Tech Support Guy banner

Explain to me Israeli support

9283 Views 297 Replies 30 Participants Last post by  linskyjack
Have read many articles over the past couple of years concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and understand the basics of the conflict, I think, but I do not understand why the US Government seems to want to back Israel no matter what they do.
1) If terrorist lives in this home then terrorist is killed and family home destroyed even if home is filled with other family members not involved.
2) Arbitrarily annex territory at whim taking over others lands Palestinians have homesteaded for years and use as Israel pleases.
3) The killing of a wheelchair bound, blind and deaf leader.

I assume there is some history to this backing and wish to know.

1 - 16 of 298 Posts
Why must you ask such hard questions? What is it about the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict that interests you so much that you have given us the opportunity to educate you? Sit abck and I'll tel, you why...
First, go back and research what is known as the Balfour letter or the Balfour proclamation, or even the Balfour declaration. It was an agreement with the UK and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that began to divide up Palestine, which was its own country which was governed bu a bunch of mullahs. The Jews and the Muslims has lived together for quite some time, with occasional fighting, but nothing really major, think N. Ireland before the proclamation. But the Belfour letter began dividing the Palestinian lands to make Israel, so that the Jews would have a homeland. Reference the word "diaspora" and it will make more sense. Anyway, like Oldie stated, the Brits were hanging out in Israel as the Jews and the Muslims started to fight one another, think early peace-keeping force because this way at the beginning of the century. Anyway, the Brits were housing people in a hotel, when it suddenly exploded and killed a bunch of people. It was blamed on the Palestinians, but was actually done by the Jews, whom couldn't necessarily be called Israeli's yet. Long history lesson shortened down, the Jews practiced what we would consider terrorism now, such distinguished Israelis as Menahem Begin, David ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, and others were memebers of groups that slaughtered Palestinian camps which included women and children, who were trying to flee.
As far as why the US supports Israel, here are some reason why, including what has already been stated and some others:
1. They are Pro-Western and are not a secular government. Much easier to deal and negotitate with someone who doesn't have to consult a Bible, Torah, or Koran.
2. Lots of Israeli's lived in the US first, and have very powerful lobbies in the US, AIPAC, probably being the largest.
3. Stable government.
4. They have money to buy military weapons.
And lastly, guilt.
Israel didn't get a lot of support from the US until after WWII, and we all know what happened there. the US foreign policy is quite clear when it comes to Israel, they recieve more $$ from us than any other country.
I have talked to Shimon Peres, a former President of Israel, and I asked him if Israel could survive without US military and foreign aid. He stated that Israelonly gets 20 million from the us, this was in 1997, which was BS, and he made a point to say that no US soldier has been kiiled in Israel. That is true, but its because we have never had troops to begin with there. And as far as only 20 million, yeah right keep thinking its that low.
We have seen US policy shift recently though. Although we still support Israel, we do admonish them. We support them because the Palestinian leadership is such a hostile, deranged group that has lost control of the people, which is why you have such groups as the Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade, Hezbollah, etc. they used to be all controlled by Arafat, but he has lost credibilty and power, so now groups do what they want. If the Palestinians had better public relations with the US, things might be very different.
As far as why the Israeli's killed a crippled guy? the same reason we'll take Osama out. They both fostered an environment of terror and killing. He is as guilty for inspiring as the people are for detonating.
Just to make a point though, most people are tired of the conflict in Israel,a nd the Palestinians and the Israeli's have never really followed the tenets of Oslo I and II accords.
See less See more
Originally posted by oldie:
There ya go Davey - post 11 :eek: Not entirely factual but a few home truths maybe, except that Oldie didn't actually state anything ;)

You sound a wee bit agitated infidel :D

Off for coffee now - Oldie ;)
No, not really agitated, just studied Middle Eastern politics in college with a great professor who was from Palestine, but was greek orthodox, so I respected his opinion because it wasn't based on religion, not that I woulnd't respect his beliefs if he was Muslim, I just found that particular fact unique. He was also blind. Heres his link to his VC, there are a lot of articles that you can use to get more information.

Just out of curiosity Oldie, simply because I want Davey to be informed on both sides viewpoints, was the fact that I presumed you stated something when you didn't the only factual error, or was there something else? just curious.
Originally posted by oldie:
Like your debating style infidel. Factual error!!! mmm lets see. Not really, but much is still under wraps and archived away in the deeper recesses of Century House, London. Where it will remain as classified for a few more years yet!!!

Needless to say Britain has made many mistakes in it's recent history. Not least in Palestine (as it was ) during the Exodus :eek:
Regards - Oldie
I really don't blame the Brits for this at all. Israel and the Palestinians have had more than enough time to resolve this conflict, and I think they fight just out of spite and habit.
As far as classified material, I work with what I've got, but I'd be more than interested in reading about the parts I don't have, information is the only thing that could sway an opinion, and in this case, I am ambivalent.
Hey Albert,
I don't speak the Queen's English. "And incidentally, Infidel has been very diplomatic in not pointing out the balls up that we British made in our handling of the situation. "
Is that good or bad?:D
Originally posted by eggplant43:
I believe it would be based upon the actions of the US prior to, and during WWII. We were simply not supportive of the plight of the European Jews, a period of time in which 6,000,000 of them died.

I'll do some research, and see if I can supply some links.

IK - Did you mean to say not secular, or secular?
Non-religious governments are always easier to negotiate with. :)
Originally posted by Wino:
PLS - what's this "we" thingy? :D Speaking for Texas only, we warred and took land from the Mexicans and formed a Republic without the aid of the US. With immigration and birth rates, the Mexicans are slowly taking it back peacefully without firing a shot or suicide bombers. May be the Palestinians could learn something from this.;)
Give me time Wino, give me time. I was voted most likely to cause a civil war. in college.:D
Originally posted by plschwartz:
I asked Davey the question about land taken from another and if and when and who it belongs to.
He said it depends. I would be curious to hear his and other opinions on this.
The story of the Mexican war I posted above presents obviously a centrist view c1911 as it was for schoolkids.
The similarities to the Isreali annexations are striking. Land was taken from the mexicans but texicans which was then annexed by the US Mexico refused ,massed troops on the border but lost to a more modern army and was forced to cede large areas of territory.
From that vantage the arabs fair and square lost all the lands taken by Isreal.
After WWII we sanctioned large transfers of land and encouraged that populations move and be resettled.
However we denied both the Koreans and the vietnamese the ability to reunite their countries by force.
We allowed India to take Goa and Bhutan, indonesia to take New Guinea.
We allowed the jews to take Isreal and the Syrians de facto to take Lebonon but denied the right of the Iraqis to take Kuwait .

Anybody want to hazard a definition of when annexation is OK and when it is not??
. OK. the Brits and France parceled out a land that had feudal leadership (mullahs) and created a NEW country, Israel, regardless of historical ownership, afterall, couldn't anyone claim that Jews abandoned it? And if we are going to claim prior ownership, then don't all Indian tribes own the uS. As far as Iraq/ Kuwait, Iraq claimed Kuwait as the 13th province, but Kuwait had a border that was internationally recognized and has a legitimate government.
I have a point of contentionnin claiming that Texas was annexed in a literal sense. Texas JOINED the union, if we are claiming annexation in a definiotn that is commonly used today, then Texas would have either been a territory or a part of the US then. Annexation is not FORCIBLY taking property. It is an agreement between different governments, usually city and county.
As far as the Arabs losing fair and square, Israel got the Golan heights, the West bank, and the Gaza strip because of the 6 day war, to the victors goes the spoils. However, Israel continues to allow illegal settling in disputed areas that are covered under Oslo I and II, in direct violation of Palestinian autonomy.
See less See more
Paq, and everyone else, here is a chronology of the creation of Israel. Here is the link, and go to the link because it has maps.
Paq is somewhat correct when he says that Israel was mostly barren, 60% was in the Negev desert. However, in the Peel Commission map, Israel gets twice as much coastal property than the Arabs, and under the UN plan, the Arab state is completely surrounded on three sides by Israel and have a gerrymandered border with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. It clearly FAVORS Israel and I would probably be a bit pissed off also.
When you say "Arabs" are you referring to Muslims, or the indigenous people there to begin with.
As far as the 6 day war, it was in direct response to Israel being formed. Without making any Brits mad, if you look at the chronology, the Brits double crossed the leaders in Palestine and they got mad.

70 CE [1] The Destruction of the Temple and the Jewish Dispersion

Jews have lived in the Land of Israel for nearly 4000 years, going back to the period of the Biblical patriarchs (c.1900 BCE). The story of Jewish life in ancient Israel is recorded in detail in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian "Old Testament").

The dispersion of the Jewish people is traditionally dated from the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, an event considered by the Romans to be a victory of such significance that they commemorated it by erecting the triumphal Arch of Titus, which still dominates the Roman Forum. The Roman historian Cassius Dio records that in a subsequent revolt in 135 CE some 580,000 Jewish soldiers were killed; and following that revolt the Emperor Hadrian decreed that the name "Judea" [2] should be replaced by "Syria Palestina" - Philistine Syria or "Palestine". [3]

In the ensuing years the greater part of the Jewish population went into exile as captives, slaves and refugees, although Galilee remained a centre of Jewish institutions and learning until the sixth century CE.

As strangers and outsiders in the countries of their dispersion, the Jews were subjected to discriminatory laws and taxes and, particularly with the rise of Christianity, to humiliation and active persecution. However, through the centuries of exile, the hope for redemption of the land of Israel remained a focal point of the Jewish religion and national identity.

Today there are about 14 million Jews in the world, of whom some five and a half million live in Israel.

622 The Birth of Islam

The Hijra, the "migration" of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, marked the establishment of the Islamic religion in Arabia. At the height of its power during the next hundred years, Islamic rule extended from India to southern France.

638 The Arab conquest of Palestine

In the seventh century Palestine was predominantly Christian and Greek speaking, ruled from Constantinople ("Byzantium") as a part of the Byzantine Empire, the successor of the eastern Roman Empire.

In 638 the Islamic Caliph Omar I completed the Arab conquest of Palestine with the capture of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Omar built the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Temple, and henceforth Jerusalem was proclaimed the third most holy site of Islam.

From 638 to 1099 Palestine was part of the empires successively ruled by the Arab dynasties centred in Damascus and Baghdad. The result was an entrenchment of the Arabic language and culture and the dominance of Islam, although a significant proportion of the population remained Christian. Like most of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, the people of Palestine thus came to describe themselves as "Arabs".

1099 The Crusaders establish the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

1187 Saladin, the Kurdish ruler of Egypt defeats the Crusaders.

1516 Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey takes Jerusalem

Under Turkish Muslim rule Palestine was governed from Constantinople for the next four hundred years, ending with the defeat of Turkey as an ally of Germany in the First World War in 1917.

By the 19th century the population of Turkish Palestine had been reduced to less than 500,000, including about 25,000 Jews. The only fertile areas were in the narrow central plain. The north consisted of rocky hills and of valleys which had largely degenerated into swampland, while the south was mostly desert.

1882 The Jews of Russia and the origins of modern Zionism

Meanwhile, some five million Jews lived in Russia. Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and the succession of the more repressive Alexander III, anti- Jewish laws were re-introduced. Boys of twelve were conscripted for twenty-five years in the army; Jews were allowed to live only in restricted areas and "pogroms" (violent attacks on Jewish villages and neighbourhoods) swept through Russia.

The overwhelming response was emigration to America. Another was Zionism, the political movement aimed at restoring a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In 1882 the first of the modern Zionist waves of immigration began, with the establishment of agricultural settlements under conditions of severe hardship, and generally dependent on the support of Jewish philanthropists. A second wave of immigration in 1904 after another wave of persecution in Russia. By 1914 the Jewish population was approximately 85,000 in a total population of approximately 650,000.

1897 Theodore Herzl calls the First Zionist Congress

As a journalist in Paris representing a Viennese newspaper, Herzl witnessed the anti-semitic outbreaks at the beginning of the "Dreyfus Affair".[4]

Shocked by the anti-semitism in France, the land of liberty and emancipation, he concluded that Jewish freedom and dignity required the restoration of a Jewish national homeland, and in 1896 he wrote "Der Judenstaat", a program for the establishment of a Jewish state. He forecast that a state would come into existence within 50 years. "If you will it", he said, "it is no dream".

In 1897 he convened the first Zionist Congress at Basle in Switzerland, comprising 204 representatives of Jewish communities, which created the World Zionist Organisation. The official statement of the Zionist aims was adopted by the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, on August 1897 and is recorded in the Basle declaration of 1987.

After a series of pogroms in Russia, culminating in a massacre at Kishinev in 1903, there was great pressure in Britain to take Jewish immigration. The British government first offered the Zionist organisation the enclave of El Arish, on the coast of the Sinai desert, and then seriously offered Uganda (then known as "East Africa") as a Jewish homeland and place of refuge.

1914-1918 The First World War

In 1914 the Turkish Empire entered the First World War on the side of Germany. From the outset British control of the sea route to India (passing adjacent to Palestine and through the Suez Canal) was an essential strategic objective in the war.

In 1915 Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, corresponded with the Sherif Hussein of Mecca, the head of the ancient ruling Hashemite clan, promising British support for an Arab revolt against the Turks, and British recognition of Arab independence after a successful uprising. The area of Arab rule was ambiguously described, and the British Government later denied any promise that Arab independence would extend to Palestine. [5] This correspondence is recorded in the McMahon-Hussein Letter of 1915.

The Arab uprising which occurred with the assistance of Colonel T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") took the form of a march of Bedouin tribes from the Arabian Peninsula to Damascus, and succeeded in disrupting the Turkish railway system in the region.Meanwhile, a number of the Jewish settlers who had been expelled from Palestine by the Turks, joined either the "Zion Mule Corps" which fought at Gallipoli, or the Jewish Legion, a regiment of the British Fusiliers, which fought with the Allied Forces in the Middle East.

Australian forces also fought in Palestine, and the famous charge of the Australian Light Horsemen which resulted in the capture of Beersheba, was a turning point in the campaign.

1917 The Balfour Declaration

On 2nd November 1917, one month before British troops under General Allenby entered Jerusalem, the British Government made the following declaration in a letter from Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Reasons for the Declaration

- The Zionist Idea:

Zionist aspirations were conveyed persuasively by the British Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann to Prime Minister Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, both of whom were religious men with a knowledge of the Bible, and essentially in sympathy.

(Note: As a scientist working for the British Admiralty, Weizmann had invented a process for synthesizing acetone which played an important part in the British war effort, and this gave him some access to the political leadership. Weizmann later became the first President of the State of Israel.)

- British Strategic Aims:

Palestine controlled the Eastern Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, which were part of the sea route to India, the Far East and Australia. The Balfour Declaration provided a basis for a British protectorate after the War.

(During the early stages of the negotiations, American Jewish support for U.S. entry into the war was considered important. There was also a need to counter the Russian Jewish expectation that Germany might liberate them from the Tsarist yoke.)

There were two Jews in the British cabinet. Sir Herbert Samuel, who later became the first British High Commissioner under the Mandate, supported the Declaration. It was opposed by Sir Edwin Montague, who summarised his view with the words "I am His Majesty's Secretary of State for India, and you want to say that my national home is in Palestine!"

1919 The Paris Peace Conference

In 1918 Weizmann met the Emir Faisal, the leader of the Arab forces in the war and the son of the Hashemite ruler Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, at Ma'an in southern Transjordan. Weizmann and Faisal reached an agreement which was formalised at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, which discussed the drawing of new national boundaries which followed the conclusion of the First World War. Faisal conveyed the spirit of the agreement in a letter to United States Justice Frankfurter, leader of the American Zionist delegation:

"The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both ..... We shall welcome the Jews back home."

However in March 1920, a Syrian congress held in Damascus rejected the Balfour Declaration and elected Faisal King of a united Syria, including Palestine. The French then deposed Faisal in July 1920, and he later became King of Iraq under the British mandate.

1920 The Treaty of San Remo

At the allied conference at San Remo, in April 1920, at which the Allied Powers determined the fate of the former Turkish possessions, the Balfour Declaration was approved, and it was agreed that a mandate to Britain should be formally given by the League of Nations over the area which now comprises Israel, Jordan and the Golan Heights, which was to be called the "Mandate of Palestine".
The Balfour Declaration was to apply to the whole of the mandated territory.

The British Mandate 1920 - 1948

(for larger map click above)

The treaty of San Remo was ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922. In September 1922, a clause was added to the Mandate memorandum separating Transjordan (the territory on the east bank of the river) from the rest of Palestine. The British installed the Emir Abdullah, another son of Hussein of Mecca, as ruler of Transjordan under British tutelage, and that part of the mandated area was excluded from the operation of the Balfour Declaration by the British White Paper of 1922. [6] In 1946 Transjordan gained its independence as "The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan".

In 1923 the Golan Heights was ceded by Britain to the French Mandate of Syria.

1919-1948 Jewish Settlement in Palestine

The Jewish population in Palestine increased to 678,000 by 1946. During the period between 1919 and 1946, the development of the country in turn attracted substantial Arab immigration, and the Arab population doubled, to 1,269,000. [7] Jewish immigration followed waves of persecution in central and eastern Europe, and increased dramatically after the accession of Hitler in 1933. The forms of settlement reflected the various Zionist ideologies, socialist, religious or nationalist. The dominant ideology was socialist, and this found expression in the development of unique social and economic enterprises, such as the Kibbutzim, [8] the Moshavim [9] and the Histadrut. [10]

Land was purchased with funds raised by Jewish communities throughout the world. [11] Malarial swamps were drained, trees were planted and desert areas were reclaimed, and the city of Tel Aviv rose from the sand dunes.

1920 -1939 The Arab Response

In April 1920, during the British Military Occupation which preceded the Mandate, the Arabs of Palestine rioted in protest against Jewish settlement. In Jerusalem the riots took the form of violent attacks on the Jewish population. In Galilee, armed groups attacked Jewish settlers.

On 1 May 1921 a Jewish Labour Day march was attacked and 47 Jews were killed.

In August 1929 a dispute at the Western Wall [12] in Jerusalem flared into riots which spread throughout the country. The Jewish community in Hebron (the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was wiped out. In all 133 Jews were killed and many hundreds were wounded.

In December 1931 a Muslim Conference in Jerusalem attended by 22 countries denounced Zionism, and in 1933 a boycott of British and Zionist goods was proclaimed.

In April 1936 the Arab political parties formed an Arab Higher Committee under the presidency of Haj Amin El Husseini, the Mufti [13] of Jerusalem and head of the influential Husseini clan. A general strike was proclaimed, which lasted for six months, and armed groups were again organised to attack Jewish settlements.

In 1937, when the British outlawed the Arab Higher Committee, the Mufti fled from Palestine to Nazi Germany where he established close relations with the government. Here he endorsed and offered assistance in Hitler's "final solution" of the Jewish problem.

1920-1937 The British reaction

The British Government responded to the Arabs' violent protests against Jewish immigration and land acquisition, by instituting commissions of inquiry, holding Royal Commissions and issuing policy statements in the form of "White Papers". The 1922 "Churchill" White Paper limited immigration to the "economic absorptive capacity of the country". The 1930 policy statement restricted the transfer of land to Jews.

In 1937 the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Peel came to the conclusion that the Mandate was unworkable, and proposed a partition plan. The plan proposed that the cities of Tel Aviv, Jaffa and Jerusalem and the corridor between them (including the Arab towns of Lod and Ramle) should remain under British control, that the remaining area should be divided between Arab and Jewish states, and that Jewish immigration should be strictly limited. The Jewish reaction to the plan was ambivalent. The Arabs were strongly opposed and stepped up their revolt.

The Peel Commission Partition Plan, July 1937

1938 The Evian Conference

By 1938 the position of the Jews in Europe was desperate. The anti-semitic Nuremberg Laws and the concentration camps were in place. Germany would let the Jews leave, but no country would grant sufficient entry visas, and they remained trapped. At the Conference on Refugees held at the resort town of Evian in France, the participants refused to make any substantial alteration in their strict immigration quotas. [14]

1939 The London Conference and the White Paper

In January 1939 a conference between the British Government and Jewish and Arab representatives took place in London. The Arabs demanded an immediate end to Jewish immigration and land acquisition. The Jews of Germany sent a message stating that their situation was one of life or death, that it was inconceivable that Britain should sacrifice them.

The outcome of the conference was the 1939 White Paper. This provided for strict limitations on Jewish land ownership, that during the next five years no more than 75,000 immigrants would be permitted, and that after that period no further Jewish immigration should be allowed unless the Arabs of Palestine were 'prepared to acquiesce in it'.

The Arabs rejected the White Paper on the ground that it continued to permit Jewish immigration and settlement. When war broke out, the Jews of Palestine adopted the slogan: "We shall fight the Germans as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no Germans."

1939-1945 World War II and the Nazi Holocaust

Six million Jews were exterminated in Europe in conditions of calculated atrocity unique and unprecedented in world history. The world's conception of the nature of human civilization will never be the same. The perpetrators of the mass-produced sadism of the Holocaust were, after all, products of one of the most highly cultured and technically advanced societies ever known. One lesson was clear: in times of severe crisis in any country, no outsider is safe. The survival of the Jewish people depended on the existence of a national territory and a capacity for self-defence.

1945-1947 The Post-War Immigration Crisis and the Jewish Revolt

After the war, Britain was anxious to consolidate its Middle East interests. Priorities included control of oil supplies and maintenance of the sea route to the Persian Gulf and the Far East, all of which required Arab friendship.

Under Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government, the White Paper policy of severe restrictions on Jewish immigration was continued. The survivors of the Displaced Persons Camps of Europe demanded to go to Palestine. Illegal immigration by desperate survivors in chartered boats, often barely seaworthy, increased in scale, and those who were unsuccessful in avoiding the British Navy were put into camps in Cyprus and Mauritius, or returned to Europe.

British troops were shipped to Palestine to meet the growing Jewish resistance. Various groups opposed the British, including the Haganah the Irgun and the more extreme Stern Group. One major event in the conflict was the bombing by the Irgun of the British Army Headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, resulting in British, Arab and Jewish casualties. The Irgun claimed that the building had not be evacuated despite clear warnings.

Leaders of the Jewish resistance groups were arrested. Some were imprisoned, some deported and some hanged. In retaliation five British sergeants were kidnapped by the Irgun and hanged. The fundamental differences in policy between the Haganah [15] and the Irgun [16] led to the bombing by the Haganah of the "Altalena", a ship bringing arms to the Irgun.

1946-1947 United Nations intervention

Attempts to settle matters failed. In 1946 an Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry called for the immediate entry into Palestine of 100,000 survivors. In 1947 the British agreed to intervention by the newly formed United Nations, and a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was established, including Australian participation.

After taking evidence, UNSCOP recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state in economic union (each state consisting of three segments), and an internationalized Jerusalem. While the Jewish state comprised sixty percent of the total area, over half of it was the barren and unpopulated Negev Desert.

An Ad Hoc Committee of the UN, under the chairmanship of Dr. H.V. Evatt, Foreign Minister of Australia, drafted the partition resolution. On 29th November 1947, the resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, after much suspense about the US position. An extract from the 1947 Partition Plan is available here.

The United Nations Partition plan

There was now an international charter for the creation of the State of Israel. It is notable that the partition resolution was strongly supported by the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, as they opposed British interests in the Middle East.

1947-1948 From the Partition Resolution to Independence

The Jews accepted the partition plan with celebration in the streets. The Arabs denounced the plan and refused to set up a provisional government for the proposed Arab state. Britain announced that it would not co-operate in the actual execution of the partition plan, and would withdraw its forces on 15th May 1948.

Arab hostilities began immediately in the form of a general strike, widespread rioting, and attacks on Jews throughout the country. Armed Arab forces appeared, the largest being the Arab Liberation Army led Fauzi AI-Kaukji, a former Turkish officer, and supported by Syrian officers and irregular troops.

By March 1948, with British forces still in Palestine, an all-out war for access to Jerusalem and control of Galilee was in progress. By mid-May the Jewish population had sustained some 2,500 dead, half of them civilians. Arab casualties are not known.

On 18 March 1948 the United States called on the Security Council to postpone the implementation of the Partition, and to set up a temporary UN Trusteeship. The British, certain that the Arabs would succeed in destroying the new State, gave assistance to Transjordan, and Major-General Glubb led the Transjordanian Arab Legion. Britain and the United States both denied arms to the provisional Government of Israel, which now looked to Czechoslovakia for supplies.

This period saw the beginnings of an exodus of Arabs away from areas of Jewish control. The numbers of those who left, and the circumstances in which they left, are matters of controversy. Estimates of the number of Arab refugees who left their homes during the conflict both before and after May 1948, range from about 510,000, based on population figures before and after the conflict, to 720,000, based on United Nations figures.

Arab writers accuse the Jewish forces of a concerted terror campaign. They give as an example the events on April 1948 at Deir Yassin, a village commanding the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, in which 250 civilians were killed. [17] Arab newspapers and radio gave extensive coverage of the attack by the Irgun, and this was an important element in precipitating the flight of Arabs away from the area.

Israeli sources, on the other hand, point to an intensive media effort by Israel to persuade the Arab population to remain and participate in the development in the State of Israel. They also refer to Arab calls for the inhabitants of the area to leave their homes and make way for an Arab invasion, which was expected to result in the annihilation of Israel. (See Arab sources on the 1948 Exodus and British Police Memo on 1948 Exodus)

1948 Israel's Independence

On 14th May 1948 the British flag was lowered and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed. It included the following words:

We appeal in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of co-operation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

That night Tel Aviv was bombed by Egyptian planes. The next morning units of the regular armies of Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, with volunteers from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, crossed the frontiers. It was the beginning of the war described by Israel as the War of independence, and by the Arabs as Al Nakhba, "the Disaster".

Israel and Australia - A Comparison

1] “Common Era” - an alternative to “AD”.

[2] The name “Judea” originally described the territory allocated to the tribe of Judah, one of the twelve tribes descended from Jacob. This area is now the southern half of the “West Bank”. The Romans extended the use of the name to the whole of the province, and its inhabitants were described as “Judaei” or “Jews”. The term “Judaism” hence describes the monotheistic religion and the ethnic culture of the Jewish people.

[3] In this chronology the name “Palestine” will be used as the description of the whole geographical area up to 1948.

[4] Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French army, was convicted of treason on the basis of documents which were subsequently found to have been forged, but was not released after the forgery was discovered.

[5] Hence the appellation “the twice promised land”, arguably even thrice promised, given the draft Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916 defining British and French interests in a post-war Middle East which included an allocation of part of Palestine to joint British, French and Russian protection.

[6] The background negotiation was very complicated. The Hashemites claimed Syria (including Palestine and Lebanon) and Iraq as independent Arab Kingdoms. The allies had agreed that Britain would take mandates over Palestine and Iraq, and France a mandate over Syria. Matters were resolved at meeting between Abdullah and the British in March 1921 in Cairo, at which it was agreed that Faisal would rule Iraq, and Abdullah would take Transjordan, both under British tutelage, and that Abdullah would receive a regular “subsidy”.

[7] In the 1921 census 21 countries were listed as places of orogin for the Arab population

[8] Communal agricultural settlements based on pure socialist principles ("to each according to his needs; from each according to his capacity

[9] Co-operative villages with varying degrees of communal ownership.

[10] The trade union movement, both protecting workers and actively engaged in industrial enterprise, for which capital could not otherwise be raised.

[11] In 1900 the World Zionist Organisation had created the Jewish National Fund which raised money for these purposes, partly from blue coin boxes found in most Jewish homes.

[12] The only remnant of the destroyed Jewish Temple.

[13] The official Muslim religious leader, as approved by the Mandatory authority.

[14] The Australian representative, Colonel T. White, expressed his government's view in these words:

"As we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one."

In the event, Australia did agree to the entry of 9,000 refugees over a period of three years, which at the time was regarded as a substantial number.

[15] "Defence"; the underground military organization of the Jewish Agency, which after Independence became the regular army of the State of Israel

[16] "Irgun Z'vai Le'umi"- "National Military Organisation", the military arm of the Revisionist party, now part of the Likud.

[17] Menachem Begin, Commander of the Irgun, insists that advance warning of the attack was given by loudspeakers, and that those civilans who remained were killed unintentionally but inevitably in the course of the storming of the village houses and in cross-fire.
See less See more
I was out of the office yesterday, and I was eager to get back to see how this thread was going.
Gentleman, I have to give us all credit. We took a very volatile, potentially hate-filled topic, and debated academically the causes and effects, and I am impressed of the level of thought, sensitivity (did I just say that?), and open mindedness that everyone gave.
Just a few more thoughts to make you put things in perspective:
IMO, this will be an ongoing conflict, regardless of Palestinians receive an equitable share of land that they can call their own. The Israeli's will always be threatened by the PLO and its remnants, especially when they say that they will "push the Zionists back into the ocean." It would make me be abit on guard also, but I honestly think that in some cases they need one another. In some sick and twisted way, they draw attention to both of their plights by attacking one another. Its a cyclical problem that has no end because they don't know any other way. To make a point, why hasn't Israel killed Arafat?
There is a tremendous amount of history here, and infact Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are tied together, so there are some common links. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens in the future, but it is odd that if we take both sides as an abstract, there are a great many parallels to the creation of the US.
Now as far as "Perhaps we could ask IK to personally moderate Al-Firdus? " Don't know him, haven't read any of his posts, but will make a guess that he is a bit more "impassioned" than us because of personal or religious reasons, however, if necessary, I will check his postings out, if not for more than my own curiosity.

Paq: "This is what CivDeb ought to be about, IMHO: people exchanging factual references and perspectives, without stooping to flaming and personal insults. No need, not necessary."
I don't think I could have said it better myself. I don't personally mind the writers opinions, as long as they don't mind countervaling opinions, and the occasional playful jabs at one another, and I think thats where Civ Deb got off track, people were becoming a bit too serious. We have to inject a little fun into it or it can become volatile.

Oldie: My man with the plan in the far away land. Ever in the great country of Texas, stop by and say "Howdy", first round is on me, Doc. Same goes to you Paq, if not only because I think it would be funny to say "2 Brits and a Texan walk into a bar...", and hey, we can play a little golf too.

And last but not least, Davey, our fearless moderator, who was brave enough to want to get a well balanced viewpoint on such an intense topic. All I can say is keep up the studying. The more information you have, the better your basis for deciding will be, but I have a feeling you already know that. And p.s. Whatever you do, don't read Noam Chomsky, he's boring and a dork. I would suggest reading political science journal articles, they tend to be a bit more boring, but also tend to be less slanted. IMO.
See less See more
khara44 said:

Whoever posed this question I commend you on your courage to think? We are starting to witness an America that does not encourage those who like to think for themselves and form an opinion outside of the opinions of Fox News. Good for you.
Aw come on. We all know Davey had a report due at school and didn't want to do the research himself. :D
Khara, I think if you hang out on Civ Deb enough, you'll find out that there are a lot of members, both Dem and Rep, left and right, right and wrong, that for the most part, are able and eager to express thier knowledge or opinion reagrdless of "political correctness". I have been on both sides of debates here, and this one has been a good one. The only one I like more was when Lan and I were debating Stern. So know khara, the balls in your court, lets see you make a contribution to the thread and give us your
:up: "Oh"-pinion.
Just a little palate cleanser. :) :)


See less See more
muw said:
IK and the rest

Before you jump or try to Intellectualize try reading a few of these links I think this link maybe a little dated. Last fall I read they delivered #12! Still it is the thought that counts!

These links are on the "Federation of American Scientists" web site and I am sure if you look you will be able you a lot of other supporting documentation out there! Think before you speak! :D
Not exactly sure what you are referencing.
Do I know that israel has nuclear weapons? yes. Do I care how they got them? Not really, much like I don't care that SA and Brazil (allegedly) have them. I know that they HAVE them, and thats whats important to me.

Please clarify what you are referencing Muw.
linskyjack said:
Then you need to elect politicians who agree with you. There are very few out there.
Whom are you referring to? :confused:
linskyjack said:
Sorry Infidel Kast--I was referring to the fact that most politicians on the national scene support Israel. I was telling DeNuccio that he should vote for those who don't
:) :up:
LANMaster said:
Every one knows that title belongs to Puerto Rico, American Samoa or Guam. :D
Once again, for the uninformed:

51st state is CUBA!!!
52nd- CANADA

Damn people, how many times I got to tell you, we don't want Puerto Rico.

I remember Vieques. :mad:
Wal-Mart ends anti-Semitic book sale

No. 1 retailer agrees to take tract off online market after complaints from Jewish leaders.
September 24, 2004: 8:46 AM EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bowing to a barrage of complaints from Jewish groups, retail leader Wal-Mart Inc. has stopped selling "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," an infamous anti-Semitic tract long exposed as fake.

Jewish leaders had complained that the book, which purports to tell of an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, was being sold on with a description that suggested it might be genuine instead of a forgery concocted by the Czarist secret police in the early 20th Century.

The description, now withdrawn from the Wal-Mart (WMT: Research, Estimates) Web site, said, "If ... The Protocols are genuine (which can never be proven conclusively), it might cause some of us to keep a wary eye on world affairs. We neither support nor deny its message. We simply make it available for those who wish a copy."

In a statement e-mailed to Reuters, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said, "Based on significant customer feedback regarding the book titled 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,' we have made a business decision to remove this book ... from our site at"

Wal-Mart had no immediate response to questions on whether the company wrote the description of the book on the Web site or if it came from the publisher.

Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Abraham Cooper, assistant dean of the international Jewish human rights group The Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote to Wal-Mart President Lee Scott expressing their astonishment that the book was on sale without a disclaimer.

"We are, quite frankly, astounded that a reputable company would even give consideration to marketing this flagrantly hateful text, which libels the Jewish religion and perpetuates the bizarre notion of a Jewish plot to take over the world," Cooper said in his letter to Scott.

"This forgery, first penned by members of the Czarist secret police, the Okhrana, has been used by tyrants throughout the last 100 years to justify the persecution of Jews, including Adolf Hitler. Its hideous intent is so apparent, that it has been dubbed 'a warrant for genocide.'"

Both Barnes & Noble and sell "The Protocols" online but with strong disclaimers.

Foxman told Reuters that while he did not think he should tell Wal-Mart what it should sell, the company should have made it clear that the book was "a hateful anti-Semitic forgery. It was projected as a legitimate historic book. If it was going to be sold, it should be sold responsibly."
See less See more
1 - 16 of 298 Posts