15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:18 am
Oh, yeah, you say there are euro-losers in the audience and I should be more circumspect in the kinds of terms I use??

No problem. As in:

How do you tell a euro-loser joke when there are euro-losers in the audience?

You tell it S - L - O - W .........[/b]
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:21 am
Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the current reality is that Israel was not attacking either the Palestinians or southern Lebanon nor was targeting Hezbollah when Hezbollah rewarded Israel's peaceful stance by initiating hostilities.


Really? Israel's peaceful stance? Foxy, what was going on in Gaza that prompted Hezbollah to stage the kidnapping?

(Not that I think that any of that could justify Hezbollah's attack. Just want to know if you're really interested in an objective view on the situation....)
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:26 am
gungasnake wrote:
Oh, yeah, you say there are euro-losers in the audience and I should be more circumspect in the kinds of terms I use??

No problem. As in:

How do you tell a euro-loser joke when there are euro-losers in the audience?

You tell it S - L - O - W .........[/b]


No no no. Use all the idiotic terms you want to. I can't prevent you from doing so anyway. Stick to your simplistic point of view. There's no need for people to be interested in the complexities of our modern world. If you are leading a good and happy life and enjoy insulting others because they do not share your no-brains approach to complicated issues, or because they are not of your religion, skin color or nationality, then that is probably a very good thing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:30 am
Don't encourage him OE, he's vocal enough as it is . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:45 am
no you dont you tell it 'slowly'

didnt you learn anything at reptile school?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 11:55 am
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the current reality is that Israel was not attacking either the Palestinians or southern Lebanon nor was targeting Hezbollah when Hezbollah rewarded Israel's peaceful stance by initiating hostilities.


Really? Israel's peaceful stance? Foxy, what was going on in Gaza that prompted Hezbollah to stage the kidnapping?

(Not that I think that any of that could justify Hezbollah's attack. Just want to know if you're really interested in an objective view on the situation....)


I've been reading about what has been going on in Gaza, both the activities of Hamas and the counter measures, including regularly raids, by Israel. Do you see Hamas and Hezbollah as the same organization?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:04 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
For me, the current reality is that Israel was not attacking either the Palestinians or southern Lebanon nor was targeting Hezbollah when Hezbollah rewarded Israel's peaceful stance by initiating hostilities.


Really? Israel's peaceful stance? Foxy, what was going on in Gaza that prompted Hezbollah to stage the kidnapping?

(Not that I think that any of that could justify Hezbollah's attack. Just want to know if you're really interested in an objective view on the situation....)


I've been reading about what has been going on in Gaza, both the activities of Hamas and the counter measures, including regularly raids, by Israel. Do you see Hamas and Hezbollah as the same organization?


What an interesting question. What prompted you to ask that one? Have I said something to that avail? I'm not aware of having done so. I said the events in Gaza "prompted Hezbollah" to stage the kidnapping. And you probably know that Hezbollah has made a pledge to support the Palestinian course (if that's something the Palestinians can be happy about is a different matter entirely). So why did you ask the question?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the key point here is that there is no moral or ethicaL basis on which to prefer one side or the other in this awful conflict. The net effect of the intervention of external powers has been to prevent a desisive victory by either party - in short to prolong the conflict and the suffering it entails.



The only quarrel I have with your ... argument is one additional component that you did not address.

That component is that from Day 1 of Israel's existence beginning in 1948, it has had to deal with hostile neighbors who did not want it there and who would have obliterated it by now had they been allowed free rein to do so. One must sympathise with the angst of having your markets and schools and school busses randomly firebombed, and appreciate that you do not reward people who commit and/or condone such acts.

I have posted several pieces demonstrating that non-Jews in Israel who conduct themselves as peaceful productive citizens are afforded full citizenship rights and are treated no differently from anybody else except that Arab Israelis are not required to be in the military so that they are not required to fire on other Arabs. They are allowed to be in the military if they volunteer, however.

Of course there are innocent Palestinians who have suffered terribly through no fault of their own other than they are too afraid to protest the terrorist activities of their leadership.

But I think it is unrealistic to expect Israel to conduct itself democratically and altruistically with people who hate Israel and who commit terrorist acts with deadly regularity. How much of that kind of stuff do you tolerate before you just want it stopped by any means necessary and you no longer much care who gets hurt?
.


I believe you overlook the fact that the Zionist leaders who were in Palestine before 1945; those who organized and led the exodus from Europe after WWII; and those who led the overt & secret Zionist organizations in Palestine in the years prior to 1948, all intended to obliterate the existing Palestinian government (as well as the British Protectorate that rather loosely tried to preserve the peace), ; drive out the Palestinian inhabitants; and create a Jewish State with preferential political powers and protections for Jews and a lesser status for any of the Moslem, Druze, and Christian inhabitants who remained. In short their motives, intentions, and plans were hardly different from those of the neighboring Arab states that invaded in 1947. There is no moral or ethical distinction to be made in this period either.


Setanta said it well
Quote:
My own point of view is that Israel consistently makes a dangerous bed, and complains of the necessity of lying in it. Due to guilt or political agenda, many people in western nations, and in particular the United States, join them in whining about the reality which Israel has created.


The tragedy here is that no one can fault the motives and needs of the Jewish emigrees who fled a war-devastated Europe after WWII in such numbers, or, for that matter the Europeans who helped and partly financed them in those early years.. The historical lesson here is that one evil begets another as long as those involved seek only the soluttion to their own problem or suffering. The Palestinians have become victims too.

All this is now overtaken by the Islamist reawakening, which has reimposed a degree of religious zealotry and intolerance not seen in the modern world since the sixteenth century, and augmented by the peculiar concepts of struggle against unbelievers and the unity of political and religious rule peculiar to that religion. One may argue that the Palestinian situation and other recent events are the cause, though I trace its origins farther back than that. Regardless, the West must deal with both right now, Very hard to find good, consistent answers and policy in this complex situation.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:25 pm
georgeob1 wrote:


...I believe you overlook the fact that the Zionist leaders who were in Palestine before 1945; those who organized and led the exodus from Europe after WWII; and those who led the overt & secret Zionist organizations in Palestine in the years prior to 1948, all intended to obliterate the existing Palestinian government .....



"Existing palestinian government" you say?????????????????????????

WHAT existing palestinian government? To th ebest of my knowledge, and I study history a lot, there has never been a country called "palestine", or anything remotely resembling a "palestinian government".

This something you mainly find in history books while smoking reefer??
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:27 pm
I agree with George that Muslim resentments derive from events older than the establishment of the state of Israel. The true evil influence of the Isreali-Palestinian equation in the politics of the Muslim world is that it provides a casus belli which distracts the population from any responsibility the governing entity has for the misery of the people. The Persian security agency under the Shah, the Savak (it's an acronym, and ought really to be renedered as SAVAK), was created by the CIA and the Isreali Mossad. The Mossad continued to train Savak operatives, and to fund the organizations hunt for radical Islamists among the Persians, and to prop up a Western-friendly regime headed by the Shah. Therefore, the Persians have a genuine grudge against Israel, which can be used to inflate ethnic and religious hatred. In the current embroglio, the implicit threat to Iran is not lost on the Mullahs as a means for diverting dissent against their regime to a hatred of Israel and the "Great Satan," in which role the United States so conveniently lies.

These tactis don't always work, of course. Anwar Sadat was a crony of Abdl Nassar from the early days of the Young Officers movement. After he came to power, the Egyptians managed to cross the Suez canal into the teeth of the Israeli army. Although the Israelis drove them back to the canal, they could not crush the bridgehead, and Sadat established his "heroic" credentials with the Egyptians as "the Hero of the Crossing." As economic conditions in Egypt worsened in the 1970s, univesity students began to march in the streets, chanting "Hero of the Crossing, where is our bread?" However, as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains, rulers of repressive and even brutal regimes have a means of distracting the population, and of channeling Muslim radical anger into resentment against Israel and the west. This has been a crucial element in the ascendancy and maintenance of control by a Syrian minority tribal leader, Hafez al-Assad, and his son and successor, Bashar al-Assad. Syria has been a militarist state virtually always in a state of mobilization since Hafez al-Assad took power in 1971 under the banner of the Ba'athist Arab Socialist party. Israeli, and the 1973 war, were tailor-made to prop up his regime and to justify its repressive nature.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:34 pm
There was indeed an existing government -- a British Protectorate and a provisional Arab government that functioned under it - both products if the destruction of the former ottoman Empire at the hands of the British and French some 26 years earlier. It is a fiction to assert there was no previous government -- certainly a convenient fiction, one the Israelis have repeatedly used to justify any number of political outrages imposed oon the prior inhabitants and the systematic theft of their land and property. Frankly I don't mind the theft and expropriation so much as the truly outrageous sophistry, hypocrisy and lies that are used to rationalize it all. You apparently are a consumer of this fiction.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:34 pm
After the end of the Great War, the Allied Supreme Council (comprised of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan), gave the English a mandate to govern Palestine. The British Mandate of Palestine (which we would think of as a combination of Israel and Jordan) was governed by Great Britain from 1920 to 1947. The area we know of as Jordan was usually referred to as the Trans-Jordan, and the territory was frequently referred to as Palestine and the Trans-Jordan. In 1947, Great Britain expressed its intention to abandon the mandate, and turned it over to the United Nations.

I did get a good laugh out Gunga Din saying he reads a lot of history, though--it apparently doesn't sink in.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:41 pm
Setanta wrote:
I did get a good laugh out Gunga Din saying he reads a lot of history, though--it apparently doesn't sink in.



