INSANITY IS DOING THE SAMETHING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS? i though the Jews are a pretty smart tribe, then why do we do this to our selves?

lets face it, the only answer is what Rabbi Meir Kahane said:
Transfer of this hostile population out of Israel.

Abbas is different from Arafat. It isn’t naive to think that the results would be different this time. I’m optimistic, but support proceeding slowly to make sure things are done right.

A shiduch:
John Brown + FREE PALESTINE
No?

shtreimel,
Could be.
I assume “Free palestine” is an arab because as least within what he is saying I understand it. I understand an arab, who feels Israel is his, to view as absurd Jews to actually expect arab police to help Israel.
John Brown and others, though, I never understood.

“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs, We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?”
-David Ben-Gurion, quoted in “The Jewish Paradox” by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.

So, let me get this straight. We’re supposed to train Palestinian security forces, and expected them to fight against Israel? Do you ever wonder why the Palestinians don’t have a state yet? With supporters like you…
—————-
The reason we don’t have a state is because of Israel’s policies of land stealing and forced removal of Palestinians. Even during this peace process, Israel is building settlements. And getting some small chunk of land which was completely ours is also absurd. Only with the right of return of the refugees and a one state solution (bi-lingual) will this conflict ever end. And even then I am sure Jews will be given immediate privileges over Arabs due to racist people policies currently existing in Arab-Israel.
The reason it is absurd is because Israel is the agressor. If Arabs were to help in their policies, they would be killing their own people. The first Intifada was relatively non-violent. But Israel provokes. Israel kills children. Israel uses people as human shields when it raids homes. What is crazy was the Jews used to live among us in the Mid-East. We used to live in relevant peace. Than because of various empires, many JEws were forced into Europe. They were not accepted into European society. They were killed. And then they come back to the Mid-East and try to build a European society.

Personally, I like FREE PALESTINE. He’s honest. And I believe that Asaf/Brown/Sam feel the same, but are too ashamed to admit it.

Yisrael/libertarian,
what is not naive other than your position?
Your’re right about one thing: AbuMazen will take things much slower this time…
…and learn from Arafat’s mistakes during this war of the past 4 years. AbuMazen wears a suit? Makes him look stately. Don’t let it fool ya. Get more World Bank money, more American taxpayers money, more European money, and for what? He knows that a Palestinian state in the ’48 borders is a non-sustainable country with no natural resources other than rocks, olives, and construction workers.
Take things slower? Okay, what is Israel getting in return for Jericho, next door Ouija, and releasing 500 criminals? Quiet? Do you how many police and soldiers risked their lives, were wounded, or killed in order to arrest these whackos? And now we free them as ‘confidence-building measuers’.
Can you tell me why the Arabs never have to make us ‘confidence-building measuers’? Optimism? No, pure insanity.

they cant. Why did the Pales kill Israelies before they occupied the land…Before Israel was evan a country? We all know he answer.

Sam,
Abu Mazen? you trust him over arafat? He financed black September:
http://www.hebron.org.il/news/munich.htm

When Ahad Ha’am a.k.a. Asher Ginsberg visited Palestine in the 1890’s he wrote:
“[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules.”

shtreimel, Josh, HaZeev and Ben where do you stand?
I’ll start. I’m not a historian or a politician by training. My interests, and professional training, lie in the psychological. So my feelings/beliefs about these issues arise from a variety of sources: 1) Tikun Olam 2) The belief that most humans want to form relationships, love, create and explore, 3) God expects certain things from us 4) People do evil things, and hence, we need to prevent-counter these things with justice, military and education.. Ok…
I believe that is was necessary after ’67 for Israel to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in order for the army to deploy outside of the green lines (In Warrior, Sharon said that the settlements provided an excuse for the army to deploy in the WB and Gaza, providing a buffer b/w Israel and their neighbors) to prevent a full scale slaughter of Jews. However I now feel it is time for the IDF to leave the West Bank and Gaza and allow the Palestinians to build a state. I believe that Jews living in the West Bank/Gaza should be allowed to stay, if the choose, and suffer any consequences of living in a Palestinian state. Also, I feel that the IDF should be provided with carte blanch visavis further attacks arising out of Palestine.
It ain’t pretty, but I believe it is fair and just.

“?). It should not stop building the security barrier.” The best thing to happen to Israel in a long, long time. Unfortunate as it is.

The most lovely photo to come out of the ME in a long, long time:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050215/capt.jrl10902151440.mideast_israel_palestinians_jrl109.jpg
The caption reads:
An Israeli police officer holds hands with Palestinian children, carrying a poster of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, following a demonstration against the construction of a Jewish settlers bypass road in the West bank city of Hebron Tuesday

Here is the PLO charter link I mentioned…
http://www.mideastweb.org/plocha.htm

I would like to point out that George W. Bush supports Abbas. I would further like to point out the many GOP Jews seem to have a bad case of whiplash.
Wonder if there is a connection.

Shtreimel,
You are comparing apples and oranges. The people walking in to a shrink know that they have a problem.
It is not a belief that you are attempting to change only emotions.
they know that there is a problem and you walk them through it and help them work on their emotions.
Over here we are talking about belief.
The arab believes that Israel is on stolen land.
Did you ever hear of two people who have a money dispute going to a shrink?
That is what this is comparable to, not to what you deal with.

Further Dovbear,
There is a difference between comparing completely different groups of people like germany and cue and
comparing the very same people with the same mindset who repeat the very same thing over and over again…

“You are comparing apples and oranges. The people walking in to a shrink know that they have a problem.”
My oh my Joe Schmo, you may know some history (as do I. I never claimed to not know history, only that I wasn’t a history major perse), but you know very little about human nature. 2/3’s of my work is helping my clients make concious that which is not present to them, and hence, continues to hinder their lives. This is why analyst Maria Louis Van Franz, a student of Jung, said: “Never anaylze your dreams…because you can’t see your own ass”. And that is partially why we need mediators to help disagreeing parties to come to some form of resolution. Trust me, the apple does fall far from the tree where human beings are concerned. And that’s true of the individual, family, church, city and/or state.

For example, do you believe that the Holocaust, both conciously and unconciously, affects policy within the Jewish community. Of course it does. Do you believe that racism affects the black community? Of course it does. Regardless of how aware they are of the damage. In other words, we may do something, as an individual/group that pulls us further away from our original intent (whatever that may be). So if you believe the Palestinians are inherently evil, than they are conciously choosing to do what is within their heart. I do not believe this (although I also don’t believe that they are, as of yet, ready to accept Israel as a defacto country/neighbor…and I believe this is true for Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc). I believe that the West did what it did post WW1 and WW2 and didn’t, oh let’s say consult, with the brown people about how they were about to be screwed over. And I believe that this is part of the reason for their anger against the West/Israel. It doesn’t help that we, the West, have an uncanny ability to reduce culture to sex, money and sports.

“Don’t people come to shrinks volantarily?”
Not always. And those that do, more often than not, want help in areas that THEY DEEM problematic i.e. the husband the enters martial therapy to fix his wife’s depression. Of course, after a few sessions any of the initial concerns are usually thrown out the window and the real work begins. Nobody truly wants to change, and if they do, they want it to occur with the least amount of pain possible. And if you’ve ever tried to diet or get into shape, we know how effective that is, huh?
“Can a shrink help a person who is forced to come?”
Rarely, no. But I get your point. We cannont force the Arabs not to attack us. So I’d be a fool to suggest that we hug ’em, rip down the wall and declare peace and good for all. But we’d be a fool to suggest that they are blood sucking animans who only want to taste Jewish blood.
“Can a shrink convince someone that he doesn’t own his own house when he knows that he does own it?”
Uh, I get it already.
“What can a shrink do and what can’t a shrink do?”
Depends on the shrink. All I’m trying to say is that my main interest lies in the psyche. So when addressing the ME, that’s where I begin. I leave the legal/historical stuff to posters like J.

OK shtreimel I posted the last thing before I saw your post.
I think we understand each other…

Is supect that these shrinks might well be presented with genuine copies of them whilst trying to convince the Palestinians that the land to which they are indigenous belongs to a people who formed a tiny minority until zionism started the influx of settlers.
It may, at the end of the day, be easier to convince the Israelis that they, themselves don’t own most of the land, and even more to the point, can’t have any more.
It is going to be a very difficult number persuading Palestinians to shoot their own to give Israel security, whilst the settlement expansuion continues before their very eyes, and whilst Israeli soldiers keep bagging schoolkids.

Uh, what is it that I’m too ashamed to admit? I didn’t disagree too much with anything that Free Palestine guy said. Also, I would guess that Joe Schmoe is Holy Terror except that he is more coherent than she was.

I don’t think we should ever train anyone except our own. It makes no sense, look at the history of the world and you will see how many times over and over again, the people you train come back to haunt you … In this case i say .. better to give them fish, them teach them HOW TO FISH

Hunh. Well, thanks Joe Schmo. I don’t feel like I win the debates with right-wingers. Anyway, although if I had to choose two out of the Whole Land-Democracy-Jewish State triangle, I would choose Land and Democracy, I still think that it’s possible for the center left to get what they want and to choose Democracy and Jewish State. All that has to be done is to give up the Whole Land. The “demographic problem” isn’t between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, but between all the Arabs between the river and the sea and all the Jews between the river and the sea.

Oh,
I forgot. They even have a navy (police right?) that has offices in Yehuda and Shomron. Not a coast guard, a navy.

Sam, sorry to post this in here, but the other post is in the archives and I thought it was a waste to write this lengthy response and have you become its only reader.
You have a “feeling that I would blah blah blah Arafat is a saint blah blah blah?” Do you notice how with every post you’ve got fewer and fewer salient responses to make and now we’re dealing with personal comments again? Didn’t we already have one session where you accused me of being something because I didn’t fall into your silly categories and you had to back off. Don’t you learn from past mistakes?
So let’s deal with your few remaining rejoinders. So, the fact that there was a Christian Zionist Prime Minister and a Jewish Zionist High Commissioner is supposed to support… your argument that Arabs had more access to British power than Zionists? And the fact that British officials seriously doubted the Zionist movement’s power to bring enough immigrants, yet at the same time protected and sheltered it in an attempt to fulfill its Balfour Declaration promise… is also supposed to support this claim of yours?
My argument was never that Jews had no access, it’s a given they did. Your argument, however, was that the “dispossessed” Arabs had no access. I’ve given you the names of leaders and you yourself have mentioned agreements that were made, thereby proving my point about access.
For some reason you don’t want to mention the Arab Executive Committee and their impact upon the British. For some reason you choose to ignore the constant visits by Arabs from Mandate Palestine and other areas to London in order to attempt to influence policy. For some reason you don’t want to mention the White Papers that always seemed to follow Arab violence against Jews that ended up curtailing Jewish emigration to the area despite the Mandate.
The point of the Christian Zionist PM is that despite the best efforts of the many British whose ear the local Arabs had, everything they tried to put into effect was stopped at his door because his agenda was singular.
You then discuss protecting and sheltering the Jews and the Yishuv, when they did not do this to any significant degree. Jabotinsky would have gotten nowhere had the British done what they were supposed to do according to their mandate. They established limits on immigration for Jews only, while not restricting Arab immigration. They tacitly supported and at times, as in the case of Waters Taylor, encouraged violence against Jews. Alternatively, they restricted Yishuv movements to protect themselves and their communities from attack. Their White Papers continued to reject their promises of the Balfour Declaration and went directly against the mandate given them by the international community to the point where they created transJordan on an area supposedly to be given the Jews. The reason you have to talk about the British being both “Zionist and antisemite” is that you have no other way to explain away the poor behavior of the British toward the Yishuv at given times during the Mandatory period.
However, my explanation is different. Sure, there may have been many antisemites among them, but more important, there were also many who were either more sympathetic to the local Arab population, or affected by their violence, and they did some little things and big things to help them. In fact, I would argue that were it not for the strong organization of the Yishuv, and their clear vision of where their movement needed to take them, they would have never achieved a state in light of the challenges created by the British. And, on the other hand, it is the local Arabs’ disorganization, lack of clear nationalist vision (if any) and use of violence against, yes, civilians, that prevented them from achieving a state. Oh, and their refusal to compromise.
No. The reason Palestine wasn’t taken into consideration was that while in the rest of the Middle East the British had only made two conflicting promises (to the French and to the Meccan Arabs), in the case of Palestine they had made three. The British left the question of whether Palestine would be included in Faisal’s united Arab state vague precisely because they were trying to keep open the possibility of fulfilling their 1917 commitments to Weizmann and the Zionists. Also, the idea of Palestine as South Syria held sway for a very brief period of time with a very small segment of the Palestinian elite. Before the prospect of Faisal’s state, you find little mention of this idea in the Palestinian Arab press or elsewhere; after the French kick Faisal out, the idea of unification with Syria (which had always been in the eyes of its Palestinian proponents primarily a way to save Palestine from colonization) gets thrown out as no longer politically possible.

Uh, no. Hussein Ibn Ali and Faisal didn’t show an interest in the territory of Palestine because it didn’t mean much to them. It wasn’t important. It wasn’t “on the map” so to speak. The vagueness that you speak of is on the British side while the point I was making relates to the Arab leadership whose existence you deny.
As for Southern Syria, I find it amusing that you have just dismissed pan-arabism in a couple of sentences. Your point is ridiculous, as Mr. Porath conveniently points out. However, I thought I’d let the Palestinians make the case for me: http://nakba.sis.gov.ps/english/zionisim/Arab-National-Movement.html “When the Arab patriots in Palestine held their second conference in Damascus in 27th February 1920 and came up with decisions which reflect that they are convinced by their unity with the Arab National Movement and that share the same destiny. The decisions were summed up as follows:
– The people of northern and coastal Syria consider the Southern Syrian (Palestine) an extended part of Syria.
– The people of northern and coastal Syria oppose the Jewish immigration to Palestine for it constitutes a danger to their political entity; they object to seeing Palestine a national homeland for the Jews.
– The Arab National Movement is to demand the independence of Syria with its natural borders and to kick the occupiers out of the Coast (Lebanon) and occupied Palestine. [See Arab Palestine between the British Mandate and Zionism, Isa Al-Safri, page 34].”
Very prominent local Arabs like Al-Qauqji (spelling?) supported the idea of a “Southern Syria” in 1936-1939 riots. Arab states meeting in 1945 speak of independence for “Arabs of Palestine” but do not make any mention of nationhood or nationalism that relates to these Arabs. What is most interesting is that in an attempt to make this mistaken point, you have just wiped out Pan-Arabism as a significant movement of the 20th Century. Do you realize how absurd that is? I mean, what was Nasser talking about in the 50s and 60s?
First of all, you’re just wrong about Hajj Amin being the sponsor of the 1920 violence. And second of all, even if you were right, it wouldn’t support your point since he didn’t run a state. You can’t have state-sponsored violence without sponsorship by a state.
Ahh yes, the old argument about why Palestinians can blow up Israelis but Israelis cannot blow up Palestinians because they are a state. Please spare me, they had leadership and very prominent families who were considered political leaders of the people. Haj Amin was among the key people pushing for the riots, as were some of his peers. It just so happened that he became the most prominent because of future events.
On the first point: Amin was responsible for organizing the Nabi Musa processions every year, as head religious figure in Jerusalem. The basic facts about what happened can be found in the Palin Commission reports (the British military team that investigated the riots after the fact). Hajj Amin is reported to have made a speech, and to have held up a portrait of Faisal. That’s pretty much it. The disturbances began in the old city while the speakers and rally were still outside the city walls. The Palin Commission Report blamed Arab disappointment in their hopes for independence, Arab fear of the Balfour Declaration as an instrument of dispossession, and support for unity with Syria (still a possibility in early 1920) for the violence. They did not, you’ll notice, blame the Mufti, although they did try to arrest him for instigation.

Not only did they not go after the Mufti, but despite the heavy Jewish loss of life and injuries, they went after Jabotinsky and his people because they set up a defense force in Jerusalem (that successfully prevented any significant bloodshed). Doesn’t that tell you something about the history you just tried to use as evidence?
As for Richard Meinertzhagen, he is not a trustworthy source. In addition to being a classic example of my claim that one can be an antisemite and a Zionist at the same time ( “I am imbued with anti-semitic feelings . . . It was indeed an accursed day that allowed Jews and not Christians to introduce to the world the principles of Zionism and that allowed Jewish brains and Jewish money to carry them out, almost unhelped by Christians save a handful of enthusiasts in England” — his diaries, p.67), Meinertzhagen had interested reasons in blaming the 1920 violence on his own colleagues. He wanted to show that some of them were anti-Zionists and Arabists, and to spread the idea that the riots were a pogrom. Could all this have had anything to do with the fact that four days before the riots, he had written to the Foreign Office that “I do not anticipate any immediate trouble in Palestine?” Hmmmm, sounds like his job was on the line. In any event, he was ordered out of Palestine after Allenby threatened to resign in protest of his charges, which were never substantiated by any other source.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. The information originally came from Colonel Storr, another Brit of prominence there.
You’re trying to argue with my point about the knowledge of the fellaheen, the majority of the Palestinian population, by citing the fact that several of the wealthiest and most prominent families in urban Palestine took advantage of the new land laws.
No. I was pointing out that when you blamed foreign or distant land owners earlier, you missed the numerous local families who took advantage of the laws.
I hope you understand why this is a completely inadequate response.
It is if you don’t understand what I was talking about. Now you do. My point, anyway, was that the law was 60 years old but you blame the Jews for knowing about it and taking advantage by BUYING LAND while the Arabs didn’t. Do you realize how silly you sound? Anyway, even if the felaheen didn’t know at first, after the first couple of purchases and replacement of their labor by the new owners, they KNEW. That they chose not to do anything is not the fault of the Jews. Also, don’t forget that Arabs were buying and selling land in other parts of the Ottoman Empire and its aftermath. The difference here is that Jews did it, and the people you are trying to defend by accusing the Jews of immorality, attacked the Jews for being the wrong kinds of people on land they perceived as their own. So one side doesn’t use violence but uses hard earned money and the law. The other side uses violence and doesn’t abide by the law. But you claim the former is immoral. How WRONG.
Please try your response again.
Well, my response was satisfactory the first time and now you’ve got it from another direction. Maybe you should try again?
In any event, after the Jews began buying land Arabs did in many cases try to form KKL equivalents; the reasons for the failure of these projects are immaterial to my original point about the earliest dispossessions.
Why are they immaterial? And why do the “earliest dispossessions” count while later ones do not? Were the later riots any less important? Stop justifying the violence and stop claiming immorality by the Jews. There were laws. The laws had been taken advantage of by many local Arabs. Jews also took advantage of these laws. They did so fairly and even paid excess amounts for the land, some of which was sold by local Arabs. They then decided to work their new land so they could live off it and try to develop their nationalist dream of a return to Zion and democratically and legally taking their natural right to self-determination to a successful conclusion. It’s that basic and that simple. All of your complaints fall by the wayside because if you use the laws of the land and create what you have without initiating violence and while seeking to establish facts by democratic means, you are in fact being moral. Unless you can address that basic issue, you will not make a dent in my argument.
By the way, even as Jews stopped using fellaheen on their new land, the local Arabs set up boycotts against Jewish businesses at different times. How immoral!
By late 1920, many Palestinians had justification to be worried, as the Palin Commission reported, that the British were not going to grant them independence, and that the Zionists were going to take over the whole country.
Uh, the Jews were around 10% of the population at that time. The violence was intended to affect politics. It was terrorism sponsored by their leadership, and ostensibly supported and perhaps instigated by the British. Pure and simple.
Nothing you’ve said has contradicted either of these points, and retroactively the Palestinians were right.
No, the Arabs were wrong. They could have had a state. They made themselves retroactively right by rejecting compromises that would have given them the best land in 1937 (where they would have also kept a majority of the land), in 1947 (when they would have kept a minority but considering the Negev was just desert, a majority of the useful land), and in 2000 (when they would at least have had something…).
If you want to characterize Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of Peel as an acceptance of two-states, that’s fine,
Yup, I do. Not just his acceptance. He was the leader of the Yishuv and his acceptance was the Yishuv’s acceptance.
Pick one, cynicism or earnestness, and stick with it.
Boy oh boy, what a dig. Of course, you’re off the mark again.

And I pointed out that your names didn’t belong to Palestinians, but to completely different Arabs who were making deals with the British on matters that did not concern Palestine. You ignored this and reiterated your misleading point.
They didn’t belong to Palestinians BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS. I mean, what don’t you get here? There were regional Arabs, some of whom belonged to areas that had historical nations living there, such as Syria. The Palestinians were not on the map figuratively or literally. They were not even cognizant of the fact they were a nation. I mean, Jesus, what are you not getting here? You wanted to make a point about Jewish access to the British. You brought up Chaim Weitzmann who was not of the Yishuv in the years we are discussing. And yet, when I bring up the highest-ranked Arabs of the region and their discussions about the LOCAL ARABS of Palestine, you consider that to be different than Weitzmann speaking on behalf of the Yishuv. The local Arabs had a few people who tried, unsuccessfully, to launch a nationalist movement. They failed miserably because nobody, not inside of the Ottoman Empire or outside of it thought of this territory as anything but a backwater of a greater area. And yet, there were many British on the ground in the area who stood up for the local Arabs back in London. Then, in the early 1020s, the local Arabs did try to find some representation as you acknowledge below, and they were taken seriously enough to cause modifications to white papers.
Oh, that’s right. I forgot about those visits to London to “attempt” to influence British policy. They were certainly much more influential than anything Chaim Weizmann could put up. You also seem to forget that these White Papers were often revoked after being in effect for only a short time. In the balancing act of the British Mandate, the Brits would make gestures towards the Arabs, but everything tilted back towards the Zionists in the end.
Yes, you did forget about those visits. Hmmm, doesn’t that refute your first point above? Of course it does. I don’t understand your point here, the British did “make gestures” toward the Arabs – like limiting Jewish emigration which seems to be more than a “gesture” – but you claim the Arabs had no influence or access. If everything had tilted back toward the Zionists, do you think they would have compromised in 1937 and 1947? After all, they were promised ALL of the territory that includes Israel, the West Bank, and TransJordan. They compromised because things were going against them and they were very concerned, even if they believed they were right and owed more land.
It’s perfectly easy to explain. The British administration was never a monolith; some members of it favored the Arab claims. Some were outright antisemites. This just doesn’t change the fact that the overall tendency of the Mandate was to favor the Yishuv. The only reason the Palestinians weren’t granted independence within a few years after the French took Syria was so Britain could keep its promises to the Zionists. The fact that the relationship was occasionally rocky, and that the British tried to avoid the violence that eventually broke out against them in 1936-39, doesn’t mean they didn’t heavily favor the Yishuv in most of their policies and with their very presence.
Nope, they were not granted independence because nobody considered them a nation or the territory to have an historical meaning other than to Jews.
Your explanations of how the Yishuv were able to create a state, and why the Palestinian Arabs weren’t, are fine. You’re absolutely right to state that the Yishuv had far superior organization, a stronger vision, and were generally better equipped. The Palestinian Arab leadership failed miserably to attain any of their goals. This isn’t quite relevant to the point. You basically said that if the Yishuv had been lazy and poorly organized they wouldn’t have succeeded. Gosh. How insightful.
Why thank you.
Regarding your Southern Syria point. The idea of unification with Syria was a favorite among a small portion of the Palestinian elite, during the few years in which it looked like it was possible. It was an episode in the history of Arab nationalism, sure, but its importance has been vastly exaggerated. Haj Amin, and other members of prominent Palestinian families, supported the unification when it looked like Faisal had influence with the British and that by throwing in their lot with him they could overcome the Balfour Declaration. When that proved not to be the case, they turned away from the plan. Al-Qawuqji was a Syrian himself, I think, so his opinion on the matter doesn’t relate to later Palestinian opinion (either way, though, I’d be interested in a source you might have for your claim that “prominent local” figures brought up the Syria idea again in ’36-’39). And as for Nasser — your bringing this up shows a complete misunderstanding of my point. Of course there was pan-Arabism. But in your relentless desire to conflate all Arabs, everywhere, at all times, you can’t see the difference between different leaders in different times in different countries. Nasser, as the leader of Egypt, which was at the time the de-facto “leader” of all the Arab countries, had a lot riding on pan-Arabism in a way that the Palestinians of the 20’s did not. The Palestinian guerrillas of the 60’s, in their attempts to get support, similarly sought to benefit from employing pan-Arab rhetoric. I’m not saying that no one was ever sincere, but I’m saying the picture is a lot more complicated than the one you paint, in which all the Arabs are just elementally trying to get together and anything else is a lie.
Wait a minute, you basically acknowledge that I’m right about Pan-Arabism, but then equivocate that my thinking about it isn’t complex enough? Dude, you’re making me laugh here. The only reason I had to bring up Pan-Arabism was because of your ridiculously shallow dismissal of the area of Mandate Palestine being considered a territory of South Syria.
If you want local leaders who supported the Southern Syria option in the 30s, check out George Antonius in the 1930s. As for Al Qawuqji, he merely represented the views of many in the region by coming to fight for Arab freedom from the occupiers. It’s just that like most people, he did not see the local Arabs as part of some nation called Palestinians.
You’ll recall that I was responding to your claim that the 1920 riots were a pogrom. In a pogrom, Jews were a minority population in a country whose state machinery encouraged, supported and refused to punish its rampaging citizenry. In 1920, the British were in charge, the riot was more or less spontaneous and the British worked to put it down. I didn’t make any “old claims” to which you nonsensically refer. And, you are simply wrong that Haj Amin was pushing for riots in 1920. He didn’t push for any violence until much later in his career.

The 1920 attacks were indeed a pogrom. First you denied it on the basis of Hajj Amin al Husseini not being involved, but now you bring up that he was charged in absentia and fled. Correct about the being charged and fleeing, but why would he do so if he weren’t involved? I’m laughing again. Second, you still have no response to the British claiming that one of their incited the attacks. Third, Jabotinsky was imprisoned while Al-Husseini got away but there had been numerous Jews killed by Arabs and very few Arabs killed by Jews (if any). Doesn’t that tell you something?
stuff about Storrs
Storrs apparently corroborated that Waters Taylor had incited. You tried to claim that a supposed pro-Zionist-anti-Semite (hahahahaha) Meinertzhagen had concocted the accusation against Waters Taylor, and I was pointing out that Storrs had verified the claim, although I don’t know why I have to take your claim about the falseness of my first source. The point remains that attacks where dozens are killed are rarely spontaneous, and would be stopped in advance by an occupying army such as the British. In fact, the low number of Jewish victims in Jerusalem where Jabotinsky had prepared a civil defense force is ample proof that people suspected something was afoot, and that a relatively small and ill-armed group was able to prevent massive bloodshed. If they knew, then it was pre-planned. It the British didn’t interfere rapidly enough to prevent bloodshed the way a much inferior Jabotinsky force was able to, perhaps there are reasons for that failure. If the leading British military official is recorded by another British official, in a letter sent to General Allenby, as fomenting the attacks, it is preposterous to claim that he was a philo-Zionist-anti-semite and lied through his teeth. Just say it: pogrom.
I don’t know if the Zionists knew about the new laws or not.
Hahahahahaha!

They might have just assumed that land laws were similar to the ones in Europe, in which case they would have proceeded in much the same way. Or, they might have done extensive research into the question when preparing to buy land, in which case it makes perfect sense that they would know. I’m not sure why that is silly. Also, you keep ignoring my main point, which is that when Arab landowners bought and sold land, the fellaheen were usually not affected, since they remained on the land and continued working it as before. So, displacement only occurred when Zionists were the land purchasers. To twist this so that you can impute a racist motive for the attacks, like the peasants were just resentful of the “wrong kind of people,” is pretty impressive, but intellectually dishonest.
Impressive and absolutely correct. We see it in 1948-1967 as well when the Egyptians and Jordaninians occupied Gaza and the West Bank and were not attacked.

The fact is that the Zionists, in most instances, did not fully take into account the impact of their presence on the population that was already present. There is no equivalence between their “taking advantage of the laws” and the local Arabs’ doing so, because of the aforementioned effect on the peasantry.
Once again, the pogrom took place in 1920. At that time, the Jews owned a small amount of the arable land. The effect on some peasants may have been harmful, but the number of peasants who would have been affected was tiny.
Moreover, far more land was bought from absentee landowners rather than local ones. If there had been no Zionism, there might have been a long struggle on the part of the peasantry to gain their land for themselves and overcome the fact that the Ottoman land reform had created a kind of feudalist-capitalist hybrid supplanting their traditional rights of usufruct.
We don’t see any hint of that in that area in the 1800s or early 1900s, in 1948-1967, or even today when some of the same prominent Palestinian families who owned land back in the 1800s still control much of it (at least that which they haven’t sold to the Jews or Israelis). In fact, this backs up my previous point.
We’ll never know, though, because the Zionist movement precluded that possibility. If you think they were interested in making sure the peasants had a fair shot at the land, that’s pretty dumb. Not all land purchases were immoral, but the overall process worked to displace many Arabs and to disadvantage them economically. Putting myself in the shoes of a Zionist settler at that time, I can understand how they felt — they had no conception, for the most part, that what they were doing was harming people. Some of them did, like Yitzhak Epstein, and even Arthur Ruppin in his better moments. But those voices, which might have led to a more humane method of settlement, largely went unheeded.
Humane? Buying land, settling it and working it is humane. Killing people for it is inhumane. You’re confusing the moral parties again.
As for the violence of some of the peasant responses, I was not aware that I had been “justifying” it. I’m sure plenty of other methods would have constituted more moral, and probably more effective, responses. The fact that those methods were not pursued neither justifies your assumptions nor your generalizations.
I’m glad to hear you weren’t justifying it. I’m surprised to hear it since you keep talking about the inhumane and immoral methods used by the Zionists to acquire land (yes, by buying it according to the laws of the land), so I naturally assumed you felt the pogroms were justified. Forgive my generalizations, I’ll know from now on that a staunch opposition to immoral and inhumane land grabs and displacement of people, while protesting that pogroms are merely riots, does not mean support for the anger and violence that follow.
Uh, the Jews were around 10% of the population at that time.
Yeah, and the British were still promising to give them the country! If you were in the majority population, wouldn’t that piss you off?

It might. It depends on a lot of factors. I don’t think they thought much about majorities at the time since to this day we do not see a significant democratic political presence in the great majority of Arab countries, and one definitely did not exist back then.
I can see that “pure and simple” is one of your favorite phrases. It’s too bad it doesn’t work to describe situations that were neither pure nor simple. You have failed repeatedly to show that the 1920 riots were *either* sponsored by their leadership *or* supported, let alone instigated, by the British.

Well, I provided the written testimony, corroborated by others, of a high ranking British official. You refuted this evidence by claiming he was a pro-Zionist-anti-semite and that you therefore won’t take his word for it. I point you to the indictments brought against the leaders of the pogroms (al Husseini and Aref el Aref) after they were over, and you claim they were falsely accused and had nothing to do with the pogroms. So the British were charging them for fun? They had fled in fun? Wow, you sure blew me away with that evidence. So as far as I’m concerned, it is you who still has to show that it wasn’t sponsored by their leadership or somehow supported by the British.
Yeah, this is the oldest one there is. But as I pointed out before, Peel was a dead letter on arrival, and the Palestinians thought the ’47 partition was unjust as well given that it gave a minority of the population a huge percentage of the land and still required a significant transfer of populations. Retroactively, given the amount of suffering they’ve endured since then, it makes sense to say they should’ve taken the deal. But it’s just cruel to keep saying “look how much I keep hurting you, I bet you wish you’d have said ‘uncle’ when you had the chance!”

Nothing cruel here, especially because they had another chance in 2000 which they rejected. You keep dismissing historical events and historical evidence as if it is irrelevant when it doesn’t suit your politics. On the other hand, you are glad to use it when it does suit your views. This isn’t about cruelty, this is about finding peace in compromise. If one side is willing and the other isn’t, and this pattern repeats itself for decades as the losing side continues to deconstruct the history, morality and intentions of the winning side in more failed attempts to undermine it, then perhaps it is best to stop supporting the unsupportable? Perhaps you should say that Zionism had moral intentions, imperfectly pursued them but at critical times in its history stood up for the right decisions, and generally has treated the conflict with the Arabs in ways intended to bring peace, democracy and prosperity to the area while maintaining the right to the Jewish nation’s self-determination. That’s not so bad, Sam, and that’s how things went down in the past 100 years. Hold your head high and repeat after me – Zionism was and remains a moral movement.