Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Martin Krossel

GET UPDATES FROM Martin Krossel
 

Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Continuation of the Jews' Struggle

Posted: 11/06/11 09:00 AM ET

Seventy years ago this month, Jews, mainly from Romania and provinces that it acquired through the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles, were deported to the Ukrainian territory of Transnistria. As Nazi Germany marched on the Soviet Union, it left their Romanian allies to administer Transnistria. Between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were murdered there by the authorities between 1941 and 1944.

Last weekend, Transnistria survivors in Toronto held their annual public memorial gathering. The numbers of both attendees and organizers are dwindling with the passage of time.

That's unfortunate. The slaughter of Jews in Transnistria is among the least known aspects of the Holocaust. This is attributable to many factors. The Ukraine was far away from the central theatre of the Holocaust in Germany and Poland. In Transnistria the Germans stayed in the background leaving much of the dirty work to enthusiastic Ukrainian and Romanian henchmen. Also, Transnistria had few gas chambers or well-organized killing operations. Most of the Jewish victims died while being transported in cattle cars; on long forced marches that went for days or even weeks; arbitrary shootings; or, from hunger and disease in the concentration camps and ghettos that were the direct result of their persecutors' deliberate policies of starvation and depravation.

Both speakers at the commemoration portrayed the Arab-Israel conflict as a continuation of the Jews' struggle for survival against the Nazis. That's not off the mark. Arguably the father of Palestinian nationalism, the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent World War II in Berlin where, among other activities on behalf of the Nazis, he made anti-Semitic radio speeches in Arabic, targeting audiences in the Middle East. These speeches were supposed to inspire local Muslin populations to violently attack Jews once the Germans conquered the Middle East and North Africa. Historian Jeffrey Herf who studies Nazi propaganda in the Arab world points out that the Middle East was one of the few places in the world where accused war criminals could settle after World War II without hiding their old Nazi identities. Popular anti-Semitism has disappeared in subsequent years. Viciously anti-Semitic material is spread through the government-controlled media and in school texts and curricula in the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab world. In Monday's National Post, Abraham Cooper dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, told the story of David Gerbi, a Libyan Jew who was forced to flee his country during Gaddafi's rule, but who recently returned to test the new government's commitment to the establishment of a moderate Muslim regime that would respect the norms of human rights. But Gerbi found that some of the locals in the new Libya warned him to leave for his own safety, while others demonstrated in front of his hotel for a whole day shouting threatening slogans such as "No Jews or Zionists." Eventually, Gerbi was evacuated from "free" Libya in an Italian military aircraft.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict, disputes over borders, Jewish settlements and even the status of Jerusalem are all peripheral. Like their brethren in Nazi Europe, Israel's Jews are struggling for the physical survival. When the popular Arab animus against Jews is shed, all other disputes could be resolved easily.

 
Seventy years ago this month, Jews, mainly from Romania and provinces that it acquired through the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles, were deported to the Ukrainian territory of Transnistria. As N...
Seventy years ago this month, Jews, mainly from Romania and provinces that it acquired through the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles, were deported to the Ukrainian territory of Transnistria. As N...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 85
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Truth Has A Liberal Bias
atheist, liberal, anti-Obama, former Zionist
02:28 PM on 11/07/2011
Again, none of this is an excuse to illegally occupy other people's lands.

Next!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gui Montag
Former Palestinian Supporter
03:34 PM on 11/07/2011
There is no such thing as an illegal occupation.

You shame the word "truth" when you put it in front of such lies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
04:18 PM on 11/07/2011
Lots of things israel does is illegal. Illegal settlement and occupation are only two of them.
04:23 PM on 11/07/2011
Is it sunny in your alternate reality?

No such thing as an illegal occupation? Really? You mean like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Admit it. You can't even tell what the truth is anymore. You just type out the talking points that have been drilled into your feeble little mind by people too cynical to tell you they're using you.
12:31 PM on 11/07/2011
1). An Arab man can be anti-semite, but that would be like a white man being anti-white.
Arabs ARE Semites.
2). There is NO Arab-Israeli conflict.
There is ONLY Zionist incursion onto, and usurping of, Palestinian lands.
Right now, in towns all around incurred zones, there are Arabs, Jews, and Christians living peacefully amongst each other. The conflict is not among the people, but among the politics of the region. Get the politics, and the wall, out of there and there will again be peace in Jerusalem.
03:27 PM on 11/07/2011
There are no Palestinian lands.  There has never been a country called Palestine.  What you think of Palestine used to be part of Egypt and Jordan.
04:24 PM on 11/07/2011
Israel used to be part of the Roman and Persian Empires. Your point?
09:28 AM on 11/08/2011
I thought that there was not only no country called Palestine, but also no Jordan. Shumethink shomwhere wrang!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
04:56 PM on 11/07/2011
Well, you've mounted a semantic argument with yourself. I hope you're proud.

Now that you're done, the commonly accepted word for anti-Jewish discrimination and stereotyping is anti-Semitism. This directed at Muslims is known as Islamophobia. Those are the accepted words.

There is an Arab-Israeli conflict that has resulted in an almost perpetual state of war or attrition, or periods of calm, going back even before the establishment of the State of Israel. Middle east peace (ie. involving Israel and the Palestinians) will only be solved with a grand peace agreement and normalization amongst Israel, the new state of Palestine and the neighbouring Arab states.