Well, actually I thought after his response:
gungasnake wrote:
I study history a lot


more of those letterbox universities - you pay $50 and get a doctorate in history.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 12:53 pm
Setanta wrote:
I agree with George that Muslim resentments derive from events older than the establishment of the state of Israel. The true evil influence of the Isreali-Palestinian equation in the politics of the Muslim world is that it provides a casus belli which distracts the population from any responsibility the governing entity has for the misery of the people. The Persian security agency under the Shah, the Savak (it's an acronym, and ought really to be renedered as SAVAK), was created by the CIA and the Isreali Mossad. The Mossad continued to train Savak operatives, and to fund the organizations hunt for radical Islamists among the Persians, and to prop up a Western-friendly regime headed by the Shah. Therefore, the Persians have a genuine grudge against Israel, which can be used to inflate ethnic and religious hatred. In the current embroglio, the implicit threat to Iran is not lost on the Mullahs as a means for diverting dissent against their regime to a hatred of Israel and the "Great Satan," in which role the United States so conveniently lies.

These tactis don't always work, of course. Anwar Sadat was a crony of Abdl Nassar from the early days of the Young Officers movement. After he came to power, the Egyptians managed to cross the Suez canal into the teeth of the Israeli army. Although the Israelis drove them back to the canal, they could not crush the bridgehead, and Sadat established his "heroic" credentials with the Egyptians as "the Hero of the Crossing." As economic conditions in Egypt worsened in the 1970s, univesity students began to march in the streets, chanting "Hero of the Crossing, where is our bread?" However, as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains, rulers of repressive and even brutal regimes have a means of distracting the population, and of channeling Muslim radical anger into resentment against Israel and the west. This has been a crucial element in the ascendancy and maintenance of control by a Syrian minority tribal leader, Hafez al-Assad, and his son and successor, Bashar al-Assad. Syria has been a militarist state virtually always in a state of mobilization since Hafez al-Assad took power in 1971 under the banner of the Ba'athist Arab Socialist party. Israeli, and the 1973 war, were tailor-made to prop up his regime and to justify its repressive nature.


Looking at the current situation in Israel, many of those arguments can be applied there, too. Israel's current adventures in Lebanon and Gaza are in no way justifiable as of military necessity. They did nothing to make Israel safer, and Israel as a state was never in danger by some rockets fired into its territory - in a military sense, this was a nuissance at worst.

The "tough course" Olmert and Peretz have been steering serves little more than to establish their credentials with the population. Neither the Prime Minister nor his recently appointed Defence Minister have significant military backgrounds, though. A fact that seems to be obvious to the majority of Israelis after the misguided actions taken.

The hope was probably to come out of a swift and, for Hezbollah devastating, little adventure very much like Thatcher did after the Falklands war.

Anyhow, I would seriously question the motives, and I doubt that the current situation did any good for the population of Israel in the long run. Israel has managed to - once again - alienate governments which had in the recent past shown some goodwill towards Israel, or had at least remained neutral.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 01:46 pm
Who should be in Israel?

l. The occupation of Palestine by the Isrealites( Hebrews) , to whom the area was know as Cannan, was probably completed by the end of the 13th Century BC

2. Palestine was under Egyptian control from 1550 to 1200 BC

3. The Israelities gradually subdued Egypt's hold and then the Philistines emerged as a significant power in Palestine.

4. King David and Solomon built the first Temple of Jerusalem and the country was split--into two parts--Isreal and Judah.

5. Israel was overrun and destroyed by the Assyrians around 700BC but Judah survived until it was destroyed by the Babylonians around 600BC.

6. The Persians allowed the Jews to return to Israel. The Temple( Second) was rebuilt..After Alexander invaded, Palestine passed to the Ptolmoies and then to the Seleucids.

7. The Israelis gained independence under the Hasmoneans, after the desecration of the Temple. Then because of civil war, the Romans intervened and they crushed two Israeli revolts in which( 135AD) the JEWISH POPULATION OF PALESTINE WAS REDUCED TO A TINY FRACTION OF THE FORMER TOTAL AND ISRAEL WAS CEASED TO EXIST AS A POLITICAL ENTITY.

8. The Byzantines then brought some prosperity to Palestine but in the 7th Century, Palestine fell to the MUSLIMS AND AFTER THE MUSLIMS BUILT THE DOME OF THE ROCK IN JERUSALEM, THE CITY BECAME A HOLY CITY FOR THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS

9. Between 1000 to 1300, control of Palestine altrernated between the Muslims and invading Crusaders. By 1500 it had fallen to the Ottomans. Napoleon brought back Egyptian control under Muhammed Ali who OPENED PALESTINE TO WESTERN INFLUENCES. It was returned to the Ottomans in 1840. THE FIRST ZIONIST SETTLEMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1882.

10. THE BALFOUR DECLARATION OF 1917 STATED BRITAIN'S SUPPORT OF A NATIONAL JEWISH HOMELAND IN PALESTINE

11. THE BRITISH OCCUPIED PALESTINE IN 1918

12, THE UN VOTED IN 1947 TO PARTITION PALESTINE

13. ON MAY 14, 1948, THE STATE OF ISREAL WAS PROCLAIMED.

That History appears to give Israel a good claim on the land of Palestine


Now, I do not know how this is going to play out but I am certain of one thing---I visited Isreal in 1987 and talked to many people there--They will never surrender their lands. They say--NEVER AGAIN will we be pushed out of our territory. They mean it and will not line up to be put on the "trains" again.

And they will not be BULLIED:

Note:


Growing Dangers: U.S. Drive to Curb Doomsday Weapons In Mideast Is Faltering," Wall Street Journal, 9/6/96, p. A1), but one analyst concludes that "the Israeli nuclear arsenal contains as many as 400 deliverable nuclear and thermonuclear weapons." Harold Hough, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive A First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 9/97, p. 410. Israel's nuclear capability is by most accounts quite sophisticated, and may include "intercontinental-range, fractional-orbit-delivered thermonuclear weapons; thermonuclear or boosted nuclear-armed, two-stage, solid-fuel, intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000km; older, less accurate, nuclear-armed, theatre-range, solid-fuel ballistic missiles; air-deliverable, variable-yield, boosted nuclear bombs; artillery-delivered, enhanced-radiation, tactical weapons; and small nuclear demolition charges."
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 01:56 pm
I must, unfortunately interrupt the flow of today's posts to return to one of yesterday's posts--

Mr. Walter Hinteler wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BernardR wrote:
Please locate for me the post in which I said that Francis is cowardly, double dealing or useless, Mr. Hinteler.


BernardR wrote:
... ...
end of quote
Again, I repeat, the Cowardly, double talking, double dealing French are useless as they were just before World War II.

**********************************************************

Apparently, Mr. Walter Hinteler thinks that when I said that the French were cowardly and double dealing, I meant all of the French. Generalizations are almost never correct. However, I find it strange that both Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Francis do not attempt to rebut the reason( the evidence) that I used for calling the French Cowardly.

I referenced the renown classic "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by WIlliam Shirer in which Shirer quoted testimony that the French could have easily defeated the small German force that went into the Ruhr in 1937 and MIGHT have been able to forestall World War II and possibly unseat Hitler.

Instead of rebutting the evidence, Mr. Hinteler and Mr. Francis focused on their own personal umbrage.

Quite puerile!!!!

_________________
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:03 pm
BernardR wrote:
Generalizations are almost never correct.


Exactly. And nothing more was my point.

Thanks for acknowledging it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:12 pm
Heres a little history for those inclined to an interest in such.

By general scholarly consensus, there were roughly 16 to 18 Million Jews in the world at the eve of WWII, well more than half of whom, 10 to 12 Million by most estimates, lived in what today is Europe and the former Soviet Union. Immediately following that war, the Eastern European/former Soviet Union Jewish population had declined to fewer than 2 Million; 6 Million had died in The Holocaust, the remainder were scattered across the globe. There are today in the world some 14 Million Jews, give or take a few hundred thousand, with around 5.5 Million living in Israel (which has a total population of approximately 7 Million), and roughly the same number living in The US, which has the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel, though that is a tiny fraction (less than 1/50th) of the overall US population of nearly 300 Million.

Founded at the very end of the 13th Century in what then was known as Anatolia (more or less today's Turkey), the Ottoman Empire by the end of the 15th Century ruled a vast area extending from the Caucusus and the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the shores of The Persian Gulf, encompassing all of today's Near East, most of the Middle East, North Africa's entire Mediterannean coast, including Egypt, the Baltics and the entire Adriatic coast, the land around and the islands within the Aegean Sea, all of what today are considered The Arab Lands, much of South Eastern Europe (in the 15th Century, Vienna very nearly fell to the Ottomans), and, of course, what today is Turkey, along with bits of today's Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The empire began to enter a gradual decline around the middle of the 18th Century, beset by mounting internal chaos and dissention, eventually coming to be referred to disparagingly as "The sick man of Europe". Largely left behind by the Industrial Revolution, lacking contemporarily modern infrastructure such as electrical and communications grids, general public education system, up-to-date manufacturing capabilities, railroads and paved road networks, plagued with corruption, bitter political divisions, brigandry and widespread general lawlessness, what remained of the Ottoman Empire was the backwater of Western Civilization. However, unwell as it may have been compared to earlier vigor and glory, as the 20th Century dawned its size, influence, and reputation, even if not its power, remained considerable. Final collapse came with WWI; already torn by widespread internal revolt and independence issues, amounting almost to open civil war, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany, and thus ensured its own doom. Its once-substantial (and essentially German-led) military was wiped out in just about all but name over a series of disastrous campaigns, most notably Allenby's 1917-18 "Palestine Campaign", which left that region firmly in British hands. Among the results of realignments following that war, the strife-crippled former empire was thoroughly dismemembered, carved up, partioned away; after more than 6 centuries of glory, the Ottoman Empire was gone for good, consigned to history's rubbish tip.

