Thursday, October 1, 2009

Laundering words, omitting words, both are lies

About Rev. Nain Ateek's article, "The laundering of words and the oppression of Palestinians."

CHURCHandWORLD linked yesterday, October 3, to a pdf file from the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. The file was the center’s publication, Cornerstone, summer edition 2009, the article was The laundering of words and the oppression of Palestinians.

The article is by Rev. Nain Ateek the Director of Sabeel. His article was pointing to another article by Gideon Levy, “The Factory of Words.”

Ateek uses the epistle of James to remind his readers that human words are capable of great evil. And they are. Some words become evil, as Ateek points out, because they are replacement words that tend to cover the reality of events. They whitewash and so become lies.

But there are other ways to use words to mislead and make lies. That is by omitting words, a whole string of words such as sentences and paragraphs. That is a way to lie about history and morality and even Christianity.


Ateek writes, “From the beginning of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the propaganda machine of the state of Israel has coined words, created myths, produced stereotypes, and crafted propaganda tools in order to justify and legitimize the Zionist narrative, while at the same time, it has managed to cast doubt upon and negate the Palestinian narrative.”

Note that Ateek says the propaganda started from the beginning of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. So when one reads this and knows the beginning history of the conflict, and yes, it goes back to the time of the Holocaust, but is mainly centered around 1947-1948, then one knows that vast amounts of words have been erased or omitted from the article. And only innuendo remains.

Ateek goes on to suggest that Israel from the beginning has smeared the Palestinians as warmongers and “innately violent.” But this is a double lie.

Israel’s beginning narrative is its conflict not so much with the Palestinians; it was that also, but mainly with at least five Arab nations who at that time and even today have misused the Palestinians. So the Israeli beginning narrative revolves mainly around the attack by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab nations of their new State. And that narrative does not hold that the Palestinians are “innately violent,” but rather that militant and radical Islam is innately violent.

And yes there was violence and destruction on both sides. That is the whole story without omitting words, or sentences or paragraphs.

Ateek implies that the Israelis are blaming the victim when they do not take responsibility for what the Palestinians call the Nakba (the catastrophe), that is the birth of the State of Israel and the displacement of about 750, 000 Palestinians from the new State.

Ateek sets up a simplified picture, insisting that while Israel denies any responsibility for the Palestinians leaving there is scientific and historical evidence coming from Jewish historians proving that movement of the Palestinians out of Israel was planned by the “Zionist leaders.” He cites both Benny Morris and Pappe.

But what does Morris say in his book, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War:

“the refugee problem was created by the war—which the Arabs had launched … And it was that war that propelled most of these displaced out of their houses and into refugeedom. Most fled when their villages and towns came under Jewish attack or out of fear of future attack. They wished to move out of harm’s way. … Most of the displaced likely expected to return to their homes within weeks or months, on the coattails of victorious Arab armies or on the back of UN decision or Great Power intervention."

Morris also wrote, after writing about any ideas that the Zionist leadership may have had about expulsion, “Nonetheless, transfer or expulsion was never adopted by the Zionist movement or its main political groupings as official policy at any state of the movement’s evolution—not even in the 1948 War.”[1]

Both Pappe and Morris are part of what is called the New Historians of Israel. Yet Morris has criticized Pappe’s historical accounts. Several other Jewish historians have as well. Historian Efraim Karsh quotes him in a review of his book,
A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples,

Pappe states, “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.”

Ateek uses the verse, “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) He writes that Sabeel’s objective is, “to help discern the truth because the truth is capable of setting people free.” Yes, but Jesus was speaking of himself. He is the truth, the life and the way. He is the one that sets us all free. If we will let Him he will free us from telling lies either by laundering words or by omitting the words.

I will write about Gideon Levy’s article the following week.

[1] All of the Morris quotes are taken from, Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, (John Wily & Sons 2008)

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pappe isn't a historian nearly so much as a propagandist. Whenever you see someone using him as a source or authority to make a case for the Palestinians, you can immediately assume that much of what you are reading is either fictitious or half-truth.

David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA

Viola Larson said...

David,
I think that Pappe has a view that sees history as competing narratives. That does tend to bypass the truth, because then you can just go with the narrative you believe the most in. That is just post-modernism.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Abundancetrek said...

Dear Viola,

It is clear to me that you embrace a particular narrative and reject another one. I believe your objectivity is suspect.

I don't see much sensitivity or respect when you so quickly label people with whom you disagree anti-Semitic.

Yes, Israel had Arab enemies right from the start. And for good reason. Do you want to hear all the legitimate reasons? I doubt it because I suspect you have made up your mind no matter what I or others might say.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand

Viola Larson said...

John,
It isn't a matter of embracing a narrative, but of learning the facts. History is not properly done, as far as I am concerned without the proper use of documents, records, etc. That is more than narrative.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

will spotts said...

