In an editorial published in Paris the day after Robert Kennedy's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, Le Monde wrote that this "criminal gesture by a Palestinian nationalist on this 5th of June 1968-anniversary of the Six-Day War-takes on a symbolic value. . . . Never have despair and hatred been so intense in a people who consider themselves deprived of their homeland."
Eric Rouleau is the chief Middle East correspondent and editorialist of Le Monde in Paris.
In an editorial published in Paris the day after Robert Kennedy's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, Le Monde wrote that this "criminal gesture by a Palestinian nationalist on this 5th of June 1968-anniversary of the Six-Day War-takes on a symbolic value. . . . Never have despair and hatred been so intense in a people who consider themselves deprived of their homeland."
This appraisal, which would today appear both just and commonplace, provoked an explosion of indignation at the time. Many readers, although not at all implicated in the Israeli-Arab conflict, wrote to the editors of the paper to protest the use of the word "Palestinian." Where was Palestine? Had it ever existed? A Paris Zionist weekly accused Le Monde of having resorted to expressions whose only objective was to "justify a murder." A number of editorials in the Israeli press, and the ambassador of the Jewish state in Paris in a letter to Le Monde, pointed out that "this Arab from Jerusalem" was not even a refugee, but only an "emigrant." In an unprecedented gesture, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, Abba Eban, circulated an official statement about the "incident" in which he stated: "This editorial belongs to the most shocking literature of incitement. . . . There are attempts in certain quarters to praise the murder and the murderer, and to defend bloodshed as a means of expressing a political opinion. . . ." And yet the editorial in Le Monde had not only called the assassination a "criminal gesture" but had condemned the Palestinians' "thirst for revenge."
These reactions illustrate very well the sensitivity of a certain segment of public opinion less than seven years ago when confronted with the Palestinian question. The anger it generated was understandable: many people could not conceive that one could speak of the aspirations or nationalist feelings-justified or not-of a people that did not exist, unless one was inspired by dark ulterior motives of a political nature. Seven months before Robert Kennedy's assassination, the United Nations Security Council had unanimously adopted a resolution (No. 242, of November 22, 1967), recommending "a just settlement of the refugee problem" without specifying the national identity of the refugees.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
WHEN the representatives of a war-weary world met at Paris in 1919 the problem of Palestine seemed one of the simplest of the many that confronted them. Turkey made no claim for the retention of her sovereignty. The system of Mandates was established with general approval, and Palestine was obviously a case for its application. As to the choice of a Power as Mandatory, there was only one candidate.
THE Report of the Royal Commission on Palestine closes an episode for whose origins we have to go back nearly a quarter of a century. In 1913 Abdullah, second son of Sherif Hussein, the Emir of Mecca, was passing through Egypt on his way to Constantinople, where he and his younger brother Feisal represented the Hejaz in the Turkish Chamber of Deputies. Lord Kitchener, then British Agent in Egypt, took advantage of Abdullah's temporary presence at Cairo to pay him a semi-formal visit of courtesy. Accompanied by Mr.
Rather than discuss the day-to-day tactics of all the governments involved in or formulating concrete proposals for the solution of the various detailed issues, I should like, in this article, to look at the problem of the Middle East from a larger historical point of view. Too many proposals have been made already and are being made daily. Nearly every Israeli minister and general has ideas of his own-which they tend to publicize-and I am sure that in the foreign ministries of the various powers involved, especially in Washington, committees of experts, planning groups and the like are working on all kinds of schemes covering possible eventualities. What seems to me most important, however, is to examine the deeper motivations which brought about the present very difficult situation.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.