In 1916, before WWI even had ended, the Sykes-Picot Agreement mandated to France and Britain the Southern portion of the hapless empire, what today are Lebanon and Syria were assigned to French oversight, today's Jordan and Israel (including the "West Bank") going to the British. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 itterated the intention to form a Jewish Homeland in the area under British mandate. Predating both of these, there existed a 1915 British assurance to the Sherif of Mecca that in return for Arab support against Germany and her allies (which of course included the Ottoman Empire) in the then-ongoing war, independence would be granted to the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire - provided, of course, that Britain did not lose the war, a happenstance the British were able to convince the Sherif was of vanishingly remote possibility. Lawrence of Arabia gets all wrapped up in this, but nevermind for now.

Overall, the area assigned to British oversight traditionally - from long before the time of the Crusades - had been referred to as "The Palestine". It was never a nation in any sense, just a conceptualized region, consisting largely of insect-infested, disease-ridden swamp and arid, barren desert. At that time (the beginning of the 1920s) the region was, and long, long had been, sparsely populated (fewer than half a Million inhabitants across an area roughly the size of New Jersey or today's Hungary), traversed by nomads, scattered about here and there with remote settlements of no more than a few dwellings and outbuildings - little more than large farms, really, tiny rural villages, and a few towns, with only a very few really worthy of being designated a "City". Civil Infrastructure outside the few larger towns and the even fewer cities was minimal, and most of what there was could best be described as primitive; few paved roads, virtually no municipal services, little if any law and order, no electric power or telephone grids - barely a telegraph grid, for that matter.

The late 19th Century saw the beginning of large-scale Jewish migration into the region, already, and for centuries before, home to a considerable Jewish population - perhaps a fifth of the area's total population - many with roots extending back to and in some cases well predating The Crusades, a few into pre-Roman Biblical times. The influx of European Jewish settlers brought with it the first real civil development the region had seen in well over a millenium, a boom, in fact.

These new settlers, primarily European and Russian Jews, began what only may be characterized as a rennaisance for the region, draining swamps, converting desert to farmland, raising settlements to villages, villages to towns, and towns nearly to cities. This growth encouraged the migration into the area of Arabs and others from the Greater Near and Middle East, drawn by employment opportunity and far superior living conditions than these native peoples had known for centuries beyond memory. Within a few decades, by the 1920s, the region's population essentially had exploded, Jew, Arab, Christian, Druze, and others alike, Jews comprising a modest majority throughout the region, a significant majority in the larger popultion centers. Most commerce and administration was conducted by Jews, Jews owned by far the greatest portion of arable land (having themselves largely reclaimed it from swamp and desert), and nearly all of what little industry there was (mostly producing agricultural and consumer goods and tools for domestic consumption) was of Jewish origin and ownership, a natural consequence of said enterprises largely having been established by Jews. This is not to say there was no native, non-Jewish agriculture, commerce or industry - most certainly there was and it formed a vital component of the local economy, though nowhere near the Jewish component.

In the early 1920s, the British in effect subdivided their administrational mandate, "The Palestine", creating two districts. One district, a narrow strip lying to the West of the Jordan River, which the British designated "Palestine", already preponderantly Jewish by population, was to not only permit but to encourage Jewish settlement. Lying to the East of the Jordan, the other, nearly four times times larger portion, the British designated "Trans-Jordan", restricting that district from further Jewish settlement (and forcing the only somewhat compensated displacement of a fair number of Jews at the time living and owning property and businesses in the district, incidentally), intending it to become the "Arab-Palestinian Homeland", envisioned to become eventualy a semi-autonomous member of what then was The British Commonwealth, while the smaller Eastern district was to become the "Jewish Palestinian Homeland", likewise intended and anticipated eventually to take its place as a partner in The British commonwealth.

Trans-Jordan, renamed "Jordan" shortly after WWII, was more or less given to the administrational control of a local strongman, Abdullah bin al-Hussein (or Husayn), whose family roots were anchored not in "The Pallestine", but in the Arabian Peninsula and were of the sort of intertwined sectarian and secular nobility common in Arab culture. Abdullah, technically an "Emir]/i]", or governor, effectively ruled as a king until 1949, at which point, with both Britain's and his parliament's approval, he formally became Abdullah I, the Hashemite King of Jordan and Jordan became a fully autonomous nation. On his death by assassination a couple years later, the crown passed to his son (by a British mother, one Toni Gardiner - quite a story there, but, again, never mind), Talal bin Abdullah, on who's abdication for reason of health (madness) within a couple years of his accession, Talal's then-yet-minor son, Hussein bin Talal, acceeded to the crown, ruling untill his death of natural cause in 1999, whereupon his son, Abullah II, current Hashemite King, assumed the crown. Anyhow, enough of Jordan for this discussion.

In the smaller, Eastern portion of the re-partitioned British mandate, now officially "Palestine" by British designation at the time of its forming, the British themselves, through Crown-Appointed Governors and functionaries, maintained direct administration. In contrast to the displacement of Jews from Trans-Jordan, and proscription against further Jewish settlement therein, Arabs and others were not institutionally displaced nor restricted from entering and setteling in "Palestine". Largely due to the far more robust economy of "Palestine", the partition attracted a steadily increasing stream of Arab settlers, largely from Trans-Jordan, but significantly from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula as well.

