1.
The past few weeks the chattering classes in Israel have been obsessing
and foaming at the mouth against the "racist" juvenile delinquents from "Price
Tag" (Tag Mechir), vandals who paint anti-Arab graffiti on buildings and cars
and mosques. Politicians and media people have been demanding
that Price Tag be defined as a terrorist organization, that its members be
whisked away and incarcerated. Shimon Peres and his ilk demand
harsh action against them. This week it was also revealed that the
Shin Bet had at least one mole inside Price Tag, who had infiltrated and
monitored what the teenage vandals were up to (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169511#.UdPiga8UHQw) . Conspiracy nuts
are comparing him to Avishai Raviv, a similar mole in the organization to which
Yigal Amir belonged before he murdered Rabin. In reality, the
revelation that the security agency has a mole inside Price Tag is reassuring,
proving that the Shin Bet is not as incompetent as the rest of us feared, that
it is doing its job. And monitoring Price Tag vandalism is a
legitimate task, even if Price Tag is nowhere close to being as much of a
security threat as radical leftist and Arab organizations, some of which really
SHOULD be considered terrorist groups (like "Anarchists against the Wall" and
possibly Peace Now).
But in
the midst of all the ruckus, there is one interesting twist to the saga.
It turns out that there is ONE group of racist Price Tag vandals that the
chattering classes do not care about, a group that no one is demanding be
labeled terrorists, a group Shimon Peres thinks is harmless, a
group that has NOT been infiltrated by police moles nor put under security
surveillance.
That
group is the team of Arab anti-Jewish "Price Tag" vandals. You can
read about them here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169543#.UdPdw68UHQw
Arab
‘Price Tag’ Met with Silence
‘Jews Out’ graffiti fails to win demonstration of support from Peres.
Maayana
Miskin
Residents
of northern Israel were disturbed this week to find that around 20 bus stops had
been sprayed with anti-Jewish slogans.
“The
Negev is for Arabs alone – get the Jews out and the Zionists out,” graffiti on
one bus stop in Carmiel said. On another it said, “The Negev is in danger. It
belongs to Bedouins and we won’t give it up.”
The
graffiti followed the Knesset’s decision to pass a law regarding Bedouin
settlement in the Negev. Arab MKs vehemently opposed the plan, which
will legalize many pirate Bedouin settlements in the region, due to the fact
that it will require some of those who have no proof of ownership of their land
to move to alternate land provided by the government.
The
Arab MKs view this as a forced population transfer.
Samaria
Residents’ Council head Benny Katzover said the Arab MKs’ bitter criticism in
Knesset was directly linked to the anti-Jewish graffiti. “This is a direct
continuation of the Arab MKs’ incitement… There is no doubt that the Arab MKs
are adding fuel to the fire and causing violent acts like this,” he
said.
Council
director-general Keizler Sagi wondered why the Arab “price tag” had gone widely
ignored by the media and by Israeli leaders, just two weeks after similar
graffiti in the Arab Israeli town of Abu Ghosh earned condemnation from a
variety of political figures, including President Shimon
Peres.
“I call
for the President, Mr. Shimon Peres, to visit Carmiel and tell the residents
there that what was done at their bus stops was a disgrace, and to ask the
police to catch whoever wrote this hateful graffiti, as he did in Abu Ghosh,”
Sagi said.
2. The Fourth of July
Nakba
Patriots, Refugees and the Right of
Return
Posted By
Steven Plaut On July 4, 2011
When the War of Independence began, it quickly assumed
the nature of a civil war. Those opposing the declaration of statehood fought
alongside the organized armies of their kinsmen, which invaded the territory of
the infant state from all directions. The fighting was bloody, and the opponents
of independence used terrorism against the population seeking statehood. The
country was partitioned between the areas of the new state and the territories
remaining under the rule of the foreign invaders.
