Were the early Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, "The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

"If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program...To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered." Quoted in "The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.

Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism

"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt...David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that 'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves...The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'...The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Where did you find that? Am I blind?

thought that was new... doesnt seem like anythin special though

SG07 Article:

www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4148/

QUOTE: "However well-intentioned, the sprayers for peace who form the ‘loose collection of idiot doodlers’, as the Santa’s Ghetto artists call themselves, come across as patronising, ignorant and even insulting. Nevertheless, the art is undoubtedly provocative - it really just makes you want to take a plane straight to Bethlehem to tear it all down."

Still nothing in room 4 though.

can't remember peter blake being listed

can we set up a separate thread on the ART and not the politics side of things?

they're one and the same old bean..question, Rat with catapult, who's he aiming at and why ?

That's exactly what I suggested yesterday. And was roundly ignored.

very good point nuart, you cannot separate art from politics, esp with an artist like Banksy...Bomb Hugger, Love is in the Air, and the countless wall pieces that make a comment on society...often a satirical comment reflecting politics.

Also why did Banksy choose to do the Ghetto in Bethlehem, it's not to raise money for charity alone, he could have held it in london and raised more money.

He may not state his politics or push them on others, I think what his work does is give you an option to decide for yourself, but saying that it is obvious what his opinion is on the apartheid wall.

+1 Nuart.

The denial of history cannot be left unchallenged; therefore I find it important to challenge the lies and myths that bleed so brazenly from Greeney’s last two posts.

History is always dependable on where you stand, so I ask again after reading all posts to do your own homework and come to your own conclusion. Do not take my word for it or any other forum member, it is of the up most importance to always ask questions and never take anything for fact until you can prove it yourself.

Under the guide of Theodor Herzel the founding father or political Zionism, The Zionist movement, displayed two features that were to be fundamental and enduring importance in its subsequent history; the non-recognition of a Palestinian national entity and the quest for an alliance with a great power external to the Middle East. Bypassing the Palestinians was the trend in Zionist policy from the First Zionist Congress onward. The un-stated assumption of Herzel and his successors was that the Zionist movement would achieve its goal not through an understanding with the local Palestinians but through an alliance with the dominant great power of the day.

Keeping in line with this denial is greeney’s magnificent assumption that “Palestine was not nor had it EVER BEEN a state or a country”. He is correct in stating that it was not a nation state but a territory controlled by great powers, he seems however to bypass the fact that on that land called Palestine there lived a people who plowed the land and saw themselves as Palestinians.

At the time of the Balfour declaration Palestinian Arabs made up 90 percent of the population making them the overwhelming majority. It tickle’s me when people try to deny the Palestinian entity, as I have stated before according to UNRWA there were 4,186,711 Registered Palestinian Refugees as of June 2004, I suppose these are just figments of wild imagination!

Mark Twain’s orientalist (orientalism, Europe’s and America’s fascination with, and its desire to control the ‘”Orient”) writings of the region can be in no way used as proof for the great myth “A land without people, for a people without land” He wrote the article a whole century and half before the birth of modern Israel and like many great orienalist writing of the time was awash with bias.

Israeli Labour Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1986 said something quite similar to Twain’s falsehood. But the Second Zionist Congress in 1898 in Basle, heard quite a different story, at the conference they were told “there were 650,000 Arabs living on the most fertile land”. In recent years there have been some rather more honest accounts from mainstream Zionists, one of which the former deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti, whose book, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, exposes the ruthless ideological manipulation of the Zionist map-makers and there role in concealing Palestinian peasant villages.

For more information on the land of Palestine and its people between 1700-1900, I would suggest Doumani’s book Rediscovering Palestine, Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus. A very insightful book that quashes an ugly lie that, “nothing grows but weeds”. Tobacco, water melon’s, Cotton, Olive Groves and “that treacherous fruit that turns to ashes at the touch” the orange were all produce of Palestine (may I add that the great Israeli export the Jaffa orange did not miraculously appear with its new found owners).

I suppose Greeney sees all Arabs as the same when he cries that the Arabs had “22 states” given that argument the Zionist movement could have nicked one of the European countries as they had 40 of them, those greedy Euros! Let me also make clear that Palestine was not the sole and only place being touted as the new Zionist homeland, parts of South America were also considered.

A people and their land is not to be won by ethnic cleansing and war, this is not some cheap raffle. These are peoples and their livelihood we are talking about. One side says they have Gods divine right to the land, the other can produce land deeds, again facts are facts but truth can be easily manipulated.

In 1923 Ze’ev jabotinsky an ardent Jewish Nationalist and founder of Revisionist Zionism and the spiritual father of the Israeli right produced a paper titled “The Iron Wall” in it he acknowledged:

“Every indigenous people, will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. This is how Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent ‘Palestine’ from becoming the Land of Israel”

He concluded:

“ We cannot promise any reward either to the Arabs of Palestine or to the Arabs outside Palestine. A voluntary agreement is unattainable. And so those who regard an accord with the Arabs as an indispensable condition of Zionism must admit to themselves today that this condition cannot be attained and hence that we must give up Zionism. We must either suspend our settlements efforts or continue them without paying attention to the mood of the natives. Settlements can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down”

The only person removing “historical context from the issue” is you Greeney, the Zionist were not “forced to build checkpoints and walls”, they knew full well that by robbing a people of there home they would have to guard it forcefully without compassion.

Greeney wrote

“Suppose they could have dealt with the situation the same way most would deal with and perhaps the mistake is that it’s gone on as long as it had. Perhaps if the Israelis would have obliterated the Arabs which they could have easily done in later years, many wouldn't have had the time to revise history and mythologize peoples and places.”

I suppose your right Greeney maybe the Zionist’s should have been more forceful and then we would be only able to talk of Palestinians in the same terms as say Native Americans or Aborigines, I am sure that would have pleased you no end.

Regarding your second post Greeney I will only be brief, as I have been sitting here to long countering the lies you weave with the wickedness of a Widows web. I have said before most Palestinians resist by surviving, raising a family and getting on with life in the hope that one day they will be free from such oppression.

There was no Hamas twenty years ago; there was a nationalist resistance, which Israel and the west crushed with clutched tight mighty fists. This left the void open for alternative movements and organizations, which might I add Israel and the West blatantly encouraged as a counter balance to Arab nationalism (see the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser in Egypt or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets for examples).

Israel and its sponsors have continually refused to negotiate in any fair way or give concessions to the most moderate of leaders. During the Oslo Accords, Barak accelerated the building of settlements and offered nothing in terms or real weight or hope, certainly nothing that any Palestinian leader could accept without being ridiculed by his own people.

Israel refused to deal with Fatah now they refuse to deal with Hamas, (hamas has for two years stopped suicide bombing and since being elected offered a 16 Hudah {truce} to negotiate a withdrawal to the UN 1967 agreed borders). Hamas won because Abbas (Fatah) for all his groveling and hand shaking was giving nothing in return. Years of a Fatah lead government with no rewards and plenty of corruption lead the people to vote for change.

American requested elections produced a Hamas government (an election that was far more trustworthy and fair than that of G.W. Bush’s coup to office!). Hamas did not have to but for the good of there people accepted a coalition government with Fatah, this again was not good enough, and therefore the West and Israel starved the Palestinian people by cutting off money that was rightfully theirs.

Lets be of no illusion, Hamas wants dialogue and wants to talk, it is Israel that refuses to talk with Hamas just like they did with Arafat whilst he sat frail and weak in his Ramallah compound whilst the Apaches soared above leaving devastation in their wake.

Islamic Jihad and Al-Quaeda are securing very small foothold’s in Palestine, never before has this happened. The next twenty years will see these organizations grow if no dialogue and progress is made. The mutated form of resistance that may bestow Palestine and Israel will be much uglier in form than any of the previous.

It is you Greeney that is “naïve” in thinking that the situation can be boxed into a religious one, religion plays a part but first and foremost this is a political situation with political goals and consequences. George Bush may spout that he is on a “mission from God” and that he represents “Christian values”. But the “War on Terror” has nothing to do with Christian values and God like missions and more to do with imperial adventures and counterbalancing the growing threat of China by securing the access and supply of Oil rich states. Hamas and the like rally round the banner of Islam and garner many followers just like Bush and the Christian Right, but their party and movement is political first and foremost.

I am a true believer that the only viable (and I admit hardest) solution to this problem is the one state solution. A state free of prejudice of color, creed or race. A state for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike to live and prosper in equality. This may seem far-fetched and idealistic but it is no way impossibility. It will take great leaders of courage and strength on both sides and of course an un-medaling and unbiased outside world, but its surely possible.

Jews and Arabs are brothers, (see Abraham or Ibrahim) of course they are different in many aspects but you only have to listen to there music, eat there food, look at there appearance to see that they are one and the same. Both peoples deserve to live in peace and prosper but until the “iron wall” is brought crumbling down and equality and freedom is bestowed upon all, we will continue to witness and be part of the destructive and oppressive situation that is the Palestine and Israeli conflict.

For Love

Shalom, Salaam

Bob

Again please don’t take my word for it!

What people seem to forget at times when this is discussed as it is a war, Palestine is being forcibly occupied by Israel and they are fighting back against them.

Yeah that sounds really good ... but I wonder why occupation is an issue.After all
the territory had already been occupied before Israel took it in a war. Gaza by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan.
I don't hear you condemning that occupation, why not?
And someone here said it's not a religious issue its political. No, sorry, its all about religion and racism and bigotry. I thought you Leftist Brits were big on racism how come that all flies out the window where Jews are concerned?

I reiterate for clarity

Gaza had been occupied by Egypt
The W. Bank was occupied by Jordan

Where was all the condemnation? Where was all the rockets and missiles and mortars and suicide bombings? Where?


"Why are they firing rockets into Israel? Because they're defending themselves, they're trying to fight back against their occupation and oppression in the best way they know how to."

Defending themselves from what? There are no Israelis in Gaza and haven't been for years now.

"I'm making an assumption here but I see you are from New York, can I ask, are you Jewish? I think that if you are that your view on this may be more than a little one sided."

Then you have little knowledge of what the typical Jewish disposition is. How many Jews over there were leading various boycotts against Israel? My understanding is more then a few. How many Jews are at the forefront of all sorts of anti Israel peace groups over there? Plenty right?

So how do you figure that? How's that work. If you're a Jew but happen to be saying the "right" words, you're OK but if you're a Jew and have a different opinion you're biased?

According to some I'm a descendent of apes and pigs.
Do you think Jews are taught that about Muslims?
Do you think Jews have cartoon shows broadcast to their children celebrating martydom and blowing up Jews?

Where's your condemnation for that?

"The views of people in the Western World in general on this subject are very one sided as they have only been fed one side of the information (the Israeli side of it) through their news bulletins and newspapers."


Really, funny but I think you've got it upside down. Most of your media is full of Arab money and has been for ages. Have you any idea how much money comes from Arab sources primarily Saudi?
How much goes to your Universities for specific programs?
How much is in your radio and TV?
How much in your newspapers?
And BBC slanted towards Israel? The Guardian?
You must be kidding.


"Search on the internet and you hear a very one sided story... You hear about the Palestinian attacks, you hear about the suicide bombers in Israel, but you don't hear the other side to the story... the daily oppression, the shootings, the people going missing, the threat of waking up one morning to find the IDF are going to demolish your home... all part of life living in a forcibly occupied territory."

I don't know where you're searching but when i do it the first few pages are all Arab, pro Palestinian or far Left sites ALL trashing Israel and some of course blaming Jews for 9/11, blaming jews for the war on terror, accusing jews of creating Bin Laden ...
All of what you describe is tragic but certainly not the fault of the Israelis who have wanted peace since its inception. Its the fault of Islamist ski masked thugs who not only terrorize Israelis but terrorize their own people. Do you really believe the average Palestinian Arab can speak out for peace with Israel without the threat of murder? Pleeease

"The Israeli argument is if they do give the land back the attacks won't stop"

Its not an argument. Just look at Gaza where you yourself didn't even know the Israelis left there years ago. What was the result? Daily rocket fire into Sderot? Mortar shelling into Israel? Its not an argument or hypothetical, its reality. R.E.A.L.I.T.Y - follow the story if you want to know the facts. GAZA ... look it up everyday and see how many rockets are fired into Israel now that you know there are NO Israelis there.


It doesn't matter how this started and what view you take on the history, I know what mine is and I'm sure I know what yours is too"

But here's the problem with this. Your opinion is somewhat based on misinformation. The fact that Israel uprooted thousands of Israelis families who were living in Gaza in some instances for 30 years, and forced them to leave all in the hopes that the Arabs would then be able to begin to build some semblance of a society and also in the hopes that the Israeli people would see that if they did leave the occupied territory then the violence WOULD stop - JUST LIKE YOU'RE SAYING - except that's not what happened was it? The problem is Israel doesn't think anyone is in control of these Arabs or they aren't sure who's in control. Is it the Islamists who have vowed to kill the Jews no matter where they are ? is it the Iranians who have been arming and training Hamas and Hezbullah and have their own agenda vis a vis Israel's existence? You're asking Israel to just believe something that has NEVER been shown to be true? Isn't that the definition of insanity? It's unrealistic. The Arabs have yet to show they really are interested in something other then the destruction of the Jews. So far that's just not happened no matter what you say.

"there is no justification for what is happening now, for the Israeli government to be denying millions of people their basic human rights... There is only one solution to the conflict and that is for the aggressive occupation by Israel to stop..."

You mean defending yourself is no justification? You mean the fact that the separation wall has reduced suicide bombing by 76% isn't a justification for building it? Hogwash. and once again you are holding Israel to a standard you would hold no one else to. Its silly.

"One thing is 100% certain... If the situation was the other way round you can't for one second think that the US wouldn't storm in to rescue the oppressed and right the wrongs..."

The US?
What's the US have to do with any of this?
Perhaps you aren't aware that America never supported Israel until the late 1960's when Egypt and Syria moved into the Soviet sphere.
With five Arab armies attacking in 1948, America did NOT offer a single bullet or gun. And had Israel lost, despite your fantasy claims, America would have done nothing and Israel would have disappeared. The claims that its Israel's fault the Islamic world is in chaos would of course also be gone, but I'm sure the Left woul find some other excuse to blame anyone other then who is actually at fault.

Just keep in mind the gangs of machete holding crowds screaming for that teachers head. Keep in mind the vids of those being beheaded including Danny Perl who wasn't asked whether he was a Zionist but whether he was a Jew - that for all those who try the despicable tactic of substituting the word "Zionists" for Jew.

Zionism s the belief that Jews are entitled to their historical homeland and at least 90 percent of all Jews believe this no matter what some of you believe or how much you attempt to demonize the word. I'm very proud to be a Zionist as is every other Jew I know AND here thankfully in America many NON Jews as well.

Just remember no matter how many stories of the Balfour Declaration and the endless Zionist meetings that were or weren't held that your far Left and Islamist groups peddle as some excuse for their myth making.
Here's one fact that they just refuse to deal with.

In 1948 The Arabs chose to destroy the Jews instead of accepting exactly what they are asking for now.
NONE of this ever have had to happen.
There would be NO occupation had there not been yet another war waged to destroy the Jews.
But occupation already existed under Jordan and Egypt and not a single condemnation from ANYONE was ever uttered. Why?

Double standards? You bet

Er...a story as per leaked on this very messageboard a few days ago by er...me.