Golda Meir and Anwar Sadar Exchange Messages, January 1974

Opponents of the agreement said that the US was buying the government's support for withdrawal.
A "Kissinger dollar" given out at the demonstrations. Private collection

Golda Meir and Anwar Sadar Exchange Messages, January 1974

"When I made my [political] initiative in 1971, I meant it; when I threatened war, I meant it; when I now talk of permanent peace between us, I mean it." This was the message from President Anwar Sadat given to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shortly before the signing of the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Egypt (Sinai I) on January 18, 1974. You can see it on our website in a short publication of 6 documents in English to mark the 40th anniversary of the agreement.

The next day Golda replied that she hoped that their contact through Kissinger would prove to be a turning point in their relations, and repeated Sadat's words: "When I talk of permanent peace between us I mean it." Only three months after the Yom Kippur War, when they had led their countries in a bloody and costly conflict, the two leaders exchanged messages expressing goodwill and the desire for peace between them.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was the first person to propose a separation of forces in a government meeting on October 27, 1973. The war had just ended, but sporadic firing continued and continued to bring casualties. The smoke still lingered on the battlefields and a grieving Israel was anxious for a ceasefire and a political solution which would allow the IDF to withdraw from its dangerously overextended lines on the western bank of the Suez Canal. Over the coming weeks, the plan underwent a series of changes in talks with the Egyptians at the 101 Kilometer talks and through Secretary Kissinger, until it reached its final form in a shuttle by Kissinger between Cairo and Jerusalem. The signing of the agreement marked a historic change in the relations between Israel and Egypt and the first withdrawal from territories occupied in the Six Day War.

Ten days later Sadat and Golda again exchanged messages on the need to advance a disengagement agreement with Syria. These messages also appear in the publication together with the text of the Sinai I agreement and its secret annexes, and the memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel. We've already talked here about the negotiations with Syria and the opposition to them in Israel. On May 31, the agreement with Syria was signed, the last act of Golda Meir's government following her resignation.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Is this the Note that Launched Maaleh Adumim?

In early July 1974 (there's no precise date) Ariel Sharon, a recently elected Member of Knesset in the opposition Likud party, dashed off a note to Yisrael Galili, a minister without portfolio in Yitzhak Rabin's brand-new first government. Galili, it must be noted, though he didn't run any ministry, was one of the most powerful, behind-the-scenes movers in Israeli politics at the time.

Here's the full content of the note, which comes from file number 7458/3-ג:

Yisrael,
A fellow by the name of Eliezer Ben-Arye called me a few minutes ago. He says he's part of a group of 75 families who wish to settle in Maaleh Adumim. [Underlined in the original]. I suggested he call your office. I hope you'll be agree to meet them.
Arik

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

How to Sell Arab Property in East Jerusalem

Following the mild self-rebuke of the previous post about using too many words on this blog while presenting long-winded documents, here's a short post about a very slim file (גל-13922/11, if you insist on its name). It contains all of five brief letters, and yet it underlines an entire field of bureaucratic practice which has never been fully clarified: who decided who owned which property in the territories Israel took control of in 1967. If you think about it for a moment, it's an extremely important issue, and it underlies much of the settlement project. Of course, this particular file shines a light at the issue, it doesn't resolve it.

On April 7, 1971, S. Shapira, a lawyer at the Land Authority, wrote a two-paragraph note to the Attorney General: we're seeing a growing number of Arabs living in other countries who are sending us their representatives so as to sell their East-Jerusalem real estate to Israelis. How are we supposed to deal with such transactions? (p.2)

On April 19, Michal Bodenkin, an assistant to the AG, replied even more tersely: We'll need to deal with each separate case (p.3); she then sent a copy of her letter to the Advisor on Arab Affairs (p.4). Marking turf, apparently.

Why was there an upswing of such transactions? It wouldn't reflect the very large construction projects getting underway in East Jerusalem, as those were administered centrally, while Shapira's query seems to refer to individual transactions. The file offers no explanation; when we find one we'll tell.

The final document in the file is pure turf-wars, but its subject is interesting: Zvi Terlow, the executive director of the Ministry of Justice, announces to lots of important folks in lots of ministries, that all cases of claims by Jews on land plots in the territories must go through his ministry. It was February 1974, and I assume someone was seeing a rise in Jews purchasing land on the West Bank; the Gush Emunim settler movement was to break onto the public scene within weeks.

Monday, January 28, 2013

The Islamic Council and the Israeli Prime Minister

A major theme of this blog so far has been Israel's actions in East Jerusalem after the Six Day War. Today we'd like to look at the subject from a new perspective: the relations with the Islamic Council and with the Mufti of Jerusalem himself, in the early 1970s. Today's file comes from the office of the Adviser on Arab Affairs, which was a unit in the Prime Minister's Office from the early years of the state until the turn of the century when it was abolished. (The abolition reflected the understanding that the affairs of Israel's Arab citizens should be dealt with, like those of all other citizens, in each respective ministry, rather than by a separate one).

File גל-13922/13 was active between 1970-1974. Much of its content are letters from various Arab institutions or groups to the Prime Minister, complaining about Israeli actions or warning of their dire consequences; in one case the file also contains a response. It's interesting to note the authors of the letters - the Islamic Council, the Mufti himself, but also lesser figures such as the mayor of Jenin or the head of the African community in East Jerusalem - all wrote to Israel's Prime Minister and other officials in Arabic. Their working assumption was that the Israelis would not be troubled by this. The one letter of response, by Deputy PM Yigal Allon (pages 7-8), was written in Hebrew, then translated and sent in Arabic. Allon himself actually spoke Arabic, but since the file contains a number of versions of his letter in Hebrew, clearly it was translated by a professional; Allon wouldn't have wanted to offend his interlocutors with his pidgin Arabic.

This blog doesn't have the expertise to say if such a practice is standard in the annals of conflicts.

Much of the correspondence deals with the Arab dissatisfaction with Israeli actions near the Temple Mount (or Haram a-Shariff, depending on whether you're reading the Hebrew or the Arabic), although one of the letters, from August 1972, describes a plan to remove some families from their homes as part of the construction of Hebrew University as "threatening the lives of innocent children" (p. 13).

By way of giving a feel for the tone and content of the letters, here's a rough translation of the last one in the file, from the Mufti Saad Adin El-Alamy to the new PM Yitzchak Rabin on June 4th 1974 (pages 21-26):

Your Honor,

On the event of the appointment of the new government, I wish to bring to your attention the many transgressions against the Muslims, their mosques and courts, in the hope that this government will desist from harming the Muslims, as has been happening in spite of hundreds of letters of protest. Among the transgressions:

1. The El Aksa Mosque has been repeatedly attacked and once was even ignited. The government knows this, but has never informed us about anyone being punished.

2. The key to the Mugrabi Gate [to the Temple Mount]: the army took the key by force, against the will of the Muslims. Such aggression has never happened anywhere in the world, that a key to a holy place is taken from the believers. What is your response to the fact that it has happened at El Aksa, which is holy to 700,000,000 Muslims in the world. Therefore I demand that the key be returned to the Muslims so that they be soothed and allowed to practice freedom of religion.

3. The el-Tankzia School: this school was built in 1328, and includes a mosque. It was active until the Israeli occupation. The Israeli army shut it down and Muslims are not allowed in. We demand it be returned to the Muslims. How is it possible for the Muslims to protect the holiest of their mosques in this land while foreigners hold the key to its gate and the also control a building which looks out upon it.

4. The Abrahamic Mosque (in Hebron): This Muslim mosque is desecrated by Israelis who enter it with their shoes on, have placed Jewish objects in it and pray in it as if it was a Jewish synagogue, and all this in violation of the basic principles of Islam which forbid any use of their mosques for the purpose of other religions or their use for any purpose which is not Muslim prayer; therefore I demand that this mosque be respected exclusively as a mosque, the removal of any non-Muslims, and the forbidding of any use beyond Muslim prayer. I'm enclosing a report about the trespassing in this holy place.

5. Archeology: the archaeological digs south of the Haram [Temple Mount] must be stopped.

6. The government has taken over much Arab property, including Waqf property. It must be returned.

7. The Mosque of the Prophet Samuel. The building is a mosque, yet Jews pray there as if it was a synagogue. This is forbidden by Muslim law.

8. The Shariya Court in Jerusalem. This is the oldest court in the land, and has been active since 1320. In the past it was a central agency of government, and its activities included land registration, relations with foreign citizens and consulates, criminal justice and other matters. Recently its writ has been limited to marital affairs of the Muslim population, but the government doesn't even recognize its authority in that sphere.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the actions of the Israeli occupation authorities ignore the facts that it is:

a. An occupation government which is forbidden from any actions except protecting its own security, while all previous laws and rules must remain in place;

b. The occupying force is forbidden from any intervention in the religious affairs of the occupied populace;

c. It is forbidden, by all international laws, to make any changes to any holy sites;

d. The UN Security Council and UNESCO and human rights commissions have all condemned any Israeli action on conquered Arab land and called for their reversal.

The report about Hebron is attached.

Two comments: First, the terminology of Arab, rather than Palestinian, is in the original. In 1974, the Arabs under Israeli control did not yet regularly refer to themselves as Palestinians. Second, we're presenting the document. We're not arguing with it - but nor are we condoning its content.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

"Madam Prime Minister....Don't Endanger Israel's Security!"

At the beginning of Golda Meir's conversation with Kissinger on a disengagement agreement with Syria, shown here last week, he asked: "What is the policy of the people who are demonstrating? What do they want?" Golda replied "That we shouldn't budge."

Today we present another document on opposition to  withdrawal in the Golan Heights – aletter (in Hebrew) sent to Mrs. Meir on 6 May 1974 by a group of writers, academics and public figures, who had begun a hunger strike outside her residence in Jerusalem. They included Moshe Shamir, a well-known writer originally from the left wing Mapam party, now a supporter of the Greater Land of Israel movement, and Yisrael Eldad , one of the ideologues of the right.  They reminded Golda of her words to a delegation from the Golan settlements, rejecting any withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, including Kuneitra. They added:

Madam Prime Minister, did you honestly mean what you said? Or have you changed your mind? The entire people is following with deep anxiety the signs and reports of erosion in the government's position, in the face of the war of attrition by the murderous Syrians and the false and misleading policy of the American secretary of state – who is tempting us to enter a fatal trap.

At this late hour we call on you, before the fateful decision is taken […]

to stop the deterioration

to prevent the execution of the plan bringing forward the destruction of the state

to prevent the withdrawal from the Golan

Don't give a prize to the aggressors!

Don't give bases to the Syrian artillery!

Don't breach the wall of the settlements!

Don't abandon the Golan!

Don't endanger Israel's security!"

With memories still fresh of Syrian shelling in the Jordan valley before the Six Day War and the Syrian attack on Yom Kippur in October 1973, the demonstrators represented, if in extreme form, genuine public feeling. Taking the risk was not an easy step for Mrs. Meir. On the other hand Kissinger argued that the strategic importance of Kuneitra was minor compared to co-operation with the United States, which had stood by Israel during the war and given it generous economic assistance.  In the end, Israel signed and withdrew from Kuneitra and a small area of the Golan. On 30 May Golda presented the agreement to the Knesset and shortly afterwards the prisoners of war were released.  The fears of the demonstrators were not realized, and Syria was punctilious in keeping the agreement.