I'd hardly defend the Irgun but you should keep in perspective that you are quite exaggerating thier involvement and deciding to ignore the fact that the arab violence far outweighed Jewish. I also wouldnt vilify Jews that attempted to segregate themselves. The sequence wasnt that arabs responded to Jews segregating it was Jews segregating due to arab violence.Berster7 wrote:
Millitant organisations to defend your people is one thing, terror groups to drive out the governing forces and murder as many random Arabs as possible are quite another.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- A few more fact finding questions about the Arab/Israeli deal
That's some nice grammar there.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Thats funny naming the Balfour as a League of Nations mandate invovles them in the deal. They dont have to specifically wrtie the deal to be involved. The league of nations being the geoverning body and making itan official mandate is about as involved as you can get.Berster7 wrote:
As I said, the league of nations were not involved in the deal.Sorry but having some illegal immigration does not therefore make all immigration illegal. The white paper which made mass immigration illegal was wrote in 1939 and that is the 5th aliyah ...Berster7 wrote:
As for the 3rd and 4th Aliyahs not being illegal, I should draw your attention to the Hope Simpson Royal Commission which acknowledged that illegal immigration had been occuring - this is before the begining of the 5th aliyah.
I don't understand your first paragraph, could you maybe re-write it in a legible format. The San Remo conference, which you have refered to earlier was 5 years after the Balfour declaration and the only mention of Jewish immigration in the mandate given to Britain was a word for word quotation of the Balfour declaration. The league of nations therefore had no part in the deal, certainly no contributions to it.
The British had been in charge of Palestine since way before 1922.
"having some illegal immigration does not therefore make all immigration illegal" - I never claimed it did. I said the aliyahs were illegal - mass scale immigration, which is what an aliyah is. The British obviously deemed it to be illegal by the fact that they set up naval blockades and the British made the laws for immigration. How can you possibly claim that they were not illegal. I have not calimed anywhere that ALL Jewish immigration throughout these periods was illegal, just the later aliyahs - especially aliyah beth (which I know was not an actual aliyah, but the avoidance of British immigration officials and naval blockades), the very definition for which is illegal.
Yes you directly called me a liar when I said Arab leaders agreed o the Balfour declaration. As far as moral authority I'd have to say they gained the authority on the basis that they are Arabs who lead the Arab revolt that aided to free the middle east from the Ottomans. Youd would prefer, as I said eariler, that instead of the Arabs who fought for independance the course should be determined by nomads and sheep herders who didnt' participate? You make the bed you sleep in had the Palestinians been capable of living in peace with thier neighbor these course of events would have never happened.CameronPoe wrote:
Calling you a liar? The line regarding arab non-compliance was lifted from Wikipedia. They were not my own words. Where did the arab leaders you mention in relation to the Faisal-Weizsmann discourse get the moral authority or mandate to toy with the lives of the Palestinians anyway? I pity the Palestinians - a temporary political vacuum destroyed their lives.
No if you're too stupid to be able to decipher a typo then too bad.Berster7 wrote:
I don't understand your first paragraph, could you maybe re-write it in a legible format.
Actaully it says there that they reaffirmed the Balfour declaration and it becate a class a mandate. Try to dissacociate it all day you are wrong the League of nations did contribute and attempt to enforce the Balfour declaration.Berster7 wrote:
The league of nations therefore had no part in the deal, certainly no contributions to it.
Because you are obviously way too dense I'll say it one last time for you. ONLY the 5th aliyah was deemed illegal. The blockade you refer to is the 5th aliyah that occured in 1939.Berstyer7 wrote:
I said the aliyahs were illegal - mass scale immigration, which is what an aliyah is. The British obviously deemed it to be illegal by the fact that they set up naval blockades and the British made the laws for immigration. How can you possibly claim that they were not illegal.
Fifth Aliyah (1929-1939)
Between 1929 and 1939
Aliyah Bet: Illegal immigration (1933-1948)
figure it out...
