History of the Arab-Jewish Conflict

[pbi]

Previous to and following the Balfour Declaration, I think that the next thing we would want to examine is the impact of the British promises or suggestions to Palestinian Arabs concerning independence or autonomy, in return for support against the Ottoman Turks in WWI and the Axis/Vichy French in WWII We would want to look at the following questions:

a) what (if any...) impression was created in the minds of Arab political leadership about Brtitish intentions concerning  an Arab political entity in Palestine?,

b) how did the British create that impression, and did they really mean to grant such autonomy?,

c) following both WWI and WWII, what actions did the British take with respect to granting autonomy to Arabs living in Palestine?, and

d) did the creators of British foreign policy (or its executors) ever coordinate any promises that might have been made to Arabs in the region, with the promises/suggestions/impacts of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent move of Jewish immigrants into Palestine up to 1948?.

Answering those questions would, IMHO, give us a step toward a clearer view of the current problem facing Israel. IMHO (sorry, Bo: I know I'm transgressing...) issues such as religion or a supposed 'ancient' Arab-Jew conflict in Palestine actually defy history and are nothing but received wisdom.  The Romans did a pretty good job of rooting most of the Jews out of Palestine under the Diaspora, which ended up dispersing them all over Europe.The Roman Empire was, I think, pretty well extinguished by AD 400. The Arabs who then dominated the area for centuries only became Muslims after about that date, given Mohammed's birth around AD 400. I don't know of any evidence of systematic Muslim Arab persecution of Jews, although the Crusaders might have a few questions to answer about slaughtering the 'Killers of Christ'..

Once the Muslim Ottoman Turks took over most of the Middle East, IIRC they followed a pretty tolerant line with all other religions: obey the law, pay taxes, and we'll let you worship whoever you want. F*** up and we'll kill you. (Kind of like the Romans) The Ottomans were gone by 1918, leaving the Palestine Mandated Territory in British hands. I don't think Jewish immigration really became much of a force until after that (I stand to be corrected), so overall I really cant see religioús  or any other 'ancient' conflict between Jews and Arabs being considered as a major root cause, although religion may be a 'banner' issue today (much as it was in Northern Ireland).

The next few questions we might want to ask would be:

a) what caused the fighting between Jewish and Arab militias in the Mandated Territory in the years prior to 1948?;

b) what did the British do about that fighting, and about the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine?;

c) Why did the British end up being the targets of Jewish militia groups (ie: the bombing of the King David Hotel )? What made the British classify Jewish groups such as Irgun and Haganah as 'terrorists'?;

d) What led to the British exodus from Palestine?;

e) Why did Israel's Arab neighbours try to destroy it in 1948?, and

f) what led the Israelis to expel the Palestinian Arabs (a number of whom were Christian Arabs...)? Or did the Arabs leave of their own accord after the fighting? Did all the Arabs leave Israel, or did an Arab population remain there? After their exodus from Israel, how were the Palestinian Arabs treated by their fellow Arab nations?

I don't pose these questions rhetorically. If we could get answers to these, and combine them with answers to the first set of questions, I think that we would see just how complex and twisted the situation is, and foolish it is to try to postulate 'black and white' causes or solutions. I don't know the answers to these questions beyond a very cursory level, but I am sure others do.

Cheers

 

[Echo9]

A few corrections to the record here.

1.  Mohammad lived in the 7th century. 
2.  There was no dissolution of the Roman Empire in the region in AD400.  The Levant was part of the Eastern empire, ruled out of Byzantium, and Greek speaking. 
3.  Three of the four major centres of Christian learning in the ancient world were in the area (Alexandria, Antioch in what is now Syria, and Byzantium- the fourth being Rome), and most of the inhabitants of the area were Christian well past the Muslim conquest in the 8th century.
4.  The Crusaders were not particularly bloodthirsty by the standards of the time as is received wisdom today- we can go into another complete thread on the Crusades, but that's not my intent.  Suffice to say, the Middle East was not judenrein as of 1917.
5.  The Ottomans were not necessarily as forgiving as suggested around the freedom to follow religions other than Islam.  Yes, Christians and Jews were free to follow their faiths, but only under the rules of dhimmitude, where they were second class citizens, forced to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and wear distinctive clothing and restricted from building any new churches/ temples.  It was due to these rules (also imposed by the Mameluks prior to the Ottomans) that most of the middle east became Muslim- a convert ceased to live as a second class citizen.


Now, I would suggest that most of the roots of the current conflict can be traced to 1948.  There are some islamic doctrinal issues that are coming to the floor now to a greater extent, but that is a rather recent development, really since the late 70s, so I'll leave them out of this post.

