1. There has never been a time in history when the Jewish people's unassailable link to Jerusalem has been questioned. Until the appearance of the Palestinians, that is. Critics of Israel, for myriad partisan reasons, now brush off Israel's claim to Jerusalem as nothing but a religious connection (which is also challenged or dismissed as anachronistic), no stronger or weaker than that of the Christians and Muslims who also maintain Holy places in the city. These critics wilfully ignore a 2,500 year historical attachment to Jerusalem, documented by both Jewish and non-Jewish residents, as well as countless visitors to the region. The Arabs, for example, who invaded Jerusalem in the 7th century, adopted the name Beit al-Maqdes [or, al-Quds ("the sanctuary")] for the city, from the Hebrew term for the Temple Mount, בֵּית הַמִקְדָּש Beit HaMikdash, ("House of the Sanctuary").
Centuries before the Arab conquest of the city, Christian documents attest to the mistreatment of the Jews, their desire to return, and Roman attempts to re-colonize the city with outsiders. Jerome, a Church father most famous for translating the Jewish Bible into Latin, wrote that, "It is forbidden for the treacherous citizens [Jews] to enter Jerusalem...they may enter only to lament there and they have to pay for the right to weep over the ruins of their state." (Jerome, 392 CE)
In a letter written nearly 1,000 years after the Roman expulsion, Rabbi Chisdai ibn Shaprut (c. 915 - c. 990 CE) of Andalusia described himself as, "Chisdai, the son of Yitzchak, the son of Ezra, from the descendants of the exiled of Jerusalem who now live in Spain...we have been waiting many years, while we have been transferred from one captivity to another, and from exile to another...we live in the Diaspora and there is no power in our hands."
Things got much worse before they got better. Christian Crusaders massacred thousands of Jewish and Muslim Jerusalemites during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to the region. Beginning in the late 1300's, Jews from Spain and other Mediterranean lands settled in Jerusalem and other parts of the land.
In 1517, The Ottoman's defeated the ruling Mamelukes and Palestine became part of the Turkish Empire. The Sultan invited Jews fleeing the Spanish Catholic Inquisition to settle in the Turkish Empire, including several cities in Palestine. Although the Ottoman Turks were generally fair-minded toward Palestine's Jews, by the 17th century, as the Turks' dominance was in decline, local bands of Bedouin, Druze and Maronite Christians rebelled against their authority and fought amongst themselves. To assuage local tyrants, the Turks granted them some autonomy in exchange for their services as tax collectors. These local authorities cared little for the rights or wellbeing of the Jews. At the same time, Latin and Orthodox Christians were competing between themselves - and vying for Turkish recognition - for control of Christian Holy sites. The Jews, as in other places, were often caught in the middle of these feuds, and suffered as a result.
In 1658, English Christian minister Henry Jessie described the dire situation of Jerusalem's Jewish inhabitants:
"The state of the Jews at Jerusalem of late was such that they could not live and subsist there, without some yearly supply and contribution from their Brethren abroad, because the place doth yield them little or no trading, whereby to maintain themselves; but their love for the place prompts them to remain there, albeit in great poverty and want. And their brethren abroad among the nations have been willing to uphold them there at Jerusalem, that the place should not be left destitute of some considerable number of their Nation, to keep as it were possession or at least some footing in it, and to show their hopes, till a full restitution come."
[Quoted in "The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine," Jacob Barnai, 1992, pg. 14]
Documents such as these testify to the enduring desire, but inability of returning in large numbers to the Holy Land. But, despite desperate living conditions, Jews did return to Jerusalem, in increasing numbers proportional to improved freedom of movement and prosperity after European emancipation, and advances in rail and sea transportation from Europe to the Near East. By the mid-1800's Jews again represented the majority of the population of the city despite all of the hardships they had to endure, a fact repeatedly confirmed in documents of the era.