Please quote where I directly call you a liar because on poring through my posts I can't find it.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Yes you directly called me a liar when I said Arab leaders agreed o the Balfour declaration. As far as moral authority I'd have to say they gained the authority on the basis that they are Arabs who lead the Arab revolt that aided to free the middle east from the Ottomans. Youd would prefer, as I said eariler, that instead of the Arabs who fought for independance the course should be determined by nomads and sheep herders who didnt' participate? You make the bed you sleep in had the Palestinians been capable of living in peace with thier neighbor these course of events would have never happened.CameronPoe wrote:
Calling you a liar? The line regarding arab non-compliance was lifted from Wikipedia. They were not my own words. Where did the arab leaders you mention in relation to the Faisal-Weizsmann discourse get the moral authority or mandate to toy with the lives of the Palestinians anyway? I pity the Palestinians - a temporary political vacuum destroyed their lives.
Palestinians fought an influx of people they did not want invading their homeland. I respect that and would do the same if something similar occurred in my country. I believe they were morally correct in defending their territory, a territory they had no political control over (a crime of the British it has to be said). The leaders did not have any democratic mandate to make decisions on behalf of the Palestinians. The fact that their stance was not representative of popular opinion in the middle east makes their meddling even more reproachable. I like the way you disparage the notion of democracy so casually: 'nomads and shepherd herders' - how condescending can you get.
The response to Arab violence (which was, unambiguously appalling) is understandable. The attacks on the British governing forces for not preventing the attacks are inexcusable. When the Hebron massacre occurred there was 1 British police official present (Raymond Cafferata), who later gave this testimony: "On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him."(Wikipedia).ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
I'd hardly defend the Irgun but you should keep in perspective that you are quite exaggerating thier involvement and deciding to ignore the fact that the arab violence far outweighed Jewish. I also wouldnt vilify Jews that attempted to segregate themselves. The sequence wasnt that arabs responded to Jews segregating it was Jews segregating due to arab violence.Berster7 wrote:
Millitant organisations to defend your people is one thing, terror groups to drive out the governing forces and murder as many random Arabs as possible are quite another.
The British had stood up for the Jewish settlers in these instances, despite the fact that the only police officer was outnumbered massively. The attacks on the British - which are what led to the creation of the state of Israel, by driving out any mediatory presence, are what I find completely unacceptable. It is this that shows that the nation of Israel was founded by terrorists.
The Irgun do not represent all of Israel or the founding.Berster7 wrote:
It is this that shows that the nation of Israel was founded by terrorists.
I believe it is in that 60 something deep page thread but I'm really not going to dig through all that to find itCameronPoe wrote:
Please quote where I directly call you a liar because on poring through my posts I can't find it.
Actaully thats just a refrence to the lack of cohesiveness of any Palestinian body they are supposed to negotiate with. Also youre mighty altruistic thinking a system of Imperialistic monarchies in England and the Arab kings would somehow decide to participate in granting some sort of democratic process with at the very least a disjointed Palestinian body with no leadership or potential leadership to negotiate with.CameronPoe wrote:
I like the way you disparage the notion of democracy so casually: 'nomads and shepherd herders' - how condescending can you get.
How can a country that at that time had no real democratic process of thier own be expected to concede one to a defeated nation ?
It's not a typo. Just appalling nonsensical grammar. If you're too stupid or lazy to know how to write, it's not my job to decipher your nonsense.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
No if you're too stupid to be able to decipher a typo then too bad.Berster7 wrote:
I don't understand your first paragraph, could you maybe re-write it in a legible format.
What is the part in bold, which is spelt correctly, supposed to mean?ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Thats funny naming the Balfour as a League of Nations mandate invovles them in the deal. They dont have to specifically wrtie the deal to be involved. The league of nations being the geoverning body and making itan official mandate is about as involved as you can get.
Aliyah beth was not a particular type of immigration. It describes the attempts of illegal Jewish immigrants to get into the country, rather than being any seperate incident.
The Hope Simpson Royal Commission (1930) spoke of continuing illegal immigration (have a look). The 5th aliyah did not begin in 1929 as you have stated but in 1933 with the rise of Nazism. The 4th aliyah did end in 1929, but the next wave (which is what an aliyah is, a wave of mass immigration) did not begin immediately, that is not to say immigration halted entirely - just no aliyahs then.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-20 14:05:03)
No, but the Haganah do, who were also a terrorist organisation and later became the IDF, oh sorry - I meant are still a terrorist organisation.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The Irgun do not represent all of Israel or the founding.Berster7 wrote:
It is this that shows that the nation of Israel was founded by terrorists.
