https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
Note how all the oldest stuff was done by the Palestinians. (They are referred to as "Arabs" in the list because there was no such thing as a Palestinian then.)
-
Features
School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
Note how all the oldest stuff was done by the Palestinians. (They are referred to as "Arabs" in the list because there was no such thing as a Palestinian then.)
untermensche
Contributor
None of that is Jewish persecution.
It is the Israelis that have persecuted the Palestinians. Denied them the right of free travel and the right of self defense and infringed on many other rights.
No Palestinian ever denied a Jew the right of self defense or the right to have an airport or Mediteranian port.
It is the Israelis that have persecuted the Palestinians. Denied them the right of free travel and the right of self defense and infringed on many other rights.
No Palestinian ever denied a Jew the right of self defense or the right to have an airport or Mediteranian port.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yeah, it was a colonisation. Not so much an invasion by the usual military meaning of the perm perhaps. Diaspora Jews immigrated/settled there over an extended period (many centuries in fact) and were in the early 20th C encouraged to do so, in large numbers, by foreign powers, and most of the leaders and many of the immigrants (the zionists) did so in order to set up a Jewish State, by force if necessary, and they displaced the native arab population in very rough fashion and did not let them return. I'm not saying it was fair on the local population, or good (it obviously was not) and I don't blame the Palestinians for refusing to accept it, I was only highlighting some of the ways in which that particular colonisation, by comparison with others, was not entirely unreasonable and how it had at least some justifications that other historical colonisations/plantations didn't.
In some ways, one cannot blame Diaspora Jews, in principle, for wanting a home nation. For example, you say that the remaining Jews in post-WW2 Europe (and in other countries such as Russia) deserved all the rights and freedoms of any citizen in those countries and that is fine, except that in practice the antisemitism often continued after the nazis in new guises. Not all Jews were zionists. In many ways, Western Palestine/Israel was to be a legitimate refuge, a safe space, where Jews would not be second-class citizens (which they arguably were, even in Muslim countries which tolerated them as minorities to a fair degree) and not be persecuted.
From a Diaspora Jewish perspective, they had arguably been badly shafted over the years by the non-Jewish world into which they had to some degree assimilated for the most part peaceably (it could even be argued that the anti-immigration policies of the USA in the 1930's and 40's had indirectly condemned many Jews to the holocaust) and it may have seemed that the majority populations in many countries were not willing to freely hand the Jews what they felt they deserved (and in many ways did deserve) on a gilded plate, that they would have to get it for themselves, by fighting if necessary. And the fact that some elements of the arab world to where they chose to go had sided with their most prominent recent persecutor (Hitler) may not have enamoured them towards those who as they saw it were in the way.
It's a terrible irony how fast the Jews (speaking generally) went from persecuted in Europe to persecutor in Israel. In many cases, because of the very short timeframe, the same actual people made the switch, possibly with ideas of some sort of 'natural justice' in their minds. It was also the case on a lesser scale for the Catholic Irish fleeing persecution in Ireland, especially after The Famine, only to become in many ways persecutors of others (Native North Americans) and in some cases oppressors (of blacks) in the place they escaped to.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
No. I bet the Native North Americans were pretty pissed off about it too, well the few who were allowed to live. So, in order to rectify that injustice, do the Americans here who sympathise with the Palestinians agree that American lands should be returned to those who were persecuted out of them? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that most here who are sympathetic to Palestinians are sympathetic to the plights, historical and current, of Native North Americans too. But they can afford to be, because the colonisation/genocide was so effective. Native North Americans are by now a relatively insignificant minority who do not threaten the very existence of the USA, and nor is the USA a small state surrounded by much larger and generally hostile nations of Native North Americans, some of whom are bent on revenge.
Now you might say that Palestinians do not, in fact, necessarily threaten the very existence of Israel, that the Israeli Jews overstate the threat, and could afford to allow for example some rights of return and fairer treatment of Palestinians. On the other hand, with groups like Hamas running Gaza and denying Israel any right to even exist, and powerful regional states like Iran (and others, Syria for example) asserting likewise, the issue may not be as overstated as some feel.
Of course, the modern arab/muslim hatred of Israel (and Jews in it) is to a large extent (though not entirely) the result of the 20th C Jewish 'invasion'/colonisation, which is a problem that the Israeli Jews mostly created for themselves. Their desire to create (and actually creating) a Jewish homeland in arab/muslim territory caused an enormous rift between Jews and muslims throughout the muslim world (resulting in an exodus of Jews to Israel to match the exodus of Palestinians out of it) and beyond. And in the years before, during WW2, the arab support for Hitler, where it existed (fanned by the nazis of course) was itself a response to the threat of Zionism and not entirely antisemitic, though there also probably were underlying anti-Jewish sentiments that the nazis exploited.
That there still exists today, as I understand it, among some muslims, including some Palestinians, an admiration for Hither and in some cases a denial of the holocaust, this, whilst pretty odious, is not entirely to be unexpected, since to some Palestinians in particular, the previous enemy of their own now persecuting enemy can be viewed as a friend in some (unfortunate and resentful) ways.
If forced to make a binary choice, I'd probably side with the Palestinians, but living in NI since 1972 tells me that picking sides is not always the best way to go in bitter disputes like this one (and I certainly got fed up of hearing from some uninformed Americans I met back in the day and indeed even recently, about how the Brits were persecuting the natives here) especially when one is largely uninvolved and unaffected personally, is viewing from a distance and has the great benefit of hindsight. Imo, right now, both 'sides' of the Israeli/Palestinian issue need to make huge compromises, but there aren't currently enough willing to do that, and not enough from outside currently willing to assist.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
An interesting 2004 paper (written jointly by a Jewish Israeli academic and an Arab Israeli academic) on the possibility of granting Palestinians Right of Return:
https://www.zochrot.org/uploads/uploads/b9ec215523bc83cfe6084aab7dc5623d.pdf
I doubt it will be implemented, but imo there is a lot that could be said in favour of it. As far as I could tell, reading through it fairly quickly, it may even have implied a preference for a one-state (people living together) solution over a two-state (segregated) solution and again, I think there is a lot that could be said in favour of that too, imo.
If nothing else, it is a pleasant relief to read material which is essentially co-operative and conciliatory rather than the usual divisive stuff.
In 1948, when the Israelis essentially forced the Palestinians off the land they had been living on, there were only 600,000 Jews (displacing 750,000 Palestinians). Now there are about 7 million Jews in Israel (to 5 million Palestinians in Palestine) so in theory, limited Right of Return could pose a smaller threat. Also, not all Palestinians would qualify and some may not choose to exercise the right (some may prefer compensation in other forms, choose to stay in Gaza and the West Bank, and/or could be allowed to relocate if other countries relaxed their immigration policies) and of course reasonable limits in terms of numbers could be set, by agreement. The point would be to get the problem over the first hurdle, in principle, starting in fact only with an open discussion and an acknowledgement that a moral wrong was done. A stable solution would of course involve massive compromises on both sides, and formal recognition of Israel's right to exist (including recognition by other arab/muslim countries).
Also, thereafter, Israel could continue with its policy of allowing Jews to immigrate, since many countries, I believe, have preferential immigration policies that are not entirely dissimilar.
Here in NI (and yes I know I keep referencing it) the Republic of Ireland renouncing its claim on NI and NI thereby gaining a completely agreed 'right to exist' was a key part of the peace agreement. It reassured the Unionists and eased their siege mentality.
https://www.zochrot.org/uploads/uploads/b9ec215523bc83cfe6084aab7dc5623d.pdf
I doubt it will be implemented, but imo there is a lot that could be said in favour of it. As far as I could tell, reading through it fairly quickly, it may even have implied a preference for a one-state (people living together) solution over a two-state (segregated) solution and again, I think there is a lot that could be said in favour of that too, imo.
If nothing else, it is a pleasant relief to read material which is essentially co-operative and conciliatory rather than the usual divisive stuff.
In 1948, when the Israelis essentially forced the Palestinians off the land they had been living on, there were only 600,000 Jews (displacing 750,000 Palestinians). Now there are about 7 million Jews in Israel (to 5 million Palestinians in Palestine) so in theory, limited Right of Return could pose a smaller threat. Also, not all Palestinians would qualify and some may not choose to exercise the right (some may prefer compensation in other forms, choose to stay in Gaza and the West Bank, and/or could be allowed to relocate if other countries relaxed their immigration policies) and of course reasonable limits in terms of numbers could be set, by agreement. The point would be to get the problem over the first hurdle, in principle, starting in fact only with an open discussion and an acknowledgement that a moral wrong was done. A stable solution would of course involve massive compromises on both sides, and formal recognition of Israel's right to exist (including recognition by other arab/muslim countries).
Also, thereafter, Israel could continue with its policy of allowing Jews to immigrate, since many countries, I believe, have preferential immigration policies that are not entirely dissimilar.
Here in NI (and yes I know I keep referencing it) the Republic of Ireland renouncing its claim on NI and NI thereby gaining a completely agreed 'right to exist' was a key part of the peace agreement. It reassured the Unionists and eased their siege mentality.
Last edited:
We also see black homophobes and racist homosexuals. You'd think people would recognize bigotry and discrimination and oppression when they see it, especially when they themselves have suffered it. The reason they don't is because of tribalism and identity politics. We need a smaller push on "Us vs Them" and a bigger push on "We the people".
Put your brain in gear and try again. I gave you a list of things from before the creation of Israel.
And since there is a de-facto state of war between Israel and Gaza a blockade is perfectly legal.
I don't think it was so much about wanting a "home" nation as a place where they would be sure to be safe from persecution. And I think the formation of Israel had a substantial antisemitic component--it was a way to get rid of many of their Jews without ethnic cleansing.
I don't think they want to be persecutors. Rather, the Palestinians have proven peace isn't possible.
It's a piece of shit.
shit said:
The number who are interested is barely relevant. If "return" were possible millions would be promptly thrown out of the surrounding Arab lands and be forced to move to Israel.
Furthermore, they are basically dismissing the demographic fear--despite the fact that the Palestinians consider right-of-return to be a game winner with a minimum result of the extirpation of the Jews.
It amounts to saying that Israel should commit suicide for peace.
You're ignoring the millions of Palestinians in other Arab lands.
Israel would be gone. It very well might be nothing but a glowing crater if Russia or China decides to eliminate their nuclear arsenal before allowing it to fall into terrorist hands.
Neither side in your conflict sought genocide.
untermensche
Contributor
None of that is Jewish oppression.
It is not a powerful government oppressing every Jew in the area for every second of their lives.
There is a de-facto state of oppression.
If there is a state of war then anything the Palestinians do is totally justified.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I would like to explore this topic with you.
I think it's a mistake to try to view the situation in black-and-white terms, or to divorce it from its historical context. I also think it's a mistake to conflate anti-Israel or anti-Zionist opinions with anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic opinions. It can be hard sometimes to separate them, but they're not the same things.
Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, etc. lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for centuries. No doubt there were bigots and haters among them, but nothing like what some folks here would have you believe. That peaceful co-existence came to an abrupt end at the beginning of the 20th century when several destabilizing forces converged on the region: the end of the centuries long Ottoman rule, conniving among the French and the British to gain control of the Middle East, their exploitation of religious and ethnic differences to gain allies and advantage, rapid modernization, and the arrival of tens of thousands of armed European colonizers intent on seizing the best land for a nation from which the natives would be excluded.
Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians
When Arabs and Mizrahi Jews Dreamed of a Joint Homeland
The real reason a Palestinian mufti allied with Hitler? It's not so shocking
It's not hard to understand why the non-Jewish Palestinians were opposed to Zionism. They wanted their own Palestinian State in which their rights would be respected and their welfare would be paramount. They didn't feel the need to exclude Jews, either, at least not at first. The frequent acts of terrorism carried out by the likes of Irgun and the Stern Gang changed that for many, if not most, by the time WWII broke out. And after WWII, when hundreds of thousands of heavily armed, determined Zionists showed up and claimed more than half of Palestine as exclusively theirs...? Oy vey!
Last edited:
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I think it's very well thought out approach to reconciliation. I agree with everything in it.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Good.
Please bear in mind throughout what I am going to say that I have already said that if forced to choose, I would side with the Palestinians. Since I'm not forced to choose, I would say that I have a lot more sympathy for their plight since 1948 than for Israeli Jews, generally speaking. And I am not in the end trying to justify what happened during the colonisation, or even the colonisation itself in principle. At best I am offering what I see as important mitigations, caveats and nuances, in historical context.
I totally agree.
I agree with pretty much all of that. I would just add that many of those arriving were, as I understand it, civilians fleeing persecution. They were labelled 'displaced persons' after WW2 and were effectively themselves destitute refugees in many cases.
250,000 were smuggled into West Palestine between 1945 and 1948 and most of these were ex-extermination camp survivors or Jews who had managed to hide during the war. They had to be smuggled in because Britain had placed a postwar embargo on Jewish immigrants because (despite generally supporting Zionism in principle) they knew a large, sudden influx would upset the local arabs. By 1948 it was too late, there were now 600,000 Jews in West Palestine.
One part of understanding historical context, imo, is to put yourself (just for a moment but fully) into the mind of one of those traumatised, displaced persons who had survived an extermination camp, and to take into account the Europe they had emerged into with virtually nothing except the clothes they had on. It's true that official policy was to get them back to their original homes and communities but in many cases, their homes and families and certainly their communities did not exist any more, or there was someone else living in them, and antisemitism had most definitely not gone away. Imagine then you being offered, as an alternative to staying in Europe, a free boat to somewhere 'safe'. Imagine how the words 'safe community' would have appealed right at that moment, after all that had happened. I think it is as wrong to conflate Jews emigrating to West Palestine with zionists or armed fighters as it is to conflate the other things you mentioned.
Also, Jews in arab/muslim lands, along with other non-muslims, were effectively second class citizens (Dhimmi). But it is true, as I understand it, that they lived mostly peaceably and were not systematically persecuted. That is often the case when minorities are very small and do not threaten (or are not allowed to threaten) the status quo of rule by the majority. In fact, this is even the case to a large extent within Israel today. One difference however is that the Israeli arabs are often seen as a potential threat and anti-state, so their treatment is not as fair as it would otherwise be. But for example, they have members of government (13 in 2018 I believe). I'm not sure if this is something the Jews in arab lands ever had.
What I am saying is that many Jews would probably be able to get along with non-Jews in Israel if the non-Jews were not perceived as a threat. The problem that emerged and has pertained since 1948 is arguably the situation more than anything else.
I can't access the whole article, but still, isn't it a pity that such aspirations were ruined? If you will permit me to yet again make an analogy with my own country, there were those here who similarly aspired to unity. Presbyterians (who would normally be considered to be 'Brits in Ireland') in fact started The United Irishmen in the 18th C (which you can google but maybe you get what I'm saying even without doing that). And The Peace People had a lot of support in 1976 and the leaders even shared the Nobel Peace Prize, but unfortunately did not make much of a dent in The Troubles. That was a movement started by a protestant and a catholic. Both women, not unsurprisingly.
For every group of people who want peace and cooperation and compromise, there is another group who want to dominate and rule and not compromise. It's just that too often, the latter agenda wins the day, for a variety of reasons, a lot of them to do with basic human nature and emotions, that pervasive urge for self interest. Often, many people who would normally by disposition be peaceful and neutral are drawn into taking 'sides' (against another 'side') by having their natural fears triggered by those who are less peaceable and neutral, who are often the ones in the political elite. How much they represent their people (or the 'silent majority') is up for grabs.
I'm not sure how that's 'not so shocking'. I wonder who it would be not so shocking to. I don't think it's much different to anything I've said. For whatever reason of self-interest, and as I've said it wasn't necessarily antisemitism, there were arabs in the region who sided with the nazis. In effect, unluckily for them, they picked the wrong f**king side. Of course, it wasn't all arabs.
It might be added that in 1948 they picked the wrong f**king option again when they decided to try to wipe Israel out, but that is another matter to some extent.
In general, imo, both sides (or at least the elites who represent them) have been adept at picking the wrong f**king option ever since. The Israelis had a chance to allow a limited Right of Return to displaced Palestinians at the Lausanne Conference in 1950 and despite initially promising it (some say merely in order to gain admission to the UN) chose not to.
I would like to hear more about these 'hundreds of thousands of heavily armed, determined Zionists' that showed up. Do we know how many were determined zionists, or anti-arab, or how many showed up armed? Many were women and children. I accept that there were also many determined Zionists who imported arms, but I would not want Jewish immigrants necessarily to be conflated with such. Also, it was half of West Palestine, not half of Palestine. I am not sure of the percentages, but I think West Palestine was 25% of Palestine, so half of that would be around 12.5% of Palestine. Which would mean that the remaining 87.5% of what had been Ottoman Palestine was to be given to arabs/muslims, along with new nation status for them, something they had not had under the Ottomans.
Another thing which I think is very important to appreciate as regards historical context was the general instability that pertained in the world at that time compared to today. It was a time of flux. WW2 had shaken up the world. The old order was crumbling. There were many unresolved conflicts. Fights were going on all over as nations were being formed for the first time or altered. 25% of Germany's pre-war territory was taken away from it and reassigned, and I don't just mean what later became East Germany. 10 million Germans were either expelled from these territories or not permitted to return to them if they had fled during the war. The ink was not yet dry on the Declaration of Human Rights.
Of course it's not hard to understand why the non-Jewish Palestinians were opposed to Zionism (and it was, mainly, the upsurge in Zionism that worried them rather than antisemitism per se, though that may have been easily awakened once 'being Jewish' became associated with 'being a threat to us'). It was completely understandable. I don't think it's right to say that they did not feel the need to exclude the Jews at first, or at least it depends who you mean by 'they' and 'at first'. What I mean is, even before most of the Jews arrived, many of the local arabs were against them coming. Understandably. That is one reason some of them sided with the nazis. What concerned them, quite naturally, was Zionism, more than anti-semitism.
Although, as a caveat, there was anti-Jewish violence, by arabs, in other parts of the arab world (prior to the formation of Israel) that were not the destination of Zionists, and the nazis were able to form an SS division of muslims in Bosnia for example, and many North African arabs took full advantage of Nazi antisemitic policies during the axis occupation. so I don't think it's fair to label all anti-Jewish arab/muslim behaviour as merely anti-Zionist. Another caveat is that when the nazis planned to exterminate the Palestinian Jews, there were able to find local collaborators for that, as I understand it. It is my impression that arab nationalism was in its own way almost as bad as Zionism in many ways. Amin al-Husseini (the Jew-hating Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who had his photo taken with Hitler) was in fact the political leader of it in West Palestine after WW2.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Don't worry about Loren. It's almost certain he will never be put in charge of solving the problem.
What I liked most of all about that article was that it didn't only stress 'what had happened in the past' which of course is water under the bridge. It was as much concerned about what happened in the past as with being mutually accepting of certain current realities, and emphasised that the people of today cannot be held fully responsible for what (some of) their parents, grandparents or ancestors did or didn't do in very different situations. That it did all that while still acknowledging the need to address and redress the wrongs done (mostly against Palestinians) was good, imo.
Whether the suggestions are workable is another matter, but at least talking about them is good, because compromise is generally necessary in order to resolve conflicts like this one. Blame for what happened in the past is less important.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
An interesting article. I don't doubt that in different circumstances, Jews and arabs/muslims could and did get along quite well. As I understand it, Islam has much less of an axe to grind with Jews than Christianity has.
I picked this out:
"Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, both the Zionist movement and the Palestinian national movement began trying to take control of that identity and define the people of the land as either Jewish Zionists or Palestinian Arabs."
This seems to start to pick out two emerging, opposing political 'sides'. To look at the wider historical context, and I do think it is valid and important to look at what happened in specifically Palestine from wider perspectives, whilst it may be true to an extent that Jews were better off in Islamic countries, it is also true, I believe, that arab nationalism, inspired as it was by Islamic traditions and its own version of 'homeland' and 'nationhood' often took the form of Islamism, and in many ways seems no better (or worse) than its counterpart, which emerged at roughly the same time, Zionism. One broad way to look at the problems in what is now Israel is that it is the clash between, the flashpoint for, two, fairly modern ideologies. Had Israel (which is at least a democracy) not been established, it's possible it might have been an Islamist theocracy or some similar non-democratic muslim dictatorship instead.
(Worth noting that the British supported both Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and arab nationalism after taking over the mandate in 1922, although they eventually had big trouble reconciling the two and renounced their mandate in 1947, giving the issue effectively over to the UN).
As to Palestinian arab nationailsm specifically, as I have already posted, immediately after WW2 this was apparently effectively led by Amin al-Husseini and his family and supporters, as the controlling part of the Palestinian 'Arab Higher Committee' (1945-1948). This was a man who knew about the holocaust, supported the nazis and once said that muslims should kill Jews wherever they met them.
At the very least, perhaps we can see that neither political 'side' is a goodie or a baddie side. We can say that and still say that in the main (possibly excluding antisemites and Islamists or other nazi supporters) hundreds of thousands of 'ordinary' Palestinian muslims specifically were wronged during the Jewish colonisation. Because it is also important not to conflate populations with their political or military leaders, on either side.
Going back to the wider background perspective and the issue of Jews under Islam, the link between Islam and antisemitism is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism
Most notable perhaps are the many (more than 30) anti-Jewish pogroms which took place in muslim lands in the 19th Century in the middle east alone (ie excluding other arab lands such as North Africa).
There is also an interesting paragraph on that wiki page which says that there are essentially two versions of the historical story of Jews under Islam:
Schweitzer and Perry argue that there are two general views of the status of Jews under Islam, the traditional "golden age" and the revisionist "persecution and pogrom" interpretations. The former was first promulgated by Jewish historians in the 19th century as a rebuke of the Christian treatment of Jews, and taken up by Arab Muslims after 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel". The revisionists argue that this idealized view ignores "a catalog of lesser-known hatred and massacres". Mark Cohen concurs with this view, arguing that the "myth of an interfaith utopia" went unchallenged until it was adopted by Arabs as a "propaganda weapon against Zionism", and that this "Arab polemical exploitation" was met with the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history", which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality".
Fake news, propaganda and putting a slant on facts are not recent phenomena and have been available to and used by all sides, it seems. We should be careful what historical versions of almost anything we embrace, imo.
Last edited:
untermensche
Contributor
Chomsky talks about how at the time there were many Jews that wanted a non-religious shared homeland with a mixed Jewish and Muslim population. A place where Jews could live with Constitutional protections for all religions.
But the crazed Zionists won out.
But the crazed Zionists won out.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Quite a bit about anti-Zionism here, including on the part of Jews. And Chomsky gets an interesting mention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Before_1948
Also, interesting to note that not all Zionists agreed that Palestine was the best destination. Uganda was considered, in 1903. What would have happened to the local Maassi is another issue. The zionists in any case rejected the British offer of going there. Apparently, "the delegation found it to be filled with lions and other animals".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Territories_considered
ruby sparks
Contributor
Perhaps the most prominent, relaistic and well-known attempt at a peacful solution was The Geneva Agreement of 2003:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Initiative_(2003)
There was also the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
And another international initiative that I particularly like is the charity organisation The Children of Peace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Peace
"The charity works with a network of community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations in Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey and the West Bank, who sign up to the notions of peaceful co-existence and cooperation. This is known as the Coalition of Peace and is now the single largest peace alliance across the Middle East and North African Region."
Whatever happened to the OP topic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Initiative_(2003)
There was also the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
And another international initiative that I particularly like is the charity organisation The Children of Peace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Peace
"The charity works with a network of community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations in Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey and the West Bank, who sign up to the notions of peaceful co-existence and cooperation. This is known as the Coalition of Peace and is now the single largest peace alliance across the Middle East and North African Region."
Whatever happened to the OP topic?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Arctish said:
Good.
I don't want to overlook anything you posted since you took the time and trouble to type it all out, but there's a lot to talk about here and I'm going to have to pick out what I think are important details. Please feel free to highlight anything in particular you want me to address.
I feel the same way.
My goal is to understand as much as I can and share what I learn. I usually wind up arguing on behalf of Palestinians, not because I have no sympathy for Holocaust survivors or displaced Jews, but because I don't believe that one violation of human rights justifies another.
In the part of my post you quoted above I was referring to Zionist immigration before WWII and the Holocaust.
Here's a link to a short article that talks about numbers and waves of immigration. I can provide links to other articles that discuss the evolution of Zionist thinking from a fairly idealistic notion of buying the necessary land to create Israel, to a more realistic understanding that the local Palestinians weren't going to simply move away. By the mid-1930, the Population Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency was developing plans for the compulsory relocation of non-Jews
I think it's important to note this was before the Holocaust. It's understandable that survivors of the death camps wanted an exclusively Jewish, armed, and vigilant State. But the men planning to ship Palestinians to Iraq as laborers have no excuse for their callous disregard for the Palestinian people.
They had it under the millet system when the Ottoman Empire ruled the region. Ottoman society was thoroughly multi-cultural and the reforms of the 19th century made it egalitarian as well, at least in principle. Jews, Christians, Druze, Yazidis, and other non-Muslims paid an extra tax, but other than that there was no difference in their treatment as citizens of the Empire.
It's not shocking when you consider that the British were seen as the biggest obstacle to a Palestinian State in Palestine, and the Germans were the ones most likely to kick their British asses back to their islands in the Atlantic.
The radical Zionist group Lehi tried to make a similar arrangement. They wanted the British out of the way so they could have unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine. They offered to help the Nazis with sabotage and spying against the British and by extension, against the Allies.
I think the Grand Mufti's palling around with Hitler had as much to do with his being anti-British Mandate as it did with his apparent anti-Jewish bigotry, but it's entirely possible he would have been just as fawning even if the British were gone.
I'm not saying every immigrant was a militant, but I am saying that from the Palestinian p.o.v., the immediate aftermath of WWII brought hundreds of thousands of Zionists to fill the kibbutzim and swell the ranks of Haganah, Palmach, Lehi, and the Irgun , while a steady stream of ships smuggled in weapons in preparation for the war to expel anyone who wasn't Jewish. The Palestinians saw a grim future shaping up and were helpless to stop it.
The borders of Palestine are a bit fuzzy. Where they lie depends on which historical period you're talking about. I like this website's 41 Maps Covering 5,000 Years of History. I think it's a pretty good place for reference.
You are right that I am referring to the area west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea, but I think it's important to note that Eretz Yisrael includes parts of the east side of the Jordan. That Zionist song about both sides belonging to Jews was a genuine expression of Zionist ambitions in the early 20th century, and I'm not so sure they've been abandoned by the more hardcore members of the coalition in the Knesset. Anyway, the inclusion of the Negev Desert in the portion allotted to Israel pushed the acreage to a much higher percent of total area than the number of Jews justified, even if you grant new arrivals from Europe equal footing with the native Palestinians. And it utterly robbed the Bedouin of their right to live in their ancestral homeland.
Any disagreements I have with ^this^ are minor quibbles and semantics. I largely agree with you.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Don't worry about Loren. It's almost certain he will never be put in charge of solving the problem.
What I liked most of all about that article was that it didn't only stress 'what had happened in the past' which of course is water under the bridge. It was as much concerned about what happened in the past as with being mutually accepting of certain current realities, and emphasised that the people of today cannot be held fully responsible for what (some of) their parents, grandparents or ancestors did or didn't do in very different situations. That it did all that while still acknowledging the need to address and redress the wrongs done (mostly against Palestinians) was good, imo.
Whether the suggestions are workable is another matter, but at least talking about them is good, because compromise is generally necessary in order to resolve conflicts like this one. Blame for what happened in the past is less important.
I agree.
It's important to know the history so you can understand how things got to be the way they are today, but the only way forward is to leave a lot of grief in the past and to let bygones be bygones.