LOL
Oh, like that makes you an expert.
It isn't, but I am a left-winged Israeli history and alt history fan. That means I know enough
WI: 1949 - Israel and Palestine
- Thread starter Thanos6
- Start date
LOL
It isn't, but I am a left-winged Israeli history and alt history fan. That means I know enough
Perkeo
Banned
Then why didn't we have a state Palestine between 1949 and 1967? And why was Transjordan, also part of the Mandate of Palestine, never claimed by the Palestinian national movement?
Palestine and Israel are more alike than either side would admit. On BOTH the conflict is the source of national identity rather than national identity the source of the conflict.
Ah, I'm just joking with you, Orry. It's all good.
Grimm's right, though. With two armies, two foreign policies, etc, Israel would have a hard few years after independence. David Ben-Gurion was a man who helped forged Israel, a single state, in the Middle East. He helped show, during his premiership, that Israel wasn't going anywhere. The Jews had redeemed their homeland, beat back the desert, and established the first independent Jewish state since the Hasmoneans.
Perkeo, the reason the Palestinians didn't claim Transjordan was because...well....hey, look, a distraction! But that is a good question. I think if they had decided simply on Jordan as their Palestinian state, we wouldn't have had this whole issue. I'm not denying that the Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) have suffered in the past 60+ years. They have. Transjordan was, until 1946, technically part of the British Mandate for Palestine even though it was run as a (quasi)-separate polity. There is an Arab Palestinian state and I cannot for the life of me understand why there has been this violence when their state already exists.
Grimm's right, though. With two armies, two foreign policies, etc, Israel would have a hard few years after independence. David Ben-Gurion was a man who helped forged Israel, a single state, in the Middle East. He helped show, during his premiership, that Israel wasn't going anywhere. The Jews had redeemed their homeland, beat back the desert, and established the first independent Jewish state since the Hasmoneans.
Perkeo, the reason the Palestinians didn't claim Transjordan was because...well....hey, look, a distraction!
But that is a good question. I think if they had decided simply on Jordan as their Palestinian state, we wouldn't have had this whole issue. I'm not denying that the Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) have suffered in the past 60+ years. They have. Transjordan was, until 1946, technically part of the British Mandate for Palestine even though it was run as a (quasi)-separate polity. There is an Arab Palestinian state and I cannot for the life of me understand why there has been this violence when their state already exists.Because Egypt and Jordan were more powerful nations with designs on Palestinian land.
Palestinian national identity did not fully crystalise until after the creation of Transjordan.
Perkeo, the reason the Palestinians didn't claim Transjordan was because...well....hey, look, a distraction!
Jordan isn't a Palestinian state at all, it's Jordanian. The Palestinians who live there are refugees from Palestine proper.Would it be right for me to, say, expel all the Jews from London and claim it's not a big deal because they have a country called Israel they can live in?
No, that's a complete fiction. Until the early 50's Palestinian meant of or relating to the Province/Mandate of Palestine (hell, the Jerusalem Post was the Palestine Post). During that point in time they were Mandate Arabs. They wanted an Arab state, not a Palestinian one because Palestinians didn't exist at that point.
It's not a question of what it was called, it is a question of whether there was a national movement. Whether they were called Mandate Arabs and later renamed themselves Palestinians is besides the point. We can call it the Palestinian Arab movement if you like.
I'll note that Pan-Arabism and Palestinian (or Egyptian, Saudi, Iraqi etc.) nationalism were/are not mutually exclusive. In the Mandate period, an Arab state and a Palestinian state was also not mutually exclusive, because the Arabs were the majority in Palestine. But Arabs in Palestine clearly had experiences unique to Palestine in fighting against Jewish immigration and British rule, which created a national identity in the interwar period.
Actually mainstream Zionism(including Ben-Gurion) were content with that. There were others who wanted a bit more but reluctently compromise. Ben Gurion even wrote something about it(that it is a historic moment since for the first times in 2000 years the Jews are given a state and they must accept this. Also, he liked the Negev alot and Israel got most of this area).
Except that movement was aimed at a Pan-Arab state. There was no separate Palestinian national identity, they were just Arab. They were Arabs resisting foreign rule by the British and attacking Jewish immigrants because they wanted to be part of "Greater Arabia" or whatever the hell the great Pan-Arab state was supposed to be. The Palestinian national identity didn't emerge until after the State of Israel had been in existence for several years already.
I admit that ethnic cleansing is wrong and that everyone has the right to live where they want. BUT the League of Nations, under international law, recognized Palestine as the Jewish National Home. By international law, the area defined by the British in 1922 as "Palestine" is to be an independent Jewish state.
The Palestinians living in Jordan either left on their own free will, ordered to leave by their leaders or were forced out by the Israelis. They had their chance to make an independent Palestinian state in the area in 1947 and the Arabs rejected it.
The Palestinians living in Jordan either left on their own free will, ordered to leave by their leaders or were forced out by the Israelis. They had their chance to make an independent Palestinian state in the area in 1947 and the Arabs rejected it.
puts on fire suit....
I get accused of being pro-Israel but....... I would really love to see any evidence of any international recognition ever of an Israel that comprised the whole mandate
sounds eh unlikely"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people....Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"
all this from here: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Mandate+for+Palestine.htm
This was part of the League of Nations Covenant, an international legal document. Therefore, international law.
all this from here: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Mandate+for+Palestine.htm
This was part of the League of Nations Covenant, an international legal document. Therefore, international law.
Bolded parts are key. If it was as you say it would have said: "in favour of the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish People."
Uh, no. They were fighting for a unitary state encompassing Palestine. Nothing pan-Arab about it. In fact, Palestinians violently opposed Jordanian plans for a "Greater Syria" that would include Palestine.
It says: "national home", not "state". One does not imply the other. Kurds have a national home in Turkey right now, but they don't have a state.
@clendor: Yeah, you spelled it right. And yes, it was pathetically unclear.
The proposed "Jewish national home" was to establish an independent Jewish commonwealth in Palestine or until the area was capable of sustaining itself. When the Israelis declared independence (in Palestine) from the British, they were fulfilling the League of Nations mandate. The idea of the Jewish homeland was for a Jewish state, the World Zionist Organization (in 1942) called for Palestine to be established as a Jewish commonwealth. The International Court of Justice said "marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_home_for_the_Jewish_people
The proposed "Jewish national home" was to establish an independent Jewish commonwealth in Palestine or until the area was capable of sustaining itself. When the Israelis declared independence (in Palestine) from the British, they were fulfilling the League of Nations mandate. The idea of the Jewish homeland was for a Jewish state, the World Zionist Organization (in 1942) called for Palestine to be established as a Jewish commonwealth. The International Court of Justice said "marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_home_for_the_Jewish_people
John Farson
Banned
puts on fire suit....
I get accused of being pro-Israel but....... I would really love to see any evidence of any international recognition ever of an Israel that comprised the whole mandate
Ah, the I-word again.
Got any spare fire suits, Orry? I could use one while I run screaming for the nearest bunker.Anyways, wasn't it always the idea that Palestine would be divided between a Jewish state and an Arab state? The Jews weren't meant to get the whole Palestine.
<Sigh> Why can't we ever talk about some other word starting with the letter I, like I"s. I'm sure that wouldn't cause bitter acrimony, flaming, rioting, purges and the like.