I will believe that when I start seeing Palestinians lining up at an Israeli Lishkat Giyus in order to be just another Muslim Israeli soldier like the Cherkassim. Until then, I will believe them when they send delegations to be full members of the Arab League.

Best,
Mike

Gorenberg wrote: ‘My article, “Why Are They So Angry,” describes the shrill debate about Israel within the American Jewish community. I criticize a particular kind of diaspora nationalist who takes an uncompromising and rigid position on events in a far-away homeland. I mention diaspora Palestinians who do this in the context of a more extensive critique of diaspora Jews who do the same. And I argue that fear of being associated with such an extreme position is no excuse for moderates to remain silent.’

I could be reading this passage incorrectly, and I am not attempting a blanket defense of Gorenberg’s article otherwise, but I believe that you may have reacted to a formulation that Gorenberg did not actually make. I don’t think the author is saying that moderate diaspora Jews should not hesitate to engage in the debate out of fear of being associated with a Palestinian diaspora whose extremist character can be taken for granted. If that is the case, then right on in your commentary.

However, I think Gorenberg is suggesting that the frenzied and uncompromising nationalism of elements of the Jewish diaspora can effectively silence moderating debate for fear of being associated with THOSE extreme voices. His reference to the Palestinian diaspora does lend a measure of ambiguity to the paragraph, but seems to pick out among the Palestinian community, like he states for the Jews, a subset of uncompromising activists that stifle debate within their own communities.

If I am interpreting this correctly, I believe that your attack on Gorenberg’s purported privileged condescension and insult mistaken.

Best,
Mike

It is utterly ridiculous to assume that just because they formed a committee to consider how to deal with Arabs who remained in Israel, there was therefore no plan to expel them. Why do you make no mention of the transfer committee? The more likely reason for the existence of the Situation Committee is that it was convened to consider how best to deal with the Arabs if the Transfer Committee’s aims were not fully realized (they were relaized to about 70%). Yes, im well aware the Transfer Committe was convened unofficially. But it was central to zionist thinking since Herzl’s time, that the best solution was the removal of the indigenous peoples.
Knowing how well organised the jewish Agency and Zionists militia were, cataloging all arab habitations and various town/village elders etc – it stands to reason that they would have established a working group (your beloved Situation Committee) to decide what to do with the arabs who remained in the nascent jewish state. Furthermore, it demonstrates how Zionists viewed the indigenous Palestinian population – that they set up a committee to discuss, essentially, what to do with them.

Oh and lets remember, even the first Prime Minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, admitted he was in favour of ‘compulsory transfer’ of the indigenous Arabs. There is too much evidence both written, anecdotal and witness testimony, to deny that the removal of as many Palestinians as possible, was an aim of Ben-Gurion and his cohorts.