As the stream of non-Jewish, predominantly Arab, overwhelmingly preponderantly Islamic, immigrants into "Palestine" grew, so too grew tensions; the non-Jews perceiving themselves disadvantaged, disenfranchised, and otherwise oppressed by the majority Jewish population, who were by law confined to "Palestine", having option only to remain where they were or to quit the region altogether, the latter, given circumstances elswhere in the world, particularly Europe, not a practicably viable option.

Throughout the 1920's in "Palestine" (which was roughly 20% the size of what had been "The Palestine", remember), incidents of violence, primarily but not absolutely exclusively Arab-initiated and directed against Jews and to a lesser extent against British administrational infrastructure, began to increase, with Arab/Islamic leaders both in "Palestine" and elswhere pressing ever more stridently for the ouster of the Jews from what, by British intent and decree and with international assent was the smaller portion of the repartitioned British Mandate, the portion to which to which the Jews were restricted, and into which was flowing a small but not inconsiderable stream of European Jews , an immigrant stream a good deal less robust than that of Arabs and others entering "Palestine" from elsewhere in the region. 1920, '21, '23, and '26 saw major disturbances, Arabs attacking Jews and Jewish and British infrastructure. Throughout the decade, lesser outbreaks of violence and vandalism were frequent, at times almost weekly, occurances, mostly Arab-on-Jew, though there were a few Arab-on-British Mandate Infrastructure and Jew-on-Arab and Jew-on-British Mandate Infrastructure incidents.

In the late summer of 1929, there occurred a disturbance in Jerusalem in which 3 Jews and 3 or 4 Arabs were killed. A mob of Arabs, largely youths and young men, attacked a perhaps provocatively militant assembly of Jews asserting Jewish right to worship at the Wailing Wall, (a fragment of the temple destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), to the Jews the holiest site in Jerusalem. The Wall, located in the Arab sector of the city and the site of the Mosque of The Dome of The Rock, was also Islam's holiest site in the city and long had been a friction point. Rumors flew in the Arab community throughout "Palestine" following the riot, and the next day the town of Hebron, about 20 miles south of Jerusalem (in what now is known as "The West Bank"), became the scene of what contemporary Jewish history remembers as "The Hebron Massacre". One of the oldest most revered sites in all of Judaism, home to a Jewish community for more than 3 millenia, one of the oldest continually inhabited sites on Earth, and location of perhaps the oldest Jewish cemetary in the world, which at the time was - and still is - in use, Hebron then had, and had for generations beyond numbering had, a thriving, vibrant Jewish community, then numbering a few thousand.

Under the British administration, Hebron long had been considered a quiet, peaceful town, and the police department - the town's sole "law-and-order" asset - existed just
about in name only; it consisted of one full-time paid officer and a couple of more-or-less quasi-deputized part-time volunteers. That itself was not particularly notable; at the time, the entire Palestine Mandate security forces consisted of at most a few hundred British troops and a smattering of indigenous personnel, with only small arms and virtually no other military equipment, capability, or mission; little more than equivalent to impotent observers - hall monitors.

Over a 36-hour period, rampaging mobs of Arabs, again mostly youths, wreaked havoc on the Jewish community of previously tranquil Hebron, ransacking homes and businesses, pillaging Jewish temples and schools. The pitifully inadequate "police department" of course was powerless to intervene, and the tiny police station became a barricaded, besieged refuge for terrified Jews. A fair number of Arabs did shelter many Jews in their homes, and the mobs of youths certainly were nothing like a majority, nor even a numerically significant portion, of the community's Arab population. None the less, when the rampage ended nearly 70 Jews were dead (and, apparently, maybe a dozen or so Arabs), the Jewish business and residential neighborhoods were in ruins, and in the end the Jews were forced to leave Hebron, relocated to Jerusalem by the British "in the interest of keeping the peace".

"The peace" did not keep well. While for several years there was no repeat of anything like what happened at Hebron, violence continued to be directed by the Arabs of "Palestine" against the Jews of "Palestine"; vandalism, beatings, bombings and burnings of homes, businesses, schools and temples, and of course murders, ranging from lynchings to assassinations by mass gunfire were common. It wasn't a pretty time, and it was getting unprettier as time went on. To be fair, there was nearly as much, if not more, Arab-on-Arab violence and general lawlessness as there was violence directed by Arabs against the Jews, and a few incidents involved Jew-on-Arab and Jew-on-Jew violence, though the latter two cases have to be considered almost in the "man bites dog" category - so atypical of common circumstance as to be particularly remarkable merely for having happened at all.

The next major eruption of anti-Jew violence in Palestine came in 1936. Several rival Arab strongmen (or, as some might term them, "prominent Arab leaders") had managed by then to set aside their longstanding internecine differences, forming a loose, ad hoc religio-political construct which styled itself "The Arab High Command", opposed both to Jews and to British administration. Early in the year, this organization began staging protests and demonstrations, small at first, but their attendance and impact grew, with several violent incidents directed against Jews or Jewish properties. In April of 1936, The Arab High Command called for a general Arab strike and a boycot of Jewish business throughout "Palestine".

A Jerusalem demonstration related to the Arab strike eventuated into a riot, during which a bus carrying Jews was attacked and destroyed with a couple Jews killed and several more injured. Things went from bad to worse, and within days "Palestine" was engulfed in violence, nothing short of a rebellion, the uprising continuing into the early Winter of that year. British armed intervention stepped up, rising eventually to something quite like (but not so declared) martial law, armored units and infantry were brought in and deployed throughout the partition, conducting constant patrols and carrying out occasional raids and arrests. By mid to late November, while tensions still were high, the situation at least was notably calmer ... well, calm is probably not the right concept, but violence, though not entirely eliminated, had been greatly curtailed. Far from extinguished, the rebellion smoldered for a few months.

Arising essentialy consequent to and coincident with this upheaval were a number of Arab political parties, some of which aligned themselves into a coaltion calling itself "The Arab High Committee". A list of demands was drawn up and published by The Arab Committee", calling for an end of Jewish immigration into "Palestine", forbidding Jews to acquire property, and the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian Arab government with the consequent end of British authority.

On the other side, the Jews had not been idle; there was the Zionist Congress, the Jewish Fund, and of course Haganah, formed some 25 years earlier as a loose, barely organized volunteer protection force for the kibutzim, essentially outlying, remote farming settlements, had grown to become quite a large, well organized militia, having if not overt support at least tacit approval from the British administration. As well, what amounted to a shadow government had come into existence alongside that of the British Mandate Administration, Jews to a very large extent, with British acquiescence if not exactly enthusiasm, through The Jewish Agency managing their own civil affairs, to a significant extent in the cities and larger towns and all but absolutely exclusively in the more remote towns, villages, and settlements. Along with this, of course, were Jewish unions and political parties, not all of which got along very well if at all with one another. Interestingly, the existance and authority of the Jewish Agency was a major sore spot for the Arabs, but though the British offered to fund and to assist in the establishment of a similar Arab Agency, the Arab leadership refused even to consider the notion.



As a sidebar:

By this time, Britain's attention was being drawn ever more to the impending war with Germany. The "Palestine Problem" was becoming an increasingly inconvenient distraction. The Arabs, and their non-Arab coreligionist neigbors, wanted nothing to do with the Jews or a Jewish Homeland, and the Arabs and their coreligionist neighbors were in control of petroleum resources critically vital to Britain in the looming war. Arab goodwill toward Britain and the British cause began to assume an ever growing role in British considerations pertaining to the region and its situation.

Unsurprisingly, Germany was well aware of this, and perceived in the situation opportunity ripe for exploitation. A signal consideration, and one Germany quickly and enthusiastically pursued, was the Islamic antipathy toward Jews and the concomitant Islamic opposition to a Jewish Homeland in "Palestine". Though Germany was unable, due to existing entanglements (Spain's Civil war, Germany's own concerted, singleminded preparation for war with "The West"), and unwilling (due to intense and tricky diplomatic maneueverings) to openly support the conveniently (to the German POV) increasingly restive, militant Arab separatists, Germany none the less managed to funnel inspiration, advice, encouragement, and a fair amount of money and materiel (mostly small arms and associated ammunition, along with a small quantity of other munitions, chiefly grenades and bulk explosives) to the Arabs of "Palestine" and to some extent their coreligionist neighbors elswhere in the region.

Harking back to the assurances given the Sherif of Mecca 30 years earlier, the Arabs and the other Islamists of the former Ottoman Empire were more than eager for the independence they felt was their due, and were quite at the end of their patience with the British and the French. Any enemy of the British and French was a freind of theirs. Winning freinds and influencing people among these disaffected Islamists was no arduous task for Germany, who covertly conveyed to Arab and other Islamic leaders assurances of independence in return for their support against the Britain and France those folks already weren't very happy with anyway. Having captured Germany's attention and support, Arab Nationalism now had an external, and powerful, champion, even if that champion prefered for the moment to remain behind the scene, subtle and discrete. Enough of that for now, though ... lets get back to "Palestine".



We come now to 1937. Commissioned by The Crown in response to the upheavals of '36, the Peele Report was finished and published - to mixed reviews from the directly involved parties, the Jews an Arabs of "Palestine". In brief, the report's coclusion was that the Jews and the Arabs would never get along in a bi-cultural state, and its recommendation was for yet another partition, a smaller, more or less coastal, strip of "Palestine" for the Jews, the roughly 5 times larger remainder, including a bit over half the land at that time given to agriculture, for the Arabs. The Jews, not thrilled, none the less largely saw in the recommendation an opportunity to end the discord and violence, allowing them to at least begin to set up for themselves what they hoped would become a viable, peaceful state of their own.

