Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE ISRAELI ELECTIONS....As an outsider who generally finds Israeli politics too byzantine to truly understand, I was a little surprised to hear that turnout for Tuesday's election had been so low. In the LA Times today, Yossi Klein Halevi suggests that it's because there's not much left for anyone to argue about anymore:

Tuesday's election marked the end of the two visions that together animated Israeli political debate for the last three decades: the left-wing dream of a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians that would bring Israel the first real peace in its 58-year modern history, and the right-wing dream of a "Greater Israel" that would fulfill an ancient longing to return to the biblical land and, at the same time, give Israel the safety it needs to survive.

This was the first campaign in memory in which talk of peace was nearly absent. Previously, even right-wing politicians felt obliged to argue that their hard-line politics would bring a more durable peace. But now, with the rise of the Hamas in the Palestinian territories, even the left couldn't manage to sing the old peace songs.

Halevi argues that although the old arguments were a form of "fantasy politics," the new politics are scarcely better: a universally gloomy acceptance of a walled-off country permanently at war with it neighbors, with no real belief that things will ever get any better. The arguments now are only over the details, and that makes voting barely worthwhile.

Kevin Drum 1:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

...a universally gloomy acceptance of a walled-off country permanently at war with it neighbors, with no real belief that things will ever get any better.

Quite a lesson in that, for anyone who feels like listening.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Singing peace songs???

What kind of moron would sing peace songs, when a terrorist organization (Hamas) is running the Palestinian government?

Posted by: MountainDan on March 29, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

...

So where do all the "Bush Republicans" stand on this one?

another crap sandwich policy from these idiots
going to help Isreal? man, at least try to ACT interested...

Rice = incompetence

...

Posted by: wellstoner on March 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Turnout was 63%, and that's 63% of all eligible voters, while in the US we typically get reports as percentages of registered voters (most countries don't have a separate registration step the way the US does). For the US, this would be a very high turnout.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 29, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Israel is trying to be a democratic theocracy. And democracy and theocracy, ultimately, can't co-exist. Long-term, something's gotta give. (And I don't think I want to be around when it does.)

Posted by: Robert Earle on March 29, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Don't know too much about Israel, Robert Earle? It's terrific that you don't let your lack of information prevent you from commenting.

Posted by: ASR on March 29, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I don't beleive the aparrantly common interpretation that the left view has been found a failure as well as the right is correct. I think that is merely a face saving mechanism for the right.

The left view has been that Israel needs to end the occupation and give up captured land to get peace, the right view that Israel needs to expand and the palastinians need to somehow magically (given the political impossibility of actually making it happen) vanish. The reason that past left governments were attempting negotiation was that unilateral withdrawl was politically unacceptable, it was a far left position. They could not actually withdraw until they got the palastinians to agree to some arrangement and stop armed resistance and in fact Israel never stopped building new settlements even under left governments. The palastinians were incapable of keeping such promises well enough to satisfy the israeli public even when they made them. What has changed is that the Israeli public has finally realized that maintaining the occupation does not increase thier security and that the demographics mean that they cannot remain a jewish democracy without giving up almost all the land and seized in 1967 within the next decade or two.

The right has basically given up thier greatest dream, greater israel. The left has given up... what? The idea that the palastinians can be negotiated with? That is just stupid. There will be negotiations eventually. The new government leadership is descended primarily from a right wing party, thier dismissal of negotiation and unwillingness to work with Hamas is not evidence that the left has changed much at all.

What we are seeing is a right wing implementation of what was recently a far left position. Unilateral withdrawl. The right wing version includes a wall wiggling all over trying to scoop up as much territory as possible while humiliating and inconveniencing the palastiniansm and attempting to punish the population for electing Hamas, but basically it is the far left position that the occupation needs to end before there can be peace.

Posted by: jefff on March 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the idea is to go up to the wall once a day and throw some hay over the fence. Sounds like a better solution than the ones they have tried.

Posted by: Matt on March 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

It is the death of a left view that israel could assimilate the palastinians, but it seems to me that that was always a tiny minority view along with the right wingers who were actually for permanent apartheid.

