CKNW Editorial
for February 13, 2001

It’s a great mistake to get involved in commenting on Middle East affairs … even worse than talking about aboriginal claims. One side is the side of the angels … the other side is racist even to think about.

My present discomfort came about rather innocently. My producers had booked the Israeli Ambassador to Canada at what seemed like the perfect time to talk about matters in the Middle East. That day Israelis were going to the polls and there had been even for that area, considerable violence.

Now I must tell some of my listeners that even though it often might not seem that way, there are some manners I must obey. I cannot, for example, ask an ambassador a question and, if he gives an answer I know will not suit some listeners, leap across the table, throttle him crying you’re a goddam liar.

The Ambassador made the case for Israel and fobbed off the tough questions such as ones about the Jewish settlements on disputed territory.

I believed at the end of the interview that the Palestinian side should also be put forward so I had as my guest Greg Felton whom I knew had a deep interest in this area. Now before I go further I must tell you that I was troubled by the answer Felton gave when I asked him whether or not he was anti-Semitic. He mumbled something about Semites being a language group. He had to know that I was asking whether or not he was anti Jewish. But having said that he laid down a number of facts, as he saw them, that very much contradicted those presented by the Ambassador. I am now in the happy position, judging by my mail, of being both pro Palestinian and pro Israel at the same time.

Let me start from this point. It’s irrelevant whether the ambassador is anti Arab or Mr Felton anti-Semitic for it is the facts we look for not motives.

Let me start with some givens. I am not anti-Semitic as every Jew who knows me will attest. People like Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Doug Collins and the sort Doug Christie always seems to be representing revolt me.

What I am is an observer of affairs who has read quite a bit on the subject.

And my second point is that however I might have decided the matter in 1947, had the decision been mine to take, I believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist and to be safe from its neighbours.

I don’t know if Felton is right that every Middle East War was started or provoked by Israel though 1956 certainly was. I don’t know whether or not if Israel did start this war or that, she was suitably provoked. What I do know is this.

1.the ordinary Palestinians that lived in Palestine during the 30s and 40s were not happy with Jewish immigration and opposed the creation of the partition after the Second World War ended

2.Whoever started the 1948 war, the fact remains that for the most part the Palestinian people acted like most people in a war zone. They were afraid, mostly stayed out of it or ran from it. I have no doubt they hoped that the Arabs would win. It is also a fact that several hundred thousand Palestinians abandoned in fear, or were driven from their lands and wound up in refugee camps where many of them and their descendants remain to this day.

3.I believe it is fair to say that neither side has a monopoly on brutality or terrorism.

4.The dispute in question is over lands taken by Israel during various wars, the rights of Jewish settlers thereon and the rights of Palestinians to be repatriated to the lands from which they were dispossessed.

5.It is also clear that the state of Israel as it exists and as Israeli’s demand it remain is much different and larger than granted by the United Nations partition in 1947 and would, if continued, mean that any Palestinian state would be in three unconnected bits of territory.

6.Jerusalem is a holy city to three large religions

The situation in the Middle East is probably as dangerous today as it has ever been including the days of Gulf War I nearly a decade ago. And as it was then, Saddam Hussein, is very much in the picture. There is much criticism of Yasser Arafat for not denouncing Saddam … which he doesn’t on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Though that is an Arab saying, no better example of it can be found than Britain’s reaction to the hated Soviet Union being at war with the even more hated Nazi Germany. The worry is that Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction on Israel … and that’s a real worry. And listeners will remember that at the time I was in favour of the Allies going right to Baghdad and taking Saddam out. But if you look at this from the point of view of the Arabs you’d say that the only demonstrated nuclear power in the area is Israel.

The Jewish settlements have been a very serious mistake. You cannot use disputed territories as self fulfilling prophecies and get away with it. This program is part of what I call the "up yours" theory of Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

On top of this, I take some things are a given. Jerusalem must be divided. Moreover, I believe that the occupied lands must go to the new Palestine.

The new Prime Minister Sharon, whose actions provoked the latest round of violence, insists that Jerusalem is not up for discussion and that the Jewish settlements, many on lands taken directly from Arab families who had their homes bulldozed, must remain. Frankly, I find those conditions irrational if what we are talking about is peace. At the same time it’s unrealistic to claim that Palestinian refugees should take back their old lands … that would be tantamount to giving Downtown Vancouver to the Indians. It’s also irrational to suggest that Israel doesn’t need practical guarantees of its security. It’s true that Israel outguns its neighbours but a nuclear threat only counts against another nuclear power. Israel’s need for security is on the ground.

There is, you see, a very important fact that guides Israel’s foreign policy and no doubt accounts for the rough edges that are always present … the Arab nations can lose many wars and still exist while one strike is out for Israel.

God only knows how much trouble I’ll get into for saying what I just have. My plea is not for either side but for an open discussion where all people (for, after all, both sides call upon us for help and understanding) where all people can debate the issues without being branded a racist.

I recognize this is not likely to happen. It won’t happen because whatever arguments are put forward opposing any position taken by Israel are also arguments that the holocaust deniers tendentiously adopt as their own … while groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress labels all who criticize Israel as anti-Semitic.

Both sides have decent cases to be made … each case should be tested on its merits not on allusions of racism.