The Arabs, on the other hand, wanted it all, and decided, in the face of what they perceived to be British reluctance and effective inability (the Arabs too knew war between Britain and Germany was looming, remember) to stop them, decided to take it.

Thus began The Arab Revolt, beside which the upheavals of '36 pale in comparison. Continuing into the opening months of WWII, it finally was put down through intensive British action against the insurgents. A significant development of the suppression effort was that the British not only officially recognized Haganah, the Jewish militia, but armed and supported it, including providing high ranking British officers (such as Orde Wingate, who went on to achieve the rank of Major General, in the Pacific Theater forming and leading the Chindits who liberated Burma, where in '44 Wingate died in a plane crash, eventually winding up buried in America's Arlington National Cemetary, a most singular resting place for one not of The American Military) - as advisors and liason in return for Haganah's support in the suppression of the revolt. Though never concrete, assurances were strongly implied if not expressly guaranteed that following the war Britain would at last see to the establishment of an independent, autonomous Jewish state. This was, however, contrary to the 1939 Mac Donald White Paper, wherein the British formally abandoned the idea of an independent Jewish state in favor of an independent state under joint Jewish-Arab government. Under-the-table British assurances coupled with the quite understandable Jewish antipathy toward Nazi Germany and the equally understandable Arab sympathy with Nazi Germany overcame Jewish anger over the policy statement set forth by the Mac Donald Whitepaper.

As WWII progressed, the British preoccupied elsewhere, Haganah, with full British support, took an increasingly independent role in the control of the "Palestine" sub-partition of the original British Palestine Mandate. Key among Haganah's activities of the time was the defense of British Mandate administration and infrastructure and general border security, becoming in effect an auxilliary of the British Army and a component of the overall British war effort in the Middle East. That not withstanding, Haganah also was heavily involved with the illegal (by British Mandate decree) smuggling of Jewish refugees into "Palestine" - an emotionally partisan but not altogether innacurate portrayal of which is at the heart of the movie made fron Leon Uris' (far more expansive than its movie) novel Exodus. There also were splinter groups which detatched themselves from Haganah, perhaps most notably Irgun, or the "Stern Gang" (from its leader's name), which actively opposed British authority, quite violently. By the end of WWII, Haganah was a tightly organized, highly disciplined, well-trained-and-equipped (even possessing a small air arm), combat-experienced military, well-versed and emminently capable in the art and practice of "small war", or insurgency. That evolution proved quite to the inconvenience, irritation, and embarrassment of Britain over the next couple of years, as the "Palestinian" Jewish sentiment for an independent Jewish state became an uprising of its own, against the British Mandate Authority. The upshot of that development was the 1948 UN mandate establishing the State of Israel, and the 1948 Arab Israeli War which follwed immediately thereupon, a war which never has really ended, flaring into open combat again in '56, '67, '73, '82, the '87-'90 Intifada, the 2000-'05 al-Aqsa Intifada, and current unpleasantness.

That's history for you.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:16 pm
I am indebted to Timberlandko for his fine essay on the problem.

One paragraph especially stood out for me--

Unsurprisingly, Germany was well aware of this, and perceived in the situation opportunity ripe for exploitation. A signal consideration, and one Germany quickly and enthusiastically pursued, was the Islamic antipathy toward Jews and the concomitant Islamic opposition to a Jewish Homeland in "Palestine". Though Germany was unable, due to existing entanglements (Spain's Civil war, Germany's own concerted, singleminded preparation for war with "The West"), and unwilling (due to intense and tricky diplomatic maneueverings) to openly support the conveniently (to the German POV) increasingly restive, militant Arab separatists, Germany none the less managed to funnel inspiration, advice, encouragement, and a fair amount of money and materiel (mostly small arms and associated ammunition, along with a small quantity of other munitions, chiefly grenades and bulk explosives) to the Arabs of "Palestine" and to some extent their coreligionist neighbors elswhere in the region.

************************************************************

Apparently, the Iranian Fundamentalist Fanatics are taking up the baton passed on to them by the Nazis in World War II.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:22 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
There was indeed an existing government -- a British Protectorate and a provisional Arab government that functioned under it - both products if the destruction of the former ottoman Empire at the hands of the British and French some 26 years earlier. It is a fiction to assert there was no previous government....


So what you are saying is that from the time of Alley Oop and Adam and Eve and Noah to about 1920 there was never a country called "palestine" or such a thing as a "palestinian", and that 100 years ago the country was so sparsely populated that Mark Twain and other travellers described it as basically uninhabited, total population around 200,000; that zionists started coming in and buying up land and making things out of it starting in the late 1800s; that arabs started moving in after there started to be jobs and work there; that after WWI the british set up some sort of a government there for twenty five years until WWII was over, and that therefore, after reality set in and the Jewish state was established in 1948, everybody should have recognized the fact that the Jewish state amounted to a gross usurpation of the brilliant and long established nation of PALESTINE.....


That's really ****ing brilliant.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 05:24:56