The Arabs tended to support the Allies during World War I, because they wanted independence.
Sorry, could you remind me who Israel was granted independence from?
It differs from both of those examples in that, in both of those examples, the “newcommers” are colonists - that is, members of a different nation-state intent on exerting influence or domination over the territory, and make it (hopefully) part of that nation-state.
The difference, in the case of Israel, is twofold:
-
Israel is not a “colony”. There is no other nation, such as China or France, attempting to extend influence by exporting citizens by force. on the contrary, most of the citizens of Israel came as immigrants (generally, quite legally, with the exception of events surrounding WW2) or desperate refugees - from Europe or elsewhere in the ME.
-
Half the population were not “newcommers” at all – they were citizens, like the Arabs, of a united Turkish Imperium that was forcibly split into ethno-nations by Europeans acting within a context of nationalist ferment following WW1. No-one questions that the Arabs “get” ethno-nations; the expulsion of the (ancient) Jewish populations to Israel is also generally unquestioned (and indeed unremarked).
That is like saying that after (for example) Canada splits into its component provinces and every province forcibly expels the Native Canadians to (say) Prince Edward Island, where very few previously lived, that they are “newcommers” and thus of questionable legitimacy. They were not “newcommers” to the united entity that previously existed; if anything is “illegitimate”, it was their forcible expulsion in the first place.
Thus, the creation of Israel cannot be looked at in isolation, but as part of the history of the region as a whole.
British Mandate, carved out of Turkish Empire.
Technically, Israel wasn’t granted independence. The British left (without “handing the keys” over to any sort of local government or governments), and Israel *declared *independence.
OTOH the United Nations recognized that declaration. I suppose that was the “grant”, though as you say it simply formally recognized an existing state of affairs.
As a matter of principle, I reject the notion that the United Nations is needed in order to “approve” a country’s independence. Nations were founded before the UN, and nations will still be founded after its gone.
I agree with that myself.
OK. You won.
Criminey, we’re already near the end of page 2 and we haven’t solved the Israeli/Palesinian conflict?? I am very disappointed in all of you.
Great bakers, the Lembas.
You learn something new on the SD all the time. Here I thought Lembas was a type of bread eaten by elves (and hobbits) when they were going on long journeys involving rings and fire…
-XT
You already argued this point with another poster. It doesn’t make much difference, especially from the point of view of the local population. Both Han migrants and French colonists came as immigrants, generally quite legally, from elsewhere, with the blessings of a foreign power in charge (China, France, and in the case of Palestine the UK) and without regard for the opinion of the local population that had no say in the matter. There’s no significant difference.
How many Jews were living in Palestine in 1918 and how many in 1948?
Don’t bother, I searched for figures. The Jewish population in Palestine was :
In 1881 : 24 000
In 1914 : 84 000
In 1928 : 150 000
In 1948 : 585 000 (that’s the low figure I found. The high figure was about 800 000)
That’s quite a lot of outsiders, in my opinion.The overwhelming majority of Jews living in Palestine in 1948 had clearly moved there during the British mandate. Now, you’re free to tell me how many were coming from the territories formerly owned by the Ottoman Empire, I wouldn’t know. But I would point out that you seem to be arguing that there was no Zionist movement, or that it was so unimportant that it’s barely worth mentioning.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. I’m assuming the Jews who moved from Arab countries to Israel during the 50s. If so, that’s not relevant to the issue of the legitimacy of the Jewish immigration during the British mandate and of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Previewing my post, I’m wondering what period of Israel’s history you’re actually referring to. Your arguments refer to the population of the Ottoman empire, but you wrote : “Israel is not a "colony” in the present tense. In case it would be unclear, I’m discussing the events leading to the creation of Israel.
I completely agree. Arab nationalism began to assert itself at the same time Zionists first attempted to recreate a Jewish homeland, but Jewish nationalism was a result of the cruelty and destructive forces of anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century. Jewish nationalism was a reaction to a virulent manifestation of racism.
Zionism was a quest for sanctuary, and despite the Jewish population in Palestine prior to WWII, Israel was created by survivors of the Holocaust.
Do what I do - support Israel’s right to exist unconditionally, then call them on their shit every now and then to keep them honest. Like, I’d be happier if they dropped the right of return and extended citizenship rights to Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens, but those are minor quibbles whith what is essentially a country I quite like. That’s not to say they don’t do things I don’t like (like the airstrikes), but that’s on their own consciences, as it were.
All these arguments, while intelligently made, to some degree miss the forest for the trees, at least in my opinion. Why we should “support” Israel is really as simple as they are like us. Israel is a modern western democracy full of people who, for the most part, just want to go about living their lives. On the other hand, there are a bunch of countries who are despotic hell-holes, intent on nursing grudges real or imagined, who think the solution to every problem is blowing up innocent people. I know this is to some degree a gross oversimplification, but which country is the more likely ally?
Also, one thing that needs to be kept in mind. There are a lot of Jews in the United States, many of whom have connections with Israel. Its pretty natural for them to want to support Israel. Hell, a bunch of Americans of Irish descent who were probably less closely tied to Ireland than many American Jews are to Israel thought it was a good idea to support the IRA.
Yes, but the problem is that we’re financing this behavior. (We Americans, at least.) So it’s on our conscience, too.
Why should I support Israel?
Because if you don’t, the juice will get you.
I see that my comment looks a little hinky. I don’t suppose they would have been thrilled but my impression of the people that built Israel is that they were not of the same frame of mind as the colonizers who did more exploiting than building. Perhaps they might have created a state that was more inclusive.
The current state of African nations speaks for itself.
The problem is that we needn’t make this a zero sum game. There is no reason why we have to root for “Team Israel” and spit and jeer at “Team Islam.” But that’s what we (in the US) do. We NEVER criticize Israeli actions. If anything happens between Israel and its neighbors, Israel is always right, and we never say—“Hey, guys, I know you have a legitimate security issue here, but maybe killing 400ish people, most of them noncombatants, is going a little overboard; dial it back, would you?” “Maybe you shouldn’t provoke UN peacekeepers in Lebanon with illegal overflights, OK?” Let’s face it—Hamas and its ilk ARE responsible for killing and wounding innocent Israelis, and Israel IS responsible for killing and wounding innocent Palestinians. We should be supporting them both (and calling them both out) so they can sort their shit out.