The Romans did not completely decimate the Jews in that area and some survived since biblical times, living along the fertile areas near the river valleys. Most of the land was dry and not tillable. After centuries of pogroms, in the late 19th century, some European Jews decided that they needed a nation of their own, free from persecution, the beginning of the Zionist movement. Some thought emigrating to America was the answer, but others insisted they needed a nation of their own: a wise idea in view of current inflammatory anti-Semitic movements in this country, particularly in some colleges and universities. They persuaded some rich European Jews to finance the purchasing of land in that area. The land purchased was gladly sold by the Arab owners, since it was dry and not fertile. When the owners could not be found, the land was purchased from the Ottoman empire. The initial immigrations in the 1890’s were unsuccessful as the conditions were too harsh, requiring backbreaking work, malaria, and other illnesses. However, in the early 1900’s, Theodor Herzl, a journalist, reinvigorated the movement. Contrary to comments I’ve heard from many, the Jews and Arabs have not been “at it” for thousands of years. At first, they got along well (until WWI). After all, it was the Arabs who sold them the land and they appreciated the irrigation the Jews did. Anyone traveling to Israel now will see the vast irrigations of the land.
However, it was not the intention of the Jews to just settle in the land. They needed a nation in which they could feel safe. After the end of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI, the British received a mandate from the League of Nations over that land and agreed that the Jews needed a nation in the land. This was set forth in a “white paper” by Lord Balfour, in 1917, in a letter to Lord Rothschild: “[A] declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet - His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.” (A History of Israel, Howard M. Sachar, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1976, p. 109)
Britain failed to implement that white paper. In 1930, it reached treaty agreement with the Feisal government in Baghdad for Iraq to enjoy juridically sovereign status, under the proviso that British military installations remain. On the same basis, Abdullah, installed as emir of Transjordan (now Jordan) in 1922, was allowed to preside over his own domestically autonomous government, with assurances of future sovereignty. These agreements were extracted by a festering Arab nationalism that erupted intermittently in violence and that threatened not merely to undermine the Western presence in the Middle East but to become an instrument in the hands of Britain’s European adversaries. (ibid., p.194)
As background information, a militant faction of the Jews, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) was formed in 1931 to retaliate against Arab violence. Primarily due to the actions of the Irgun, Britain finally relented and turned the entire matter over to the UN, allowing for the establishment of the state of Israel. Prior to that establishment, many of the Arabs living in that portion of Palestine designated for the state of Israel, left. Most left because that was the lesser of two evils. They did not want to be caught in a cross-fire due to the impending attack by the Arab nations and the Arab nations promised that they would return soon, as soon as the Jews were driven to the sea, which has not yet happened. In many areas, particularly in Haifa, the Arabs were urged to stay and many did so. Arabs comprise 25% of the Israeli population today, and some hold government positions. (Israel is a democracy and anyone can run for office, as we can here.) By some miracle, the small nation of Israel held off four Arab countries to a draw, primarily due to the fact that many of the Israeli fighters had been in the Resistance Movement during WWII and that the Arab nations did not coordinate well due to petty rivalies.
Forty-two years has passed since the “Six Day War” which resulted in Israeli control over the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and Golan Heights, the so-called “occupation,” although when the PLO (both Hamas and Fatah) and Hezbollah refer to the “occupation” they include the state of Israel. Israel voluntarily gave the Gaza Strip back, forcefully, in many instances, removing the Jewish residents. Instead of building a viable, peaceful community, Hamas came in and put in military installations to bombard Israel.
Many claim that since that land was occupied by a military operation, International Law requires that it be returneded as it existed prior to the operation. However, International Law makes a clear distinction between land “occupied” during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan all attacked Israel.
Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948: Kfar Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem. The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all of the disputed territories, and Jordan. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the UN, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
There are mistaken claims that Israel’s control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during WWII. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically “individual or mass forcible transfers.” The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled. The “Occupying Power” may also not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. There is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.
The most controversial clause in the UN Security Council Resolution 242 is the call of “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The omission of “all the” territories occupied was deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected. The Arab League then rejected the entire resolution. Nonetheless, it was approved by the Security Council.
Israel has withdrawn from 95% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai and then Gaza. The Arab reaction was not to make peace but instead the “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Conference of August 1967: No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiation with Israel.
Since launching a terror war in 2000, Palestinian living standards have undoubtedly declined as the Palestinian leadership adopted violence ahead of nation building and investing in civil society. Contrary to some claims in the media, “occupation” is not the primary reason for the current plight of the Palestinians. When Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, officials took measures to improve the conditions that Palestinians had lived under during Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the West Bank and Egypt’s occupation of Gaza. Universities were opened, Israeli agricultural innovations were shared, modern conveniences were introduced, and health care was significantly upgraded. More than 100,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel and paid the same wages as Israeli workers, which stimulated economic growth.