Posted by: jefff on March 29, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Earle - You are an idiot. If Israel is a "theocracy," what do you call Great Britain, which, last I heard, still had an Established Church? What do you call Germany, where the Government provides financing for churches? If Israel is a theocracy, please tell us who the Theocrat is who is running Israel.

It's all to the good that the Israeli public is abandoning the delusions of the right and the left. Israel does not have the military or poitical power to achieve the "Greater Israel" dream. And it is ridiculous to think that the Palestinian Arabs were every interested in making peace with Israel. Sharon's vision - a withdrawal to militarily and demographically defensible lines, and letting the Arabs do what they will in their own lands, is the only way forward. Perhaps after another generation or two the Palestinian Arabs will be interested in making peace with Israel. In the meantime, Israel will prosper.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

If Israel ends up walled off from the Palestinians, with the two sides having only the bare minimum of contacts, it may not necessarily be a bad outcome. At least not when one considers the alternatives.

Posted by: Peter on March 29, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

As virtually everyone with even a modicum of sophistication about Israel knows, the shit really hits the fan when finally, probably toward mid century, the number of non-Jewish Israeli citizens exceeds the number of Jewish Israeli citizens.

Then, it's either democracy or the "Jewish state" that wins.

THere's just no way around that one. And every failure to seek peace beforehand with the Palestinians, every insult and slight enabled by the arrogance of the currently dominant powers in Israel will come back to haunt them.

If it chooses democracy, then it becomes non-Jewish literally with a vengeance. If, as is far more likely I think, Israel chooses its Jewish identity at the expense of democracy, it becomes an indisputable Apartheid.

For thousands of years, Jews have longed for a country of their own. Yet it will not survive even 100 years without becoming a grave disappointment or an unquestionable disgrace.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK
If Israel is a "theocracy," what do you call Great Britain, which, last I heard, still had an Established Church?

Last I looked, despite having an Established Church, the United Kingdom didn't have a law which allowed any person or party who questioned the religious character of the state to be expelled from Parliament, and didn't give people who shared faith with the established church legal preference in attaining citizenship.

So, while it might have some vestigial formal features of theocracy, it doesn't have the kind of theocratic policies of practical importance that Israel has.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

frankly 0 - I think your numbers are a little out of date. That would have been the case, had Israel kept the West Bank and Gaza. That's part of the reason that Israel is not keeping them. Given the current 5/1 ratio of Jews to Arabs in Israel today, though, and the fact that the Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits, I don't think your projections are correct.

Also, you should note that the Israeli Government has offered to give Arab villages located within the Green Line to the Palestinian Authority as compensation for the newly constructed suburbs of Jerusalem that Israel is keeping. Should negotiations ever come to pass, I would expect that offer to be renewed. I should mention, though, that the Arab residents of those villages are not very happy about the proposal to transfer their villages to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority - and who could blame them? - instead of living in first world country with free and democratic institutions, world class medical care and a modern economy, they'd be transferred to a third world hellhole.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

So, while it might have some vestigial formal features of theocracy, it doesn't have the kind of theocratic policies of practical importance that Israel has.

Especially when the next Defender of the Faith wants to be a tampon.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps after another generation or two the Palestinian Arabs will be interested in making peace with Israel. In the meantime, Israel will prosper.
Posted by: DBL

Oh, sure they will. They don't control their own water or power sources. The Israeli navy effectively blockades whatever sea trade they might develop. And now the Israelis are building the biggest fence in the world in the name of "peace."

Israel and the Palestine will never achieve peace as long as Israel insists on it's unilateral control of Palestine.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 29, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

frankly 0 - I think your numbers are a little out of date. That would have been the case, had Israel kept the West Bank and Gaza. That's part of the reason that Israel is not keeping them. Given the current 5/1 ratio of Jews to Arabs in Israel today, though, and the fact that the Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits, I don't think your projections are correct.

Nope, you've got this wrong. The major reason Israel got out of first Gaza, and will withdraw from portions of the West Bank was that the dominance of non-Jews would have come about within only a decade or so (less, I believe, if Gaza had not been withdrawn from).

But the long term demographics, including the birth rate of Orthodox Jews, still shows an inevitable dominance of non-Jews (the vast majority of them Muslim Arabs, but not all), and the tipping point comes around mid century.

In any case, you simply can't get around the basic fact of exponential growth, which predicts that Arabs will win. Why even pretend otherwise?