One thing to be remembered is that the de facto local government of Palestine (personified by the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem- a holdover from the Ottomans) decided to side with the Nazis during the war.  I would suggest that one of the reasons for the decision to place the Jewish state in that territory is that the British were playing their normal imperial power politics- punish one faction of the local population for acting against the interests of the empire.  The problem with that is that they did not back up the decision with the might of the British Army as was usually the case.  That left a power vacuum that left the impression on the Arabs that the British were not serious, which precipitated the war in 1948, which contrary to all expectations, the Israelis won.

As for pbi's question of why the British left, I would suggest that it was part of disentagling itself from the burdens of empire following the war.  WW2 left Britain bankrupt, and overextended, and much of the instincts of the government of the time was to bring the Tommies home.  You could argue that had Churchill triumphed in the 1945 election, things would have gone differently, but that's a what if for historians to discuss.

Also, Israel did not expel the arabs in 1948.  In fact, there remains a significant Israeli arab population within Israel proper.  They are accorded full rights of citizenship, and while in many cases they are sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, they typically do not agitate against the state, nor are they particularly interested in living in a state ruled by Hamas.  The main reason for the Arab migration out of Israel was that they were encouraged to do so by other Arab governments in the area, who were asking them to do so in conjunction with the war of 1948- clear out the friendly civilian population in preparation for a massive invasion.  The idea was that these people would return to their homes once the invasion was successful.  The problem was that the Israelis won, and there was no return.

As a cheap aside, you could argue that the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is the first and most glaring example of how UN Peacekeeping is a flawed concept, in that it merely preserves conflict in aspic, never solving the underlying problem.  There are actually 2 UN organizations devoted to refugees- one for the Palestinians (UNRWA) and one for everyone else (UNHCR).

Now, as for how Palestinians were treated by other Arab governments, the answer is simple- atrociously.  Palestinians are a majority of the population of Jordan, and others are in the Gulf states.  In no cases are they fully integrated into other Arab states, despite the fact that there are few, if any, ethnic differences, and no religious differences.

I've got more, but the constraints of life are butting in now...

 

[54/102 CEF]

Wes, I'll try to be polite. This thread was made to discuss the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not your own middle-eastern rant. That's how the flaming starts.

Well, it looks like everyone has a different take on when the conflict started. The way I see it though, prior to 1917, Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace. Yes there was still anti-semitism but not anywhere close to what we saw after Britain agreed to give the Jews their own land.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire was in place to keep them in their corners from the early 18th Century (Globe article yesterday by Adnan Abu Odeh p A11). Then that fell apart as the Brits took over the region and they kept the lid on it from late teens to pre 1940 - and post 45 - but of course the UK was broke by then and had to pull back - enter Israel in 1948, war in 48, war in 56, war in 67, war in 73, ........... ie a conflict that built up and was settled by violence.

My point - until 1948 there was always a balancing going on by someone else or some other empire. Post 89 - with fall of the Berlin wall the Soviet Backing went away and with no restraints - other forces float to the surface. You could argue that Iran or militant Islam are out there causing trouble.......or you could argue that the current governments are seen as illegitamate by the wild man in the mosque. There's an adapting Islam and a traditional Islam - and it makes my head spin.

Hopefully thats a small peek into the context of complexity of the "Mid East"

 

[probum non poenitet]

It is a daring project you have taken on with this thread, but having an objective discussion about Israel is like having an objective discussion about politics, religion, sex, or hockey -- personal biases invariably creep through.
That's not to say tempers can't be kept in check, but much of the conflict is about subjective opinion rather than fact, so arguments about what end of a boiled egg to open are probably inevitable on this topic.

I must say that the phrasing of the question itself tips the response, because to say that anything before 1917 is 'out of bounds' knocks out a vital portion of the Israeli position.
Not to be facetious, it would be like saying "Let's look at the history of Quebec-Canada relations, but anything before the 1995 referendum is irrelevant." Most Quebec nationalists would throw up their hands and say you are missing the point.

The Israelis, by and large, don't care much for the Balfour declaration, or UN mandates, or anything else. They feel the land is theirs and always has been. It is not a gift to be given, but something they have always owned, and it was misplaced arrogance of the British to 'grant' them their land.
You must understand that if you are to understand how Israel behaves.

Using Internet sources to back any of this up is a minefield, because there is heinous propaganda on both sides of the question.
I don't have books handy, (really, I have read some!) but I have been to Israel and know many Israelis, so what I'm giving you is my interpretation of their world-view. Take that for what it's worth.
Yes, in professional academia, that wouldn't get you a cup of coffee, but in books and newspapers I have read on the topic, they usually miss that essential point: most Jews have felt Israel was their 'real' home, even after 2,000 years, and people who are trying 'to help' are overstepping their bounds.

Having said that, back to post-1917:

issues such as religion or a supposed 'ancient' Arab-Jew conflict in Palestine actually defy history and are nothing but received wisdom. 

I respectfully disagree. That is what makes this conflict unlike any other.
France and Germany can scrap over Alsace, Latvia gets passed around between empires, Bohemia changes hands, etc. etc.
You can view these territorial changes a certain way.

But for religious Jews, Israel has been given to them by God. For non-religious Jews, that land is nevertheless an intrinsic part of their identity, it speaks to the very heart of their culture. Jerusalem is where they can speak directly to God.
It sounds a bit preachy, but if you don't acknowledge that 'fact/opinion' (foh-pinion?) you don't get anywhere with most Israelis.
This is why many 'third-party brokers' fail: They say, "Well to be fair, we shoud slice up "Territory X" in exhange you will get "Territory Y" and visiting rights to "Territory Z".
The Israeli response is typically, "Who the hell are you? We own Territory X, Y, AND Z, and if we feel generous enough, we'll let YOU visit Territory W twice a month. Not the other way around."
A simplification, yes, but the heart of the problem.

a) what caused the fighting between Jewish and Arab militias in the Mandated Territory in the years prior to 1948?;

Simply put, they could see the writing on the wall (the British were going to leave Palestine, and soon) and they were jostling for their piece of the pie.

b) what did the British do about that fighting, and about the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine?;

The British did what modern Canadian soldiers are well familiar with: tried to maintain order between hostile parites and dealt with negativity and outright attacks from both.

c) Why did the British end up being the targets of Jewish militia groups (ie: the bombing of the King David Hotel )? What made the British classify Jewish groups such as Irgun and Haganah as 'terrorists'?;

As I said above, the Israelis (such as they were at that time) felt that the British were an occupying foreign power and were dragging their feet in leaving. The British were also limiting Jewish immigration, which benefited the Palestinians and hurt the Israelis. The Israelis wanted the British out and used violence to accomplish that aim. Mencachem Begin, as mentioned, was one of those who blew up the King David Hotel.

d) What led to the British exodus from Palestine?;

As mentioned in another post, post-war weariness. British personnel were being killed, and it was difficult to explain "why" to the people at home. It was a similar mood that caused the British to leave India in 1947. Britain had had enough of policing its Empire.

e) Why did Israel's Arab neighbours try to destroy it in 1948?, and

Land grab - like Yugoslavia, in a sense. They felt that there was only room for one community, and figured if they threw the Jews out, the 'problem' would be solved. From a Palestinian point of view, it probably would have been. They would have thrown out or killed the Jews and locked down immigration. 'Ethnic cleanse', to borrow a modern phrase. No more Israel.
Israelis have considered this to be the status quo more or less since ... there have been periods of peace, but the wolves are always hungry, and they just have to get through the gate once ...

f) what led the Israelis to expel the Palestinian Arabs (a number of whom were Christian Arabs...)? Or did the Arabs leave of their own accord after the fighting? Did all the Arabs leave Israel, or did an Arab population remain there? After their exodus from Israel, how were the Palestinian Arabs treated by their fellow Arab nations?

Again, think Yugo, Cyprus, wherever ethnic violence gets out of hand - it got very ugly very quickly. Villages were massacred on both sides.
I need to do more reading on it (good luck finding an unbiased source), but what I have read suggests the all-to-familiar nightmare of refugees on both sides fleeing an ethnic war.
Since the Arabs lost the war, their refugees took the worse end of the deal. Had the Arabs won, IMHO it would have been far uglier for the Jews. "Pushed into the sea!"
Remember, at that time, most of the IDF were straight out of Warsaw, Auschwitz, etc. The weren't going to let that crap happen to them twice in one lifetime.

After the 'Palestinian exodus' comes a huge list of political playmaking by other Arab governments. Is it not odd that the 'refugee' problem hasn't been solved after 60 years? (We didn't keep millions of East German refugees in camps in the Fulda Camp for 60 years, insisting their true home was east of the Elbe ... but whatever, that's getting political, and I'm dropping my 'neutrality.'  

There are many places you can point fingers for the continuing plight of the Palestinians, but where you point that finger is almost always controlled by your political bent.

That's my opinion, anyway ...

 

[CanadaPhil]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that Bo is trying to start a pro-"Palestinian" /anti-Israel rant  here. What exactly is the point of harping on the Balfour agreement? To suggest that "Palestine" was stolen by the British and illegally given to the Jews as some sort of prize??

First of all, who exactly are the Palestinian people? The word Palestine is derived from the ancient coastal inhabitants of parts of the region (the "Philistines"...remember you Old Testament folks?) who do NOT even exist today.

After Rome conquered the region, they expelled most of the Jews from "Judea". They also changed the name of "Judea (Israel)" to "Syria Palaestina", named after the "Philistines" as a kind of insult to the now conquered and homeless Jews.

Since then, this region has been re-conquered about a dozen times by various empires, most recently it had been held by the British between 1917(after defeating the Turks) until the end of WW2.

Bo, since you seem to think the UN is the greatest thing since sliced bread (that other thread you started), shouldn't this discussion be about everything after 1948 only? Afterall, one of the UN's very first acts was to CREATE the state of "Israel". A very curious thing, considering they have been doing nothing but bashing the Israeli's ever since.

 

[Kirkhill]

A few corrections to the record here.

......


One thing to be remembered is that the de facto local government of Palestine (personified by the Gand Mufti of Jerusalem- a holdover from the Ottomans) decided to side with the Nazis during the war.  I would suggest that one of the reasons for the decision to place the Jewish state in that territory is that the British were playing their normal imperial power politics- punish one faction of the local population for acting against the interests of the empire.  The problem with that is that they did not back up the decision with the might of the British Army as was usually the case.  That left a power vacuum that left the impression on the Arabs that the British were not serious, which precipitated the war in 1948, which contrary to all expectations, the Israelis won.

As for pbi's question of why the British left, I would suggest that it was part of disentagling itself from the burdens of empire following the war.  WW2 left Britain bankrupt, and overextended, and much of the instincts of the government of the time was to bring the Tommies home.  You could argue that had Churchill triumphed in the 1945 election, things would have gone differently, but that's a what if for historians to discuss.


.....

Agreed on the local mufti being pro-Nazi, as was his counterpart in Cairo, and that both were holdovers from the Ottomans.  That resulted in people like, (IIRC), Anwar Sadat as a youngster siding with the Nazis.  But then so did elements of the Jews, particularly people that came from the Jabotinski side of the spectrum, associated with the likes of the Stern Gang and ultimately found themselves a home amongst the Likud party.  However many people flirted with Nazi support, even here in Canada, and were not punished after the war.

I disagree on the punishment issue.  Britain, IMHO, never actively divided its subject populations in order to rule.  It certainly took advantage of pre-existing divisions, although some might argue that it merely accepted that divisions are the norm and worked with them.  There were divisions in Britain as much as in India and Palestine.  Britain, ultimately, was a commercial empire.  The empire existed to make money.  Those Brits that opposed the empire opposed it as much because it cost too much money too maintain as on moral grounds.  Division and dissension equal strife and that is bad for business.  Palestine was bad for business. It cost too much for the nation and the exchequer and that is the reason that the Brits pulled out.

At the same time they were dealing with Palestine they had problems in Greece with the Communists, in India, in Malaysia, in Indonesia where they were trying to re-establish the Dutch, and even in Vietnam where they were trying to re-establish the French.  Britain ultimately "went home" after 1945 because the nation was dog-tired, broke and fed up.  The empire just wasn't worth it.

As to them not putting the full weight of the Army behind their decision I am not sure how you measure that.  If you mean in numbers I am not sure that that can be substantiated as in 1945 Britain had two reinforced Divisions (1 Inf and 6 Abn) in the country backed by elements of the Royal Marines, West Africans, Cypriots and Indians together with the TransJordan Frontier Force and the Arab Legion as well as the Police.  In addition the RAF and the RN were deployed.  That resulted in a force comparable in size to that currently deployed in Iraq by the Americans.  If you mean they might have been more vigorous in the way the handled the situation - well both the Arabs and the Jews felt they were handled quite vigorously enough and that the opposition was being given a free-ride.

In 1918, at the time that General Allenby led the Brits into Jerusalem and on to Damascus there were about 50,000 Jews in the Ottoman province of Palestine, about 11% of the population by some accounts.  That was concentrated in cities like Jerusalem and Hebron.  From what I understand Hebron had a particularly strong and ancient Jewish community of Hasidim.  The European Zionists had been establishing colonies in Palestine, under the Ottomans, since 1878.  The Hasidim were not partial to the arrival of the European Zionists.

With the fall of the Ottomans the world was confronted with a power vacuum in the Middle East. Somebody had to maintain order.  Britain and France took on the job - for a consideration.  They intended to benefit from it, no doubt.

Britain found itself stuck between the promises made by the Foreign Office to the Arabs and the Government to the Jews.  Start thinking in terms of DFAIT and DND here or perhaps State and the Pentagon.  They took an impossible situation and made it impossibler.

As noted Jews had been coming to Palestine since at least 1878.  That movement continued after World War 1.  Brits acted to prevent it and limit it but only succeeded in restricting it.  They couldn't stop it.  After 1936 and Kristallnacht the pressure became massive.  

The Arabs, who had been agitating for a representative government, as was common in most colonies, so as to use their majority to enact laws to keep out the Jews, rose against the Brits in 1936.  That was contained. At cost.

That was not, however, the first time that the Arabs had acted against Britain and Jews.  Since Britain was given the League of Nations Mandate (think UN Stabilization Force with benefits) in 1920, it had had to deal with the Muftis who had, as Echo9 noted, been put in place by the Ottomans.   Those Muftis power and privilege came from the support of the Sultan in Istanbul.

One aspect of this conflict that often gets overlooked is Ataturk's Revolution, or military coup in Turkey in 1923.  When he came to power and overthrew the Sultan, establishing a representative assembly and banning the Hijab amongst other things, he effectively cut off the Muftis from any hope of receiving support from Istanbul to re-establish their former positions.  They now became reliant on the Brits for their position, a prospect that was apparently unappealing to them.  They eventually found common cause with the Nazis just as did the Stern Gang.   The difference was that while the Stern Gang was a minority within a minority, the Muftis had the ear of the Majority.

Despite that most Jews and Arabs managed to keep a lid on disagreements during World War 2.  Some Jews famously worked with the British Army and got the training that they would put to good use in the Palmach and Hagganah after the war.  Britain didn't have to work too hard to keep the peace then which is just as well.   What is often forgotten is that the Brits also trained the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force and the Arab Legion.  The difference was that while the Palmach and Hagganah were illegal, though tolerated, organizations, the TJFF and the Legion were recognized agents of the State - implicit recognition that the State was Arab perhaps.

After World War 2 pleasantries recommenced as many more Jews, including Khazars from Russia that were anciently converted to Judaism, tried to get to Palestine.  Interestingly the Khazars were considered Jewish enough by the Nazis to be sent to the Death Camps but are not considered sufficiently Jewish by others to deserve a place in Israel.  Another story.

By Oct/Nov 1945, with 6 Abn Div moving into the country and deploying in Lydda and Samaria the Jews started sabotaging the railways and attacking stations, yards and switchboxes as well as Coastguard stations. There were large scale riots in Tel Aviv in November.  By January the Jews were taking on RAF airfields.  By March 1946 the level of general Jewish unrest was increasing.   This included civil disturbances.

Apr 2 1946 Jews attacked railway installations at Yibna and Isdud causing damage and casualties.  The Brits managed to track the attackers and bring them to battle resulting in 14 Jewish wounded. Apr 7 the Jews attacked Police Posts.  Apr 13 Jews raided the Convalescent Depot for weapons blowing up an armoured car and wounding a policeman.  

Apr 16 1946 saw the first post war Arab-Jewish riots.  Brits sent in to break up the riots were attacked by Jews.  

Attacks on Police Stations, Army Installations and Railway Installations continued through the rest of the mandate.  Brits responded with Cordon and Search tactics and rolling check points.  The "High Point" of this period was the attack on the King David Hotel on 22 Jul 1946 by IZL and the Stern Gang killing 91 including civilian workers.  There was also the occasional bank robbery.  

This Jew-on-Brit struggle continued until on 2 Feb 1947 the Brits decided to evacuate all non-essential personnel.  That took a week.  After that the Brits asked the Jewish Agency (the de facto Jewish Government - the state within the state - to assist in reining in the extremists (the IZL and Stern).  Cooperation was refused.  Concurrently the pace of arrival of Illegal ships increased.  Vessels caught and boarded with their passengers sent to Cyprus. Many evaded the RN blockade and successfully made land fall.

Attacks Jew-on-Brit attacks intensified with the Jews expanding their target list to include Barclay's Bank, the Haifa oil refinery and oil pipelines.  There were also, on 29 Mar 1947 reported street fights between the Stern Gang and the IZL although they managed to patch up differences to co-operate in an attack on the Acre jail on 4 May that released 217 prisoners.

On June 19 Girls' High School in Haifa was bombed, fortunately with no casualties (6 Divs Battle Diary states "Motive not clear".  

On 28 June Stern attacked a restaurant targeting Brit officers.

On 12 July IZL kidnaps 2 British Sergeants from 6 Abn Div.  Held as hostages for barter against 5 Jews facing death sentences at Acre.  The sentences were carried out 29 July.  The Sergeants were hanged in retaliation.

31 July the Brits lost control of their troops - 5 Jews were killed and 15  wounded in Tel Aviv as reprisals for the Sergeants.

Attacks against Police and Army installations, Oil refineries and Banks continued.  More ships arrive. More Deportations. More Road Blocks.  More Cordons.  More Searches.

Up until this time there had been very little Arab involvement in the unrest.  There was the one incident of Arabs and Jews in Tel Aviv but other than that the Arabs appear to have been quiet, if not innocent, bystanders, relying on the Brits to deal with Jews.

The UNs Committee on Partition changed that.  It was issued on 1 Sep 1947.

The battle diary records "Minor clash between Jews and Arabs in Safad area" on 23 Aug 1947.  That was the first recorded Arab-Jew interaction since Apr 1946.  The discussion continued after that.

On 11 Sep 1947 Syria, Egypt and Lebanon moved troops up to the frontier.  The Jews responded by deploying Hagganah forces.  Between 11 Sep and 22 Sep Syria pushed forwards establishing a post on Palestine territory near Dan.  That was neutralized by the Trans Jordan Frontier Force, which was manned by Arabs.

The Stern Gang continued to keep things personal by murdering off-duty policemen, bank clerks and civilian refinery workers.

29 Nov 1947 UN votes for partition.  Jews ecstatic.  Arabs, not so much.  Jew-Arab fighting breaks out.  1st bloodshed reported on 1 Dec 1947.  Brits try to restore order.

Jews bomb Arab lumber yards.  Jews and Arabs race around the streets in cars throwing bombs and shooting at each other.

6 Dec "Eight incidents involving Jews, Arabs and Security Forces in Haifa.  Troops fighting with Arabs one minute and Jews the next.....(7 Para patrol) repulsed Arab attack with fire then arrested 6 armed Jews who had taken part in same engagement."

Gaol breaks, riots, Jews attacking Arab villages (Khissas attacked with 10 Arabs killed in apparent reprisal for murder of a Jew in the area a few days previously. "Arab feeling ran high as a result".

Jews blowing themselves up.  Brits trying to keep Arabs in jail.  Arabs attacking Arab TJFF convoy because they thought they were Jews.  Jews (IZL or Stern) throw a bomb into a crowd of Arab oil refinery workers at shift change............................................... more of the same until 30 Jun 1948.  

30 Jun 1948 "Last British troops.......left Palestine."

Detailed timeline taken from 6 Abn Div Battle Diary reproduced in "Cordon and Search: with 6th Airborne Division in Palestine 1945-1948" by Maj-Gen Dare Wilson who served as a Major at Div HQ.

http://www.nesa.org.uk/latest_issue/nov-dec-07.htm
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/intro.htm
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Mandate.htm
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/first_zionist_colony.htm

If you want to know when things got out of hand, as far as the Brits were concerned, I think you have to go to the UN Partition vote.  Up until that time they had a problem with the Jews, but the Arabs were not violent.  Most of the violence came from two elements of the Jewish community: the IZL (which operated with the blessing of the Jewish Agency, the Hagganah and the Palmach (Government, Army, Regulars, Special Forces = JA, Hagganah, Palmach, IZL) and the Stern Gang (Eretz Israel which operated on their own).

After that battle was truly joined.  Chalk another one up for the UN in the cause of Peace.....virtually their first day on the job.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Interesting read, Kirkhill, thanks!

 

[Bo]

Very interesting. Great contribution guys!

CanadaPhil,

I'm trying to put aside my bias by starting this thread. I'll admit that everytime I saw pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian post, I would have a sudden knee-jerk, emotionally charged reaction to respond. I felt sorry for the Palestinians and had no sympathy for Israel. I never stood back and tried to see things from an Israeli's perspective. I think part of my problem (along with many others) was that I was fixed in my ways, selectively filtering information that suited my beliefs.

To understand the root causes of this conflict, however, I have to be open to both sides.

It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.
Claude Bernard

That's a nice little quote that sums up my feelings on this issue.

The aim of this thread is to educate people. Plain and simple. I want to see people ask questions, challenge one another and, ultimately, learn something.

 

[pbi]

Kirkhill: very good post! You've done some real work there: thanks. It's interesting to see how 'terrorism' can be a very subjective thing. When you want power, but don't have it, it's useful. When you have power, it's considered repugnant. Setting off bombs in other peoples' hotels, workplaces and public places was quite useful for the various Jewish militant groups pre-independence, but quite abhorrent to the current Israeli government and people. Perhaps countries reap what they sow?  Or do we apply a different measure of behaviour to our friends? (Now--THAT will get a flaming reaction, I bet!)

E9: thanks for illuminating some of the historical aspects. You are quite correct about Byzantium, although I was thinking about pre-Byzantine Imperial times. I was surprised by the era you provided for Mohammed, but after checking it out, you're right. That date, even later than I had been thinking, supports my personal (albeit ill-informed) view of the current state of Islamic religious philosophy and doctrine: it's about half a century younger than Christianity, and thus still at a much more 'extreme' stage. (Think about what was considered right, proper and normal behaviour by the Church 500 years ago, and the influences religion exerted on civil society, as compared to 'Christian' countries today). But, that's another thread...

This is a great thread so far.

Cheers

 

[exsemjingo]

The Israeli response is typically, "Who the hell are you? We own Territory X, Y, AND Z, and if we feel generous enough, we'll let YOU visit Territory W twice a month. Not the other way around."

What are you talking about here?  Israel hardly controls any land at all.  The temple mount remains Israeli territory, but Muslims still control the Dome of the Rock.  Turn the situation around, and how many Jews do you think could access the Wailing Wall?  That's right, zero.
Israel has shown incredible restraint in the long run.  They have received hardly any western support at the most pivotal times, such as now and during the six-day war.
Think about it.  If Iran and Syria are so united with the Palestinians because they are Muslim, then why do they show so much less support for terrorists in Chechnya?  Where were they when their brethren were being attacked in Kosovo?
This is the objective situation:  Israel is surrounded by enemies with unreasonable, baseless hatred toward it.  The current war in Lebanon is not about domination, but about survival.

 

[probum non poenitet]

What are you talking about here? 

I may not have made my point clearly:
During its many wars, Israel has come into possession of territories that are then referred to as 'Disputed' 'Occupied' or 'Erez Israel' depending on to whom you are speaking.
The territories that pop to mind are: The West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, The Golan, Sinai (pre-79), South Lebanon (pre-2000), and really the State of Israel itself. And now, South Lebanon again (wait for it).

Often third parties (the UN, as well as several other states-organizations-blocs-alliances etc. that have an interest in the region) make pronouncements and proposals stating what the Israelis 'should' possess.

Many of these territories have enormous religious, cultural, and strategic significance to Israel. Therefore, the Israelis are extremely reluctant to give them up, particularly since Israelis often see 'third-parties' as indifferent or hostile towards Israel.

Considering that Israel has relinquished Sinai, South Lebanon, and Gaza (am I missing some?) and the result has been terrible two times out of three, I don't imagine they will be in a great hurry to give up many more territories in the near future to 'encourage peace.'

The temple mount remains Israeli territory, but Muslims still control the Dome of the Rock.  Turn the situation around, and how many Jews do you think could access the Wailing Wall?

Jerusalem is administered by Israel, but has a large Muslim population. Many Israelis citizens are Muslim and Arab. Muslims can access Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, but Israel is the 'keeper of the keys.'
(EDIT - I think we are both saying the same thing, I am just clarifying)

I do agree that Hamas and their ilk would likely deny Jews access to the wailing wall, which is why Israel continues to strongly reject Palestinian claims on Jerusalem as its capital.
Hence my original quote about W, X, Y, and Z.

Cheers

 

[pbi]

it's about half a century younger than Christianity, and thus still at a much more 'extreme' stage

Sorry..that should be 'half a millenium'.

Cheers

 

[exsemjingo]

PBI, you sound like Durkheim.

 

[joaquim]

I will post a series of excepts from a very important book here. Here is the first of two today:

Chapter Thirteen (about 1939)

As far as the war itself was concerned, the Palestine jews were enthusiastically behind the British. The Jewish Agency set up registration booths and 85,781 men and 50,262 women volunteered for war service. This was 30% of the total Jewish population.
(...)
The Jews wanted to form a Jewish force attached to and under control of the British Army. (...) But Mr. Chamberlain was neither willing that a Jewish army be built up - which might be effective latter against the iniquitous White Paper and the Arabs - nor for the Jews to accumulate "credits" - which might be used after the war in trying to restore the National Home policy. The offer of the Jews was turned down. (...) Later, when the need was pressing, it was agreed to accept them into fighting forces, but only pro rata with Arab volunteers. As the Arabs were not anxious to enlist, this regulation put a severe restriction on the Jews. Eventually, as the military position became critical in Africa, the restrictions were ignored. A number of Jewish units fought as "Palestinians", although they were composed entirely of Jews. They fought in the Western Desert, in Ethiopia, Eritrea, France, Greece, Crete, Syria and Iraq, and gave an excellent account of themselves.
(...)
In addition to regular service, Jews were specially trained as Commandos and used behind the enemy lines. Arabic-speaking Jews entered Syria  and obtained information which enabled them to lead attacking British forces such that the Vichy French and Syrian troops were taken by surprise and the land speedily occupied. An earlier sabotage expedition had been sent by sea to blow up the oil installations at Tripoli but it was apparently spotted by a naval patrol and the whole party was lost. German and Arabic-speaking Jews were specially trained to operate in enemy territory. A group of eighty-five was landed from a a British destroyer behing the lines in Africa. This group engaged the enemy from the rear and thus assisted in the advance of the British Eighth Army. Some of the boldest acts were those of thirty-two specially trained Jewish parachutists who were landed behind the lines in Italy, and other Nazi-occupied countries of Europe. They did very valuable work of espionage, organizing sabotage, assisting the escape of prisoners of war and especially of helping thousands of Jews to escape from Hungary, Rumania and other countries. Seven of the thirty-two were killed and two of these, Hannah Senesch and Enzo Sereni, have been immortalized for their deeds.

Excerpt from William L. Hull, The Fall and Rise of Israel, Zondervan Publ., 1954.William Hull, a Protestant pastor born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, lived in Jerusalem from 1935 to 1965.
From the preface: “Little has been written by Christians on Jewish history and less is generally known by them outside of that which is written in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, I feel it timely and desirable to write on that subject, so that the historical background leading up to, and the events which secured the establishment of the new State of Israel, may be more generally known.(...) Jerusalem, Israel, December 1953.”

 

[joaquim]

Second excerpt from Hull's book, Chapt 13:

The story of Hannah Senesch (Senesh, Szenes) is equally heroic and tragic, and rendered more poignant by her youth, her charm and her poetic attainments. In 1939, at the age of eighteen, Hannah had left her native Budapest for Palestine, and after a period of training became a member of the fishing and farm kvutzah Sdot Yam (Seafields) on the site of the ancient Caesarea. For five years wshe worked at her assignet tasks, confiding her thoughts and longings to her diary and poems. Hannah was haunted by a sense of mission ad obeyed its impulse when she joined the parachute group. Her specific aim was to organize the rescue of Jewish children out of Hungary and to save her mother, whom she had left in Budapest. In March 1944, she landed behing enemy lines in Yougoslavia, but when she finally managed to reach Hungary three months later, she was betrayed by peasants to the police. For five months her jailors used a variety of tortures, crude and refined, to wrest the secret of her mission, and failed. She was tried and sentenced to death. Asked if she wished to plead for mercy, she replied "I ask for no mercy from hangmen", and when she stood before the firing squad in the prison courtyard she refused to be blindfolded. In March 1950, Hannah was taken from her grave in Budapest, brought to Haifa on a ship of the Israel navy, and intered near the tomb of Theodor Hertzl on the hilltop near Jerusalem that bears his name. The four lines of her last poem, Ashrei Hagafrur, 'Happy is the Match', have become an important part of her legacy. They state the role which she and her comrades fulfilled in life and death:

Happy is the match consumed igniting the flame;
Happy is the flame ablaze in the heart's recess;
Happy is the heart in honor beating its last;
Happy is the match consumed igniting the flame.

Excerpt from William L. Hull, The Fall and Rise of Israel, Zondervan Publ., 1954.William Hull, a Protestant pastor born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, lived in Jerusalem from 1935 to 1965.
From the preface: “Little has been written by Christians on Jewish history and less is generally known by them outside of that which is written in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, I feel it timely and desirable to write on that subject, so that the historical background leading up to, and the events which secured the establishment of the new State of Israel, may be more generally known.(...) Jerusalem, Israel, December 1953.”

Here is the Wikipedia page about her, including more details about her life, a photo and more poems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Szenes

 

[joaquim]

To Kirkhill, Probum, Echo9 and all those who try to find the forest behind the trees, a short message:

In the Holy Land, religion is the root cause. Everything else is consequence.

I am glad to see the Scriptures quoted in a few comments in this thread, but disappointed to see how many view the Near East war as an expression of politics. In the land of Abraham, the President of the USA is weaker than an old immam in a wheelchair.

Anywhere else in the world, a political landmark like the 1983 Oslo Accord would have marked the end of war and the birth of a nation. In the holy land, it was judged counter to both the Torah and the Qur'an and was ignored by warriors.

In future posts, I will try to summarize the theological arguments for and against the return of the Jews to Palestine and will try to explain why there will never be peace in Palestine. In the meantime, a small intellectual exercise: when listening to the news about the Near East, try to rephrase what you heard using the words Jews, Muslims and Christians. A few things will become evident, starting with the ignorance of journalists.

Joaquim, in NB.