Very interesting. I never said that Arab powers were per se behind the rioting, and I have no idea why you think I would have to prove that in order to validate my thesis. Plus, it is obvious that more than one word of what I quoted does suggest that Arab powers had a significant impact on British immigration policy. You may think the case is not made, but a prima facie case is laid out, at least.
In any event, the idea that the Jews were going to be able to take over when the Arab population was so much larger, and when the Arab powers were becoming increasingly committed to maintaining an Arab Palestine, is absurd. Thus, the idea that the persistence of violence had to do with the fear of Zionist sovereignty, especially as Jewish immigration was restricted, and the Arab population grew, is even more absurd. Even Churchill did not see the creation of a Jewish state in that generation, and he had a favorable attitude towards Zionism.
As it happened, Israel did, finally, come into being. Of course, the Arab Powers had no doubt they would drive the Jews into the sea. However, they were wrong, for complicated reasons. Still, even they thought that a tiny Jewish state could not prevail against the numerical superiority of the Arabs, nor the amassed military power of the various Arab states. Even they thought that the aspirations of the Zionists were impossible, in the end. That is my main argument, that the idea that, during the period from the Mandate to the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinian Arabs had persistent reasons to feel threatened, even as they grew even further beyond the Jews in population, and their cause became part of the pan- Arab cause, is absurd, even if it made some amount of sense in the '20s.
Thus, the increase in Arab hostility throughout the '30s and '40s could not have been provoked by Jewish immigration, which was practically curtailed, and outstripped by Arab (illegal) immigration, nor could it have been provoked by Zionist aspirations to a Jewish homeland, which looked chimerical by that time, even to the Arabs, who were sure they could drive the Jews into the sea, if need be.
Therefore, one must cast about for an alternative hypothesis to the knee- jerk "neocolonialist" hypothesis. What is ready to hand is the rise of pan- Arabism (why should Arab Powers that cared little for their own peasantry be willing to go to war for Palestinian peasants?), especially the fascist version known as Ba'athism........ |
