‘From the Nile to the Euphrates’ and Beyond

Allister Sparks' anti-Israel lies masquerade as fact in the Independent newspapers

The South African mainstream media has over the last few weeks abounded with anti-Israel canards. We have already blogged about the Mandela Israel-is-an-Apartheid-state letter which Pollak ably exposed as a forgery. Yesterday veteran South African journalist and regular anti-Israel critic, Allister Sparks, in an article published in the Independent newspapers (If the US talks to Iran, why not Hamas) made the absurd claim that the Likud charter calls for the establishment of a Jewish state from the ‘Nile to the Euphrates’.

The article in its entirety was reasonably moderate by Sparks’ usual anti-Israel standards. He even went so far as to acknowledge that there are aspects of the Hamas charter that are anti-Semitic. But he advises us not to take this too seriously for ‘it was drafted by an earlier generation and charters are tricky things to change’. As proof of this contention Sparks cites Israel’s centre right Likud party whose charter he charges ‘proclaims Israel’s boundaries to be from the Nile to the Euphrates…’ He argues that just like Hamas refuses to recognise Israel, so too the Likud refuse to recognise the Palestinians because those borders (Nile to the Euphrates) preclude the existence of a Palestinian state.

This is a common libel used by anti-Israel propagandists to ‘prove’ the expansionist nature of the Zionist enterprise. Arafat in his pre-Oslo days used to claim that the image in the back of Israel’s 10 agurot coin was a map of the desired borders of Israel including ‘all of Palestine, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, half of Syria, two-thirds of Iraq, one-third of Saudi Arabia as far as holy Medina, and half of Sinai’ (the image is actually of an ancient Israeli coin).

Another alternative of this lie is that the 2 blue strips on the Israel flag represent the Nile and the Euphrates rivers (the design is actually modelled on the Jewish prayer shawl).

A further example is the unfounded claim widely attributed to the late dictator of Syria, Hafiz al-Asad, that the inscription ‘The Land of Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile’ is chiselled over the entrance to the Knesset (of course it is not).

The Likud charter of course does not call for the establishment of a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates. As Daniel Pipes points out in an excellent counter to this general anti-Israel lie:

‘while Revisionist Zionists did claim Jordan and parts of Lebanon and Syria as a part of Eretz Yisrael during the Mandatory period, no Zionist ever laid claim to or sought to control Egypt, Sudan or Iraq, much less Mecca and the Persian Gulf.’

Moreover no Israeli political party today (not even Meir Kahane's Kach) aspires to Israeli rule over all that territory; rather, those on the right now only demand that Israel not give up any part of territory under its control.

Pipes also points out that the difficulties Israel has experienced with ruling over the less than four million Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 40 years surely puts to rest the grandiose notion of five million Jews ruling a Muslim population twenty-five times larger. It’s laughable! How would the Israel Defense Forces handle an intifada in Cairo for example?

In addition, Israel did have a chance to choose their ‘desired’ borders in June 1967, and they stopped far short of the Nile and the Euphrates. Had they plans to expand to those rivers, they could have done so with virtual impunity at that time.

It is sad that a journalist of Sparks’ reputation has now added his own variant to this anti-Israel falsehood.

Previously at IAS:
Sparks smears Israel at international investment conference
Allister in Wonderland
Response to 'Boys who cried anti-Semitism'

Comments

[TC]

Of course Israel has no intention of conquering all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. But why not consider giving more of this land to the Palestinians? I'm not suggesting that Israel should cede more of its land; that would be silly. Why not put pressure Syria and Jordan to cede land to the Palestinians? I'm not claiming, as others have, that Jordan is Palestine or that Palestine is Syria. But the Arabs states surrounding Israel demand much from Israel; why is there no demand for Syria and especially Jordan to compromise, and cede (very) small portions of their countries for a Palestinian state, and the sake of peace?

[Steve]

Thats a brilliant point TC. A country like Egypt which occupied Gaza and treated the Palestinians very harshly without ever granting them citizenship should carry some of the territorial burden. Gaza can be enlarged if Egypt were to cede some territory.

But I can assure you this will never happen.

[Gary]

I believe that a Palestinain state cannot be viable because they have no reasonable leaders. I would support the Arab-majority areas of the WEst Bank being absorbed back into Jordan, and the major stettlement blocks being absorbed into Israel, with Gaza being absorbed back into Egypt.
After all the West Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt repectively before the 6 Day War, and there is no seperate Palestinian nation, nor was there ever one.

There is simply no 'Palestinian' leaders with whom one can trust to live in peace, while the Jordanian Hashemite monarchy are reasonable, descent people, whith whom Israel can surely live besides harmoniously.

[Steve]

Gary,
The anti-Israel left wants a single state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. They dont mind if this minimises the separate national identities.

But the anti-Israel left would never tolerate a single state solution which combines the Palestinians with Egypt and Jordan as you describe. When rejecting this solution separate national identities suddenly become important.

Why is this? Surely if you consider a solution where the Palestinians join a neighbouring state to form a single state solution it makes more sense to build this state with other Arabs where there is a shared Arabic identity, language and religion.

Maybe the anti-Israel left only wants a single state solution because it achieves the destruction of Israel, which is there real goal.

[Gary]

Exactly the point!
The anti-Israel Left are motivated purely by hate for Israel, perhaps as an extension of their hate for Judeo-Christian civilization.

Let the anti-Israel Left go to hell!
The Palestinians must be combined back into Egypt and Jordan.
Before that Israel and the moderate Arab states like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia need to crush Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP and the more radical elements in Fatah.
And South Africa, the ally of Syria, Iran, Libya ,Hezbullah and Hamas, must just stay out!

[SnoopyTheGoon]

Re that Nile and Euphrates canard - check that special version of the flag on our site. There is a real explanation of the two blue stripes, if you click on the flag...

Cheers.

[TC]

Steve, to add to your point. The Arab states, especially Jordan, ought to carry some territorial burden because (i) their wars against Israel are partly responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis, (ii) they've subsequently treated the Palestinians brutally, (iii) parts of their land is as much historical Palestine as is Israel, (iv) they have a shared identity, religious and cultural, with the Palestinians, (v) this would not jeopardise or bring about the destruction of their own countries, and (vi) this is far more likely to bring about peace than is any other proposal.

This is a pretty strong cumulative case. Does anyone have any points to add?
Does anyone disagree with any of these points?

Steve, you suggest that such concessions would never happend. But I wonder how seriously they've ever been proposed. If the Israeli's made a case for it frequently, it might be taken more seriously - it is a very reasonable plan, which places demands on all parties.

The small parts of Israel, Jordan and perhaps Syria that would be ceded would certainly constitute a territorially viable Palestinian state. Gary, as for their leaders, they would have very little to complain about after such concessions, and the demands would stop with some pressure from the Arab states making the concessions.

[Steve]

TC, nice comment.

As far as I know, Jordan relinquished there claim on the territory in the 90's and by doing so they have rejected out of hand any proposal modeled along these lines.

But it is a very strong case. If the creation of a Palestine is not of primary importance (in that they want a single state) then the state they join up with should be an Arab state. You listed great points.

But things can change very quickly and a settlement that isnt even considered today might be on the table tomorrow. I think a debate around this needs to take place. Unfortunately there is no discussion about this.

If as the single state supporters claim, the Palestinian state in WB and Gaza is not viable then why should the onus be on Israel to incorporate the Palestinians? It makes more sense for Jordan and Egypt to do this.

[Gary]

AND if the Israeli control over the West Bank is illegal (although it was taken in a defensive war and was part of the land promised to the Jews by the League of Nations in 1922), then why should the West Bank and Israel be merged to form a single 'unitary' state?
Was the 'occupation' of the West Bank by jordan and Gaza by Egypt illegal?
If it was, why was everybody silent then?
If it was not,then it should surely be returned to Jordan and Egypt.
But you cannot reason with these blind leftist Israel-haters.