Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Historical Palestine
The following is a transcript of a discusion on historical Palestine that took place on MSNBC. I found this to be a most interesting discussion and hope you, the reader, also find it so. I would be interested in any input from readers on the content of the discussion and your opinions of the items presented.
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I‘m Alan Keyes.
Should Israel annex half of the West Bank? Reports over the weekend suggested that Ariel Sharon is considering this idea.
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was asked about it yesterday on “Meet the Press.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIMON PERES, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: I mean, it‘s accurate for a while because that‘s what Sharon suggests as an interim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Would something like this be a solution, or, as I said, would it represent ultimately the suicide of the Jewish state of Israel, the loss, in other words over time, of the Jewish character of Israel?
Joining us now, Sarah Eltantawi, the communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization that works for American Muslim civil rights.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SARAH ELTANTAWI, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Thank you.
KEYES: First question that I would like to put to you, very simply, what do you think of this idea.
ELTANTAWI: It‘s completely morally repugnant, and I don‘t believe that the question should be whether or not this is going to change the character of the state, but the question should be whether or not the state of Israel has the right to parade around annexing any territory it wants to annex.
That‘s Palestinian land, Palestinian people live there, the entire world recognizes the West Bank as Palestinian land, and the question of whether or not Ariel Sharon wants to annex half of land that is not his is as ridiculous as saying, “Well, you know, Canada has plans to come here and annex Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. What do you think?” It‘s morally repugnant, it‘s absolutely ridiculous, and it‘s quite frightening, to be honest.
KEYES: There is the small sort of fact, though, that this was land that came under Israeli control as the result of a war in which the mobilization against Israel was aimed at its destruction.
They fought the war. As a result of their success, they came into control of this territory. And, in that sense, one is not required to surrender control, until one achieves, as they did with Egypt, a peace agreement by the terms of which that territory is then going to be relinquished on terms that provide peace and security. So it seems to me that it’s in that context that it has to be discussed because they are, in one sense, as a result of that war, legitimately in control of the territory.
ELTANTAWI: Well, Alan, I‘m sorry, that‘s — there‘s three problems with what you just said.
The first is that — first of all, the 1967 war was not brought upon the State of Israel to — for its destruction. That‘s highly debatable, and, in fact, the 1967 war was started by a preemptive strike that the Israelis made after a faulty...
KEYES: Well, Sarah, don‘t try that on this program.
ELTANTAWI: Well, OK. Number two...
KEYES: No, no, no. I don‘t like having to use the “L” word with my guests.
ELTANTAWI: All right.
KEYES: Everyone who lived through that period, as I did, and knows the history knows that what you just said does not correspond to the facts and I can go through them chapter and verse, if you like.
ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, the point is...
KEYES: So don‘t try that here.
ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, can we try...
KEYES: Egypt and their buddies made the decision to attack.
ELTANTAWI: Well, can we try international law on this show?
KEYES: We have the historic records where they planned it. Ramal Abdel Nasar ordered the U.N. troops out of the way.
ELTANTAWI: That fact of the matter...
KEYES: We have the mobilization of Syrian forces moving toward Israel. All of that‘s the truth and you‘re trying to ignore that.
ELTANTAWI: Alan, regardless of how ‘67 — the ‘67 war started, the — Israel is under mandate by the United Nations, Resolution 242, to pull out of all the occupied territories...
KEYES: That‘s not true.
ELTANTAWI: ... and that was just reaffirmed.
KEYES: Again, you‘re not...
ELTANTAWI: It was just reaffirmed last week.
KEYES: Again, you‘re not telling the truth.
ELTANTAWI: I am telling the truth.
KEYES: I am sorry. That is not true.
ELTANTAWI: It — I am telling the truth.
KEYES: No, you‘re not.
ELTANTAWI: What was Resolution 1402 last week, Alan?
KEYES: Sarah, Resolution 242 is quite explicit in linking withdrawal from the territories to a peace that provides security for Israel. The two things are given equal status and they go hand in hand. Israel does not have to relinquish territory until peace is achieved.
ELTANTAWI: No. No, the resolution says that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories the Golan Heights, all Arab territories, the West Bank, Gaza.
KEYES: That is not a true statement.
ELTANTAWI: It is, of course, true, and it was just reaffirmed two weeks ago by our very government in the United Nations that Israel needs to immediately pull out of all Palestine cities.
KEYES: No, it was not, you know, one of the things that I find interesting is that…
ELTANTAWI: What is your point, Alan? That the Israelis should simply annex it. Is that your point?
KEYES: No, no, no. Not at all.
ELTANTAWI: Well, what is it?
KEYES: My point is...
ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinians don‘t live there?
KEYES: ... that I do find it interesting...
ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinian people have no self-determination over themselves?
KEYES: I do find it interesting — let me explain — that, in the course of a lot of these discussions now, I hear representatives of the Palestinians, the PLO refer to Palestine territories — occupied territories, as historic Palestine. They are not.
ELTANTAWI: They are occupied territories in historic Palestine and you will never get me to stop saying that.
KEYES: There are not.
ELTANTAWI: Well, that‘s only the most right-wing...
KEYES: Let me point out the facts.
ELTANTAWI: Why do you blindly parrot the right-wing Israeli line?
KEYES: Sarah, no. What...
ELTANTAWI: Why aren‘t you willing to listen?
KEYES: I am simply trying to reflect the truth. Let‘s take a look...
ELTANTAWI: No, that is not the truth.
KEYES: Let‘s take a look, if we can, at this whole issue of historic Palestine, because it‘s a phrase that‘s been thrown around a lot. What did historic Palestine consist in?
Well, let‘s start out with this. The blue line outlines the British mandate for Palestine, all right? It included what the British later, after they had gotten the mandate, called Transjordan and what they called Palestine.
But the mandate itself referred to the whole area surrounded by that blue line as Palestine, and that whole area, which included Amman and Jerusalem and that whole area — that was what was referred to as Palestine by the Arabs from time immemorial, and so we‘re looking at a map here of...
ELTANTAWI: That‘s absolutely untrue.
KEYES: ... Jordan. No, it‘s not absolutely untrue. It‘s absolutely true.
ELTANTAWI: That‘s absolutely untrue.
KEYES: Let me tell you. First...
ELTANTAWI: Why don‘t you ask the Palestinians what they think of as their home?
KEYES: Sarah, I will. Let‘s look at what the Palestinians said.
In the charter for the PLO, Article 2 says — quote — “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”
Step number one. OK. The British mandate boundaries outlined in blue there — that‘s what the PLO charter says is Palestine. So I asked the Palestinians.
Here‘s what the late King Hussein of Jordan wrote in his memoirs.
ELTANTAWI: Alan, I don‘t know where you‘re going with this...
KEYES: Let me finish, please.
ELTANTAWI: ... but it‘s irrelevant.
KEYES: “Palestine and Jordan were both by then under British mandate, but, as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs,” they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed, in a sense, the interior of Palestine.”
Here is what a Palestinian official said — you asked the question — in 1977, “There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.” That — now that was the...
ELTANTAWI: This is an — this is absurd. What are you suggesting, Alan? Are you suggesting that Jordan is Palestine? I mean, what — where exactly are you going with this? I mean, there are so many things — first of all...
KEYES: Well, I...
ELTANTAWI: ... as we know, what the PLO charter — the PLO entered into negotiations with the State of Israel in 1993 in Oslo and forfeited 78 percent of their original homeland to the Israelis and recognized the two-state solution with the State of Palestine being on the West Bank and Gaza. Anything before — and East Jerusalem. Anything before that actually is a moot point. So let‘s start at a point in history that makes sense.
KEYES: This is exactly what I find fascinating.
ELTANTAWI: Number two, Palestine is not Jordan. Because Canada comes and tells me that, you know, Washington, D.C., is actually Virginia, that does not make it so.
KEYES: Sarah...
ELTANTAWI: Ask the Palestinian people where they were born where are the deeds to their house where are the keys, and I guarantee you it‘s going to be within Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza.
KEYES: That‘s exactly what I just did, and we‘ll do some more of it because — right now, sad to say...
ELTANTAWI: What you‘re doing is you are simply parroting political rhetoric of the leadership of Jordan under the British mandate.
KEYES: What you are doing right now is you are trying to manipulate the ignorance of the new generation of people in the world who aren‘t familiar with the historic facts.
ELTANTAWI: That is absolutely untrue.
KEYES: ... and we‘re going to — stay right there, though, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Absolutely untrue.
KEYES: Stay right there because we‘re going to have more with our guest after this, and I‘m going to be walking through a little bit more of that history with some interesting quotes from more Arabs and others talking about just what history shows us to be the real nature of Palestine, and it does have implications for this discussion.
We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We‘re back with Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
And before we start again, I want to make a point because Sarah ended by saying that anything that occurred before the recent past is a moot point.
Why use the phrase historic if you I don‘t mean to refer to historic? I mean, the definition of historic is “known or established in the past.” To know whether something is historic Palestine, you‘ve got to look at the past.
Now here is what the president of Tunisia said in 1973 about historic Palestine, what Palestine really was. “With all respect to King Hussein,” he said, “I suggest that the emirate of Transjordan was created from oilcloth by Great Britain, which, for this purpose, cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the east of the Jordan River, it gave the name Transjordan, but there is nothing in history that carries this name, while, since our earliest time, there was Palestine and Palestinians.”
I think it is very clear that the whole thing was considered by Arabs to be Palestine, that the British came in with their colonial mentality and chopped it all up. That‘s what the PLO was referring to in their very own charter.
That‘s what they acted on in 1970 when they sought to take over the government of Jordan, which was legitimately, they thought, theirs because more than half the Jordanian population is Palestinian.
That‘s what the king thought when for all those years before 1988 he claimed the West Bank as part of Jordan and an integral part of Palestine.
ELTANTAWI: What is your point?
KEYES: One people, one...
ELTANTAWI: What in the world is your point?
KEYES: Let me finish, ma‘am. I‘m not done. Because the point is very simple. If you look at the map we showed a few minutes ago — let‘s put it back up on the screen.
If you look at Transjordan, the red part there is what the Jewish folks who were looking for a homeland for Israel originally wanted. Obviously, they didn‘t get anything like their desires.
If you look within the boundaries in blue there and you consider as Bordiba (ph) and everybody else that considered — all the Arabs, all the Palestinians, the PLO, everybody — that‘s Palestine, 75 percent of it went to the Arabs. Twenty percent of it...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, my.
KEYES: Twenty percent of it...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, my goodness.
KEYES: ... went to the Jews.
ELTANTAWI: Alan...
KEYES: Five percent of it sitting there in the West Bank territories was disputed and kind of left in limbo and so forth and so on. Setting up the situation with this lie that truncates the actual meaning of Palestine so as to make the Israelis look like they‘re land hogs and the Arabs didn‘t get anything...
ELTANTAWI: Do you deny basic facts in history?
KEYES: This is vicious...
ELTANTAWI: You are the vicious one. You are...
KEYES: Sarah, this is vicious propaganda.
ELTANTAWI: ... the vicious one. No, you are the vicious one. No, you are vicious propagandist.
First of all, I have not heard this brand of right-wing pro-Israel screed in about 30 years. I mean, this is — these are the most discredited Jordan-is-Palestine claims. This is totally out of vogue, out of fashion. We‘ve decided already that we know that Palestine is not Jordan.
But let‘s take your argument for a second, Alan. Do you think that there were Palestinians in the land that was west of the Jordan River when the Eastern European Jews — not the natives of the area, the Eastern European Jews came and colonized the land around the turn of the century?
Do you or do you not deny that there were actually Palestinians living in that land and that they were expelled to the tune of 850,000 people with — when the Zionists came in and immigrated? Do you or do you not agree with that?
KEYES: There were Palestinians. There were Jews. There…
ELTANTAWI: There were Palestinians there.
KEYES: Let me finish. There were Jewish and Arab Palestinians.
ELTANTAWI: Yes.
KEYES: There were folks who came over and immigrated under the auspices of the British, and, with international sanction, they came over, and, also, by the way, the notion that they were expelled is not true
ELTANTAWI: It‘s absolutely true.
KEYES: Historically speaking when the war occurred in 1948 a lot of these people left their homes, very few of them under encouragement of any kind from the Israelis.
ELTANTAWI: Wrong. Alan, not only do you have one side of the story, but you have the most extreme side of the story.
You have a new movement in the State of Israel called the New Historians with historians, such as Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, who acknowledge that large amounts of Palestinians were expelled from over 400 villages in 1947 and 1948, especially Village Deir Yassin, which was used as an example in which 150 Palestinians were lined up and shot, and it was used as an example for the rest of...
KEYES: Sarah, first of all...
ELTANTAWI: They were expelled, and it‘s a matter of historical fact that Palestinians were expelled and you are denying that.
KEYES: I do not — I do not deny...
LTANTAWI: Well, Alan, you‘re wrong. There was general expulsion.
KEYES: I deny, first of all, only that there was some general expulsion. There were elements on the Israeli side that did practice that, but there were also muftis and newspapers and leaders on the Arab side who encouraged the Palestinians to leave.
ELTANTAWI: Absolute — that’s an absolute propaganda, a lie.
KEYES: That‘s not propaganda, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Absolute lie.
KEYES: But you know what I find most fascinating, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Actually...
KEYES: Why you want to refer to historic Palestine. Then when I go into the history and show the boundaries of actual Palestine, you say, no, that‘s irrelevant. You want to define...
ELTANTAWI: Alan, are you...
KEYES: Let me finish. You want to define history by your fashion, by your opinion.
ELTANTAWI: No, you want to define history by your opinion.
KEYES: History, Sarah, doesn‘t consist of what’s in fashion.
ELTANTAWI: Are you aware of what‘s — are you aware of the colonial history of Africa, for example?
KEYES: History doesn‘t consist of what‘s in fashion, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Do you know — are you aware...
KEYES: History consists of the facts. I present facts...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, Alan, there was no...
KEYES: ... facts that were acknowledged by Arab leaders, the king of Jordan, the Palestinians themselves, the charter, George Habas...
ELTANTAWI: This is absolutely ridiculous.
KEYES: All referred to these facts, and you now want to dismiss them because they don‘t serve your propaganda purposes.
ELTANTAWI: Absolutely — absolutely outer space.
KEYES: Sarah, thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it, Sarah. Thanks for being on. I think it‘s a wonderful illustration, though, y‘all, I have to say, of the fact that some people want to ignore the facts, if it doesn‘t serve their propaganda. Anyway, thank you.
Should Israel annex half of the West Bank? Reports over the weekend suggested that Ariel Sharon is considering this idea.
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was asked about it yesterday on “Meet the Press.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIMON PERES, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: I mean, it‘s accurate for a while because that‘s what Sharon suggests as an interim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Would something like this be a solution, or, as I said, would it represent ultimately the suicide of the Jewish state of Israel, the loss, in other words over time, of the Jewish character of Israel?
Joining us now, Sarah Eltantawi, the communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization that works for American Muslim civil rights.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SARAH ELTANTAWI, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Thank you.
KEYES: First question that I would like to put to you, very simply, what do you think of this idea.
ELTANTAWI: It‘s completely morally repugnant, and I don‘t believe that the question should be whether or not this is going to change the character of the state, but the question should be whether or not the state of Israel has the right to parade around annexing any territory it wants to annex.
That‘s Palestinian land, Palestinian people live there, the entire world recognizes the West Bank as Palestinian land, and the question of whether or not Ariel Sharon wants to annex half of land that is not his is as ridiculous as saying, “Well, you know, Canada has plans to come here and annex Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. What do you think?” It‘s morally repugnant, it‘s absolutely ridiculous, and it‘s quite frightening, to be honest.
KEYES: There is the small sort of fact, though, that this was land that came under Israeli control as the result of a war in which the mobilization against Israel was aimed at its destruction.
They fought the war. As a result of their success, they came into control of this territory. And, in that sense, one is not required to surrender control, until one achieves, as they did with Egypt, a peace agreement by the terms of which that territory is then going to be relinquished on terms that provide peace and security. So it seems to me that it’s in that context that it has to be discussed because they are, in one sense, as a result of that war, legitimately in control of the territory.
ELTANTAWI: Well, Alan, I‘m sorry, that‘s — there‘s three problems with what you just said.
The first is that — first of all, the 1967 war was not brought upon the State of Israel to — for its destruction. That‘s highly debatable, and, in fact, the 1967 war was started by a preemptive strike that the Israelis made after a faulty...
KEYES: Well, Sarah, don‘t try that on this program.
ELTANTAWI: Well, OK. Number two...
KEYES: No, no, no. I don‘t like having to use the “L” word with my guests.
ELTANTAWI: All right.
KEYES: Everyone who lived through that period, as I did, and knows the history knows that what you just said does not correspond to the facts and I can go through them chapter and verse, if you like.
ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, the point is...
KEYES: So don‘t try that here.
ELTANTAWI: All right. Well, can we try...
KEYES: Egypt and their buddies made the decision to attack.
ELTANTAWI: Well, can we try international law on this show?
KEYES: We have the historic records where they planned it. Ramal Abdel Nasar ordered the U.N. troops out of the way.
ELTANTAWI: That fact of the matter...
KEYES: We have the mobilization of Syrian forces moving toward Israel. All of that‘s the truth and you‘re trying to ignore that.
ELTANTAWI: Alan, regardless of how ‘67 — the ‘67 war started, the — Israel is under mandate by the United Nations, Resolution 242, to pull out of all the occupied territories...
KEYES: That‘s not true.
ELTANTAWI: ... and that was just reaffirmed.
KEYES: Again, you‘re not...
ELTANTAWI: It was just reaffirmed last week.
KEYES: Again, you‘re not telling the truth.
ELTANTAWI: I am telling the truth.
KEYES: I am sorry. That is not true.
ELTANTAWI: It — I am telling the truth.
KEYES: No, you‘re not.
ELTANTAWI: What was Resolution 1402 last week, Alan?
KEYES: Sarah, Resolution 242 is quite explicit in linking withdrawal from the territories to a peace that provides security for Israel. The two things are given equal status and they go hand in hand. Israel does not have to relinquish territory until peace is achieved.
ELTANTAWI: No. No, the resolution says that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories the Golan Heights, all Arab territories, the West Bank, Gaza.
KEYES: That is not a true statement.
ELTANTAWI: It is, of course, true, and it was just reaffirmed two weeks ago by our very government in the United Nations that Israel needs to immediately pull out of all Palestine cities.
KEYES: No, it was not, you know, one of the things that I find interesting is that…
ELTANTAWI: What is your point, Alan? That the Israelis should simply annex it. Is that your point?
KEYES: No, no, no. Not at all.
ELTANTAWI: Well, what is it?
KEYES: My point is...
ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinians don‘t live there?
KEYES: ... that I do find it interesting...
ELTANTAWI: That the Palestinian people have no self-determination over themselves?
KEYES: I do find it interesting — let me explain — that, in the course of a lot of these discussions now, I hear representatives of the Palestinians, the PLO refer to Palestine territories — occupied territories, as historic Palestine. They are not.
ELTANTAWI: They are occupied territories in historic Palestine and you will never get me to stop saying that.
KEYES: There are not.
ELTANTAWI: Well, that‘s only the most right-wing...
KEYES: Let me point out the facts.
ELTANTAWI: Why do you blindly parrot the right-wing Israeli line?
KEYES: Sarah, no. What...
ELTANTAWI: Why aren‘t you willing to listen?
KEYES: I am simply trying to reflect the truth. Let‘s take a look...
ELTANTAWI: No, that is not the truth.
KEYES: Let‘s take a look, if we can, at this whole issue of historic Palestine, because it‘s a phrase that‘s been thrown around a lot. What did historic Palestine consist in?
Well, let‘s start out with this. The blue line outlines the British mandate for Palestine, all right? It included what the British later, after they had gotten the mandate, called Transjordan and what they called Palestine.
But the mandate itself referred to the whole area surrounded by that blue line as Palestine, and that whole area, which included Amman and Jerusalem and that whole area — that was what was referred to as Palestine by the Arabs from time immemorial, and so we‘re looking at a map here of...
ELTANTAWI: That‘s absolutely untrue.
KEYES: ... Jordan. No, it‘s not absolutely untrue. It‘s absolutely true.
ELTANTAWI: That‘s absolutely untrue.
KEYES: Let me tell you. First...
ELTANTAWI: Why don‘t you ask the Palestinians what they think of as their home?
KEYES: Sarah, I will. Let‘s look at what the Palestinians said.
In the charter for the PLO, Article 2 says — quote — “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”
Step number one. OK. The British mandate boundaries outlined in blue there — that‘s what the PLO charter says is Palestine. So I asked the Palestinians.
Here‘s what the late King Hussein of Jordan wrote in his memoirs.
ELTANTAWI: Alan, I don‘t know where you‘re going with this...
KEYES: Let me finish, please.
ELTANTAWI: ... but it‘s irrelevant.
KEYES: “Palestine and Jordan were both by then under British mandate, but, as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs,” they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the River Jordan, it formed, in a sense, the interior of Palestine.”
Here is what a Palestinian official said — you asked the question — in 1977, “There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.” That — now that was the...
ELTANTAWI: This is an — this is absurd. What are you suggesting, Alan? Are you suggesting that Jordan is Palestine? I mean, what — where exactly are you going with this? I mean, there are so many things — first of all...
KEYES: Well, I...
ELTANTAWI: ... as we know, what the PLO charter — the PLO entered into negotiations with the State of Israel in 1993 in Oslo and forfeited 78 percent of their original homeland to the Israelis and recognized the two-state solution with the State of Palestine being on the West Bank and Gaza. Anything before — and East Jerusalem. Anything before that actually is a moot point. So let‘s start at a point in history that makes sense.
KEYES: This is exactly what I find fascinating.
ELTANTAWI: Number two, Palestine is not Jordan. Because Canada comes and tells me that, you know, Washington, D.C., is actually Virginia, that does not make it so.
KEYES: Sarah...
ELTANTAWI: Ask the Palestinian people where they were born where are the deeds to their house where are the keys, and I guarantee you it‘s going to be within Israel proper and the West Bank and Gaza.
KEYES: That‘s exactly what I just did, and we‘ll do some more of it because — right now, sad to say...
ELTANTAWI: What you‘re doing is you are simply parroting political rhetoric of the leadership of Jordan under the British mandate.
KEYES: What you are doing right now is you are trying to manipulate the ignorance of the new generation of people in the world who aren‘t familiar with the historic facts.
ELTANTAWI: That is absolutely untrue.
KEYES: ... and we‘re going to — stay right there, though, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Absolutely untrue.
KEYES: Stay right there because we‘re going to have more with our guest after this, and I‘m going to be walking through a little bit more of that history with some interesting quotes from more Arabs and others talking about just what history shows us to be the real nature of Palestine, and it does have implications for this discussion.
We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We‘re back with Sarah Eltantawi of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
And before we start again, I want to make a point because Sarah ended by saying that anything that occurred before the recent past is a moot point.
Why use the phrase historic if you I don‘t mean to refer to historic? I mean, the definition of historic is “known or established in the past.” To know whether something is historic Palestine, you‘ve got to look at the past.
Now here is what the president of Tunisia said in 1973 about historic Palestine, what Palestine really was. “With all respect to King Hussein,” he said, “I suggest that the emirate of Transjordan was created from oilcloth by Great Britain, which, for this purpose, cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the east of the Jordan River, it gave the name Transjordan, but there is nothing in history that carries this name, while, since our earliest time, there was Palestine and Palestinians.”
I think it is very clear that the whole thing was considered by Arabs to be Palestine, that the British came in with their colonial mentality and chopped it all up. That‘s what the PLO was referring to in their very own charter.
That‘s what they acted on in 1970 when they sought to take over the government of Jordan, which was legitimately, they thought, theirs because more than half the Jordanian population is Palestinian.
That‘s what the king thought when for all those years before 1988 he claimed the West Bank as part of Jordan and an integral part of Palestine.
ELTANTAWI: What is your point?
KEYES: One people, one...
ELTANTAWI: What in the world is your point?
KEYES: Let me finish, ma‘am. I‘m not done. Because the point is very simple. If you look at the map we showed a few minutes ago — let‘s put it back up on the screen.
If you look at Transjordan, the red part there is what the Jewish folks who were looking for a homeland for Israel originally wanted. Obviously, they didn‘t get anything like their desires.
If you look within the boundaries in blue there and you consider as Bordiba (ph) and everybody else that considered — all the Arabs, all the Palestinians, the PLO, everybody — that‘s Palestine, 75 percent of it went to the Arabs. Twenty percent of it...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, my.
KEYES: Twenty percent of it...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, my goodness.
KEYES: ... went to the Jews.
ELTANTAWI: Alan...
KEYES: Five percent of it sitting there in the West Bank territories was disputed and kind of left in limbo and so forth and so on. Setting up the situation with this lie that truncates the actual meaning of Palestine so as to make the Israelis look like they‘re land hogs and the Arabs didn‘t get anything...
ELTANTAWI: Do you deny basic facts in history?
KEYES: This is vicious...
ELTANTAWI: You are the vicious one. You are...
KEYES: Sarah, this is vicious propaganda.
ELTANTAWI: ... the vicious one. No, you are the vicious one. No, you are vicious propagandist.
First of all, I have not heard this brand of right-wing pro-Israel screed in about 30 years. I mean, this is — these are the most discredited Jordan-is-Palestine claims. This is totally out of vogue, out of fashion. We‘ve decided already that we know that Palestine is not Jordan.
But let‘s take your argument for a second, Alan. Do you think that there were Palestinians in the land that was west of the Jordan River when the Eastern European Jews — not the natives of the area, the Eastern European Jews came and colonized the land around the turn of the century?
Do you or do you not deny that there were actually Palestinians living in that land and that they were expelled to the tune of 850,000 people with — when the Zionists came in and immigrated? Do you or do you not agree with that?
KEYES: There were Palestinians. There were Jews. There…
ELTANTAWI: There were Palestinians there.
KEYES: Let me finish. There were Jewish and Arab Palestinians.
ELTANTAWI: Yes.
KEYES: There were folks who came over and immigrated under the auspices of the British, and, with international sanction, they came over, and, also, by the way, the notion that they were expelled is not true
ELTANTAWI: It‘s absolutely true.
KEYES: Historically speaking when the war occurred in 1948 a lot of these people left their homes, very few of them under encouragement of any kind from the Israelis.
ELTANTAWI: Wrong. Alan, not only do you have one side of the story, but you have the most extreme side of the story.
You have a new movement in the State of Israel called the New Historians with historians, such as Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, who acknowledge that large amounts of Palestinians were expelled from over 400 villages in 1947 and 1948, especially Village Deir Yassin, which was used as an example in which 150 Palestinians were lined up and shot, and it was used as an example for the rest of...
KEYES: Sarah, first of all...
ELTANTAWI: They were expelled, and it‘s a matter of historical fact that Palestinians were expelled and you are denying that.
KEYES: I do not — I do not deny...
LTANTAWI: Well, Alan, you‘re wrong. There was general expulsion.
KEYES: I deny, first of all, only that there was some general expulsion. There were elements on the Israeli side that did practice that, but there were also muftis and newspapers and leaders on the Arab side who encouraged the Palestinians to leave.
ELTANTAWI: Absolute — that’s an absolute propaganda, a lie.
KEYES: That‘s not propaganda, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Absolute lie.
KEYES: But you know what I find most fascinating, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Actually...
KEYES: Why you want to refer to historic Palestine. Then when I go into the history and show the boundaries of actual Palestine, you say, no, that‘s irrelevant. You want to define...
ELTANTAWI: Alan, are you...
KEYES: Let me finish. You want to define history by your fashion, by your opinion.
ELTANTAWI: No, you want to define history by your opinion.
KEYES: History, Sarah, doesn‘t consist of what’s in fashion.
ELTANTAWI: Are you aware of what‘s — are you aware of the colonial history of Africa, for example?
KEYES: History doesn‘t consist of what‘s in fashion, Sarah.
ELTANTAWI: Do you know — are you aware...
KEYES: History consists of the facts. I present facts...
ELTANTAWI: Oh, Alan, there was no...
KEYES: ... facts that were acknowledged by Arab leaders, the king of Jordan, the Palestinians themselves, the charter, George Habas...
ELTANTAWI: This is absolutely ridiculous.
KEYES: All referred to these facts, and you now want to dismiss them because they don‘t serve your propaganda purposes.
ELTANTAWI: Absolutely — absolutely outer space.
KEYES: Sarah, thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it, Sarah. Thanks for being on. I think it‘s a wonderful illustration, though, y‘all, I have to say, of the fact that some people want to ignore the facts, if it doesn‘t serve their propaganda. Anyway, thank you.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
I live in the USA. For all its faults, the United States is a government that gives no ethnicity legal privilege. It is a democracy, in form at least. And as such allows every person who lives here a vote. Same with Canada. Same with Mexico. Same with all of the American states. Same with France. Same with England. Same with Russian. Same with even South Africa.
Zionism claims that Arabs must be removed to keep the state "Jewish." This is hogwash and fascist to the core.
I don't support any faction of Palestinian politics, but I know who started this trouble. Until the refugees are allowed return to their land, all of them, there will be no peace. That's not a threat, it's just an observation.
PLO has repeatedly refused to accept settlement with Israel for the West Bank and related territories. Jews do not want the Arabs [sic] out of Israel, and your inability to understand the difference and similarity between Palestinians, Arabs, and Jews indicates your lack of education on the subject.
Your energy and desire to improve things are admirable. Once you overcome your ignorance, you should be able to contribute to making the world a better place.
>The first is that — first of all, the 1967 war was not brought upon the State of Israel to — for its destruction. That‘s highly debatable, and, in fact, the 1967 war was started by a preemptive strike that the Israelis made after a faulty...
>KEYES: Well, Sarah, don‘t try that on this program.
>ELTANTAWI: Well, OK. Number two...
>KEYES: No, no, no. I don‘t like having to use the “L” word with my guests.
Here's what The Department for Jewish Zionist Education says about the premtive strike:
"On June 5th, Israel decided to launch a pre-emptive attack on Egypt."
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/six.html
Yeah, the Israelis did start it. Why does Keyes not want his audience to know this?
Keyes said,"Egypt and their buddies made the decision to attack. We have the historic records where they planned it. Ramal Abdel Nasar ordered the U.N. troops out of the way. We have the mobilization of Syrian forces moving toward Israel.
There's no way to deny that Israel made the first strike. He's just pointing out they had a damn good reason to move forward when they got word they were going to be attacked.
Sponsored by the United Kingdom and France, the resolution is
deliberately ambiguous. It has been accepted by Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon and Israel. It has also been accepted by the PLO.
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in
the Middle East.
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory
by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in
which every state in the area can live in security.
Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance
of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a
commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter
1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires
the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle
East which should include the application of both the following
principles:
1.Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent
conflict.
2.Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and
respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of every state in the area
and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized
boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
2.Affirms further the necessity for:
1.Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international
waterways in the area.
2.Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.
3.Guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political
independence of every state in the area through measures
including the establishment of demilitarized zones.
3.Requests the Secretary General to designate a special
representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and
maintain contacts within the state concerned in order to
promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and
accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and
principles in this resolution.'
(N.B. The official French text refers to withdrawal des
territories.)
Accepted by the PLO
Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities and Programs1
Nuclear2 · Sophisticated nuclear weapons program with an estimated 100-200 weapons, which can be delivered by ballistic missiles or aircraft. · Nuclear arsenal may include thermonuclear weapons. · 150MW heavy water reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility at Dimona, which are not under IAEA safeguards. · IRR-1 5MW research reactor at Soreq, under IAEA safeguards. · Not a signatory of the NPT; signed the CTBT on 9/25/96.
Chemical3 · Active weapons program, but not believed to have deployed chemical warheads on ballistic missiles. · Production capability for mustard and nerve agents. · Signed the CWC on 1/13/93, currently debating its ratification.
Biological4 · Production capability and extensive research reportedly conducted at the Biological Research Institute in Ness Ziona. · No publicly confirmed evidence of production. · Not a signatory of the BTWC.
Ballistic missiles5 · Approximately 50 Jericho-2 missiles with 1,500km range and 1,000kg payload, nuclear warheads may be stored in close proximity. · Approximately 50 Jericho-1 missiles with 500km range and 500kg payload. · MGM-52 Lance missiles with 130km range and 450kg payload.. · Shavit space launch vehicle (SLV) with 4,500km range and 150kg to 250kg payload. · Unconfirmed reports of Jericho-3 program under development using Shavit technologies, with a range up to 4,800km and 1000kg payload. · Developing Next (Shavit upgrade) SLV with unknown range and 300-500kg payload.
Cruise missiles6 · Harpy lethal unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with 500km range and unknown payload. · Delilah/STAR-1 UAV with 400km range and 50kg payload. · Gabriel-4 anti-ship cruise missile with 200km range and 500kg payload. · Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile with 120km range and 220kg payload.
Other delivery systems7 · Fighter and ground-attack aircraft incllude: 2 F-15I, 6 F-15D, 18 F-15C, 2 F-15B, 36 F-15A, 54 F-16D, 76 F-16C, 8 F-16B, 67 F-16A, 50 F-4E-2000, 25 F-4E, 20 Kfir C7, and 50 A-4N. · Ground systems include artillery and rocket launchers. Also, Popeye-3 land-attack air-launched missile with 350km range and 360kg payload, and Popeye-1 land-attack air-launched missile with 100km range and 395kg payload.
Sources:
1. This chart summarizes data available from public sources. Precise assessment of a state's capabilities is difficult because most weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs remain secret and cannot be verified independently.