What's remarkable to me is that I have NEVER seen a real response to this problem from die-hard Israel supporters. They simply pretend, as you seem to be doing, that the problem doesn't exist, that somehow exponential growth doesn't really happen.

How are they going to deal with the situation when the day actually comes? They have absolutely NOTHING to say about it, because they know they are caught in a moral vice, and so they have to pretend it won't happen.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

cm dicely - Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of "theocracy," which indicates that it would be a misnomer to call Israel such. Wikipedia points out that "Theocracy should be distinguished from forms of government which have a state religion, and from some monarchies, in which the head of state claims that his or her authority comes from God." You can surely say that Israel has a state religion and that the state supports Jewish religious institutions, but to compare it to a theocracy like Iran, where religous leaders control the government, is inapt.

Wikipedia's description of current theocracies follows:

"Many observers would consider Iran a theocracy, since the elected president and legislature are subject to the supervision of clerics. Not every "Islamic Republic" is necessarily a theocracy, since in some the effective power is in the hands of a military-backed regime, functioning under an Islamic cloak. Saudi Arabia is run according to a version of shari'a (traditional Islamic legislation) with the Koran declared to be the constitution and is sometimes incorrectly classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in fact a monarchy, with the monarch wielding near-absolute power and the organs of official religion subservient to them. This is known as caesaropapism: a state structure in which the government (Caesar) is also in control of the main organs of religion. The Vatican City State is theocratic in a very limited sense, since it has temporal rule over a small territory, but that is not its primary function. Theocracy, as a form of ruling the state, should be distinguished from the internal order of a religious community. The monastery at Mount Athos is a non-sovereign entity that governs its members under Canon law (traditional Christian legislation) according to the Greek constitution, but it would not normally be called a theocracy since no state is governed. The Knights Hospitaller is another religious order with an internal rule, but this does not make it a theocracy. Many states incorporate elements of religious law in their civil laws, but if these laws are administered by civil courts according to the logic of the state, this does not constitute a theocratic element in their constitutions."

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

frankly 0 - As the Israeli Arabs prosper over time, is there any reason to think that their birth rates won't fall just as in every other developed country? What are the birth rates among American Arabs?

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Turnout was not as low as many articles suggest, by standards of recent elections:

2001 - 62%
2003 - 69%
2006 - 63%

It is true that before 2001 election turnout was much higher, e.g. 1999-78%, 1996- 79%

The change does not appear to be due to issues in one election, but some sort of structural change in the electorate.

Anyone who wants to understand the key debate in Israeli politics - this means you, Kevin - should read this discussion between Haim Ramon, former Labor Party Member of Knesset and now with the Kadimah Party, and the journalist Ari Shavit.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/699317.html

Posted by: JR on March 29, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

frankly 0 - As the Israeli Arabs prosper over time, is there any reason to think that their birth rates won't fall just as in every other developed country?

How about the fact that those birth rates have basically been maintained since Israeli Arabs have existed as such -- i.e., since the beginning of Israel itself, now over 50 years ago?

Israel supporters have always made a big deal over how wonderful the life of an Israeli Arab supposedly is. Well, it certainly hasn't materially brought down their birth rate, pretty obviously.

And I can't think of a single reason why suddenly things should change here; the lot of the Israeli Arab today is basically the same as it was 30 years ago, I'd think.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

" a universally gloomy acceptance of a walled-off country permanently at war with it neighbors, .."

Yep. The sympathy I had for Israel has evaporated. They made their bed, now let them lie in it.

Imagine the lives and treasure saved if they had actually made an effort to get along and cooperate with the Arabs, the UN and the world in exchange for the land they were given in Palestine, instead of carrying out their delusional Greater Israel maddness.

I'am done with the Israeli cause. They have used up their 57 year old get out of jail free holocaust card with me. They need to suck it up and move on without Uncle Sam strong arming the world for them...left on their own they will have no option but to settle and make peace with their neighbors.

Posted by: Carroll on March 29, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

"The lot of the Israeli Arab today is basically the same as it was 30 years ago, I'd think."

You would, would you?

Illiteracy among Israeli Arabs:
1961: 49.5%
2003: 6.1%
Why the difference? Until the State of Israel was founded in '48, Arab girls didn't go to school.

