Historic Facts,

Palestine/Israel Conflict" Correspondence with Norman Spector at Globe & Mail. June15-16, 2001

From: Ismail Zayid

To: Globe & Mail

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:30 PM

Subject: What Canadians need to know about the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Editor

The Globe & Mail

June 15, 2001

Dear Editor:

Despite Norman Spector's prevarication and diatribe {"Mideast? Mum's the word" June 15}, the historic facts, about the Arab-Israeli conflict are clear and simple. Firstly, the Palestinian people were uprooted from their homeland, in 1948, through a systematic process of ethnic cleansing by Israeli leaders. They have a fundamental right to return to their homes, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeatedly-reaffirmed UN resolutions. Fifty three years later, Israel still refuses to comply with international law. Secondly, Israel continues, since 1967, its illegal occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and its persistent violation of Palestinians' human rights, in defiance of the Fourth Geneva Convention and repeated Security Council resolutions. Thirdly, international law entitles all peoples under foreign occupation, including even the Palestinian people, the right to resist foreign occupation.

These are the facts that Canadian politicians and all Canadians must know and uphold, as Canada claims to uphold the UN Charter and international legitimacy.

Yours sincerely

Ismail Zayid, MD.

From:Norman Spector

To: izayid@hfx.eastlink.ca
Cc: Constance Schuller
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: letter

Dear Dr. Zayid, Thanks for your note. In the Mideast, we are dealing with two indigenous peoples, one of whom (in the majority) was exiled 2000 years ago, and later returned en masse to their homeland. In 1947, the UN voted to partition the land into two states. The Arab side refused and invaded. They lost, and a large number of refugees paid the price. Two states, for two peoples remains the only viable solution. For many years after 1967, Israeli leaders rejected this solution. With the Oslo agreement, there was reason to hope that both peoples had at last come to their sanity—at the same time. Unfortunately, Arafat rejected Clinton’s proposals at Camp David last summer. In doing so, he rejected the Jewish link to Haram al-Sharif and demanded the return of refugees to Israel. Together, his position amounted to a denial of the right of self-determination for the Jewish people. Thanks again for writing. Spector

-----Original Message-----
From: Ismail Zayid [mailto:izayid@hfx.eastlink.ca]
Sent: June 15, 2001 10:32 AM
To: Norman Spector
Subject: Historic Facts.

Dear Mr. Spector:

In response to your note, please let me relate some of the relevant historic facts, and I am sure you are aware of this history:

1: The Hebrew tribes, led by Joshua, came to Palestine, [The Land of Canaan], as invaders, nearly 3000 years ago and were driven out by other invaders, the Romans in 138 A.D. The Palestinians of today are the descendents of the Canaanites, Jebusites, the Philistines and other tribes that lived in this land since history began as well as intermixing with all invaders, including Jews, Greeks, Romans, Persians,Crusaders, Turks and British. Professor Maxime Rodinson, who is Jewish, and was Professor of History at The Sorbonne University, when he wrote in 1968: " The Arab population of Palestine was native in all senses of the word and their roots in Palestine can be traced back at least 40 centuries."

The Jews who have lived in Palestine since then lived in peace with their Muslim and Christian neighbours until the introduction of Zionism. Antisemitism and the crimes committed against the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were committed by the Europeans . Chaim Weizmann's testimony to Muslim tolerance towards Jews is confirmed in his statement before The Anglo- American Commission in Jerusalem in 1946, when he stated: " I would not like to do any injustice. The Muslim world has treated the Jews with considerable tolerance....The Jews should never forget that."

Altogether, The Palestinians are willing to accept to live in peace with their Jewish neighbours in Israel. but they require a modicum of justice.

2: You refer to the 1947 Partition scheme. In 1947 , the Jews,mostly recent immigrants, constituted one third of the population and owned exactly 5.6% of the land. Yet, this scheme allotted to the Jewish state 56% of the country and 42% to te Arabs. Is it surprising that the Palestinians refused this scheme, which as you know was bulldozed through the General Assembly by U.S.pressure and threats?

