Getting the Whole Loaf—And More

The following editorial was printed in our issue dated June 28, 1982, after the Israelis completed their sweep into Lebanon. We are reprinting it, because we believe it is just as relevant as it was then.

Back in 1947, the Arabs were offered part of the loaf of Palestine by the United Nations, which wanted to partition the mandated area that Britain was giving up. To the Arabs, it didn't sound like a very good deal. Among other things, they were being asked to accept as their country less than half of the total area, even though they owned more than 90 percent of the land and outnumbered the Jews of Palestine (most of whom had not been born there anyway) by two to one. So they gave an honest and heartfelt answer: Thanks, but no thanks.

The Jews of Palestine decided to accept the part of the loaf that was being offered to them. Their acceptance was also heartfelt—but there was nothing very honest about it. They knew that the territory they were being given was nowhere near as much as they wanted. After all, even the city of Jerusalem, which they regarded as the "eternal" capital of their faith, was not included in their state. So they accepted their part of the loaf with mental reservations, determined to get the rest of the loaf as soon as they could.

The First Extra Slice

The Jews were able to slice off more of the loaf during the 1948 war in which the Arab Palestinians, with the assistance of armies from neighboring Arab states, tried vainly to hold onto what they regarded as their country. Then, for most of the next 20 years, while Arabs refused to acknowledge that what they had thought was unjust in 1947 was somehow no longer unjust, the Israeli government kept telling the world that all would be well if only the Arabs would sit down and sign a peace treaty with Israel—implying strongly that Israel had no more territorial ambitions. Yet after the Israelis captured Jerusalem during their "preemptive" war against Egypt's Nasser in 1967, Israel's leaders exulted openly over having "regained," "at last," their sacred capital—without which, they said, they could never have considered their state to be complete. They now had a new, important hunk of the loaf.

Golan, Gaza and the West Bank were also taken in 1967, and for several years Israel's leaders talked of these as lands where they would be reluctantly compelled to establish some Israeli controlled zones for"security" purposes—even though, they acknowledged, the lands were Arab. But as years of occupation dragged on, and the Palestinians began to hint strongly (and seriously) that they might be willing to settle, after all, for the piece of the loaf represented by the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli approach hardened. First, Jewish settlements were established in growing numbers in the occupied territories, and measures were taken to integrate their economies into Israel—acts which made it look less and less likely that Israel intended ever to leave. Then, after Mr. Begin took over, the mask came off: he began referring to the West Bank by its biblical names, Judea and Samaria; announced that both the West Bank and Gaza had always been part of the historic Eretz (Land of) Israel; and moved quickly toward de facto annexation—while annexing Syria's Golan Heights along the way. These moves left Israel with virtually the entire loaf of what was the Mandate of Palestine in its pantry.

South Lebanon Next?

Now, Israel is deep into Lebanon, a country of which Mr. Begin says he does not want "one square inch." Many of us should be pardoned for having doubts. Yes, it is probable that Israel will not remain forever in the vicinity of Beirut, or in other parts of central Lebanon. But recent history should warn us that there is a good chance unless the world wakes up and tries to do something about Israel's predatory behavior—that the southern area of Lebanon up to the Litani River will eventually suffer the same fate as the West Bank and Gaza. You say that South Lebanon is not part of the loaf of Palestine? Perhaps not, but that's not the fault of the post-World War I Zionists who sought unsuccessfully at the Versailles Peace Conference to have the Litani River declared to be the northern border of the proposed Palestine Mandate, because of the importance of its water. Like them, Mr. Begin also believes in the importance of this water to Israel's future, and like them he has belonged to the school of Zionism which thinks Palestine's borders were drawn too restrictively. At the moment, in disclaiming any territorial ambitions, Mr. Begin talks of South Lebanon as no more than a "security" problem, in the same way that his predecessors talked of other adjacent Arab areas—since then, conquered and absorbed into Israel—more than 34 years ago. But the world should understand by now that the disarming words are always hedged with mental reservations. The record would suggest that Israel is still secretly scheming for more, even though it already has the whole loaf that was being argued over in 1947. The appetite grows while eating, as the French say. To the Israelis, one and a half loaves look a lot better than one.