Zionism

Again, what did you expect the Mufti to do? His choice was to lose Palestine and see his people forced out, or to support a regime that would guarantee their survival. Distasteful as his actions were, you cannot deny he made the only realistic choice. As a scholar one's duty is not to judge an individuals actions, but to try to understand his motivations.

As for anti-Jewish violence, of course there were incidences prior to 1948. But again, what choice did the Arabs have? Failed by the British administrators, facing ever-increasing numbers of rich, well-armed Jewish immigrants, and inevitably destined to lose their land. How would you react?

My use of cherry-picking as a phrase was meant to convey the idea that we could use individual occurrences to illustrate points back and forth. Instead, I think it serves this thread to try to picture what the overall strategy of each group was. In the case of Israel, it was removal of Arabs by force if necessary. In the case of Palestine it was resistance to this policy.

On the photo:
There was a fascist movement in England that would have probably helped round up Jews were Britain occupied, as the Vichy did in France. People act out of necessity when the other option is death. That is reality.
 
When Arab leaders convene in capitals, they are not adopting the Palestinian cause for its own sake, but are rather exploiting it as fertile ground for their ideas. In this way the struggle-originally political, ideological, and conscious - to a more netorious level. When Arab leaders join hands with them - as did the Mufti of Juresalem, Al-Husseini, who sought support from Hitler - they betray the cause.

Facism is not only the enemy of the Jews but of all humanity...The enemy is not an ethic or religious group but those combined together including American Capitalists, Hard core Zionists ant the reactionary Arab regimes, to deny the basic human rights to Palestinians to live in the land of their birth and go out when and where they want in daily life without intimidation from the occupation army.
 
Strategic value of suicide attacks: what have these attacks ever gained for the Palestinian people? What do these attacks have any hope of gaining? All these attacks do strategically is take away Palestinians' strongest argument: Human rights and international law. That Israelis are stealing Palestinians' land, endangering their existence, abusing their human rights, denying them access to their own resources like water in their own land, imprisoning them in their towns and sometimes in their homes. In the midst of all of these abuses along comes Hamas or Islamic Jihad preaching their doctrine of no compromise, and they allow the Israeli leadership to continue with their abuses in the name of security. I want you to understand this: Palestinians will never be able to defeat Israel's military using any form of combat. Deal with it and move on to more strategically sensible thinking!

A much better strategy is to turn up the international heat on Israel's apartheid methods.
 
redsultan said:
When I said defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war Iwas refering to the Palestinian people, if the surrounding states ganged up with Isreal they deserve what they get, and got.

I dont blindly follow my heart.

But the six-day war wasn't fought against the Palestinian people.
 
Again, what did you expect the Mufti to do? His choice was to lose Palestine and see his people forced out, or to support a regime that would guarantee their survival. Distasteful as his actions were, you cannot deny he made the only realistic choice. As a scholar one's duty is not to judge an individuals actions, but to try to understand his motivations.

He made a terrible choice both morally and practically. THe dreation of Jordan on 70% of Palestine's territory, and the partition plan regarding the leftovers show that the there was a peaceful alternative on the table. He decided to go for the whole thing, lost, yet most of his people were not forced out.
Imagine what would have happened to the Jews had he won...
redsultanis more of a muslim than I am, but I guess siding with the Nazis was betraying his faith as well.



As for anti-Jewish violence, of course there were incidences prior to 1948. But again, what choice did the Arabs have? Failed by the British administrators, facing ever-increasing numbers of rich, well-armed Jewish immigrants, and inevitably destined to lose their land. How would you react?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
'kinnel Grinner, you are clueless aren't you?


My use of cherry-picking as a phrase was meant to convey the idea that we could use individual occurrences to illustrate points back and forth. Instead, I think it serves this thread to try to picture what the overall strategy of each group was. In the case of Israel, it was removal of Arabs by force if necessary. In the case of Palestine it was resistance to this policy.

:lol:

you're losing the plot. Atrocities on the Jewsih side were part of a war which started in 1948 in an Arab attempt to throw all the Jews to the sea, while Arab pogroms began back in the 1920's.

On the photo:
There was a fascist movement in England that would have probably helped round up Jews were Britain occupied, as the Vichy did in France. People act out of necessity when the other option is death. That is reality.

Perhaps there was a movement and perhaps not. However, the UK was not led by pro-Nazi, or fought on the side of the Nazis.
 
Plechazunga said:
But the six-day war wasn't fought against the Palestinian people.

You can't call something that lasts only six days a war. More like a long fight, no?
 
Plechazunga said:
But the six-day war wasn't fought against the Palestinian people.

My comment was concerning the present conflict with the Palestinians, if war was the wrong word, then yes I was wrong.
 
To Grinner,

To say the the Mufti was representitive of the Palestinians is a joke, as a religious jurists he had no right to side with the Nazis, religious law does not allow any Muslim to side with murderers or plan any action against any people except in self defense, whatever his motives the end does not justify the means. He could not carry out the duties of his creator (God) have can he represent his people.

I my opinion most of the so called leaders they have had or imposed on them have been detrimental to their cause.
 
Now guys, you have now demonstrated your military power, will the reasoning that the surrounding Arab states will push you towards the sea hold water, I for one cannot see this ever happening.
 
redsultan said:
Now guys, you have now demonstrated your military power, will the reasoning that the surrounding Arab states will push you towards the sea hold water, I for one cannot see this ever happening.

But you've got a vastly different mindset. The mistake you make is that your applying values that have little compatibility with the Middle East which is animated by rage, not compassion.

Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al Queda, Iran etc. and probably most of the Palestinians see things very differently, sadly.
 
Fearless said:
But you've got a vastly different mindset. The mistake you make is that your applying values that have little compatibility with the Middle East which is animated by rage, not compassion.

Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al Queda, Iran etc. and probably most of the Palestinians see things very differently, sadly.

Feerless, I like the tone of your reasoning that is the attitude that will make both the peoples futures better.

Peoples revolution, sod the above groups they all have selfish aims. People are fast realising their options are not working.
 
redsultan said:
Feerless, I like the tone of your reasoning that is the attitude that will make both the peoples futures better.

Peoples revolution, sod the above groups they all have selfish aims. People are fast realising their options are not working.


I wish it were true, only the lack of freedom - both in speech / press only further disallows the revolution you talk of. Besides, I'm now convinced that the worse things get, the worse the Arabs want them to get. There's a bizarre arousal in there that may go some way to explain the 'lust' for suicide bombing.
 
Believe you me, I am in them circles , we do say a lot and the few suicide bombers and its only a few, dont get much recognition, in fact their blamed for harming the cause.

Also the increase in trouble you are talking about, could also be reduced by you guys canvassing on your side. Its a slow process but better than nothing.
 
redsultan said:
Believe you me, I am in them circles , we do say a lot and the few suicide bombers and its only a few, dont get much recognition, in fact their blamed for harming the cause.

Also the increase in trouble you are talking about, could also be reduced by you guys canvassing on your side. Its a slow process but better than nothing.


There are plenty canvassing, indeed if it was only matched in terms of protests / rallies on your side then something could actually happen.
There are plenty within Israel who despise Sharon and take to the steets to show it.
I can't ever recall anything vocal against Arafat/OBL and therein really lies the impasse.

The silence of the peace seeking Muslim, IMO, is deafening to the point where it's viewed as compliance.

If it wouldn't be too much to ask, what circles are you in?
 
Fearless said:
There are plenty canvassing, indeed if it was only matched in terms of protests / rallies on your side then something could actually happen.
There are plenty within Israel who despise Sharon and take to the steets to show it.
I can't ever recall anything vocal against Arafat/OBL and therein really lies the impasse.

The silence of the peace seeking Muslim, IMO, is deafening to the point where it's viewed as compliance.

If it wouldn't be too much to ask, what circles are you in?

Tell you what fearless, thats my gripe with the media good news dont sell.

We are peace activists going round mosques making the precise speeches you talk about, the problem is a few thousand terrorists get more coverage on mainstream media than a billion law abiding citizens who dont have time or their voice is not loud enough, its not compliance.
 
redsultan said:
Tell you what fearless, thats my gripe with the media good news dont sell.

We are peace activists going round mosques making the precise speeches you talk about, the problem is a few thousand terrorists get more coverage on mainstream media than a billion law abiding citizens who dont have time or their voice is not loud enough, its not compliance.



Your efforts are to be commended, but having not a loud enough voice or enough time isn't really convincing to me.
There were plenty of Muslims marching against Bush re Iraq but zero against OBL, whose afflicted far greater damage than a million Bushes.

The billion law abiding, peace seeking Muslims are being dragged down the toilet by inaction - look whats happenning in the Netherlands for example.

The Muslim Council, the MAB, MPACUK are doing nothing at all - in fact - stirring it up by praising Sheik Yassin who (politics aside) was a terrorsists terrorist.

Until the Muslim community follows on from the Basque example - the vigil against ETA when the Madrid bombimg was still blamed upon them, things will decay beyond belief.

Could fear of being outcast / injured / be another factor?
 
The demand for greater understanding, justice and compassion, necessary for global civilised order to continue can only be based on the voices of a just and fulfilling world order and the end of Western hegemony, dominance and oppression. With such changes can dawn the beginning of an era of security and harmony for all, free from distrust, deprivation, oppression and terrorism. The human prospect rests in such a much broader domain of the 'civilized' world than simply that of the West!
 
redsultan said:
The demand for greater understanding, justice and compassion, necessary for global civilised order to continue can only be based on the voices of a just and fulfilling world order and the end of Western hegemony, dominance and oppression. With such changes can dawn the beginning of an era of security and harmony for all, free from distrust, deprivation, oppression and terrorism. The human prospect rests in such a much broader domain of the 'civilized' world than simply that of the West!

I agree, but if we are talking about responsibilities, then the darker forces beyond the West must be challenged also from within.

And that, as you've protested, isn't happenning.
 
exactly my point the darker forces are being fed by what they see as Western hegemony, dominance and oppression, do we not need to work hand in hand to alleviate the mistrust.
 
HR,

You failed to back up your 'retorts' with any real substance except for the first point regarding Al-Husayni.

On rich, well-armed Jews.

Do you deny that organizations such as the Jewish National Fund and American Zion Commonwealth bought up large tracts of land from absentee landlords and Arab farmers at inflated prices? How do you explain the Landless Arab Enquiry undertaken by the British? The Shaw Report of 1930 identified the creation of a 'landless and discontented class' as the fundamental cause of Arab animosity, and cited the 'econmoic domination of the Jews'.
In the aftermath of Hitler's rise, the Jewish population of Palestine doubled and the region experinced an economic boom unlike the rest of the world caught up in the depression. Industrial firms expanded from 6,000 in 1930 to 14,000 in 1937.
The Hagana was permitted to arm itself legally by the British and units formed by Orde Wingate carried out night attacks. The Irgun used terror tactics, while the British were harsh in their treatment of the Arabs yet lenient to the Jews.

On your claim that Jewish violence occurred from 1948 onwards:

The Irgun began operations in 1937, the Hagana from 1936 onwards, the LEHI in 1940. I'd like to see your definition and evidence of Arab 'pogroms'.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
HR,

You failed to back up your 'retorts' with any real substance except for the first point regarding Al-Husayni.

On rich, well-armed Jews.

Do you deny that organizations such as the Jewish National Fund and American Zion Commonwealth bought up large tracts of land from absentee landlords and Arab farmers at inflated prices? How do you explain the Landless Arab Enquiry undertaken by the British? The Shaw Report of 1930 identified the creation of a 'landless and discontented class' as the fundamental cause of Arab animosity, and cited the 'econmoic domination of the Jews'.
In the aftermath of Hitler's rise, the Jewish population of Palestine doubled and the region experinced an economic boom unlike the rest of the world caught up in the depression. Industrial firms expanded from 6,000 in 1930 to 14,000 in 1937.
The Hagana was permitted to arm itself legally by the British and units formed by Orde Wingate carried out night attacks. The Irgun used terror tactics, while the British were harsh in their treatment of the Arabs yet lenient to the Jews.

On your claim that Jewish violence occurred from 1948 onwards:

The Irgun began operations in 1937, the Hagana from 1936 onwards, the LEHI in 1940. I'd like to see your definition and evidence of Arab 'pogroms'.

What is there for me to deny? that the Jews were organised and had the vision, determination and education needed to make this piece of land fertile for agriculture rather than empty marshland? a modernized, industrialized country rather than a rural backward society? After all, my initial post in the thread showed that the Arab leadership acknowledged the benefit to both parties by these changes. It's pretty weird to say the least that you reckon they were bound to react by violence and pogrom to what you describe by "the region experinced an economic boom unlike the rest of the world caught up in the depression".
You, and many Arabs, harp on about Jewish immigration to Palestine but what about that of the Arabs? If immigration to Palestine was restricted to Palestine it was that of Jews following the white paper of 1922. Jews were prevented from settling east of the River Jordan, while no such restriction were inflicted on the Arabs immigration to the west side (Ask Tareq, our resident Jordanian, about his origins).

This brings me to the Brits leniency towards the Jews. How lenient was allowing Jews to defend themselves from Arab riots years after it had become apparent that the British couldn't protect them? The actual pattern was that following Arab riots a British commision issued a report which inflicted further restrictions on the Jews, in what was probably the birth of Arab appeasement that still exists these days.

I never said that Jewish resistance began in 1948. If it did then there would not have been a people to defend by then. I did say that the 1948 atrocities were part of the war which the Arabs themselves initiated in an attempt to rid the ME of the Jews. Even during that war they didn't face rich, well-armed Jewish immigrants, but a determined organised army that included many Nazi death camp survivors. These men knew best what they were fighting for, and many of them perished shortly after surviving the European treatment reserved to Jews.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
HR,

I'd like to see your definition and evidence of Arab 'pogroms'.

What happened during the Arab riots of 1920-1921?
The first Arab riots of the Mandate period took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, in March 1920 ("Bloody Passover"). They were instigated by Arabs acting on unfounded rumors of Jewish actions against Arabs. The British military authorities did not intervene in the Arab attacks, while Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for organizing a self-defense league. In April 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor and others were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920.

Haj Amin al-Husseini emerged as one of the leaders of the 1920 Arab riots in Palestine and incited the masses to murder Jews and loot their homes. While only in his late twenties, he became the youngest ever Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, supported by the British.

May 1921 brought new violence in Jaffa followed by large-scale attacks on Rehovot, Petah Tikva, and other Jewish areas. The death toll among the Jews was 47 with 140 wounded. Yosef Hayyim Brenner, the distinguished socialist pioneer and author, was among those murdered. Arab casualties of 48 killed and 73 wounded were almost entirely due to British military action. The main lesson was the power of the Arab masses and the relative ineffectiveness of the Jewish defense.

Sir Herbert Samuel, The High Commissioner, yielded to the demonstration of power: he ordered a temporary halt to Jewish immigration and began negotiations with the Arab Executive Committee. The outcome of these negotiations was the June 1922 White Paper issued by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill.

The riots were investigated by the Haycraft Commission, who said in their summary report:

The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties.
 
What happened during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39?


In April 1936, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt. The Arab Higher Committee, headed by the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.

The Arabs began by proclaiming an Arab general strike and boycott of Jewish enterprises and products. They made demands on the British Mandate administration, principally:

An end to Jewish immigration
An end to transfers of land to Jewish owners
A new "general representative government"
The strike quickly led to a campaign of terror against Jewish people and lands. Seventeen Jews were killed the first day, with little action by the British to stop the rioters. Sparked by the Mufti's agitators, armed bands of Arab terrorists attacked Jewish villages and vehicles, as well as British Army and police forces. By August 1936, responding more to attacks on British assets than to the Jewish losses, the British began a military crack-down on the Arab terrorists.

The Arab strike ended in October 1936 and a temporary peace between Arabs and Jews prevailed for almost a year. Then, in September 1937, following the July report by the Peel Commission, the violent tactics resumed. Armed Arab terrorism, under the direction of the Higher Committee, was used to attack the Jews and to suppress Arab opponents. This campaign of violence continued through 1938 and then tapered off, ending in early 1939. The toll was terrible: Eighty Jews were murdered by terrorist acts during the labor strike, and a total of 415 Jewish deaths were recorded during the whole 1936-1939 Arab Revolt period.

What was the result? The British military suppressed the Arab terrorists, but the British government in effect rewarded them with the publication of the 1939 White Paper, a pro-Arab policy statement that effectively ended the British committment to the purpose of the Palestine Mandate.
 
During their annual spring festival Nebi Musa (Prophet Moses), Muslims march from Jerusalem on the road to Jericho to where they believe Moses is buried. In the years predating 1920, these processions were marked by intimidation of Christian communities on their way.

After Emir Faisal I had agreed to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine by signing the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement at Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the local leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, among them the Jerusalem Mayor Musa Khazim al-Husayni, rejected this agreement made in their name and the relations between Arabs and Jews had worsened.

The Arab attacks of March 1920 in Galilee (see the fall of Tel Hai and Joseph Trumpeldor) and the activities of Arab terrorist group Black Hand caused deep concerns among Zionist leaders, who made numerous requests to the Mandate administration to address the Yishuv's security. Their fears were ruled out by the Chief Administrative Officer General Louis Bols, Governor Ronald Storrs and General Edmund Allenby, particularly at their meeting with the president of the World Zionist Organization Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who warned them: "pogrom is in the air".

Storrs issued a warning to Arab leaders, but his forces included only 188 policemen, among them but 8 officers. The Ottoman Turks had usually deployed thousands of soldiers to keep order in narrow streets of Jerusalem during Nebi Musa procession.

Zeev Jabotinsky, who was earlier discharged from the British army as an "indiscreet political speaker", lead an effort to openly train Jewish volunteers in self-defense. The request to the British authorities to allow to arm the defenders was declined, however about 600 Jews were armed with small guns secretly.

[edit]
April 4-7, 1920 in the Old City
During a procession on April 4, 1920, inflammatory anti-Semitic rhetoric led to rioting in Jerusalem. One of the inciters was Hajj Amin al-Husayni, a young nephew of the mayor of Jerusalem, another was the editor of the newspaper Suriya al-Janubia ("Southern Syria") Aref al-Aref, who delivered his speech on horseback. The Arab mob went on to ransack the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, beating anyone they could find and looting shops and homes. The riots lasted for four days.

The British acted erratically. After the violence broke out, Jabotisky met Storrs and suggested deployment of his volunteers, but this request was rejected. Later Storrs changed his mind and asked for 200 volunteers to report to the police headquarters to be sworn in as deputies. After they arrived and the administering of the oath had begun, orders came to cease and send them away. The army imposed night curfew on Sunday night and arrested several dozen rioters, but on Monday morning they were allowed to attend morning prayer and then released.

On Monday disturbances grew worse and the Old City was sealed off by the army. Even the Jews who sought to flee were not allowed to leave. Martial law was declared, but looting, burglary, rape and murder continued. Several homes were set on fire.

On Monday evening, the soldiers were evacuated from the Old City, a step that was later declared an "an error of judgment" by a court inquiry.

Jewish volunteers entered the Old City to organize self-defense of its residents. One of the volunteers was Nehemia Rabin (Rubitzov), future father of Yitzhak Rabin. Eventually, the violence was quelled by the British.

[edit]
The aftermath
Fatalities: 5 Jews, 4 Arabs. Wounded: 216 Jews (18 critically), 23 Arabs (1 critically), 7 British soldiers.

The majority of the victims were old-Yishuv (non-Zionist, and some anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews). About 300 Jews from the Old City were evacuated.

After the riots, Storrs visited Menachem Ussishkin, the chairman of the Zionist Commission, to express "regrets for the tragedy that has befallen us," Ussishkin asked, "What tragedy?"

"I mean the unfortunate events that have occurred here in the recent days," Storrs said.

"His excellency means the pogrom," suggested Ussishkin. When Storrs hesitated to categorize the events as such, Ussishkin replied, "You Colonel, are an expert on matters of management and I am an expert on the rules of pogroms."

At the demand of the Palestinian Arab leadership, the British searched the offices and apartments of the Zionist leadership, including Weizmann's and Jabotisky's homes, for arms. At Jabotinsky's house they found 3 rifles, 2 pistols, and 250 rounds of ammunition. Nineteen men were arrested, including Jabotinsky.

A committee of inquiry placed responsibility for the riots on the Zionist Commission, for provoking the Arabs. Jabotinsky was given a fifteen year prison term for possessing weapons. The court blamed "Bolshevism," claiming that it "flowed in Zionism's inner heart" and ironically identified fiercely anti-Socialist Jabotinsky with the Socialist-aligned Poalei Zion ("Zionist Workers") party, which it called "a definite Bolshevist institution".

Some of the rioters were punished. Musa al-Hussayni was replaced as mayor by the head of the rival Nashashibi clan. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni and Aref al-Aref were each sentenced to ten years in absentia, since by then both had fled to Syria.

The official inquiry that followed found that the British military administration was rife with anti-Semitism and that the measures taken to maintain order were inadequate, but no one was charged. Not a single policeman was charged for failing in his duties.

A few weeks later, the San Remo conference replaced military administration of the Mandate with a civil government under Sir Herbert Samuel.

One of the most important results of the riot was that legal Jewish immigration to Palestine was halted, a major demand of the Palestinian Arab community. Feeling that the British were unwilling to defend them from continuous Arab violence, the Palestinian Jews decided to set up an underground self-defense militia, the Haganah ("defense").
 
On May 1, 1921, a scuffle began in Tel Aviv-Jaffa between rival groups of Jewish Bolsheviks, carrying Yiddish banners demanding Soviet Palestine, and Socialists parading on May Day.

The neighboring Arabs who witnessed the incident, took this opportunity to attack Jewish shops and homes. They were joined by armed Arab policemen. The pogroms continued until May 7 and spread as far as Petah Tikva, Kfar Saba, Rehovot and other Jewish communities.

Fatalities were: 47 Jews, 48 Arabs. Wounded: 146 Jews, 73 Arabs.

After the riots, thousands of Jewish residents of Jaffa fled for Tel Aviv, and were temporarily housed in tent camps on the beach.

The newspaper Kuntress whose author and co-editor Joseph Chaim Brenner was one of the victims, published an article Entrenchment: "on May 1 the age of innocence had ended."

The administration has made some arrests. After international outcry, the arrested Jews were acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.

The Arab leaders submitted a petition to the League of Nations in which they expressed their grievances.

The high commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine Sir Herbert Samuel established an investigative commission headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court in Palestine Sir Thomas Haycroft. Its report has confirmed the Arab policemen's participation in the riots and also has deemed the actions taken by the authorities adequate. The report angered both Jews and Arabs: it placed the blame on the Arabs, but said that "Zionists were not doing enough to mitigate the Arabs' apprehensions".

In his speech on the occasion of royal birthday in June 1921, Samuel stressed the Britain's commitment to the second part of the Balfour Declaration and declared that Jewish immigration would be allowed only to the extent that it did not burden the economy. The Jewish immigration was suspended.

The Britain's policy regarding promise to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine, the reason behind the Mandate given them by the League of Nations, has changed by "fixing by the numbers and interests of the present population" the future Jewish immigration. A popular contemporary comment was that Samuel had revised the Balfour declaration to mean the Jewish National Home had become the Arab National Home.

New bloody riots broke out in Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, when five Jewish residents and three Arab attackers were killed.

Tel Aviv had been a bedroom community at the time of the Jaffa riots, with its workers commuting to Jaffa. However, when Jews started perceiving Jaffa as a hostile place due to the riots, they decided to develop a business district in downtown Tel Aviv, which eventually became renowned for its Bauhaus architecture.
 
1929 Massacre
A long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem became steadily more violent until, on August 23, 1929, a mob of Arabs inflamed by false rumours that two Arabs had been killed by Jews started a murderous attack on Jews in the Old City. The violence quickly spread to other parts of Palestine. The worst atrocities were in Hebron and Safad, where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others using clubs, knives and axes. The lone British policeman in the town was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations). Most of the other Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. The surviving Jews were evacuated from the town. A few dozen families returned in 1931 but the community never reestablished itself and there were no Jews remaining in Hebron by 1936.
 
You can cut and paste all the waffle that you want, it just backs up what I'm saying. You show how British reaction against Arabs was harsh, you detail Arab 's using clubs, knives and axes while Jews are armed with guns.

You don't answer the fact that Jews bought up vast tracts of land and displaced the Arabs living there. You ignored the issue of the Landless Arab Enquiry.

You continue to crow about the Faisal/Weizmann agreement despite the fact that no Palestinian Arab opinion was included in this document. Perhaps you should refer to the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence for a true picture. While you're at it, try looking at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The modernized industrial society did not benefit many Arabs, mostly Jews.

How you claim that the British did not favor the Jews is amazing. British paternalism toward the Arabs was evident in most of their dealings, while the access that individuals like Weizmann enjoyed to British lawmakers was far above anything the Arabs could hope for.

The Wailing Wall Riot saw almost as many Arab casualties as Jewish , and began because of a pattern of behavior in which Jews attempted to take control of a site holy to both groups. Weizmann declared the only solution to the issue was to 'pour Jews into Palestine". Arab violence such as this was generally inflamed by Jewish actions such as communist demonstrations.

During the Arab Revolt you cite that a 'terrible toll' of 430 Jews was recorded, but you fail to mention that 1,700 Arabs were killed in 1938 alone, including 486 civilians.

Perhaps you could present your arguments in your own words and in a more succinct fashion.
 
"Politics is for the moment. Equations are for Eternity." Albert Einstein
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
You can cut and paste all the waffle that you want, it just backs up what I'm saying. You show how British reaction against Arabs was harsh, you detail Arab 's using clubs, knives and axes while Jews are armed with guns.

You don't answer the fact that Jews bought up vast tracts of land and displaced the Arabs living there. You ignored the issue of the Landless Arab Enquiry.

You continue to crow about the Faisal/Weizmann agreement despite the fact that no Palestinian Arab opinion was included in this document. Perhaps you should refer to the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence for a true picture. While you're at it, try looking at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The modernized industrial society did not benefit many Arabs, mostly Jews.

How you claim that the British did not favor the Jews is amazing. British paternalism toward the Arabs was evident in most of their dealings, while the access that individuals like Weizmann enjoyed to British lawmakers was far above anything the Arabs could hope for.

The Wailing Wall Riot saw almost as many Arab casualties as Jewish , and began because of a pattern of behavior in which Jews attempted to take control of a site holy to both groups. Weizmann declared the only solution to the issue was to 'pour Jews into Palestine". Arab violence such as this was generally inflamed by Jewish actions such as communist demonstrations.

During the Arab Revolt you cite that a 'terrible toll' of 430 Jews was recorded, but you fail to mention that 1,700 Arabs were killed in 1938 alone, including 486 civilians.

Perhaps you could present your arguments in your own words and in a more succinct fashion.

I agree that it is fast becoming tiresome. The evident picture is that of Arab pogroms with Jewish casualties, but when the agressors suffer casualties when the Brits intervene (after innocent people had been massacred) we have to look at the overall death toll and feel sorry that the mobs suffered casualties as well.

Regarding the loss of land, I suggest you read that link I provided. But I can understand why you feel that Jews are to blame for Arabs selling their property for hard cash, considering your suggestion that the Jews deserved to be massacred for demonstrating their political beliefs.
It's also hillarious that you dismiss the Faysal/Weizmann agreement because Faysal was not a true Palestinian representative. In contrast, Husayn (incidently, Faysal's father) was, because he seeked a solution that deprived the Jews from any right in what was going to be left from post WWI Palestine. Obviously, you fail to address the fact that even the Arabs didn't know who the Palestinians were (They refered to Palestine as South Syria).
The disrespect you show towards the 430 Jewish casualties during the Arab revolt speak volumes for your intellectual dishonesty. These people were murdered by Arabs, and the fact that the Arabs suffered casualties in their anti-British revolt has nothing to do with the Jews. You hailed the Mufti's pro-Nazi stance, and that was one of many examples of terrible choices made by the "true Palestinian representative". The plight of Palestine's Arabs was of their own making.

As for the 'cut and paste' jobs- these were a reply to your earlier request of "I'd like to see your definition and evidence of Arab 'pogroms'." You could have shown at least a glimmer of gratitude.
 
You seem to feel that Jews never instigated any Arab discontent throughout the entire interwar period. This is a curious posture. The case can be made that Jewish actions caused the Arab Revolt, and the Wailing Wall Riot.

I agree that elite Arabs selfishly profited from land sales to Jews, but ordinary Arab peasants reacted to this by terrorizing those Arab notables, rather than Jewish settlers at first. Also, Jewish buyers had special clauses installed in land deals to allow them to remove peasant Arabs in violation of the Land Transfer Ordnance of 1920, creating the genesis of the refugee problem.

The Hashemite clan could not possibly speak for the Palestinian Arabs, as before, the Al-Husaynis and Nashashibi held that role, I agree that they failed miserably. Britain favored the Jews, and failed the Arabs.

I think you misunderstand me if you see disrespect to Jewish casualties. This is not my intention. You speak of intellectual dishonesty, yet it is you who failed to counter the Jewish death toll during the Arab Revolt with that of the Arabs. You failed to explain why the Revolt occurred, did you think that Arabs just decided to begin killing people for no good reason? You also claim that Jews did not kill a single Arab during the Arab Revolt - this is a ridiculous assertion and one that you cannot hope to prove.

I never 'hailed' the Mufti's Nazism, merely pointed out that at that stage of the situation he had no other realistic choice having been betrayed by the British and facing the total Jewish takeover of the region. Similarly, I think you are being elastic with my words in claiming that I suggested Jews deserved to be massacred.

I was looking for your assessment and evidence in a more succinct form. I read each of your posts and appreciate your efforts. However, I think you are far too dismissive of my arguments by virtue of your biased viewpoint.

I believe that Jewish actions went a long way toward creating Palestinian Nationalism, and you are suffering for this now. Israel has to accept its complicity and negotiate a fair settlement.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
You seem to feel that Jews never instigated any Arab discontent throughout the entire interwar period. This is a curious posture. The case can be made that Jewish actions caused the Arab Revolt, and the Wailing Wall Riot.

I agree that elite Arabs selfishly profited from land sales to Jews, but ordinary Arab peasants reacted to this by terrorizing those Arab notables, rather than Jewish settlers at first. Also, Jewish buyers had special clauses installed in land deals to allow them to remove peasant Arabs in violation of the Land Transfer Ordnance of 1920, creating the genesis of the refugee problem.

The Hashemite clan could not possibly speak for the Palestinian Arabs, as before, the Al-Husaynis and Nashashibi held that role, I agree that they failed miserably. Britain favored the Jews, and failed the Arabs.

I think you misunderstand me if you see disrespect to Jewish casualties. This is not my intention. You speak of intellectual dishonesty, yet it is you who failed to counter the Jewish death toll during the Arab Revolt with that of the Arabs. You failed to explain why the Revolt occurred, did you think that Arabs just decided to begin killing people for no good reason? You also claim that Jews did not kill a single Arab during the Arab Revolt - this is a ridiculous assertion and one that you cannot hope to prove.

I never 'hailed' the Mufti's Nazism, merely pointed out that at that stage of the situation he had no other realistic choice having been betrayed by the British and facing the total Jewish takeover of the region. Similarly, I think you are being elastic with my words in claiming that I suggested Jews deserved to be massacred.

I was looking for your assessment and evidence in a more succinct form. I read each of your posts and appreciate your efforts. However, I think you are far too dismissive of my arguments by virtue of your biased viewpoint.

I believe that Jewish actions went a long way toward creating Palestinian Nationalism, and you are suffering for this now. Israel has to accept its complicity and negotiate a fair settlement.

Firstly regarding your concluding comment, Israel has acknowledged the necessity of negotiating a compromise years ago but had to step back when faced with the Palestinians negotiating methods of using terror when the negotiations hit a stumbling block.

However, this thread was about the use of the term Zionism. I feel that the connotation of the term among many Arabs and non-Arabs is based on ignorance, and is detrimental to the prospects of peace. I am a Zionist, as I feel my people has a right for self determination in its historic homeland. Obviously, the fact that the people of Israel were kicked out of the country centuries ago is not enough to deny those who have settled here since the right for their rights. A compromising solution fits very well with Zionism, and perhaps even derives from its concept- i.e. a democratic state for the Jews.

I agree with you regarding the irresponsible British policies, but puzzled at your assertion that these were pro-Jewish. The British got a mandate of Palestine from the League of Nations in order to build a homeland for the Jewish people:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty [the Balfour Declaration], and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;


Article 6 further states:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

It is hard to interpret what the future border should look like from these articles, but the fact that all left to the Jews eventually was that tiny portion given in the partition plan of 1947 suggest that bill for appeasement of the violent Arabs was handed to the Jews.
British mandate
MFAG007q0.gif

British alteration of the mandate
MFAG007r0.gif

UN partition plan
MFAJ0d1q0.jpg


I did suggest that Arabs had killed many for no good reason, and you have highlighted this by mentioning that the massacres were often a result of Jewish bolshevik demonstrations. That's not a good enough reason for slaughter in my book. The massacres of Hebron in 1929 (67 killed) and Safed (18 killed) were carried out by neighbours of the men, women and children victims, and you were right in claiming that the mobs used knives and axes, hence the allegedly equally responsible Jews were not even armed (let alone rich well-armed as you had described them earlier). I 'failed to mention' the Arab death toll among the Arab Revolt, as the Zionist movement was hardly responsible for the British brutality (in fact, Jewish extremists and terrorists were also targeted) and the Arab decision to side with the UK's enemies.

Obviously, a case can be made that the Jews instigated the Arab Revolt and the Wailing Wall Riot. After all, a cease was made as for the Zionist plot of 9/11 in order to turn the US anger towards the Arab world. Using the same analogy, I doubt even you'd struggle to blame the Yanks for not mentioning the 19 terrorists in the death toll of that horrible day.
 
By your reasoning you would support the American decimation of the Native American population and settlement of their lands. "They weren't using the land productively, so let us have it and make something out of it." would be your argument.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your 9/11 comments. ???

Again you claim that not a single Arab was killed by Jews during the Arab Revolt.

It seems equally amazing to me that you would try to argue that the British were not more disposed to Jews. Arabs were racially and ethnically stereotyped by the British. Wogs, fuzzie-wuzzies, nig-nogs are just some of the terms typically used. Jewish leaders were by contrast, usually European, cultivated, enjoyed superb access to Parliamentarians, and considered equal by the British. It was the actions of Arab rebels that caused British support of Zionism to waver.

The Mandate granted under Article 22 completely ignored the the Resolution of the General Syrian Congress of 1919, which repudiated Zionist claims and promised rights to existing Jewish communities in Palestine. Britain and France dominated the League and ensured that they would have firm control of the region to do what they wished.

You cannot escape the fact that Zionism was built on, and permitted under colonialism at its worst. The spoils of war were divided by the victors without thought or consideration for the indigenous people.
 
By your reasoning you would support the American decimation of the Native American population and settlement of their lands. "They weren't using the land productively, so let us have it and make something out of it." would be your argument.

That's utter BS, and you know it! The Europeans coming to America had nothing to do with the New World, while your idea of intellectual honesty is ignoring the bond between the Jews and their historic homeland from which they were kicked out (not to mention those who have stayed there for thousands of years). Moreover, the thread starts with an Arab-Jewish agreement acknowledging both those historic rights and the benefits to all concerned by the return of the Jews to their homeland.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your 9/11 comments. ???

I couldn't make it any easier to understand. Why on earth do you think the Zionists were to blame for Arab casuaties which resulted from their ongoing tactics of stirring up violence? The Arab death toll was largely the result of British retaliation to the Revolt. You claimed that I ignored Arab deaths while mentioning Jewish victims of Arab pogroms. I think you'd struggle to come up with any evidence regarding anti-Arab violence prior to 1948 provoked by the Jews, unless a political demonstration meets the criteria.

Again you claim that not a single Arab was killed by Jews during the Arab Revolt.

I didn't say so. Even Jews are entitled for self-defence. I'm not sure the casualties on either side can be tracked, with supporting evidence for the cause of their death. However, while pogroms were carried out by the Arabs, I am still to find any evidence as for massacres of Arabs by Jews (especially prior to 1948). On the other hand, many Arabs were massacred by the Brits, e.g. in Jenin (rings a bell?).

It seems equally amazing to me that you would try to argue that the British were not more disposed to Jews. Arabs were racially and ethnically stereotyped by the British. Wogs, fuzzie-wuzzies, nig-nogs are just some of the terms typically used. Jewish leaders were by contrast, usually European, cultivated, enjoyed superb access to Parliamentarians, and considered equal by the British. It was the actions of Arab rebels that caused British support of Zionism to waver.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Brits were racist bastards. However, my maps dossier proves that calling names was coupled with handing territories. I'd rather the Jews were called big-nose (weren't they) and got >80% of mandatory Palestine.

The Mandate granted under Article 22 completely ignored the the Resolution of the General Syrian Congress of 1919, which repudiated Zionist claims and promised rights to existing Jewish communities in Palestine. Britain and France dominated the League and ensured that they would have firm control of the region to do what they wished.

I recall you addressing me to that very article which you now refer to as incomplete, and in violation of previous decisions (You continue to crow about the Faisal/Weizmann agreement despite the fact that no Palestinian Arab opinion was included in this document. Perhaps you should refer to the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence for a true picture. While you're at it, try looking at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.) Your evident acrobatics makes it tough to get to the bottom of your reasoning. The Mandate handed to the Brits and French by the same League of Nations ended up distributing huge chunks of the Ottoman Empire for the creation of more than a dozen Arab states. I'm sure that is less infuriating and unjust in your book. Similarly, the same authoritative body you have just come up with, the General Syrian Congress of 1919, appointed Faisal as the ruler of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. This is the same Faisal who later signed the agreement with the Zionists, for which were you were calling him a "British puppet".

You cannot escape the fact that Zionism was built on, and permitted under colonialism at its worst. The spoils of war were divided by the victors without thought or consideration for the indigenous people.

The Zionist movement did its best, under the then prevailing political climate, to grant the Jews their historic right for a homeland. They succeeded where the Palestinians had failed miserably. I would have expressed more joy at this striking difference in political and cultural mismatch if the Palestinian leadership impotence didn't result in the misfortune of both peoples. Unfortunatley, both nations are still counting their dead, rather than being able to build on the prosperity envisioned by courageous leaders on both sides almost a century ago.
 
redsultan said:
exactly my point the darker forces are being fed by what they see as Western hegemony, dominance and oppression, do we not need to work hand in hand to alleviate the mistrust.

And thats going to mean 'imposing' democracy for the most part.

You can't garner trust in any other system, this thread being a great example.

Imagine if it were censored - we'd both learn nothing and an exchange of ideas would be heresy.
 
Fearless said:
And thats going to mean 'imposing' democracy for the most part.

You can't garner trust in any other system, this thread being a great example.

Imagine if it were censored - we'd both learn nothing and an exchange of ideas would be heresy.

I understand where your coming from, but two things come to mind as regards to democracy for that part of the world.

The candidates needs to be trusted, in this case by both sides, the electorate needs to be confident that these people are not imposed candidates.
 
redsultan said:
I understand where your coming from, but two things come to mind as regards to democracy for that part of the world.

The candidates needs to be trusted, in this case by both sides, the electorate needs to be confident that these people are not imposed candidates.

It's going to be difficault enough to convince the electorate is actually the electorate!

Y'know, if this all works out , history - especially from a Muslim perspective -will be very kind to Bush.
 
Fearless said:
It's going to be difficault enough to convince the electorate is actually the electorate!

Y'know, if this all works out , history - especially from a Muslim perspective -will be very kind to Bush.

We can hope and be positive, its about time both nations looked at the future with optimism.