What Does Naqba Day Commemorate?

There can not be a celebration of Israeli Independence Day without an Arab Palestinian commemoration of Naqba Day, the day of catastrophe. Taking the most cursory look these two days will always have to be observed on the same day but have completely separate views of the events from the day Israel declared their existence and what actually occurred. Israelis celebrating Independence Day are joyously remembering the declaration by David ben Gurion signifying the resurrection of an ancient land birthing its new incarnation for the modern day that would celebrate, honor, and reconstruct the ancient customs and traditions of the Jewish nations from two thousand to three and a half thousand years in history while incorporating those items from antiquity into a modern state where technology, scientific developments at the cutting edge of modern research also exist, ancient farming mixed with modern discoveries in order to produce the highest quality crops possible, and a blend between all that was with the hopes for what can be. The celebration of the declaration of this new and brave mix of challenges with promises of renewed hopes while fulfilling the prophesies of antiquity making a blend which melds items which should clash over anachronisms yet are smelted together forming something new and wonderful. Israeli Independence Day is the celebration of the realization of a people of their collective dream which has waited almost two-thousand-years to come to fruition.

 

The commemoration by the Arabs of Naqba Day are mourning not only the coming into existence of the Jewish State but also the inability of the invading Arab armies allied with the Palestinian Arabs to squash the nascent Jewish state and commit a genocidal massacre of the Jews while destroying their hopes. The Armies from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon combined with the organized militias under the Mufti of Jerusalem with additional units coming from as near as Saudi Arabia all the way to as far as Yemen and Algeria in an all-out military push to utterly destroy every vestige of the new state of Israel. The war to extinguish the nascent state of Israel continued through cease-fires for over a year before the fighting was finally permanently halted with the front-lines as of the exact hour the cease-fire order passed became the 1949 Armistice Lines also known as the Green Line. The Naqba commemorates the simple truth which had sent shockwaves throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds; the little Jewish state of Israel had managed to resist the onslaught by these combined Arab forces against all the odds and stood defiantly holding more land at the close of the conflict than they held at the onset. The catastrophe was that despite massive odds and facing overwhelming military superiority of those forces gathered against them, the newly declared Israelis managed to initially hold out and eventually to push back and by the end of the conflict was routing the combined Arab forces. This impossible loss and the fact that Israel survived and the Israeli Jews remained and were not vanquished in a glorious slaughter reminiscent of Mohammed’s slaughter of the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah Tribe in the year 627 was the reason for the catastrophe, the Naqba, in the eyes of the Arabs, particularly the native Arab populations who had been promised all the wealth, possessions, lands, properties and all else that belonged to the Jews once they had been completely vanquished.

 

Another misconception concerning the reasons behind the whole concept of the Naqba was the Jews had pushed the Arabs from their towns, farms, homes and properties forcing them into refugee camps where they and their descendants continue to languish today. Some have gone as far as to claim that the Jews when declaring the state of Israel call upon their fellow Jews to rise and expel the Arabs and all other non-Jews from their midst and this was the impetus which caused the combined Arab armies to arrive to rescue the native Arabs from the planned Jewish slaughter. There was no organized extermination of Arabs conducted by the Jewish forces defending the nascent state of Israel. There is some truth to the claims that Jewish forces pushed Arabs from their lands, homes and possessions but most were usually committed due to security purposes. When Israeli units passed by Arab towns they originally attempted to bypass them and not interact. Should the residents attack the Jewish units then these towns were cleared in order to prevent an enemy force to gather behind the front lines of the Jewish forces. After having some towns attempt to allow these Jewish units to pass and then use a tactic of following them and engaging them from behind once the troops became engaged with the Arab front lines. This resulted in great danger and difficulties and resulted in the Jewish troops finding it necessary to at the least remove the fighting age males from any Arab town in order to keep a secure rear area free of antagonists. Even with this added situation, these removals proved to be fairly minor in scope with the vast majority of refugee Arabs resulting from the Arab population’s response to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem making a request for all Muslim Arabs to pick-up their families and move them to safety behind the attacking Arab forces. This was requested so that the advancing Arab forces could concentrate on simply shooting everybody they would meet simply assuming that all the Arabs had fled as told. In return for clearing the area so the Arab armies could have free-fire zones the Arabs were promised a generous share in the spoils of the conquest to come. The defeat of the Arab armies meant that these Arabs were cut-off from their homes and properties when the fighting ended. Despite an invitation to return to their property had they chosen to do so being extended by the Jewish ruling body, the Arabs were prevented from returning to their towns, farms, homes and belongings and were instead forced by their own brother in arms from the Arab armies into refugee camps where they became political pawns in a campaign of lies and distortions in order to work to destroy Israel.

 

So, the Naqba is less a result of action by the Jews and Israel unless you were to find fault in the Israelis defending themselves. What the Arab demonstrators commemorating the Naqba within Israel will never bother to tell the world is that their forbearers were among the Arabs who did not take up arms against their fellow Israelis just because they were Jews. Their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents remained on their farms or in their homes or possibly even fought alongside their Jewish neighbors helping to save the nascent state of Israel and remained within Israel with full rights and privileges as a citizen of Israel. Their main complaint concerning the Naqba was likely their regret that friends, family and acquaintances that fled at the request of the Mufti of Jerusalem were betrayed by their fellow Arabs and ended up being forced into refugee camps in the surrounding Arab lands. The vast majority of the Arabs incarcerated into the refugee camps found themselves in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and other Arab countries but there were no Arab refugees within the borders of Israel at the end of the fighting. No Arab refugee was denied citizenship in Israel, was denied decent housing in Israel, was refused a decent education by Israel, or was imprisoned behind barbed wire by Israel. These conditions were imposed by their brother Arabs who refused to allow them to return to their residences inside Israel despite the invitation which was initially extended by the Israelis. It was not until after time had passed and the Arab expatriation of their Jewish populations which within ten years of the founding of Israel had caused the immigration of over three-quarters of a million Jewish refugees entering and being absorbed by Israel. This is the reason that today there are no camps with Jewish refugees in Israel and the Israeli population consists of Sephardic Jews in near even numbers as there are European Ashkenazi Jews. Meanwhile the unfortunate Arab generations which have grown-up inside permanent refugee camps have served their purpose of extending the fiction of the Naqba caused by the Jews while suffering an Arab imposed catastrophe. Oddly enough, there are Arab refugee camps which exist today in Area A of the West Bank and within Gaza who are within areas under the complete political, security and physical control of Palestinian leadership, one group under the rule and restrictions by the Palestinian Authority while the other are under the rule and restrictions by Hamas. If either of these presumed defenders of the Palestinian Arab people would commit a simple act of decency by granting these refugees citizenship, they could relieve these tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Palestinian refugee’s sufferings. Since the refugee camps consist of cement block apartments, all that would be required is granting them citizenship for these Palestinian refugees in their respective Palestinian societies which are already ruled by Palestinian leaders and their refugee status and demeaned lives would be transformed immediately to free citizens within an area of Palestinian autonomy. Now their condition being perpetrated any longer qualifies as a true Naqba.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Argument Against Claims Israel Occupying Palestinian Lands

In a recent article discussing how Prime Minister Netanyahu should respond to any pressures from President Obama if he should demand or simply pressure Israeli leadership to provide a schedule for the withdrawal of Israelis from Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, my advice was that Prime Minister Netanyahu should “refuse to give the withdrawal even the dignity of discussion.” A comment posted in reaction to the article Rumor Obama Will Demand Timetable for Israeli Withdrawal West Bank Looking Credible insisted that I withdraw the word ‘dignity’ from my article. But they were not finished with my dressing down as they went on stating, and I quote the whole of the comments exactly as written, “I think you should remove the word dignity. Regardless of your views, which seem to be(this is not an absolute statement) pro-Israeli at any costs, there is still the case of an occupation that never ends. Occupation is not a picnic, it’s a horror trip, no matter how much we try to doll it up. And refusing discussion of any kind is the worst advice anyone can receive. Israel is a super-power, not some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks, stop pretending that it isn’t. Unfortunately, anyone who doesn’t support the occupation regime(policy) is immediately set upon, whether friend or foe: the world does not support it – it’s wrong and unbecoming of the Jewish/Israeli people. Talking/Dialogue is always the right way forward, and anyone who says otherwise, is a warmonger.” Well, let us look at the reality according to treaties, agreements and other pertinent items and see if I truly must be considered a warmonger.

The crux of the commenter’s argument is bound to the opinion that Israel is in occupation of lands which belong to some other nation and that Israel is the militarily superior power in the region possessing immense military and in comparison we see, and I quote, ‘some half-starved wannabee state with Katuscha fireworks.’ Apart from the misrepresentation of the presumed limited firepower possessed by the Palestinian terror forces who, in addition to the presumably harmless Katyusha fireworks, which are actually dangerous and potentially deadly rockets and not merely harmless fireworks, also have rockets capable of carrying payloads of up to a one ton warhead with a range capable of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from their launching grounds in Gaza. Should one actually be fully honest they would also need to include the rocket stores held by Hezballah in Lebanon which will someday very likely be loosed on Israel which include scud rockets provided by Syria and Iran which are capable of being armed with chemical or biological warheads supplied by Syria’s President Bashir Assad. The representation of the forces allied against Israel as being represented solely by the Palestinians, or even including Hezballah, is a misrepresentation as the reality is that Israel’s enemies include numerous other Arab and Muslim countries some of which are still in a state of war with Israel. What is commonly ignored is that of the countries who declared war on the nascent state of Israel in 1948 only Jordan and Egypt have made a technical peace with Israel. That means that Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon, and the entirety of the Arab League nations remain in a state of war with Israel. In addition to these countries which continue to hold themselves as in a state of war with Israel since her founding in 1948, we must add the name of Iran as they have declared themselves in a state of war with both Israel and the United States but have simply chosen to not turn from their declared cold war into an active hot war. Stating that the entire conflict between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel consists of just the Palestinians is ignoring the larger threats which are very real and will be acted upon should the situation ever appear to favor these forces being able to defeat Israel. Should these other nations decide to renew active warfare with Israel we can assume with a fair amount of confidence that Egypt and very likely Jordan will renege on their peace treaties with Israel and join the assault. So, the truth is that Israel’s adversaries when viewed in their true entirety are armed with far greater sized military forces than Israel could ever dream of fielding.

But what can be said about this so-called occupation? I believe my commenter is referring to the misconception that Israel is in occupation of the Palestinian people and refusing to permit their constituting their country of Palestine. For Israel to be in occupation of a nation called Palestine it would have been necessary for Israel to have been at war or in a state of hostilities with a country called Palestine and have defeated them and taken over their recognized lands. But Israel has never been at war with a country named Palestine; not now and not even in antiquity. Israel did have a period where there was a state of war between the Israelis (also known then as the Hebrews) with the Philistines from the nation of Philistine. This conflict has been settled history for over three-thousand-years and the Philistine people melted into the pages of history and no longer are a recognized people. The Palestinians, despite modern mythology, are Arab peoples originating from Syria, Egypt, Iraq and small numbers from other Arab nations. The mislabeled West Bank was given this false name by Jordan after they conquered Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem during the 1948 war of annihilation declared by several Arab nations who intended to completely erase the newly formed Jewish State from existence. Israel, through a miracle from Hashem, managed to survive this onslaught but lost some lands which included Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem lost to Jordan, the Golan Heights lost to Syria, and the Gaza Strip lost to Egypt. Egypt never claimed Gaza so there was no international decision as to whom Gaza actually belonged. Syria claimed the Golan Heights and was recognized as rightfully possessing the land. Jordan claimed what they called the West Bank to obscure the Jewish roots of the actual names of the lands they held. The rest of the Arab world did not recognize the Jordanian claim and neither did the majority of nations. The only countries which recognized the Jordanian claim were Great Britain and Pakistan. So, Jordan was seen as an occupying force when they held what they called the West Bank.

That begs a question; whose lands did Jordan occupy when they claimed the lands of Judea and Samaria along with the eastern half of Jerusalem? Jordan was occupying Israeli lands as the lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea were the recognized borders for Israel when the Arab League refused the partition plan refusing to establish an Arab state side by side with Israel in 1948. So, as Jordan was occupying Israeli lands after the 1948 war, when Israel reestablished control over Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem they were liberating these lands and reestablishing their rightful ownership. By International Law the Arabs who were residing in the areas of Judea and Samaria along with eastern Jerusalem who moved there after the end of the 1948 War along with any residents who took the Jordanian offer of citizenship would be returned to their country of origin and would be resettled in Jordan. Those who resided on these lands before the 1948 War would be eligible to petition for Israeli citizenship and if accepted be Israeli citizens and if refused could remain on the lands as legal foreign residents where they would own their land and would be permitted limited rights including being allowed to seek employment and if doing so to pay taxes, they would not be granted full citizenship and would not be granted the vote. Israel is not occupying any lands as they liberated what were previously their lands from Jordanian occupation. Even the presumed granting the Jordanian rights to the land to the Palestinians are meaningless as Jordan never rightfully owned these lands.

The final argument over the rightful ownership of the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem we need to look back at the history of treaties and other legal documents and edicts. The original division of the lands was declared in the Balfour Declaration which set aside lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. The League of Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and codified it as an International Agreement including setting up the Mandate system from which many of the countries in the Middle East were formed. These included but not limited to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman. The Jewish homeland was initially including everything from the Mediterranean Sea and the border with Iraq. The British decided to renege on this agreement and approached the Zionist leadership and made them an offer which they were not in any position to refuse as the English were a world power and the Zionists were a committee and some settlers without any military might. The agreement was written out in the Churchill White Papers taking the area of the British Mandate Lands from the Jordan River to the Iraq border and founded Transjordan which is known today simply as Jordan. That removed seventy-eight-percent of the lands originally intended for the Jewish State. The British and the member States of the League of Nations promised that the remaining twenty-two-percent of the Mandate Lands, including all from the Jordan River west to the Mediterranean Sea, were to be held sacrosanct and indivisible for the Jewish homelands. The founding of the United Nations included in its Charter in Article 80 the full recognition of the Mandates and all that was formed from these lands which had been tasked to France and Britain to dispense and establish nations. The only treaty which pertained to the lands of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem subsequent to the United Nations Charter was the Jordanian Israeli Peace Treaty in which Jordan recognized the return of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to Israeli control. As an afterthought and in recognition of Yasser Arafat and his efforts against Israel, the King of Jordan claimed that he had actually deeded the lands of the West Bank to the Palestinian people to establish their own State in the treaty with Israel. No such denotation is written in that peace treaty where it states that the lands which Jordan referred to as the West Bank, also known as Judea, Samaria and eastern parts of Jerusalem, were ceded back to Israeli control.

One is not a warmonger to claim that the contested lands rightfully belonging to Israel. The Arab League could have established an Arab country on half of the lands in 1948 but instead opted to use an attempted war of genocidal aggression to erase the Jewish State and murder its peoples. The combined Arab armies were, blessed be Hashem, unsuccessful and only managed to steal some of the lands. Among the stolen lands are the contested lands that my commenter believes belong to a mythical people who populated a nation called Palestine which was subsequently conquered through Israeli reactions to aggression, as if it existed and had lost a war of aggression against Israel. Even if this were a reality, Israel would still be entitled to retain the lands under International Law which allows any State which gains lands responding to the aggressions of another State is entitled to retain those lands. So, even if the lands belonged to Jordan or anybody else, since the war in which they fell to Israeli control was brought upon Israel and she fought a defensive war against efforts of aggression, then Israel still retains the lands and there is no occupation. No matter how one approaches the ownership of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, International Laws and agreements and treaties all grant Israel sovereignty over the lands if she so chooses to exercise her rights under International Laws and Agreements.

Beyond the Cusp

Will President Obama Challenge Hamas and Other Palestinian Threats?

Mushir al-Masri, speaking as a Hamas representative from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, declared that should United States President Barack Obama visit the Temple Mount during his excursion in Israel, it will be equivalent to a declaration of war on the Arab and the Islamic world. He demanded that there should be a declared third intifada and requested Egyptian assistance in the “resistance” of such a desecration by the American President take place. Khalid al-Batash, a senior Islamic Jihad member, also called to prevent Obama from visiting the compound. And these were not the most definitive of warnings. Sheikh Akrameh Sabri, former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and current head of the higher Islamic council was quoted by AFP warning, “Any visitor is welcome to Al-Aqsa, but they should follow the regulations of the Waqf and enter through the Lions’ Gate and not through Mughrabi Gate, to ensure Muslim sovereignty. The visit shouldn’t have a political theme to it because Al-Aqsa belongs to Muslims only and it is their place of worship and we refuse that any Israeli official accompanies the visitor.” Hatem Abdel Qader, head of the Jerusalem portfolio for the Fatah movement, said that Obama’s visit should be coordinated with the Palestinian Authority and with the Jordanians.

 

With such demands and even the somewhat overt threats makes one wonder if President Obama will simply avoid making any visit to the Temple Mount and what kind of result would such produce. It can be expected that should President Obama not visit the Temple Mount at all just to assure that he does not insult Islam or the easily riled Palestinians that such will be interpreted as a slight and a surrender to Israeli pressures which obviously had advised the President not to risk a visit. Whether or not the Israelis actually gave such advice will be of no consequence, the expressions of anger and reaction to insult is all that matters. Why else do the different Palestinian groups and even individual spokespeople make contradictory statements which when taken in full cover every possible action or lack of action as insulting and offensive to Islam and the Palestinian cause. These statements, demands and counters are made such that after President Obama has returned to the United States the Palestinians can choose which demands or warnings were transgressed and have the appropriate riots and violence targeting Israelis as the responsible and guilty party. The Friday riots after services on the Temple Mount were far more violent, viscous and animated this week and included not only the usual rock throwing and riots but also included Molotov cocktails and greater numbers and severity of attacks against security personnel stationed around the Temple Mount. This should be viewed as a warning of violence to come and a preliminary riot on which to build upon at a later date.

 

There has been an increase in violence with an emphasis on attacks in Judea and Samaria that has been escalating for the past weeks. There has been a definitive rise in rock and firebomb attacks on motorists and Israeli housing and crops. Some have already referred to these increased acts of violence as the beginning of yet another intifada. It is very likely that such is actually the case and that the plan is to use President Obama’s visit and some otherwise unimportant event as the trigger for the third (some say the count is as high as six) intifada. Additionally, there will be some within the leadership of the Palestinians will also blame Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for having formed a coalition which they see as unhelpful and biased against the Palestinians. This will be the complaint no matter which parties are included within the coalition and even with Tzipi Livni, one of the most likely to offer unprecedented concessions in peace talks, being placed completely responsible for any peace talks or other dealings between Israel and the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely making this decision relying of Mahmoud Abbas to refuse any offer no matter how generous that Tzipi Livni would offer. This is another reason for another intifada as starting such violence would likely scrub any possibility of restarting the peace process while such increased violence is occurring. The Palestinians also are likely counting on the rest of the world, especially the Europeans, to demand Israeli gifts and concessions in order to end the violence and entice the Palestinians back to the negotiating table and restarting the peace process. We have seen this act so many times over the years that one might be tempted to think that it would not still work. The truth is that as long as Israel is being forced to sacrifice the Europeans and much of the world will gladly demand such sacrificial acts despite knowing they will be fruitless and will not engender any advances in the peace talks. But first, will President Obama actually visit the Temple Mount and if so which gate will he use? Then comes the other point of inquiry, will he attend to the Temple Mount with security provided by Israel or by the Palestinians and depending on which, how safe should President Obama feel?

 

Beyond the Cusp