In our last blog posting Brian Yapko outlines numerous errors in Remy’s relatively incoherent rant in the SF Reporter. In that blog we briefly referenced a My View that appeared in the Santa Fe New Mexican on Sunday, February 9 by Elena Ortiz, “This is Native land; remember that.” On the same day Iris Keltz, an anti-Israel radical who perpetuates false narratives wrote an op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, “Santa Fe murals are about justice.”
We encourage you to read those opinion pieces by following the links. Over the past month on numerous occasions we’ve asked you to write letters to educate the Santa Fe and Albuquerque communities. Some of you have; we appreciate those efforts. Most of you have not. It’s time to get active.
So, we ask you once again to Take Action. Correct the errors in the opinion pieces and take the newspapers to task for printing misleading articles like these. Write a letter to the editor to the New Mexican (maximum 150 words; send to: letters@sfnewmexican.com) and the Journal (maximum 350 words; submit online at https://www.abqjournal.com/letters/new). You are much more effective if you write in your own words using the points mentioned in our analysis below.
Before we begin the analysis we applaud Ron Duncan-Hart’s My View, “Jews fear the spread of anti-Semitism,” which ran next to Elena Ortiz’s piece. We also give plaudits to Todd Goldblum and Barbara Einhorn for their ABQ Journal article, “Murals back anti-Semitism, hate.”
The problem with propaganda is that often it has an element of truth to it, and then it builds a false logic from that truth. Elena Ortiz’s piece does this by implying false conclusions from some true premises. Here are her misleading statements:
How were borders determined in the Middle East?
Ortiz claims the “Native-installed art exhibit on a stucco wall…illuminates a truth that many people do not want to face.” She claims that “Europeans drew lines on paper and called them borders [which] America has enforced…with military aid in the form of troops, weapons and obscene amounts of money.” This is partially true, but not the way she tells the story. It wasn’t so simple.
Ortiz enumerates the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 by the British. The first did divide the Ottoman Empire land that, with a few exceptions, had never been discrete countries, into the sphere of control and influence by the British and the French. This was a secret agreement agreed to with the Russians and Italians, and included language for “an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States…under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.” (See here for the full text.)
At that time “Palestine” did not have discrete borders either. Different maps from 1500 into the 1700s show it including variously parts of what is now Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the current Israel, and Judea and Samaria (only called the “West Bank” in recent years).
Palestine in biblical days under the kingdoms of David and Solomon ranged all the way up to the Euphrates river.
The Balfour Declaration did not make any land divisions – it simply declared that the British believed there should be a homeland in “Palestine” for the Jewish people. Here is the exact wording:
His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Ortiz also claims that the Arabs rejected the Balfour Declaration, but according to a more complete account of the history at the time, Ephraim Karsh, in his article, Turks and Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration “A Jewish National Home,” 100 Years On in the Middle East Quarterly, claims that Arabs actually embraced the Balfour Declaration (see the article for details). It was only later when Hitler-embracing Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin Husseini rejected any Jewish presence in Palestine in the late 1930s.
What caused 700,000 Palestinian Arabs to leave the area during the 1947-9 Israeli war of independence?
Ortiz claims that the Arabs “were expelled from their homes during the 1948 war with Israel.” Again, only partially true.
While there was a civil war between Palestinian Arabs and Jews from November, 1947 until Israel’s declaring independence in May, 1948, immediately after the declaration the surrounding Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and a few Palestinian irregulars) attacked Israel – Israel did not start the war. Israel accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Arabs rejected it.
During the war 700,000 Arabs fled, either voluntarily out of fear of the fighting, or through urging by Arab states’ leaders, or were ejected by Israel from the area that became Israel from 1948 until 1967. The relative proportions – what percent fled and what percent were ejected – continues to be argued by historians. We suggest Ortiz go to hear Benny Morris at Temple Beth Shalom on February 23. Morris is one of the most dedicated historians studying the issue. His book, Righteous Victims – A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict from 1881-2001, discusses this issue in depth.
True, some of these Palestinian refugee descendants live in refugee camps today. Only the Arabs and the United Nations are responsible for this. Except for Jordan the surrounding Arab lands refused to resettle these refugees, continuing to use 
them as pawns in the struggle against Zionism, and falsely telling these refugees that some day they will take back their ancestors lands. And the UN has perpetuated the status of Palestinian refugees in ways that no other peoples have been violated.
By the way, Elena, you didn’t mention the 800,000-900,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands between 1946 and 1992 as well (see Brian Yapko’s table in the prior blog found here).
The end of fighting was not the end of the war – the so-called 1967 borders were only armistice lines, never formal borders.
Why does the US give financial aid to Israel?
Israel received financial non-military assistance earlier to resettle Jewish refugees from Arab lands (about 900,000 in the 1950s and 1960s) and Russia (over 1 million from 1990-92). This was quite a financial burden. The assistance in the early 1990s was a loan guarantees which Israel paid back. Israel is a land of 9.2 million citizens – 6.8 million Jews, 1.9 million Arabs, and the rest Christians, Baha’i, etc. This is a more than ten-fold increase in population since 1948.
Military financial assistance has helped Israel maintain its qualitative military edge (QME). As a country of 9 million Israel has had to protect itself from overwhelming Arab populations both adjacent to it (Egypt+Jordan+Lebanon+Syria = 135 million) and countries more distant but still at war with Israel (Iraq + Algeria + Iran = 244 million). It is US policy to maintain Israel’s QME, which costs a lot both in technology, arms, aircraft, and materiel. Most of this is not arrayed against the Palestinians, but to protect Israel from Iran-sponsored terrorism through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups.
What Ortiz doesn’t mention is that 80-90% of the billions in financial assistance to Israel has returned to the United States through Israel’s purchase of arms and aircraft. Billions have also been used to help the US protect its soldiers through the joint development of David’s Sling, Arrow anti-missiles, tunnel detection technology, etc.
Israel is a strong and dependable ally of the US in a part of the world that is antagonistic to US interests and values. The US has bipartisan support in Congress and the White House (including in democratic and republican administrations since Lyndon B. Johnson) because of our common values and interests. Israel is the only stable country in the Middle East. The US pre-positions materiel in the Haifa and Ashdod ports for the benefit of the US fleets patrolling the waters of the Mediterranean. (There is much more that can be said about this; for more on the beneficial relationship between the US and Israel see here.)
Ortiz neglects to tell her audience that the Palestinians have also gotten more than $5 billion in direct financial assistance since 1994. Can she enumerate any benefits the US has received for that aid? Just recently the aid has been cut back for various reasons, including the objection of Congress over the Palestinian authority using 7-8% of its budget to encourage terrorism based on the Taylor Force Act (see the bill here).
Why are teens detained, arrested, and sometimes jailed in Israel?
“Each year, approximately 500-700 Palestinian children, some as young as 12 years old, are detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military court systems. The most common charge is stone throwing.”
Once again Ortiz (and, as we will see, Keltz) imply that Israel does something extraordinary with misbehaving teens that Ortiz and Keltz find “unconscionable.”
First note the hyperbole: “children, some as young as 12…” Yes, but most of those arrested are in their late teens, of age to drink, vote, and participate in the Palestinian forces or Hamas’ terrorism. They are detained by “the Israeli military court systems” because there is no peace treaty and the territories are administered by the Israeli Defense Forces according to international law. Otherwise, if they were detained by the police in Israel pre-1967 borders they’d be adjudicated in the civil courts.
Second, 500-700 teens out of a total West Bank population of perhaps 3 million (last census was taken in 2007 – 2.3 million) is .02%. During a single year, an estimated 2.1 million youth under the age of 18 are arrested in the United States.1 This is about .65% of the population. And not all of these arrests are for physical harm-causing offenses like stone throwing. Though overall rates have been declining over the past years, approximately 1.7 million delinquency cases are disposed in juvenile courts annually. 27% of the 1.7 million (or .02%) are arrested for “public order offenses” that may be more like the Palestinian teens.
And often slingshots are used to propel stones, adding to the extreme force.
Summary
Ortiz claims “these are truths.” But her comments are only half-truths and ignore the serious concerns and consequences of Palestinian rejectionism and actions. While implying there are similarities between Palestinians and Native Americans her simplified history and acts of omission in her My View actually betray any similarities. She ignores the multiple rejections of the Palestinians and their Arab “cousins” for generous offers of peace from the Israelis. And it is hard to believe she would argue that the murals are “truths” when already at least two of them have definitively been shown to be fictions – fake news, false facts, lies.
