REWRITING HISTORY: FACTCHECKING LEVY
By Noah Pollak
Levy's performance was astonishing. His preferred tactic was to repeatedly digress from the debate in order to lecture Frum on what he claimed to be the "historic context" of the conflict; his appearance on Bloggingheads is one of the most misleading performances I've ever seen on the Israeli-Arab conflict from a putatively serious person. This article is a long fact-check, but I think it's a necessary one.
Levy: "Well, the Mitchell Commission actually took that view. There was a commission, an international commission, that was brought in to say what happened and how do we stop it, and the Mitchell Commission did NOT come out on the side of the argument that said, "the Palestinians were just waiting to for a moment to start a violent intifada." So the one internationally-sanctioned, but non-partisan group, that was asked to look into this drew a very particular conclusion."
Several minutes later:
Frum: "So, there are people who say that Yasser Arafat did not start that war?"
Levy: "Well, I'm saying that the Mitchell Commission did not come out with the finding and this was the only internationally authorized, non-partisan assessment of this the Mitchell Commission did not come out with that finding, and I think it's very important to put that out there."
Well, indeed, let's put the Mitchell Commission report out there. The MC was charged, in a December, 2000, letter from President Bill Clinton, with proposing ways "to end the violence, to prevent its recurrence, and to find a path back to the peace process." The MC report stipulates:
The purpose of the MC was thus not to add fuel to the nascent Intifada by delving into issues of culpability; it was to cool the violence by showing the parties a path toward peace. In the report, which is quite long, the findings on culpability for starting the intifada were essentially a restatement of the views of both sides:
Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the Palestinian Authority to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI [Government of Israel] to respond with lethal force.
On this basis, it is disingenuous to declare that the Mitchell Commission absolved Yasser Arafat of involvement in starting the Intifada. By the Commission's own admission, it was neither within its purview nor its competence to render such a judgment. It is also important to note that the MC was convened at the very beginning of the Intifada, before the voluminous and incontrovertible evidence of Arafat's complicity in the terror war had been exposed, making Levy's portrayal of the Mitchell Commission as the definitive exculpation of Arafat all the more implausible. Anyone wishing to look into this material can start with the massive and unrefuted report of the Israeli government on exactly this subject from May, 2002; a lengthy, two-part investigation in 2002 by the German paper Die Zeit; a 2003 study by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; David Samuels's exhaustive 2005 Atlantic magazine cover story, in which Palestinians who worked intimately with Arafat during both the first and second Intifadas are quoted explaining, in detail, Arafat's involvement in choreographing Palestinian rioting and terrorism; and another in-depth reported analysis, this one by the Jerusalem Post's highly-respected Palestinian affairs reporter, Khaled Abu Toameh.
After everything that has come to light about Arafat's involvement in instigating and then clandestinely leading the Intifada, it is beyond misleading for Levy to pound the table about a report published in the first months of the Intifada that was charged with neither investigating nor judging Arafat's involvement in the hostilities. This is not honest analysis.
This is rubbish. The Khartoum Conference, where the famous "three no's" were declared no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel took place in late August, 1967. What Levy doesn't mention is that, immediately following the Six Day War, Israel, using America as an intermediary, attempted to give the Sinai back to Egypt and the Golan back to Syria. I quote from Conor Cruise O'Brien's history of Zionism and Israel, The Siege:
"According to this resolution, Israel was prepared, in exchange for a full peace treaty, to withdraw to the international border with Egypt, with the provisos that Sinai was to be demilitarized, and Israel's freedom of movement guaranteed in the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal. Israel was also prepared to withdraw to the international border with Syria, with the Golan Heights to be demilitarized."
Why would Egypt and Syria have needed to join an "opening ploy in a negotiation" by way of the Three No's, no less when Israel had already offered those states their territory back? The reason, of course, is that Egypt and Syria wished to continue attempting to destroy the State of Israel, which they again tried in 1973. But in Levy's telling, Israel apparently didn't catch on to the nuances of the signals emanating from Khartoum, which the Israeli government should have understood to mean that the Arabs wished to open negotiations. If only Daniel Levy had been around back then to explain all of this!