You say "the Arabs invaded... and a large number of refugees paid the price". The facts are that before a single Arab soldier entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, over 300,000 refugees were driven out or fled in terror, as a result of the numerous massacres committed against them. As well, many cities, e.g. Jaffa and Acre, and towns allotted to the Arab state, in that scheme, were already occupied by the Jewish forces. You must know the statements by Yigal Allon, Ben Gurion and others that had these Arab armies, meagre as they were, the borders of Israeli occupied territory would have gone far beyond the 78% of Palestine that they did conquer.

As to the refugees, the process of their ethnic cleansing was orchestrated in plans laid out by the Zionist leaders from Herzl to Ben Gurion. Their statements would take pages but I will limit myself to this: Herzl wrote in 1896: " We must spirit the penniless population across the border.....Such process shall be carried out gently and circumspectly."  Ben Gurion , in a letter to his son Amos, in 1937, wrote that when the Jewish state comes into being, " We will expel the Arabs and take their places". Joseph Weitz , Director of Land Development, Jewish National Fund, wrote in 1940 in his diary :" Among ourselves, it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples together. ...The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west of Eretz-Israel[meaning Palestine], without Arabs, and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe would remain". On July 10, 1948, I saw with my own eyes, in my village of Beit Nuba, the horror and terror on the faces of the people[ 50 to 60 thousand] from the cities of Lydda and Ramleh driven out on the orders of Yitzhak Rabin, with low flying planes shooting at them to make sure that they flee. This is a sight I shall never forget.

Speaking of invasions, who invaded who in 1956 and 1967? Speaking of the 1967 war and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, I might remind you of Rabin's war crimes. He immediately ordered the systematic demolition and bulldozing of the villages of Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba [my own hometown]. Not a single shot was fired in the occupation of these villages. To my shame, as a Canadian, stands today the infamy called Canada Park built on the site of the ruins of these villages, built with Canadian tax-deductible dollars.

3: You refer to Clinton and Barak and Arafat's refusal to accept their offer. This offer entailed a fragmented Palestinian state in multiple non-contiguous bantustans, with Israel maintaining its settlements and remaining in control of external borders etc. This is an offer that Palestinians will never accept.

You state: " Two states, for two peoples, remains the only viable solution". I accept that. But for that to be achievable, Israel must comply with international law and withdraw completely from all illegally occupied territory, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza and dismantle all Jewish settlements on this territory as they are illegal. The Right of Return for the refugees must be observed. All these terms are in compliance with international law,the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Security Council resolution # 242 and UN resolution # 194.

Thus, a reasonably viable Palestinian state can be built on 22% of Palestine, and peace and security can be obtained for both Palestinians and Israelis.

This is the modicum of justice for the Palestinians that I spoke of. For without this, I am certain, there will be no peace for Arab and Jew in the Middle East.

Thank you for bearing with my relatively lengthy reply!!

Yours sincerely

Ismail Zayid

----- Original Message -----

From:Norman Spector

To:'Ismail Zayid'

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:49 PM

Subject: RE: Historic Facts.

Dear Dr. Zayid, Thanks for your lengthy note. The Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Romans. They never gave up and returned to their land. Their national myth, that this was "a land without people for a people without land," was wrong. Which is why the UN, with Canada on the Commission, recommended two states for two people. Had the Arab states accepted partition and urged people to stay—and had they not invaded--there would be no refugee problem today. While you invoke international law and the UN, you sidestep the partition resolution which provided that there would be two states within which each people could achieve self-determination. The Palestinians finally came around to support that view in 1988. However, Arafat’s position at Camp David on the right of return to Israel effectively nullified that position, as it would demographically overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel. So the issues remains what it was in 1947—whether the Arab states, and particularly the Palestinians, are prepared to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Mideast. Norman Spector -----Original Message-----
From: Ismail Zayid [mailto:izayid@hfx.eastlink.ca]
Sent: June 15, 2001 2:22 PM
To: Norman Spector
Cc: Constance Schuller
Subject: Re: Historic Facts.

