By this account, Steven, who needs to look at the actual history of Israel? The French in Vietnam, the British in India, what the hey, it's all racism and colonialism.
This is hardly a sober look even at colonial enterprise -- for example the effects of the British in India were very different from the Belgians in the Congo. One size does not fit all. From everything I've read about the Zionists, as Socialists they were trying to repudiate racism, but were too wrapped up in themselves to pay much attention to the Arab viewpoint, for the most part. They were slow to pay any attention to the Arabs.
as immigration increased Jewish employment of Arab labor and Jewish patronage of Arab business became very minimal indeed.
Then why did the Arab population of Haifa triple from 1920 - 1947, while the Arab population of Nazareth only rose 50%? Whatever the theories of hiring Jews only, both eyewitness accounts and population figures say that Arabs were also being hired. Many contemporary observers speak of farmers hiring laborers to the work the farm, and moving to the cities to work for the Jews, because the money was better.
Why do you insist on talking about political organization, the state of Arab governance, formal claims to self-determination, and such concepts? None have any bearing on the point I am trying to make.
If the point you are trying to make is that Zionist immigration created tensions, which flared into violence, that's fine. It sounded like you were saying that the way the last 70 years of the Arab-Israeli played out was all "inherent in Zionism". That sounds too close to the popular formulations of the Left, that always manage to blame only the Israelis for Arab terrorism and maximalism, for my taste. It takes two to tango.
My point about Arabs being familiar with Jews in the neighborhood was to say that it made their reaction to the Zionists worse than if they had been simply colonized by the British. The Zionists considered themselves Jews; the Arabs considered them Jews. The Zionists were trying to build a state in Israel because it was the Jewish homeland. The Arabs were used to despising the local Jews. Having Jews aim to be on top was insupportable.
You reject those conclusions out of hand, because they aren’t the ones you want to hear. Hardly the act of a rational observer, but hardly unexpected either
Who is being naive, not to notice that political commisions frame their conclusions to fit certain political considerations of "evenhandedness"? Your very conclusion, "If you create a situation ripe for demagoguery, a demagogue will arise to exploit them" was the precise conclusion that the Hayes commision was trying to avoid. If you don't notice the demagogue, you can't be expected to do anything about him. Much safer to call everything spontaneous. As for defusing the conditions, it's hard to do for long when one side refuses all compromise on principle. So matters were settled by war. |
