Comments on: Operation Cast Lead

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:16:04 +0000

I wish the US, Britain etc would arm the Palstinians with the lastest weapons and chemical weapons to use against the IDF and their children. Then it would be a fight. And Zyklon B for all settlers! Then British and US leaders can use it on themselves. (What I have just written is no worse morally than your article)

Hamas was created by Israel.
Jews are not a people
The Israeli-Russian mafia smuggles guns and rockets to Gaza.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:19:16 +0000

Interesting article, thanks.

Of course, this committee is lying. All you have to do is go back to the Zionist congresses 10 and 20 years earlier, or the writings of Herzl, to know that Zionism was speaking about a Jewish state long before this “taking advantage.” Smells like a cover-up to me. Don’t forget that you had division in the British government back then regarding which side to support. The PM wanted the Jews to return to their historic homeland, but he had opposition from some quarters in the British government including the leadership stationed in Palestine.

Additionally, this business of “taking full advantage” is quite misleading because it indicates that something improper was being done. In fact, going back almost 20 years, the Yishuv was buying up land and developing communities on that land. This activity precedes the British by well more than a decade and if you ignore organized community funds and just go to individual funds, in the mid-1800s you already have philanthropic Jews buying up land and setting up Jewish communities.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:13:53 +0000

Typo: JSTOR (not JUSTOR).

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:11:16 +0000

I don’t doubt that for a moment. A particularly interesting article published by JUSTOR: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 164 (Nov. 1932) pp. 108-115 give some extraordinarily interesting statistics and analyses, including the significant rise in living standard amongst ‘Palestinian’ Arabs between 1919 and 1931 . . . that’s the ironic bit (unfortunately you will need log-in rights, which I have, to gain access to the full article). But the Eastern Committee of the British Cabinet, which met on 5th Dec. 1918 had this to say: ‘Now, as regards the facts, they are these. First, Palestine has been conquered by the British, with only very insignificant aid from small French and Italian contingents, and it is now being administered by the British. The Zionist declaration of our Government has been followed by a very considerable immigration of Jews. One of the difficulties of the situation arises from the fact that the Zionists have taken full advantage – and are disposed to take even fuller advantage – of the opportunity which was then offered to them. You have only to read, as probably most of us do, their periodical ‘Palestine’, and, indeed, their pronouncements in the papers, to see that their programme is expanding from day to day. They now talk about a Jewish State. The Arab portion of the population is well-nigh forgotten and is to be ignored. They not only claim the boundaries of the old Palestine, but they claim to spread across the Jordan into the rich countries lying to the east, and, indeed, there seems to be very small limit to the aspirations which they now form. The Zionist programme, and the energy with which it is being carried out, have not unnaturally had the consequence of arousing the keen suspicions of the Arabs. By ‘the Arabs’ I do not merely mean Feisal and his followers at Damascus, but the so-called Arabs who inhabit the country. There seems, from the telegrams we receive, to be growing up an increasing friction between the two communities, a feeling by the Arabs that we are really behind the Zionists and not behind the Arabs, and altogether a situation which is becoming rather critical . . .’ You’ll find this if you look up the 1920 Palestinian Riots. The point is that a) the Arabs didn’t trust the British and b) they were anxious (to say the least) about Zionist designs in Palestine, and this was given as two motives for their subsequent attacks on Jews. As you will have read, the British did little to protect the Jews, in fact set about attempting to disarm them. What is heart warming is that in the 1929 massacres some Arab neighbours hid a number of Jews from the mob (unlike the 70+% support of suicide bombers in this day and age).

By: themiddle

themiddle — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:23:30 +0000

Okay, the abstract says, “Immigration of Yemeni Jews to (pre-state) Palestine and to Israel is commonly divided into three major periods: The last decades of the Ottoman rule, during which approximately 5,000 people arrived from Yemen to Palestine, most of them in two peak phases (1882, 1911-1914) ; the British Mandate (1919-1948), when immigration from Yemen (and Aden) amounted to 15,837 ; and the early years of Israeli statehood…”

You’ll notice the 1920s aren’t listed in there. Also, in pure numbers, she lists 21,000 arriving between 1882 and 1948. However, the Jewish population was 600,000 in 1948 and 84,000 in the 1922 census, and increase of 500,000+ in the same period 15,000 Yemenites arrived.

I’m not saying the Yemenites aren’t important, it’s just that they’re not from Russia/Poland/Romania where you have substantial contingents emigrating prior to 1945, particularly from Russia.

Here’s a useful resource although this site tends to lean too pro-Palestinian.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:12:07 +0000

O wondrous TM, here is one article, and the dates are earlier than the ones I mentioned, but I’m still trying to track down another I read a little while ago.
muse.jhu.edu/l...

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:11:50 +0000

I’ll attempt to track down the source. Being ‘numerically challenged’ it could well be an earlier date, but there most certainly was a period when there numbers were greater and Britain deliberately discouraged further European immigration.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:50:36 +0000

Where did you read that Yemenite Jews were the dominant group to arrive in the 20s? That’s not true. There was a large contingent that arrived in the late 1800s/early 1900s but by the 20s, you’re into European Jews dominating for the next couple of decades when the Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries begin to arrive.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:51:58 +0000

O TM, I am not for a moment denying that the Arabs who felt both betrayed (by the British and Europe) and fearful of the Jews (particularly the Yemeni as the majority came from there in the 1920s) weren’t involved in the massacres: one can do the most awful things when fear rather than reason prevails (and there wasn’t a great deal of reason in the agitation and response to the political agitation). The other thing is that Zionist dreams of a return to a historical homeland had freely published in America particularly and so the Arabs would have been aware of their long term goals. Personally, I think it was inevitable following the innumerable pogroms over the centuries (as hinted at in the Balfour Declaration), but the Arabs had quite a different perspective, regardless of whether pre 1948 property was bought or not. Intense negotiation rather than murder might have been the way to go in those uprisings and massacres.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:50:51 +0000

The conflict has indeed retained elements of the original issues.

By the way, I’m happy to see somebody actually bother to read up on the history. As you can imagine sources matter so be judicious in what you read. Jabotinsky is hated by the Left and pro-Palestinian crowds so much of what you see about him is quite negative. Ironically, while he is depicted in negative terms, he was actually a champion of democracy. I’m not a fan of the movements created following his philosophies but he was a very astute individual who read the tea leaves correctly on a number of things.

It is also ironic that the people leading the massacres are the ones whom you believe to be the ones feeling under siege. In those years, whenever a Jewish settlement was built – virtually always on purchased land – they perfected a method of constructing the buildings rapidly overnight along with defenses because of the great likelihood of being attacked. This was not a function of perceived weakness but actually of perceived strength and it was a severe miscalculation on the Arabs’ part that has repeated itself time after time, almost always at great cost to the Arabs. Witness 1948, 1967, 1973, 2000-2007 and even Lebanon 2006 and now 2008.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:29:50 +0000

Very interesting. I looked up Jabotinsky, TM, and the Palestinian riots of 1920, the Balfour Declaration and the massacres of 1929. It is quite clear that the Arabs were fearful of being swamped both politically and economically by Jewish emigration and that they felt that the Balfour Declaration was betrayal by the British. On the other hand (having read a 1932 article by a W. Preuss) that the Declaration was motivated by a desire to fulfill ‘the inevitable desire of a people scattered, persecuted and martyred under unbearable conditions all over the world to fashion for itself and abode in the land of its historic origin. This indestructible wish underlines the entire problem in all its aspects’. The same article gives details of immigration statistics which are interesting in themselves. So the essence of the original conflicts between Arab and Jew still remain, and certainly not helped by British equivocation.

By: TM

TM — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:08:49 +0000

By the way, TM is The Middle.

By: TM

TM — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:08:08 +0000

If you look at the early years of the Zionists, say between 1840 and especially in the years circa 1890 to 1929, you will see a great deal of admiration for the Arabs among the Zionists. You can see it in the art and the literature of the period. Jabotinsky and the movement he founded were created because of Arab violence against Jews, and this was a problem that became clearer and clearer over time to the Jewish Yishuv and its members but in the early years there was great hope for co-existence. The idea was certainly to create a Jewish majority in a democratic state along the line of what was happening in Europe, but it was to include the Arabs.

The evolution of this conflict has taken many sad and perhaps even unnecessary turns. You know, in my opinion the 1947 Partition Plan remains the best set-up for both sides that has been envisioned. It’s impossible to go back to it because so much has happened since, but it was a smart solution.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:08:13 +0000

Several years ago a friend lent me a biography of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, which I read avidly, admiring not the scholarship of the man, but also a sense of his readiness to embrace Arabs and Jews alike. Times are very different, but I found the man inspiring. With all due respect to the British things have changed there too. Back in Napoleon’s time the rights of the individual were very much subservient to the needs of the state and individuals and groups of individual were readily bulldozed aside if they stood in the way of the government. Perhaps we have gone full circle in that political correctness tends to get in the way of truthful expression and get overly protective of minority groups (whether or not they themselves offend). But perfidiousness applied to good many countries beside Britain and no doubt between some of the Arab states and Israel and vice versa: altruism is not a mass 20 century phenomenon. The problem, so it seems to me, is the plethora of fixed positions (and amongst Islamic groups too e.g. Sunni vs Shiite). I have no doubt that you have dealt with countless ‘posts’ filled with vitriol, ultimately the problem rests (actually it doesn’t rest) with the hater, not the one hated, but I’m sure you are well aware of this.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:19:40 +0000

WTWB, yes, the British liked to make multiple gifts. This is why whenever we get self-righteous Brits blasting Israel, we remind them who started this mess.

The British almost kept their promise. (Trans)Jordan was the state the Arabs were promised. Transjordan took up a vast proportion of Palestine, leaving only a small portion to be given to the Jewish people. That portion has essentially been sliced up because of the conflict with the Palestinians.

With respect to your mature and serious suggestion that stepping back might be helpful, I thank you for the advice.

I’ll comply when people come into our site and speak to us politely. When they do, they are welcome to present criticism of Israel and they will receive polite responses. When I say I’ve seen hundreds of the foulest attacks on Israel and very often upon Jews and “Zionists,” in this and other forums I am not exaggerating. Well, these haters should taste their own bile. I treat them with the contempt they deserve. Standing down to haters is not something that people should do, especially people who are not haters. You’ll notice, though, their comments are still here, untouched by yours truly.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:47:09 +0000

My grasp of history is nowhere near as strong as some of the ‘bloggers’ on this site, but I understand that the British of the18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries tended to promise one thing and then do another. Wasn’t Napoleon Bonaparte, or someone of his era, that coined the term ‘perfidious Albion’. My understanding is that the British gained the support of Arabs against the Turks on the understanding that they would have a land of their own, but when there was a British Palestine, they promise the Jews a homeland too, which was bound to get up the noses of the Arabs. OK, all of these guys are long since departed, but the water was pretty muddied to start with, and there are those in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East with pretty long memories. I don’t know where that gets us.

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:14:53 +0000

If the proposed talks in Egypt result in peace I’ll start to believe in leprechauns. What may happen is a compromise, of some sort, brought about by outside pressure. My understanding is that compromises cannot stand for any significant length of time, because the various parties continue to hate each other (whilst the ‘peace bringers’ happily move off patting themselves on the back for a good job done). Walls and rockets and suicide bombings and assassinations engender fear and hatred, not communication and a will to resolve outstanding issues. Each and every one of these posted comments potentially allow individuals to clearly and truthfully state a position with the potential that some sort of understanding might be achieved, but when bitter enmity rules here what hope can there be in Egypt? If we can perhaps see all our earlier interchanges as being symptomatic of a far wider problem we just might be able to step back a bit . . . maybe!

By: themiddle

themiddle — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:26:00 +0000

WTWB, maybe you’re right. But then again, maybe I’ve read several hundred too many of these types of ill-informed hateful comments in my time and I have lost all patience.

Nobody, Canadian Shehadeh wannabe, is bullying anyone unless you consider people who come on here and try to intimidate Jews bullies. I can intimidate “YEAH” by calling him a moron about the same that a dog can eat an imaginary bone.

The suicide bombings were not created because of the “occupation” and the rockets were not created because of the “wall.” The rockets precede the security barrier and Arabs in Palestine have been trying to kill Jews on a regular basis since 1920. Actually, they started earlier but the first major riots took place in 1920. The idea then was to hurt, kill and maim as many Jews as possible and the same attitude is reflected in the suicide bombings and the rocket launchings.

That’s not to say that the Palestinians shouldn’t resist. I don’t even make that claim. I understand that they want to live inside Israel. I do too. I understand that generations of leaders keeping them in “refugee camps” is being blamed on Israel which did absorb even more refugees in the same period (they were refugees because in many Arab and Muslim countries, the non-Jewish Arab population and sometimes governments as well, turned on the Jews and attacked them or made their lives hell).

I understand the constant brainwashing of hate that is inculcated by the leaders of the Palestinians against Jews and Israelis and has been for decades (Grandmufti is a prime example).

BUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO RESIST, THEN TARGET SOLDIERS AND NOT CIVILIANS.

The Palestinians have a barbaric history of targeting civilians. There is nothing lower or more disgusting. I understand that civilians die when Israel attacks, but the intent – almost always, Israel is not perfect, far from it – is to target and kill Palestinian terrorists, militia-men and the few warriors (distinguished by targeting soldiers only).

Now, you could make the argument that it’s not the Palestinians but certain groups within Palestinian society. The problem is that the support for Hamas increases with their violence, the support for Fatah increases with their violence and as we saw during your suicide bombing golden days in 2001 and 2002, the Palestinians were polled (by Palestinian pollsters) as having over 75% support for the suicide bombings. In other words, 3 out of 4 Palestinians approved of bombings in Israeli restaurants and buses.

That isn’t resistance, that is terrorism.

As for Jordan, that was part of Palestine and was promised to the Jews by the British. Then they gave it to the Arabs even though it constituted the vast majority of Palestine. That, Shehadeh-wannabe is where the British were trying to place the Arab population of Palestine.

There certainly was fighting on both sides before 1948. You can thank the Arab riots against Jews in 1920, 1926, 1929 for teaching the Jewish community in Palestine that they needed to form defensive capabilities.

The differentiation between “Zionists” and “Jews” is cute but we all know what you really mean.

Finally, in your dream universe where Jews live happily as a heavily taxed minority in a Muslim country, you should think about the Arab world of today. Why would anybody want to live under the type of system you see in Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi, Iranian, etc. regimes? Why would Israelis trade their democracy and social freedom for that? How about you teach the Arab and Muslim countries how to be like, you know, Canada or Holland…or Israel, and then maybe you can ask the Israelis to give up their natural right to self-determination. How many Arab and Muslim countries are there that you’re so hungry to add one more and remove the only Jewish one?

Why is self-determination permitted only to Arabs?

By: Canadian

Canadian — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:23:25 +0000

I agree with the last post. Online bullying? seriously, are you insecure?

Anyways, i think you need to wake up and smell the blood man.

You saying that there were no palestinians in palestine is like saying there were no native americans in north america. Didnt the settlers take their land?

Israel blockaded gaza because of the suicide bombers. TRUE. but think about it, youre talking about 1.5 million people here, blockading them not only enrages the adult ones, but also the young kids that get to see their relatives die in the nastiest ways, white phosphorous? Remember, blockading them wont stop them, its like a steamer building up to an explosion. These people are defending their land which some one like you lies to ignorant people around the world so they believe you blindly. The suicide bombers were created because of the occupation, and the rockets were created because of the wall.

Jews fled arab countries because judaism was connected to zionism. I know jews living in arab countries RIGHT NOW. They are not attacked, they live in peace. They are part of the culture, just like the minority that lived in palestine. They were part of the culture. Not some zionists from all over the world claiming that the land is theirs.

The war that was launched against “israel” (and im saying this because it didnt exist just the fact that european refugees wanting a place to call home were willing to fight for it) by the arabs was because they didnt want to sit and stare at what appears to be a threat to them. Wasnt jordan part of the british mandate? wasnt jordan one of the first countires to declare on what was back then an attempt to create israel. Refugees brought into palestine started before 1948, and thats what concerned palestinians. Why cant jews live in palestine? As in an arab country? they always have, theyre not jews, just zonist ones.

About britian,
watch this
youtube.com/wa...
youtube.com/wa...

By: wherethewindblows

wherethewindblows — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:48:09 +0000

Dear themiddle,
I invariable start my emails with ‘Dear so and so’ (I know that comments on posts are not really emails) because I find the impersonal nature of emails and the linguistic distortion, that invariably accompanies this form of communication, a significant ‘turn off’. But I’m unashamedly old-fashioned. I happen to agree whole-heartedly with your last well-informed comment, though I know there are many that would take quite a different point of view. But don’t you think one loses just a little bit of dignity countering abuse with yet more abuse?