Writing in Israel Hayom yesterday, Yoram Ettinger supported Newt Gingrich’s statement that Palestinians are an “invented” people by offering statistics to show that far from having lived in the Holy Land for millennia, most Palestinians descend from immigrants who came from throughout the Muslim world between 1845 and 1947. Simon Sebag Montefiore provides similar data in his new book, Jerusalem: The Biography, as a New York Times reviewer noted: From 1919-38, for instance, 343,000 Jews and 419,000 Arabs immigrated to the area, meaning Arab Johnny-come-latelies significantly outnumbered the Jewish ones.
One might ask why this should matter: Regardless of when either Jews or Palestinians arrived, millions of both live east of the Jordan River today, and that’s the reality policymakers must deal with. But in truth, it matters greatly – because Western support for Palestinian negotiating positions stems largely from the widespread view that Palestinians are an indigenous people whose land was stolen by Western (Jewish) interlopers.
Current demographic realities would probably suffice to convince most Westerners that a Palestinian state should exist. But the same can’t be said of Western insistence that its border must be the 1967 lines, with adjustments possible only via one-to-one territorial swaps and only if the Palestinians consent. Indeed, just 44 years ago, UN Resolution 242 was carefully crafted to reflect a Western consensus that the 1967 lines shouldn’t be the permanent border. So what changed?
The answer lies in the phrase routinely used to describe the West Bank and Gaza today, but which almost nobody used back in 1967, when Israel captured these areas from Jordan and Egypt, respectively: “occupied Palestinian territory.” This phrase implies that the land belongs to the Palestinians and always has. And if so, why shouldn’t Israel be required to give back every last inch?
But if the land hasn’t belonged to the Palestinians “from time immemorial” – if instead, both Palestinians and Jews comprise small indigenous populations augmented by massive immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the West Bank and Gaza becoming fully Judenrein only after Jordan and Egypt occupied them in 1948 – then there’s no inherent reason why the border must necessarily be in one place rather than another. To create two states, a border must be drawn somewhere, but that “somewhere” should depend only on the parties’ current needs – just as the drafters of Resolution 242 envisioned. Indeed, that resolution explicitly called for “secure” boundaries precisely because the 1967 lines were “notably insecure,” to quote then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg, and Western statesmen believed the permanent border must be relocated to make it defensible.
Moreover, if Palestinians aren’t the land’s indigenous owners, it becomes possible to implement another important principle: that 64 years of refusing repeated Jewish offers of statehood should entail a territorial price. For if decades of making war rather than peace doesn’t entail a territorial price, that encourages aggressors to keep trying to gain the whole loaf through military action, secure in the knowledge that half a loaf will always still be available if they ever decide otherwise.
On immigration, as in so many other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it turns out that history matters, and by ignoring it, Israel and its supporters have badly undermined their own cause. Reversing direction at this late date won’t be easy. But if the conflict is ever to be resolved, correcting the historical record is vital.
I don't think Western support for two states rests on any misapprehension about Arab populations of the Holy Land. As with the UN Partition Plan in 1947, it rests on the assumption that both Arab and Jewish populations must be accommodated. The 1948 war permanently altered the precise borders. The 1967 war created a new fait accompli that has generally been understood as both temporary and subject to negotiation — which both Israel's recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a sort of proto-state and its withdrawal from occupation of Gaza underscore. n nThis "invented" business is a pointless distraction — typical mischief from Newt.
WOW. This one blog post contains every key point about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and spells out a clear roadmap for how to dramatically help Israel's position. God Bless you, Evelyn! Please keep spreading the word you wrote above, and please, Commentary writers (I mean you Tobin, Boot and Mandel), take up the intellectual cause that Evylyn has laid out. And every supporter of Israel–and OF COURSE Israel itself–should, like an NFL running back, charge the hole that Evelyn has opened up in the defense. BRAVO!
Evelyn, it seems you misunderstood the NYT review of Jerusalem: A Biography. The quote in the book states "The Woodhead Commission of 1938 stated that between 1919 and 1938, the Arab population of Palestine had increased by 419,000, the Jewish population by 343,000." The NYT implied it was all from immigration but a careful reading shows that they didn't say that. There was significant Arab immigration in that time period but a lot of disagreement as to exactly how much. n nOtherwise, great article.
Some homework is needed. You say that "millions of [Jews and Palestinians] live east of the Jordan Riveru000b today. That's simply not the case. Not one Jew lives east of the River Jordan because they are not permitted to do so.r n r nThe 82% of the former "Palestine" Territory is, in fact, the so-called "Palestinian" homeland. That should be the end of the matter.
let's remember: these are people who have convinced themselves that the Jews have no particular history in the area. Jewish artifacts thousands of years old are dug up all the time, yet it makes no impression on the Pals and their enablers. n nthe Jews have the history…and they have the G-d thing…and then they also have that won-every-war-waged-against-them thing. ALL the land should by rights be Israel's. despite all of this, however, they are willing to share. unfortunately, the Pals are not.
The truth and the facts always eventually come out..thanks Newt, for having the "guts" to express the truth about the "Palestinians". nNow perhaps we can talk about "disputed" territories instead of "occupied" territories, and the "Arab/Israeli conflict" instead of the "Palestinian/Israeli conflict". It would also help if the Palestinian Authority were described as "hard-line" or "right wing".
Hello Evelyn. You wrote "millions of both live east of the Jordan Riveru200b today". Should it not be "live West of the Jordan River"? And if not, why not? n nGreetz, n nBrabosh.com / Antwerp / Belgium