Articles by Eugene W. Rostow - Israel legal sovereignty

Articles by Eugene W. Rostow

The Late Eugene W. Rostow was  US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969. He played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.  Click here to return to the article on the occupation Click here for more historic documents and articles

Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity by the Late Eugene W. Rostow This article appeared in The New Republic on April 23, 1990  Click here to return to the article on the occupation The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population. The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing nonjewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political development in Palestine in only one respect. Article 25 gave Great Britain and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish people's right of settlement in the TransJordanian province of Palestine-now the Kingdom of Jordan-if they decided that local conditions made such action desirable. With the divided support of the council, the British took that step in 1922. The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River. The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose. Thus in the case of the Mandate for German South West Africa, the International Court of justice found the South African government to be derelict in its duties as the mandatory power, and it was deemed to have resigned. Decades of struggle and diplomacy then resulted in the creation of the new state of Namibia, which has just come into being. In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the international community. But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory. The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War-the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization, for example. Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is hard, therefore, to see how even the most literal-minded reading of the Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one. As claimants to the territory, the Israelis have denied that they are required to comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so as a matter of grace. The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, sometimes deciding against the Israeli government. Assuming for the moment the general applicability of the Convention, it could well be considered a violation if the Israelis deported convicts to the area or encouraged the settlement of people who had no right to live there (Americans, for example). But how can the Convention be deemed to apply to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under international law: a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner" rights conferred by existing international instruments" like the Mandate? The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there. Another principle of international law may affect the problem of the Jewish settlements. Under international law, an occupying power is supposed to apply the prevailing law of the occupied territory at the municipal level unless it interferes with the necessities of security or administration or is "repugnant to elementary conceptions of justice." From 1949 to 1967, when Jordan was the military occupant of the West Bank, it applied its own laws to prevent any Jews from living in the territory. To suggest that Israel as occupant is required to enforce such Jordanian laws-a necessary implication of applying the Convention-is simply absurd. When the Allies occupied Germany after the Second World War, the abrogation of the Nuremberg Laws was among their first acts. The general expectation of international law is that military occupations last a short time, and are succeeded by a state of peace established by treaty or otherwise. In the case of the West Bank, the territory was occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967, and has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 rule that the Arab states and Israel must make peace, and that when "a just and lasting peace" is reached in the Middle East, Israel should withdraw from some but not all of the territory it occupied in the course of the 1967 war. The Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the terms of peace. The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights. Is the United States prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the West Bank to Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 1967 borders? Throughout Israel's occupation, the Arab countries, helped by the United States, have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories, so that at a convenient moment, or in a peace negotiation, the claim that the West Bank is "Arab" territory could be made more plausible. Some in Israel favor the settlements for the obverse reason: to reinforce Israel's claim for the fulfillment of the Mandate and of Resolution 242 in a peace treaty that would at least divide the territory. For the international community, the issue is much deeper and more difficult: whether the purposes of the Mandate can be considered satisfied if the Jews finally receive only the parts of Palestine behind the Armistice Lines-less than 17.5 percent of the land promised them after the First World War. The extraordinary recent changes in the international environment have brought with them new diplomatic opportunities for the United States and its allies, not least in the Middle East. Soviet military aid apparently is no longer available to the Arabs for the purpose of making another war against Israel. The intifada has failed, and the Arabs' bargaining position is weakening. It now may be possible to take long steps toward peace. But to do so, the participants in the Middle East negotiations- the United States, Israel, Egypt, and the PLO- will have to look beyond the territories Are the settlements legal? Resolved By Eugene W. Rostow, 1991 The New Republic Inc. The New Republic, October 21, 1991 Assuming the Middle East conference actually does take place, its official task will be to achieve peace between Israel and its Levantine neighbors in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require. For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are "ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people--to say nothing of Western public opinion--about what the resolutions mean. It is common even for American journalists to write that Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous," as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims. Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in the case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were "not to be construed in any sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and that "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate. For security it depended on patrolled demilitarization and the huge area of the desert rather than on territorial change. As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty. It is hardly surprising that some Israelis take the view that such a transfer fulfills the territorial requirements of Resolution 242, no matter how narrowly they are construed. Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however, negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing "a secure and recognized" boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the peace-making process. The United States has remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. An independent Jordan or a Jordan linked in an economic union with Israel is desirable from the point of view of everybody's security and prosperity. And a predominantly Jewish Israel is one of the fundamental goals of Israeli policy. It should be possible to reconcile these goals by negotiation, especially if the idea of an economic union is accepted. The Arabs of the West Bank could constitute the population of an autonomous province of Jordan or of Israel, depending on the course of the negotations. Provisions for a shift of populations or, better still, for individual self-determination are a possible solution for those West Bank Arabs who would prefer to live elsewhere. All these approaches were explored in 1967 and 1968. One should note, however, that Syria cannot be allowed to take over Jordan and the West Bank, as it tried to do in 1970. The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...." Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the ground that the Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding the occupied territory with its own citizens. President Carter supported this view, but President Reagan reversed him, specifically saying that the settlements are legal but that further settlements should be deferred since they pose a psychological obstacle to the peace process. In any case, the issue of the legality of the settlements should not come up in the proposed conference, the purpose of which is to end the military occupation by making peace. When the occupation ends, the Geneva Convention becomes irrelevant. If there is to be any division of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan, the Jewish right of settlement recognized by the Mandate will have to be taken into account in the process of making peace. This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of American policy.In launching a major peace initiative on September 1, 1982, President Reagan said, "I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." Yet some Bush administration statements and actions on the Arab-Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State James Baker's disastrous speech of May 22, 1989, betray a strong impulse to escape from the resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted, and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and the Jordan river, including East Jerusalem. The Bush administration seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion. The American position in the coming negotiations should return to the fundamentals of policy and principle that have shaped American policy towards the Middle East for three-quarters of a century. Above all, rising above irritation and pique, it should stand as firmly for fidelity to law in dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute as President Bush did during the Gulf war. Fidelity to law is the essence of peace, and the only practical rule for making a just and lasting peace. .   Click here to return to the article on the occupation

