Israel Palestine Primer please

Western Arabia, north of Yemen. Hussein ( Husayn ) was also known as the Emir of Mecca.

More specifically the Hijaz was conquered by his archenemy, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Sa’ud, who fused the two states together to form the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

He later became king of Iraq from 1921-1933 ( until 1932 under British mandate ). His brother Abd Allah became Amir of Transjordan under British mandate from 1921-1946, independent as king thereafter until 1951 ( name changed to Jordan in 1949 after the seizure of the West Bank ).

In some cases, but not all. For example Ibn Sa’ud took the British for a ride and ended up with a lot more than British wanted or expected. The Kuwaitis got pretty much exactly what they were after ( a secured and sheltered de facto independance ). It was a mixed bag, all in all.

Two good books on this subject, the first much broader in scope, dealing with both the pre- and post-WW I. The second dealing more specifically with the Persian Gulf up to, but mostly not including, WW I:

A Peace To End All Peace, The Fall of he Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin ( 1989, Avon Books ).

The Ottoman Gulf, The Creation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar by Frederik F. Anscombe ( 1997, Colombia University Press )

  • Tamerlane

Oh and, yes the British positions were frequently ambiguous and contradictory. Partly it was because different offices and different officers were making agreements with different parties without consulting each other. In addition the British were trying to work all the parties to their best advantage ( remember they felt a bit desperate about the war ) and if that meant fudging a bit, so be it. One could probably point to some instituitional racism and contempt for the rights of native polities as well ( though I wouldn’t say this was universal ).

So for example, in his negotiations with Hussein, MacMahon well after the fact claimed that he specifically intended for the Arabs to have no claims on Lebanon, coastal Syria, and Palestine. But his letters at the time ( according to Fromkin ), while they could be read that way, were really only unambiguous about Lebanon/coastal Syria, not Palestine ( though even in inland Syria they hedged their bets by saying they wouldn’t act to the detriment of their ally, France ).

So, yep, they bear some blame for the confusion of claims.

  • Tamerlane

Having read over the link provided by tomndebb, which was very helpful, there’s something I’m still in the dark about: given that the State of Israel was created by a U.N. decision, and the Arab states appeared to be the main aggressors in the military conflicts surrounding that state, why is it that, in the news I’ve been reading, it seems like everyone but the U.S. blames Israel for what’s going on? Maybe that’s an oversimplification, so I’ll ask another way: what is the rest of the world’s viewpoint on the Israeli/Palestinian situation, and why?

flowbark and Tamerlane,

Thanks for clarifying…

The rest of the world actually has a lot of different opinions, depending on whether they need Arab oil, want to support or oppose U.S. hegemony in the world, have a history of anti-semitism reflected in their views of Israel, or who they backed during the Cold War.

One reason for the current emphasis (in some parts) on “Israeli aggression” is the aftermath of the 1967 war. In order to create a buffer zone against further invasion, Israel annexed the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank (of the Jordan River) from Trans-Jordan (now Jordan), and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Once it had that new land, Israel began to allow its expanding population of citizens to settle on and develop that land. Meanwhile, it never managed to integrate the people who were living on that land into Israel and were not successful in encouraging them to simply abandon the area to Israelis. (This was most likely not a deliberate move on the part of Israel. No one with any sense tries to create a hostile minority within their own borders. But a lot of political in-fighting within the Knesset along with the continued threat of external attacks (manifested, for example, in 1973) and a lack of clear options, led to a situation in which an entire group of people was treated as invaders/enemies/refugees while living in their own homes–a situation that has continued for 35 years, with an entire generation of people raised in that environment.)

It is probably not fair to blame the entire situation on Israeli policy (although Israel must share the blame), but people on the outside now look at this 35-year-old unresolved situation, note that the government holding the ground is Israeli, and figure that Israel “must do something” about it. Whenever the situation re-erupts in violence, many of those outside observers will ignore the long and tortured history to claim that Israel “created” the problem, so they must be responsible for it.

And part of the problem, IM(less-than-completely-informed)O, is connected with Likkud’s entry into power in 1977. Apparently, much of their support came from the Sephardic Jews, who felt they were under the heel of the Ashkanazi Jews (of European origin).

Anyway, whenever Likkud has been in power, they’ve carried on an expansionary settlement policy:
Jewish Population in the West Bank
1967 - 0
1977 - 5000
1987 - 55,000
2002 - still more
Now, 5000 people may make sense for strategic purposes. 50,000 is decidedly unhelpful. The strategy was to make it impossible to form a contiguous Palestinian presence, except of the tiniest size. This is not an accommodating posture: Likkud (IM-less-than-HO) deserves some vilification.

Anyway, here’s a map that reflects the Oslo II peace accords of 1995, as far as I can tell.

http://www.fmep.org/0597.gif

Area A - (3% of territory) Palestinians have direct control.
Area B - (24% of territory) shared control. Note that it is
decidedly non-contiguous.
Area C - (74%) - Israel has total control over these areas. All 145 settlements fall within these parts, along with roads to connect them to Israel proper.

Well, it was a start. Many Palestinians interpreted it as a near-total capitulation by the PLO, with some reason based on a casual examination of the map.

This lead to increased support for Hamas, a grassroots organization with the less-than-constructive refusal to grant Israel’s right to exist.

Somewhere lost in all of this arguing over real estate is a discussion of the steps necessary to develop Palestine economically. For that, stability and economic policy will matter more than sovereignty.

from Philote : “and the Arab states appeared to be the main aggressors in the military conflicts surrounding that state, why is it that, in the news I’ve been reading, it seems like everyone but the U.S. blames Israel for what’s going on?”

It seems to me there are four groups that side against Israel in the press: 1) Palestinians, 2) Arab countries, 3) Europe, and 4) the press itself.

  1. Palestinians - fairly obvious why.

  2. Arab countries - they have longstanding problems with Israel, plus many of the tyrannical governments whip up sentiment against Israel so their people have an enemy to blame, thereby taking some of the heat off themselves.

  3. Europe - in addition to what’s been said before, Europe (by and large) still clings to quite a bit of socialism/communism. In the US, many of these ideas have been dissolved by modern business reality, especially the separation of manufacturing from other arms of business (the old-time socialist would say Pilsbury’s profits were made unfairly off the labor of the millworkers, but now would find that Pilsbury doesn’t make flour, they just buy it from a manufacturer and market it). A major part of semi-socialist thinking is that if there is a rich country and a poor country, the rich one must have got their money from the poor one - thereby screwing the poor one. Those who disagree with this idea (like the US gov’t) think those people have ignored that countries have pulled themselves out of poverty without dragging another one in, and that countries have made themselves poor without enriching another.

Because of this semi-socialist thinking, there is a natural tendency for Europe to side with poorer or weaker countries because they obviously are being EXPLOITED. In the case of the Palistinians, well, Israel is stronger and richer, so they are in the exploiter category, and the Palestinians are in the exploited category. So even though Europe sees the Palestinians as being the greater instigators and the commitors of more heineous acts, the exploiter/exploited pushes the blame back to Israel. “Why else would Palestinians act this way if they weren’t forced to by Israel?”

  1. the press - in trying to be totally unbiased, they report what each side has to say without pressing people about arguments that don’t make sense or contradict actions or other easily checked facts. The PLO will give reasons for why suicide bombers are spontaneously doing their thing – and it will correspond with what the worst thing Israel is doing at the time, regardless of the fact that, say, two weeks ago, Israel wasn’t doing said bad thing, yet the bombing continued (example: a couple of weeks ago, the PLO said the bombings were happening because of Israeli retaliations and assasinations of terrorists – when they stopped the retaliations and assasinations, the bombings actually escillated). Instead of pointing out these inconsistencies, the press just reports things as it is told to them.

I think this is a case of journalistic CYA – they can’t be accused of bias against one side or the other if just report what’s told to them (I can just imagine if news had been this way during WWII – “Allies say genocide is evil, however, the Germans counter that the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals were causing all the problems, and things are much better now that they are gone.”)

Escalated, not “escillated”. Sometimes I scare myself with my spelling errors.

I am sorry, did this balfour guy asked the inhabitants of the region (mostly arabs) if they wanted the creation of the state of Israel?
Again sorry, according to my poor understanding since the time of Hadrian (is that the english name?) the “holy god!!!” land was not occupied by jews or if it was only by a minority. The argument of the jewish inmigration during the latter part of the 19 century does not convince me, after all if it were for that I would be an italian.

He probably got their opinion about as diligently as the Spanish got the opinion of the Indians when colonizing Argentina (Or the English got the opinion of the Indians when colonizing the Eastern Seaboard of the US for that matter.)

Captain amazing you do realize there is rather large amount of time between 1516 (Solis arrival at River Plate) and 1917 (balfour’s declaration)?

OK, how about this one:

He probably got their opinion about as diligently as the Junta got the opinion of the Falklanders when invading the Malvinas.

Boys! Let’s keep this factual. Explicit moral judgments can go in other threads.

I’m not sure whether this is a real question. I must note that I have tried my best to summarize the situation, and I reiterate that I am not an expert.

The Arabs were immediately pissed off about Balfour. It should be noted though that prior to WWI, they weren’t exactly independent countries; rather, they were parts of the Ottoman empire.* Also, Faysal entered into an agreement to support Balfour, although that deal was called off after the French took over Syria.

Nonetheless, the Balfour Declaration was just that, a declaration (of sympathy) to the Zionist cause. It was made during WWI to cement certain wartime alliances, to keep Britain in Palestine (and, more importantly, to limit French influence in the region) and, yes, for certain humanitarian purposes. Note that Balfour did not call for the establishment of the state of Israel; rather, it attempted to balance Arab and Zionist interests.

  • Interestingly, we would have avoided this mess (or at least had a different mess) if the Ottomans had refrained from attacking Russia during WWI.

Captain amazing, that was a better answer, the junta was wrong. The claim (according to us and the U.N was a legitimate one Falklands are considered by the U.N. as a colony, therefore the falklanders have no right of decission. Having said that I as almost every argentinian disagree with what the junta did, of course they never cared for our opinion they were, after all a military dictatorship.

In regards to the French sticking their nose in the situation and spoiling the situation for everybody…Now I don’t have any love loss for the Frogs but it is pretty well documented that the Arabs knew that French interest were going to be taken into account post WWI.

Have any of you guys read any of the McMahon-Faisel letters? They don’t sound to ambiguous to me.

Also for a real interesting read about political goings on durring WWI read “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” by T.E. Lawence (he is extremely pro Arab but I guess you would have to be)

I personally feel that the Fiasel/Wiesmann agreement is the root cause of the whole situation. (that and the British piss poor attitude to enforce agreements)

I can’t post more now but will try again later or tommow

Did a little digging on the Internet as a result of several of these threads popping up and found some interesting sites that I think will at least contribute to the debate.

Here is the full text of the Balfour Declaration from 1917. flowbark is right in that it does not call for the establishment of the state of Israel, but personally I’m hard pressed to find another reasonable interpretation of the phrase “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. It does expressly state that the political and religious rights of the non-Jewish population in Palestine, and of Jews elsewhere in the world, should not be compromised, but as I intend to show a little later on in this post, the Zionists had other ideas.

The source of the conflict in Palestine long predates 1948, but it is not religiously based. This is a site I found quite interesting, especially for the chronology it provides.

According to the first part of the chronology, Jewish settlements were being established in Palestine as far back as the 1880s - in fact Petah Tikva, the first such settlement, was established in 1878. Palestine at that point was still part of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1881 the Ottoman government announced that Jews had permission to settle throughout the empire, Palestine excluded. The following year some 25,000 Jewish immigrants settled in Palestine, which the Ottomans viewed as a political problem since they’d said no Jewish settlements in Palestine.

The 1890s were a period of legal and political wrangling, with the Jewish Colonization Association (founded by Herzl and supported by the Basle Program of the First Zionist Congress of 1899) continuing the program of immigration and land acquisition despite repeated actions by the Ottoman sultan to prevent this. It should be noted that as early as 1899 the JCA’s representative in Jerusalem, Albert Antebi, asserted that the Basle Program had adversely affected relations between Jewish immigrants and the local Palestinians. I can find no cite for the actual date, but this essay here has Antebi commenting on the situation in much the same light around 1913.

After World War I, it was decided at the Paris Peace Conference that the conquered Arab territories would not be returned to Ottoman rule. Neither did Britain and France want to let them go, however, since the First Palestinian National Congress in 1919 sent two memoranda to the conference demanding independence. That same year the Peace Conference sent a commission of inquiry to Palestine to find out what the locals wanted. Britain and France refused to participate, and it ended up being two Americans who went and ultimately recommended the project of a Zionist homeland in Palestine be given up. Their conclusions, the King-Crane Commission Report, can be found here.

In 1920, the provinces of Syria, Transjordan, Palestine, and Lebanon declared joint independence, but the San Remo Peace Conference assigned the Palestinian Mandate to Britain, who immediately prevented the Second Palestinian National Congress from meeting.

Here, then, we have the general background - decisions regarding the future of Palestine taken by imperialist powers with little or no input from the Palestinians themselves, while these same powers have expressed explicit support for a program that is generally acknowledged to have been causing political and social problems for 40 years already.

The 1920s and 1930s witness the establishment of several militant Zionist organizations, like that of Vladimir Jabotinsky who called for the forcible colonization of Palestine and Transjordan, and the dramatic increase in Jewish immigration (as illustrated by flowbark above). In 1935 a large shipment of arms smuggled by Zionists is discovered in Jaffa. In 1937, another militant Zionist organization, Irgun, begins to advocate armed attacks on Palestinians. The following year, 119 Palestinians are killed in Irgun attacks, while 8 Jews are killed in Palestinian attacks. Britain, meanwhile, dissolves all Palestinian political organizations and establishes military courts to deal with the Palestinian rebellion that is emerging. Meanwhile a British officer by the name of Orde Wingate organized squads of British soldiers and Zionists to attack Palestinian villages.

The 1940s see the emergence of the Stern Gang and the increased activity of Haganah, another armed and militant organization. The Stern Gang originally called for an alliance with the Axis powers against the British in protest of an immigration policy that favored Palestinians, while the Irgun entertained itself by stealing weapons and ammunition from British military installations. The Stern Gang had originally broken off as a splinter group from Irgun, but by 1944 they had joined with Irgun for terror campaigns against the British.

In 1946, Haganah simultaneously attacks eight major highway and railroad bridges, for which the British arrest over 2,000 Jews. Later that same year, the Jewish Agency Executive calls for a cessation of terrorism by Jews, but it continues in 1947 with a series of letter bombs sent by the Stern Gang to British officials and an attack on a Palestinian family in Tel Aviv that leaves twelve members, including six children, dead. In December of that year Haganah attacked the villages of al-Khisas (page) and Qazaza (page), both of which remain uninhabited today.

Now we come to 1948 - the seminal year of modern Israeli history. They start out the year purchasing 20 warplanes from Britain and $12 million worth of arms from Czechoslovakia, while David Ben-Gurion orders the conquest of Jerusalem and asserts that the State of Israel will come into being with or without an international force behind it, and that the territory will not be dependent on UN partition but “military preponderance”. March and April witness coordinated Haganah military offensives on a number of fronts, occupying villages and expelling the inhabitants. 120 Palestinians in the Jerusalem suburb of Dir Yassein are massacred by the Stern Gang and Irgun. The Czech arms shipments start arriving in Haifa (which was forcibly occupied by Haganah the day after the British withdrew in April) in March, followed by two in May. By that time, almost 200,000 Palestinians were reported to have fled zones occupied by Haganah - not all of them expelled, to be sure, but fleeing when they found out what was going on, certainly.

In reaction to all this, the surrounding countries decide that they ought to send troops to Palestine at the end of the British Mandate on 15 May.

So it wasn’t some sort of secret anti-Semitic plot by the whole of the Middle East to wipe the peaceful Palestinian Jews off the map, as some seem to assert here. The whole history of Zionism in Palestine from the establishment of Petah Tikva to the declaration of the State of Israel has been one of blatant disregard for the local population and national laws, turning into violent aggression and repression once they felt they had the upper hand. This, IMO, is the real source of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and IMO most peace proposals merely serve to legitimize the way Israel chose to carve itself out of Palestine - something I’m hardly surprised any Palestinian finds it difficult to swallow.

None of this, however, is to say that I’m arguing Jews don’t have a right to live anywhere they wish to. I just have a problem with the Zionists, who have shown by their actions that they believe they have to act as an occupying army and assert their right to live where they wish at the expense of the local population.

I’m going to shock the hell out of people by joining in somewhat on Olentzero’s side in the debate. A very good book on the subject- one I’m reading right now for a game I’m writing- is called “One Palestine, Complete” by Tom Segev.

The fact is that following the British takeover of Palestine, the radical section of the Zionist movement came in like an occupying army. While the British government was in theory in control, the Zionist Committee constantly agitated, pushed, and demonstrated for their own indirect control of the entire province, and one in which the Palestinians had no role- the Commission pushed hard for a Jewish-only police force, for the official language to be Hebrew (and some actually went out tearing down signs that were printed in Arabic), and for tarrifs that protected Jewish businesses at the expense of Arab businesses. Right-wingers like Jabotinsky called for forced expulsion of the Arabs, and gained large followings.
Now, that doesn’t turn the Arab population automatically into heros, and certainly doesn’t absolve them of the violent anti-Jewish riots that occurred even before the British left. But the current mess in the Middle East does have its roots in the failing of both sides. Unfortunately, neither side wants to admit that it has ever made a mistake.

Zionists allied with Hitler.
That’s, ummm … interesting.

The French pursued their interests just like the Brits did. My French-bashing was done mostly with tongue in cheek. Still, it’s too bad that they had to take Syria from the Arabs.

No. Oh.

Olentzero Great post. I disagree with your characterization of the Balfour declaration. From what I read, the Brits intentionally avoided giving support to a Jewish State. For one thing, a Palestine Mandate, governed by Britain, would justify their continued involvement in the region and -moreover- would displace French meddling. (This is from the Brit perspective).

Thus, Arab opposition at the time was basically what might be characterized as anti-immigrant sentiment. Understandable, though, since the immigration was pretty massive.

Ottoman policy: Interesting.

Now, let me put forward some examples of Arab intransigence, as a complement to Olentzero’s info.

High Commissioner Samuel, administrator of the Palestinian mandate in the 1920s, tried his best to build an integrated political community, believing that Arab cooperation was crucial to any unitary state. He also thought that Jewish-Arab cooperation would improve the Arab standard of living.

Proposal #1: 1922 Constitution. A legislative council with Jewish, Arab and Christian representatives, along with 11 crown appointees, would be established. Arabs oppose this, since it does not annul the Balfour declaration. Samuel presses with elections anyway. The Arabs boycott them. Constitution shelved in 1923.

Proposal #2: Set up an advisory council with 10 Arabs and 2 Jewish representatives, all nominated by the Samuel. Nocando: Arab representatives were pressured not to serve.

Result: Palestine is run by the Brits alone. Joint Arab/Jewish institutions were not constructed. As it happens, the Arab institutions suffered from substantially greater factionalism (perhaps associated with their longer history in the region).