Ted Re...First, most of Jerusalem went to Israel and later, they got control of the rest. Secondly, while important religious cities, Hebron and the like are extremely small and would at best serve as tourist attractions if the country were stabile; otherwise their economic value is nil. They don't begin to approximate the value of the port cities of Yaffa and Haifa or a Tel Aviv.
Jerusalem was a neutral city under neither's control. However, the Palestinians controlled the area around Jerusalem, and effectively controlled Jewish access. After the 1967 war , Israel did gain control over the rest of the cities, however, we were discussing the area set aside for each in the partition. The port cities didn't have the value the religious cities did to the Palestinians because they were primarlly farmers and beduoin tribesmen who were more interested in the religous sites of Allah. Even today, all of the fighting concerns the Holy places in and around Jerusalem, not the port cities.
The WB is mostly desert and rugged, barren prairie.......not much can be done with it except grazing. While the Negev is desert, it abuts the Dead and Red Seas and Israel has developed resort areas. I understand Elat has over 40k people now.......a good size for a resort town.
first off, the WB while not suited for plowing is suited for raising sheep, and olive trees etc, as compared to absolutely nothing which could be done in the desert, until the Iraelis put in a desalinization plant at the dead sea, and irrigation systems. Secondly you seem to completely want to ignore the religous relevance of the Holy cities and the Holy cities ability to garner tourism money. As far as arable parts go, according to your maps, Gaza is 28% arable, but yet has a smaller GDP than the West bank and Israel which according to you is 17% arable. I would have to venture Aspen Col. has a small percentage of arable land, yet it is some of the most expensive land in the US.
Before the 1940s Zionists systematically bought up the farms and ranches from the Brits and Turks who owned them. Again, the passive nature and poverty of the Palestinian only made their situation that much worse. They didn't stand a chance. <
Huh, what are you talking about? The Palestinians were broke long before Britian got there. The simple truth is that the Jews coming into Palestine were far richer (coming from Europe, with the backing of the Rothschilds.)than the inhabitants. The Jews bought their land, fair and square. Leave it up to you to make a crime out of it.
They wouldn't agree to the partition that was proposed, and if you were less intent on winning this discussion, and more intent on being fair, you would agree with them. The split was no where close to being equitable.
If that is what you believe, then obviously you didn't read the link you put up.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument
That indeed this was the intention was reiterated by Churchill several years afterwards, when he said that the intention of the 1922 White Paper was "to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine". 65/ Faced with this determined effort concerted between a Great Power and a Jewish organization that had demonstrated its strength and influence, the Palestinian people refused to acquiesce in the scheme. They refused to join in the Churchill plan of setting up a legislative council to further these schemes, and they protested against the policy that strengthened the drive towards a Jewish "national home" in Palestine despite the strong opposition of the Palestinians, who declared:
"... We wish to point out here that the Jewish population of Palestine who lived there before the War never had any trouble with their Arab neighbours. They enjoyed the same rights and privileges as their fellow Ottoman citizens, and never agitated for the Declaration of November 1917. It is the Zionists outside Palestine who worked for the Balfour Declaration ...
"We therefore here once again repeat that nothing will safeguard Arab interests in Palestine but the immediate creation of a national government which shall be responsible to a Parliament of all whose members are elected by the people of the country - Moslems, Christians and Jews ...
"... [Otherwise] we see division and tension between Arabs and Zionists increasing day by day and resulting in general retrogression. Because the immigrants dumped upon the country from different parts of the world are ignorant of the language, customs and character of the Arabs, and enter Palestine by the might of England against the will of the people who are convinced that these have come to strangle them. Nature does not allow the question of a spirit of co-operation between two peoples so different, and it is not to be expected that the Arabs would bow to such a great injustice, or that the Zionists would so easily succeed in realizing their dreams ..." 66/
Now where in there does it say the Palestinians didn't like the area given to them in the partition. The Palestinian wanted to keep Palestine Arabic, and under Arabic control.
Later on in 1939 this was written.
On Palestinian demands for independence:
"... When at last they came before us, headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem, the first words of the prepared statement he made to us, were these: 'The Arab cause in Palestine is one which aims at national independence. In its essence it does not differ from similar movements amongst the Arabs in all other Arab territories.' And at the close of his statement he stated that the first cause of the 'disturbances' was 'the fact that the Arabs in Palestine were deprived of their natural and political rights'; and he summed up the Arab demands as (1) 'the abandonment of the experiment of the Jewish national home', (2) 'the immediate and complete stoppage of Jewish immigration', (3) 'the immediate and complete prohibition of the sale of Arab land to Jews', and (4) 'the solution of the Palestine problem on the same basis as that on which were solved the problems in Iraq, Syria and the Lebanon, namely by the termination of the Mandate and by the conclusion of a treaty between Great Britain and Palestine by virtue of which a national and independent government in constitutional form will be established'.
"Thus it is clear that the standpoint of the Arab leaders has not shifted by an inch from that which they adopted when first they understood the implications of the Balfour Declaration. The events of 17 years have only served to stiffen and embitter their resistance and, as they argue, to strengthen their case. And the core of their case, it must be stressed again, is political.
"... Nor is the conflict in its essence an interracial conflict, arising from any old instinctive antipathy of Arabs towards Jews. There was little or no friction, as we have seen, between Arab and Jews in the rest of the Arab world until the strife in Palestine engendered it. And there has been precisely the same political trouble in Iraq, Syria and Egypt - agitation, rebellion and bloodshed - where there are no 'national homes'. Quite obviously, then, the problem of Palestine is political. It is, as elsewhere, the problem of insurgent nationalism. The only difference is that in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews. And the reasons for that, it is worth repeating, are equally obvious. In the first place, the establishment of the national home involved at the outset a blank negation of the rights implied in the principle of national self-government. Secondly, it soon proved to be not merely an obstacle to the development of national self-government, but apparently the only serious obstacle. Thirdly, as the home has grown, the fear has grown with it that, if and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority. That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews.<
Please tell me where in there you see any indication that the Palestinians didn't like the partition because they got the worst land or had their lands stolen from them.
They wouldn't agree to the partition that was proposed, and if you were less intent on winning this discussion, and more intent on being fair, you would agree with them. The split was no where close to being equitable.
Answered in preceding paragraphs.
What Israelis moved? What have you been smoking?
Surely you aren't silly enough to think 100% of the Jews lived in the Israeli part of the mandate. Some obviously lived in the Palestinian areas and moved to friendlier territory.
This is exactly the attitude which has gotten the US intertwined in a bad way in the Middle East. We have worked too hard to come down on the side of Israel.
You obviously don't have an interest in looking at the British side for recommending the Jewish home state. To get to that answer you must look at the reasoning behing the Balfour resolution.
http://www.foigm.org/IMG/varner6.htm
In most of the historical accounts of this period, at least three reasons are given for the British decision. While all three played a definite role in shaping British attitudes, a fourth probably was the most decisive.
What are the reasons for the Balfour Declaration?
1. The British government had a great desire to maintain an open channel through the Middle East to its extensive possessions in India and East Africa. A Jewish homeland, under British sponsorship, could maintain that freedom of access, which had been cut off by the Ottoman Turkish holdings in the region. Jewish control of Palestine, therefore, was in England's best interest.
2. The British government wanted to keep the Russians in the war and persuade the Americans to enter the war. A decision to favor the Zionist cause would encourage both Russian and American Jews to influence their governments to join with Britain and the Allies in the fight against the Germans and Turks. While this probably overestimated the political power of the Russian and American Jews, it is one of the reasons most often cited.
3. The British government wanted to reward the brilliant chemist and Zionist leader, Chaim Weizmann, for his help in the war effort when he developed a process to synthesize acetone, an ingredient necessary for producing the explosives that were in extremely short supply. While Weizman certainly did help the British war effort, this tale, later told by Lloyd George, was largely invented. Weizman never mentioned it in his autobiography, Trial and Error.
Historians debate and wrangle over the degree to which these three factors influenced the British cabinet to issue the Balfour Declaration. However, none of the three, nor all of them together, seem to be sufficient reasons for the positive British view. When we consider the Christian beliefs of the major members of the cabinet, we can conclude that the biblical teaching of Israel's return to Zion was the main reason that the cabinet was moved to issue the Balfour Declaration.
The Men
Who were the main players in this decision, and what did they believe about Israel in Bible prophecy?
David Lloyd George was the Prime Minister. Unlike many other British lawmakers, Lloyd George was not educated in schools that stressed the Greek and Latin classics, but was brought up on the Bible. He often remarked that the names of biblical places were better known to him than were those of the battles that figured in the war. He was reared in the centuries-old movement in British evangelical thought that stated that the British should take the lead in restoring the Jews to Zion. He was but the latest in a long line of Christian Zionists in Britain that stretched back to the Puritans. Guided by the Scriptures, this "restoration" movement, as it was called, believed that the advent of the Messiah would occur once the Jewish people were restored to their native land. Lloyd George wanted his country to carry out what he regarded as the Lord's work in the Middle East. His own words about the Balfour Declaration are clear:
It was undoubtedly inspired by natural sympathy, admiration and also by the fact that, as you must remember, we had been trained even more in Hebrew history than in the history of our own country. I could tell you all the kings of Israel. But I doubt whether I could have named half a dozen of the kings of England!
Another member of the cabinet, Jan Christian Smuts from South Africa, earlier had fought the British in the Boer War. Steeped in the Bible, Smuts strongly supported the Zionist ideas. He later wrote in his personal memoirs, "The people of South Africa have been brought up almost entirely on Jewish tradition. The Old Testament has been the very marrow of Dutch culture here in South Africa." He had been brought up to believe that "the day will come when the words of the prophets will become true, and Israel will return to its own land."
Arthur James Balfour, influenced by the Scot Presbyterian branch of his family, was also raised on the Bible. His support of Zionism, however, was also based on his sympathy for an oppressed people who had suffered in exile for far too long. Balfour believed that the Jewish genius could be channeled into a productive nation in their original land. When asked why the Jew should be privileged with such an honor, he replied, "The answer is that the position of the Jew is unique. For them race, religion and country are inter-related as they are inter-related in the case of no other religion and no other country on earth."
Those were the main men and the reasons given for giving the Jews a homeland. Winston Churchill wanted to safeguard the integrity of the Suez. LLoyd George was a Hebrew historian who beleived the Bible, and its prophecy that our Saviour would occur once the Jews returned to their homeland. And Balfour, the author of the declaration, and Britians foreign minister believed that the Jews would enrich themselves and the middle east if allowed to return to their homeland. While you and the Arabs want to claim that the British set out to destroy the Arabs and their way of life in the mandate, Lord Balfour and subsequently Winston Churchill, believed strongly, that the Jews could easily be the mandates salvation.
Why? The answer lies in a book Balfour wrote in 1914 called "Theism and Humanism" In the book, Balfour proposed the theory that people who beleived in God and had a central purpose in life did better. Now before you get your undies in a bunch, realize that Balfour was talking about all religions, be they Christianity, Zionism, Islam, Hindu etc. The religion wasn't as important as the will of the people to unify for a purpose. The plight of the Jews in Europe and their subsequent salvation in a homeland, would be just the thing Palestine needed. Why? The infusion of Jewish religous zeal,money and talent into their religious homeland , would infuse badly needed money and change into Palestine transforming Palestine from sandy oasis into a jewel in the middle east. Much as you may want to deny it Balfour in a way was right. Israel (GDP $20,000) right now, is far richer in GDP than its 4 neighbors and Palestinians (GDP 800)combined, Jordan ($4200) Egypt(3700) Lebanon (5200) Syria (3200). In addition both Balfour and Churchill wanted to acheive their aims through acceptable immigration. The rich Jews from Europe would go to and invest in Palestine, buying, not cheating , the land from the Palestinians, and develop a modern, pluristic society. Several things happened which derailed the plan.
)1 At first the immigrations levels were reasonable, but with Hitlers ascendency, the levels rose to intolerable levals. The infusion of so many caused massive unemployment and chaos.
)2 The Jews fleeing from Hitler coming into Palestine arrived with just their clothes on their backs and little money.
3) The Palestinians instead of appreciating the benefits, resisted all immigration. It would be like here in the US if we had expelled the Mexicans. Surely the arrival of so many from Mexico has created upheaval in CA and TX, but right now, could you possibly say America would be better off without the Mexicans. Hardly, same with the Cubans in FLA. They rejuvinated Miami. The Jews did the same in Palestine in spades, however the Arabs were too proud and stubborn to understand the benefits. Right now the Palestinians would be the richest Arab nationality amongst Israels neighbors, if they had accepted change; and agreed to be a partner rather than combatant . So while in your bigotry, and one sided view on life want to see only one side of the equation, be aware that the British intentions were fair. Circumstances, pride and fate dictated the results, but the intentions of the British in many ways were more decent and honorable than this sense of Arab nationalism you are subscribing to.
< |