“The process of national revival of the Jewish people is irreversible and has its internal logic

“The process of national revival of the Jewish people is irreversible and has its internal logic. 

We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Country of Israel will not return under Jewish control. This might sound too hard, but such is the logic of history. The war on the Holy Land has been already fought for four thousand years and the end cannot be seen. A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel. The state will find at last its geostrategic completeness. We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land. This may seem utopia to many now – but an even greater utopia seemed a hundred years ago the revival of the Jewish state…If you want it, this will not  be a fairy tale” –Rabbi Avrom Shmulevic of the Bead Artzein (“For the Homeland”) Movement.

A BIG PIECE IS MISSING IN THIS "PEACE"

We have been forced into binarisms. Either we are progressive/pro-Arab/ pro-Palestinian and thus in favor of giving up the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights; or we are racist/anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian and in favor of keeping all or part of this land. In all the analyses I have heard, from the so-called Left and Right, the hawks and the doves, there is a poignant lack of awareness of the reality of Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (Mizrahim). As if the only refugees have been Arab. As if the only Jews have been Central/East European (Ashkeanzim). As if "Jewish" and "Middle Eastern" identities diametrically are opposed. And ironically enough, although not surprisingly, I have found Arab analyses of the situation to be as Euro-centric as the Jewish and general world community's analyses. I say we put *all* cards on the table. I say we talk about *all* the Arab-Jewish/ Arab-Israeli points of connection and oppression - in both directions - and only then begin thinking of how to solve the problems in the Middle East. Without looking at the full picture, I find we do not have integrity in addressing Arab-Israel relations; and I find that racist and anti-Jewish assumptions and attitudes are woven into the lens through which we look at issues in the Middle East. Germany has been held accountable for the Holocaust. The country has been publicly shamed throughout the world. It has made compensation payments to families of Holocaust victims and to the State of Israel. Israel's relationship with Germany has been framed with a backdrop of poignant consciousness of German atrocities. People throughout the world have at least a context for understanding, if not ample compassion, for Jews who have difficulty hearing the German language or buying German products. On a daily basis in the Jewish world, we are reminded of the Holocaust: "We will not forget." To the contrary, the Arab states literally have gotten away with murder. How many people know of the daily terror Jews faced in Syria? How many people know that Arab countries such as Iraq invited Nazis to exterminate its Jewish communities communities that had been there 1,000-1,500 years prior to the Arab/Muslim invasion of the region? How many people know about the hundreds of miles of Jewish land and billions of dollars of Jewish property that were confiscated and nationalized by various Arab governments? Moreover, how many people know that 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their millions of children now make up the majority of the entire Israeli population? How many people care? I believe anyone in the Middle East peace movement would find it absurd to discuss Arab-Israel relations without inviting Palestinians to the table. Yet I consistently have found Mizrahim absent from such discussions. I also believe anyone in the peace movement would find it unthinkable to ask Palestinians at the table to be silent about the oppression their families have suffered at the hands of Israel. Yet I have found Mizrahim unfailingly silenced by these same people, when trying to talk about the oppression our families faced at the hands of Arab governments. This silencing, I have found, is rooted in a complex mixture of and relationship between racism and Jew-hatred. Arab governments and international Arab community leaders publicly have spoken of Jews as if all Jews are European; and they have spoken about Israel as if it were a European state colonializing third-world people. In fact, as I mentioned before, the majority of Israel's population is Mizrahi, indigenous to the region and never having left it. More specifically, they are Jewish refugees from Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, and other countries under Arab control. They were forced to flee their homes of 3,000 years when Arab states either issued expulsion orders or otherwise forced them to leave, through intolerable conditions of oppression. I find that Arab dismissal of the Mizrahi experience stems from anti-Jewish sentiment that existed far before the creation of the State of Israel. If hostility towards Israel purely was because of injustices the state inflicted on Arabs, Arab leaders could speak about those injustices without needing to dismiss or trying to erase the Mizrahi reality. The two could exist side by side. And of course, they should. But the dismissal is a way of taking even more from Mizrahim. On the materialistic level alone, it is a way of avoiding having to compensate Mizrahim for confiscating and nationalizing billions of dollars worth of communal and personal property. It otherwise is an opportunistic means of escaping accountability for the many injustices inflicted on these Jews, by reframing Arab-Jewish history so the world sees Arabs as third-world victims and Jews as white European oppressors. Ironically enough, the State of Israel and the international Jewish community have helped foster this perception, as they too have presented all Jews as being white Europeans. Even during the Gulf War, when Iraqi missiles fell predominantly on Ramat Gan, an Iraqi Jewish suburb of Tel Aviv, we did not hear the Iraqi-Israelis speak of Iraq destroying their homes twice in one lifetime; rather, we heard European-Israelis saying how the bombing reminded them of the Holocaust. Whereas I find Arab dismissal of Mizrahi reality stemming from anti-Jewish sentiment, I find Ashkenazi dismissal of Mizrahi reality stemming from racist sentiment. Mizrahi mistrust of Arab states has not been understood with compassion, the way Ashkenazi discomfort with Germany has been; and along those lines, Mizrahi hesitancy to give up Israeli land has not been explored and taken seriously. To the contrary, the Mizrahi experience and political stand on Israel has been contextualized in a racist, patronizing light. Mizrahim, we have been told, are "hawks" because they are too primitive to understand the Western values of diplomacy, democracy, and peace. I have seen and heard Ashkenazim state this message over and over again in international media; literature and forums on Arab-Israel relations; and university classrooms. In fact, it is almost exclusively in this context that I ever have heard about Mizrahim in non-Mizrahi circles. When individuals view the Mizrahi experience in such a contemptuous way, I find it impossible to believe they have true respect and value for the Arab experience. For that which they intrinsically hate about Mizrahim, our Middle Easternness, is specifically that which Arabs share with us. How can someone who is truly so pro-Arab simultaneously be so hostile towards Mizrahim? For a few years, I was baffled by that question. On a related note, I did not understand why a number of Jewish organizations have helped Arab causes while ignoring altogether or giving substantially less support to Mizrahi causes. A few months ago, I was thinking about these questions while also reflecting on Israel's desire to emulate Europe - to assimilate Jews, in other words, on a grand national scale. Suddenly, I realized these two separate thoughts were one; and I developed this theory: Anti-Semitism is a term that specifically describes the anti-Jewish experience facing Ashkenazim. Persecution of German, Polish, and Russian Jews was based on the premise that these individuals were not real Europeans; they were so-called Semites - people of the Middle East and North Africa. And because of European racism, people of this region were seen as undesirable foreigners. Ashkenazim thus faced hostility, discrimination, and even death attributed to the Middle Eastern and North African roots of the Jewish people. For the sake of survival or status, depending on the time period, Ashkenazim therefore tried to assimilate into Christian Europe, by appearing as un-"Semitic" as possible. As such, a cultural legacy was developed and passed on, where Ashkenazim shunned the Middle Eastern and North African roots of their heritage, in favor of a European identity. Despite the facts that Hebrew originated in the Middle East; that the first yeshivas (Jewish learning institutions) were in ancient Iraq; that the Jewish holiday of Purim celebrated the story of Iranian Jews; and that Passover told the story of Egyptian Jews; despite the fact that Jews lived in the Middle East and North Africa for 4,000 years as opposed to the 1,000 or so Ashkenazim lived in Central and Eastern Europe; and despite the fact that the overall Jewish rhythm Ashkenazim lived was rooted in a Middle Eastern and North African tradition, Ashkenazim completely dissociated from a Middle Eastern and North African identity because it was not safe or simply because it was deemed undesirable and inferior. And so we have a crisis in Jewish identity, where anti-Semitism is itself a form of racism, and where Ashkenazi detachment from the Middle Eastern and North African roots of Judaism is simultaneously a form of self-hatred and self-preservation. Modern Zionist ideology is based on enabling Jews to finally throw off their Semitic stigma and be considered equals among the European nations. So imagine the horror Ashkenazim felt when hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi refugees poured into Israel, many looking like they had just stepped out of the bible. Mizrahim, I am convinced, pushed every proverbial button of terror that Ashkenazim had. For this reason, I understand how Ashkenazi individuals and community leaders can simultaneously embrace Arab causes and run in the other direction from Mizrahi ones. Arab causes seem external, about someone else. Mizrahi causes, to the contrary, challenge the very foundations of Jewish identity and thus threaten to crumble a millenium worth of hard labor Ashkenazim have put into being viewed as true Europeans. Of course, this behavior describes Ashkenazim who consciously ignore or resist the Mizrahi reality. There are Ashkenazim who embrace the Arab cause but not the Mizrahi one simply out of ignorance. Because the Arab and Jewish communities have portrayed Jews as white Europeans, many Ashkenazim have analyzed the situation through this lens; and they honorably have gone beyond their own interests to fight what seems to be a racist case of white Europeans colonializing and oppressing third world natives. There also are Ashkenazim who are hostile both to Mizrahi and Arab causes. I feel this attitude comes from general racism towards non-Europeans. Ironically enough, with the establishment of the State of Israel, Ashkenazim for the