Rick Santorum gave several Iowa audiences last week a wow of a tutorial on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (here is the NYT’s take). Among the other fairy tales he spun, was that all the residents of the West Bank are “Israeli.” Those who call themselves Palestinian aren’t, because there is no such thing; and Israel “owns” the land by dint of war and conquest.
This, of course flies in the face of current Israeli and U.S. policy which recognizes, at least nominally, a future Palestinian state. Not to mention that it creates a wee, small problem of what to do with the non-Palestinian (under his terms) “Israelis” who don’t consider themselves Israeli. What would you do? Consign them to be perpetual invible people in this Greater Jewish State? Expel them? You certainly couldn’t treat them as “Israeli” as Santorum infers, since that would confer citizenship on them and an eventual non-Jewish majority inside Israel. You could conceivably have two categories of “Israeli.” The “good” Jewish ones, and the less good non-Jewish ones. The latter presumably would have a status inferior to citizenship, perhaps akin to that of a South African bantustan. Or you could just send ’em packing back to wherever the hell they came from (destination TBD).
Santorum also appears to create a new category under international law, “ownership by conquest.” According to him, any nation that conquers any territory of another is entitled to ownership through war. In this fashion, he likens Israeli “ownership” of the West Bank to the U.S. conquest of Mexican territory in the 19th century. According to his claim, if we wouldn’t return Texas to Mexico why should Israel return the West Bank?
It almost goes without saying that Santorum is endorsing a one-state solution, in which Israel would be the only state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and Palestinians would disenfranchised and/or stateless.
An equally interesting part of Santorum’s historical framework for understanding Israel’s relationship with the Arabs is the false notion that Israel was attacked “aggressively” by “the Jordanians” in 1967 (he’s confusing the 1967 War with the 1948 War, but no matter, what’s a small historical error among friends?). That of course makes Israel’s subsequent conquest and “acquisition” of the West Bank legitimate, since Israel merely defended itself and only expanded its territory to create more defensible borders.
Apparently the new presidential flavor of the month hasn’t considered Hitler’s similar “acquisition” of Poland, Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, Norway and half of the Soviet Union during WWII. I suppose by his logic we had no business fighting a war to undo that territorial conquest.
Those who are gluttons for punishment or more Santorum nuttery, may watch yet another video manifestation of his historical inerrancy here.
Sancta Simplicitas Santorum overlooked this:
From the preamble of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242:
“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …”
From Wikipedia:
“”John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]
Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”. He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19]
Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense..”
RE: “…You could conceivably have two categories of ‘Israeli.’ The ‘good’ Jewish ones, and the less good non-Jewish ones.” ~ R.S.
SEE: Israeli Democracy in Peril, By Daniel Levy, Slate.com, 01/06/12
Why Daniel Levy thinks Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians is poisoning the Jewish state from within.
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://goo.gl/myw45
Your assertion that “it is a false notion that Israel was attacked ‘aggressively’ by ‘the Jordanians’ in 1967” is contradicted by many historical sources — and Wikipedia. An excerpt:
One of the Jordanian brigades stationed in the West Bank was sent to the Hebron area in order to link with the Egyptians. Hussein decided to attack.
The IDF’s strategic plan was to remain on the defensive along the Jordanian front, to enable focus in the expected campaign against Egypt.
However, on the morning of June 5, the Jordanian Army began shelling targets in West Jerusalem, Netanya, Kfar Saba, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[59] The Royal Jordanian Air Force and Iraqi Air Force bombed Israeli airfields and civilian targets. Several Jordanian planes and an Iraqi Tupolev Tu-16 bomber were shot down. The attacks killed one person and wounded seven, and destroyed a transport plane.
Israel sent a message promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war.
King Hussein replied that it was too late, “the die was cast”.[60] On the evening of June 5, the Israeli cabinet convened to decide what to do;
The Israeli military only commenced action after Jordanian forces made thrusts in the area of Jerusalem.
Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Israel promised Jordan that if they did not attack Israel first, Israel would not touch Jordanian positions.
After asking for 24 hours to think about it, Jordanian troops opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, and targeted the center of the country, including the outskirts of Tel Aviv, using American-made Long Tom guns.
In addition, Jordanian troops seized government houses and the headquarters of the UN in Jerusalem.[62]
At the UN Security Council meeting of June 5, 1967 Secretary-General U Thant reported that: “at 1330 hours local time today approximately one company of Jordanian soldiers occupied the garden of the Government House.”
On June 6, Israeli units were scrambled to attack Jordanian forces in the West Bank.
The Jordanian attack happened AFTER Israel attacked Egypt. Every reasonable person understands that Israeli aggression began the 1967 War. Jordan attacked because Israel attacked Egypt first. Santorum & you leave out that inconvenient bit of history.
Cory,
The missing bit of information that makes your argument nonsensical is this: Jordan and Egypt had signed a formal self-defense pact prior to June 1967, and so legally an attack on one is an attack upon both.
The latin term is “casus foederis” – “case of the alliance” – and it is quite common e.g. NATO is predicated upon just such a (defensive) doctrine.
Israel aggressively attacked Egypt in June 1967, and because of the mutual-defense treaty that as an attack upon both Egypt and Jordan.
Any response by the Jordanian Army must therefore be seen in that light i.e. it would be an act of mutual-defense against an Israeli act of aggression.
Pointing to demands by Israel that Jordan “stay out of it” is self-serving nonsense, quite akin to Russia warning the Brits and the Yanks to “stay out of it” while it attacks Germany.
They can’t, precisely because the terms of the NATO charter would mea that they are “already in it”.
Jordan couldn’t, precisely because of the terms of their mutual-defense treaty with Egypt.
You claim that “every reasonable person understands that Israeli aggression began the 1967 War,” and that Santorum and I “leave out ” inconvenient bits of history.
Again, Wikipedia refutes you. It seems that you are the one leaving out inconvenient bits of history.
Which side initiated hostilities?
Although Israel fired the first shot, Wikipedia fairly notes that “opinions are divided on whether Israel’s attack was an act of aggression or a preemptive strike of a defensive nature.”
Then Wikipedia provides the context that you leave out:
In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel’s border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.
Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23.
On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan’s invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent.
On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armored brigades.
These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces and he continued to take actions intended to increase the level of mobilization of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in order to bring pressure on Israel.
Syria’s army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border. Jordan’s army had 55,000 troops and 300 tanks along the Jordanian border, 250 of which were U.S. M48 Patton, sizable amounts of M113 APCs, a new battalion of mechanized infantry, and a paratrooper battalion trained in the new U.S.-built school. They also had 12 battalions of artillery and six batteries of 81 mm and 120 mm mortars.
Documents captured by the Israelis from various Jordanian command posts record orders from the end of May for the Hashemite Brigade to capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai’in in a night raid, codenamed “Operation Khaled”. The aim was to establish a bridgehead together with positions in Latrun for an armored capture of Lod and Ramle.
The “go” codeword was Sa’ek and end was Nasser. The Jordanians planned for the capture of Motza and Sha’alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma’ale Adummim: “The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won’t leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents”.
100 Iraqi tanks and an infantry division were readied near the Jordanian border. Two squadrons of fighter-aircraft, Hawker Hunters and MiG 21, were rebased adjacent to the Jordanian border.
On June 2, Jordan called up all reserve officers, and the West Bank commander met with community leaders in Ramallah to request assistance and cooperation for his troops during the war, assuring them that “in three days we’ll be in Tel-Aviv”.
The Arab air forces were aided by volunteer pilots from the Pakistan Air Force acting in independent capacity, and by some aircraft from Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
Me again:
It is clear from the above that the Arabs were planning and preparing to exterminate Israel.
To ensure in the future that people wouldn’t say “every reasonable person understands that Israeli aggression began the 1967 War,” Israel could have absorbed the first attack from the Arabs, but a country only nine miles wide might value its survival and the life of its citizens more than trying to score debating points in the future.
One might go so far as to say that given the well-sourced history above, that Every reasonable person understands that Israeli aggression began the 1967 War, every reasonable person understands that Arab aggression began the 1967 War.