2. Jerusalem has always been revered as a unique entity, distinct from the surrounding region, its special place in history always acknowledged. Even the Ottoman Turks, who otherwise deforested and despoiled Palestine, invested in improving Jerusalem. It's worth noting that the Turks also altered the size and shape of Jerusalem. In the year 1548, [the Turks] "caused the city to be enclosed within a new wall, changing the line of the old one. Thus the city has been contracted on the south, where is Mount Zion, and enlarged towards the north."
After taking the city from the Ottoman Turks in 1918, the British began almost immediate work on restoring Jerusalem to her former glory. Technically, British military occupation last only two years, from 1918 to 1920 after which time responsibility for the city reverted to Civil Administration, beginning on July 1, 1920.
Although Israel is often accused of altering Jerusalem's character, it was actually the British who saw to it that strict measures were "enforced for the preservation of the traditional building style of Jerusalem, offensive and unsuitable materials [were] prohibited or removed, and an effective control of new buildings and town planning sections [was] instituted." The British, through the Pro-Jerusalem Society, recommended a modernization plan and expanding the borders of the city, permitting new Jewish neighborhoods to be built. In recognition of the growing population of the city they examined proposals for what was termed, "the Jewish Garden Cities", plus "English, Greek, and Muslim building projects in...the south-western area of the city." While there's no argument that a number of Arab villages surrounded the city, most new Arab neighbourhoods were a direct result of Arab population growth due to Jewish and British investment in the city.
The British also proposed a massive program of conservation and restoration in the Old City, which was literally crumbling away due to negligence. In the end, the British, from both lack of will and insufficient funding, were prevented from fully implementing their plans for the city, but they successfully augured in a new era for Jerusalem and began a process of expansion and growth which continues today. More importantly, they recognized and promoted Jerusalem’s unique status designating, for the first time in over 700 years, Jerusalem the capital of the country.
The UN acknowledged this special status by recommending internationalization for the Jerusalem district. Although rejected, it’s clear from the plan that no part of the city was intended to be allocated to an Arab state, let alone be its capitol. And although the plan was never realized, it’s significant that the internationalization scheme was also never meant to be a permanent solution; the plan calls for a referendum after 10 years in which the citizens of the city - which has had a Jewish majority for at least 150 years - should decide their own fate. (Note: The UN’s plan to extend Jerusalem’s borders around Bethlehem was an obvious contrivance to give the district a Muslim majority, which it did by just 5,000 people).
In 1967, the city was reunited by Israeli forces forced to respond to Jordanian shelling of Jewish neighbourhoods in West Jerusalem. When the fighting stopped, Israel was in possession of the Old City, east Jerusalem and the West Bank. But again the UN confirmed that Jerusalem's status was unique. In the two significant resolutions approved after the war, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, neither mentions Jerusalem. Arthur Goldberg, the US Ambassador who helped draft 242, made it clear at the time that the resolution "in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate....Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank." Nevertheless, the UN amended this position with UN Security Council Resolution 252 (adopted on May 21, 1968) which called on Israel to desist from all legislative and administrative measures, including land and property expropriation, which might change the legal status of Jerusalem. It's a tendentious, politically motivated resolution at best, which actually condones the 1948 division of Jerusalem by war - a contravention of the partition plan - and implies that Israel was the aggressor in 1967, even though it was Jordan which had attacked Jerusalem, despite pleas from Israel - transmitted through the UN - to stay out of the war. 3. The only time Jerusalem was ever divided was during the illegal Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) during which time Jews were forcibly expelled from the eastern and southern neighbourhoods, synagogues destroyed and Jewish cemeteries desecrated. The ancient Mount of Olives cemetery was particularly hard hit. "Workmen came during the day and pulled apart the stones and the tombstones and at night the army lorries came, loaded up the tombstones and drove off. The rest of the stones were taken by the merchants," recalled Khalil Ibn Sadar Khalil, son of Sadar Khalil, who had served on behalf of the Jordanian Government as caretaker of the cemetery.
When the Mount of Olives cemetery was recaptured by Israel in 1967, inspectors discovered open graves, human bones scattered around the area. Parts of the cemetery had been converted into parking lots, a filling station, a road, and even a latrine. In 1964, the Jordanians had even built a hotel, the Seven Arches Hotel (formerly the Intercontinental Hotel) on top of the cemetery, a blatant violation of Article VII of the 1949 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement (GAA).
