Durrani unfairly supports Palestinian cause

I am writing in response to Mariam Durraniâs column on April 19, which relates to Israeli terrorism. She talks about how the Israeli army bulldozes over innocent civilian houses and is responsible for a massacre inside the Jenin refugee camp. It seems she forgot why they were in there in the first place ÷ Islamic militant and terrorist groups like Hamas blowing up innocent civilians inside Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. It seems 20 people that get murdered while sitting down for a Passover Seder isnât enough of a reason to invade a refugee camp to find those responsible.

It was reported that 10 farewell videotapes of suicide bombers were found inside the camp, so maybe the invasion was worth it. If you were an Israeli who had to worry about a suicide bombing every time you got on a bus, went to a restaurant, or just shopped in a supermarket, I think youâd be glad the invasion took place. She says in her column that it wouldnât be fair to only attack the Israeli government, so she condemns the suicide bombings. Yet, the cartoon in her column illustrates Sharon on a bulldozer as a terrorist. What about Arafat, who has given suicide bombers celebrity status and has shown nothing that he wants true peace with Israel? If he did want peace, then he would have agreed to an offer he received several years back which gave him a Palestinian state, return of all refugees, and only shared occupation with Israel in holy sites. Itâs understandable that she shows Sharon as a terrorist because his army is very ruthless and deadly, but after 18 months of suicide bombings, hundreds of innocent Israelis dead, Islamic fundamentalists groups living in refugee camps, why should Sharon have been the slightest bit sensitive when his army invaded the Jenin refugee camp? Mariam Durrani gives off the impression that she doesnât feel the Palestinians are responsible for any of the bloodshed and the Israeli government is only at fault. She should remember that the Palestinians and six other Arab nations tried to invade and destroy Israel in 1967 and lost. Thatâs why the Palestinians live under Israeli occupation. When they had the chance to get out of Israeli occupation, Arafat rejected it, so the Palestinians will get harsh retaliations if they continue to commit suicide bombings.

Dan Einhorn
media arts freshman

Prof. Smithâs Îunbiasedâ article?

This letter is a response to Professor Charles Smithâs inaccurate, incomplete, and at times polemical article, ãThe Palestinian-Israeli Conflictä in the Thursday edition of the Wildcat. As a UA Professor of Judaic Studies, I am frankly shocked that a reputed scholar in the field of Middle Eastern history would be so irresponsible and overtly political in a purportedly ãunbiasedä portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ironically, many Middle East scholars, including those Israeli historians critical of Zionism, would largely agree with how Professor Smith has characterized the origins of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, in four significant areas, Smith has not only omitted important information, but he has presented incomplete or inaccurate accounts as the only historical data in a case largely made against Israel. First, he is correct that Zionist leaders like the Revisionists were opposed to Palestinian Arab rights. However, he fails to mention that there was a sizeable group of early Zionists who established an organization titled ãBârit Shalomä (Covenant of Peace) in 1925 whose founding principle was Arab-Jewish understanding and peaceful coexistence.

Second, Smith correctly notes that the Balfour Declaration did not address the political aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs. However, he then comes to the sweeping, false conclusion that ãBritish rule was designed to deprive Palestinians of Îself-determinationâ.ä Here he neglects to discuss the ãChurchill White Paperä in 1922 which attempted to address the problems in the Balfour Declaration by reassuring Arabs that their population, language and culture would not be submerged in a Jewish ãnational home.ä Third, while Israeli ãpostzionistä historians would agree with Smithâs portrayal of Israelâs expulsion of Palestinians following the 1948 War, he has not even mentioned the two pronged attack on the emerging State of Israel first by Palestinian Arabs and then by neighboring Arab countries, Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon from 1947-1949 that preceded the expulsion.

Finally, Smith is correct to some extent when describing the Irgun and Lehi organizations as engaging in a terrorist type of operation, yet he fails to mention that these groups were outlawed as independent organizations after the founding of the State of Israel. Unfortunately, these types of half-truths and at times blatant misrepresentations actually contribute to the very confusion that Smith was asked to clarify. Hopefully, in future courses on the Middle East crisis, UA students will be exposed to the entire picture of a conflict that is as complex as it is enduring.

Marc A. Krell
assistant professor
committee on Judaic Studies