Dear Mr. Spector:

I thought the requirement in your last paragraph, namely the acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel as a state in the Middle East, has been already accepted, when resolution # 242 was accepted by the Arab States. The Palestinians accepted that in 1988 and again in 1993. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel.

You speak again of the refugee problem being the outcome of Arab armies' "invasion" of Israel. I thought I tried to show the falsehood of this claim in my "lengthy note". The genesis of the refugee problem was planned, as I explained, long before 1948 and effected partly before Arab armies entered Palestine and completed after June 15, 1948. Benny Morris, Harkabi, Tom Segev and other Israeli historians confirm that. Is your reference to "urged people to stay" a reference to the Israeli myth that Arab broadcasts called on the Palestinians to leave? I thought that myth was demolished by Israeli historians and many years ago by Erskine Childers. Childers, an Irish journalist examined all the American and British monitoring records of all Middle East broadcasts throughout 1948 and reported :" There was not a single order or appeal or suggestion about evacuation from any Arab radio inside or outside Palestine in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arb appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put" { The Spectator, London, 12 May, 1961}

You bring again the offer at Camp David to Arafat. I think I answered that adequately. To repeat myself, that offer is insulting and guarantees the Palestinians nothing but continued servitude and submission to Israeli control. Israel must comply with international law, if we are to have lasting peace.

As to the right of return for the refugees, it is incredible that any intellectual can argue that there is a "right of return" for the Jew from Kiev, Moscow or Chicago, but not to the Palestinian, who was born in the land and his or her forefathers have tilled and lived in this land for centuries.

Yours sincerely

Ismail Zayid

----- Original Message -----

From: Norman Spector

To:'Ismail Zayid'

Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 12:38 AM

Subject: RE: Historic Facts.

Dr. Zayid, At Camp David, there was agreement on a right of return to Palestine. Chairman Arafat’s refusal to recognize any Jewish link to Haram al-Sharif, and his insistence on a right of return to Israel, belies the acceptance of a Jewish state in the Mideast. That you find it incredible that there is a right of return for a Jew from Kiev suggests that you, too, do not accept that they have an aboriginal right to the land dating from time immemorial—as do Palestinians. And that the only solution is partition. You should re-read the sources you quote—they do not suggest what you suggest. This is not to deny that there were incidences of expulsion and even a few massacres. However, there are numerous reports of appeals to leave. I have this first hand from Mrs. Rabbani, the widow of the Baha’i prophet, who was in Haifa during these years. But, I reiterate, the bottom line is this—had the Arab states accepted partition, there would have been no refugees. Norman Spector -----Original Message-----
From: Ismail Zayid [mailto:izayid@hfx.eastlink.ca]
Sent: June 15, 2001 4:39 PM
To: Norman Spector
Cc: Constance Schuller
Subject: Re: Historic Facts.

Dar Mr. Spector:

I thought my statement about the right of return was clear. I said : I could not understand how it can be argued that the Jew from Kiev has the right of return, but not the Palestinian who was born in the land etc. If the Jew from Kiev is entitled to this right, so should the Palestinian. I am asking for equality.

You state that that the sources I quote do not suggest what I suggest. Mr. Spector, that is totally false and I challenge this statement.Your statements remind me of Rabbi Kaplan, who Nathan Chofshi, the well known Jewish Israeli thinker, spoke of in this statement:

" If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old settlers in Palestine who witnessed the flight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave their cities and villages..... We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And we still dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being ashamed of what we did and of trying to undo some of the evil we committed by helping these unfortunate refugees, we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them".

That says it all about the refugees. You keep referring to the Partition scheme and Arab refusal and I explained no other people would have accepted this immense injustice that was stipulated in this scheme and the Palestinians were foolish in thinking that the world would not allow such an unjust division to be implemented. They were asking for a binational secular state as did Martin Buber and Albert Einstein and others. Furthermore, the leaders of the Zionist movement at the time, Menachem Begin and Ben Gurion had no intention of accepting that permanently.Menachem Begin, leader of the Herut party stated in relation to the partition scheme: " The partition of the homeland is illegal. It will never be recognised". David Ben Gurion, when announcing the creation of Israel on May 14, 1948, refused to define its borders stating: " We are announcing the creation of a state in the western part of our country.....We are not obliged to state the limits of our state". He later wrote in his diaries{ edited by Michael Bar-Zohar and published in 1954} : " To maintain the status quo will not do. We have set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion".