Newsreel footage from 1967 covers the cease fire, UN debates, and the reunification of Jerusalem.
4. Arab neighbourhoods incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967 included areas which had been Jewish or mixed neighbourhoods before the Jordanian annexation on April 4, 1950. In 1948, the Arab Legion captured approximately 2,000 sq. miles of Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan River, and the Old City of Jerusalem, whose 1,300 Jewish residents were expelled or taken to Jordan as prisoners. Jews living in east Jerusalem were forced to flee after sustained attacks by Arab gangs and troops from Egypt, Iraq and Jordan.
Sheik Jarrah is a case in point. Historically, this area included two Jewish sections known as Nahalat Shimon (founded in 1891) and Shimon HaTzadiq. The area is also home to the American Colony compound, St. George's Anglican Cathedral, and an ancient mosque named for one of Saladin’s troops. Significant to Jews is the 'Tomb of the Kings', which contains sarcophagi of various Jewish figures; in 1874 the site was purchased by a Jewish banking family, the Péreires, from an Arab real estate owner and given to the government of France on the condition that it maintain the site in respect of "the faithful of Israel.” [From ראובן קשאני (Reuben Kashani) ירושלים: אתרים היסטוריים במקורות ובמסורת הדורות pp 74-75 (1968)]
In 1948, Jewish residents of the neighbourhood endured repeated attacks by a Syrian-trained Arab Gang, known as Shabbab. Dozens of Jewish residents were killed or injured by snipers. Then, on April 13, 1948, 78 doctors and medical staff were killed and 20 wounded when a convoy of ambulances on route to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed (within 200 yards of a British army post which observed the attack but did not interfere) while passing through Sheik Jarrah. The onslaught, ostensibly in retaliation for Irgun's attack on Deir Yassein, was likely carried out by Shabbab and Arab Irregulars who contemptuously ignored a request (in a January 1948 Memorandum) by the Palestine Arab Medical Association to refrain from attacking hospitals, ambulances, and medical personnel. A small British unit, under the command of Major Jack Churchill, did offer to try to ferry out the beleaguered medical staff, but would not engage the Arabs. Nevertheless, one of his men was killed while trying to render assistance. The Jews refused the offer, believing the Haganah - which was being prevented from entering the area - would come to their rescue.
In response, on April 25, 1948, the Haganah’s Harel Brigade attacked Sheik Jarrah. They had succeeded in securing the neighbourhood until they came under heavy fire from British forces using tanks and artillery. The Haganah men were battered until they agreed to withdraw, although only on the condition that the neighbourhood remained neutral territory. The British agreed, but subsequently turned Sheik Jarrah over to Iraqi troops who had entered Palestine illegally (between November 1947 and May 1948 the British permitted 10,000 foreign invaders to enter Palestine). [Ben Dunkelman, amongst others, describes the attack in detail in his autobiography, "Duel Allegiance"]
Jordan’s well-trained army successfully conquered the Old City and a number of neighbourhoods in the eastern and southern parts of the city including Sheik Jarrah. During the unrecognized occupation, former Jewish homes were seized (under Jordan’s Enemy Property law) and in 1958 turned over to Arab families as part of an UNWRA relief project. According to the UNWRA agreement, new homes would be built on "formerly Jewish property leased by the Custodian of Enemy Property to the Ministry of Development, for the purpose of this project" [Agreement Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for An Urban Housing Project at Sheikh Jarrah.]
In recent court battles over these properties, original Ottoman ownership papers have been dismissed by lawyers for Arab tenants as "forgeries." The dispute rages on. Unsurprisingly, as politicians debate, Um Kamel al-Kurd, an amiable Palestinian woman removed from her home of many years, recognizes Jerusalem's challenge: "We don't need donations of tents or clothing from the international community...all we need is our rights. No one can simply overthrow the rights of others.... We need all the three groups here - Jews, Christians and Muslims - to live in peace and equality together."
Whether it's the result of decades of paternalistic conservation of the Palestinians (i.e. racism) or an inability to accept Jewish nationalism (i.e. also racism), which, ironically, was heavily promoted by Christian Zionists in the 19th century, the European Union seems determined to deny Jerusalem’s citizens the inherent right to settle their own differences and decide their own futures.
And while a European aversion to further conflict is admirable, they would do well to remember that their sense of compromise and esprit de corps was not so easily achieved, manifesting only after centuries of relentless, bloody conflicts, most especially the horrors of the Second World War. But, Europe’s traumatization is not Jerusalem's; it cannot be imposed or transferred.
It is also ironic that the EU, which itself represents a union of European economics and politics, is pursuing the opposite strategy for the Middle East. The last thing Jerusalem needs is further division; social and cultural differences are challenge enough. The EU would be better advised to promote détente and cohesion in the fractured city, with Europe as a model. There are many options for Jerusalem, from declaring itself an autonomous district to multiple citizenships. Division is not a solution; it is a cop-out, and an arrogant one at that.
UPDATE: I've changed a photo which I had thought was of divided Jerusalem (Thanks Yaacov Lozowick for the eagle-eyes.) A groovy colour photo of Dr. Ralph Bunche has been inserted in its place. Also, added an important quote about Resolution 242 and info on Resolution 252.
Despite all that we know, what is surprising is the Washington Times
sudden revelation of facts which were publicized years ago. The Nixon document was declassified in 1997. And ten years ago, Avner Cohen, in his book Israel and the Bomb wrote:
"A new set of American-Israeli understandings on the nuclear issue came into being in 1970 through meetings between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. The United States no longer pressed Israel to sign the NPT; it also ended the visits at Dimona. In return, Israel is committed to maintaining a low profile nuclear posture: no testing, no declaration, no acknowledgment. With these "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" understandings nuclear opacity was born. Those understandings persist today."
But Cohen was incorrect. Recently unclassified documents confirm an agreement regarding Dimona visits (but not other sites) but within months of Nixon's downfall, American inquiries resumed.
In January 1975, US senator Charles Mathias raised the issue with foreign minister Yigal Allon:
“Allon replied that Israel had the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons. However, he said that [the government of Israel] did not currently possess nuclear weapons, nor did it intend to manufacture them.”
In May 1975, Senator Howard Baker asked Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and defense minister (now President) Shimon Peres about nuclear weapons. Israel again denied having nuclear weapons.
“Rabin told Senator Baker that GOI [the government of Israel] had made a commitment not to be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the area. Israel had kept its word [not wanting] the Soviet Union to give similar devices to the Arab nations in the region.”
Dimona inspections were also back on the table. In November 1976 a group of visiting American Senators requested a visit to the Dimona reactor. The request was turned down, and the US chose not to press the issue. It would be reasonable to assume, then, that this was the real understanding: the US would continue to ask, Israel would continue to deny; and nuclear ambiguity would be maintained.
If the US is now willing to force Israel's hand, one must wonder why. Assuming Israel does possess assembled nuclear devices, there's really next to no possibility that she would voluntarily destroy her best deterrent against Arab weapons of mass destruction. Only a complete US arms embargo might compel a policy change, but this is unlikely. Denied American weapons, Israel would quickly turn to others for military hardware. Germany is already selling Israel Dolphin class submarines and would be eager to add fighter jets to the account. In fact, Israel had been developing a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet, in conjunction with Saab, for India until forced out of the competition by the US. In 2008, Israel was compelled not to submit a bid in a 500 million dollar deal to develop a new tank for Turkey, ostensibly by the Americans. An end to decades of cooperation between the US and Israel would open the door to direct competition, a scenario the US defense industry would surely not welcome in the middle of an economic downturn.
Perhaps this US administration simply believes the relationship has outlived its usefulness, Israel no longer providing a front-line defense against Soviet expansionism. Or more likely, we can add this story to a long list of would-be scandals involving Israel, precipitated by the State Department, in defiance of the White House and the American people who have been resolute in their support of the Jewish state. The State Department - and its friends in the CIA and Justice Department - has always argued against overt support for Israel, which it has felt threatens America's relationship with Arab oil providers. Some of the battles between various State Department heads and Presidents are legendary. President Truman, for example, once complained that, "those State Department fellows were always trying to put it over on me about Palestine, telling me that I really didn't understand what was going on there, that I ought to leave it to experts."
