Memorials and revisionism
Pro- Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. and Canada often deliberately deflect criticism of Israel in another direction. Messrs. Fegelman (“Labour Party accused”, Guardian, August 19, 2018 and “Applause for Windsor,” Sept. 25, 2018) and Bloom have attempted to avoid discussion of relevant current issues by engaging in a spurious footnote war, rather than dealing with matters of political substance.
The entire post-war Zionist experiment, was, from the beginning, based on colonial expansionism. Israel’s current expansion into the West Bank and Jerusalem is a further example of Zionist expansionism of which Ben-Gurion was an early architect. The current bloody uprising in the Gaza is a further indication that the issue is not going away soon. These are the central issues, not footnotes.
Fegelman, in his reply, acts like a cheap hagiographer, and does a disservice to Ben-Gurion by portraying him as a benevolent grandfather. He was, however, far from that benign person as indicated by the pioneering work of former Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London: Oneworld Publications, 2007). Much has been made of the dispute between Pappe and his critic Benny Morris. Morris tries to rescue the official version of Israeli history, but his methodology is now recognized as incomplete and selfserving.
Like Amherst and Cornwallis before him, Ben-Gurion realized that there would have to be ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants, in this case the Palestinians, in order to remove them so as to fulfil their Zionist ambitions. That is why the current right-wing government must reduce Palestinians to an historical footnote, one way or another, by eliminating their culture, rights, and presence.
In 1937 Ben-Gurion wrote a letter to his son saying, “The Arabs will have to go.” Pappe quotes Ben-Gurion in 1938 as saying, “I am for compulsory transfer (of the Palestinians); I do not see anything immoral about it (BenGurion to the Jewish Agency Executive, June 1938).” In March 1948, according to Pappe, the Zionist leadership and its military wing met and formulated Codenamed Plan D “to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country.” Both Pappe and Israeli historian Simcha Flapan, in his book The Birth of Israel (1987), cite extensive archival material to substantiate this claim, as do other Israeli academics.
The Israelis uprooted nearly 700,000 Palestinians and over 500 villages were destroyed. Ben-Gurion, as political head of the Zionist movement, certainly must have been aware of this plan, which, today, would qualify as a crime against humanity.
All that said, I have to acknowledge that I have been unable to trace the original source for two of my quotes in my letter (September 2, 2018), and should not have used them without qualification. I do not, however, regret raising the issues above, since I know that the citations are an accurate reflection of Ben-Gurion’s attitude and the historical role that he played in those events.
Fegelman and Bloom, unfortunately, misunderstood my intent. The purpose of my article wasn’t to besmirch Ben-Gurion’s reputation, but to question why Canadians should have memorials to foreign military leaders, especially if they have been involved in ethnic cleansing, be they Amherst, Cornwallis or Ben-Gurion. One could easily add others to that list.
But to rewrite or deny those historical events, as Fegleman and Bloom suggest, is self-serving at best, if not Orwellian.
Shalom and salaam.