As the fighting dragged on, the opponents of independence
began a mass exodus. In most cases, they left because they feared the
consequences of staying on as a political minority or because they simply
opposed on principle the new political entity. In some cases, they refused to
live as a religious minority under the rule of those practicing another
religion. In some cases, they were expelled forcibly. They fled across the
frontiers, moving their families to live in the areas controlled by the armies
of their political kin. From there, some joined the invading forces and launched
cross-border raids. When the fighting ceased, most of the refugees who had fled
from the new state were refused permission to
return.
The events described above did not transpire in 1947-49,
but rather in 1775-1781. The refugees in question were not Arabs, but Tory
“Loyalists” who supported the British against the American revolutionists
seeking independence. During the American War of Independence, large numbers of
Loyalist refugees fled the new country. Estimates of the numbers vary, but
perhaps 100,000 refugees left or were expelled, a very significant number given
the sparse population of the thirteen colonies.
While there are many differences, there are also many
similarities between the plight of the Palestinians and that of the Tory
refugees during the first years of American independence. The advocates of
Palestinian rights are in fact clearly in the same political bed with King
George`s allies who fought against American democracy and
independence.
Like all wars of independence, both the Israeli and
American wars were in fact civil wars. In both cases, religious sectarianism
played an important role in defining the opposing forces, although for
Americans, taxation was even more important. (Israelis suffered under abominable
taxation only after independence.) Among the causes of the American Revolution
was the attempt to establish the Anglican Church, or Church of England, as the
official bishopric of the colonies. Anglicans were the largest ethnic group
opposing independence in the 1770s, as were Palestinian Muslims in the 1940s,
although in both cases, other religious/ethnic groups were also represented in
the anti-independence movement.
Those fearing the possibility of being forced to live as
minorities under the tyrannical religious supremacy of the Anglicans and
Muslims, respectively, formed the forces fighting for independence. The
Anglicans and Muslims hoped to establish themselves with the armed support of
their co-religionists across the borders. New England was the center of
patriotism to a large extent because of the mistrust of the Anglican church by
the Puritan and Congregationalist majorities there. The later incorporation of
the separation of church and state into the U.S. Constitution was largely
motivated by the memory of would-be Anglican
dominance.
Among the leaders of the Tory cause were many Anglican
parsons, perhaps the most prominent being one Samuel Seabury, the Grand Mufti of
the Loyalists.
In both the American and Israeli wars of independence,
the anti-independence forces were a divided and heterogeneous population, and
for this reason lost the war. In the American colonies, the Tories included not
only Anglicans, but other groups — including Indians, Scots, Dutch, and Negroes
— who feared for their future living under the rule of the local political
majority. Tory sympathy was based on ethnic, commercial, and religious
considerations. Where Loyalist sentiment was strong enough, namely in Canada,
the war produced a partition, with territories remaining cut off from the newly
independent state.
When independence was declared, the populations of the
opposing forces were about even in both 18th century America and 20th century
Palestine. The exact distribution of pro- and anti-independence forces in the
American colonies is not known, but the estimate by John Adams is probably as
good a guess as any — namely, one-third patriot, one-third Loyalist, and
one-third neutral.
When fighting broke out, civilians were often the first
victims in both wars. The Tories formed terrorist units and plundered and raided
the territories under patriot control. The southwestern frontier areas of the
colonies, like the southwestern border of Palestine, were scenes of particularly
bloody terrorism. In South Carolina, the Tory leader Major William Cunningham,
known as “Bloody Bill,” became the Ahmed Jibril of the struggle, conducting
massacres of patriot civilians. Tory and anti-Tory mob violence became common.
The historian Thomas Jones documents many cases of Tories burning patriot homes,
but claims the patriots seldom did the same.
Terrorist raids were particularly common along the New
England coast and up the Delaware River. General Sir Henry Clinton organized
many guerilla raids upon patriot territory. Loyalists also launched
assassination plots, including an attempt to murder George Washington in New
York in 1776. Among the terrorists participating in that plot was the mayor of
New York City.
There were Loyalist insurrections against the patriots in
every colony. Tory military activity was particularly severe in the Chesapeake,
on Long Island, in Delaware, in Maryland, and along the Virginia coast. As
violence escalated and spread, the forces of the revolution took
countermeasures. Tories were tarred and feathered. Indiscriminate expulsions
sometimes took place. Tory areas were sometimes placed under martial rule, with
all civil rights, such as habeas corpus and due process,
suspended.
Queens County, New York, a Loyalist stronghold, was put
under military administration by Continental troops, and the entire population
was prohibited from travel without special documents. General Wooster engaged in
wholesale incarceration and expulsion of New York Tories. The Continental
Congress called for disarming all Loyalists and locking up the “dangerous ones”
without trial. New York Loyalists were exiled to Connecticut and other places,
and sometimes subject to forced labor.
Loyalists were sometimes kidnapped and held hostage. In
some colonies, expressing opposition to the Revolution was grounds for
imprisonment. In some colonies, Loyalists were excluded from practicing law and
from some other professions. Tories were frequently stripped of all property
rights, and had their lands confiscated. In colony after colony, “Acts of
Banishment” forced masses of Loyalists to leave their homes and emigrate. The
most common destination was the Canadian Maritimes, with others going to the
British West Indies, to England, and to Australia.
In both the Israeli and American wars for independence,
anti-independence refugees fled the country in order to live in areas under the
control of their political allies. Many who opposed independence nevertheless
stayed put. After the wars ended, these people generally found the devil was not
as bad as they had feared, and were permitted to live as tolerated political
minorities with civil rights. (This in spite of the fact that many refused to
recognize the legitimacy of the new states, sometimes for
decades.)
The colonies/states that had banished Loyalists refused
to allow them to return, even after a peace treaty was signed. In most cases,
property was never returned. There was fear that returning Tories could act as a
sort of fifth column, particularly if the British took it into their heads to
attempt another invasion. (Such an invasion took place in 1812.) The newly
independent country, like Israel, initially resolved many of its strategic
problems through an alliance with France.
The Tory refugees were regarded by all as the problem of
Britain. The American patriots allowed small numbers to return. Others attempted
to return illegally and were killed. But most languished across the partition
lines in eastern British Canada, mainly in what would become Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. The refugees would never be granted the “right to return.” In most
cases, they would never even be granted compensation for property; Benjamin
Franklin was among the leading opponents of any such
compensation.
At this point, the similarity between the Palestinian
refugees and the Tory Loyalists breaks down. The British, unlike the Arabs, did
a great deal to settle their refugees, rather than force them into festering
camps, and allotted $20 million for their resettlement. The Tory refugees
quickly became a non-problem, and never played any subsequent role in
British-American relations.
Nevertheless, an interesting thought-experiment might be
to imagine what would have occurred had the British done things the Arab way.
Tory refugees would have been converted into terrorist cadres and trained by
British commandos. They would have begun a ceaseless wave of incursions and
invasions of the independent United States, mainly from bases along the Canadian
frontier. The British, Hessians and their allies would have launched a global
diplomatic campaign for self-determination for the Loyalist Americans. They
would have set up an American Liberation Organization (ALO) to hijack whalers
and merchant marines and assassinate U.S.
diplomats.
Benedict Arnold would have been chosen ALO chairman and
would have written the Tory National Charter under the nom de guerre of Abu
Albion. The British would have organized underground terrorist cells among the
Loyalist population that had not fled. Britain and her empire would have
boycotted the new country commercially and pressured others to do the same,
asserting that the national rights of the Loyalist people were inalienable and
eternal, no matter how many years had passed since the refugees fled.
International pressure would have been exerted on the U.S. to give up much of
its territory and to internationalize
Philadelphia.
For more than fifty years, the position of the American
State Department has been that Israel should grant the Palestinian refugees the
“right to return,” that Israel is liable for the suffering of the refugees and
should be responsible for their resettlement. The State Department also thinks
the refugees should be represented at Middle East peace talks. The State
Department is sympathetic to calls for recognizing the rights of the refugees to
self-determination and political expression.
The State Department, in other words, is exhibiting
Loyalist Tory sympathies. A large portrait of Benedict Arnold should grace the
office of every “Arabist” at Foggy Bottom.
No comments:
Post a Comment