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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (120753)	12/1/2003 11:22:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

One prominent faction, led by the Nashishibis, wanted to compromise and work out an arrangement. Another prominent faction, led by the Husseinis and supported by the British, who gave one of them the position of Mufti of Jerusalem, wanted no compromise and the destruction of the Zionists. During the 20s and the 30s, the second faction won out by assassinating the members of the first faction, with the upshot that the Arab population was controlled by almost one-man rule by the time of the Arab revolt… The majority of the local population expressed little political opinion, except by voting with their feet - they moved in next to the Jews in great numbers in order to get jobs. So if it wasn’t for the bad Mufti, the Arabs would have packed their bags like good little children and gone away? I’m sorry, but however convenient that contention might be to those with a stake in the matter, it does not conform to either any period account I’ve seen, or to common sense. Arab leaders did attempt peaceful redress. In 1921, well before the spat between the Nashishibis and the Mufti, they petitioned the British for a halt to Jewish immigration, and asked for the formulation of a national government and an elected assembly. Churchill flatly rejected both requests. Months later, anti-Zionist rioting broke out. The inquiry into the causes of the rioting found that the major cause of anti-Zionist sentiment was the widespread fear among Arabs that the Zionists intended to take control of the territory (as in fact they did). The widespread dissemination of Zionist literature calling for the establishment of a Jewish State was specifically cited as a major factor in the development of this fear. This view is expressed in every period source I’ve looked at, and I’ve looked at plenty. It also makes sense. We know the Arabs had no objection to Jews per se: they had lived peacefully with them for years. The violence broke out only when the notion of Jewish sovereignty was introduced. The Arabs knew that whenever an estate was acquired by Zionists settlers, any Arabs living there were evicted. They knew that the Zionists intended to take control of the entire territory, because the Zionists were openly proclaiming it. The conclusion that this would result in subjugation and probably expulsion was an obvious one, and every indication is that this is what the Arabs expected. Their resulting actions can hardly be considered a surprise. Of course it’s easier to blame it all on the leaders.