The Palestinians' self-inflicted wounds

Israel is about to observe its 60th anniversary as an independent state. If the Palestinians had accepted the United Nations partition of the former British Mandate territory into separate Arab and Jewish nations, they would also be celebrating an independence anniversary.

Instead, the Palestinians rejected the partition. They immediately went to war, supported by the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, in an attempt to destroy the infant Jewish state. In a historic military miracle, the vastly outnumbered Israelis soundly defeated the Arabs and acquired territory that significantly increased the size of their tiny new state beyond the UN-established borders.

Thus, while the Israelis are celebrating their 60th anniversary of independence, the Palestinians will be observing the anniversary of the UN partition resolution as a day of mourning, which they call the "Nakba," Arabic for "catastrophe."

In a bizarre historic twist, the autocratic-led Palestinians now bear the international image of victimhood, despite the Arab aggression. But Israel, a democratic nation almost wholly composed of refugees, and their descendants, from centuries of persecution in Christian and Muslim lands, is widely defamed as an aggressor occupying foreign territory and and oppressing its inhabitants.

The 1948 war produced hundreds of thousands Palestinian refugees, very few of whom were allowed to settle as citizens in the countries of their former Arab allies. Meantime, equal numbers of Jews who had lived in Arab and other Muslim countries since ancient times, were also forced to flee. They fled primarily to the new state of Israel and were immediately absorbed as citizens. From their ranks have come an Israeli president, defense minister, army chief of staff, and other Israeli notables.

Abba Eban, the late Israeli statesman, once declared that the Palestinian leadership "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Their rejection of the 1948 partition has been followed by other missed opportunities for the creation of Palestinian statehood.

During the next 19 years, Egypt and Jordan ruled the West Bank and Gaza--territories that were allotted to the Palestinians by the UN partition. The Palestinians, apparently content with Arab governance, did not clamor for independence. Those who may have sought independence were presumably ignored or imprisoned.

Israel acquired control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 in a war initiated by Egypt, Syria and Jordan. In an extraordinary historic event, the Israelis offered to return virtually all the territory it had captured from the Arabs in return for diplomatic recognition and a peace treaty. But the response, declared by the 22 Arab countries at the famous Khartoum conference, was "no"-- to negotiation, recognition or peace.

During the Clinton Administration, at a conference at Camp David, the Israelis again offered to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank in return for assurances of military security and recognition of their right to exist. Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, rejected both the offer and an opportunity to make compromises.

Three years ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Foreign financial aid quickly began to pour into the territory, providing an opportunity for the Palestinians to establish a flourishing mini-state that would be a model of responsible and peaceful statehood in case of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

In a demonstration of what Israel could expect in terms of security and peace in case of further withdrawals, Gaza quickly descended into political chaos and became a base for rocket assaults on neighboring Israeli civilian communities.

Israel has essentially deviated from the historic pattern in which nations that start and lose wars pay the penalty of territorial loss and possible population transfers. After defeating the Arabs in four full-scale wars and suffering prolonged wars of attrition, the Israelis have offered to return territories acquired in warfare in return for peace and security. They have been consistently rebuffed.

Since Hamas took control of Gaza, Israeli civilian populations have been hit by a growing wave of terrorist attacks. In responding to the terrorism, Israel is once again defamed as the "bad guys." In a strange interpretation by the Israel-bashers, perpetrators of terror directed at civilians are presented as "victims," and the targets of such terror are seen as perpetrators reacting "disproportionately."

The suggestion that both Hamas and Israel are to blame for bloodshed is like saying that a would-be victim who fights off a mugger is as responsible for the violence as the assailant.

MEMOIR: My father's Hasidic family

I've always boasted that my paternal grandfather, Rabbi Samuel Reichek, was probably one of the first Hasidim to settle in the U.S. In 1906, he brought his family to this country from the Czarist Russian-ruled region of Poland, arriving aboard the S.S. Fatherland after a brief stay in Antwerp, Belgium. My father, the second oldest of his four sons, was nine years old.

The Hasidim are an ultra-Orthodox Jewish mystical sect whose religious practices display far more emotional fervor than other Orthodox Jews. Their men wear beards, black hats and coats, and their rites are marked by dancing, singing and hearty consumption of alcoholic beverages. Hasidism has been described as being "unique in its focus on the joyful observance of God's commandments."