Levy's treatment of the Six Day War is equally bizarre, as revealed in the following exchange, after Frum mentioned that the Arab states started the war:
Levy: Wait, wait, so wait, the Arab states started the war in 1967, David?"
Frum: "The Arabs provoked it."
Levy: "I kind of remember a preemptive Israeli strike, maybe I'm wrong."
Frum: "The Arab states provoked the war by violating the terms of the armistice of 1956."
Levy: "But there was a preemptive strike by Israel."
Frum: "Yes, there was a first strike by Israel, after the Egyptians violated the armistice that ended the conflict, the hostilities in 1956; you know this."
Levy: "But you also know who started the war."
Frum: "Yes, because there was a direct threat to the existence of the State of Israel. When you violate an armistice, that starts the clock toward a conflict."
Levy: [Angrily] "But, when you violate international law every day, that's fine. When you put a civilian settler population in occupied territory, that's fine."
Levy has lost control of his intellectual faculties here. He surely knows that there was no occupation or settlements before the Six Day War, because Israel had not won the Sinai, Golan, Gaza, and West Bank yet. Why the ranting about something that hadn't happened yet? And speaking of international law, about whose violation Levy routinely works himself into a state of high moral outrage, one of the main causes of the 1967 war was indeed a flagrant violation of international law Egypt's. The armistice agreements that concluded the Suez War in 1956 stipulated that the Straits of Tiran which connect the southernmost Israeli port of Eilat to the Red Sea, and the wider world are international waters open to every country. Egypt, in May, 1967, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off one of Israel's two most vital ports, as clear a casus belli as exists, and an unequivocal violation of the armistice agreements. And let's not forget the continuous Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan Heights; Nasser's repeated threats to invade Israel and slaughter its citizens; his demand (immediately complied with) that U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, remove the peacekeepers in the Sinai that had been in place since 1956 and on the basis of whose presence Israel had withdrawn its forces in 1956; or Nasser's massive mobilization of his army toward the border with Israel in May, 1967.
It feels ridiculous to even be writing a defense of Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt in 1967. The only people who insist that Israel started the Six Day War are crackpots and unhinged anti-Zionists. And Daniel Levy.
This is not historical context; it is historical fabrication. The first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians happened on April 16, 1993, at the Mehola Junction, almost a full year before Baruch Goldstein's atrocity in Hebron. The Engineer was killed on January 5, 1996, and, in that three-year period, not including the Mehola attack, there were seven Hamas suicide bombings that killed 58 Israeli civilians, and one Islamic Jihad bombing that killed 21 Israeli civilians 79 Israelis total. The very reason The Engineer was killed by the Shabak was because of his involvement in the Hamas bombings that occurred exactly during the period in which Levy claims there was a "hiatus" in attacks.
His telling of the Second Intifada is as equally twisted. According Levy, suicide bombings commenced in response to Israel's targeted killings of Palestinians, a cause and effect proposition. But suicide bombings in the Second Intifada didn't begin "several months" after the Intifada started; they began exactly in the opening weeks of the Intifada. There were Islamic Jihad and Hamas bombings on October 26, November 2, 20, and 26, and on December 22, 2000. Meanwhile, the first Palestinian terrorist killed in a targeted killing was Hussein Abayat, who, in the weeks before he was killed by the Israeli Defense Forces, had perpetrated the shooting murders of three Israelis and the critical wounding of another. Abayat was killed on November 9, two weeks after the first suicide bombing of the Intifada. Whoops.
There is a reason why Levy's "errors" all work in one direction, and one direction only: It is because he would like to convince his listeners of a narrative which holds that Palestinian terrorism has always arisen in response to Israeli provocations, and thus that Israel has brought such terrorism on itself. His telling of history would also have us believe that Israel has never been genuinely interested in peace with its neighbors, while the Arabs, despite all the genocidal rhetoric and wars of annihilation, have actually been trying to signal to Israel for decades that they are ready for peace. Beyond these observations, I would rather speculate on Levy's deeper motives. It is not clear, after all of this, what credibly is left of Levy's views on the conflict, or what should be left of his reputation for honesty, objectivity, or expertise.
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
Page Three Page Two Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Noah Pollak is Assistant Editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
The foregoing article by Noah Pollack was originally published in National Review Online, December 6, 2007, and can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a think tank which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor