Erasing the Past in Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

by Gideon Levy
June 05, 2005
Haaretz

This is the most Arab-free area in Israel. It was the scene of total ethnic cleansing, which left not a vestige apart from the heaps of ruins and the sabra bushes. On the coastal plain, between Jaffa and Gaza, not one Palestinian village remains intact. Now the settlers of the Gush Katif bloc from the Gaza Strip are to be brought here. In a bitterly ironic jest of fate, the settlers who sowed ruin and destruction in the Gaza Strip will now live on the ruins of the homes of the residents who were their invisible neighbors in the refugee camps.

Again they will see nothing. From Gush Katif they saw nothing of the devastation that was wrought in Khan Yunis and in its refugee camp; and in the Nitzanim region they will see nothing of the rich fabric of life that existed here and was destroyed. It was all erased from the face of the earth (eternity is only dust and earth). Only the skeletons of a few beautiful homes, which somehow still stand, and the piles of stones, the orchards and the natural fences made of sabra bushes remain as mute testimony among the eucalyptus groves, the new settlements and the orchards that were planted on the sites of the destruction. From the Ashdod- Ashkelon road it is possible to see a few of the ruins, but who pays attention? Who asks himself what these houses are, what used to be here and where the former residents are as he shoots past on the highway?

There is no memorial and no monument. No signpost and no sign of the dozens of villages that were razed. In Moshav Mavki'im, on the ruins of the village of Barbara, in a grove where dozens of bulldozers and trucks are now working to prepare the ground for the evacuees, we actually found a monument between the trees: "Here rests our beloved dog Mozart Hanin, of blessed memory, 1991-2003."

In the center of Kibbutz Zikim from the left-wing Kibbutz Haartzi movement a sign stands next to a ruined Palestinian mansion: "Danger, dangerous building. Keep away." An illustration showing a skull and crossbones embellishes the sign, so threatening is the memory. In Mavki'im the last vestiges are being leveled. This week the industrious tractors already removed a few piles of stones that were once homes. Thus the final remnants of the indigenous people, the previous residents of the land, are being erased. In a country that has a law mandating "rescue digs," a country that delays and sometimes prevents construction wherever archaeological remnants of its ancient past are found, the near past is being trampled into dust.

Only in one place was it decided to be considerate of the past. Three kilometers south of the community of Nitzan, in the orchards of the Mehadrin Company, whose chairman is the head of the Disengagement Administration, in a place where settlers will also be moved under the plan of the Housing Ministry, it was decided not to touch the land on which the center of the village of Hamama once stood. Why? Because of the concern that digging here would turn up Byzantine ruins. Byzantine ruins are liable to delay the construction, but not Palestinian ruins. But this lovely region also has a near past which is a bleeding present in the refugee camps, and no heavy engineering equipment will be able to erase the memory.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=8013

[Englander]

1. There is an excellent website called...

'Project for the Old American Century',& they produce
lots of satirical pictures & posters.

One of the images has the slogan 'It's not fascism when
we do it'.

In that same regard,'It's not ethnic cleansing,when Israel
does it'.


http://www.oldamericancentury.org/gallery3.htm

[eyl]

2. Apparently, it's not ethnic cleansing

when the Arabs do it either.

How many Jews remained post-1948 in the area which became the Gaza Strip?

[leveymg]

4. They all moved up to better (formerly Arab) neighborhoods.

Who would WANT to stay in the Gaza?

[Igel]

7. There seem to be some settlers that want to stay. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

5. How many were there prior to 1948?

And was there an intent to drive drive them out based on their being Jewish, or did they move to Israel willingly? Not surprisingly, I think you'll need to tell me the answer to yr question, because I don't know the answer myself. I was always under the impression that the Jewish settlement of Gaza was very sparse, and what happened to Jews who were living in Gaza after 1948 isn't something I recall coming across, so I'd be interested in finding out...

I guess for folk who deny that there was any ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, it must be very very difficult to turn around and then claim that Jews in the Gaza Strip were ethnically cleansed. It'd take some creative twisting to make that it fit. The existence of Plan D makes me believe ethnic cleansing did happen to the Palestinians, and retaliation for 1948 makes me believe that ethnic cleansing is most likely to have been one of the factors at play in a few Arab states smarting at the outcome of the war...

Violet...

[eyl]

9. The subject of the pre-1948 Jewish population

of what would become the West Bank and Gaza tends to be relatively ignored, so I don't have much data to show you. I can however give you an example. Kfar Darom had been established there, and was destroyed by Egyptian forces in July 1948 (followng a siege of several months). Keep in mind that the geographical distinction of the Gaza Strip only came into existence after 1948, demarcated by the locations of the armies at the end of the war; if the Egyptian army had been more successful, you could add places like Nitzanim and Yad Mordechai (which were destroyed by the Egyptians, but the area was later reconquered) and place like Nirim and Negba (which were attacked, but held) to the tally. Nothing happened to the Jews after 1948, because there weren't any

As for whether they left voluntarily or not, it depends on your value of voluntary. The noncombatants were pulled out prior to the attacks; in most cases, the defenders managed to get out before the place was destroyed.

As for Plan D, some of the less often-quoted protions include

Generally, the aim of this plan is not an operation of occupation outside the borders of the Hebrew state. However, concerning enemy bases lying directly close to the borders which may be used as springboards for infiltration into the territory of the state, these must be temporarily occupied and searched for hostiles according to the above guidelines, and they must then be incorporated into our defensive system until operations cease.

My ride's leaving, so I'll leave it at that for now, and try to get back into it next week if you want (I can't access the board on weekends for some reason)

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I've bookmarked that site...

Thanks for the link. That one's a keeper! :)

Violet...

[Englander]

6. I found a thread in Greatest yesterday...

that has some more pics;

(GRAPHIC HEAVY): Some posters from oldamericancentury.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3807976


& the POAC produce a very convincing arguement,saying
B*sh=fascist;

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Igel]

8. Unfortunately, this has happened on both sides.

Again, picking on the Israelis because they build over previously occupied sites isn't justified any more than Palestinian denial of signs of Jewish occupation in preceding centuries.

Both have this view of the other as being interlopers (to the extent Jews are viewed as ever having actually occupied the land to any great extent in antiquity). No need to preserve the ruins.

Especially if those ruins could later come back to bite you on the ass. If the Palestinians admitted a large Jewish presence <100 AD, it would undermine their claims. If numerous Palestinian sites from before 1948 were preserved, it would undermine the legitimacy of Israeli claims.

Settle the territorial dispute and the ethnic enmity it's bred, and maybe things will change. Or at least any religious element will be exposed.