Life expectancy:
1948: 49 males/52 females
2002: 75 males/80 females

Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births):
1961: 46.4
1996: 10.0

Posted by: JR on March 29, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

At least we know what U.S. Foreign Policy will be for a while!

Posted by: R.L. on March 29, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

the lot of the Israeli Arab today is basically the same as it was 30 years ago, I'd think.


And they try hard to keep it that way, lest they be seen as cooperating with the enemy.

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

JR,

30 years ago, 1976, is NOT the same as either 1961 or 1948, right?

In any case, my choice of 30 years ago was basically arbitrary to the point I was making, regarding the very high birth rate amongst Israeli Arabs. I could have as easily said 20 years ago and have made the same point, that things are not much different for them in a way that would affect their birth rate.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

The irony again even in this thread is that the supporters of Israel, who are so dead set to prove that Israeli Arabs have it so damn good nowadays, are simultaneously suggesting that the reason their birth rate is so high is because they are really so deprived and primitive.

Well, which is it?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

And, I will note once again that supporters of Israel will do EVERTHING but engage the real question: what happens to Israel on that inevitable day when there are more non-Jewish citizens in Israel than Jews?

Cat always gets their tongue.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Carroll wrote, "Imagine the lives and treasure saved if they had actually made an effort to get along and cooperate with the Arabs, the UN and the world in exchange for the land they were given in Palestine." I guess you might have a small point if the Arabs hadn't tried to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, if the Arab states hadn't vowed never to recognize Israel, if Fatah and Hamas hadn't made the destruction of Israel the keystone of their governing charters, if the Palestinian Arabs hadn't made the slaughter of Jewish children in their beds a religious duty, and so on.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

their birth rate is so high is because they are really so deprived and primitive.


Exactly. A serious social aversion to contraception, combined with modern medicine.

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Carroll: More to the point: Before the Intifada, Israel and the West Bank and Gaza had open borders. This meant jobs and economic development and a potential for prosperity for the Palestinian Arabs. The Israelis wanted nothing more than peace with the Arabs - real peace, like the peace between the US and Canada, with free movement of people and goods and friendly relations. If the Palestinian Arabs wanted that, they could have had it, but they would have had to give up their revanchist dreams. They could have had that at Camp David and the subsequent meetings at Taba. Instead, the Palestinian Arabs opted for killing Jewish children in their beds. Oh well.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

frankly 0 - The Israelis will find a way to keep Israel Jewish - promote more Jewish births, Jewish immigration, promote higher standards of living among the Israeli Arabs so they have fewer kids, whatever. If that fails, 50 or a hundred years from now, I guess they would divide the country into a Jewish and non-Jewish part.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Sammy Smooha at the University of Haifa makes the arguement that Israel is a 'ethnic democracy'. In this account Israel has a diminished or 'minimal' democracy but it is not as oppressive as a master race society and certainly not a theocracy, as usually understood. Here are a few pieces of the argument.

There are, in the West, two main forms of democracy for managing conflicts in ethnically or nationally divided societies. The classical and predominant form is liberal democracy, prevalent in countries such as France and the United States. The state treats all its citizens equally and makes them members of a common civic nation. The nation-state maintains and fosters a single language, culture, identity and public school system that homogenize, integrate and assimilate the population. Ethnicity is privatized. Ethnic cultures and identities are allowed but neither recognized nor encouraged by the state. The other form is consociational democracy, in existence in countries such as Belgium and Switzerland, which takes ethnic and national differences as a given, officially recognizes the main ethnic groups, and uses a series of mechanisms to reduce ethnic conflicts. These mechanisms include power-sharing( inclusion of minorities in the national power structure), proportionality (extension of resources according to group size), veto power (avoidance of decisions that adversely affect vital interests of the minority), and politics of negotiation, compromise, consensus, and indecision (instead of majority rule) (Lijphart 1977)...

A new type is probably taking shape that may be called multicultural democracy combining features of the two established types. This emergent civic form decouples state and nation, recognizes cultural rights of minorities, but neither makes these rights official nor institutionalizes the standard mechanisms of consociational democracy (van den Berghe 2002).

In contrast to these he calls Israel (and Estonia, Latvia and Northern Ireland) an 'ethnic democracy'.

Ethnic democracy is propelled by an ideology or a movement of ethnic nationalism that declares a certain population as an ethnic nation sharing a common descent (blood ties), a common language and a common culture. This ethnic nation claims ownership of a certain territory that it considers its exclusive homeland. It also appropriates a state in which it exercises its full right to self-determination. The ethnic nation, not the citizenry, shapes the symbols, laws and policies of the state for the benefit of the majority. This ideology makes a crucial distinction between members and non-members of the ethnic nation...Non-members of the ethnic nation are not only regarded as less desirable but are also perceived as a serious threat to the survival and integrity of the ethnic nation. The real or perceived threat can be one of a combination of biological dilution, demographic swamping, cultural downgrading, security danger, subversion and political instability...All kinds of restrictions and controls are imposed to contain the minorities high threat potential.

Ethnic democracy meets the minimal and procedural definition of democracy, but in quality it falls short of the major Western civic (liberal, consociational and multicultural) democracies. it is a diminished type of democracy because it takes the ethnic nation, not the citizenry, as the corner-stone of the state and does not extend equality of rights to all.

The designation of an 'ethnic democracy' as distinct from a herrenvolk democracy, or even democracy at all, is controversial. A herrenvolk society is a society where a minority, as in South Africa or the old South, dominates a majority pariah population often with great brutality. The members of the dominant group enjoy the rights and privileges found in other forms of democracy but citizenship and even humanness are reserved for the master race.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 29, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

DBL,

You're just whistling past the graveyard. All those issues have been addressed -- they've already tried to promote more Jewish immigration, raise Jewish birth rates, etc., and those have reached their natural limits. And the Israeli Arabs seem pretty set in their ways when it comes to birth rates.

And how are they possibly going to separate out the Arab neighborhoods from the Jewish ones, without doing exactly what was done under Apartheid with the fabricated "homelands"?

Again, no way out, guys. You should just figure out how to deal.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Jewish immigration to Israel pretty insignificant these days?

Posted by: mg56 on March 29, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Jewish immigration to Israel pretty insignificant these days?

I'm pretty sure that's true. A lot of Jewish immigration to date came from Russia, but that's basically exhausted. Now there any number of younger people from Israel who emigrate themselves, seeking a better, less troubled life elsewhere.

All in all, not good on the immigration front.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically the word 'Palestine' evolves from the word 'Philistine', who were a Greek-related population.

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Imagine the lives and treasure saved if they had actually made an effort to get along and cooperate with the Arabs, the UN and the world in exchange for the land they were given in Palestine, instead of carrying out their delusional Greater Israel maddness.

Does that Greater Israel madness include 1948 when 5 Arab nations invaded and tried to wipe them off the map?

On May 19, 1948, five days after Israel's declaration of Independence, Yad Mordechai was attacked by a column of the Egyptian Army, with airplanes, artillery and tanks. It was defended by 130 men and women [source]
Ya, surrounded by kindly Arabs, the Israelis are.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

The sympathy I had for Israel has evaporated. They made their bed, now let them lie in it.

I gotta reluctantly agree with Carroll.

Posted by: Bob M on March 29, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

"cat got your tongue?"

No, franklyO. If you would shut up and read, you would go to the page I indicated:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/699317.html

But you won't. You keep saying stuff like "I'm pretty sure" and "I'd think" - synonyms for "I'd don't know what I'm talking about but I'm happy to make shit up."

Posted by: JR on March 29, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Bob M-
Carroll never had any sympathy for Israel. This 'more in sorrow than in anger' stuff is a pose.

The Jews were never "given" any land in Palestine. Who gave it to them? The British? Hardly. They drove the British out. The UN? Really? How many UN soldiers fought the invading armies of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq in 1948? The US? The US wouldn't even sell the Israelis weapons in 1948- the Israelis had to buy guns from Czechoslovakia. So what's this shit about the Israelis being "given" Israel?

What "they made their bed, now let them lie in it" means is, I hope that the Israelis are massacred en masse. There are lots of Westerners who enjoy fantasizing about more dead Jews.

Posted by: JR on March 29, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
The Jews were never "given" any land in Palestine. Who gave it to them? The British? Hardly. They drove the British out. The UN? Really? How many UN soldiers fought the invading armies of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq in 1948? The US? The US wouldn't even sell the Israelis weapons in 1948- the Israelis had to buy guns from Czechoslovakia. So what's this shit about the Israelis being "given" Israel?

Saying that the British "gave" Israel to the proto-Israelis is a lot more politically correct than saying the latter won Israel from the former largely through terrorism.

I agree, though, with your pointing out that, PC or no, this is misleading.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Is it time to ditch the two-state solution?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on March 29, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK
Is it time to ditch the two-state solution?

Aside from a strong outside power (or two such powers) absorbing much of the Occupied Territories (or, less probably Israel and the Occupied Territories) there probably is still no solution other than a two-state solution or extermination or displacement of one of the populations, so, in the long term, the two-state solutions seems the least immoral solution. It certainly seems less attainable in the present political climate, but that could change fairly rapidly by events and personalities involved.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Is it time to ditch the two-state solution?

No, but working to help the Hamas government fail won't help anything. They will just be able to always say they never had a chance given external underhanded antagonism of Israel and the US.

We should all just leave them alone to fail, or not, on their own merits. And if they end up attacking Israel, how would that be news? It would show them up as having nothing else to do.

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

We will shortly be at the 100 year anniversary of this conflict, which dates to 1908 when the rising Arab nationalism and the Zionist settlement were first widely seen to be at cross purposes.

What can we do to celebrate?

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Halevi argues that although the old arguments were a form of "fantasy politics," the new politics are scarcely better: a universally gloomy acceptance of a walled-off country permanently at war with it neighbors, with no real belief that things will ever get any better.

One would like to see Israel and the Palestinians have the same sort of productive relationship as those one time enemies France and Germany now enjoy. It's a shame they cannot. But saying that Israel will be "permanently" at war strikes me as overly pessimistic. One can hardly blame Israelis for thinking first and foremost about the safety of their children, and toward that end, barriers and walls and separations and other security measures make sense.

Now, maybe I'm an absurd optimist, but I can't help thinking that, if Israel pulls back to its 1967 borders (or something very close), and the Palestinians are allowed to have their own country, then eventually things may start to get better. Walls may be needed for a long time. But some of the bitterness and hatred the Palestinians feel toward the Israelis will slowly weaken, I reckon, just from the simple reality of having their own country, and therefore having one big thing they can no longer blame on the Jews.

It will take time. And a lot of economic development. But as we've seen in other parts of the world with conflicts as seemingly intractable, time can heal wounds.

The way I see it, if the Palestinians don't get their own country, there's no chance for peace. But if they do, there's at least some chance that peace will arrive (just not very soon).

Posted by: P.B. Almeida on March 29, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

The interlopers moved into a land that had belonged to others for generations. In the beginning they paid for the land they wanted, later they committed numerous acts of terrorism, but after they gained strength and established their nation, they simply took the land without paying for it and herded the displaced people into camps.

The Americans vs. the natives? The Germans vs. the Jews? The Jews vs. the Palestinians?

Why would we support this kind of imperialism today? One simple reason. We read the same holy book. We actually buy into the notion that God promised the land to his chosen people.

It never ceases to amaze me, how advanced we Americans are in some ways and how primitive we are in others. What would George Bush do if Mexico were the stronger country, asserted a divine right and without paying, took the Bush ranch back? Well, actually, knowing what a fake tough guy he is, George would probably slink away, but the Palestinians fought back.

If only the Palestinians had used peaceful methods. But they emulated the early Zionists and became, to the Bible reading American government at least, the bad guys.

Posted by: James of DC on March 29, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

"If only the Palestinians had used peaceful methods. But they emulated the early Zionists. . ."


You mean they established farms, businesses and collectives? No, I know you don't mean that, but that's what the early Zionists did.

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

James - So, like, wow, man, that's so cool, you mean the Israelis are just like the evil White Europeans who colonized America and exterminated all those really neat Indians? Wow, what insight! What brilliance! You're as smart as Chomsky and Zinn!

But:

1) The Israelis are no more likely to surrender the land of Israel to the Arabs than the US is to surrender Texas and California to Mexico. Only those who want (in your case I would say are anxious) to see Jews slaughtered by the millions would encourage the Arabs to think this is in the realm of the possible.

