Ernest Renan said in the 19th century that in order to build a nation it was not only necessary to remember, but also to forget. The point of view expressed in Le Monde (December 21, 2001) by Israeli Minister of Education Limor Livnat confirms that denying the rights of another people requires a recourse to this same mental construct.

In Israel over the past few years, we were able to see a historian (Shlomo Ben Ami) try his hand at politics; now we can see what happens when a politician writes history. It should be stressed that the politician who confided to us her historiographical reflections is not just anyone, she is a minister who is actively working to shape the conscience and memory of Israel's youth.

Limor Livnat is an adept of "long-term" history: she puts the beginning at the 12th century BCE and the end in the middle of the second millennium. The principal actor is an eternal "people-race" who had succeeded in conquering a territory at the very beginning of history, but who, like the first Spaniards in the 8th century, had seen their land occupied by ill-tempered Arabs. However, just as the Spanish expulsed the Arabs after eight centuries, the Jews also managed to regain their land after twelve hundred long years.

Throughout this long exile, the Jews dreamed of regaining their homeland, which became possible only after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In 1947, Jewish sovereignty of the land was proclaimed and, as they were generous of heart, they agreed to content themselves with 10% of British Mandate Palestine. The 1967 war permitted them to enlarge their territory and to bring about the immanent Justice of history. But then strange Arabs reemerged, led by an Egyptian named Arafat, who, with unfounded claims, attacked the magnificent historical vision of the return of a people without land to a land without people!

I don't know if the reading of such an account should provoke laughter or tears. Since Auschwitz is also invoked - how could it not be? -, we should indeed be crying. To be fair: Limor Livnat is not the only patriot in the world to believe in the quasi eternal historical priority of the nation she claims. Many nationalists the world over have proceeded in this way and have invented an imaginary historical past, not always in order to justify a cruel political present.

Most teaching manuals in Israel are filled with reflections like those of Limor Livnat who is herself a product of them, and in her capacity as Minister of Education she is doing her best to plant these reflections in the minds of both the humble and grand.

The first attempts to reconsider this manner of writing history, published during the brief Oslo years, were suppressed by the militant Minister the moment she took office. She was aided in this by the strategic incompetence of Ehud Barak, who prepared the way for the return in force of a "Jewish memory" in keeping with the norms.

I would recommend, as an example, that the Minister read the significant Israeli archeological studies whose research led to a refutation of the idea of a conquest of Canaan by the Hebews and, from there, of the genocide that they supposedly executed under divine instruction. I suppose, however, that for Limor Livnat the Bible is a credible history book and that the cruel genocide indeed took place.

I would also try to convince Mrs. Livnat that in the 8th century there was not yet a Spanish nation and that, as a matter of fact, the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula brought to the Jews a golden age that was unequaled in Christendom. I'm afraid however that this version of history cannot be heard today as the western world braids crowns for "Judeo-Christian" civilization and associates Islam with intolerance and terror.

It would also be necessary to remind Limor Livnat that, according to age-old Jewish belief, "Zion" did not constitute a homeland, but rather a holy place toward which it would not be permitted to go until after the redemption. This moreover is why the Jews of Babylon, when they felt threatened, left for Bagdad and not for Jerusalem, though the two cities belonged to the same kingdom. But this is all wasted effort, for Limor Livnat seems too removed from the comprehension of any Jewish religiosity.

It would still be necessary to draw Limor Livnat's attention to another error: the Minister is wrong when she affirms that the UN resolution of 1947 accorded 10% of Mandate Palestine territory to 620,000 present Jews. In fact, they obtained 60%, while the 1,300,000 Arabs received 40% of the territory. Limor Livnat is evidently not familiar with the borders of Mandate Palestine established in 1922 after the creation of the Kingdom of Jordan.

I count myself among the Israelis who have ceased to claim imaginary historical rights for themselves: if we invoke borders or "rights" that refer back two thousand years in order to organize the world, we are going to transform it into an immense psychiatric ward. At the same time, if we continue to educate Israeli children based on such a deformed national memory, we will never arrive at a durable historic compromise.

I think the historian Isaac Deutscher's metaphor is apt: he compared the creation of the State of Israel to the situation of a man who jumps out of a burning house and lands hard on another man who stands at the threshold of the house, and who, of course, is injured. The moral judgment for the man who jumped from the house is relative.

The territorial conquests of 1967 can evoke another metaphor: another man descends the stairs of a house that is not burning and tramples over the injured man who lies in chains. Until 1948, Israeli settlers can be considered stateless refugees. From 1967 on, the settlers who move to the occupied territories come from a State that assures them sovereignty. It is not the first time nor, it would seem, the last that the persecuted become the persecutors.

Limor Livnat's refusal to recognize a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders is an appeal to continue the trampling. In the same way, her refusal to recognize the need for some form of reasonable reparation, or of the injustice committed in 1948, prevents any progress in the negotiations to be resumed. In this respect, Ehud Barak was not really any better: the prisoner benefits from an autonomy over 90% of the territory of his cell!

In 1993, Itzhak Rabin began evacuating the occupied territories. The Palestinian flag flew over Jenin and Ramallah. However, parallel to this political process, most Israeli historians did not undertake the minesweeping of the mythology that led most Israelis to believe that these territories are an integral part of the indivisible homeland. By the reproduction of historical lies, historians have also played their role in the current degeneration. Politicians of the right and of the left like Mrs. Livnat or Mr. Barak, who systematically pursued a policy of colonization in the occupied territories, perpetuate the ideological memory-shaping enterprise.

If it is for the Israelis to learn a more credible history than the one proposed by Limor Livnat, Palestinians must also know the painful reason why a historic injustice will not be repaired with another one. Difficult as this will be for them, it must be said: proclaiming the right of return for refugees in the pre-1948 territories is the equivalent of refusing to recognize the State of Israel. Israelis must of course evacuate all the territories conquered after 1967, including Arab East Jerusalem, while the Palestinian leaders must formulate a compromise proposal concerning the tragic consequences of 1948 and not continue to nourish the illusions of their compatriots.

As part of the occupying people, it is not appropriate - and perhaps I have no right - to show the path to the occupied people. But the more time passes, the worse the nightmare becomes.

In James Joyce's Ulysses, one of the characters, a history professor, says that it is a nightmare from which he is trying to awake. We have every reason to fear that the history lessons dispensed by the Israeli Minister of Education will forever prevent awakening.

Shlomo Sand is a professor of history at the University of Tel Aviv.
Originally in Hebrew, this article was translated from the French by David Dugan

TOP

“Peace of the Brave”, or is it surrender of the timid? -by: Dr. Musil Shihadeh

Accepting such humiliating outcome at the lawn of the Whitehouse, our leadership called such a modest achievement as the “peace of the brave”. The bravery here referred to the surrender of the largest part of our homeland to the aggressive Zionist colonialist, while recognizing the rights of our enemy to the spoils of his war of aggression against our people, and ignoring his repeated crimes against our people. For some it was believed that anything is better than nothing and why can’t they simply accept an independent state even if it did not represent their full rights on their entire historical homeland. Of course, the dangerous flaws of this route was very evident to most of us when we realized that Oslo comprised of general and vague principles for “peace” that did not spell out the exact and full details of the shape of the final conditions for peaceful coexistence, leaving the interpretation of the peace process under the mercy of the greedy Zionists. It was not surprising then that Israel, using these ambiguous principles, doubled its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza since announcing Oslo, annexed E. Jerusalem to its proper, rejected the final borders as specified by 242 and 338 and refused to place on the negotiating table the very important issue of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.    

Now the picture has worsened when we realize that our independence, even on part of our lands, was nothing more than a mirage. The 22% will finally be reduced to almost 10%, our refugees will not be allowed to return, the Israeli settlements in the west Bank will remain intact as knives stuck into the body of this fragmented state dissecting it into so many ghettoes , our freedom of movement in this small chunk of land will be left under the mercy of Israeli checkpoints, our skies will remain under Israeli control, our eastern borders will remain under the control of the Zionist enemy while finally our land will remain a demilitarized zone. This final scenario has become the final outcome of the “peace of the brave”, which our leadership loves to repeat every time they talk about their “great” achievements toward a lasting peace. If we just try to compare these achievements to the status quo while under Israeli occupation, one can hardly see any differences except that our “brave” leaders have turned from revolutionaries fighting occupation into quislings protecting the Zionist enemy from those who were continuing the struggle.  

 What our decisions makers tend to ignore that their power is not to be measured by military strength as much as by the strong determination of our people fighting for liberation. The Intifada of the Palestinian youth has wrecked the entire concept of military strength that the Israelis used to boast about. History and our people have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is nothing stronger than the strong will of the oppressed to break the chains of their bondage. Our sacrifices are minute, when compared to the successes of the Vietnamese, the Algerians, the South Africans and many others who have shown that no power in the long run can stand against the determined masses fighting for their freedom. We should never succumb to the dictates of a greedy and oppressive enemy, as we should keep the torch of freedom lit even if the goals of freedom were not actuated in our lifetimes. The principles of freedom and liberation should not be held hostage to time, or to the short breathed leaders who are seeking to reap the fruits of their struggle in their lifetime, but to the everlasting principles of true and noble goals of defeating oppression. The “peace of the brave” as defined by our “fearless leaders” should be replaced by peace based on true justice and freedom and in accordance with international principles. I never thought that the day would come when our “revolutionary” leaders could ever turn their guns against their Palestinian brothers who are still holding the banner of continued struggle. I cannot comprehend how Mr. Arafat can ever play the dirty role of policing the occupied areas on behalf of the cruel Zionists. Again we are being told that our leadership timid attitude shown by accepting all these humiliating concessions were due to international pressure, not realizing that those who exerting such pressures are those who participated in the conspiracy of our bondage. What peace is Mr. Arafat talking about when he unilaterally declared the cessation of struggle while Sharon continues his onslaught on our civilians? What peace is he talking about when he personally is not allowed to travel abroad or even locally to attend Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem? There is no option except the continuation of the Palestinian struggle and this longing for freedom should not be limited by either the strength of the enemy or even the weakness of the oppressed.

-By Dr. Musil Shihadeh

TOP

 

TOP