babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » What problem did the Palestinians have with the Jews settling in their midst?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What problem did the Palestinians have with the Jews settling in their midst?
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 20 July 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just read this cursory chronology of the Middle East conflict. It notes that in 1936 a "three-year Arab revolt begins, amid frustration at rising Jewish immigration and continued colonial rule."

Resenting colonial rule I understand. But what problem did the Palestinians have with rising Jewish immigration? Was it simple Xenophobia? Were they concerned that this presaged the creation of a Jewish state that might have deleterious consequences for their quality-of-life?

I think it's a bit of the first and a bit of the second. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "The Arab High Command began their protest by calling for...a boycott of Jewish products." Seems racist.

However, I'm not sure to what extent the Jewish settlements at the time were displacing their territory. Two of the Arab Higher Committee's demands were the cessation of Jewish immigration, and an end to all further land sales to the Jews.

I guess to really understand this, I'd have to figure out what the source of prejudice against Jews is (something I don't really know). I've been told to read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" ...


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Resenting colonial rule I understand. But what problem did the Palestinians have with rising Jewish immigration?

I dunno; it might have had something to do with that "Jewish State" rumour and hearing that they would have to be "spirited from the land" for said state to become viable.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 20 July 2004 01:34 AM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was the forcible extradition of non-Jews always integral to Zionism? Herzl proposed that "the new state would be modeled after the post-emancipation European state. Thus, it would be secular in nature, granting no special place to the Hebrew language, Judaism, or to the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine."

Why did Zionism mean that the Palestinians and Israelis had to come into conflict? I don't think that such conflict is integral to the notion of Zionism. In the modern context, methinks the aims of Zionism could be fulfilled even while allowing, for instance, for the Right of Return for displaced Palestinians. I don't see why Zionism necessitates that Israel have a majority-Jewish population.


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 01:52 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't either.

Why can't the Zionists live with the original inhabitants instead of expelling them or herding them into vast cages?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 20 July 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why can't the Zionists live with the original inhabitants ...

From the www site below:

"Who were the original inhabitants of Palestine?
The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians.

In pre-Biblical times, the area was known as the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC. Historical evidence from the Amarna tablets suggests that there were already 'apiru' (Hebrews) among the Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule.

During the final years of the Late Bronze Age, the Philistines also invaded Canaan (1500 - 1200 BC). Other evidence suggests that around 1200 BC, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions."

original inhabitants of Palestine

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Khadiija ]


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 July 2004 10:08 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Irrelevant. Next.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 20 July 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Scout posted

quote:
Irrelevant. Next.

Scout, thanks for sharing your many intelligent insights with us.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You aren't the first babbler, Khadiija, to deny the existence of the Palestinians.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 July 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
nevermind.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 July 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scout, thanks for sharing your many intelligent insights with us.

No problem genius.

Get back to me when you can get a court of law to use a religious tract as a lease, deed, constitution and prove your damn post relevant.

Alrighty?

Otherwise, piss off. Or even better get the hell of the piece of Native land you are currently usurping and head to Israel.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 20 July 2004 02:49 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that this discussion is irrelevant to the question at hand: does Zionism require a Jewish state?

As Israeli Ambassador Herzog said during his response to the "Zionism Is Racism" UN General Assembly Resolution:

quote:
We in Israel have endeavored to create a society which strives to implement the highest ideals of society -- political, social and cultural -- for all the inhabitants of Israel, irrespective of religious belief, race or sex.

Show me another plualistic [sic] society in this world in which despite all the difficult problems, Jew and Arab live together with such a degree of harmony, in which the dignity and rights of man are observed before the law, in which no death sentence is applied, in which freedom of speech, of movement, of thought, of expression are guaranteed, in which even movements which are opposed to our national aims are represented in our Parliament.


Zionism is about creating a state with rules that allow the Jewish people to thrive. This is a question of law. I think that the goal of Zionism - a state where a people can live free from hate, discrimination, and persecution - are the goals of every liberal, western state. (this conveniently ignores the religious justification for Zionism since I don't know anything about Judaism)

The ultimate solution to this problem is for states to cease defining citizenship by native parentage and for states to, as much as their environments will allow, permit anyone who wants to settle in a given country to settle there. The nation state is a pernicious concept. We did so much to achieve the free trade in goods during the 20th century; we need to do the same for people in the 21st century.


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 July 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Zionism is about creating a state with rules that allow the Jewish people to thrive.

Wow! My mistake, I didn't realize that the Jewish community in Toronto was not thriving. I didn't realize it was such hell for them to live in Canada! Did I miss the Canadian boot on the throat of the Jew?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 20 July 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. I meant that that's the historical reason for Zionism
2. Anti-Semitism (including anti-Jew rhetoric) is on the rise, especially in Europe. The European Commission just held a conference in February of this year to discuss a resurgence of hatred directed against Europe’s Jews.

Look at these graves that were desecrated in St. Petersburg this year:

Last November, car bombs outside two synagogues in Istanbul killed at least 25 people. On the same day, a Jewish school in Paris was torched. More recently, neo-Nazi groups have reportedly attacked the homes of prominent figures with Jewish origins in Britain’s governing Labour Party. Of course, anti-Semitism is far worse in some Muslim countries, where it may be officially sanctioned or even encouraged. Some Arab media routinely spew out vile calumnies against Jews. A Lebanese satellite-television channel, run by the Hizbullah militia, recently ran a serial purporting to document the Jews’ rise to global power, including an episode depicting a rabbi slitting the throat of a Christian boy. Last October, Malaysia’s then prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, declared: “The Europeans killed 6m Jews out of 12m, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” (Source)


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your omission was interesting, prowsej:

quote:
Muslims faced with accusations of anti-Semitism might well ask: what about the rampant Islamophobia in Europe, America and elsewhere? Is not France’s recent decision to ban Islamic headscarves a tacit official endorsement of such prejudices? How about an EU seminar on anti-Muslim hatred too? Indeed, the same polls that illustrate European anti-Semitism show even deeper levels of prejudice against Muslims. A recent poll in France suggested that while 10% of the population admitted disliking Jews, 23% expressed prejudice against North Africans. The EUMC reports that attacks on Muslims have risen in Europe since the September 11th terrorist attacks in America. It is worth noting that the leader of France’s extreme-right National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now hurls most of his abuse at Muslims, not Jews.

[ed.] Why are we now talking about Europe?

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Otherwise, piss off. Or even better get the hell of the piece of Native land you are currently usurping and head to Israel.

Come on, Scout, I don't think that's necessary. I didn't even see Khadija's original post as been antagonistic - someone asked why Zionists can't live with the "original inhabitants" of Palestine, and she provided background (whether accurate or not) on who is said to be the original inhabitants, stemming from ancient times.

And the whole "get out of our country if you don't like it" argument really is a non-starter. I don't know how many times I've had people tell me to move to Cuba if I criticize the status quo with regards to social programs here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since Khadija's link suggests that Canaanites were the "original" inhabitants of Palestine, and that Canaan was under the suzerainty of the Pharoah, then I guess that means that Palestine must be part of Egypt.

Again, this appeal to a murky past denies the existence of the people who have lived on the land of Palestine for centuries.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not so sure that is necessarily the conclusion that has to be drawn. Just because ancient societies had different names doesn't mean their descendants, who form new societies and new cultures, aren't "a people". I wouldn't argue that the Palestinians are not a people or a nation, necessarily. And I agree with Scout that who lived there a few thousand years ago really doesn't have much to do with the question of why Zionists could not have lived with the original inhabitants of Palestine (that is, the inhabitants who were THERE when the zionists started arriving, not the Canaanites or whatever). However, that line of reasoning can easily be refuted, as you have just proven with your post, al-Q.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 20 July 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Come on, Scout, I don't think that's necessary. I didn't even see Khadija's original post as been antagonistic - someone asked why Zionists can't live with the "original inhabitants" of Palestine, and she provided background (whether accurate or not) on who is said to be the original inhabitants, stemming from ancient times.

And the whole "get out of our country if you don't like it" argument really is a non-starter. I don't know how many times I've had people tell me to move to Cuba if I criticize the status quo with regards to social programs here.


Thanks Michelle. My post was information that I found on Google about the "original inhabitants" that was mentioned earlier by Al-Qa'bong. When he asked:

QUOTE] Why can't the Zionists live with the original inhabitants instead of expelling them or herding them into vast cages? [/QUOTE]

Al Qa'bong. Are you saying the Palestinians were the "original inhabitants" of the land?

Michelle, at what point do you look at a land mass and say it belongs to this group or that. It seems that you are implyng that there is a statute of limitations on ownership of the land.

Al Quabong, I don't think anyone is denying the existence of the Palestinians. It is clear they exist and need a land of their own. I am just trying to understand your claim that Palestinians are the "original inhabitants" of the land.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 July 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by prowsej:
[QB]According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "The Arab High Command began their protest by calling for...a boycott of Jewish products." Seems racist.

This was a reflection of Jewish boycotts of Arab labour that had started as early as the 1890's.

Some of the earliest reports and critiques of Zionist behaviour in Palestine are provided by Ahad Ha'am who, as early as 1891, wrote the following (quoted in Segev's One Nation, Complete:

quote:
"[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." 'Ahad Ha'Am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside."

Forgiving his own stereotypes of Arabs - for the moment - a slightly different picture than the mythological 'embattled Jew' emerges.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I don't really agree that Palestinians "need a land of their own" anymore than I think Jews "need a land of their own".

I have nowhere that I draw the line where I say, "Okay, this land belongs to this group/that group." I think the land belonged to the people who were on it and had been for generations, whether they were Muslim, Christian, or Jew. I also think new immigration to the area was a great idea, and that it would have been great for Jews to be welcomed with open arms - and with demographic changes happening NATURALLY (not through ethnic cleansing), a constitution could have been put together that would recognize the rights of distinct ethnic or religious groups, with no religious or ethnic group reigning over the others.

That way the state wouldn't have to be based on ethnicity or religion, but on common goals across the various religions and ethnicities in the region - namely, representation for everyone, freedom of religion and religious expression, and safety for religious or ethnic minorities.

But that doesn't seem to be what happened, and we can sit here and point fingers all day about who hurt who first and whose land it was when it was ancient Canaan - but that doesn't change the fact that when you base a state on "a land for (insert religious or ethnic group here)" then that's always going to be contentious because that's how human rights get trampled when people don't fall within that religious or ethnic group, but do happen to be living within those borders.

[ 20 July 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 July 2004 09:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al Quabong, I don't think anyone is denying the existence of the Palestinians. It is clear they exist and need a land of their own. I am just trying to understand your claim that Palestinians are the "original inhabitants" of the

Ragarding your first point, ignoring their presence on the land for the past few millenia is de facto denying their existence.

This 19th century "blood and land" nationalism (from which Zionism is derived) that has soaked the 20th century in blood is a discredited ideology, in my opinion.

As for your efforts to understand my use of "original inhabitants", try to pin down the original inhabitants of any place in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. Except for a few cases, there aren't any. The people who lived in Palestine can at least claim to have been where they were as long as any European people can.

If the term "original inhabitants" bothers you, use "people who have lived there for thousands of years", and who can probably trace their origins to the Canaanites, Samaritans, Philistines and Hebrews anyway.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 21 July 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ragarding your first point, ignoring their presence on the land for the past few millenia is de facto denying their existence.

I am not ignoring anyone's presence on the land. You seem to be. According to Reverend James Parkes (James Parkes, Whose Land?, A History of the Peoples of Palestine (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1970),) Jews also lived there for millenia.

"It was, perhaps, inevitable that Zionists should look back to the heroic period of the Maccabees and Bar-Cochba, but their real title deeds were written by the less dramatic but equally heroic endurance of those who had maintained the Jewish presence in The Land all through the centuries, and in spite of every discouragement. This page of Jewish history found no place in the constant flood of Zionist propaganda.... The omission allowed the anti-Zionists, whether Jewish, Arab, or European, to paint an entirely false picture of the wickedness of Jewry trying to re-establish a two thousand-year-old claim to the country, indifferent to everything that had happened in the intervening period. It allowed a picture of The Land as a territory which had once been "Jewish," but which for many centuries had been "Arab." In point of fact any picture of a total change of population is false...."


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 July 2004 02:46 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to Reverend James Parkes (James Parkes, Whose Land?, A History of the Peoples of Palestine (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1970),) Jews also lived there for millenia.

I said "Hebrews" didn't I?

I didn't deny that Jews have kept a constant presence in Palestine over the millenia. I didn't deny the presence of Armenians or anyone else there either. I said "the people" who have lived there during this time.

Your semantic quibble leads nowhere.

[ 21 July 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 21 July 2004 08:34 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't deny that Jews have kept a constant presence in Palestine over the millenia. I didn't deny the presence of Armenians or anyone else there either. I said "the people" who have lived there during this time.

Your semantic quibble leads nowhere.


quote:
Why can't the Zionists live with the original inhabitants instead of expelling them or herding them into vast cages?

It is not a "quibble" your assertion is false. And you know the Armenian presence is nowhere near the Jewish/Hebrew historical presence in Palestine. Why do you try and dilute the Jewish/Hebrew presence by throwing that in?

Let us try and find ways to make peace a reality instead of fueling the hate with ridiculous claims.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Starbuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5920

posted 21 July 2004 09:38 AM      Profile for Starbuck        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why can't the Zionists live with the original inhabitants instead of expelling them or herding them into vast cages?

quote:
If the term "original inhabitants" bothers you, use "people who have lived there for thousands of years"...

quote:
I didn't deny that Jews have kept a constant presence in Palestine over the millenia.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 21 July 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think the land belonged to the people who were on it and had been for generations, whether they were Muslim, Christian, or Jew. I also think new immigration to the area was a great idea, and that it would have been great for Jews to be welcomed with open arms - and with demographic changes happening NATURALLY (not through ethnic cleansing), a constitution could have been put together that would recognize the rights of distinct ethnic or religious groups, with no religious or ethnic group reigning over the others.

The problem with those innocent thoughts -- and it has been a problem throughout this thread -- is that they do not take into account the actual historical-political context in which immigration to Palestine occurred, particularly after WWI.

That context was European, especially British and French, imperial game-playing. All the Arab peoples were aware of the games that were being played back in London, and they were learning that again and again, they were going to be the losers.

Thus, Zionist projects had long since ceased to look like mere and innocent "immigration." The British, double-dealers with everyone though they were, certainly knew and intended that Zionist projects should be more than "immigration"; the reaction of the local Arabs was entirely predictable.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 July 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is not a "quibble" your assertion is false. And you know the Armenian presence is nowhere near the Jewish/Hebrew historical presence in Palestine. Why do you try and dilute the Jewish/Hebrew presence by throwing that in?

How do you go from my not denying the presence of a group to claiming I am diluting someone else's presence by mentioning them? This is a rather dishonest representation of what I said, don't you think?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 21 July 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question which forms the title of this thread is backwards. What problem did Zionists have with Palestinians living in their own homes? Why was peaceful emigration abandoned as an option by Zionists after WWII?

In the words of Benny Morris (who has clearly gone mad): There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think ... the expulsions of 1948 [of Arabs, by Zionists, in the territory that would become Israel] were war crimes.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca