All the Arabs had to do was to fight politically and diplomatically against Jewish advantages, and to refuse to sell, or to make a counter effort to buy out Jews.
Buy out the Jews with what? The Zionists were buying land with money donated in Europe, largely in England, in a day when sterling was the most valuable currency in the world. How were a bunch of uneducated, disorganized peasants with no outside patronage supposed to compete with foreigners bearing locally unavailable hard currency? The notion that “all they had to do was refuse to sell” is equally ridiculous. Only a very small percentage of the people owned land at all, and those who didn’t had zero influence over those who did. Many of the largest landowners didn’t even live in the area. Even with a potent political organization, which of course did not exist, it is almost impossible in any event to prevent individuals from selling when external interference in markets raises prices to hitherto unheard of levels.
This is a non-argument, and I don’t know why I’m even bothering to take the time to respond to it.
“All the Arabs had to do was to fight politically and diplomatically against Jewish advantages”? Have you ever read the Mandate? While the document was officially the work of the League of Nations, it was in fact drafted almost entirety by the British Foreign Office: one member of the Mandate Commission remarked that “The League had in fact received the Mandate from the Mandatory. It’s a revealing document. Article 2 required the Mandatory to “place the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home”. Article 4 provided that “an appropriate Jewish Agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration”. Article 6 asks the Mandatory to “facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”. The Arabs, by far the majority of the population, are never mentioned, except in peripheral references to “other sectors of the population” or “various peoples and communities”.
Given this sort of background to the British Government in Palestine, it would have been easy for the Arabs to assume that the political engagement would be futile. They did try, though. In early 1921 Winston Churchill, newly appointed Colonial Secretary, visited Palestine. The Arab Executive, Musa Kazim al-Husseini, which represented the Arabs in dealings with the administration, obtained an audience with Churchill, and advised his compatriots to “put their hope in the Government of Great Britain, which is famous for its justice, its concern for the well-being of its inhabitants, and consent to their lawful demands”. That was before the audience. When al-Husseini and his group met with Churchill, they asked for three things: the repudiation of the Balfour Declaration, a halt to immigration, and the establishment of a popularly elected assembly. Churchill’s reply: “You ask me to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and to halt immigration. This is not in my power, and it is not my wish… the present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished”.
Only a few months later the Jaffa riots, the first major outbreak of violence between Arabs and Jews, broke out. Sequence does not necessarily imply causation, but it is hard to believe that Churchill’s categorical rejection of the peaceful petition had nothing to do with the outbreak of violence.
I don’t see how you can look at the Balfour Declaration, the text of the Mandate, and comments like Churchill’s and then have the unmitigated gall to proclaim that “the British foreign office was more prone to support the Arab point of view than that of Jews”. This is too ridiculous to be credited.
Regardless of your commissions, the British were primarily interested in their relations with the Arab powers, and the uninterrupted exploration for oil, not rioting.
Arab powers? Possibly you’ve got the 1920’s mixed up with the 1970’s. Which Arab powers would these be, pray tell? What Arab state existed in the 1920’s that could possibly have been considered a “power”, or would have dared to threaten the British Empire with interruption of oil exploration if Jewish immigration to Palestine was not restricted?
I’ve consulted a number of sources, and even the most rabidly Zionist ones classify British restrictions on immigration as a response to Arab rioting. They usually call it “appeasement”, but they don’t make any claim that “Arab powers” were involved.
You’ve been doing this since this conversation began, making sweeping allegations without the slightest hint of reference or citation, as if you expect the rest of us to believe what you say simply because you’re the one saying it. I’m afraid that this time I will have to call you on it: either produce a credible citation confirming that some “Arab power” tried to use exploration rights as a bargaining chip to halt immigration, or take that statement off the table.
Please note that from the start, we’ve been talking about the roots of Arab/Jewish violence, specifically the outbreaks in 1921 and 1929 and the initial phases of the Arab rebellion that started in 1935. These are the elements relevant to my assertion that immigration and the open plans for Jewish sovereignty made violent confrontation between the immigrants and the natives inevitable. I’ll readily admit that things got a good deal more complicated as the 1935-39 rebellion progressed, but by that time the die was cast. What we’re discussing here is the casting of the die. |