My grandfather founded and headed what was undoubtedly the first Hasidic American synagogue, Beth Hasidim de Palen (House of Hasidim from Poland). It was originally housed on the second floor of a tenement apartment house on Manhattan's Lower East Side. To my knowledge, the congregation no longer exists.

There are many dozens of Hasidic sects, organized largely on the basis of East European geography and on the leadership of individual 18th and 19th century charismatic rabbis. My grandfather belonged to the Gerer Hasidim. The name stemmed from the Polish home town, Gora Kalwaria, of the sect's founder. According to family lore, the Gerer Rebbe (the sect's leader) personally urged my grandfather to go to the U.S. to establish a Hasidic presence in New York.

My grandfather, whom I never knew, would probably not appreciate my boast about his role as a pioneer Hasid in this country. I do not know of any one in my family who still has links to the Hasidic community. My father, Meyer (Yehiel Mayer) Reichek, was estranged from my grandfather after my father quit a New York religious seminary at the age of 18. My father wanted to adopt a secular life far removed from the provincial Hasidic lifestyle.

My paternal family came from Ostrow (also known as Ostrava), a small Polish town in the province of Lomza. My grandfather, the son of a lumber dealer, was a highly regarded Talmudic scholar. He was ordained as a rabbi but never earned a livelihood as a clergyman.

My grandmother, Gussie (Gelya) Reichek, was born in Grodno, a town that was also in the former Czarist Russian-ruled region of Poland; it is now in the independent country of Belarus. Her maiden name was Kuchiniak. She had a brother who decided to "Americanize" the family name when he came here. He was not very imaginative. He changed his surname to Cohen. Grandma also had several sisters in this country, but I never knew them very well.

Grandma's father was an adherent of another Hasidic sect, the Alexander Hasidim. He was a ritual slaughterer, the religious Jewish functionary who butchers kosher meat. Arranging a marriage to a man with my grandfather's impressive religious credentials was considered a social coup. The couple never met until the night of their wedding.

The newlyweds settled in the groom's home town, Ostrow. My grandfather had a pragmatic, older brother named Mayer, who recognized that Talmudic scholarship was insufficient for the support of a family. He was a prosperous businessman who staked my grandfather and his bride to a venture producing vegetable oil. When asked what my family did in Europe, I've jokingly boasted that they were in the "oil business," without mentioning the "vegetables."

My grandfather's brother and his children never migrated to the U.S. I learned only in recent years that some of his offspring perished during the Holocaust. At least one grandson survived the Nazi death camps and settled in Israel. A grand-daughter, who survived as a wartime laborer in Soviet Uzbekistan, eventually came to the U.S. It was through her that I became aware of the tragic fate of some of my relatives.

Unlike his brother Mayer, my grandfather had no interest in business. My grandmother, however, displayed great talent as a businesswoman. Almost alone, she successfully ran the vegetable-oil business. Meantime, my grandfather continued to devote himself to prayer and Talmudic studies.

When the family settled in New York a century ago, this occupational pattern was repeated. Grandma ran a tiny dairy store while raising five children. Her husband was primarily occupied with his religious endeavors. Their marriage was evidently an unhappy one, and they separated about 20 years after arriving in the U.S. I do not know whether they were ever formally divorced.

In the mid-1930s, my grandfather grew discontented with what he regarded as a lack of religious piety in this country and decided to move to Palestine so that he could die in the Holy Land. My father helped my grandfather board a ship and never saw him again.

My grandfather died in 1950, separated from his family, in a Hasidic home for the aged in Jerusalem. My daughter was born four years later. Her Hebrew name, Avigayil Shoshana (my grandfather's first name, which he never used, was Abraham) is a memorial to the paternal grandfather I never knew.

As "conquerors" Israeli leaders are no Genghis Khans or Napoleons

Reporting yesterday on the Jordanian king's scheduled visit to the West Bank to discuss peace efforts with the Palestinians, the New York Times noted that Jordan ruled that region from 1948-49 until 1967, "when Israel conquered the area, which it still occupies."

Perhaps I'm a nit-picker, but I have always resented the simplistic and common use of the word "conquer" to explain how Israel acquired control of the West Bank. I recognize that the dictionary defines the word: "to gain control by the use of force." But as I see it, the implication is that a "conqueror" is one who launches an aggressive attack to deliberately acquire land. Israel did not do that in the West Bank--or in other Arab territory in Sinai, Gaza and the Golan.

