THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE (ORE 55)

[Dreams End]

Sorry. I saw a bunch of text in those pictures and read it. Was I not supposed to?

It's your thread...you can post whatever pictures you want. How about this one, just in from Democratic Underground (though it was removed by mods after a couple of hours.)

[seemslikeadream]

back it up sweetie

Boy you must keep a close eye on DU cause I've been there all day and didn't see that one, what forum was it in?

I think I'll ask some of my friends there if they saw it. I know a few who are always on the look out for stuff like that and they don't miss very much

[5E6A]

I really should refrain from addressing you, until you manage to get my name correct, which has nothing to do with electronic games consoles, of which I have never owned a one. Again, it’s 5 E 6 A, five echo six alpha. I should just adopt your tactics and call you Dimwit Erection and see how well it flows off your back…

You have a habit of reading what you want in peoples’ posts. You also have a habit of putting words in peoples’ mouths. This does little to help your credibility. So some points:

I never said Rothschild was solely responsible. I used him as an example because he was one of the first to use personal money to insert feet in the region.

I never said that the other holocaust victims negated a need for a Jewish homeland. My point was that the holocaust was not the reason why a homeland was created. This is evinced by the others of need not getting similar treatment. This falls within the same realm as you saying

the elites and politicians rarely do things for the reason they SAY they are doing things.

My point with Vietnam was that if the actual intent was to give sovereignty to the oppressed, Minh should have been heard as well. To address one but not another is discriminatory. ALL should be addressed.

I would have to go back to my sources, but I was under the impression that Rothschild was responsible for well over 10,000 individuals being transported and given land.

You would do well in dropping your left / right castigations. I belong to neither. It is my belief that neither actually exist. There are only shades of usurpers. I don’t fancy any of it.

While we are at the who deserves what game, are you willing to give equal recourse to other sufferers of genocide and diasporas? One side of my ancestry suffered losses of over 90% of their population when the usurpers came to address their inability to live within the natural limits of their native land. We were duly run off what had been ours for thousands of years and relegated to a fraction of a fraction of the land we had known for so long. That was less than 500 years ago.

If the tribes of Israel deserve to be repatriated, so do the aboriginal peoples of North America deserve their land back. Care to help in this cause?

[Dreams End]

Don't blame me about the Sega thing...MacCruiskeen started that. I figured he knew you but maybe he just is really into 733t.


Now, for Rothschild. You said this:

Rothschild financed the purchase of land, and the transportation of settlers. The sudden influx of persons not so willing to live like the natives gave rise to unrest under which land and water disputes along with trade embargoes began.

One could be forgiven for thinking you meant that Rothschild sponsored a large enough number of Jews that he played a major role in creating the problems you allege above. Otherwise, why bring him up? And only him? In fact, why do so MANY people focus so narrowly on that one family?

But then I posted an explanation that says Rothschild actually bailed out settlers already in the area. But nevermind that. I also posted the number 5000, but you said 10,000. So let me just grant it out right. 10,000 it is. Do you realize that this is not very many people? So what, exactly, is your point and what, exactly, does Rothschild have to do with anything if he is sponsoring such a small number? After WW2 there were 30,000 Jews a month coming in as refugees from Europe...and that was IN SPITE OF the fact that Britain had greatly restricted immigration to the area. The Zionists actually had what was in essence a "Department of Illegal Immigration."

All this aside, we still are left with the question of what was the justification for creating a partitioned Palestine at the time it was. The age old and hackneyed line goes that it was in lieu of the Holocaust.

Nobody said partition was based on the Holocaust. The Jews were granted a homeland via Balfour in 1917. What that meant for exact boundaries wasn't clear, though TransJordan was considered to be a part of that till the Peel Commission. Now the Holocaust certainly did a lot to increase immigration to the region, though plenty of folks chose to go to places like the U.S. as well but no one has ever suggested that after WW2 people sat down and started carving up Palestine. The truth is, as always, far more complex.

I think we can agree that the motivation of the U.S. in supporting the Israeli state was likely based on cool calculation and not on moral passions, except at the grassroots level. Believe it or not, the Holocaust was a pretty big deal at the time.

In the end Truman decided that it was in the interest of the United States to throw down on the side of re-apportioning the Levant. In the end it seems that Truman knew the US needed a presence in the region for the coming exploitation of fossil fuel deposits.

This is likely true, although mainstream histories all suggest that Truman had a real moral conviction about Israel. I don't buy that either...as his Truman Doctrine makes clear how he viewed the world. There's "ours" and "not ours yet".

And this, in turn, happily suggests that we do NOT support Israel because Israel has some mysterious power over the U.S. another allegation that seems to pop up a lot around here. Sharon did not "mesmerize" Bush into launching the Gulf War and the U.S. is not, as Ray McGovern puts it in this video, a "Gulliver" being tied down by Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvZkl8l6k7g

Why, by the way, do you think a CIA officer would go out of his way to blame egregious U.S. foreign policy disasters on Israel? Anyone? Anyone?

Finally, I hope you aren't asking me to defend the bible as history. It is an archaeological fact that Jews have lived in that area for millenia. That's why there is a "wailing wall" and a "temple mount"...in fact an entire city called Jerusalem is still there! Crusades ran roughshod over the place in a tug of war between the Muslims and the "Christian" west (and in that regard, I have gone on record as having been a much bigger fan of Saladin than Richard the Lionhearted) but that doesn't change this fact. You don't have to resort to the bible to make this case. Religious people do, but this is the case for just about everything.

But it looks like we've found some agreement. I'm granting that Rothschild brought in 10,000 Jews, so we'll agree on that number. I agree that US support of Israel at the top levels, as opposed to everyday folks, is not based on moral conviction but geostrategic considerations. We also both "doubt very much that the Jews own Washington". I can't respond to your justification of that view in others:

I doubt very much the Jews own Washington, but what has given rise to that perception is the greed of Washington having some sympathy to their plight only because it is self serving for capitalism.

because I have no idea what that even means.

[seemslikeadream]

risking being accused of spamming my own thread by posting in it, I will exercise the courage to address one more issue.


Dreams End


I'm sorry you didn't comprehend the connection/relevance but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. It's kinda like reading your posts, it takes a bit of thought.



maybe you could answer my question?

[Dreams End]

I honestly didn't see a question. I saw a bunch of photos with somewhat cryptic captions. If you'll repeat the question I'll try to answer it.

[seemslikeadream]

It's right below that photo you "said" came from DU

[Dreams End]

Oh. Okay...hang on. It has been deleted but it was post 79 on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 99#2914465

And I don't even read DU. You think I'm the only person in the world who pays attention to these things?

Response # 85 is this:

Eight neocons with a little Star of David superimposed on the corner. Maybe Jews should be required to wear little Stars of David so we can tell who they are. Has that ever been tried?

Anyway, if you read the thread you'll pick up enough of the discussion of the picture to see that I didn't make it up. If that's what you were thinking.

[seemslikeadream]

So you don't read DU but you just happen to have a photo that was posted there today? I guess a friend sent it to you, huh?
Interesting

[5E6A]

Don't blame me about the Sega thing...MacCruiskeen started that. I figured he knew you but maybe he just is really into 733t.

You may not have started it, but you certainly held on like a bulldog long after I had corrected you, and you were the only one to keep calling me that. This is telling of your nature. Even after being in possession of the facts you chose to propagate a falsehood. Interesting...

10,000 it is. Do you realize that this is not very many people?

10,000 in the day was a number of significance. It was those 10,000 that stopped the ages long practice of honoring the rights of both to inhabit the land. It was that 10,000 that insisted in only doing business with their brethren. It was those 10,000 and those who followed that moved for a formal government of only their brethren be installed to rule over the land. They were in every respect the catalyst for the first round of physical violence between the two parties. It would have been an entirely different story had they acted in the same faith that their predecessors did. But they did not. They fomented hatred and courted disaster by cornering markets and marginalising the native Arab population. And you still wonder why we are where we are today?

Nobody said partition was based on the Holocaust.

You certainly fished for that here:

Also, though the Holocaust is not a very popular topic around here, I found it rather offensive that the situation in Europe, (remember the war had been over less than two years) is not mentioned with regard to motivation for Jews moving to Israel.

It is an archaeological fact that Jews have lived in that area for millennia.

It is archeological fact that both Jews and Arabs lived in that area for millennia. What is not supported by the historical record is the claim that that land is exclusively the property of the followers of David.

Myself, I think anyone should be able to live wherever their hearts so desire with the understanding that they do not have any right to do so by force, to the detriment of indigenous practice or the exclusion of others. Follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Want to live in Jerusalem? Fine. Do so alongside anyone else who wants to be a constructive member of society in the geographic region. Don't expect the world to create a Soba Noodle Goliath free zone for you.

In closing I still am offering to have you on board with the repatriation of America to its historically proven rightful occupants...

[slimmouse]

Hey DE,

Take a look at the original document that SLAD posted

READ IT REAL CLOSELY.

This aint no protocols document.

THIS AINT NO FAKE.

Having done so, have a look at how I see the creation of the "safe haven for the jews" that is Israel.

I know you can read between the lines when it suits you.

So, it should be as plain as the nose on your face what this whole deal was -without even going into too great a detail the about the "Oil" angle. Thats the bonus card

Namely, another ideal divide and conquer mechanism, orchestrated by the braindead reptillians ( a pure metaphor, you understand)

And throughout the preceding age, all you now need to convince the Bovi of, is the fact that we need oil.

Have a read of Chris millegans book to get a clearer look at where that myth originated.

All a coincidence, you understand

[chlamor]

[chlamor]

Hey DE,

Take a look at the original document that SLAD posted

READ IT REAL CLOSELY.

This aint no protocols document.

THIS AINT NO FAKE.

Having done so, have a look at how I see the creation of the "safe haven for the jews" that is Israel.

I know you can read between the lines when it suits you.

So, it should be as plain as the nose on your face what this whole deal was -without even going into too great a detail the about the "Oil" angle. Thats the bonus card

Namely, another ideal divide and conquer mechanism, orchestrated by the braindead reptillians ( a pure metaphor, you understand)

And throughout the preceding age, all you now need to convince the Bovi of, is the fact that we need oil.

Have a read of Chris millegans book to get a clearer look at where that myth originated.

All a coincidence, you understand

And water.

[Dreams End]

AS usual, slim, I have no idea what you are talking about. I know the document isn't fake and I have commented on it very thoroughly and quoted from it extensively. You, on the other hand, continue your pseudomystical babbling as if you possess some secret insider knowledge that you can only dispense in bitesize morsels so we mere plebeians won't choke on more wisdom than we can handle. Put together a couple of decent sentences and call me in the morning.

But as for 5 Echo 6 Alpha, I said PARTITION was not a result of the Holocaust. However, the document clearly talks about increased Jewish immigration without ever acknowledging the reason for that. Given the profundity of the reason, I was offended by that.

10,000 in the day was a number of significance. It was those 10,000 that stopped the ages long practice of honoring the rights of both to inhabit the land.

How did 10,000 do that? Were you going to back that up with some data or follow the RI tradition of merely repeating things until people get tired of asking for proof?

They were in every respect the catalyst for the first round of physical violence between the two parties

Which round would that be? The riots in 1920? 1929? The Arab revolts of 1936? Or do you mean the war of 1948 in which the combined Arab forces attacked the Jewish forces exactly as predicted in the document of the OP?

The Jews were in "every respect the catalyst"? The longstanding relationship between the Arab leaders and the Nazi party didn't have ANYTHING to do with it, huh? Who said this:

Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you

Answer, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, pictured above with Hitler.

Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified during his war crimes trial in 1946 that ... "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#_note-1

But he had nothing to do with the conflict, huh?

Oh, as to how the place was Disneyland till those magic 10,000 showed up, here is Karl marx's description of Palestine as he saw it. Keep in mind that Marx himself, though of Jewish heritage, said plenty of nasty things about Jews.

"The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated - the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from distant and different countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosophat and to die in the very places where their Redemptor is to be expected.

'Attending their death,' says a French author, 'they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.'"[2]

Now as to this "cornering the market" business. Jews were buying land. This is true. And I think simple logic would dictate that somebody, therefore, was SELLING this land. And profiting from it, I would add. The conflict was, in fact, partly a result of the fact that the Arab owners of the land were not the people working the land. And, in fact, the ownership structure of land was a rather oppressive one within Arab Palestine:

“At the summit of the social pyramid, which was characterized by a rigid, traditional structure, was the effendi group, that special phenomenon of the Middle East, the ‘city notable, an absentee landlord whose main function is to provide credit and who does not interest himself at all in farming.’ They belonged to the handful of leading families who derived their incomes from the estates cultivated by the fellahin and from usury. Not that they turned their noses up at property speculation. The indifference they showed for the lot of the peasantry, their economic activities (investments) and their parasitic role therefore made them akin, to a certain degree, to the comprador bourgeoisie of the colonial countries.”[2]
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm

This is a quote taken from Zionism: False Messiah, an anti-Zionist book written by Nathan Weinstock (who has more recently and somewhat dramatically changed his views on this topic.) He continues:

“The fellahin, attached to the land, were mercilessly exploited by the big landowners, and burdened with levies and taxes. In the village, the peasant was at the mercy of the sheikh, the governor, the farmer-general to whom the taxes were farmed out, and the merchants and usurers who vied with each other for the prize of crushing him. Traditionally the villager had only one means of escaping this misery: nomadism, the peasant’s last resort.”[6]

Elsewhere he remarks:

“In 1936...the average debt run up by an Arab peasant family -- £25-30 a year -- was equivalent to or in excess of its annual income. In these conditions there was hardly any hope of escaping recurrent indebtedness. ...Interest rates, usually 30 per cent, sometimes went as high as 50 per cent. In such conditions, and taking into account the parasitic mentality of the landowners who considered their lands above all as a speculative investment, Arab farming remained refractory to technical progress.”[7]

So the Palestinian Arabs were already screwed. Jews bought this land legally but that did not change the underlying social and economic structure. It's worth continuing with Weinstock's book (and obviously, if you click the link, I'm cribbing off Gil-White's quote selections).

“When the question of the acquisition of land by the Zionist organizations in Palestine is broached, it is usually not stated that these land transactions are to be explained by the big Arab landowners’ eagerness to sell their property. Furthermore, these purchases led to an extremely lucrative wave of property speculation: the price of a dunam near Rishon-le-Zion, originally 8 shillings, had gone up to £P10-£P25 by 1931. The Zionists certainly paid dearly for their Holy Land. The high prices sales, which brought a fortune to the usurious, parasitic effendi class, proved disastrous for the fellahin who were expelled from the estates they had worked on.”[9]

Now, who again was "cornering markets"?

Check this out:

“...whilst in public these [Arab] leaders stepped up their incendiary attacks on Zionism, denouncing any transfer of ancestral soil to the Jews as a betrayal, they secretly enriched themselves by means of the very operations which they so furiously attacked. The fanatical braggadocio was designed for the gallery. It made it possible to win the support of the masses. It also, no doubt, served other less avowable goals. Under nationalist pressure, the small Arab landowners no longer dared to sell their land openly to the Jews. During the 1936-39 Revolt Husseini’s guerillas actually executed ‘traitors,’ but ‘at the same time a close relative of the Mufti was doing a brisk trade in precisely such allegedly criminal deals, but with a notable difference, for this person used to force sales from Arab small-holders at niggardly prices and then resell to the Jews at the usual exorbitant rates...” In other words, hyper-nationalist propaganda became a lucrative industry, indeed even an American-style racket, for the Arab gentry.”[12]

I'm going to bed now...though there's more to be said. But to anyone reading this, don't by this ridiculously oversimplified version of history that 5 Echo 6 Alpha is peddling. NOTHING in history is as simplistic as he makes this out to be, and certainly the story of Israel is even more complex than most.

[hava1]

very interesting report.