Last month Haider Abu Gosh spoke at the Sturgeon Creek United Church at a talk before some 70 people, about what he believes was an injustice that occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War. 

In 1967, fourteen year old Haider Abu Ghosh  was living in  an Arab village Imwas.  Imwas, along with two other Arab villages in an area called the "Latrun salient" was conquered by the Israeli army during the Six Day War, and  its residents (approximately 5,000 to 10,000) were expelled to the West Bank. After the war concluded, all other residents within the West Bank that had been displaced by the war were allowed to return to their former villages. The exception was the residents of the Arab villages Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nuba who were barred from returning. Their villages were declared a closed military area, and the homes of the villages were demolished shortly after the war ended. Abu Ghosh claims that 10’s of villagers, mostly elderly and disabled were killed in the demolition process.  

The land was eventually developed into a national park, with funding assistance that included from the Canadian government, and was named “Canada Park”. In addition, the land was utilized to allow the construction of the main highway currently linking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and more recently, the fast train linking the two cities. The village residents were offered compensation, both monetary, and in terms of alternative land in the West Bank, but refused, insisting on their right to return to their villages.

Haider Abu Ghosh has become an activist seeking the right to return to these villages. He came to Winnipeg as part of a cross Canada tour, sponsored in part by the United Church of Canada, Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and CUPE.

Alan Baker,  who served as legal advisor to Israel's Foreign Ministry and Israel's ambassador to Canada (2004-2008)  has described what occurred in this area in the Canadian Jewish News as follows "In light of its strategic location commanding the main route to Jerusalem and the vital security implications involved, and in accordance with Israel’s rights pursuant to the rules of armed conflict, the area was declared by Israel to be a closed military area under strict military control, and the presence of the few civilians who remained after the majority had chosen to leave was prohibited. "

http://www.cjnews.com/uncategorized/opinion-canada-park-wasnt-stolen-palestinians

In his presentation, Abu Ghosh traced the history of his village back to the time of Jesus, where Imwas was said to be the meeting point of Jesus and his disciples. He argued that the land is occupied land in the same way the West Bank is occupied land, since neither was part of pre-67 Israel. As such, this land is recognized by Canadian foreign policy and the United Nations as occupied land. Because of this, he claimed that Canadian government funding for Canada Park was contrary to Canadian foreign policy, and may have resulted from the Canadian government being duped into believing it was part of Israel. He indicated that Canadian money was spent beyond the “green line”, because  maps of the villages and Canada Park clearly show that virtually all of  the land lies over the green line. 

Abi Ghosh himself drew a distinction between the Palestinian refugees of 1948, and those of his village, claiming that his villages were never part of the original state of Israel, having been conquered in 1967, and that virtually the entire world considers the land conquered by Israel in 1967 to be occupied, and not part of Israel.

Despite the fact that he was essentially a child driven from his home by war, I found myself having difficulty mustering much sympathy for Abu Ghosh and the villagers of Imwas.

To begin with, I found Abu Ghosh quite adept at avoiding outright lies, but presenting “facts” in a very distorted manner. For example consider  this statement he made: “What happened after 1948 is that there was no Palestinian state. What happened is that Israel occupied 50% of the what was supposed to be the Palestinian state, and ended up with 78% of the whole historic Palestine."

This sounds like a grave injustice to those unaware that “What happened” is actually that Israel (albeit without much enthusiasm) accepted the partition plan for Palestine. It ended up getting more land only because the Arab states and Palestinians refused the plan, and they launched a war that had as its goal the destruction of the Jewish state and the control all of Palestine.

In considering the formation of  Canada Park, it is also important to consider the history of Imwas and the Latrun salient prior to 1967, as well as the context of the conquering of the villages during the Six Day War.

There were a number of Arab villages that for a variety of reasons were not hostile to the Jewish community in Palestine prior to 1948, and a number of these villages were not attacked by the Hagahah in the 1948 war, and their residents were incorporated into Israel as citizens after 1948. One such village is ironically named the village of Abu Ghosh.  Like Imwas, it also borders the strategic area where Israel built highway one, the main road linking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It was not demolished, but in fact has thrived in post-48 Israel. It is considered an affluent Arab village, and Jewish Israelis flock to its many excellent restaurants. Relations between its residents and the surrounding Jewish neighborhoods are generally friendly.

One must ask why  Imwas was treated differently than the village of Abu Ghosh?  While Abu Ghosh did not participate in the attack on the Yishuv in 1948, the three villages of the Latrun salient were felt to have been an active part of the siege of Jerusalem in 1948. This strategic area was the site of many battles, as the Haganah sought to unsuccessfully conquer the area and break the siege of Jerusalem. These villages thus played an active and strategic role in blocking the route to Jerusalem and in attacking and bombarding both Jerusalem itself and convoys driving to and from Jerusalem.  From 1948 to 1967, these villages became part  of Jordan, which annexed them along with all of the West Bank  after the 1948 War (as opposed to giving the West Bank  over to Palestinians). Moreover, in the 1967 war,  the villages billeted Egyptian commandos who carried out an attack on Lod, near the Ben-Gurion airport. Therefore, there is clear evidence that the villages were hostile to Israel. Further, Jordan, which controlled these villages,  actively attacked Israel in June 1967, despite the fact that Israel had promised  Jordan that it would not be attacked if it stayed out of the hostilities between Israel and Egypt.

In short,what was missing in the narrative put forward at the United Church , was the fact that the villages were hostile to Israel, were involved in abetting attacks against the Yishuv in 1948, and against the state of Israel in 1967, and were ostensibly part of a state, Jordan, that carried out an unprovoked attack on Israel in 1967 with the goal of destroying the Jewish state. To expect Israel to conquer this strategic piece of land after being attacked by Jordan, and then to simply return it to its previous state of existence prior to the 67 war is unrealistic. Given the militarily importance of the area, Israel made a reasonable decision not to allow a hostile population back into the area after the war. It is clear that this was not part of some larger program of “ethnic cleansing”. These were the only three villages in the entire West Bank where residents were not allowed to return to their villages after the 1967 war. Further, after the  war, the Israel military issued a general declaration forbidding the wanton destruction of West Bank villages. In fact, when there were IDF soldiers who caused damaged to Arab homes in the West Bank town of  Qalqilya, Moshe Dayan, Israel's Chief of Staff  ensured that the  Israeli army subsequently repaired all the homes that were damaged.

While I understand why the villagers would not like what happened  , I also understand the rationale for the demolition of these villages.  

Abu Gosh's claims that people were killed when the village was demolished are difficult to substantiate, and it seems odd that Israel would go to such great lengths to empty the village of its Arab inhabitants on the one hand, prevent them from returning, and then fail to ensure all the residents were gone prior to the demolition. This is particularly so given the great care that was taken after the war to allow residents of the West Bank to return to their villages, and to repair the homes in those villages where they were damaged by the fighting.

Further, Allan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada has argued that not only were the villages housing hostile combatants, but that they were not actually definitively located outside pre-67 Israel, since they were in No Man's Land:

"In the 1949 Jordan-Israel armistice agreement, which terminated the hostilities [following the 1948 war]  but left the issue of “territorial settlements or boundary lines” open for future peace negotiations, the Latrun area, including what is now Canada Park, was determined as “No-Man’s Land” and a demilitarized zone between the forward lines of the forces, with strict limitations on any military presence or activity therein, and remained so until the 1967 Six Day War. 

The armistice demarcation line has never been considered to be a border and has never been so designated by United Nations agencies or governments, including Canada.”

During Haider Abu Ghosh’s presentation, he was shown discussing the fate of his village with Uzi Narkiss, the IDF general of the central command in 1967 who directed the fighting around Latrun. Narkiss allowed that there may be a role for considering the return of the residents to the village, but such a return will have to await the time when a full peace arose. Narkiss's statement was made, of course, many years ago, and the likelihood of the villagers returning to this location seems to me to be very unrealistic.