Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (61966)	12/16/2002 9:20:02 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By the time of the Partition, the remaining territory of Palestine had been gerrymandered into predominantly Jewish areas, and predominantly Arab areas. True, there were some Arabs remaining in the predominantly Jewish areas, but for the most part, the Palestinian Arab population was given an amount of land reflecting its much larger size in the territory. The Jewish authorities accepted the Partition, while the Arabs rejected it, mainly because the Arab Powers had pledged to drive the Jews into the sea when independence was declared. Thus, the Palestinians felt they could be rejectionist because they had strong foreign backers. (Neither Britain nor America fought for Israel, whereas the entire Arab League mobilized against Israel). Acceptance of the Partition, which was under the auspices of the United Nations, would have saved much bloodshed, and would have preserved Arab control over most of Palestine. Instead, the Arab Powers attacked, and the Palestinian Arabs fled in anticipation of the massacre of Jews that was expected. I know, Palestinian sources claim that it was a massacre perpetrated by the Irgun that caused the refugee problem, but that does not make any sense. The Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Israelis by almost ten to one, and were themselves generally armed. While some might have fled the Jewish areas, those in the predominantly Arab sections were perfectly capable of self- defense and retaliation. Besides, it has been adequately attested that the Arab League broadcast the "get out of the way" advisory. The Israeli army was better trained, better equipped, and had higher morale than the armies sent against them. Additionally, defense requires fewer troops than offensive operations. Fortunately, the Israelis prevailed. Since the Arabs had rejected the Partition, and fled, and since Israel had been attacked, and was still living in a hostile environment, the Arab sections of Palestine were incorporated into Israel, creating a somewhat more defensible situation, and the refugees, who constituted a potential "fifth column" were not allowed to return. Rather than resettle the refugees, the Arab Powers funded camps calculated to exacerbate grievances over generations. Now, looking at the situation in its particularity, and considering that there was no sovereign nation in Palestine, but a piece of the Ottoman Empire awaiting final disposition, and considering the compromise represented by the Partition, allowing substantial Arab sovereignty over most of the territory of Palestine, who can honestly say that striving to wipe out the Jewish community in Palestine, or permitting a situation where one or the other community would be irreparably harmed, was preferable to embracing the Partition and engaging in peaceful competition? And who really believes that the Palestinian Arab population would have been intransigent unless encouraged by the Arab Powers?