As for Arabs, Christians and Jews living peacefully amongst each other...this is pure myth. The flight of Christians out of the middle east (they pre-date the Muslims by about 700 years) from every Arab country is testament to the fact that the Muslims are not good at living alongside others. The fact that 700,000 Jews living in Muslim countries were disposessed and had to flee is also testament to the "tolerance" of Muslim societies. Don't kid yourself.

You want peace in Jerusalem. You need the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a majority Jewish state, Israelis to recognize Palestine as a majority Arab state, and for both states to share Jerusalem. As for the right of return of 1948 Palestinians, they must give it up for compensation...and peace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stoopid American
Trooth, justice, and the American way ...
12:39 AM on 11/08/2011
Well said. I am not interested in who started it any more, particularly given one has to go back thousands of years to even get close to the beginning. The only thing that matters is how to resolve the conflict and move on. I am confident that it can be done, but it does require the extremists on both sides to get out of the way.
02:55 PM on 11/06/2011
And I wish people like Krossel would stop characterizing a speech by a Semitic Arab as anti-Semitic. It's quite plainly not: it's anti-Jewish and there is a difference.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
04:57 PM on 11/07/2011
Check a dictionary. It's the same thing.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Json
Cynical dreamer, sarcastic idealist...
05:25 PM on 11/07/2011
Are you really unaware of the meaning of the word anti-semitism??

"While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[3] and that has been its normal use since then."

(This ain't rocket science.)
Thelonius
Lived in Middle East for
01:58 PM on 11/06/2011
You ingore the "elephant in the living room," i.e, Israel's belligerent, illegal occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands and its ongoing/accelerating dispossession and brutal oppression of the native inhabitants.

The majority of people around the world (including an increasing number of Americans and Canadians) understand that Palestiians are the victims and Israel is their victimizer.

To wit: A recent poll.

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=50080

Jewish Life - Jewish Federations
"European Poll: Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace"

EXCERPT:
"Results of a new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan.... 7,500 people polled living in the European Union (500 in each of the 15 E.U. member states) were presented with a list of 15 countries and asked if these countries present a threat to world peace.... Israel was rated first."
05:39 PM on 11/06/2011
And you ignore how the elephant got into the living room.

Israel did not set out to "occupy" Arab land. It was attacked, repeatedly, and defended itself, repeatedly. The Arabs lost repeatedly, and refuse to negotiate a peace treaty with the Jewish state that would enable it to satisfy its security requirements of being able to defend itself, by itself, and thus discourage future aggression.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
08:21 PM on 11/06/2011
Why should an indigenous population accept a bunch of European immigrants parachuted onto their land and given to them by the force of countries thousands of miles away?

What has israel got to offer them that they cant already do themselves?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dtrobert
09:43 PM on 11/06/2011
"Discourage future aggression": How, by continually being the aggressor? Since the 70s, it's been Israel which has been the aggressor in every conflict it's been involved in. The Arab states have stopped being a real threat long ago, certainly with the illegal acquisition by Israel of nuclear weapons. What Israel is left with is a revolt by people which it illegally occupies, and which it continually attempts to "ethnically cleanse", to use the current euphemism.

Let's not forget that Jewish peoples had collectively no legal right to occupy Palestine, and no historical right either. There is no evidence that anyone who currently calls themselves "Jewish" has any genetic relation with the people who are claimed to have existed on that land millenia ago. And even if they did, it would matter in no way. I can't claim land in France based on my having a clear, traceable line back there. Nor can you, as a Jew, without a traceable lineage to the pre-diaspora lineage of Roman Palestine, make any legal claim on that land.

Britain had no right to give the Jews that land. Period. So it was stolen. And people whose property gets stolen tend to get angry...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
04:59 PM on 11/07/2011
Both Israel and the Arabs are both victims and aggressors. The world is grey, my friend, not black and white.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
11:18 AM on 11/06/2011
In the Arab-Israeli conflict, disputes over borders, Jewish settlements and even the status of Jerusalem are not peripheral. They are the whole basis of the conflict.
05:40 PM on 11/06/2011
Wrong. The basis of the conflict was, and continues to be, the refusal of the Arabs to negotiate a secure peace for the nation state of the Jewish People.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
charon
Earth, love it or leave it!
10:48 AM on 11/06/2011
The role of Christian European antisemitism and its offshoots in the Arab-Israeli conflict should never be ignored. It was the centuries of pogroms and other crimes against the Jews that drove them to seek a homeland outside Europe, leading to the rise of Zionist movement and the mass migration of Jews to British Palestine.

But I don't think peace in Israel can be obtained by appeal to the histories of the Jews or the Muslims there. I think it will lie in all accepting the present fact that they are there, and Muslims recognizing the rights of the Jews and of Israel to exist, and for the Jewish citizens of Israel to recognize the Muslims' rights as citizens and to own the land their families have farmed for hundreds of generations, and for the Israelis to stop the expansion of settlements into Muslim areas unless the land is purchased legally.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dtrobert
09:48 PM on 11/06/2011
Balanced, honest, realistic. I fully expect that you will be deluged with angry comments... You see, it's not acceptable to certain people to claim that there are two (more?) sides to this story.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
05:00 PM on 11/07/2011
You are absolutely right on. A voice of reason amongst the ideologues and haters.