Charlie Rose

ibel  11/18/2008 05:09 PM Report

The 'Big Lie' Tactic

By Evelyn Gordon

One of the most surprising developments of the past few weeks has been the support expressed by many ordinary Americans and Europeans for the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees to Israel. What is surprising about this proposition, put forth in numerous letters and opinion pieces published in the press recently, is that it accords Palestinians a "right" enjoyed by virtually no other refugees in history.

Most of the writers are unaware of this. But that so many well-meaning people can mindlessly parrot the canard that the repatriation of refugees is an "inalienable right" is yet another proof of the efficacy of the well-known tactic of the "big lie" - that any lie, however outrageous, will eventually be believed if repeated often enough. Certainly, it would be hard to think of many lies as easily disprovable as the idea that refugees have a "right of return" to their former homes.

The history of the 20th century is one long lesson in the falsity of this claim. To cite just a few examples:

* Millions of Moslems fled India for Pakistan following the bloody riots of 1947. India not only stripped them of citizenship, but barred them, in its constitution, from ever returning. No one ever suggested that these Moslems had a "right of return."

* After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled all its German citizens. Yet no one suggested that the millions of Sudeten Germans had a "right of return." In 1997, Germany even signed a treaty acknowledging the irrevocability of the expulsion.

* When the communists took power in Vietnam, millions of "boat people" fled to the United States and various Asian countries. No one has ever suggested that these people have a "right of return."

* In the five years after its establishment in 1948, Israel absorbed close to 500,000 Jewish refugees - about half from the wreckage of the Holocaust and the remainder from Arab countries.

A similar number poured in over the next three years. As a result, the new state's population had doubled by 1953 and tripled by 1956. Yet no one has ever suggested that these refugees have a "right of return" to their countries of origin.

In fact, none of these refugees were even granted monetary compensation - another "inalienable right" claimed for the Palestinians. Nor is there any lack of other examples that fit this pattern. Why, then, are the Palestinian refugees so unquestionably awarded a "right" enjoyed by virtually no other refugees in history?

The best explanation lies in a circumstance that is also virtually unique to the Palestinians: Unlike most of history's refugees, the countries to which the Palestinians fled refused to absorb them - preferring to leave them in squalid refugee camps for the sake of encouraging anti-Israel sentiment.

The Moslems who fled India became full-fledged citizens of Pakistan. The Sudeten Germans were fully absorbed in Germany. The Vietnamese boat people are now productive citizens of the US. Jewish refugees from the Arab world have been fully integrated into Israel.

Yet the Palestinians - whose Arab hosts bear direct responsibility for their flight - through their decision to declare war on Israel rather than accepting the UN partition plan - still languish in refugee camps after 52 years.

Jordan, at least, granted its Palestinian refugees citizenship, but made no effort to get them out of the camps. This is why refugee camps were still flourishing when Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967, after 19 years of Jordanian rule.

Yet the refugees who fled to Jordanian-controlled territory were lucky: Those who went to Lebanon, for instance, not only were not made citizens, but were also deprived of basic civil rights, such as the right to work in over 70 different professions.

Ironically, the one country that did try to improve the situation of the refugees was Israel.

In Gaza, for instance, some 36,000 refugees had been moved into better housing by 1973, before international pressure and PLO threats against the refugees put a stop to the project.

The most astonishing element in this tale of neglect, however, is the role of the Palestinians themselves.

Most of the refugees have been under autonomous Palestinian rule for the last five years - yet the Palestinian Authority has spent not one cent of the millions of dollars it received in foreign aid to improve their living conditions. Apparently, it, too, prefers to let its people suffer for propaganda purposes.

It is impossible not to pity refugees who, thanks to the callous unconcern of their fellow Arabs, have been living in misery for the last 50 years. But that does not entitle them to a "right of return" accorded no other refugees in history.

The only just solution to their problem is for the Arab world, and particularly the Palestinian state-to-be, to absorb them - just as Israel has absorbed Jewish refugees the world over since 1948.

http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/janfeb01/tactic.html

boo radley  09/17/2008 10:42 PM Report

boo radley

Hmm, Anton, an Aryan-only state in Europe from which Jews would be relocated-that's a great idea-oh wait, I think it's been done before buddy. You and the betrillions like you are precisely the reason the state of Israel must forever exist.