This is a clear violation of my comment rules which you must read if you plan on participating in the threads. First, do not publish over-long comments. Second do not quote or even paraphrase an entire article from anywhere, including Wikipedia. Third, Wikipedia is not a primary source, ESP. on a subject as controversial as this one. If yr paraphrase is correct then it is an entirely incomplete & untrustworthy source on this subject. Tom Segev’ 1967 is perhaps the authoritative source about this. Have you read it? Didn’t think so. Buy it through my Amazon store & read it & then you’ll know something more than pro-Israel hasbara on the subject. When you write a comment you do so in yr own words & with the fewest words possible. This is a comment thread, not a monograph.
I lived through the 1967 War & don’t need Wikipedia to tell me what happened. Gold Meir and her cabinet decided to preemptively attack Egypt. This was not in any way shape or form a “defensive” act. It was an aggressive act. Using the closure of the Straits as a casus belli is ridiculous since Israel didn’t need or use them for any major purpose. Further, while Nasser was bellicose & threatening Israel was equally so. Finally, Israel wanted a war and did all it needed to do to get one. It had already fought one war in 1956 with Egypt & Nasser’s alliance with the USSR was one Israel wanted to take down a peg or two by bloodying his nose.
Cory, you don’t seem to have quite grasped the concept of “pre-emption”, much less the concept of a “casus belli”.
You can’t attack someone merely because he is rattling his sabres at you i.e. there simply isn’t sufficient “casus” to go all “belli” on a sabre-rattler.
The reason why should be obvious i.e. hshouting that owever much he may be shouting “I’m comin’ ta’ get ya'” it is also likely that he is frightened that *you* are thinking of attacking *him*, and he wants to dissuade you from that attack by being bellicose.
Did Nasser fear such an Israeli attack?
Yeah, he did; the Russians were telling him that the IDF was planning to monster the Syrian Army, and that’s why he was rattling his sabres.
To no effect, of course, but he had to try…..
Hi Richard.
I also lived through the 1967 war and I remember the chilling quotes by the Arab leaders prior to the war that they were going to exterminate Israel.
Thank you for your kind offer to buy books through your Amazon store, but as my wife is a librarian, it is easier for me to access books through her.
Although Wikipedia is heavily sourced and footnoted, you dismiss it as an “entirely incomplete and trustworthy source on this subject” and refer me instead to a single book by a revisionist historian.
Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War, and currently Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., said “Laboring to prove his point forces Segev not only to contradict himself but also to commit glaring oversights… by disregarding the Arab dynamic and twisting his text to meet a revisionist agenda.”
Might not Segev’s book be insufficient as a single source?
Being well read on the 1967 war and having my own recollection of those days, I’d say Wikipedia has its facts pretty straight — and that it is possible for reasonable, informed people to conclude that the 1967 war should not be blamed on the Israelis alone.
How nice to see you quoting Israel’s leading hasbarist as an authority on anything related to Israel. BTW, the Israeli New Historians (you call them “revisionist” as if that were a dirty word) uncovered tremendous historical truths long buried. I’ll take Tom Segev’s historical view of the 67 War over Oren’s any day. And you won’t find much sympathy here for Oren’s tendentious view of Israeli history.
About Wikipedia, what diff. does it make that it’s heavily sourced & footnoted if the sources & footnotes are as slanted as the paraphrase you offer. Even the devil can quote Scripture & write heavily sourced & footnoted Wikipedia articles.
There are myriad credible sources that echo Segev’s general views. He’s not the only one. But he’s one of the best. And since you haven’t read him you have no right to claim to know or understand the truth of that War. To claim you are “well read” when you haven’t read Segev is a misnomer. You’re in fact thinly read because you’ve only read sources conforming to yr pt of view on the subject while I’ve read sources on both sides & know which one’s “facts” I trust more.
BTW, I didn’t say the war was Israel’s fault alone. I in fact noted Nasser’s bellicosity and some grave errors of judgment he made. But by far the lion’s share of blame & indeed the actual commencement of hostilities was Israel’s fault. For Santorum to argue otherwise is a lie.
