Ted Re..Excuse me, Israel can draw on water from the largest fresh water lake in the region plus it too has underground aquifers. The shortage of water results from Israel's industrial and population growth. Plus Israelis use 5 times the water per person than Palestinians.
Who cares. The links show clearly that the Palestinians objected to the Jews immigration and buying out of Arab business. Also the links clearly show that Bitain had no intention of splitting up Palestine until the riots of 36-39. It was to be a single nation with both having equal voting rights.
the crux was plain enough to Arab eyes. It was the Balfour Declaration and its embodiment in the draft Mandate and nothing else which seemingly prevented their attaining a similar measure of independence to that which other Arab communities already enjoyed. And their reaction to this crux was logical. They repudiated the Balfour Declaration. They protested against its implementation in the draft Mandate. 'The people of Palestine,' they said, 'cannot accept the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.' And they refused to co-operate in any form of government other than a national government responsible to the Palestinian people. 97
Did I say it was a crime?
I was speaking figuratively, not literally. In that sense, yes you did.
The intent of the link was to show you the kind of stinkin' thinkin' that went on behind the Partition Plan. Churchill's White Paper was a joke. If I had been a Palestinian, I would have flipped the great Mr. Churchill the bird!
Maybe that was your purpose, but while the British and Jewish sides were duplicitious, the arab side didn't appreciate the positive effects the Jewish immigration could have on Palestine as well. There is no other Arab state in the area, which has experienced the growth Israel has seen. The Jewish immigrants were, by and far, more talented, rich, and modernistic, than the the Arabs living in Palestine, who you agree, were mostly farmers and beduoins. Yes, the arabs didn't have a chance at maintaining the status quo, but considering how low the status quo was, the question is, should that bad of a status quo be maintained.
And you are surprised! How about if Washington decides to set aside the entire state of Wisconsin for a native American reservation because many live there before the white man, and their organization is strong?
LOL. Excuse the laughing but, I am surprised at that statement coming from the quy who wants to deprive the entire population of Alaska, their rights to work in the oil fields over a few Malibu. Or how about Bill taking away the livelihoods of most of the lumberjacks in the northwest over a few owls. Given the opportunity you can be sure that Bill would have given Wisconsin back to the Indians. All they had to do is buy a few coffees, stay in the Lincoln bedroom overnight, and let Bill have a few romps in the tepee.
The whole concept stunk from the get go. All of the above is not news to me. I would have felt exactly the same. The Christian world was all so willing to take some Arab land and make it a Jewish state for two reasons. It assuaged their guilt of the Holocaust and it also took care of the 'Jewish problem'. The whole scheme stunk to high heaven and the Palestinians paid the price.
whatever the reasons for the Balfour resolution, and the subsequent allowance of the Jews to establish a homeland in Palestine, The Holocost wasn't one of them; as the Holocost didn't occur until 25 yrs later. You could say that the Holocost is a reason for maintaining and helping Israel.
And you think these are good reasons? They are disgusting. Its all about the Brits needs and their Machiavellian plotting.
Absolutely, I believe they are at least part of the reasons. There is no doubt that Churchhill had a strategic interest in keeping the canal open, thereby necessitating a foothold in the middle east. Winston didn't trust the arabs, as the turks sided with the axis in WWI. I also have no doubt that Balfour had a keen interest in establishing a Jewish presence in the homeland in order to solve many of the problems the jews were experiencing in Europe. After all, Balfour wrote a book called "Theism and Humanity" just two yrs before the resolution. So yes, Balfour saw the establishment of a homeland of the jews as a solution to the problems that beset both areas. The jews would regain enthusiasm and identity, as they worked in conjunction with their religious beliefs, and the arabs would gain much needed money and talents that these people would bring with them. Balfour considered it a merger, the arabs considered it a takeover; and worked against it.
Could it have worked as a merger. Absolutely, but it had no chance in the duplicitous way it was implemented. Secondly, there were huge socal differences, which may have torpedoed the merger no matter what. Also, back then, there was little understanding of the merits of immigration. Say what you want against immigration, but it is immigration which has made this country great.
While the end result was the expulsion of the Palestinians from the Jewish area of the mandate, the arabs aren't as innocint as you try to make it.
In April 1936, what started as minor Arab-Jewish clashes quickly flared into a widespread revolt. A new union of Palestinian political parties was formed, the Arab Higher Committee, headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Al Hajj Amin al-Husseini. The Committee called for a general strike to support the demand for national government. Despite strong Palestinian resistance to Jewish immigration, the British Government issued permits for several thousand new immigrants, offering further provocation to Palestinian nationalists. An unprecedented feature of this nationalist movement was the open identification with it by senior Arab officials of the Palestine administration who protested to the High Commissioner that Palestinians had been forced to violence because of loss of faith in British pledges and alarm at the extent to which Britain was susceptible to Zionist pressure.
As the strike prolonged, violence increased. There were attacks on British troops and police posts as well as on Jewish settlements, sabotage of roads, railways, pipelines and so on. The British administration imposed curfews, called in troop reinforcements from Britain, Egypt and Malta, and resorted to mass arrests, collective fines, and internments in concentration camps and other emergency measures. Large parts of the Arab quarter in the town of Jaffa were demolished by the authorities on the grounds of urban improvement - in the midst of the revolt - but order could not be restored.
During earlier Palestinian Arab uprisings, Jewish settlers often had restrained retaliation under the doctrine of the Havlaga, or restraint. But now, not unexpectedly, there were Jewish reprisals. The principal vehicle was the Haganah, a covert paramilitary force formed early in the mandate years (and which was to play a leading role in later events in Palestine). The Jewish settlers also benefited from 2,800 of their number being enrolled in the police forces as supernumeraries.
Up until 1936 the Jews in the mandate puposely didn't retaliate against the Arabs because Britain would have cut off their immigration. If the Arabs would have given the immmigrants half a chance, their life after 1940 could have been far different. While that is conjecture, the Arabs themselves aren't completely innocent in bringing about hostilities. |
