Arguing in the London Times over Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall"

On November 2 my response letter was published in the London Times:

The letter to which I replied is here:

Ze'ev Jabotinsky's article, The Iron Wall, translated into English, is here.

Avi Shlaim wrote:

Toward the end of the article Jabotinsky went to some length to dispel any impression his analysis might have given that he despaired of the prospect of reaching an agreement with the Arabs of Palestine:

I do not mean to assert that no agreement whatever is possible with the Arabs of the Land of Israel. But a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rabble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they have given up all hope of getting rid of alien settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogans "No, never" lose their influence, and only then will their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against pushing them out, and equality of civil and national rights.

The article concluded with a profession of faith that peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews in Palestine would be possible, but only as a result of the construction of an impregnable wall:

It is my hope and belief that we will then offer them guarantees that will satisfy them and that both peoples will live in peace as good neighbors. But the sole way to such an agreement is through the iron wall, that is to say, the establishment in Palestine of a force that will in no way be influenced by Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to achieve a settlement in the future is total avoidance of all attempts to arrive at a settlement in the present.

Moderate Zionists criticized the article, especially on the grounds that it was written from an immoral standpoint. Jabotinsky therefore wrote a second article, entitled "The Morality of the Iron Wall," in which he turned the tables on his critics. From the point of view of morality, he held, there were two possibilities: either Zionism was a positive phenomenon, or it was negative. This question required an answer before one became a Zionist. And all of them had indeed concluded that Zionism was a positive force, a moral movement with justice on its side. Now, "if the cause is just, justice must triumph, without regard to the assent or dissent of anyone else."

^

The London Times' Inflammatory Writing

The world's press has been reformulating their accusation against Ariel Sharon being the catalyst for the outbreak of the Second Intifada after many media watch groups have prioritized their vigilance (see here).

Here is from the leader in today's London Times:

When, as Likud’s new leader, he visited the Temple Mount, among Islam’s holiest shrines, in 2000, he was accused of inflammatory behaviour. 

Of course, it is easy just to write that he was "accused of inflammatory behaviour" and make a quick exit.  But the paper erred, nevertheless.

To refer to the Temple Mount as being "among Islam’s holiest shrines" is but half the story.

First of all, let's be specific. It is the third most sacred site for that religion, after Mecca and Medina, even if its qibla value for prayer rates quite high [Book 20, Hadith 3: “A prayer in the Sacred Mosque [in Makkah] is worth 100,000 prayers, a prayer in my mosque [in Madinah] is worth 1,000, and a prayer in Jerusalem [al-Aqsa Mosque] is worth 500 prayers more than in any other mosque.” (Reported by Bukhari).

Secondly, Muhammed's outreach to Jews was rejected:

the unwillingness of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) to follow the Qibla of Islam [after it was changed to face Mecca just over 16 months after Hijra rather than Jerusalem]: "Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong." (Quran 2:145)

Thirdly, the fate of those Jews that preferred not to join Muhammed was horrific: beheading and enslavement.

Fourth, it is unfortunate that the paper did not state that the Temple Mount is Judaism's most and, indeed, only holy site, taken over by the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land in 638 CE. 

Fifth, the purpose was to make clear, as Sharon himself stated after the visit, that

"It is the right of every Jew to visit the Temple Mount".  

If more toleration were displayed instead of Arab violent rock-throwing, many lives, on both sides, could have been saved and peace would have been furthered.

And if the paper were more concerned with all the facts, I would not think that it was being inflammatory itself.

^

The Media and Israel - 1936

Paying close attention to the media by the Revisionist Movement, how the London Times treats the background of events in then Mandate Palestine:

Found at the Jabotinsky Institute archives.

And the response:

^

The London Times Comes Out Short

Short of information, that is.

Here is their report on today's "march of the flag" which includes this:

Rising ethnic tensions were underscored in Israel today as violent clashes took place in one of Israel's biggest Arab towns between Jewish ultra-nationalists and local youths. Police dispersed rock-throwing Arab residents of Umm el-Fahm with stun grenades and tear gas in the town, which is close to Israel's boundary with the occupied West Bank. The outbreak of violence took place following a march by right-wing Jews aiming to demonstrate sovereignty over the town, which has a strong Islamic movement.

It mentions MK Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union, Baruch Marzel of Kach, Lieberman and Netanyahu.

And in publishing this:

Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli Arab MP, slammed the Jewish demonstrators as racists. “Racism is not freedom of expression, it’s a criminal act and the law should punish it," he said.

the paper completely misleads its readers.


I left this comment there:

What is not mentioned is that the march was mandated by a High Court of Justice decision and quite legal, as well as fully coordinated with the Police. This article provides the misleading impression that somehow the flag marchers were acting improperly or mischievously.

--------------------

UPDATE

Neither does the New York Times include that the march was authorized by the court and coordinated with the police, in other words, fully legal.

And The London Times Finally Gets It Right, 18 Months later

From over a year and a half ago, Uzi Mahnaimi thought he knew it all:

ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.

According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.

The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.

Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.

The Israeli forces would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas fighters with arms confiscated from the Fatah faction that they defeated in last week’s three-day civil war in Gaza...

Well, almost right.

There was the "trigger" but it was always there.

And those "weeks" turned into months and then a year and then some more months.

Uzi, it was a matter of failing in the elections polls that really forced him to do what we all know had to be done long time ago.

"Palestine" a la London Times

If you go here, you'll come to an area of the prestigious London Times newspaper web site called "Your World".

There "Tell us your travel stories and share your photos then enter our competition to win a chic Parisian break".

If you mouse on over to the Middle East, you'll discover a country called "Palestine".

Remarkable bit of journalistic geographical diplomacy.

Now, should I boycott them?