Even a Palestinian scholar’s numbers show the absurdity of the claim:

“by 1908 when Sultan Abdul-Hamid II’s rule collapsed, it was estimated that the Jewish population of Palestine had risen to 80,000, three times its number in 1882, when the first entry restrictions were imposed. And Jews had acquired some 156 square miles of land, setting up 26 colonies.”

Wow, a whopping 20-30,000 Jews among 10-15 times the number of Arabs. There must have been quite a few “beatings” of Arabs by the Jews, don’t you think?.

Some more on the population size:

According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects.

So, I’ll tell you, Xisnotx, your quote came up on a bunch of biased websites, because it’s good fodder, but it’s important to learn the context of the quote. Instead of another pro-Pali website, I have actual, real academic books for you. Let’s begin with Rothschild and Early Jewish Colonization in Palestine. What the book says on page 291 is that there was little friction between Jews and Arabs in the late 1800s (when Ahad Ha’am wrote the article you quoted), save for ARAB attacks on Jews in Petah Tikvah and Gedera.

Ahad Ha’am wasn’t living in Ottoman Palestine when he wrote the article which you quote. He was in Odessa and came to Ottoman Palestine for a 3 month visit. What you didn’t mention is that he was in ideological conflict with the leaders of the key movement sending Zionists to Israel, Hovevei Zion. He objected to their ideas about the realism of sending Jews to the Land of Israel and instead wanted to emphasize Israel as a cultural/spritual destination. Obviously, that’s much easier to envision than sending out real live people to populate a place.

In this context, the reason behind his essay which you quote, is to disparage the entire movement of sending over Zionists to live in Ottoman Palestine. Once he returned to Odessa from his trip to Ottoman Palestine, he immediately set about launching a new group that was supposed to oppose Hovevei Zion. He called it B’nei Menashe.

You can read more about the early days of his career .

You will also find this published article about Ahad Ha’am informative. In there, around page 175, you will learn that he had an ongoing fight with the head of Hovevei Zion, and the author believes that his articles from the period reflect this animosity and a desire to offer an alternative.

Hope that helps with Ahad Ha’am.

Any other quotes?

Oh yeah, you wanted me to accept Jabotinsky’s premise that the “decision to resist them [the Zionists] was only natural.” Well, yeah, I disagree. You see, the Zionists were buying land as per the law. They were working hard and developing it hard. They had nationalistic motives which emphasized democracy and a democratic state. Most did not agree with Jabotinsky and would not agree with his followers for many years to come.

You see, I understand the Arabs attacking the British. I understand the Arabs attacking Jewish soldiers when there was war. I don’t understand how you qualify “natual resistance” as attacking civilians and civilians dwellings. That has been the nature of “Arab resistance” for the past century and if it’s okay with you, instead of calling it resistance, I’ll call it “murder” and “random violence led and guided by political motives.” I don’t care that some Arabs felt threatened by Jewish land purchases or immigration. There was also Arab immigration at the time (that link also speaks to the improving quality of life and income in the area, especially as compared to other Arabs states, including those divided up by the British and French) and I haven’t heard anything about riots regarding these new guests on the land.

Ahad Ha’am, 1891:
palestineremem...
“We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ….. But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains …. are not cultivated.”

Around the same time, Ha’am wrote:

” ….[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ….. [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency.”

how’s that for “evolution of the conflict?”

“and their decision to resist them was only natural.”

That was Jabotinsky. you know something he didnt?

Xisnotx,

I gathered you support Palestinian violence because of whether the war was defensive or not, no one forced Israel to colonize the territories. do you think the US’s settling the West was a “lame excuse” for Indian violence? and and their decision to resist them was only natural.

If you don’t support Palestinian violence, that’s great. Maybe you should rethink the idea that the US and the Indians are a good basis for comparison. Unlike those Europeans who built this country, the Jews actually have a long-standing relationship with the Land of Israel. It’s a relationship the precedes the Arabs who live there. Even the names of the place show who prededed whom. You may also wish to consider carefully how the land wasn’t Palestinian, how there was no Palestinian state, how Palestinian nationalism didn’t take off, how Jews legitimately bought the lands upon which they lived and worked, how the Jews intended to create a state that was democratic and Jewish (read your good buddy, Jabotinsky), how prosperity seemed to come to this barren, impoverished land when the Jews came, and how it was violence against the Jews that directed the evolution of the conflict.

All those factors should play a role in your thinking about this conflict no less than the idea of settlements in Judea and Samaria.

If you support Palestinian violence, then I assume you support Israeli defensive measures too.

Either way, we’re at a point in the conversation where you have justified violence against Zionists and basically any Jew in Israel because of Zionism and or the settlement movement. This isn’t violence directed at soldiers, but has consistently been violence directed at Jewish civilians.

