#Amatzia Baram replies to Yusuf al-Misry

 
Dear Mr. al-Masri, I apologize for my belated reply.

I shall try to respond to issues you and your supporters raised.

1. First of all: I did not intend to be “polemical” as you charged. I responded to your points one by one.
2. My comment on Eisenhower 1956/57 was misunderstood. Kicking us back to Israel from the Sinai was the right thing to do. Even though Ben Gurion was dreaming of staying there we all knew well that the Sinai was a part of sovereign Egypt. We were glad to leave and go home, all of us soldiers. Eisenhower’s tragic mistake was that he did not insist on Egyptian-Israeli peace or, at least, the de-militarization of Sinai in exchange for withdrawal. Nasser paid a miniscule price for his pre-war provocations and the Israeli withdrawal: UNEF in Gaza and Sharm. This made sure that another war would break out. As a sign of gratitude to Eisenhower Nasser immediately began to undermine the pro-American regimes of King Hussein in Jordan, the Saudis and more-or-less democratic Lebanon. This led to the Eisenhower Doctrine, then, in July 1958, to the US Marines’ landing in Junyeh and British troops flown to Amman, remember? After Eisenhower saved his skin, Nasser became even closer to the USSR than he had been before.
3. As for the 1956 war being such an irritant to Egyptians that they continue to hate us to this very day for it, we fought a few wars after that war and made peace. We evacuated all the settlements in Sinai and withdrew voluntarily in order to achieve peace. There was no US pressure in 1967-1980 as was the case in 1956/57 and yet we decided that complete withdrawal for peace was the solution. Indeed, a frosty peace descended upon Egypt and Israel for 32 years. We hoped for real normalization like the kind of normalization between Germany and France after WWII. We were quickly disappointed. Nevertheless, a cold peace is infinitely better for both sides than a hot war.
4. As for the 1948: an anonymous supporter of yours suggested that the Arab armies that invaded Mandatory Palestine on May 15 limited themselves to the territories assigned to the Arab state by the UN Partition Plan. In other words: as far as your anonymous supporter knows the Arab armies came just to guard the Arab Palestinian state and not to destroy the Jewish Palestinian state. This is a mistake. I would suggest to your supporter to consider two Facts: A. the Arab leaders and al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini declared that their goal was to “throw the Jews into the sea”. If you don’t believe it I can provide you with reputable Arab sources.  If they didn’t mean to do this-why make such a declaration that harmed their cause in the international arena?  Maybe your anonymous friend considers the Arabs to be half-witted.  I don’t. They were disarmingly candid about their strategic goal and they were absolutely certain of total victory. As we are told by Egyptian diplomats who were in the service of the monarchy at the time they were certain that this would be a cake walk, so there was no need to worry about international response or image.  What happened in reality was that even though there was no international intention to interfere, once Israel conquered in June 1948-Spring 1949 parts of the W. Bank and the Gaza area, the international community accepted those areas de-facto as part of Israel.  B. If your anonymous supporter can also read and not only write, I would suggest looking up the maps of the front lines between the Arab and Israeli armies by the end of May 1948. A good source is the Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Abingdon, Oxford shire, 2005, 8^th edition), pp. 45-46. The maps show clearly that by the end of the first fortnight of the war the Arab armies already occupied a substantial part of the area allotted by the UN to the Jewish Palestinians. That is hardly surprising: the Jews had no heavy weapons, the Arabs did, and with the Egyptian goal defined explicitly as Tel Aviv there was no reason for them to stop at Nizanim. I can refer your supporter to the relevant records. The tables were turned by June 1948 when we were saved indeed by weapons’ deliveries authorized by Joseph Stalin. At the same time Harry S. Truman declared weapons’ embargo on both camps, but the Arabs had already 4 well-equipped standing armies. Stalin did not do this for love of Jews. Rather, he wanted to bleed the nose of the British. But it saved my life and those of 600,000 other Palestinian Jews.
5. As for Joseph Stalin: one of your anonymous supporters was furious that we agreed to receive weapons from Stalin. I hope that this supporter would not have rather seen us all dead. Many Neo-Nazis today would have liked that, but I don’t have to agree with them or with your supporter. Any way, your supporter forgot that the US was allied with Stalin for some three and a half years (Dec. 1941- May 1945). To help Stalin the US introduced the Lend and Lease policy during those years. So it seems that your anonymous supporter is suffering from amnesia.
6. An even more bizarre opinion of one of your supporters is that since Hitler was killing the Jews anyway, the fact that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, joined him in Berlin did not matter. In terms of killing Jews it admittedly only mattered for a few hundred Jewish children whom Hitler was ready to trade with the Allied for some merchandise but Hajj Amin prevented it. The rest of the 6 million would have died either way. And yet, to actually come under Hitler’s wings, to secure a Nazi commitment to treat the Palestinian Jews as Jews were treated in Nazi-Occupied Europe and to raise for Hitler two Waffen SS divisions – this matters.
7. I do not think that Muslims were/are Nazis, not at all.  Yet Hajj Amin was the un-challenged leader of the Palestinian Arab population. After WWII, from Cairo he became again the unchallenged leader of the Arabs of Palestine. When a leader makes a grand move like joining Hitler and remains the leader after that, this reflects on his supporters: the Palestinian Arab national movement.
8. Mr. al-Masri, I think that 32 years of a signed peace should be enough to bury the hatchet. Remembering 1948 and 1956 should be purely for the sake of historical study.
9. Finally, I would like to refer you to a New York Times article from two days ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/middleeast/25egypt.html?_r=2&ref=world

If I am not mistaken this is the first time that this liberal newspaper that was starry-eyed about the revolution and unwilling to consider that there are also risks involved, is admitting that there is a heavy cloud hanging over it. According to the NYT there is growing evidence now of a de-facto coalition in the making between radical Islamists and the top military brass, precisely the danger I mentioned in my first message a few weeks ago. The information in the NYT report is important as a reality check. If, ma’adh Allah, such a potential development actually takes place, I shall be feeling sorry for the women of Egypt and for the liberal democrats there. And yet, this is a domestic Egyptian affair.  If, however, this change spills into the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement I shall be very worried. 

I am still hopeful, though, that,   in the longer run, Egypt will become a liberal democracy. 

Yours

Amatzia Baram

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

Dr. Baram! Thanks for this post. Most if not all that read and participate in this blog hope for a liberal democratic Egypt also. Time will tell whether popular will in Egypt will somehow be reflected in its governance. The same for Israel. And the US in 2012. All of are well aware that in democracy there can be a "tyranny" of the majority that threatens minority rights and individualism. A careful line drawing that serves as a cautionary tale to any majority. History has not ended.

[par4]

Any time someone calls the NYTimes a liberal newspaper I hear George W. Bush's voice in my head.

[fanto]

Dr Baram, what has Land Lease program have to do with the discussion about Stalin's political support to establish state of Israel ? Is your observation that Stalin was an ally of the West, a reason why Stalin supported fervently its birth?

[Fred]

Dr. Baram,

I can find no 'anonymous' posting on the March 5 posting of your response to Yusuf al-Misry either stating or implying "that since Hitler was killing the Jews anyway, the fact that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, joined him in Berlin did not matter...."

If you are refering to my comment that the Grand Mufti did not speak for all Muslims and that he was opposed by other Muslim clerics in his recruitment efforts in what was then Yugoslavia, then I can only conclude you are being purposely misleading. Then again perhaps the comment you refer to was deleted?
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2011/03/dr-amatzi-baram-in-response-to-yusuf-al-misry.html

[Roy G]

With all due respect to Dr. Baram, I do not think that Zionists were/are Stalinists, not at all. Yet, his sum characterization as the Mufti as a Nazi speaks volumes about the debate; after all, this is a hackneyed technique of forestalling any further inquiry or understanding as to the Mufti's motives or experience. He is a Nazi, end of story, we need, indeed must, not inquire any further.

Of course, this narrative ignores the Mufti's decades of fighting for Palestine, practically a mirror image of his Zionist counterparts in Irgun and other radical Zionist organizations.

What is really interesting is that Dr. Baram can so openly admit to the necessity of aligning with Stalin as necessary for the survival of Israel, while remaining blind to the fact that the Mufti's alliance with Hitler was essentially similar.

Of course, Dr. Baram would love for the 'peace' that has existed between the governments of Israel and Egypt to continue, as it has been very beneficial to Israel, and a few top Egyptian officials. Perhaps what Dr. Baram secretly fears about any so-called 'radical Islamists' is that their idea of 'peace' may not involve turning a blind eye toward the carte blanche that Israel has enjoyed for so many years over its non-citizen indigenous population.

[LeaNder]

Prof Baram, sorry I am kind of anonymous too.

Somehow I wonder if you heard about this book by Gil Ayal: The Disenchantment of the Orient,
Expertise in Arab Affairs and the Israeli State.

I admittedly found it fascinating. It's surely not perfect but it might be interesting to reflect even for a scholar of Iraq. Would I be absolutely wrong that you necessarily looked on Iraq firmly from a future potential threat scenario too? To what extend could Israel's self-perception as being surrounded by a sea of enemies limit the scholarship? Did it in your studies? Do you see chances it ever will be modified by a slightly more wide cultural perspective, maybe a perspective open for chances beyond the pure threat scenario and the accompanying militarily / Iron Wall perspective?

Seems I agree agree with par4. The NYT can be considered liberal on many issues but only hesitantly so on the Israel/Palestine issue. It's feels too, they have no other chance, if they want to avoid being painted in a way that may harm their image, more than it already is by right-wing propaganda. Did you think during the run up of the war against Iraq Judith Miller offered a specifically liberal perspective?

Concerning what feels a monolithic assessment as Palestinians and Arabs as such:
Do you feel a more profound multi- and interdisciplinary project much beyond the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict, lavishly funded, that looks more closely on the genesis of images on both side, context, stereotypes, development, antisemitism before and after the arrival of Zionism, changing patters, the politicization of scholarship that seems to construct--I am admittedly not a scholar on the Arab nations--an inherent Muslim antisemitism backwards in age. Politicization of scholarship among the diverse Arab nations, different perspectives, reasons, contexts? Comparative studies, images of Muslims and Arabs over the ages in Europe.

Do you know of similar projects/initiatives?

To what extend you think the idea of a straight line of antisemitism from times immemorial into the future could turn out a self-fulfilling prophecy? Or does asking this question show, I am an antisemite after all?

[LeaNder]

sorry, bad proof-reading:

Comparative studies, images of Arabs/Muslims and Jews over the ages in Europe.

[William R. Cumming]

LeaNder! What is official Israeli policy on teaching of Arabic in its school system? My understanding is the pre-1948 settlers of Israel often were fluent in Arabic but perhaps wrong.

[Patrick Lang]

WRC

I don't know about then but very few Israeli Jews know any Arabic now. They live in completely different worlds just a few hundred yards apart in some cases. there is zero interaction. the wall just formalizes what was already the truth. pl

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks PL for confirming my understanding! Any Arabs speaking Yiddish?

[Patrick Lang]

WRC

Few Israelis can speak Yiddish. Modern Hebrew is the spoken language. A lot of Palestinians know Hebrew, especially the ones who live in Israel proper. They have no choice in the matter. pl