For years, various State Department officials and sympathizers have maintained a war of words against the Jewish State. ‘Realists’ Mersheimer and Walt’s Lobby screed was just one round in this old conflict. In 2005, the Justice Department indicted two staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on trumped up allegations (based on a rarely used 1917 Espionage law) that they had passed along a confidential memo to an Israeli Embassy official. This year it was announced that the charges against the two AIPAC members would be dropped. Last year, the best the State Department could come up with was a 23-year old allegation against an 84 year-old veteran who, out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to Israel, passed on useless information (apparently details about F-15's, which Israel was already flying) to some low-level consulate staff member.
Cue Rose Gottemoeller, the latest conveyer of news meant to discomfit friends of Israel and malign the Jewish state.
So, is any of this really evidence of a secret accord, and more importantly, a change in the US-Israel relationship? As for the accord, the evidence suggests no official policy as such, but rather an understanding not to press the issue. There's a difference. And State Department threats may yet turn out to be paper tigers. Earlier this month, The Washington Times reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been assured by the US President that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” understanding will be maintained.
And that understanding, which says so much about this unique bilateral relationship, reveals important distinctions between the functions and behaviour of the State Department and Congress. Un-elected officials of the State Department serve the nation; elected members of Congress and the President serve the nation’s constituents. Both roles are crucial. But, it’s a dangerous thing when anyone believes the state must prevail at all costs; there are times when the nation’s citizens may choose a course of action that is not prudent, but is in keeping with the values of the state. American support for Israel is a case-in-point, as was made abundantly clear when it was revealed that the President was sent a letter signed by 76 (of 100) Senators reminding Obama to "take into account the risks [Israel] will face in any peace agreement," and “to insist on the absolute Palestinian commitment to ending terrorist violence and to building the institutions necessary for a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace with the Jewish state of Israel."
After his first year in office, many are asking if Barak Obama truly understands the complex nature of Middle East politics. Early statements and demands of Israel have suggested naivety more than belligerency. And, despite some setbacks, last week’s appointment of Tamara Cofman Wittes as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is a definite step in the right direction. Dr. Wittes is Director of the Middle East Democracy and Development (MEDD) Project at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a regional policy center at The Brookings Institution. She has also taught at Georgetown University and is a recipient of the Rabin-Peres Peace Award, established by President Bill Clinton.
There’s no question that public support for Israel is solid. A recent poll conducted by Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies and Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQRR) suggests that, despite the Gaza war, support for Israel is actually rising, with 63 percent of respondents, up from 49 percent just a few months ago, declaring themselves Israel supporters. With that in mind, the President now has the awesome responsibility to balance that support with the nation’s other needs. This has always been the challenge. But, the great Presidents have been the ones who could meet the practical needs while preserving America’s ethical core.
In all honesty, we can ask, has this enviable support for Israel always been pragmatic? Probably not. Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin put the question to Lyndon Johnson when he met the President in 1967. "I don't understand you Americans backing Israel," said Kosygin. "There are 80 million Arabs and only 3 million Israelis. It does not make sense. Why do it?"
Replied Johnson: "Because it is right."
UPDATE: The Jerusalem Report's Leslie Susser has a terrific piece in the May 26, 2010 issue, called Israel's policy of nuclear 'ambiguity' comes under fire. Read it here.
REVISED: Several previously unclassified documents were made public by Anonymous in April 2013. Appropriate quotes from several cables were added to this post on April 11, 2013.
The next day, Secretary of State Rusk tabled a meeting specifically to discuss America’s nuclear concerns. Representing Israel were Foreign Minister Abba Eban, Ambassador Avraham Harma and Ephraim Evron. Rusk insisted that Israel’s continued obstinacy could have a, “disastrous effect on U.S.-Israeli relations” Abba Eban understood the US position but maintained that political issues at home made public declarations and visits to Dimona difficult. It was, of course, public declarations that the US was seeking. “Private assurances were of limited value,” averred Rusk.
Private assurances would have to do. Despite an agreement to sell Israel Skyhawk bombers, Prime Minister Eshkol refused any formal written agreement which, in his words, “might indicate to future historians that he had bargained away Israel's future nuclear policy and opened the Dimona facility to US inspection for the sake of ‘a mere 48 airplanes.’"
Even so, an understanding was arrived at that worked for both sides. The Americans would maintain Israel’s military advantage believing that “if Israel [was] unable to obtain its valid conventional arms requirements, those in Israel who advocate acquisition of nuclear weapons [would] find a much more fertile environment for their views.”
As part of the understanding, a team of U.S. nuclear experts visited Israeli atomic energy sites between March 31 and April 4, 1966; a few months later a memorandum from the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to Secretary of Defense McNamara reported “the unanimous conclusion of the three-man team that there is no evidence that Israel is producing or intends to produce nuclear weapons material.”
Over the next year, the Soviets publicly pushed for a nuclear free Middle East and the Americans, at least in principle, agreed to the proposal. But, each time the issue was raised with Israel, the answer was always the same: Israel wasn’t pursuing nuclear weapons. And each time, the Americans seemed to accept the rejoinder. Until February 1967, that is, when American Embassy in Tel Aviv reported to the Secretary of State that “two Israeli contacts [had suggested] Israel could be much closer to nuclear weapons capability than...supposed. The State Department requested an urgent assessment. Israel agreed to another Dimona inspection and once again the “AEC team found no evidence that Israel [was] using Dimona to produce material for use in nuclear weapons.” Of course, they couldn’t rule out the existence of another nuclear facility, or Israel’s potential for building a weapon on short-notice.
On a personal note, I had the opportunity to speak with a retired Dimona engineer in June of this year. I was intrigued when he said he was at Dimona during these inspections. "Was anything deliberately hidden from the inspectors?" I asked. "No," he responded. "Was there perhaps another nuclear facility whose existence was kept from the Americans?" I suggested. "Not that I knew of," he replied.
In May 1967, the State Department reported once more to President Johnson that there was, “no evidence that Israel [was] actually making a bomb,” but they remained convinced that..."Israel intends to keep itself in a position to do so at reasonably short notice should the need arise."
As the Six-Day War (June 5 - 10, 1967) began, France reneged on arms deals with Israel and declared a weapons boycott, refusing to supply parts for Israel's French-made Mirage jets. Following the war, Israel was anxious to replace the Mirage, especially in light of the USSR's rapid re-arming of Egypt and Syria. Israel was pushed by need directly into the US sphere of influence.
In January 1968, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol met with President Johnson to urgently request military aid, especially the Phantoms. Johnson, who was a longstanding supporter of Zionism, assured Eshkol that the US would stand by Israel. But, as the negotiations for the jets proceeded over the next few months, opposition – namely linkage between the aircraft sale and the nuclear issue – emerged.
But, it was likely the State Department that was doing the pushing and Israel pushed back. Attempts by Paul Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, to verify Israel's Dimona promises obligated Israel to request that the White House intervene. Secretary of Defense Clarke Clifford told Warnke to end the talks and not press the matter of verification.
In lieu of a formal agreement, Israel provided the US with a promissory letter, signed by Israel's Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin, that Israel would not introduce nuclear weapons into the conflict. Israel reaffirmed "its long-standing policy as laid down in...1965 that it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons and [agreed] not to use any aircraft supplied by the US and a nuclear weapons carrier. Israel and the US, however, continued to have a very different understanding as to the meaning of the concept of "introduction" of weapons. Israel's position was that as long as no weapons had been tested and publicly announced no "introduction" had been made. The issue was still outstanding as Johnson’s term ended in 1969.
At the start of his administration, Nixon assembled a 'special group' - Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard, Under Secretary of State Elliott Richardson, CIA Director Richard Helms, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Earle Wheeler, and Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger - to “consider the status of the Israeli nuclear program and [US] responses to it."
