From: ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: All Arabs are guilty
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:39:06 CST

In article <1jo7qbINNgsi@manuel.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
> In article 1@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu, ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>>In article <1jgsgmINN4hv@tyl.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>>> ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>	But in order not to leave the scene in this defensive note,
>>>>	here's a quote from BG regarding the commission's recommendation:
>>>>	"The more I study the recommendations of the commission, I see
>>>>	above all the terrible difficulty in uprooting, by foreign force,
>>>>	some 100,000 Arabs from vilages which they have inhabited for
>>>>	hundreds of years." 
>>> 
>>>>		[Incidently, Ben Gurion Diary, 12 July, 1937 -- the same 
>>>>		as your quote! Have you failed to notice this entry, 
>>>>		Joseph?] 
>  
>>> Recognising the difficulty of something is a far cry from having
>>> moral qualms about it.  
>>
>>	I read BG's comment as indicating a moral, rather than a
>>	physical difficulty. Don't you? 
> 
> Not at all.  He wrote of "terrible difficulty", not "terrible injustice".
> Given Teveth's manifest admiration for BG makes it seem unlikely he
> would translate it in this critical way on purpose.  However, I admit
> this argument is circumstantial.


	He wrote of "terrible", he wrote of "uprooting", he wrote
	of "foreign force", he wrote of "inhabited for hundreds
	of years". All those have moral connotation. This is not
	a neutral language. We agree, though, that both our arguments
	are circumstantial. However, taken within the context of
	the entire book, it seems to me that it won't be unfair to
	suggest that BG had moral qualms about the transfer. 

> 	
>>	Does someone have the Hebrew original of this quote from BG's
>>	diary?
> 
> There is a Hebrew version of Teveth's book: Ben-Guryon 
> ve-`Arviye Erets-Yisra'el : me-hashlamah le-milhamah (Shoken, 1985)
> but I don't have it.


	Neither do I. Can someone pick up the hebrew source from 
	this book?


> 
>>This is one of many examples where Teveth
>>> fails to provide evidence for his assertions.  
> 
>>	Which assertion are you refering to? What are the other 
>>	examples you have in mind?
> 
> Teveth's discussion on the matter of transfer ca 1937-8 portrays
> BG as someone with deep moral qualms about the proposals he was
> nevertheless supporting for pragmatic reasons.  However, if that
> is a correct picture, why did not Teveth provide us with evidence
> of BG's moral qualms?   The quotations he gives make BG appear
> more like someone whose only hesitation was on the matter of
> whether these proposals could be practically implemented.  


	As I said, I disagree with your interpretation of the quote. 
	I also don't think that history books should look like 
	screenplays. The inner struggle of BG wrt the Jewish-Arab 
	relations is a major theme in the book. Information is gathered 
	by discussions with witnesses, observations of acts, and 
	analysis of complex patterns of behavior. And if, say, on one 
	occasions, a punchline quote is missing for the historian's 
	argument, does it nullify the argument even if everything else 
	supports it?


	Now, in case you can prove that this is "one of many examples"
	in which Teveth consistently misinterpret BG, I might agree 
	with you.


> 

> Brendan.
> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:26393 soc.culture.greek:12667