first time could present themselves as true Europeans and be the ones in power over the non-Europeans - whether Mizrahi, Arab, or more recently, Ethiopian. A woman I met at the first conference for Mizrahi and Ethiopian feminists (Israel, 1996) voiced her opinion of one more reason why Ashkenazim may support the Arab cause but not the Mizrahi one. Whereas the majority of Mizrahim live in Israel, she pointed out, the majority of Ashkenazim live in the Diaspora (outside Israel), where they get a lot of flack for Israel's actions. To relieve their own discomfort, they take whatever is the currently fashionable line on the Arab-Israel relationship. As the world community currently does not acknowledge the existence of Mizrahi reality yet sees Arab states and people as victims, many Ashkenazim will say the same not out of deep concern for what is going on, but simply so they will not be hassled. What about non-Jewish/non-Arab individuals? I feel anyone who is pro-Arab out of the positive spirit of defending justice will embrace the Mizrahi reality. After all, the two are not in competition; and in fact, there are a number of places where they overlap. To the contrary, I believe that individuals who are using the Arab cause as a cover for Jew-hatred will resist learning about the Mizrahi reality. I in fact have had this latter experience and see it as a good litmus test for finding out one's true intentions around the Arab-Israel issue. Given the information most people have received about the Arab-Israel relationship, I can understand feeling anti-Israel. If I did not know what I do, I easily could be anti-Israel myself, perceiving a cut-and-dry situation of white Europeans yet again colonializing native people of color. I feel it is imperative to learn about the Mizrahi experience and see it in its own context. Along these lines, I find it important to see in a compassionate light whatever Mizrahi mistrust there is of Arab states and people and to take seriously the experiences that led to this mistrust. For there to be healing in the Middle East, we must make room for everyone's experiences and feelings, so that we can have the full information and intelligence we need to move into a peaceful future. Right now, I find there is no room for Mizrahim to voice our experience with, anger at, hurt from, or mistrust of Arabs. For many of us, when we have begun voicing our feelings, people have jumped down our throats, reciting to us the Palestinian cause. As if it could not exist side by side with the Mizrahi cause. As if there only was room for one. As if the pain of another person's broken leg meant you could not share the pain of your broken arm. People have called us racist when we have spoken - a fact I find highly ironic, as I feel that perception in itself is Euro-centric. It can be very different, I believe, for an African-American to say, "I hate white people" than for a white person to say, "I hate black people." In a racist society, the victims of racism have much reason to be angry at and hateful of the group that has been the oppressor. To the contrary, members of the oppressive group may feel hateful simply because of irrational feelings of superiority towards anyone not like them. To view Mizrahi mistrust of or anger towards Arabs as being racist is to eradicate the Mizrahi experience of being the oppressed group in Arab countries. It is to see Mizrahim as analogous to white people and Arabs as analogous to African-Americans, instead of the reverse. It is to clump Mizrahim together with Ashkenazim and once again to see all Jews of Israel as being European oppressors. The Mizrahi experience of course varied from country to country, and not all Mizrahim share the same feelings or current political stand regarding Israel. But the majority of Mizrahim in Israel seem to be more conservative about giving up Israeli land. I happen to feel the same, and I have spoken with many Mizrahi-Israelis who feel this way; accordingly, I can share a few thoughts as to why: Throughout the Arab world, Jews were treated as dhimmis - legally second-class, inferior people. Some telling visual examples include that Jews were not permitted to ride horses, because their heads would be higher than the heads of Muslims, and Jews could not build synagogues taller than mosques. Through legal restrictions, Islam and Muslims were made to be, literally and figuratively, always above Judaism and Jews. Even in the mildest forms of discrimination, Jews were treated as subordinate and expendable and were given many obstacles to basic economic survival. The restrictions on Jewish freedom were demeaning and thus humiliating. The yellow badge - i.e., the yellow Star of David, a symbol associated exclusively with Nazi Germany - actually originated in the Middle East, where it was used to identify and single out Jews for a variety of discriminatory treatments. Throughout the Arab world, governments did not grant Jews equal protection under the law. Governments not only condoned or ignored the terrorization of Jews; but they initiated such terrorization, as well. In countries such as Iraq and Syria, for example, government officials randomly banged on doors of Jewish homes, after which time nobody ever again saw the families inside. Gruesome torture of Jews also was common in such countries, after which victims either were murdered or returned alive yet permanently disabled or disfigured. Kidnapping and holding Jews for ransom was so prevalent that the Jewish communities had official, ongoing ransom funds. Jewish children going to school frequently just disappeared, without even making it to the ransom stage. When we ourselves have not experienced or been exposed to a certain oppressive lifestyle, the