views

Guest column

letters

Arab Rejectionism

continued from page 5

T

Asaf Romirowsky,
Ph.D.

his year is a remarkable
one for Israeli anni-
versaries. It marks the
100th anniversary of the 1917
Balfour Declaration, the 70th
anniversary of the Partition
Plan and the 50th anniversary
of the Six-Day War.
These three anniversaries
share a number of features.
While they commemorate key-
stones in the building of the
Jewish nation-state, they also
track with Arab rejectionism.
The 1948 war between
Israelis and Arabs gave birth to
what Palestinians (and other
Arabs) refer to as Nakba, or
catastrophe.
A year earlier, by a 33-12
vote, the United Nations
adopted Resolution 181 that
called for the creation of a
Jewish state and an Arab state.
The 650,000 Jews in British
Palestine declared indepen-
dence in May of 1948 and won
their battle for statehood.
By contrast, the Arab-
Palestinians turned down the
possibility of statehood. They
joined with five Arab states to
try to destroy the new Jewish
state. Why did they do this?
Lacking a strong national
consciousness, they followed
the Arab League. As the Jews
lacked an army, tanks, air-
planes or cadre of professional
officers, had a vulnerable
9-mile waist and no history of
martial valor, this seemed to
be a safe bet.
The victories of the Arab
forces from December 1947
to March 1948, the numer-
ous British bases handed over
to Arab forces as the British
evacuated Palestine, British
weapons sold to Jordan and
Iraq, and professional British
military leadership of the
Jordanian Legion reinforced

“I really wish the Jews again in
Judea an independent nation.”
— President John Adams, in a 1819
letter to American Jewish newspaper
editor, politician, diplomat and
playwright Mordecai Manuel Noah.

their confidence. And they
outnumbered Jewish forces
by almost 2 to 1. The Arabs
also knew that most experts
(including Marshal Bernard
Montgomery) believed that
Arab victory was inevitable.
Arab rejectionism, long a
part of Palestinian identity
before 1948, was reinforced by
the refugee camps after the
defeat in 1948. During the fall
of 1949, an American Friends
Service Committee (AFSC)
staffer reported a large sign in
a refugee camp that read:
1. Send us back home.
2. Compensate us.
3. Maintain us until we are
refreshed.
This is the epitome of
Palestianism at large.
From 1948 to 1967, during
Egyptian rule of Gaza and
Jordanian rule of the West
Bank and East Jerusalem,
there was no serious Arab
effort to create a Palestinian
state. Except for Jordan, the
Palestinians were denied citi-
zenship, discriminated against
by Arab states and often mal-
treated in the refugee camps.
Historically, the Arab world,
seeing Palestinians as poten-
tially disruptive of their politi-
cal order, has done little for
the Palestinians. Egypt and

Jordan, which signed peace
treaties with Israel in 1979 and
1994 respectively, saw national
concerns trumping political
concerns. Most aid for the
Palestinians has come from
the European Union and the
United States, not from the
Arab states.
During the Arab Spring,
the street protests that began
in 2011 throughout the Arab
world to call for an end to
government oppression, there
was almost no mention of the
Palestinian issue by Arabs of
any political stripe.
Polls show that most
Israeli Palestinians, like east
Jerusalem Palestinians, would
stay in Israel rather than move
to a Palestinian state once cre-
ated.
The reality, both good and
bad, turns out to be much
more complex than the simple
picture often posited by the
Palestinians.
Finally, U.S. opinion on Israel
and the Middle East as a whole
is not monolithic, nor is it fro-
zen in time. Since 1967, it has
undergone significant shifts,
with some groups becoming
more favorable toward Israel
and others less so, but it is
clear supporting Israel has
become an American value. •

Asaf Romirowsky. Ph.D., is the executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), a
nonprofit community of scholars who promote fact-based civil discourse, especially with regard to Middle
East issues. The organization believes that ethnic, national and religious hatreds, including anti-Semitism
and anti-Israelism, have no place in our institutions, disciplines and communities. He is co-author of
Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief.
Romirowsky will be the guest speaker at Young Israel of Oak Park’s Annual Gala at 5 p.m. Sunday, June
11. For more information or reservations, call (248) 967-3655.

8

June 1 • 2017

jn

would have died and/or have been
driven out of our Holy Land to once-
more be the “refugees” of the Mideast
conflict?
Certainly, Noa is entitled to her
views, but when its excludes the land
that we have won with our Jewish
dead and wounded, Noa makes all
Jews into “robbers and thieves.” And
we are not.

Michael Drissman
Farmington Hills

Disappointed
With Coverage

Obviously, I am disappointed with
the Jewish News’ coverage of the
Ahinoam Nini scandal. The fact
that the Jewish News supported her
appearance explains the bias that JN
has. Two for one [op-eds the follow-
ing week] favored Nini and a list of
accusations of those who disagreed
with her. The recurrent theme was
that she should be forgiven for every-
thing because she is for a “two-state
solution.” As an Israeli-American, she
has the right to express her opinion.
At the end of the day, it is for
Israelis only, not Ameinu, to have the
right to decide their destiny.
Typically, actors are frequently
ignorant and express their opinions
as if they are learned and knowledge-
able. It takes two to tango, and the
Palestinians again and again reject
the good-willing, nice, benevolent,
interfaith Jews. It is spelled out
in the Fatah Constitution, Hamas
Covenant, in the streets and squares
called after those who killed Jews.
The conflict between the
Palestinians and Israel is not local
and nationalistic but Islamic and
global, and as long as Muslims in the
West Bank, Gaza and worldwide are
taught that “Jews are sons of pigs
and monkeys,” there cannot be peace
in the Holy Land.

Isaac Barr, M.D.
West Bloomfield

Editor’s Note: Noa has written a response
to local critics, which we have printed in its
entirety at thejewishnews.com. Look for it in
the “Views” section.

CORRECTION

• In “Water Issues” (May 25, page 42),
cost for lunch at the June 7 lecture at
Beth Shalom Synagogue in Oak Park
by Rachel Havrelock is $22.