Now to Iris Keltz’s February 9, 2020 article in the ABQ Journal, “Santa Fe murals are about justice“.
Many of the criticisms leveled at Ortiz’s article are relevant to Keltz’s article. We present here only some additional points.
Why does Keltz exaggerate the claim of the accuracy of the murals?
Is the depiction of an Israeli soldier firing at Muhammed al-Durrah accurate? Did he die from “oncoming bullets from Israeli soldiers”? Was he “Moments later, [lying] dead on his father’s lap”? The answer is “No.” We’ve written about this before here. Was he and his father caught in crossfire? Yes. Did he die from Israeli bullets? No. Was a soldier close by purposely firing at him. No. Did he even die? We don’t know. Once again we direct readers’ attention to the Atlantic Article from 2003 investigating these spurious claims.
Perhaps Keltz doesn’t want to confuse us with the (real) facts. It is always easier to perpetuate myths that support your false narrative than figure out how to deal with the truth.
Should our members of congress support HR2407 sponsored by Betty McCollum from Minnesota?
No. Kudos to Ben Ray Lujan for resisting the call to co-sponsor this legislation back in June, 2018 from Kathleen Christison. The legislation is based on false information, well-documented by NGO Monitor. After 2 years the legislation has only 23 co-sponsors, including the known anti-Semite members of congress Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Deb Haaland hasn’t signed on, and hopefully she won’t.
NGO Monitor outlines the problems with the underlying premises of this bill and other efforts to condemn Israel here. As they state:
A number of Palestinian, Israeli, and international pro-BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) NGOs are behind a concerted effort to falsely accuse the IDF of violating the rights of Palestinian minors in order to impose sanctions against Israel. Some of these NGOs also have confirmed or reported ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization, designated as such by the US, EU, Canada, and Israel.
Further by NGO Monitor:
The Palestinian NGO Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCI-P), which has alleged ties to the PFLP and supports BDS campaigns against Israel, is the most prominent NGO in this campaign. In the US and Canada, it leads “No Way to Treat a Child,” which seeks to lobby governments to “use all available means to pressure the Israeli government to end the detention and abuse of Palestinian children.” DCI-P’s campaign partners similarly support BDS campaigns, demonstrating that the nature of the campaign exploits Palestinian children for political gain.
DCI-P’s No Way to Treat a Child report, which underpins most of the lobbying, makes numerous false and misleading claims about the IDF and Israeli Military Courts. For instance, DCI-P:
- Falsely claims that minors are placed in solitary confinement. In reality, international and domestic law forbids minors from being held with the adult population. Therefore, if a sole minor is arrested, they must be held separately. o
- Condemns Israel’s use of military courts. Yet under the legal paradigm used by DCI-P (concerning occupation under international humanitarian law), Israel is required to use such courts exclusively.
- States that innocent Palestinian minors accused of involvement in violent crimes accept plea bargains, even if they are innocent. This occurs when DCI-P staff lawyers ostensibly represent these minors in court. If true, this would be an ethical violation, if not malpractice.
- Claims that Palestinian minors’ confessions were acquired through violence and torture. If true, DCI-P had a duty to report this to the proper authorities and raise it before the court to achieve a dismissal. Again, failure to do so would be an ethical violation, if not malpractice.
- Refused in 2013 to be included on a list of attorneys with whom Palestinian minor suspects could consult. DCI-P lobbying resulted in proposed legislation from US Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) “to prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli military’s ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children” (November 2017). In addition to several leading BDS NGOs endorsed the legislation and the entirety of the proposed billis premised on factually inaccurate claims from anti-Israel advocacy NGOs, including direct quotes from DCIP’s “No Way to Treat a Child” 2016 report and website. The sections that reference reports from the US State Department and UNICEF originate with these same NGOs (although McCollum’s office selectively quotes, hiding the origins) (see NGO Monitor’s analysis of the legislation)
Santa Feans for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, and many of the other organizations Keltz claims are pursuing justice in fact are pursuing the end of Israel through deception and falsehoods. Perhaps they actually are much more like white nationalists than they’d like to admit.
SFMEW is a beneficiary organization of the Jewish Federation of New Mexico