On Feb. 5, 1969, almost 47 years ago, my
friend Sheldon Kirshner and I published an opinion piece in the now-defunct
Montreal Star, entitled “Grave Impasse: Israel and the Palestinians.” We were
both university students at the time. (He went on to a career in journalism on
the Canadian Jewish News in Toronto.)
This was just 20 months after the 1967
Arab-Israeli war, in which Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and
conquered the entire Sinai Peninsula, Jordan’s West Bank (including the Old
City of Jerusalem, home to the sacred sites of Christianity, Islam and Judaism),
and the Golan Heights overlooking the Sea of Galilee.
The article was at the time so at odds with
opinion in the Jewish community that even our ID tag caused trouble.
In those days, the Star published more than
one edition per day. In the earlier one, we were identified as co-editors of a
small Montreal-based magazine, the Canadian Jewish Digest, as well as by our
two Montreal-area university affiliations.
The owner of the periodical received so
many complaints about the article that he asked the newspaper to remove his
magazine’s name from the ID tag. The next edition listed only our respective
universities.
What was so contentious about the article?
In retrospect, as it has turned out, nothing. It has certainly stood the test
of time. Had we been listened to, Israel would probably face less of an
existential threat today from, among others, Iran.
By hanging on to the territories, Israel
lit a blazing fire in the Middle East. Two more major wars would follow, in
1973 and 1982.
Religious Israelis, based on their
messianic interpretation of Judaism, began to settle on the West Bank, the old
Biblical Judea and Samaria, as well as in the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.
In response, Palestinians turned to
terrorism, and Islamic fervour swept the Middle East. Today Israel faces on its
borders Hamas in Gaza (which Israel vacated in 2005) and Hezbollah on the
once-quiet Lebanese border.
Could all of this have been foreseen? We
think we did so.
Here’s some of our argument, in the 1969
piece:
“By holding these areas, with their rapidly
growing Palestinian Arab population, the age-old Zionist dream of a Jewish
state might collapse in one of two ways: if the state retained its
parliamentary structure, and Arabs eventually outnumbered Jews, the Arabs could
conceivably take the reins of power in the state; the alternative would be the
sorry spectacle of a South African-style regime where a ruling racial minority
suppresses an ethnically different majority in that state.
“Holding these areas makes Israel seem a
colonial and expansionist power in the eyes of much of the progressive world,
and this includes most of the nations of the Third World.”
We concluded that “the Palestinians must
have, like the Jews, a national home, preferably within the borders of pre-1947
Palestine.” We proposed the West Bank and Gaza.
Our suggestion would not become the
“two-state solution” much of the world now advocates, for many years –
although, as we know, that has not yet come to pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment