Arab unrest: perspectives - XXXIX

The Israeli leadership in particular is so often irked by the word "Palestine" or "Palestinian", let alone words "Palestanian statehood". The irony, however, is that one of the most rabid pro-Israel commentators, Joan Peters, had built up the entire edifice of her argument in From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict (published in 1984) around what an article titled The Rehabilitation of Joan Peters: Discredited author finds a new audience carried by the Rittenhouse Review on June 19, 2002 called "the preposterous claim that Palestine was virtually devoid of Arabs when Jews began aggressively settling in the area in the mid-20th century." In one of her TV talks on the Middle East conflict in recent years, Peters reiterated her position in relation to the issue.
According to her, only Jews deserve to be known as "genuine" Palestinians. Peters' perspective, however profoundly absurd, does not seek to demonise, at least not so brazenly, the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" because of some obvious reasons mainly related to her own narrative. However, one of the greatest examples of the Zionist state's pervasive contempt towards this word was noted by the world during the premiership of Menachem Begin when his government at one point prohibited the opening of a bank in Gaza because it had the word `Palestinian' in its name. His act was so despicable that it immediately invited criticism from no other but Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed warlord, who publicly said that he thought Israel had gone bonkers.
It is, therefore, instructive to note that no other person has perhaps better propounded the notion `Dayan was different from the rest' in relation to Israeli-Palestinian relations than Martin van Creveld. In his book, Moshe Dayan, Van Creveld, says: "[N]or, unlike many other Israelis, was Dayan blind to the human aspect of the situation. Whatever else, to him Arabs had always been flesh and blood just like himself. He neither looked down on them as `primitive' nor considered them particularly wicked. Almost to his last day he continued to talk to them and, as he liked best, haggle with them over antiques that they had found and he wanted to buy."
Peters is indeed among those scholars of Middle Eastern studies around the world who have undoubtedly contributed to an atmosphere that makes peace in the Middle East more difficult to achieve. The other such academic is Alan Dershowitz, law professor of Harvard, who is widely considered as the loudest pro-Israel voice. Dershowitz, the author of several books, was famously accused by noted Middle East commentator Norman Finkelstein of committing plagiarism. Interestingly, the author from whose book he allegedly chose to carry out `cut-and-paste' work for his own book was no one else but the highly `revered' Joan Peters. Although, it is not known how Peters reacted to these allegations against Dershowitz, Finkelstein had to lose his job at DePaul University where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007. According to Wikipedia: "[I]n 2007, after a highly publicised row between Finkelstein and a notable opponent of his, Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein's tenure bid at DePaul was denied. Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year, and on September 5, 2007, he announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms. An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, stated that outside influence played no role in the decision, and praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."
Later, a Dershowitz-Finkelstein debate moderated by Amy Goodman on US-based DemocracyNow TV channel added a new dimension to this simmering controversy. The law professor was seen making attempts, albeit meekly, to exonerate himself from the charges the pro-Palestinian writer was levelling by extensively quoting from the works of both Dershowitz and Peters.
Ironically, Dershowitz routinely blames others, particularly the Palestinian leadership, for the absence of peace in the Middle East. In one of his lectures in 2008 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University), he singled out the late Yasser Arafat as the man behind the lingering Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In a sardonic comment, he claimed that the "untimely death of Yasser Arafat makes the two-state solution a real possibility. I call Arafat's death untimely because if it had occurred five years earlier we might now be celebrating the anniversary of Palestinian statehood."
Unfortunately, however, Dershowitz, who reportedly declined Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to become Israel's ambassador on flimsy or fragile grounds, whereas the fact of the matter was that his decision to accept the offer would have required him to renounce his US citizenship, does not blame the Israeli leadership or Israeli policies, including continuing illegal construction of settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, as impediments towards resolution of the crisis.
That Israel is becoming increasingly isolated not just in the world, but inside the country as well, is a fact that has been aptly underpinned by no Arab publication or TV channel but by a mainstream Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In its editorial titled Netanyahu is stealing a poor man's sukkah [The word "Sukkah" means either "booth" or "hut" in Hebrew], the newspaper has noted that "it is regrettable that the prime minister insists on devoting his energies to expanding settlements and damaging the peace process instead of resuming negotiations."
Certain excerpts from this editorial-carried by the newspaper yesterday-underscore the need for reproduction: "Even before the ink had dried on the government's announcement that it welcomed the plan advanced by the Quartet on the Middle East for the resumption of peace negotiations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has undertaken an initiative that pulls the rug out from under international efforts to break the current deadlock. (It was that stalemate that led the Palestinians to seek recognition of their statehood from the United Nations Security Council.)... . Giving a government stamp of approval to the theft of the land of Palestinians, who are subject to the benevolence of the Israeli occupation authorities, would be akin to spitting in the faces of the Quartet members. It would also involve crossing a moral and legal red line. It is regrettable that Netanyahu has insisted on devoting his energies to damaging the peace process and provoking dissension and strife instead of the resumption of negotiations and vigorous action against right-wing extremist violence. It should be expected that Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein will hasten to remind the prime minister and justice minister of the biblical prophet Nathan's metaphor of the rich man who stole the poor man's only lamb. And in that spirit, the theft of a sukkah belonging to a poor nation is a distortion of law, justice, democracy and Jewish values."
to be continued
(The writer is newspaper's news editor)