My response to this is to remind you that Palestinian and Arab violence has consistently brought about worse circumstances for them. They have lost land, lost lives and limbs. They have lost their sources of income and some of their freedom of movement. They have watched their Islamists take over, in the process hurting the Christian community and eroding the freedom some of their women used to enjoy. They have watched Jerusalem fall back into Jewish hands.

All of this because they attacked Jews when they were a significant minority on the land. Jabotinsky and the Haganah were born in this violence and prepared for the next rounds.

So keep supporting this and see where it gets the Palestinians. I’m going to guess it’ll get them nowhere. Fast.

whether the war was defensive or not, no one forced Israel to colonize the territories. do you think the US’s settling the West was a “lame excuse” for Indian violence?

“The attacks in that list from 1920 and 1921 came at a time when about 5% of the population was Jewish. Let’s try not to justify Palestinian violence against civilians.”

Jabotinsky, 1923: palestineremem...

“The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural”

I like $10 words as much as the next guy but wasn’t this post about the ugly tide of anti-Israel/anti-semitism arrayed against Jewish and gentile zionists on America’s college campuses?

I just offer that reality check, because I’d like to see more focus on how to combat that problem.

No offense intended to the Crimeans, of course.

“Arbitrary” describes many international borders. The Korean border. The Russian/Ukrainian one, as regards Crimea. The Oder-Neisse line. Most, if not all, borders in sub-Saharan Africa.

Israeli state borders are the product of post-colonial, great power dispensation and armed conflict. Alike in that respect are many third world borders and some European ones too.

Middle’s open-ended approach would suit the Palis well.

We’ve tackled the question of land ownership pre-1948 before and it’s actually a lot less than you think. Please read here.

From 1957-1967, 119 Israelis were killed in terror attacks. Here’s a table of terrorist murders.

By the way, just out of interest, between 1950 and 1956 almost 300 Israelis were murdered in terror attacks. The ’56 War stopped that and that’s why you see such a drop-off.

I don’t disagree that Israel’s victory in 1967 increased terror. I won’t disagree even that the settlements are a serious point of friction, they are. However, this doesn’t change the fact that there were plenty of attacks before the settlements. In 1929, there were 119 Jews killed by local Arabs, another 44 in 1936 and another 94 in 1938. Another 137 in 1940, and 152 in 1947. Perhaps the most telling is the 24 in 1921 and the 9 in 1920.

In other words, it’s not settlements, it’s a desire to kill the Jews that led to the violence.

I will also remind you that 1967 is a defensive war by Israel, just as 1948 was a defensive war. In other words, no war –> no Israeli victory –> no problems like settlements or territories –> no lame excuses for violence (that would be there anyway as it was before 1948).

Also, let’s get our facts out there to discuss. When you say “settlements,” you’re referring to everything beyond 1967/1949 lines. I consider that border arbitrary, especially because the Jordanians and Palestinians made sure to evict all the Jews in 1948-49. As a result, Jews entering east Jerusalem today (and don’t use the word “colonize” here please) or since 1967 are referred to by you as “settlers.” Well, they’re not. And we have a profound disagreement about this.

I also reject the idea that Israel isn’t permitted to build all the neighborhoods it wants around Jerusalem. It may be a stupid thing to do, but Jerusalem remains the capital of the Jewish people as it has been for a couple of thousand years. It was not a “Palestinian” city but a mixed one with a Jewish majority. I support a compromise over Jerusalem, but it won’t be the one the Palestinians demand in negotiations where they return to Ottoman days with the ability to restrict Jewish access to parts of Jerusalem such as the Western Wall.

Finally, let’s also not ignore the decade in which Arab states refused to negotiate or speak to Israel about anything until Egypt signed a peace agreement. Even after that, the other Arab nations remained at official war with Israel. The settlements grew in part because there seemed to be no exit plan for the Territories.

The reason I bring this up is that when you write that the settlements and “colonizing the territories” have prevented peace, I think you are saying that Israel needs to return to 1949 lines. That, I’m afraid, will be the last thing to bring peace. There are reasons beyond settlements for the conflict to have persisted. Also, according to what you describe, once again Jews will have no access to the heart of their faith which is the Western Wall and the immediate area around it.

Jews lived peaceably under Ottoman rule as long as they paid their taxes. It had little to do with living “in the midst” of Arabs in Ottoman Palestine. This peaceful living included poor access to the Western Wall as dictated by local Arabs. They left a small strip for those Jews who wanted to pray and limited their access times to the site. After 1948, they put places to relieve their bowels in the part of the Mughrabi neighborhood closest to the Western Wall. In other words, if one wants to be a dhimmi or have others lord it over you, then Ottoman Palestine wasn’t too awful.

On the other hand, the right to self-determination in their historic homeland where continuous Jewish residence existed for thousands of years, is a self-evident right for the Jewish people. The Arabs have been welcomed to participate and live together and to exercise their own right to self-determination. They have chosen not to compromise over the land a number of times. I’m going to guess that it’s because they wanted Jews to have none of it.

And what native people has not resisted colonization?”

The attacks in that list from 1920 and 1921 came at a time when about 5% of the population was Jewish. Let’s try not to justify Palestinian violence against civilians.

30% are built on private land. Also, often land was never registered by Palestinians because ownership meant taxation by the Ottomans and service in their army. Not to mention all the land that Israel has declared public by deciding Palestinians weren’t really using it.

” Long before there were settlements, long before 1967, long before 1948, Palestinians were violently attacking Jewish communities. Your suggestion that this is about settlements and that it’s just my mind thinking the Palestinians have a problem with Jews in their midst doesn’t address the history of this conflict. Why else would local Arabs violently attack Jews and Jewish communities when Jews represented a small minority on the land?”

From 1957-1967, 40 Israelis died in terrorist attacks. Then came the occupation and settlements. It’s not like i’m arguing the occupation and settlements are the only reason for enmity and conflict. But had Israel not decided to colonize the territories, possibly the conflict would have been solved by now.

Also, you ignore that Jews lived in the midst of Arabs in Palestine relatively peaceably before Zionism.

And what native people has not resisted colonization?

Why do you dismiss anti-Semitism so quickly? What happened at Durban with all the major NGOs including HRW and Amnesty cannot be described as some benign event. That was an out and out attack on the Jewish state, singling it out from among all other nations for supposed violations that don’t compare to many others around the globe and that are far more justifiable considering the existential war in which Israel is engaged.

Unfortunately, the UN doesn’t have a better track record with respect to Israel.

I can’t speak to the rest of your comment because I don’t have a clue who supports the view that settlements are legal. With respect to my own beliefs, I only consider those settlements that were built on public land, as opposed to private land to be kosher. I also fully expect that most settlements will be traded up in any peace deal.

The Israeli High Court has confirmed on more than one occasion that the territories are held in a state of “belligerent occupation” by Israel. Maybe you think the Israeli High Court is ludicrous too?

The Israeli government pushed the Court in that direction on purpose. I don’t have to agree with their premise or the Court’s. No matter how you cut it, there was no sovereign nation controlling the Territories legally or at least with any greater legitimacy than Israel’s subsequent control.

By the way, the Court rejected application of Geneva Convention to the Territories for many, many years. Since you’re so excited that they support “belligerent occupation,” do you also accept that judgement call?

Apart from the legal questions, you’re ignoring the moral and practical implications and impact the settlements have had on the Palestinians who live there.

Not at all. That’s why I support the Taba offer by Israel. I am thinking of the negative aspects for the Palestinians and the Israelis. I don’t believe young Israeli men in uniform should be present among a Palestinian civilian population.

Of course, the Palestinians’ actions in Gaza undermine what I or you would want to happen because it virtually forces Israel to maintain a military presence among the Palestinians.

You speak as if a few Jews have moved onto some unwanted, barren parcels that should not be inconveniencing any of the local inhabitants. Their problem is just that they don’t like living next to Jews, in your mind.

Well, actually, many of the settlements were built on barren, unwanted parcels. The local inhabitants prospered thanks to the work provided in the construction of these settlements. The local inhabitants also didn’t suffer the level of inconveniencing we see today because their war on Israel had yet to become as successful in killing Israeli civilians as it became.

But why are you blaming my mind for the Palestinians’ distaste for Jews living in their midst? Long before there were settlements, long before 1967, long before 1948, Palestinians were violently attacking Jewish communities. Your suggestion that this is about settlements and that it’s just my mind thinking the Palestinians have a problem with Jews in their midst doesn’t address the history of this conflict. Why else would local Arabs violently attack Jews and Jewish communities when Jews represented a small minority on the land?

I don’t oppose Jews living there, but I oppose Israel settling its citizens there while the territory is under occupation.

Why? They can be absorbed into the future Palestinian state.

By the way, I also wish Israel wouldn’t expend the resources it does in settling people in the areas east of the Security Barrier. It’s a waste of time, money, energy, security and it undermines projects they could build inside Israel proper.

There was nothing wrong with Israel refusing to provide information to the Court, it was not obligated to do so as Buergenthal points out. The outcome of this matter was preordained and appears to have a strong political flavor to it. The Court, however, has all the resources it needs to acquire the information it needs. Buergenthal’s comments bring up many other problems with the ICJ’s ruling on the Barrier for which he didn’t need any Israeli witnesses or information.

Finally, I encourage you to re-read his scathing critique of the ICJ’s handling of this case. My comment above stands that this was a ridiculous ruling.