In the August 31, 1999 edition of The Chronicle, columnist David Margolis courageously re-evaluated his long-held beliefs concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recognizing that the stereotypical portrayals of Palestinians as terrorists obscured their legitimate claim to a homeland in Palestine, he delved deeper into the history of the conflict and discovered that Israel has committed its share of atrocities and failures of justice. For this I applaud him.
However, his conclusion that "Israel is most in the wrong" seems predicated on an account of the conflict that is just as incomplete as that which supported his previous unqualified support of Israel. For example, he fails to mention that the organization that eventually formed the backbone of the Israeli military was created not as a tool of Zionist imperialism but as a defense force to protect Palestinian Jews from the anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by Palestinian Arabs during the British Mandate.
Recall also that when the United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947, it called for the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Despite having been allocated the smaller and less fertile parcel of land, the Jews accepted the plan and invited their Arab neighbors to remain in the new Israel state as full citizens. It was the Palestinian Arabs who rejected the plan and chose to fight, alongside Arab nations calling for the destruction-not merely the displacement-of the Jewish state and its citizens.
In the years since, many Palestinians have been treated unfairly by Israel, sometimes grossly so. As Margolis correctly points out, Israel is responsible for civil rights violations, unfair evictions and even colonization of occupied land. In many cases, its actions are wholly unjustifiable. However, the security measures adopted by Israel must be understood in light of the whole history of the state. Israel is not a state of "misapplied ideals" or "activism gone awry," but a nation with legitimate security fears, having been targeted for annihilation from its inception.
I commend Margolis for his openness to the Palestinian perspective on the conflict. Unfortunately, he seems to be considering only one side of the conflict at a time, shifting from an unquestioning defense to a strong condemnation of Israel. A more complete understanding of the background of the conflict might lead him to a reasonable position somewhere in between.
Scott Michelman
Trinity '00
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.