Richard,
I have an extensive bookshelf of well-read books on the topic written by authors of a variety of viewpoints, yet somehow you feel qualified to judge that I am “thinly read” and that I read sources only conforming to my point of view.
(By the way, I make no such reciprocal accusation.)
I might point out that I am reading your blog with an open and inquisitive mind, mostly without ever commenting — and I will add Segev to my reading list.
The reason I replied in this chain is because you wrote that the notion that Israel was attacked “aggressively” by “the Jordanians” in 1967 is “false”.
As I noted above, the Jordanian Army shelled West Jerusalem (destroying a Chagall window at the Hadassah Hospital, among other sites), Netanya, Kfar Saba, the country center and the outskirts of Tel Aviv
The Royal Jordanian Air Force bombed Israeli airfields and civilian targets.
If that’s not attacking Israel aggressively, then I don’t know what is. (That Jordan had a pact with Egypt does not change the fact that Jordan attacked Israel aggressively.)
I thought it too strongly stated to dismiss mention of the Jordanian hostilities as a “lie” — so I commented.
Yes there are mainstream historians and New Historians, Jan Muhrens and people deconstructing and debunking their recollections. But I believe you and I share a fundamental belief that all of us should seek truth, speak accurately, not rush to call people names like “liars” — and acknowledge that between the extremes, there are many reasonable and defensible positions on issues like this.
You yrself have not denied you haven’t read one of the key texts on the subject, Segev’s book. I am happy to hear that you plant to do so. Perhaps others here will want to ask Cory what other books representing alternative viewpoints to the ones he’s comfortable with whether he’s read them. Perhaps we can expand his reading list. What you judge to be a “variety of viewpoints” will undoubtedly range from center-right to far-right. Given you haven’t read 1967 there may be others you haven’t read as well because they fall outside your comfort zone.
I’m not certain you’re reading my blog “with an open mind.” You ARE reading my blog and that is to yr credit. But as to yr frame of mind when you’re reading it–that’s another matter.
You’ve mischaracterized my quarrel with Santorum and yrself. Santorum lied when he said that Jordan attacked Israel, without taking into account the historical context. Jordan attacked in response to Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egypt, with whom it enjoyed a self-defense treaty under which it was obliged to come to Egypt’s defense if it was attacked first. There is no justification whatsoever for claiming Jordan attacked Israel, and Israel responded only in self-defense.
I believe in nuance and seeking truth. But I don’t believe in lies of the type that Santorum spreads like manure on a corn field. I will call him out for such lies every time.
Cory Kern have a good look at this video of a Dutch tv-program in which former UN observer Jan Muhren talks about the Israeli provocations he witnessed prior to the 1967-war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLVoSdg_AE8&feature=related
Richard you spoke about “Gold Meir and her cabinet” but it was in fact Levi Eshkol who was then PM. Golda became so in 1969.
Right, thanks for the correction. I had a momentary historical memory loss.
“have a good look at this video”
I especially like the interview with Michael Of The Blessed Book, who flatly states that King Hussein of Jordan did not want to go to war.
The Infallible One was asked a second time, and he answered even more emphatically: King Hussein of Jordan did not want to go to war.
Compare and contrast that with Cory’s wiki-sourced nonsense about Jordanian plans to (a) capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai’in and (b) kill every man, woman and child in Motza and Sha’alvim in (c) super-sneaky surprise attacks.
I especially like the oh-so-authoritative claim that “Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma’ale Adummim”
Which would have been a neat trick indeed in 1967, considering that Ma’ale Adummim wasn’t established until 1976.
I suppose Hitler and Stalin should have kept Poland because they gained the territory through conquest. Santorum is not only full of it, he is dangerous full of it.
Besides, Israel’s Constitution requires her to abide by UN resolutions, Israel was created by UN mandate and UN Resolution 242 calls for Israel to return to her pre-1967 borders. The United States voted FOR Resolution 242. If we treated Israel by the same standards as we treated Iraq, the US would have INVADED Israel in 1967.