2. Most public estimates range between 100-200 weapons (e.g., Amy Dockser Marcus, "Growing Dangers: U.S. Drive to Curb Doomsday Weapons In Mideast Is Faltering," Wall Street Journal, 9/6/96, p. A1), but one analyst concludes that "the Israeli nuclear arsenal contains as many as 400 deliverable nuclear and thermonuclear weapons." Harold Hough, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive A First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 9/97, p. 410. Israel's nuclear capability is by most accounts quite sophisticated, and may include "intercontinental-range, fractional-orbit-delivered thermonuclear weapons; thermonuclear or boosted nuclear-armed, two-stage, solid-fuel, intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000km; older, less accurate, nuclear-armed, theatre-range, solid-fuel ballistic missiles; air-deliverable, variable-yield, boosted nuclear bombs; artillery-delivered, enhanced-radiation, tactical weapons; and small nuclear demolition charges." Kenneth S. Brower, "A Propensity For Conflict: Potential Scenarios And Outcomes Of War In The Middle East," Jane's Intelligence Review Special Report No. 14, p. 15. See also: Anthony H. Cordesman, "Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: National Efforts, War Fighting Capabilities, Weapons Lethality, Terrorism, and Arms Control Implications" (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2/98), p. 19. "Nuclear Forces Guide," Federation of American Scientists, 10/10/97, [Online] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/facility/index.html. International Atomic Energy Agency, "Situation on 31 December 1996 with respect to the conclusion of safeguards agreements between the Agency and non-nuclear-weapon States in connection with the NPT," [Online] http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/program/safeguards/96tables/safenpt.html. Nuclear Engineering International, 1998 World Nuclear Industry Handbook (Essex, UK: Wilmington Publishing Ltd, 1998), p. 114.
3. Dana Priest, "In U.S. Weapons Crusade, Allies Get Scant Mention," Washington Post, 4/14/98, p. 1. Cordesman p. 18-19. Steve Rodan, "Bitter Choices: Israel's Chemical Dilemma," Jerusalem Post, 8/18/97, [Online] http://www.jpost.co.il. David Makovsky, "Israel Must Ratify Chemical Treaty," Ha'aretz, 1/8/98, [Online] http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng.
4. Cordesman, p. 19. "Chemical and Biological Weapons Facilities," Federation of American Scientists, 10/10/97, [Online] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/facility/cbw.htm. P.R. Kumaraswamy, "Marcus Klingberg and Israel's ‘Biological Option,'" Middle East International, 8/16/96, pp. 21-22. Zafir Rinat, "Nerve Gas Antidote in Works," Ha'aretz, 12/12/97, [Online] http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng. Edna Homa Hunt, "Israel's Biological and Chemical Research and Development – Potential Menace at Home and Abroad," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 4/98, pp. 84, 93. Liat Collins, "Bio Institute to Come Under Close Inspection," Jerusalem Post, 2/19/97, [Online] http://www.jpost.co.il. P.R. Kumaraswamy, "Has Israel Kept its BW Options Open?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 3/98, p. 22.
5. "Missile and Space Launch Capabilities of Selected Countries," The Nonproliferation Review, forthcoming 1998. Duncan Lennox, ed., "Country Inventory – In Service," "In-Service Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles," "In Service Short-Range Ballistic Missiles," "Shavit," and "Offensive Weapons - Unclassified Projects, Israel," Jane's Strategic Weapons Systems Issue 24, 5/97. Cordesman, p.18. "Missile Master Table: Finland-Japan," Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, [Online] http://www.cdiss.org/master2.htm. Directorate of Space Programs, US Air Force Acquisitions, "Shavit," [Online] http://www.safaq.af.hq.mil/aqs/vehicle/shavit.htm. Pierre Langereux, "Dassault Lifts the Lid on the Jericho Missile Story," Air & Cosmos/Aviation International, no. 1590, 12/6/96, p. 36. Shawn L. Twing, "Israel Seeks US Permission to Launch Rockets from NASA Facility in Virginia," Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, 4-5/97, pp. 29, 85. Tim Furniss, "Satellite Launcher Directory," Flight International, 12/10-16/97, pp. 28-34. Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Organization (SIBAT), Israel's Defense Sales Directory, 1997/98 (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 1997), p. 84.
6. Lennox. Cordesman, p. 18. CDISS. Lennox, "Offensive Weapons - Unclassified Projects, Israel." SIBAT, pp. 53, 55, 57. Israel possesses all three versions of the US-made Harpoon cruise missile, which are designed for launch from ships (AGM 84A), submarines (RGM 84A), and aircraft (UGM 84A).
7. The Military Balance 1997/98 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1997), pp. 129-130. Arieh O'Sullivan, "New F-15I Warplanes Extend Israel's Reach," The Jerusalem Post [Online] http://www.jpost.co.il/. Ze'ev Schiff, "F-15Is Are Not The Complete Answer To The Iran Threat," Ha'aretz, 1/20/98, [Online] http://www3.haaretz.co.il/.
Prepared by Michael Barletta and Erik Jorgensen,
© Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies.