Dear Editor – USA Today:
I’ve read your USA Today electronic article (ascribed to the Guardian Newspaper of England) on the progression of the Middle East, since the creation of the State of Israel, and am quite disappointed at the lack of balance and objectivity.
I won’t bore you with a comprehensive history lesson, other than to point out a glaring inaccuracy that sets the entire tone of your report on a dishonest path.
On a map next to a date of 1945 on your opening page, you show Palestine with borders that are exactly similar to present day Israel, which includes the West Bank and Gaza. Next to the area you show as Palestine, are Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon.
I am certain that you realize that all of what was Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon prior to European political engineering in the Middle East, were also part of the territory internationally and officially referred to as Palestine, under British occupation.
Therefore; one has to beg the question: Why does this USA Today article show a geographical region (map of Palestine) for a country that did not exist in 1945; and truth be told, still does not?
It seems to me, that no one ever makes the argument that there never was a country called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinians, until they were recently created by the international community well after the re-creation of Israel.
It is strange how much of Israel, which can trace its roots and legitimacy back to King David, 3000 years ago, is said by the entire Arab world and most of the UN to be illegitimate.
But, the Palestinians, who can’t trace, nor account for their “national” roots much beyond a couple of generations, is somehow the internationally recognized legitimate occupiers of a country that still does not exist.
History, race, religion and genealogy show that the people who call themselves Palestinians, are no different than those who call themselves Jordanians, Lebanese or Syrians. In fact; before the UN “created” the myth of Palestine, that is exactly who these so-called Palestinians were.
For political and social reasons; all three countries that used to be part of the region of Palestine, have disavowed the history and citizenship of the Palestinian people in their own respective countries.
Lebanon has gone to the length of not even recognizing Refugee Camp Palestinians who are born within Lebanon, as Lebanese citizens.
Egypt, which was never a part of Palestine, recently drove the Palestinians out of the Egyptian part of Gaza, even though those Palestinians didn’t want to leave. It must also be noted that some of the maps included in the article that show Gaza, only shows Gaza in Israel, but not in Egypt. Why?
It seems as though all the bleeding heart Arabs who are close to the Palestinians, want less to do with them, than do the Jews in Israel.
Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, the areas which are included in the article’s maps of Palestine, also included Gaza and the West Bank, even though Gaza was the territory of Egypt. And the West Bank the territory of Jordan.
After Egypt and Jordan lost these territories to the Israelis in 1967, Gaza and the West Bank somehow became a part of Palestine, a nation that never existed.
By international convention, lost territories from the aggressor nation(s) become the defacto property of the victorious defensive nation. In this case, the loser nations seemed to have somehow transformed their loss to a people who didn’t even exist as a nationality.
The article also failed to mention that Jews worldwide bought and paid for land in most of what is presently Israel through the JNF (Jewish National Fund), which was established in 1901, 40 years before the Holocaust, and 47 years before the United Nation’s recognition of Israel as a State.
Much of that land, is somehow in the eyes of the UN, considered to be disputed or occupied territory, even though the Arabs sold this useless land to the JNF with their free-will, with much of it paid for at top dollar.
And now that this once useless and neglected land has real value; they want it back. It’s like buying a derelict home for more than it’s worth, putting in blood, sweat, tears and wealth to make it gorgeous, and then the sellers want it back because they feel cheated.
I’m sure the Indians who sold Manhattan to the European settlers for a handful of beads would like to have their land back too. Except, the JNF paid far more than the value of a handful of beads for land that was probably not worth a handful of beads at that time.
In an equitable world, there would be no discussion of Palestinians, Palestinian territory, or a Palestinian nation. Just as there is no discussion of ownership of Austria, Alsace & Lorraine, Gdansk or Sudeten. All of which were exchanged by means of war between their respective countries and Germany over the years.
When Germany was the victor, the preceding territories were German. When Germany fell in 1918, and then again in 1945, so did their international claim of ownership over these territories.
Even the Russians are holding onto ethnic Japanese Islands (Kurile) in the Pacific. Just as England is with the Falkland Islands at the tip of Argentina.
There is no claim of illegitimacy or wrongful occupation in any of these circumstances, even against England which sailed halfway around the world to trounce Argentina, which wanted its offshore Islands back in the early 1980’s.
It seems that ONLY the Jews of Israel are not allowed to enjoy the same internationally accepted rules that apply to the rest of the world.
Other than the obvious distortion of fact concerning Israel’s legitimacy, the issue that bothers me most about the misleading and selective USA Today article is News Media inaccuracy.
The only guarantee we have for democracy, where minorities are protected from majority rule is the Free Press.
But, for the Press to be effective in their defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, it has to be honest. It has to be perceived to be honest. And it has to be accurate.
This kind of reporting does not do USA Today justice.
As a matter of fact; I believe this selective electronic report in your electronic publication is in some ways more damaging to USA Today, than it is to Israel.
I will forget much of what was written in this USA Today article. But I will not forget, that what was written in USA Today, was not entirely true, very much unbalanced, and totally unfair.