Anton Grambihler  10/23/2007 09:09 PM Report

Is the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni also amendable to an Aryan only state in Europe from which the Jews will be relocated?

Anton Grambihler  10/23/2007 09:09 PM Report

Will the millions of Palestine People that have fled to other countries be allowed to return to the land from which they have fled?

The Jews are not the only people that have been persecuted. Just look at how the Palestine People are being treatd.

Robert Philbin  10/21/2007 10:46 AM Report

There are a couple of different people commenting here, but let me respond to Mr. Noga.

Mr. Noga: the U.S. has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against anyone either; so does this mean we or Israel wouldn't use them if pressed to do so? The fact that Israel has nuclear capability and deterrence is quite enough for others in the region to want the same capability and deterrence. Who started this nuclear proliferation in the region? Who profits from it?

The fact that the Palestinians use human bombs contrasts the overwhelming armament differences between the two opposing governments. (Of course Israel would never nuke Palestine! It doesn't have to, anymore than the U.S. had to nuke Iraq or Vietnam.) The important fact in this discussion is not the past you keep referring to, but the future the rest of us demand.

About 75 percent of both Israelis and Palestinians, according international polling, want a two-state settlement RIGHT NOW! So does a majority of American (not to mention the UN).

With respect, people like you are precisely the problem -- the rest of us simply want an end to the barbarism, and a two-state solution RIGHT NOW! The U.S. can force this settlement more vigorously. Israeli leaders can simply make it happen. All they have to do is listen and respond to the will of their people. Why is this not happening? You explain that failure of the Israeli government here, without mentioning Palestinians or Muslims, and I for one will listen to you. Otherwise, please refrain from emailing me.

Thank you.

Robert Philbin

Robert Philbin  10/17/2007 11:35 AM Report

Noga. . . You have emailed me in the past . . .there is apparently more than one "Robert Philbin" commenting here. . . I did not make the comment above, nor did I see the interview in question, so obviously I have no informed opinion about Ms. Livni, and certainly know nothing about the nuclear situation in Israel. This type of obvious abuse of identity is precisely why I decline to comment to you in the past on issues you raise on this web site beyond brief comments about the program itself. [This comment was forwarded to me.\

Thank you.

Robert Philbin

Best Solution  10/11/2007 03:12 AM Report

Get rid of all organized religious cults and we can live in peace.

Noga  09/30/2007 01:45 PM Report

Robert Philbin: Israel has never threatened to nuke anybody. Where do you get the idea that Palestinians are threatened by Israel's nukes? If they were afraid, do you think they would keep sending their qassams into Israel? Don't you think it's a little crazy to make this kind of argument? Aren't you confusing your factors here? It was Ayatollah Hashemi Rasfanjani who said:

â??If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israelâ??s possession [meaning nuclear weapons\â??on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. Thisâ?¦is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.â??

In other words, a few millions of dead Muslims is a reasonable price to pay wiping out Israel.

Robert Philbin  09/28/2007 09:34 PM Report

Another excellent interview, rich with insights into the complexities of the Middle East. Interesting indeed that the Foreign Minister of Israel could not respond to Mr. Rose's question about the recent act of war against Syria. . .At the risk of being called all sorts of insulting (and libelous, actionable, insults here) one might suggest that Ms. Livni is completely unconvincing when referring to "terrorists" among the dehumanized Palestinian peoples, while attempting to "equalize" the situation of the nuclear armed Israeli Army with stone-throwing teenagers (Davids) in the occupied territories. I suggest Israel could bring peace to the Middle East anytime Ms. Livni has the courage to do so.

Great series of interviews by Mr. Rose, with whom we are all sharing some strange TV journey toward clarity and understanding about needlessly obscure issues.

Thank you.