I think this is clear enough language. No acceptance by the Palestinians would have made any difference.

Ismail Zayid

-- Original Message -----

From:Norman Spector

To:'Ismail Zayid'

Cc:'Constance Schuller'

Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 4:09 AM

Subject: RE: Historic Facts.

Dr Zayid, We agree there should be equality—at Camp David, President Clinton proposed the unrestricted return of refugees to the Palestinian state that would have been created. The demand for a return to Israel is not equality—it is a euphemism for elimination of the Jewish state. Arafat’s performance at Camp David has persuaded the overwhelming majority of Israelis that this is his goal. It is true that Buber and Einstein wanted a single secular state. The UN proposed partition and Israel accepted the Plan. The Arab states did not. Had they not made this tragic error, history would have been very different for both peoples. Norman Spector -----Original Message-----
From: Ismail Zayid [mailto:izayid@hfx.eastlink.ca]
Sent: June 16, 2001 6:00 AM
To: Norman Spector
Cc: Constance Schuller
Subject: Re: Historic Facts.

Mr Spector:

There surely must be an end to Israeli apologists' continuing  pointless denial of historic facts and defiance of international law, if we are to have peace for both peoples in this tortured land.

The Right of Return for the Palestinian refugees is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN Resolution # 194, of 11 Dec. 1948 which states : " Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes [emphasis added] and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Still 53 years later they have not been permitted to return. Please note that the resolution speaks of return to their homes, and not to a Palestinian state, as you keep repeating. Arafat has no right or authority to negotiate this right away no matter how much pressure is applied on him by the U.S. or Israel.

You bring up again the question of acceptance of the Partition Scheme by Israel and not the Arabs. I pointed out that the scheme was unjust and that Israeli acceptance was purely tactical and I pointed out to you the statements by Begin and Ben Gurion that their acceptance was merely a stage in a continuing expansionist process, as we witnessed in 1948 and 1967. It is true what you say that " history would have been very different for both peoples". The difference,however, would have been only in dates.

In reference to the plight of the refugees, you said in an earlier note: " This is not to deny that there were incidences of expulsion and even few massacres". As to the massacres, you should read the statements by Jewish soldiers who witnessed and participated in these massacres, including the article in the Tel Aviv newspaper, Hair, of May 6, 1992, by Guy Erlich, which documents evidence collected by the American Jewish journalist, Dan Kortzman, author of Genesis 1948, and the history researcher Ariyeh Yitzhaki, of at least twenty large massacres of Arabs and about hundreds more massacres committed by Israeli soldiers. Yitzhaki wrote:

       " For many Israelis it was easy to cling to the false claim that the Arabs left the country because that was what their leaders ordered. That is a total lie.The fundamental cause for the flight of the Arabs was their fear of Israeli violence, and that fear had a basis in reality".

History researcher Uri Milstein, celebrated in Israel as the dispeller of myths, confirms Yitzhaki evaluation regarding the volume of the massacres:

         " If Yitzhaki claims that there were murders in almost every village, then I say up to the inception of Israel every event of fighting ended in massacre of Arabs. There were massacres of Arabs in all Israel's wars, but I have no doubt that the War of Independence was the dirtiest". in the village of Duweima, an Arab village near Hebron, occupied without a battle by Battalion 89 of the 8th Brigade, some 80-100 civilians were murdered in cold blood. In the village of Safsaf: " 52 men were tied with a rope. Lowered into a pit and shot". There were numerous massacres, including the massacre in the Dahmash Mosque, in Lydda on July 10, 1948, under the command of Yitzhak Rabin, who relates in his diaries how he ordered the expulsion of the citizens, on the order of Ben Gurion.The account of the mmassacre in the Dahmash Mosque is related by Dan Kortzman, who learnt of the event from Moshe Kalman, the commander of the Palmach's Third Battalion:"After the surrender of the city of Lydda, a group of stubborn Arab fighters fortified themselves in the small Dahmash Mosque..... Kalman gave an order to fire several missiles at the mosque. They were surprised at the lack of resistance. They found the remains of the Arabs stuck to the mosque walls. A group of 20-50 of the city's residents was then brought to clean the mosque and to bury the remains. When they finished their work, they were also shot, and thrown into the graves they themselves dug." There were scores of other massacres, but I will leave it at that...

The policy of massacre was complemented by a campaign of psychological warfare, to force the Palestinians to flee. Leo Heiman, Israeli army reserve officer who fought in 1948, wrote in Marine Corp Gazette, in June 1964:

    " As uncontrolled panic spread throughout all Arab quarters, the Israelis brought up jeeps with loudspeakers which broadcast recorded 'horror sounds'. These included shrieks, wails and anguished moans of Arab women, the wail of sirens and the clang of fire alarm bells, interrupted by a sepulchral voice calling out in Arabic: 'Save your souls ye faithful, the Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons. Run for your lives in the name of Allah' ".

More subtle metods of psychological warfare were used by Yigal Allon, who was the Commander of The Palmach, later Israeli Foreign Minister. He wrote in Ha Sepher Ha Palmach in 1948:

   "I gathered all of the Jewish mukhtars [village headmen], who have contact with Arabs in different villages, and asked them to whisper in the ears of some Arabs that a great Jewish reinforcement has arrived in Galilee and that it is going to burn all of the villages of Huleh. They should suggest to these Arabs, as their friends, to escape while there is still time. The rumour spread in all areas of the Huleh. The tactic reached its goals completely". These are the refugees in Lebanon, who want to return to their homes, and not to Gaza or the Negev.

Is that enough to convince you how and why the refugees were uprooted? Please take note of what Nathan Chofshi said.

Ismail Zayid

----- Original Message -----

From: Norman Spector

To: 'Ismail Zayid'

Cc: 'Constance Schuller'

Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 6:58 PM

Subject: RE: Historic Facts.

Dr. Zayid, Surprising that the Arab states voted against Resolution 194, if it says what you allege it says. Perhaps this is because of its non-binding nature, being a resolution of the General Assembly. Perhaps because of the clause on compensation which you have not cited. Or perhaps because the history of the past half century teaches us that we are a long way from, if ever, a state where the lion will lie down with the lamb in the Mideast. In any case, I conclude from our exchange that you do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Mideast, or the principle of self-determination for the Jewish people. One can only hope that, someday, the two peoples will recognize each other’s legitimacy, at the same time. Norman Spector

From: Ismail Zayid

To: Norman Spector

Cc: Constance Schuller

Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Historic Facts.

Mr. Spector:

Contrary to your statement, resolution # 194 has always been accepted and supported by the Palestinians and Arab States. The compensation portion of the resolution which states: " and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing [added emphasis] not to return and for the loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible" is a vital component and that is why I said that this is an individual choice and is not for Arafat to negotiate away. I did not include the full text of the resolution to try and avoid a more lengthy reply. There is a lot more I could have quoted for you. I am sure that you know that Israel's admission to the United Nations in May 1949, as per resolution # 273, was conditional on its implementation of Resolution #194. This condition has never been complied with, and you can conclude from that what you like!

It is intriguing that you state that resolution # 194 is non-binding because it was a General Assembly resolution. But,in that case, would you say that the Partition scheme resolution # 181 is also non-binding? That is the resolution you have been repeating to me, and on which the existence of the State of Israel is based.

As to my acceptance for a Jewish state, I have already stated that more than once, on condition that this state complies with international law. If this is not good enough, please feel free to believe what you like.

I think we have covered this issue adequately now, and we should call it a day.

Ismail Zayid