Narrative is a part of it - but it cannot be allowed to trump facts. Nor can conflicting claims about facts both be true. (It is not even safe to assume one could split the difference.)

That said, there are, certainly, many different perspectives on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

I don't think Viola is objecting to perspectives with which she disagrees - and then lobbing a label - so that the label is secondary. I think you'll find it's the other way around. Viola is objecting to antisemitic discourse. Unfortunately the presence of antisemitism taints discussions on this subject in a very profound way. And it does render the perspective of the speaker who demonstrates it to be suspect. In this case, if a 3rd party uses someone as a source - when that original source also indulges in antisemitic discourse, that becomes problematic.

Unknown said...

Like it or not the history of Israel/Palestine in 1947/8 is not either the traditional Israeli story or the traditional Palestinian story. History is much more complicated.

There were Palestinians who fought against the Jews particularly in 1947. Jewish villages were attacked and innocent people killed. There were also "volunteers" from other countries during this period. The Jewish groups, Hagganah and Palmach were more organized. At least one time the Irgun and LEVI - both Jewish groups - committed a massacre in a Palestinian village.

Ultimately the Jewish groups developed a policy. If they went into a Palestinian village and there were no weapons there they would leave the people in peace. If Palestinian warriors - soldiers is not the right word because they never received adequate training - came into a village and fired on Jewish positions from that village one of two things might happen if the Jewish fighters took the village. Either the warriors would be killed or captured and the people left in their village or the villagers would be forced out.

Some Palestinians left their villages during the fighting. Others were forced out. Still others left in fear. Some ran when Palestinian warriors murdered Jewish civilians or doctors and nurses out of fear of reprisals. To be fair the Jewish organizations preferred that there be no Palestinians in Jewish territory for fear of attack.

Later after Israel declared itself a state sometimes the invading armies told the Palestinians to move out of the way and that they would be back soon when all the Jews were killed. Others were required to leave by those armies. Still others were forced from their villages by Israeli soldiers.

All this information can be found online in reports released by the Haganah. It is much more objective than anyone would expect.

Israel is no light shining in the wilderness. It is made up of real human beings who do good and bad. Palestine is the same although the Palestinians are cursed with terrible leaders and government corruption.

But Israel is a place where you can go if you are Jewish and know that no one will kill you, beat you or steal from you just because you are Jewish. Alas the Palestinians have no such place. Would that they did and could find away out of the - yes - oppression of the occupied territories: oppression by Israeli soldiers, settlers and other Palestinians.

If you read a poll take of Israeli citizen about whether they would give up the West Bank for peace the overwhelming majority would do so. But they need a partner willing to work for that peace with them.

will spotts said...

Thank you Pastor Bob.

The history is indeed complicated and mixed.

Viola Larson said...

Thank you Bob that is truthful history told the way it should be told.

And Will thank you also. You got it right.

Abundancetrek said...

I am sure there is some truth to what Pastor Bob, my good friend from his Utica Presbytery days, has offered here. Nevertheless, I think one of the most important statements ever made was that "Truth is the first casualty of war." That's why narratives are made and, to some extent, must be honored. I mean that. They need to be honored even if the facts sometimes do compete because the facts offered by one side conflict with the facts offered by the other side. Or, one side relies on certain facts and ignores others and the other side does the same.

We Americans live by a narrative day after day and minute after minute just like the rest of humanity. It is not based on facts in many cases. Indeed, the stealing of land from the natives and from others is well documented but rarely invoked in our narrative.

There is so much more to understand here than the facts of 1947-1949. The colonization and stealing of land from the natives of Palestine began long before that and continues on a daily basis systematically and comprehensively. It's happening right now.

I am so glad that more and more American Jews are questioning the policies of Israel and our own country. Maybe someday I won't be called anti-Semitic simply because I disagree with Israel's illegal and brutal colonization of the West Bank and our government's support of it. In the mean time, it really, really hurts to be called anti-Semitic because I disagree.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "Why 99, you know we have to murder and kill and destroy in order to preserve everything that's good in the world." --Maxwell Smart to Agent 99

Viola Larson said...

john,
I wasn't aware that I had called you anti-Semetic. Do you believe that the Jewish people who immigrated to the Holy Land are not really Jews? Do you believe that our Media is controled by the Jewish people. Do you believe that Israel started the Israel-Arab war of 1948. Those are the people I am calling anti-Semric.

Your statement:
"That's why narratives are made and, to some extent, must be honored. I mean that. They need to be honored even if the facts sometimes do compete because the facts offered by one side conflict with the facts offered by the other side. Or, one side relies on certain facts and ignores others and the other side does the same."

I disagree with this. If two staements disagree with each other then one is not a fact. History can be written using only peoples opinions but if their opinions are wrong it cannot be true history.

Anonymous said...

"There is so much more to understand here than the facts of 1947-1949. The colonization and stealing of land from the natives of Palestine began long before that and continues on a daily basis systematically and comprehensively. It's happening right now."

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, what John is saying here is that Jews began stealing land from Palestinians and colonizing the area before 1947. If I hear that correctly, he is therefore saying that Israel itself is illegitimate, and that Jews have no right to live in the Holy Land. If that is what he is saying, I would have to say that he is either totally ignorant about the historic and continuous connection of Jews to the Holy Land, or anti-Semitic in his conviction that Jews have no place there. I hope I am wrong, and am open to correction on my understanding of his words.

David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA

Viola Larson said...

Yes, David I didn't notice that. The Jews that came before the Holocaust bought their land. Those who came or attempted to come during and right after the Holocaust were kept in internment camps by the British.

Viola Larson
Sacramento, Ca

Abundancetrek said...

Dear Friends:

Please stop jumping to conclusions about my beliefs and I will try to do the same.

I never said anything like what ReformedPastor accused me of saying.

But this why it is so hard to have a reasonable conversation on this topic.

There are even some Jews who believe Israel should never have been created. Are they anti-Semitic?

If Jews aquired land legally in The Ottoman Empire and in the TransJordan mandate, I think that's great. But a lot of land was not acquired legally and that's a fact.

Also, you never answered my question. Do I have to repeat it?

I will.

Do Israeli citizens need to leave their colonies in The West Bank which they have built on Palestinian-owned land in an occupied territory? Yes or no?

And please do sure that your facts are correct and those you are criticizing are wrong. Maybe you are wrong. A little humility on all sides could go a long way.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin

Unknown said...

To respond to John:

Yes some of the land acquired by Israelis was acquired illegally. This is particularly true of land in the West Bank. The attempt to differentiate between legal and illegal settlements is what we might call a legal fiction. Morally all the settlements on the West Bank should be abandoned in a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Will this actually happen? Most probably not. There are too many votes in those settlements.

My position is that the security fence/wall (some places it it a wall and some places it is a fence) is that it should run along the Green Line.

Oh and BTW some of the land acquired by Jewish Agencies before and after WW1 were bought from absentee landlords. While those people legally owned the land (granted by the Ottoman Empire not bought) it was farmed by sharecropping Palestinians. Those people were sometimes forced off the lands. This contributed to resentment that helped spur the riots of 1929 and 1937-8.

Like I said, life isn't simple.

I support the right of Israel to exist. That doesn't mean that I am always happy with the political decisions made by the government.

A better question might be are Israelis who do not live in the West Bank willing to exchange all the land in the West Bank for peace? And would some Palestinians see the abandonment of those settlements as a victory as some did in Gaza and go on attacking Israel?

Unknown said...

Oh, and that doesn't even mention the question/problem of Jerusalem.

Abundancetrek said...

The problem is the policy of the United States. We simply must tell Israel to leave the West Bank ASAP. The Israeli colonies there are illegal and immoral. Obama sometimes seems to be pushing for justice but then he backs off. AIPAC is simply too powerful.

Abundancetrek said...

Please go to COFFEE BREAK 64

I would love a comment from any of you on my latest thoughts about dealing with our poliical bitterness which is an issue not only in society at large but within our beloved denomination and all maionline denominations.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right.” – Judge Learned Hand

Viola Larson said...

John I am interested in the fact that you always say what Israel must do but you don't seem to ever say that Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist. Why not both as Bob has stated it?

Abundancetrek said...

I wonder why you won't answer my question. The issue is simple: Should Israel withdraw from its illegal and immoral colonies in the occupied territory of the West Bank? Yes or no.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com + "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. (the speech containing this famous quote is found at http://www.indiana.edu/~ivieweb/mlkwhere.html)

Anonymous said...

John: I'll answer your question. Israel should withdraw from the settlements in the West Bank. They never should have been built in the first place. Those who live there should be given the option to move to Israel or stay in the settlements under Palestinian rule. Do you agree?

Now another question for you: shoud Hamas be required to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state before being allowed to participate in any negotiations?

David Fischler
Woodbridge, VA

Anonymous said...

I, for example, agree.

A successful negotiation with the Hamas would have the Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as part of its conclusion.

It is a success criteria, not the price of admission.

Of course they could just kill all the Hamas. Then they wouldn't have to negotiate.

Paula 2

Anonymous said...

A successful negotiation with the Hamas would have the Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist as part of its conclusion.

It is a success criteria, not the price of admission.


Why exactly should any country negotiate with an entity that has as its final goal the destruction of its interlocutor? Why should Israel make any concessions to a group that is unwilling to grant even the most minimal level of recognition of legitimacy to it?

Anonymous said...

Why?

To avoid having to kill them. To change their goals. Because killing your enemies changes you in ways you don't want to be changed.

Gen 6:5-7

Paula 2

Viola Larson said...

Paula 2 please give us your last name, city and state.