A Librarian Not To be Trusted

One James Adler, a "Cataloger in World Religions in the Harvard University Library", and "an alumnus of the Harvard Divinity School", was given space in the Jerusalem Post to write, among other things this:

...So if Arabs can live as citizens in Israel, goes the argument, why can’t Jews live in Palestine?

But the comparison is fallacious because the Palestinians had lived throughout Palestine as 98 percent of the population for many centuries before 1948. In contrast, Israel has only recently settled the West Bank, outside her internationally recognized boundaries.

Some will argue that the colonization of Judea and Samaria was the logical continuation of the Zionist project. After all, Jewish immigrants flooded the country from Europe decades before there was a Jewish state here. Why should the West Bank settlements be seen in a different light? At first glance, that is a persuasive argument, but there is one, decisive difference: the mass immigration from 1880-1948 was an internationally legitimate and indeed moral movement. Jews had to escape the burning anti-Semitism of Europe and Russia, and the drive for the rebirth of Jewish self-empowerment and statehood was laudable.

In contrast, the post-1967 settlement drive occured at a time when we already had a country to call home...

Adler, an active letter-to-the-editor writer, an worthy occupation which I myself practice, who terms Bradley Burston "admirable" and seeks the release of terrorist Marwan Barghouti, among other rather strange opinions, is simply displaying atrocious concern for historical facts as well as logic. Let's review that excerpt I zeroed in on and my comments appear interspersed in the text in italics:

...the Palestinians had lived throughout Palestine as 98 percent of the population for many centuries before 1948. [true but in doing so, they still were conquerors, in fact, illegal occupiers, who arrived in 638 CE and prevented Jews who had managed to live in the country from reestablishing Jewish sovereignty and moreover, economically destroyed the country. They never even had a name for the country, referring to what we now call Greater Syria as E-Sham, and the region called Palestine is not at all an Arabic name but one adopted from an earlier occcupier. Odd that a supposed genuine nationalism would appear so hollow.] In contrast, Israel has only recently settled the West Bank, outside her internationally recognized boundaries. [a) actually, Jews lived in Hebron, Shchem and Gaza, located in what he terms the 'West Bank', for centuries, even more than Arabs, and for sure in what anti-Zionists call 'East Jerusalem'; b) what "internationally recognized boundaries"?  The Green Line was no more than a ceasefire line. As noted, "Professor Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, the former President of the International Court of Justice clarified in his writings “Justice in International Law” that the 1949 armistice demarcation lines are not permanent borders: "... The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.”51]

Some will argue that the colonization [that is quite a pejorative term to use, even prejudicial] of Judea and Samaria was the logical continuation of the Zionist project. [it was more than that.  it was assured by international law as the terms of the League of Nations Mandate makes clear in Article 6: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  And as we know, up until 1948, the territory involved included Judea and Samaria and Gaza for it was TransJordan only that was excluded by Article 25 from the terms of the Mandate]After all, Jewish immigrants flooded [???. that's an incendiary propaganda description. up until 1948, Jews were just over 30% of the country's population.] the country from Europe decades before there was a Jewish state here. Why should the West Bank settlements be seen in a different light? [yes, why?  they existed prior to 1948 but Arabs ethnically cleansed them including 4 kibbutzim in Gush Etzion, the afore-mentioned Hebron, Gaza, Shchem, Jenin, Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet Haaravah, Jerusalem's Old City, et al.] At first glance, that is a persuasive argument, but there is one, decisive difference: the mass immigration from 1880-1948 was an internationally legitimate and indeed moral movement. Jews had to escape the burning anti-Semitism of Europe and Russia, and the drive for the rebirth of Jewish self-empowerment and statehood was laudable. [it still is laudable and necessitates the territory, especially so because Arab opposition has grown more evil, more hostile and with technological advances, the hills of Judea and Samaria in Atabs hands would be an existential threat not to deall with water issues, etc.]

In contrast, the post-1967 settlement drive occured at a time when we already had a country to call home, and Jews around the world had a safe haven to run to in case of persecution. [and which Arabs had try to destroy in 1948, set up the fedayeen to terrorize until 1956 and then set up Fatah and the PLO in 1964] The Zionist dream had indeed been met. Israel had no choice but to fight the Six Day War, but there was no need to plant civilian communities around the newly conquered territories in the aftermath of that victory. [even if we assume that, since the communities did not exist prior to 1967, and neither did any "occupation" of the territories, what problem would their dismantlement solve?  would Adler agree to a population transfer of Arabs to reduce any threats Israel is faced by that population, in theory, of course?]

One could go one but I trust my point has been made: Adler cannot be trusted to present historical facts and argues in a propagandist manner.

And he works in Harvard library?

^