"Public knowledge is almost as dangerous as possession itself," wrote Kissinger in the memorandum dated July 9, 1969 from the 'special group' to Nixon. "This is what might spark a Soviet nuclear guarantee for the Arabs, tighten the Soviet hold on the Arabs and increase the danger of our involvement"
Nevertheless, the document confirms that the US still wanted Israel to sign onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel was also expected to publicly commit not to acquire nuclear weapons, according to Kissinger. It's clear from this document - despite what the Washington Time's Eli Lake asserted - that the US did not yet believe that Israel possessed nuclear weapons. “We should try to keep Israel from going any further with its nuclear weapons program --it may be so close to completion that Israel would be willing." The State Department and Defense agree, however, that for their "own internal purposes [they] could tolerate Israeli activity short of assembly of a completed nuclear device." Disturbingly, Lake, in his article, actually falsified the text to suggest that Israel already possessed nukes at this point. 'Israel would likely have 24 to 30 French surface-to-surfaces missiles, 10 of which would have nuclear warheads,' he wrote, but the actual document read: "ten of which are programmed for nuclear warheads." A big difference.
Still, the Americans had a problem. If they withheld the Phantoms, they would have to publicly disclose - or allow Israel to disclose - why and reveal Israel's nuclear program, which they were very reluctant to do. Nixon was presented with several alternatives including to "not raise the issue." Did Nixon choose this option? A follow-up Memo, dated October 7, 1969, suggests the answer. Nixon had met with Golda Meir and in "private discussions...emphasized that [the] primary concern was the Israelis make no visible (my emphasis) introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program."
Kissinger asked Ambassador Rabin for a formal response and received assurances that Israel would not become a nuclear power, and would consider the NPT. A few months later, Israel informed the US that they would not sign onto the NPT. But, these assurances seemed to be enough to provide the Americans with a "rationale for standing down," as Kissinger put it. In any event, from this point on, the pressure was off, as least as can be ascertained from declassified documents. The two sides seemed to have agreed on a policy of 'Nuclear ambiguity.'
Yet, the State Department continued to investigate Israel's nuclear ambitions even though some officials had "reservations about whether or not Israel [had] produced and assembled a complete nuclear weapon." Joseph J. Sisko, an assistant secretary of state and JCS Chairman Earle Wheeler continued to fight to prevent Israel from going nuclear. The US “ought to push the NPT urgently" they demanded. And Robert Munn, well into 1970, pressed for another visit to Dimona.
At the same time, the Soviets were shipping tons of weapons, MIG-21 jets and thousands of military advisors into Egypt. Unwilling to allow the USSR to tip the balance of power away from Israel, the US finally agreed on September 1, 1970 to sell Israel the Phantoms.
Within weeks, the favour would be repaid. On September 21, Nixon received an urgent plea from Jordan's King Hussein: Jordan had been invaded by Syria and required "immediate physical intervention, both air and land...to safeguard [the] sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Jordan."
Nixon instructed Kissinger to contact Yitzhak Rabin. "Don't ask anybody else. Tell him 'Go.' Israel prepared aircraft and moved troops toward the border with Jordan. The next day, the Syrians backed down and called their tanks and troops home.
Henry Kissinger relayed Nixon's appreciation to the Israelis. "The President will never forget Israel's role in preventing the deterioration in Jordan...these events will be taken into account in all future developments,” wrote Rabin in his memoirs. The leverage had now permanently shifted in Israel's favour; Israel had proven itself willing and capable of defending American interests in the region. Throughout his term, Nixon would remain a steadfast friend, providing emergency airlifts of weapons and supplies during the October War in 1973 (informing staff on October 9 that "the Israelis must not be allowed to lose!") and consistently stonewalling further attempts by the State Department to investigate Israel's nuclear program. On June 16, 1974, Nixon publicly asserted his loyalty to Israel by becoming the first US President to visit the Jewish state.
How subsequent administrations dealt with the nuclear issue will become clear as more documents become declassified in the future.
