12 million Jews in the world

[chequita guevara]

So now we're down to that critical year, 1948.

The massacre at Dier Yassin happened, not, as some claim, that it was supporting Arab resistence. Rather, it was an Arab settlement overlooking the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Well, it's not important to have complete control of this road since neither it, nor Jerusalem were going to be part of Israel . . . unless they were going to be part of Israel. Despite Israelis declaration that it would accept the boundries established by the Partition Plan, even before the Arab invasion, they had already gone beyond those borders and were trying to incorporate new areas. Dier Yassin happened in March.

The Jews had a state. The Arabs of Palestine had no state. What happens to a land without a state? It gets one, imposed upon it, by invaders. All of the surrounding Arabs states had designs on Palestine. All of the surrounding kings had dreams of Greater Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. Of course, naked land grabs are never looked kindly upon (uless you're doing the grabbing). So, rather than calling it what it was, these Arab invasions to partition Palestine were proclaimed to be a war of liberating Palestine from the Jews.

Despite claims that the very existence of Israel was threatened, and despite the calims of the leader of one insignificant military group, there was no effort to force the Jews from Palestine. Ben Gurion's claim of 23 million against 700,000 is very inspiring, but the truth is that Jewish troops were never outnumberd and were much better trained than any Arab group with the exception of the British armed and trained Arab Legion.

Now the Arab Legion was a military unit of Transjordan. The Jewish Authority was also aware that it could probably handle every Arab group except the Arab Legion (and actual combat shows this was the case, all the other Arab groups were thrown out of Palestine altogether). The interesting thing is, the Arab legion never attacked the Israelis, but it did fight them. The forts along the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were attacked by the Israelis (and repulsed) and the Arab Legion in Jerusalem also fough the Israelis. Now, as I wrote, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, so why were the Israelis fighting in places they weren't supposed to be? Because they, like everyone else, were tyring to conquer Arab Palestine.

Back to The Jewish Authority and the Arab Legion. Knowing that the Arab Legion was the only real military threat to the settlers, they dealt with them politically. Abdullah was still king in Transjordan, and he had never given up on his idea of reuniting Syria. Nor had he ever given up on his hope of having the Jews as part of Syria. He even offered the Jewish Authority and automatic half of all the seats in the Parliament as an incentive to join. The JA and Abdullah made an alliance to divide up Palestine. Israel would take it's alloted part, and Jordan would take the Arab part. Neither country had any desire to see an independent Arab state there, as it would ruin any future plans of incorporation. Golda Mier was dispatched to Aman to make this agreement. Abdullah stuck to it, the the JA did not.

None of the other Arab countries wnated to see Jordan get all the land. Half of the troops that Egypt sent to Palestine went to fight the Jordanians. Lebanon merely invaded Arab West Galilee and mostly sat the war out. Syria did attack an abandoned Jewish setttlement, but mainly they moved into areas that France had previously claimed as part of Syria (the disputed region on the Eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee). Iraq, being ruled by Abdullah's brother, Faisal (remember him?) sent troops to help Jordan. Only Egypt seriously attacked Israeli territory, and that was with bombers (Syria and Lebanon each attacked, but only half-heartedly and half-*ssed). This isn't to say that Jewish settlements outside the Jewish partition weren't attacked. They were, and some were massacred. There was a major Egyptian assault near Ashdod, but this was in the Arab sector.

Every major battle in the war took place outside the Jewish partition! It can be claimed that the best defense is a good offense, but that can only be seriously counted against the Egyptian thrust near Ashdod. Everywhere else, Arab troops were attacked. (Okay, Moshe Dyan did scare off an Syrian tank column with a one rusty howitzer, like I said, half-hearted and half-arsed.) Furthermore, after the first truce, Israel was always the instigator of new violence. There were four truces in 1948, and Israel broke them all. Israel even invaded the Sinai pennesula, and only left when the UN finally threatened Israel to back off.

Now, part of the UNs terms of recognizing Israel was that Israel agree to allow the Arab refugees back in to the new Israeli state. Israel did agree, but it has never allowed that to happen. Israel has already agreed to allow the Palestinians home. It just won't do it.

So, why did the Arabs flee Palestine? One side says it's because the Arab leaders told the Arabs to flee, and this did account for part. The other side said it's because because of Israeli threats, and this also accounts for part. Mainly, however, it was because there was a friggan' war going on and you get the frell out of the way when it comes towards you!!!!! Most refugees left the war zone because it was a war zone, just like in Afganistan and Kosovo and every other friggan' war zone. If you stay, you get killed, so you don't stay. You leave and come back when the fighting's moved on, only in this case, the refugees can't come back.

[Eli]

Good posts Chegitz. You explained what happened very well, from an Arab point of view, which cannot be ignored. And, according to their point of view, which says that this land belongs to them and only to them, they have the full right to fight against the European colonists. Though IMO everything could be much better if not the incitement started by Haj Amin al-Husseini.

But why dont you try to rewrite this from a different point of view? And a fundamental princip of this point of view is that Eretz Yisrael "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" belongs to the Jews and only to the Jews. The connection of the Jews to the Land of Israel is not smaller than the connection of the Arabs that lived here(today the Palestinians) to the land. And of course try not to ignore 2000 years of persecution.

I'm sure that just like your previous posts helped me to understand better their position, this will help others to understand better the compromises that the Jews did.

So, rethink about what you wrote, but this time remember 2000 years of persecution and the unquestioned right of the Jews for this land.

[chequita guevara]

It's not really an Arab viewpoint, at least not a non-socialist Arab viewpoint anyways. Yes, I might hear Edward Said say such things, but not someone who supports Hamas. Sadly, I think Hamas's view carries more weight in the Arab world than Said's.

On the other hand, the New Israeli historians would also be just as likely to say what I wrote (not least because what I wrote is based largely on their work). But this argument predates them, and was put forward by commie Jews like Maxime Rodinson and others. Natan's posted a link (in the Israel Shahak thread) to a page that pretty well explains the Trotskyist viewpoint towards Israel (which is labeled as anti-Israel, which is fair, because we are, but we are also anti-Palestine, anti-France, anti-USA, etc. we're opposed to all states and countries).

Do Israelis have legitimate security concerns? Absolutely. The Palestinian terrorists have gone beyond the pale in targetting civilians (but what can you expect from right-wing nut jobs?). Israel would be absolutely remiss in failing to protet its citizens from such a threat. However, any non-Israeli-propaganda-based-view of Israeli history shows that there were plenty of opportunities for Israel to do the right thing and chosing not to do so. I honestly do not believe that that you'd have this problem today if Israel had lived up to it's obligations and allowed the Palestinians refugees back into Israel in 1948-9.

As for the Jewish dream of returning to Israel? I have absolutley no-porblem with it what so ever. I think Jews should be able to go anywhere they want in the world. Yeah, it's unrealistic. I also think Arabs should be able to go anywhere they want. Everyone should be able to go where ever they want.

Hell, most of the time it was Jews themselves that kept them from returning to Palestine. Up until the establishment of Israel, religious (European) Jews were opposed to the project since only the messiah could reestablish Israel. It was secular (and often socialist) Jews who established Israel, and they haven't been around too long. Sephardic Jews probably could have returned to Palestine long before they were forced to, but why bother when they had it good where they were? Heck, the Iraqi Jewish community was the largest in the world for millenia.

Okay, addressing some (but not all) of your points. The concept of Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel for the rest of you). Exactl when does the idea that Eretz Yisrael encompass the land between the two great rivers enter Judaism? Late nineteenth century, with Theodor Herzl. It's not an ancient dream, nor even a widely accepted one. It has no histoical basis what so ever. At it's greatet extent, the Kingdom of Israel under Solomon wasn't much bigger than Israel is today. And it didn't last beyond his death.

A people's connection to a land is always, in the last instnace, emotional, and so the Jews have as much right to the land of Palestine as the Palestinians. I've never said otherwise. It's not a matter of compromise or not. Israeli compromises are generally the kind of compromise that a mugger makes when he holds you at gunpoint and agrees to share your wallet with you. Sure, he could take it all, but stealing less isn't a compromise.

It's not a compromise when you agree to something and reneg. It's not a compromise to kick someone out of their house and agree to let them live in the garage. A compromise would be a joint Jewish-Arab Palestine, but that's a real compromise instead of a false one, so Israel will never even consider it.

[monolith94]

"As far as I'm concerned, if everyone in the world only wore Old Navy and ate at McDonalds everyday, I wouldn't care as long as they're safe healthy and happy. It would kind of be a shame that all these cultures were gone, but who cares? Cultural diversity is interesting, but by no means necessary."

So you would eliminate conflict between different cultures by eliminating all other cultures save one? Conveniently the Western culture at that? That's like saying we won't have any more racism because we will eliminate all other races.

If the world only wore Old Navy and ate at McDonalds everyday, we'd all kill ourselves out of boredom; life wouldn't be worth living. Except perhaps for you.

Also, as far as admitting people in as citizens, when you're outside of a country, you have to treat that country as private property; they can do whatever they want with it! There is no universal declaration of citizenship, saying you can be a citizen wherever you want; the idea is ridiculous!

[Natan]

Berzerker: What you are know saying is that a border change is theft, and I think that's absurd. Also, it's quite clear that the British sided with the Arabs - they helped enforce an embargo on sending arms to Israel but armed (and trained) the Arab legion. The single largest source for Jewish weapons was the former east block (this spurred fears that Israel would go red) although the weapons came from a lot of strange places. Others included:
raids on British convoys
weapons bought up in various parts of the world from armies which were junking old equipment
weapons smuggled in by what were more or less criminals

Chegitz: Excellent summary, I'd like to argue with a few points though:

Firstly, your characterization of Sephardic Jews as "basically Arab." I think that both the sephardic Jews and their Muslim neighbors viewed the difference between them as deeper than simple religion in the sense we think of it now. There was a deep feeling in both Muslim and minority communities that Jews and Christians were inherenently un-Arab, because of their commercial and political cooperation with the west. Sephardic Jews were heavily involved in trade and in Algeria, assimilated entirely into the french community; Christians relied on outside protection to exercise rights they had never had before, such as by ringing church bells and holding specifically Christian processions on holidays. This is why outbreaks of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish violence were relatively common in nineteenth century Syria, and Christians and Jews behaved not as a minority trying to gain acceptance but as people trying very much to become part of the west. In fact, the major Arab nationalist doctrines, despite being invented by Christians, often emphasized the connection but Islam and Arabism - Michel Aflaq, founder of the Baath (the most successful Arab nationalist party) stated that the Arabs were made a nation by virtue of God's choosing them through the Muhammed and the Qur'an. Nasser put the Qur'anic formulation of the bismillah (in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful) on all government stationary. So this characterization is not entirely correct.

Secondly, I disagree with the statement that the Zionists rejected the idea of Arab rule because they thought that “white people should not be ruled by dark people.” This is simplifying a complicated issue into a simple racial formula, which is not really correct. The Labor (socialist) Zionists truly believed that they were helping the Arab inhabitants of the country and many of them believed that they would ultimately create a bi-national state. The Jabotinsky revisionists (anti-socialist) Zionists, despite their hard-line view to the Arabs, were actually treating them more equally since their doctrine held that Arab resistance to Zionism was the natural reaction of any people, and in fact, the revisionists seemed to have little interest in talking about backward Arabs or Sephardim needing Zionist (Ashkenazi) help.

Some nitpicks:
You’re description of Zionism implies that the immigration was mostly motivated by ideology or perhaps economics. This isn’t really true. The real immigration was caused almost entirely by Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. The first major wave took place after the a series of pogroms in Russia, the second after Hitler took power, and the third after the War. Jews were trying to get out of Europe, either to Britain, to America, or to Israel, and I think that the view of the Jews as refugees is at least as signifigant as the view of them as foriegn colonizers.

I hate to turn this into just another ME thread, but I would have to respond to your parallel between the Irgun and Israel today by noting several big differences:
Firstly, Arab opposition to Israel has taken on a much more distinctly anti-semitic tone since that time, and secondly, you must at least acknowledge that Israel’s actions can be viewed as fighting Islamist terror rather than maintaining a colonial enterprise. But this is for another thread.


The next thing I take issue with is your description of the 1948 war. Firstly, the reason that the Jewish forces were operating in the area of Deir Yassin was that the Arab armies were trying to prevent supplies from reaching Jews in Jerusalem. Convoys carrying food and even ambulances were attacked.
Next, I disagree with you’re saying that Israel couldn’t have lost the 1948 war. As Trever Dupuy’s Encyclopedia of Military History (great reference, you should all buy it) says, Israel won the 1948 war because individual Kibbutzim were able to defend themselves against Arab armies without any real military experience and with miniscule equipment. This was not inevitable, as can be seen by the several Kibbutzim which were in fact destroyed. Furthermore, what must be remembered in this and subsequent Arab-Israeli wars is that the signifigance of the threat to Israel is far greater than the chance of defeat. That is to say, even if Israel was 95% sure of victory in 1948 (which I feel confident in saying it wasn’t) that still meant a 5% chance of total destruction and probable genocide.
You say that all but one of the major battles were fought outside the area Israel was alloted. This is not completely correct. Firstly, I think it ignores the Iraqi-Syrian invasion of the Hula valley. Secondly, it pretends that Jerusalem was or could have been an international city, which once the fighting started, it clearly could not have been. Again, the Arab siege of West Jerusalem had to be lifted unless Israel was to accept the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population of Jerusalem. Also, I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that Israel had an agreement to divide Palestine with Abdullah until I see a real source for it - the subsequent viscious fighting suggests otherwise.
Some points on refugees:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the Arab states did not want the refugees to return anyway, since they felt it would be a de facto recognition of Israel
Israel agreed to allow the original refugees back, not their five million grandchildren.
Many, many, people were made refugees in the 1940s. Tens of millions of them. The Palestinians are the only ones who people say must be allowed back now, three or four generations later.

[Clear Skies]

ugh...forget i said anything...

broswer is several months behind

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by David Murray
White hoods and burning crosses, anyone?

Ya don't wear white between Labor Day & Easter!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Natan Also, I'm going to have to disagree with the idea that Israel had an agreement to divide Palestine with Abdullah until I see a real source for it - the subsequent viscious fighting suggests otherwise.

Well, I found the book! Yay! How Israel Was Won: Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Baylis Thomas. I should be able to post his sources tonight and more detail about the pact itself.

As for what and who constitutes an Arab, that's a tricky question I always hate to dive into. Secular Arab nationalism certainly didn't rely on a defination of God as to who and what they were, and given the vast number of religious minorities in the area I think it's difficult to say the Sephardim weren't Arabs. They spoke Arabic and were racial indistinct from Arabs. Despite the claims of anti-Semites and the demands of the religion, Jews aren't always that exclusive about who they married, and within a several generations are indistinguishable from others. Indian, Japanese, Black and European Jews certainly look little like the Sephardim. So I think it's fair to characterize Sephardic Jews as Arabs. That's judgement call on my part, and feel free to disagree and take me to task.

As for why the Zionists rejected minority status in an Arab country, I'm speaking more about the leaders of the Zionist movement, who stayed in Europe longer than the immigrants did. "A land without a people for a people without a land," says something of what the Zionist movement felt about the inhabitants of Palestine, that they were of little consequence. Further, the fact that many of the immigrants were socialist doesn't really mitigate any feelings of white superiority. Socialists of that period were actually rather racist by our standards (one of the comments made about the Communist International was that it was the first time colonial comrades were made to feel like equals by their European comrades). (Don't know enough about Jabotinsky to comment.)

You are correct, as a summary I left out some important details, like the state of European anti-Semitism. Herzl, IIRC, was motivated by the Dreyfuss Affair, and in Russia absolutely horrible things were going on. In both France and Austria, the level of anti-Semitism was on the rise. But I see this more as a force for the establishment of Zionism. Many of the Jews who emigrated from Europe to Israel were young, idealistic students. Not so many refugees made it there. Most of them headed for New York.

I don't fault anyone who wants to go there. Heck, living in one of the world's oldest cities has massive appeal to me. I would love to live in Jerusalem. (But I'm a freak--which is one reason I'm planning on moving to St. Augustine next year, oldest European city in the US, and only a half hour South. But that's only five hundred years old. Imagine 8,000 years in Jericho! Talk about a connection to humanity.)

You are correct, the Arab states did not want the refugees to return home. Nor do they want them in their own countries. The cynical bastards ruling the Arab world have manipulated and abused and used the Palestinian refugees for their own ends. As long as they exist, those governments can point at evil Israel and distract their people from the brutality and corruption in their own governments.

It might be helpful to look at the Zionist-Palestinian conflict as a civil war. I think if both sides treated it that way, they might be able to find a way to start bridging the gaps and healing the hatred caused by 70 years of warfare. Israelis and Palestinians are more alike than they are different. Similar language, simliar religion, attachment to the same piece of land, and the whole world hates them and doesn't want them around.

[Sirotnikov]

Che, nice posts. Haven't read them all actually. If you could put them all and more into a large text file and send me so I could print it and read it I would love it. Reading from the screen isn't fun.

At a light glance the posts seem ok. pretty reasonable. even quite good. Reminds me of things I read, so it's probably not all wrong and biased

Understand, I don't claim to be objective. I try to be as close to objectivity as I can, but I'm still biased a bit. It's only natural and normal. I also don't see it as my duty to be objective. My ideal machiavelian duty would be to lie my guts out. I don't do that though since I don't want to be such a person and even if I were such, it would only hurt my interests since you'd lose faith in me.

The pals do lie bluntly. That's one of the things that enrages me and makes me hate their leadership more with each day.

They are like the communists which used to make newsreals calling black white and white black. They distort and invent things. They deny things without skipping a heart beat.

You're a very intelligent and fair person. It's a shame IMO that you sometimes are too trusting of people with opinions similar to yours. Most extreme lefties I met were hardly as knowledgable as you are, and had more extreme ideas about Israel. Noam Chomsky IMO is a liar and quite a bit a raging paranoid lunatic. I also read he has connections with neo-nazi organizations in europe who are more than happy to publish his words, blaming america and israel of most of the world's faults.

When making a judgement, please take Eli's message into account.

[FLASH][BE BIG]
You are correct, the Arab states did not want the refugees to return home. Nor do they want them in their own countries. The cynical bastards ruling the Arab world have manipulated and abused and used the Palestinian refugees for their own ends. As long as they exist, those governments can point at evil Israel and distract their people from the brutality and corruption in their own governments. [/BE BIG][/FLASH]




Ok, now that we're done with that:

MarkG, Che says you're an evil greek. I suggest you delete all of his posts.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well, I found the book! Yay! How Israel Was Won: Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Thomas Baylis. I should be able to post his sources tonight and more detail about the pact itself.

Good.

As for what and who constitutes an Arab, that's a tricky question I always hate to dive into. Secular Arab nationalism certainly didn't rely on a defination of God as to who and what they were

And Arab nationalism was never successful except where it contained at least some religious component.

and given the vast number of religious minorities in the area I think it's difficult to say the Sephardim weren't Arabs. They spoke Arabic and were racial indistinct from Arabs. Despite the claims of anti-Semites and the demands of the religion, Jews aren't always that exclusive about who they married, and within a several generations are indistinguishable from others. Indian, Japanese, Black and European Jews certainly look little like the Sephardim. So I think it's fair to characterize Sephardic Jews as Arabs. That's judgement call on my part, and feel free to disagree and take me to task.

We can discuss the nature of race and Jews in another topic, but let me summarize by saying this: If Sephardi Jews are to be viewed as Arabs, then the conflict was not Europeans vs. Arabs but Jewis vs. Muslims. Sephardi Jews were fervent Zionists, often more so then Ashkenazim, and it was more or less accepted that non-Muslims were not completely Arab, that they were part western. Sephardi immigration to Israel took place on a smaller scale (mostly because Sephardim were such a small percentage of the world Jewish population) then Ashkenazi immigration before 1948, but it was signifigant. Yemeni/Sephardi Jews made up about 25-30% of the Irgun's members, possibly more, and the history of Sephardi Jewish Zionism is often overlooked.

As for why the Zionists rejected minority status in an Arab country, I'm speaking more about the leaders of the Zionist movement, who stayed in Europe longer than the immigrants did. "A land without a people for a people without a land," says something of what the Zionist movement felt about the inhabitants of Palestine, that they were of little consequence.

I think it says even more about how disconneced the Zionist movement often was from reality - Herzl had worked out the details of the Jewish state's future legal system and its opera houses before even securing the land or citizens for it, eastern european Zionists were only marginally better. But it certainly does say something about how Europeans viewed non-Europeans.

Further, the fact that many of the immigrants were socialist doesn't really mitigate any feelings of white superiority. Socialists of that period were actually rather racist by our standards (one of the comments made about the Communist International was that it was the first time colonial comrades were made to feel like equals by their European comrades). (Don't know enough about Jabotinsky to comment.)

I'm not in the business of being an apologist for the Labor Zionists (I think a lot of them were crackpots) but what I wanted to point out is that calling their condescending attitude the idea that "brown people shouldn't rule white ones" is an oversimplification which suggests a truly racial/"biological" objection to Arab rule, whereas what really bothered them was not the color of the Arabs' skin (half the ashkenazi Jews I know could pass for Palestinians) but that their culture and ideas were not western - they didn't want to exterminate or dominate the Arabs (at least they didn't think of it that way) they wanted to "help" them to "develop" western values.

You are correct, as a summary I left out some important details, like the state of European anti-Semitism. Herzl, IIRC, was motivated by the Dreyfuss Affair, and in Russia absolutely horrible things were going on. In both France and Austria, the level of anti-Semitism was on the rise. But I see this more as a force for the establishment of Zionism. Many of the Jews who emigrated from Europe to Israel were young, idealistic students. Not so many refugees made it there. Most of them headed for New York.

Only a very few of the immigrants were motivated by Zionist fervor. In fact, fairly quickly you can see Labor Zionists complaining bitterly about immigrants not motivated by ideology. Basically, Jews left for wherever they could, and those who couldn't reach America, for whatever reason, went to some other country, often Israel. My great-grandfather came to this country, but once new immigration restrictions were in place, he sent his relatives in Belarus tickets to go to then mandatory Palestine. As it happens they decided to stay (which turned out to be a terrible mistake) but many others went. By the 1940s, most of the Jews were city dwelling immigrants who had fled Russia or Germany. Much like the bedouin in Arab society, the ideological kibbutzniks have a bigger image, and perhaps bigger influence, then other Israelis, but it doesn't mean that they're more numerous.

You are correct, the Arab states did not want the refugees to return home. Nor do they want them in their own countries. The cynical bastards ruling the Arab world have manipulated and abused and used the Palestinian refugees for their own ends. As long as they exist, those governments can point at evil Israel and distract their people from the brutality and corruption in their own governments.

Agreed. I might add though that there is the limited exception of Jordan.

It might be helpful to look at the Zionist-Palestinian conflict as a civil war. I think if both sides treated it that way, they might be able to find a way to start bridging the gaps and healing the hatred caused by 70 years of warfare. Israelis and Palestinians are more alike than they are different. Similar language, simliar religion, attachment to the same piece of land, and the whole world hates them and doesn't want them around.

Yes, but it shouldn't be viewed as a civil war along the lines of America's or Britain's, but on the lines of Yugoslavia's or Rwanda's. In the end, the actual differences between people often tend to be less important than what they percieve - here in America, people of all ethnic groups get along fairly well, whereas in Rwanda, despite sharing language, religion, and culture, Hutus and Tutsis can't live together. The legacy of distrust and hatred is in and of itself a signifigant difference.

[chequita guevara]

You know, Siro, you could always cut and past them into a text file yourself.

BTW, some Pals lie bluntly, and it does disgust me, and if there were any Pals on this board, I'd take them to task for it.

I used to date this gorgeous Egyptian woman. Wow, face outta hyroglyphics drops down on my feet and praise Heaven on high I can't believe it she wants to have sex with me beautiful. . . . She was a lousy lay, though. She lived in the Sinai, twelve years under Israeli occupation. She always used to say she hated all Jews for what they did, but I kept getting on her case about that, pointing out all Jews weren't responsible for the occupation. I don't think our relationship was long enough for me to make an impression, but her husband coming home from Army training necessitated cutting it short. He was assigned to guard the embassy in Kuwait, and one year later, Hussein invaded. I know, it's a bit extreme to get rid of a girlfriend but what can I say? I was a bastard.

Where were we? Oh right. Do your own work, cut and paste the posts yourself.

Natan, okay, Thomas' sources for the pact are Avi Shlaim, Collusion across the Jordan, 1988 and The Politics of Partition, 1990. Both are Columbia University Press. On page 115 of Collusion is a transcript the summary of the meeting that Elias Sasson (an Israeli official) gave to Moshe Sharret (Israeli Foreign Minister). See also Howard Sachar, A History of Israel, From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, vol 1 1986, (page 322) Knopf, and Simha Flapan, Birth of Israel, 1987, (page 39), Pantheon. There's some stuff in Flapan about US knowledge of meetings between Israeli and Transjordanian officers on May 1, 1948. (pages 177, 253, n. 28). There's also something about that in Mitchel Cohen's Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, (Princeton University Press, 1982, page 374).

From Thomas, How Israel Was Won, pags 50-51.

The Palestinian-Arab state proposed by the UN partition plan was, on its own, neither economically nor militarily viable. Therefore it constituted tempting spoils for both Transjordan and the Jews once Britain withdrew. Of course, the Jews could not formally take over the UN-designated Arab state-to-be while at the time offically supporting a two-state solution. Moreover, on a practical level, it would have been impossible for a Jewish state to gulp down an Arab population more than double its size.¹³ Thus, the best immediate solution was to allow King Abdullah of Transjordan to annex the Palestine areas otherwise designated by the UN for the Palestinian-Arab state. . . .

On November 17, 1947, a week before the UN was to vote on the partition, Golda Meir and King Abdullah made a secret mutual nonagression pact: In exchange for Transjordan's noninterference with the establishment of the Jewish state, the Jews would allow Transjordan's territorial aquisition of Arab Palestine. . . . Meir and Abdullah agreed that their "common enemy" was the grand mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin el Husseini), the fanatical leader of Palestinian nationalism.<sup>16

13</sup> Ben-Gurion kept open the route for future expansion into Arab areas by refusing to define the boundries of the Jewish state when declaring independent statehood.

¹⁶ The mufti was the common enemy because of his absolute refusal to make any accomodation to the Zionist cause. He was exiled by the British in 1938, fled to Germany and collaborated with the Nazis. His supporters threatened rival Palestinian leaders seeking accomodation and were behind the assassination of King Abdullah.

[ranskaldan]

Why do I have this distinct feeling that this entire thread is turning into a rather pointless argument?

-You started it!
-No, you started it!
-No, you started it!!!!!

[Natan]

Okay, thank you for this. It's not covered in my sources, because my books are mostly from the 80s or earlier. However, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the agreement, at least from the excerpt you posted here.

If I read my history books right, resolution 181 had already broken down by May, the Arab invasion plan had already been drawn up and agreed to, and negotiations had been rejected by the Arab League. Also, another force working against a Palestinian state which I think is worthy of note is pan-Arab nationalism, which would have opposed the further breakdown of the "eternal Arab nation" into individual states. Pan-Arabism was probably a motive for at least some of the Arab leaders; the territories were in and of themselves not that valuable to them.

[Eli]

Meanwhile, 2 Palestinians attack a guard post near an Israel Kibutz in Israel proper. Killing 3-4 Israelis and themselves.

But of course, when Israel destroys a few empty buildings again, it will be blamed for escalating the situation.

[David Floyd]

I guess my opinion is simple (outside of saying Berz and Che are right).

I'm really really sorry the Jews were persecuted. Really I am. But it frankly doesn't matter how many were killed by Hitler - they don't deserve their own nation just because of that. It's preposterous. Otherwise, Muslims should have their own nation, as should Christians, as should Buddhists, and any other religious group that has been persecuted.

But why stop there? Let's give blacks their own nation, because of slavery. Let's merge all the Asians into one nation, because hell, they got **** on for years. And you can't forget the Native Americans - persecution hundreds of years ago on land they didn't claim to own OBVIOUSLY entitles them to a chunk of the US today.

But then again, Hitler sure persecuted Slavs, maybe there should be a Slavic nation. And just for kicks, let's make a nation for everyone Stalin sent to the gulags. And Spain and Portugal sure weren't very nice to the Indians in South America - maybe everyone who can claim Incan descent should get a brand spanking new Incan nation.

Oh, no? You DON'T think all those groups should have their own nation state? Oh, silly me - I forgot. Jews are a special case because they are, well, Jews. Can't afford to piss them off, can we?

JESUS H. CHRIST PEOPLE! USE YOUR HEADS! PERSECUTION DOESN'T ENTITLE YOU TO YOUR OWN NATION STATE!

If the Jews around the world think they are being persecuted, and need a safe haven or whatever, feel free to leave that nation - unless of course that nation won't let you. Sounds like a national sovereignty issue to me, that. But if you CAN leave, why the hell should you get your own nation? Why shouldn't you just immigrate to a nation more friendly to you, sorta like everyone else did who left for persecution reasons? Hell, come to the US! Kicks ass here, you'll even be protected by those WONDERFUL hate crimes laws they have going on - never mind we are creating laws and punishments based on race, it'll work out well if you aren't a straight white male who is either Protestant or Catholic.