weight and significance of its reality may not really register with us. Because of the invalidation and silencing of Mizrahi Jews, we have not been exposed to the personal stories of people who suffered through the discrimination and terror I have described. We have not been flooded with footage of the daily abuses they experienced. We have not witnessed the community when it flourished despite its obstacles, and we have not seen its destruction when everything was taken and nationalized by the Arab governments. I was not of the generation that grew up in and was forced to flee from Iraq; but I have been impacted directly by many consequences of the fear and destruction the Jewish community faced there. Growing up, my sister and I were forbidden from making any sudden, banging noise. Whenever we forgot, my father was thrown into a fit of panic and terror, having a visceral reaction that an Arab official was at the door to come do Gd-knows-what to the family. My father also slept with his shoes near his bed for years of my life, unable to get over the sense of needing to run from an Arab mob at any time. I learned fear of walking past an uncovered window at night; my father passed it on from his childhood, where it apparently was unsafe for a Jew to be exposed in such a way. I also grew up feeling my father's anger and resentment at Iraq for robbing his family of everything, making him have to start from scratch. Like all Iraqi Jews fleeing the country, he was allowed to bring only one suitcase on his exit. No significant amounts of money, momentos, or religious ceremonial objects . Just the basics. He had to leave his life behind. Then at the airport, Arab officials broke open his and everyone else's suitcases, taking whatever they wanted from the minuscule amount the Jews were permitted to bring. They even took the glasses from my father's nose, until they realized his prescription did not suit them. I grew up hearing about one of my fathers uncles, tortured by Iraqi government officials for the crime of being a Jew. Arab men hung this Jewish man by his thumbs and left him there for seven days until his thumbs broke. He had been a gifted surgeon; but he was never able to practice medicine again. I heard about how my father grew up with pressure to be the absolute best in his class if he wanted a chance of getting into Iraqi university; only a handful of Jews were allowed each year. And I grew up without things: We had only about 10 pictures total from Iraq. Everything else was destroyed. So I never really knew what my father or his family looked like before getting to Israel. I never got a sense of his home, neighborhood, school, or synagogue in Baghdad. I relied on my father's stories and my own visualization to create a sense of family history. Though I grew up with Iraqi-Jewish ceremonial objects, all but one were replicas from Israel. The only salvaged original was the kadous (wine) cup my great-grandparents gave to my grandparents on their wedding day. It was a silver cup with a silver top, boasting a loose dove in the middle. The dove wobbled around, I was told, because it originally had a Star of David next to it. My grandparents took out the star to make the cup more disguisable...just in case. A number of people around me - family, community members, friends' parents - have been completely unable and thus unwilling to discuss details of life and loss in their home countries throughout the Arab world. The pained silence itself has told me a story and given me a sense of the harsh impact of what happened to the Mizrahi community. Murdered family, decimated community, confiscated land, destroyed property, and refugee reality - all as a direct result of Arab oppression of Jews. It is with this information, understanding, and personal experience that many Mizrahim approach and have insight into the issue of Arab-Israel relations. In our eyes, Arab animosity towards Israel stems primarily from general Arab hatred of Jews - a hatred that existed prior to and separate from the State of Israel. Consider for a moment the significance of a prohibition such as not letting a Jew ride a horse. Consider the implications of laws forcing Jewish heads to be forever beneath Muslim heads, Jewish places of worship to be forever below Muslim places of worship, Jewish identity to be forever beneath Arab identity. Consider for a moment how Arab governments that made these laws and Arab citizens that supported them would feel towards a state created for and by the very people supposed to be forever below and at the mercy of Arabs...How much more aggravating that through the creation of this state, these worthless Jews have the power to create laws governing Arab lives! I find it telling that the majority of Arabs seem to find Israeli control of east Jerusalem to be insufferable but international rule of the area to be acceptable. Either way, Palestinian Arabs are not in control of the territory. But at least with international rule, those damn Jews are not governing Arab lives. Similarly, I find it interesting that Palestinian Arabs have centered their struggle for independence around miserable little strips of land along the West Bank and Gaza, when apparently 80% of British-mandated Palestine is now under Jordanian control. Why focus on the minuscule part of Israeli-controlled land, while completely neglecting the massive amount of Jordanian-controlled territory? In other words, how much of the Palestinian Arabs' struggle for independence is truly about reclaiming land and achieving self-rule, and how much of it is about stripping power from Jews? How much of the struggle is pro-Palestinian, and how much of it is anti-Jewish? From my perspective as a Mizrahi, the Arab-Israel