Irgun and Lehi were instrumental in the founding of Israel, as I stated earlier, by their extreme terror attacks driving the British away - but you haven't bothered to include that in your quote. Were it not for the terror attacks, there would at least have been external moderation in the region and it is unlikely that the British would have authorised the formation of such a state.
The point is that the whole thing was unjust. Of course non-democratic regimes would not grant democracy to the Palestinians. It doesn't mean the decisions made affecting Palestinians were just or correct. They weren't even consulted. A referendum would have been nice.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Actaully thats just a refrence to the lack of cohesiveness of any Palestinian body they are supposed to negotiate with. Also youre mighty altruistic thinking a system of Imperialistic monarchies in England and the Arab kings would somehow decide to participate in granting some sort of democratic process with at the very least a disjointed Palestinian body with no leadership or potential leadership to negotiate with.CameronPoe wrote:
I like the way you disparage the notion of democracy so casually: 'nomads and shepherd herders' - how condescending can you get.
How can a country that at that time had no real democratic process of thier own be expected to concede one to a defeated nation ?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-20 16:00:24)
I read somewhere from a quote taken from a jordanian intelligence officer "Democractic reform in the middle east is like toilet paper, use once then throw away" he was referring to situations like Hamas gaining power or the Sadr gaining power in Iraq or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who are now an accepted "political" party.
So if tomorrow the Irish govt allowed 75 thousand Palestinains per 5 years migrate there you would start attacking them ? And of course by you I mean the PIRA no offense but you dont strike me as the 'fighter' type just tought talk.CameronPoe wrote:
Palestinians fought an influx of people they did not want invading their homeland. I respect that and would do the same if something similar occurred in my country.
This will be the last time I try to drill this fact into your thick skull. The League of Nations endorsing and promoting the Balfour Declaration and publishing it as a class A League of Nations mandate is absolute involvement.Berster7 wrote:
As I said, the league of nations were not involved in the deal.
Here's a question: If the Muslims in Spain continue to grow in numbers, and vote in Sharia law, most probably in the South of Spain, is anyone going to call it illegal?
The best case that can be made to me is that the Jews just all decided in mass that they were going to head that way and, through force of numbers, take over.
Very similar to what is happening with the Muslims in Spain and Indonesia, and with the Mexicans in Texas, Arizona, and Southern California.
If that's the way it went down I have no problem with it. If whoever was incharge didn't want the Jews there, they shouldn't have let them in the place.
If they were allowed in under guise of peace and used terrorist tactics to establish power, I've got a problem with that.
I'll need to do more reading.
It's a damned shame there isn't more information from unbiased sources.
The best case that can be made to me is that the Jews just all decided in mass that they were going to head that way and, through force of numbers, take over.
Very similar to what is happening with the Muslims in Spain and Indonesia, and with the Mexicans in Texas, Arizona, and Southern California.
If that's the way it went down I have no problem with it. If whoever was incharge didn't want the Jews there, they shouldn't have let them in the place.
If they were allowed in under guise of peace and used terrorist tactics to establish power, I've got a problem with that.
I'll need to do more reading.
It's a damned shame there isn't more information from unbiased sources.
Basically it all boils down to, the British gave them an inch and they took a mile...
The Arabs did a whole lot of bad stuff too, but the Jewish settlers did take the piss a bit - which upset the Arabs, they killed lots of Jews, the Jews formed militant organisations to defend themselves, it all went a bit far and the Jewish militant groups blamed the British for not controlling the violence which had arisen from them taking it all a bit far - so they started killing the British, who got quite pissed off about it and fucked off back home leaving quite a mess behind them, the Jewish militants were the dominant force in the area then and they formed a state, later legitimised by the UN.
There we go, all in one sentence.
Irgun and Haganah, were both listed as terrorist organisations by the British government and used bombs and other means to attack British outposts and officials as well as attacks on British and Arab civilians - I do not know, but I doubt Haganah would have been involved in killing of British civilians, Irgun were.
Dersmikner, I'm sure we've given you enough info to do some reading and find out some more for yourself.
The Arabs did a whole lot of bad stuff too, but the Jewish settlers did take the piss a bit - which upset the Arabs, they killed lots of Jews, the Jews formed militant organisations to defend themselves, it all went a bit far and the Jewish militant groups blamed the British for not controlling the violence which had arisen from them taking it all a bit far - so they started killing the British, who got quite pissed off about it and fucked off back home leaving quite a mess behind them, the Jewish militants were the dominant force in the area then and they formed a state, later legitimised by the UN.
There we go, all in one sentence.
Irgun and Haganah, were both listed as terrorist organisations by the British government and used bombs and other means to attack British outposts and officials as well as attacks on British and Arab civilians - I do not know, but I doubt Haganah would have been involved in killing of British civilians, Irgun were.
Dersmikner, I'm sure we've given you enough info to do some reading and find out some more for yourself.
Bertster, the way it seems from having read some Wikipedia, some BF2S posts, and what other things I could get my hands on, the British were basically in control of a large portion if what is being called "Palestine" by some and Israel by most maps these days.
What is in question is whether or not there was a legit, international agreement to form a Jewish state in that area.
At the very least, it seems to me as an unbiased third party, there was intent on the part of the British government, and more than likely the League of Nations, to establish a Jewish state.
Apparently when the Jews heard this they ran with it. There was violence, understandable in my estimation, from the Arabs of the area, and counter-violence from the Jews. Instead of straightening things out the Brits bailed, leaving a power vacuum.
The better armed, funded, and organized Jews seized control, called themselves Israel, and got to work creating a democratic government and free-market economy, that has flourished despite no real natural advantages over anyone else in the region.
Whether it was right or wrong is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Israel exists whether anyone in the Arab world wants to recognize it or not.
It might be argued, though it's a stretch, that the way the "Palestinians" are attacking the Israelis is similar to what the Jews did to create Israel. Hard to say. Even if the Jews had the blessing of the League of Nations and Britian I can understand a violent reaction to the "nation building" because if the U.N. and Washington said that Mexico could have Texas they'd have hell on their hands getting it as long as I were breathing. Still, that's at least a reasonable argument.
So, the answer is to give the Palestinians a free, contiguous country with a duly elected government and sovereign borders, and if there's any more bullshit with anyone there should just be a war. Winner takes all. If I were Israel I'd tell everyone I'm giving Palestinians a "Palestine", and if I kept getting attacked I'd kill them all and take their land, just like war "used to be".
I'd say the same to Lebanon. Pretty soon either (a) the Arabs will lay off Israel, (b) they'll continue to attack Israel and the Israelis will conquer the better part of everything close to them, or (c) the Arabs will end Israel as we know it.
Then we can stop worrying about hijacked jetliners and terrorists blowing up trains.
If the terrorism continues after one of the three conditions above happens, we'll just have to kill all the Muslims.
I'd rather we all just play nice.
[edited for spelling]
What is in question is whether or not there was a legit, international agreement to form a Jewish state in that area.
At the very least, it seems to me as an unbiased third party, there was intent on the part of the British government, and more than likely the League of Nations, to establish a Jewish state.
Apparently when the Jews heard this they ran with it. There was violence, understandable in my estimation, from the Arabs of the area, and counter-violence from the Jews. Instead of straightening things out the Brits bailed, leaving a power vacuum.
The better armed, funded, and organized Jews seized control, called themselves Israel, and got to work creating a democratic government and free-market economy, that has flourished despite no real natural advantages over anyone else in the region.
Whether it was right or wrong is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Israel exists whether anyone in the Arab world wants to recognize it or not.
It might be argued, though it's a stretch, that the way the "Palestinians" are attacking the Israelis is similar to what the Jews did to create Israel. Hard to say. Even if the Jews had the blessing of the League of Nations and Britian I can understand a violent reaction to the "nation building" because if the U.N. and Washington said that Mexico could have Texas they'd have hell on their hands getting it as long as I were breathing. Still, that's at least a reasonable argument.
So, the answer is to give the Palestinians a free, contiguous country with a duly elected government and sovereign borders, and if there's any more bullshit with anyone there should just be a war. Winner takes all. If I were Israel I'd tell everyone I'm giving Palestinians a "Palestine", and if I kept getting attacked I'd kill them all and take their land, just like war "used to be".
I'd say the same to Lebanon. Pretty soon either (a) the Arabs will lay off Israel, (b) they'll continue to attack Israel and the Israelis will conquer the better part of everything close to them, or (c) the Arabs will end Israel as we know it.
Then we can stop worrying about hijacked jetliners and terrorists blowing up trains.
If the terrorism continues after one of the three conditions above happens, we'll just have to kill all the Muslims.
I'd rather we all just play nice.
[edited for spelling]
Last edited by Dersmikner (2006-08-21 07:02:28)
That's a poor analogy. The Irish government was put there by the votes of myself and my fellow countrymen and purports to carry out its functions to serve my best interests. No such entity or situation existed in WWI to WWII Palestine. In fact the powers that be back then were operating exactly oppostie to the best interests of the Palestinians (allowing immigration under their watch), the results of which can be seen today. In the absence of any protective 'overlord' I would have no choice but to take up arms to ensure that my best interests, and those of my brethren, were served.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
So if tomorrow the Irish govt allowed 75 thousand Palestinains per 5 years migrate there you would start attacking them ? And of course by you I mean the PIRA no offense but you dont strike me as the 'fighter' type just tought talk.CameronPoe wrote:
Palestinians fought an influx of people they did not want invading their homeland. I respect that and would do the same if something similar occurred in my country.
PS If immigrant Mexicans declared an independent state in California I'm sure you wouldn't like it. Same goes for if an Irish Republic was declared on your eastern seaboard. The Native Americans didn't have any choice but to fight the immigration of Europeans and the same principle applied/applies in Palestine.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-21 00:57:20)
Hamas do not represent all of Palestine or Islamﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The Irgun do not represent all of Israel or the founding.Berster7 wrote:
It is this that shows that the nation of Israel was founded by terrorists.
same for Hez and Lebanon
why do people insist on calling all Muslims terrorists?
i think the majority of Israelis want peace without seeing the destruction of all Muslims.
same can be said about majority of Muslims.
There's a big difference between the Muslims in Syria, Iran, Libanon who support terrorism and the Palestinians. Fact is, that the Palestinians really suffer under the Israeli forces (and vice versa) and what is the real solution is to take out of charge and kill the current leaders of both Israel and 'Palestinia' because you know... what the Media doesn't show you is that people there CAN and WANT to live in peace TOGETHER. The average Joe there doesn't care if his neighbor is Israeli or Palestinian, all he wants is peace. They are all scared and have to suffer because of their leaders which leads to the skewed view that they actually hate each other.the_hitman_kills wrote:
Hamas do not represent all of Palestine or Islamﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The Irgun do not represent all of Israel or the founding.Berster7 wrote:
It is this that shows that the nation of Israel was founded by terrorists.
same for Hez and Lebanon
why do people insist on calling all Muslims terrorists?
i think the majority of Israelis want peace without seeing the destruction of all Muslims.
same can be said about majority of Muslims.
Last edited by Vintageologist (2006-08-21 07:06:33)
Yes this is usually the case. The stronger country naturally wins. Survival of the fittest, evolution. The only reason Israel was able to beat the Arabs was down to Military and Intelligence aid form the US. The Americans were able to provide Israel with Intel which swung it. Israel took out all the air power on the ground and the war was over from there.Dersmikner wrote:
All nations were formed and borders created by military superiority, so now that I think about it, I'm sick of hearing them whine. If the Arabs don't like it, just take the Jews out. If they can't because they have a clusterfuck of a military complex, so be it, I'm tired of hearing them whine.
Its not survival of the fittest, but survival of the friends of the fittest.
Wait did the violence suddenly start when Israel declared thier statehood? The violence had been going on for decaades against the Jews simply becuase they moved to Palestine and bought homes. I think yiour anaology is apt tho I live in Houston Texas and we've had a constant influx of illegal Mexican immigrants for decades. The difference is instead of wanting to bomb murder and riot against them I have Mexican friends and learned Spanish.CameronPoe wrote:
If immigrant Mexicans declared an independent state in California I'm sure you wouldn't like it.
Well you can count the number of Irgun members that have been in the Knesset since 1948 on zero hands. A big difference between Israel terrorists and Palestinian ones *aside from the huge discrepancy in greater number of attacks by the Palestinians* is that in Israel a terrorist is sought out prosecuted and jailed. In Palestine a terrorist is elected to lead the government and called a hero.the_hitman_kills wrote:
Hamas do not represent all of Palestine or Islam
same for Hez and Lebanon
I'll agree that terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah dont speak for every Palestinian and Lebonese person. However when you elect these people *14 seats in the parliament in Lebanon 2 in the cabinet* and *Hamas having complete control of the govt* that these terrorist goups are not just fringe extremists but are elected becuase they do represent a significant number of the populace. Therefore while they dont not speak for absolutly everyone they speak for a lot of Lebonese and most of the Palestinians.
Maybe so, but Moshe Sneh was in the Knesset from 1949 to 1973 (with a brief interlude in the 60's). It was he who ordered the bombing of the King David hotel in 1946 in which 91 people were killed. Moshe Sneh was not a member of Irgun, but issued orders to them, which in my opinion makes him a terrorist too.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Well you can count the number of Irgun members that have been in the Knesset since 1948 on zero hands. A big difference between Israel terrorists and Palestinian ones *aside from the huge discrepancy in greater number of attacks by the Palestinians* is that in Israel a terrorist is sought out prosecuted and jailed. In Palestine a terrorist is elected to lead the government and called a hero.
Or what about Irgun leader Menachem Begin, who later became the first Israeli prime minister elected from the Likud party?
In 1948 Irgun and Lehi were disbanded and their members integrated into the newly formed IDF, the successor of Haganah - so the IDF at least was composed, at least partly (if not entirely as the British had earlier declared), of terrorists. I think this is a bad start for a government or an army no matter which way you look at it.
The majority of terrorist suspects held in Israel are never prosecuted, but are imprisoned indefininately without trial. The UN have been calling for the release of several prisoners the Israelis have been holding for 30 years without trial. This was one of the factors that sparked the recent aggression in Lebannon - the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were to be traded for the imprisoned Hezbollah members.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
in Israel a terrorist is sought out prosecuted and jailed.
I cannot see what the difference between the Israeli government and army being formed from ex-terrorists and Hezbollah being elected to government. Hezbollah are a reforming terror group - much like the IDF, although they have a little way left to go.
Jewish attitude towards Arabs upon reaching PalestineWait did the violence suddenly start when Israel declared thier statehood? The violence had been going on for decaades against the Jews simply becuase they moved to Palestine and bought homes. I think yiour anaology is apt tho I live in Houston Texas and we've had a constant influx of illegal Mexican immigrants for decades. The difference is instead of wanting to bomb murder and riot against them I have Mexican friends and learned Spanish.
"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."
Zionist writer Ahad Ha`am
Proposals for Arab-Jewish Cooperation
"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907… called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity…Like Ahad-Ha`am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession …Epstein `s solution to the problem, so that a new ‘Jewish Question’ may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual… The vision of the non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness."
Israeli author, Benjamin Beit- Hallahmi,
Were the early Zionists planning on living side-by-side with the Arabs?
In 1919, the American King-crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated,"The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in it favour… The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to practically complete dispossession of the present non- Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase…
"If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole- are emphatically against the entire Zionist program…To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted…No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program…The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered."
Quoted in "The Israel- Arab Reader",
ed. Laqueur and Rubin.
Given Arab opposition to them, did the Zionists support steps towards majority rule in Palestine?
"Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country…[Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine…[Churchill declared,] ‘ The present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self- government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished."
David Hirst, "The Gun and the Olive Branch."
Denial of the Arabs’ right to self- determination
"Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights…Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise."
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins"
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- A few more fact finding questions about the Arab/Israeli deal