In each of these cases, Israel reacted to aggression by the Arabs. The distinction is significant. Exaggerating Israel's role as a "conqueror" has become a standard term in the Israel-bashing vocabulary.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, for example, Israel was engaged in a war against Egypt and Syria. The war was provoked by the two countries' open mobilization to invade Israel and by Egypt's blockage of Israeli access to the Red Sea. Israel warned Jordan to stay out of the war.

Under the false belief that Israel had been virtually defeated, however, Jordan foolishly disregarded Israel's warning and began to bombard Israeli territory in West Jerusalem. Only in reaction to Jordan's unprovoked attack did Israeli forces move into what had been Jordanian-ruled Palestinian territory. There had been no preemptive Israeli plan to invade the area.

I was so annoyed by the Times' failure to put the situation into perspective that I have written a letter to the editor to complain. Considering the enormous number of letters-to-the-editor that the Times receives daily, I doubt whether mine will be published. But now I have this blog to vent my frustration over the issue.

Four decades later, it seems to have been forgotten that the Israelis quickly offered to return the West Bank to Arab rule. (It had already returned the Sinai to Egypt; subsequently a chunk of the Golan was given back to Syria and Gaza was returned to the Palestinians.)

The response to the Israeli offer to return the West Bank to Arab rule was the historic Sept. 1, 1947 resolution of the Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum, Sudan. It read: "No negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel."

Israel's leaders do not easily fit the description of "conquerors." Genghis Khans or Napoleons, they're not.

MEMOIR: How Israel destroyed a longtime friendship

One of my best friends at college was a fellow World War II veteran named Michael Ameer (a pseudonym). We were both journalism majors and were among the handful of our classmates who were lucky enough to land jobs and establish careers in the field.

Michael was an infantryman decorated for bravery during the Battle of the Bulge. He was born and raised in Brooklyn, the son of immigrants from Lebanon. I recall that he told me that his parents were Eastern Orthodox Christians who became Episcopalians in the U.S.

While in college, I do not remember ever discussing Middle East politics with Michael. But he was well aware of my ardent support of Israel. In a class on editorial writing, I regularly argued the Israeli cause. Indeed, my heated classroom debates with our professor, who opposed Zionism, underscored how passionate I was about the issue.

At that time (1947-48), Lebanon's Maronite Roman Catholic community supported the creation of Israel.Its leaders apparently believed that a Jewish state in the region would be an important ally against their traditional rival, Lebanon's huge Muslim population.

Soon after graduation, Michael settled in Rochester, N.Y., where he became a star reporter for the local daily paper, and where he still lives. He also worked for several years in Albany as a speech writer and publicist for New York state legislators.

My career took me to Washington, D.C. and later back to New York City. Over the years Michael and I kept in touch. We lunched together on his frequent visits to his family in New York. And when my older daughter enrolled in the Rochester Institute of Technology, Michael and his wife were exceedingly hospitable, easing my daughter's transition to college life.

Whenever we met during the four decades after our college graduation, we invariably talked mostly about our families and careers. I don't recall ever discussing the subject of Israel with Michael until one day at lunch a couple of years before my retirement in 1989.

I do not remember what triggered the discussion, but Michael suddenly launched into a tirade against Israel, employing the standard Israel-bashing arguments. He explained that he had become an active supporter of the Palestinian Arab cause.

Michael denounced the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, but disregarded the history of Arab invasions that caused the occupation. He complained about Israeli restrictions on Palestinian life, but avoided mention of the Arab terror attacks on Israeli civilians that were responsible for those measures.

As I recall, he even referred to PLO leader Yasser Arafat as a "heroic freedom fighter," disregarding Arafat's role in killing innocent Israeli women and children. And on he went, depicting Israel as an ogre victimizing the Palestinians, using all the Israel-bashing cliches that have become part of the vocabulary of Israel's opponents.

I made no effort to defend Israel against Michael's harangue. Instead, I said to him: "Michael, we've been friends for about 40 years. If we are to remain friends, I think it would be wise if we do not discuss the Israel-Palestine issue."

I do not remember how Michael responded. But I have not seen or heard from him since then.

Meanwhile, I have discovered that he has become a prolific, Palestinian propagandist on the Internet. I have read his articles published in such anti-Israel, on-line newsletters as the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and on such loony left-wing web sites as Counterpunch, which continues to insist that the Israelis were somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I regret that Michael and I are no longer friends. And I wonder whether Michael also regrets the loss of our friendship.