struggle is rooted in an ancient tribal and religious battle, in which Arabs and their forebears have had the upper hand for over a thousand years. During this time, they have taken away Jewish land, stripped Jews of autonomy, and otherwise disempowered Jews. The Jewish people began 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq). In ancient times, tribes roamed the Middle East and North Africa, with no one force controlling another. Over time, however, empires and kingdoms arose, introducing systems of dominance and subordination, conquer and rule. In time, the Israelites broke free, conquered the land of Cana'an, and established their own space and government: Israel. Eventually, however, the Babylonian empire (ancient Iraq) conquered Israel and took Israelites into captivity and exile in Babylon (ancient Iraq). After the Persian (ancient Iranian) empire conquered the Babylonian Empire about half a century later, Israelites re-established the nation-state of Israel, only to be conquered about 500 years later by the Roman Empire and exiled as slaves to the European continent. Since that time, Israelites maintained their presence on Israeli land, without re-establishing a formal government, until the modern state. In the meantime, they lived under the rule of various governments that took over the region, including that of the Ottoman Empire (under Turkish control) and British-mandated Palestine (under English control). During the times of Arab rule throughout the Middle East and North Africa, the fate of Jews depended on how "useful" they were to the governments and how powerful they became. When Jewish labor was needed, Arab governments treated Jews well. When Jews gained power, Arab governments began persecuting Jews. Life always was uncertain. But one thing is certain: When Mohammed began the Islamic religion, he initially embraced the Jews, hoping to convert them. After Jews refused conversion, however, he evidently became furious, thus establishing the scriptures condemning Jews to dhimmi status. From that time on, Arab oppression of Jews became personal. Jews became specifically targeted, instead of just being the latest tribal victims of Muslim expansion and rule. And Islam swallowed up Judaism, claiming Jewish sites as Muslim and preventing Jews from access to them. Until the re-establishment of Israel, in fact, I understand that Jews were forbidden from entering Arab-controlled places as central to Jewish history and religious practice as the burial site of Abraham, our patriarch. And so, for thousands of years, Arabs and their forebears have taken things away from Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa. The Mizrahi community thus comes to the Arab-Israel relationship with a legacy of understandable mistrust, based on unceasing Arab efforts to erode away or eliminate altogether our space, power, and autonomy. We are an indigenous people fighting for our right to our own piece of land in our own region, without anymore being hassled or subsumed by Arab rule. We are engaged in a struggle to finally have the collective room to breathe. For me, this struggle not only is about having our own space; it also is about recognition of the fact that we exist, that our identity is real and valid. The two of course are related: By recognizing Mizrahi reality, one must recognize our claims to Israeli land. "Ashkenazim got us into this mess," a woman from the Mizrahi and Ethiopian feminist conference said to me, referring to identity politics and controversial land claims in the region. "They did not and do not have as deep a sense of legitimacy of being here as we do, because they are not from here; they are from Europe...They have backed down in the face of Palestinian claims to the region, because they do not feel the same rights to the land. But we Mizrahim have these rights. We have been here forever." Seeing Arab resistance and hostility to Israel only from the slant of Arab-as-victim and Jew-as-oppressor overlooks and erases thousands of years of Arab-Jewish history in the Middle East and North Africa. It is inherently Euro-centric: It only recognizes the existence and experience of European Jews, and it only recognizes power as in the hands of Europeans. Have we forgotten the fact that the Middle East and North Africa were international centers of political power, predating the rise of Europe; that the force of what we call "civilization" originated in this region? Are we so blinded by whiteness and Euro-centrism that we cannot conceptualize people from this area ever having power over others? I find it imperative to begin recognizing where Arab resistance and hostility to Israel has been rooted in historical hatred and oppression of Jews. I feel we need to re-examine events of the region with an eye to Mizrahi reality and then reassess our understanding of what will bring true justice to the Middle East. For example: Back to the beginning, why were so many Arab states completely resistant to the first partition plan dividing land between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews? If it was out of resistance to "European invasion," why did these states take out their anger on the Jews back home (in Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt..) ¾Jews who never had set eyes on the European continent? If it was out of concern for Palestinian Arabs, why did these states not absorb the Arab refugees after the creation of the State of Israel? Why did they create squalid camps (now under Israeli control) and dump the refugees in them? Regarding today's politics, why does the world demand that Israel give land or pay compensation to indigenous Arabs, while remaining completely silent about Arab states having stolen from and forcing out indigenous Jews, who now make up the majority of Israel's population? Why does the world demand that Israel give Syria back some or all of the Golan Heights, when Syria inflicted serious human rights abuses on the Syrian Jews; confiscated and nationalized Syrian Jewish property; and never made compensation payments or even apologized? Through ignoring or dismissing the Mizrahi reality, I feel the world has perpetuated Arab dominance over indigenous Middle Eastern and North African Jews, inherently accepting and enforcing Arab claims to our land, religious sites, and property. The forces silencing our voices have been so strong that many have given up altogether trying to speak about our reality, and others have done it with great fear of a backlash - which usually has followed. I am tired of feeling fear of and guilt about asserting the rights, needs, and experiences of my community. I stand eager to work in alliance with Arabs, but I will not do so in sacrifice of my own people. As far as I am concerned, this situation is "all or none": Arabs must be my ally if I am going to be theirs. With rare exceptions, my experience has been that Arab leaders and individuals are eager to receive support of their cause but unwilling to give support to ours. I find this pattern to be a continuation of Arab oppression of Jews: We are supposed to step aside, shut up, and otherwise disappear, unless and until we are useful in furthering an Arab agenda. What about us fighting for our own causes? Moreover, what about Arabs speaking out about the injustices Mizrahi Jews suffered at the hands of Arabs? There are numerous Jewish organizations - in Israel and abroad - dedicated to giving land to or securing financial compensation for Palestinian Arabs; yet I do not know of one single Arab organization - Palestinian or otherwise - fighting to demand the same for Mizrahim. In fact, I know of only one individual Arab simply verbalizing this message. I find it no less than obnoxious for Arabs to expect Mizrahim to pretend our own reality does not exist, to expect us to be in deference to Arab claims and struggles. For there to be true peace in the Middle East, all parties involved must have the room to express how we have been oppressed by each other; and all must look at and fight to end how we have been oppressive to each other. I am willing to stand up, speak out about, and fight against current Israeli oppression of Palestinian Arabs - whether at the hands of Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, or anyone else. I challenge my Arab sisters and brothers to be as willing to stand up and speak out about Arab oppression of Mizrahi Jews. If supporting someone else inherently rips the floor out from under my own feet, I cannot risk it; I will not participate in a setup for my own destruction. As long as alliance work with Arabs is structured in such a way as to completely negate the Mizrahi reality, I refuse to participate in it. I will not help perpetuate the silencing and oppression of my people. For example, I have been to several panels of Arab and Jewish women, where the Arabs were Muslim or Christian and the Jews were white Europeans. Every time, I have raised my hand and spoken about the invisibility of Mizrahi women on the panels. And every time, Arab women from the panel warmly have approached me after the program, taking me aside and telling me something like, "You and I are sisters. We are the same people. It's those Zionists that are the problem." Or, as one Arab woman added after a panel, "Those Ashkenazim are pigs." Statements like these have made shivers go up my spine. They essentially have asked me to split myself in half, to connect on the basis of one half and forget about the other. They inherently have demanded that I structure my Middle Eastern reality around an Arab construct. But as a Mizrahi woman, I bring my identity to the table: Culturally, it is true, I have more in common with Arab Muslims and Christians than I do with Ashkenazi Jews. But I am a Jew, and this reality must be acknowledged and addressed. Arab women cannot expect to bond with me against the "big, evil Ashkenazi," completely ignoring a legacy of Arab oppression of Jews. If we are to unite in alliance, Arabs must hold my struggle in their hearts, as I must hold their struggle in mine. With rare exceptions, I have not experienced Arab willingness to have different perspectives on Arab-Israel/Arab-Jewish issues and come together where we agree; rather, I have felt pressure that to be friends or allies, I first must deny my own reality. As such, to be connected, I have felt I must endanger myself, participate in diminishing my own space. The situation feels comparable to that of many men demanding that women sacrifice our autonomy and integrity to be involved with them. In both cases, I refuse to hand over a piece of myself so as to be connected with someone else. Regarding relations with Arabs, I will not hide my own politics or pain as a precondition of caring for an individual. I find such a precondition to be self-righteous and offensive, as well as destructive to my own integrity. I deeply desire to connect with Arabs, to heal the wounds between us and support each other's empowerment. I hope I can go into the fire instead of needing to stay far away. I hope I can offer attention, love, and support to Arabs and demand the same in return, helping end this either-or rift between us. And I hope that the uniqueness of Mizrahi voices finally gets heard in the Middle East peace movement and Arab-Israel peace talks. Regardless of our stand (we certainly are not a monolithic community), the world around us needs to finally recognize us and take seriously what we have to say.

