Ben Masada, on 01 September 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:
In 1948 we were at war, a war of aggression started by the Arabs. It is only natural that massacres happen in war. Numerous massacres were caused by America to the native Indians in the formation of the American State, let alone what they did in Vietnam. We were not at war in 1929. How do you explain the massacre of Jews in Hebron caused by the Palestinians? It is easy to see evil in others, especially Jews, but not in those whom we find salutary to side with.
There was never a forced occupation of Palestinian homes and lands without their provocation by way of repeated acts of terrorism. One must survive. We can't endure if we do not fight for life. In 1948 we asked them not to leave that we could coexist together. They would not listen. They could not live with Jews. The Jews had to be out of the Middle East. We accepted the White Paper decision to divide the Land with the Palestinians. They rejected. What do you want us to do a miracle? We are here to stay. Let they get stronger and take the Land by force if they can.
Arab grievances are numerous.
The Arabs were promised independent self-determination when in 1915, the British made declarations to Sharif Hussein of Mecca that as a reward for Arab rebellion against, and help in defeat of, the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Britain would stimulate national independence in the whole Arab-speaking world. It is called the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. Because of this MacMahon-Hussein Agreement, the Arabs rebelled and attacked Ottoman forces in support of the Allies (led by Sharif Hussein's second son, Feisal, subsequent king of Iraq, and by T. E. Lawrence).
But then, Britain turned around in 1916, entered into a British-French agreement, the Sykes-Picot Agreement,half a year after the Hussein-MacMahon Agreement. By this new agreement the whole Arab world north of the present-day Saudi Arabia was to be divided (after World World I) into French and British zones of control, theoretically in the context of an Arab confederation. Under this agreement, Britain would DIRECTLY control present-day Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and southern Palestine while France would directly control southern Turkey, Syria, and northern Palestine. However, because of competing Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic interests in Palestine, the Sykes-Picot Agreement devolved into a compromise in which Britain, France, Russia, and Italy would jointly share in a Allied Condominium over Palestine. The Jews under this agreement in Palestine were to have have the same civil, religious, and political rights as other groups. But neither the Zionists or the Palestinian Arabs want that but each wanted its own independent state. The start of Arab grievances.
When the Arab world learned about this European Condominium agreement in the winter of 1917-18 about post-war control of Arab territory which contradicted with the Hussein-MacMahon agreement the response was shock.
But Britain regarded an international sharing regime unacceptable because Britain wanted to have an exclusive and permanent garrison in Palestine after the war in order to protect the Suez Canal and its air routes to India. The Zionist held the answer with a Jewish state imposed upon Palestine. Britain intention was to keep the Palestine boiling pot in order to justify its means. A marriage of Zionist and British interests occurred, and what materialized out of this is the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a second shock to, and betrayal of, the Arabs after the Sykes-Picot Agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement was held secret to the Arabs UNTIL after the Turks were defeated in World War I).
Additionally, Balfour stated, "In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country."
To placate the shock of the Arabs, the British and French issued a misleading, mollifying declaration (on November 18th) affirming "the setting up of national governments and administrations that shall derive their authority from the free excercise of the initiative and choice of the indigeneous population."
King Hussein only accepted the Balfour Declaration as a humanitarian gesture towards the Zionists never beleiving it would conflict with the Palestinian Arab self-determination.
Prince Feisal, second son of Sharif Hussein and leader of the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Turks, even signed a formal agreement on January 4, 1919, that a "Zionist Jews" enclave would be guaranteed in Palestine as long as the Arab tenant farmers would be safeguarded on their plots and assisted in their economic development AND provided that the Arabs obtain their independence.
But Chaim Weizmann backed out. Choosing instead a Jewish state under British imperialism rather than share a common cause with the Arabs. At that point, Feisal terminated any relations with the Zionists and regarded the "Jewish National Home" as a mere subprovince within a larger Arab kingdom.
The following year, 1920 Feisal assumed the kingship of Syria, in conflict with Britain's ally, France. When Feisal's older brother, Abdullah, threatened to defend him against the French, Britain chose to make Abdullah amir of Transjordan east of the Jordan and installed Feisal as a puppet king in Iraq. Palestine was thereby separated from Transjordan by the stroke of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill's pen.
Meanwhile, Britain desired the need of "force of arms" to justify their presence as a military buffer - all the while with one eye watching the Suez Canal and the other countering French influence in Syria. A Jewish state or "home" offered such a justification.
Enter the League of Nations Mandate System in 1922, a mandate was to facilitate the self government of the territory's inhabitants, a mandate was to be temporary, a mandate was accountable to the League. Each mandate was ranked by their degree of readiness to assume self government, i.e., statehood. All Class "A" territories were Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. All Class "A" territories with the exception of Palestine did, in fact, become states when the mandate powers withdrew.
1. The Arabs outright rejected the mandate system outright. They demanded an independent state with a democratic, parliamentary form of government.
2. Additionally, Britain insisted that the Balfour Declaration be introduced into the text of the mandate. In other words, if the Arabs accepted the mandate they accepted the British imposed constitution of the Balfour Declaration too. But the Arabs opposed the mandate and all its British imposed constitutions including the Balfour Declaration.
3. The Jews would not accept the concept of a democratic self-government in Palestine while 90% of the population was not Jewish. It would only be acceptable upon massive Jewish immigration with removal of Muslim and Christian populations.
4. A Jewish national home meant a state existing for the Jews, as Arabs suspected, and that violated Article 2 of the mandate requirements to -- "safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
A Jewish state simply conflicted with the WHOLE PURPOSE of the mandate system, i.e. the establishment of democratic self-government by an indigeneous population.
But this contradiction would not be the collapse of the mandate. No doubt there was conflict between Arab nationalists and Jewish immigration and land purchases the very thing the British anticipated. The real reason behind the collapse of the mandate would be violence against British authorities first by the Arabs in the 30s then by the Zionist in the 40s, something the British failed to anticipate.
The Zionist knew in order to have their state, it would require people and territory but they had neither in Palestine. If the Jewish state were to come into existance by fiat it would be unable to rule over a vast Muslim and Christian population that together virtually own all the land of Palestine. Thus the mandate ambigiously supported Jewish immigration.
From 1917 to 1935, the Jewish population rose from about 60,000 to over 400,000. 60,000 alone in 1935. To accomodate this influx, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish labor organization ("Histadrut") boycotted Arab labor. Another Arab grievance.
The land purchased by the Jews was not vast (7.6% by 1949) but the land was the most fertile as well as being strategically chosen to comprise the nucleus for a Jewish nation. This resulted in the mounting social problems with the enlarging population of landless Palestinians (30% of the rural population by 1930). Arab nationalists could not stop land sales and mistrust and fear of British authority resulted in the British unable to protect the Arabs from evictions and resulted in failures to make appeals. Another Arab grievance.
More later, I am tired of typing.
Quote
As I told you above, we agreed to even divide the land with them, but they didn't agree. Their only condition was of a Middle East cleared of Jews. That's a no no. The land is ours and they were the occupiers we found here with our return to the Land of Israel. And this realm of hatred is promoted rather by Palestinians and Arabs in general than by Jews. We agreed with a solution to live together. They discarded all possibilities, let them suit themselves. Now, it is too late. If they so irrationally insist on what they want, let them fight for it now.
The Palestinians arent occupiers they can be traced back to prehistoric times in the region. The Jews held Jerusalem for around 500 years of which 410 years from the reign of King David to the divided Kingdom of Judea, but the Muslims held Jerusalem for over 1,200 years. The Jews did not return to Israel/Palestine in the 4th Century once the Roman Empire collapsed. Why didnt they return in the 4th Century C.E? ... because they didnt want to or chose not to.
Quote
How come America did not return Texas, New Mexico, and California to the Mexicans after the war? Perhaps because they were not Jews? How come Russia did not return the islands they took from Japan after the war of 1906? Perhaps because they were not Jews? But the land that we liberated after wars of aggression we must return to prove our Jewish nature. That's typical! Besides, when those lands were in the hands of the Arabs, why didn't they settle it as a state for the Palestinians? Oh, I know why: They were not Jews but Arabs. Did you get the game? We did agree to work towards a Palestinian nation in 1977. They rejected again. We changed our minds. Let the conflict continue until they get strong enough and take what they want by force, which is the whole Land of Israel.
Ben
Maybe because the Third and Fouth Geneva Conventions were written in 1929 and 1949 respectively. Because the UN wasnt created until 1945.
Gaza was occupied by Egypt from 1948 til 1967, West Bank has been occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. HOWEVER the West Bank has been occupied by Israel since 1967 that 45 years. The longest occupation in the world. The problems lies in Israel and proposals which are never fair such as the Camp David Accords in 2000.
Edited by Ambush Bug, 02 September 2012 - 10:22 PM.
2
