Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Benny Morris (need I mention he's hardly a right-winger?) reviews former Palestinian National Council member Salman Abu Sitta's book, Atlas of Palestine 1948: Reconstructing Palestine in The New Republic. It is scathing, it is scholarly and it is satisfying. This is highly recommended if you'd like, in three pages, to read a response to many of the lies currently in vogue concerning Israel's founding. Those who are confused about the history of Israel's founding and would like a primer could do worse than to read this piece.
Details and Lies by Benny Morris
He is forever inflating and, correspondingly, deflating numbers--Arab and Jewish population figures, Arab and Jewish landholdings. The presumption seems to be that the fewer Jews or the less Jewish-owned land in Palestine at any given time, the less legitimate are the Jewish national claims. So on page eleven we find Abu Sitta asserting that the country's population in 1914-1915 consisted of 602,000 Muslims, 81,000 Christians, and 38,754 Jews. Past histories have asserted that there were between 60,000 and 85,000 Jews in Palestine at the time. Abu Sitta gives a reference for his "38,754"--page ten in Justin McCarthy's The Population of Palestine, a classic work on Palestine's demography during late Ottoman and British Mandate times. And, indeed, 38,754 appears in Table 1.4D in McCarthy. But then, on pages twenty-three and twenty-four, McCarthy re-calibrates the official Ottoman Government statistics, taking account of permanent "tourists," and so on--and concludes that "the total Jewish population of Palestine in 1914 was thus approximately 60,000."
Is this mistake a fluke? Did the Palestinian researcher simply overlook some relevant passages? I'm afraid not. The mendacity here is systematic...
Racial arguments are all the rage (ironicly among those who most loudly accuse Zionists of racism) these days, so I enjoyed this part:
Now it is quite possible, indeed it is probable, that "Canaanite" genes passed down the ages through the successive ethnic groups that inhabited the country to the Arab invaders in the seventh century. But to say that Cannanites and Palestinian Arabs are of the "same stock" is stretching it. If anything, it could be argued that the Hebrews or Israelites or Jews who conquered Palestine in the thirteenth century B.C.E. and lived in it more or less continuously down to the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. intermarried with the inhabitants they found in place and co-opted their genes. If any reached the Arabs, they necessarily reached them via the Jews (and other non-Arabs) who lived in the country down to the Arab invasion.
But a common gene pool is only one element, and not the most significant element, of peoplehood. Far more important are a shared language and culture, a common history and historical consciousness, and, often, a common religion. And to say that the Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites in these respects is absurd. The Palestinians are Arabs, in their language, culture, religion, and history. Palestinians remember the battle of Ein Jalut and Saladin and the Crusades; they recall the glories of the Arab Middle Ages; some even lament the fall of Muslim Spain. But ask a Palestinian to name Canaanite or Philistine kings, and he will look at you as if you fell from Mars...
I saw Morris speak a year or two ago at NYU. Tony at Across the Bay gave me the heads up. Nothing real exciting. Same typical stupid questions from both sides. At that point I believe his Haaretz articles had come out already.
He did say 1 thing I remember. That the "New Historian ss" is more like "New Historian" that the other 2 guys sordove jumped on board after the fact and he thought Pappe just wanted the dismantlement of Israel. I think he was teaching, Pappe, at that point in Britain. I asked him about Karsh afterwards and he was sordove like the guy "has a post" at "a school" and intimated that he didn't think too much of his analyses.
http://www.meforum.org/article/711
Efraim Karsh
I linked that Karsh piece in the past. It's great for how it sets the record straight on Herzl.
I generally agree, but I think it is off base to call MCCarthy's work "classic." The guy is a first class genocide denie.r