Jaffa Gate, where Jerusalem’s Old meets New

April 7, 2013IsraelChristianity, church of the holy sepulchre, dome of the rock,DPchallenge, islam, jaffa gate, jerusalem, jerusalem pilgrims, Judaism, ottoman empire, sha'ar yaffo,sultan suleiman, the old city, western wallDeena

Jaffa Gate,

You are an iconic meeting point in Jerusalem. Of histories, peoples, religions, locals, tourists, pilgrims, empires, old and new.

You are one of the eight gates of the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. You were built in the years 1535-1538.

When people walk into the Old City through you, they can turn left to the Christian Quarter, go straight to the Muslim Quarter or turn right to the Armenian Quarter. If they follow past the Armenian Quarter, they will reach the Jewish Quarter.

Emperor Suleiman

You are very well known. You are one of the main entrances people use on their pilgrimages to the Old City. As part of the Old City walls, you’re familiar with Sultan Suleiman, the man who thought you up. Legend says he had your planners killed because they didn’t include the City of David (the actual biblical city of Jerusalem) in the walls. They are buried right beside you. Charming fellow, he was.

You saw when a huge chunk of wall was broken down right next to you so that the German emperor could enter on horseback in 1898. Silliness indeed.

You’ve seen wars. Most recently, Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 which saw all Jews kicked out of the Old City and the Six-Day War of 1967 which saw the place inside your walls made into a space where all religions can practice.

For hundreds of years you’ve watched millions of pilgrims from all over the world, passing through you on their way to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to the Western Wall, to the Dome of the Rock.

For hundreds of years you’ve watched locals sell snacks, tours and souvenirs to these people.

You’ve seen oh so much construction. You went up in the 1500s. The Ottomans built a clock tower right on top of you in 1907. That came down. In 1912 the Bezalel art school built a pavilion next to you to sell art. That was brought down a few years later too. People put up little shops along the walls. Those were removed in order to preserve the walls’ original look. Most recently, the square on your outside has become large and beautiful and the walls have been fixed up.

And the traffic has been redirected under a tunnel instead of right next to you as it used to be.

Jaffa Gate, from the mid-1800s, Jerusalem began overflowing outside of the Old City walls and today it spans many times bigger than it ever was. From where you stand you’ve watched it happen and where you stand, you will always remain one of the main thoroughfares from the New City into the beloved old one.

Yes, you are indeed an iconic meeting point. You are beautiful and you’ve seen it all. If only gates to talk…

This post is in reply to wp.com’s weekly writing challenge.