Robert Philbin

Anonymus  09/28/2007 10:13 AM Report

"I've gone through the trouble of translating / abbreviating an article by Dalia Karpel titled HAMEDOVEVET [=the one who people someone to talk\. The article appeared on the Hebrew Weekend Supplement, on 21 September, 2007. The article is based on academic research which Nofer Ishai-Karen and Psychology Prof. Joel Elitzur, of the Hebrew University published in ALPAYIM Magazine Vol. 31. The article was not translated to English and thus did NOT appear in Haaretz English Language edition. I will appreciate it if you could publish it, as well as EMAIL it to JOURNALISTS and others who may be interested! A NEW ISRAELI STUDY CONFIRMS OUR WORST FEARS. On the academic research which Psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen and Psychology Prof. Joel Elizur, of the Hebrew University published last Friday, only in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz. We thought you should know! "We - Israeli Soldiers - were put there to punish the Palestinians", says Ilan Vilenda, an Israeli soldier who served in Rafah during the first Intifada. Ilan is the only soldier of 21 who agreed to have his name published, after he was interviewed by psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen. The soldiers spoke freely to Nofer, who served with them in the same ASHBAL platoon 20 years ago; They disclosing their innermost emotions about the horrendous crimes, in which they took part: Murder, breaking bones of Palestinian children, actions of humiliation, destruction of property, robbery and theft. Soldier "A" testimony: "We decided to turn an old shower in our base to a make-shift detention cell. A Palestinian was brought there, handcuffed and mouth banded so he couldn't talk, or move. We "forgot him there for three days"... Soldier "B" testimony: "I was on my first patrol. Others simply shot like mad. I started to shoot as they did. They 'set my on'. I took my weapon and shot. Nobody was there to tell me otherwise" -- Psychologist Ishai-Karen was shocked to find that the soldiers enjoyed the 'intoxication of power', and had pleasure from using violence. She said: "Most of my interviewees enjoyed their own instigated violence during their Occupation service''. Soldier "C" testimony: "The truth is that I love this mess - I enjoy it. It is like being on drugs. If I didn't enter Rafah, to put down some rebellion -at least once a week- I'd go berserk. Soldier "D" testimony: What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel that YOU ARE THE LAW; you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories YOU ARE GOD"."

Full original Hebrew here:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/905287

Noga  09/28/2007 08:14 AM Report

Chris, your fair and just solution is a blueprint for a real apartheid:-)

Why is there a need to destroy Israel in order for Palestinians to have their own state? Why can't they have their own statehood without the need to erase Israel?

If you want to have an idea how ridiculous this solution is, take a look at Belgium, which is straining to keep together two populations which are different from each other yet are both Europeans and do share many values, as well as a religion.

Empedocles  09/28/2007 12:35 AM Report

Mr. Rose, I thoroughly enjoy watching your program because of the surplus of important guests you have the privilege of speaking to. I appreciate how many interviews you conduct with key individuals responsible to finding peace in the most combustible region in the world, the Middle East. What I have observed however, when it comes to the topic of the Middle East, is how your body language, tone, and line of questioning differs substantially depending on who you are speaking with. Yesterday was a prime example you featured two guests in the same hour, Tzipi Livni (Israeli Foreign Minister) and Prince Saud al-Faisal (Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia.) When asking the Saudi guest (and other Arab leaders) about a potential solution to the problem, your tone, your questions, and comments seem to be unreserved and at times suggestive. i.e. "what's wrong with what Tom Friedman suggested" or "Where do we go from here?" or "but....suicide bombings continue" etc. (as if the onus is on the Arabs to find peace alone.) In contrast your interviews with Israeli leaders are very cordial, painless and light hearted. For example you nonchalantly ask "any meetings happening?" or "is something going on with Syria?" Why aren't you more demanding of your Israeli guests and ask them tough and unambiguous questions? Here...I'll recommend a couple....a) Why does the state of Israel continue to violate international law? b) Why does the state of Israel continue to develop illegal settlements in the west bank? c) Why does the state of Israel continue to perpetrate crimes against humanity in dealing with average Palestinian citizens? d) Does the state of Israel think they can achieve peace with the Palestinians and continue the occupation at the same time? e) Does the state of Israel think it is fair that it receives more foreign aid annually from the United States than all other countries receive from the U.S. combined? You should be a little more balanced with your interviews. The state of Israel doesn't want peace....what it wants are infinite negotiations, all of the west bank and the annihilation of the Palestinian race. The Israelis spend so much of uncle Sam's money on PR it's ridiculous. They enjoy a squeaky clean image while they dehumanize the Palestinians in the media, and you are not helping the situation you are just maintaining the status quo. I suspect I know why, if you ever find the gumption to ask even one of these questions, Bloomberg will pull the plug on your show faster than you can say apartheid.

Chris Baker  09/27/2007 11:15 PM Report

Charlie unfortunately didn't challenge the assumption of a 2-state solution. It's possible the only way to deal with the right-of-return and to give Israel the security and acceptance it desires is a 1-state federal solution. That doesn't mean that Palestinians have to ever have the majority vote, or that Israel can't still have it's refugee policies, but the Palestinians need a fair deal.

tikva  09/27/2007 07:28 PM Report

Anton still doesn't get it. Who's suggesting that Israel's Arab citizens living within Medinat Israel (meaning excluding Gaza and the West Bank) relocate elsewhere? What Livni is advocating is the two state solution, in which Israel proper is one state and Gaza and the West Bank form the Palestinian state. The outcome from this should ideally be that Israel is then recognised and accepted by its Arab neighbours and subsequently all the states in the world and can finally take a break from suicide bombings, Qassam rockets etc and Palestinians can have a fully sovereign state which they have full control over. Actually, Israel doesn't need acceptance because even if others do not accept that it exists, does it mean it does not exist? Whether one likes it or not, Israel is there and is progressing by the day. But it could use some peace of mind sans the bombers etc, hence the two-state solution.

By the way, an Aryan only state has happened before with devastating results, which is precisely why a Jewish Israeli state must exist. It simply must.

Jaap Vermeulen  09/27/2007 04:02 PM Report

Dear Charlie,

I usually think you are a great interviewer, but I must say I found your interview with Tzipi Livni greatly disturbing. When you asked her about the Israeli bombing of Syria she simply started laughing and you laughed with her. You should have reproached for this statement. Laughing about the attack of another sovereign nation without any explanation whatsoever is totally unacceptable, and I am sad that you went along with it.

Michael Lang  09/26/2007 06:02 PM Report

Now Here! is a women I could vote for. If some of Israel's old male goats would retire and get out of the way and let new leadership emerge and the same thing happened in the US ,we and the rest of the world would be much better off. She was frank, she was open and she answered questions as honestly as she could but being a good diplomat she could not leave the reservation without compromising her position. The Lebanon invasion was an elective strategic and moral disaster for Israel. It was elective because the invasion of Southern Lebanon was not necessary. Yes! Hezbollah shot first but as George Monbiot has written "August 8 2006 the Gaurdian Unlimited "Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 , there have been hundred of violations of the blue line between the two countries and none of these incidents resulted in military escalation" Israel could have gotten her soldiers back by exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners they have held since they had occupied Lebanon. Morally what they did was repugnant. They destroyed 3.5 billion dollars worth of Lebanese infra structure driving one million people from their homes. They dropped cluster bombs on the civilian population killing 1200 civilian, many who were innocent children, while only killing 500 Hezbollah military personnel. Compare this to Hezbollah, who killed 120 Israel military personnel while killing 43 civilians and one wonders which group should be labeled terrorist in this conflict. Finally! strategically they failed because in the end they made Hezbollah heroes not only to Shiite but to Sunni Muslims and thats really hard to do.

Kay  09/26/2007 11:01 AM Report

Terrific show last night Charlie. So nice to hear some voice's of reason from the Middle East in other than 30 second sound bites. I do believe that Tzipi Livni will become one of the most influential World Leaders of the 21st century. It is a shame that she gets so little press coverage from the main stream media. Now, how will we find out the details of the Israeli strike on Syria?

Kay

Noga  09/26/2007 08:50 AM Report

Anton's Jew-baiting question points to his ignorance. Israel's population is 15-20% Arab. No one in his right mind is advocating they relocate. Anton either misunderstands Livni, or wants to say that there should be a special rule for the Hebrew state, different from the rule of states such as French France, Swedish Sweden, or any of the "judenrein" Arab countries.

There ought to come a moment in history when persecution of Jews, either in the diaspora or in Israel, will come to an end. And that the same courtesies extended to every other national or religious group will extend to them.