2) Where do you think the Jews of Israel should go? Over half were driven out of the Moslem countries of the mid-East -- are they to return to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt? I guess that makes sense if you are anxious to see Jews slaughtered by the millions.

3) I see some folks here think that a "single state" between the sea and the Jordan with a majority of Arabs is the solution. I guess only those who would be happy to see Jews slaughtered by the millions could think that makes any sense. Tell you what -- if the Palestinian Arabs ever decide to take the West Bank and Gaza and make a state and live in peace - a true peace, like between the US and Canada - with Israel for a couple of generations, then you can talk to me about political union between them. Until then, don't make me laugh.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

PLO apologists would like to forget the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab countries after 1948, where they had lived for millenia. Do they have a 'right of return'? Or a right to be compensated for their property?

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

JR writes:

No, franklyO. If you would shut up and read, you would go to the page I indicated:

But if you go to the page he linked to, it has NOTHING TO DO with the points I raised.

It's like his/her idea of a "refutation" of any point is simply a link to random propaganda from their side.

So I repeat my question, to which I NEVER get an answer, and which JR continues to evade:

What happens to Israel on that inevitable day when there are more non-Jewish citizens in Israel than Jews?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 29, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Entertaining as the five hundred thousanth round of exchanges about 1948 and 1967 and the first intifada is, are we sure that Halevi is right about declining Israeli turnout being a product of the decline of the peace process?

Surely this must be a major issue in Israeli politics, but is it the only one? I don't know why we should assume that -- we never would if we were talking about turnout in any other country that had held regular elections for as long as Israel has.

Posted by: Zathras on March 30, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Dear DBL

In reply to your response below...

"Carroll wrote, "Imagine the lives and treasure saved if they had actually made an effort to get along and cooperate with the Arabs, the UN and the world in exchange for the land they were given in Palestine." I guess you might have a small point if the Arabs hadn't tried to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, if the Arab states hadn't vowed never to recognize Israel, if Fatah and Hamas hadn't made the destruction of Israel the keystone of their governing charters, if the Palestinian Arabs hadn't made the slaughter of Jewish children in their beds a religious duty, and so on."

I am probably one of the few who has actually read thru the entire British National Archive documents on the zionist movement in Great Britian begining in the late 1800's thru the jewish immigration into Palestine...both BEFORE and AFTER the holocaust.

And read entirely thru, in additon, the UN documents concerning the creation of Israel,the resolutions against Israel issued by them, the presidential libaries and memos of all US presidents begining with Truman on Isr/US
relations, the past ten years of the CIA factbook reports on Israel, plus the US State department reports....and for good measure the Atlantic Monthly archive articles of observers actually on the ground in Palestine from 1920 to 1954.

I don't get into long winded point for point discussions on Israel because I have learned that in general Israeli supporters deal in "myth" and their own baised emotion not facts, and no amount of links, facts, documents, offical memos, papers or non partisan eye witness accounts is going to change their minds.

The fact remains that Israelis were the FIRST to commit acts of terrorism in the area against BOTH the Arabs and the British.

The fact remains that the israeli terrorist gangs of the Irgun and Stern were financied by jewish Americans with money and arms in direct conflict with the provisions in the UN agreement in creating Israel.

So when I express my disgust with or disapproval of Israel's actions I am speaking an opinion based on actual factual history.

Posted by: Carroll on March 30, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0- What happens on that inevitable day is that the inevitable day is not inevitable. Read the link. You can ask "what happens on the inevitable day that the moon falls into the Pacific" all you want- don't be surprised when you don't get an answer.

Carroll- you say that "Israelis were the FIRST to commit acts of terrorism in the area against BOTH the Arabs and the British." Since you put it in capitals it must be true. So can you cite an example of Jewish terror prior to the Hebron massacre of 1929? Or the Jaffa-Tel Aviv riots in 1921? Or the Jerusalem pogrom of 1920?

Posted by: JR on March 30, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

And to JR..

Ditto what I just replied to DBL.

Take a history lesson. The Israeli were 'given" the land by the UN, aided by Britian's "political" desire to end what some elements in their goverment at the time called their jewish problem in the late 1800's. As I said to DBL I doubt you are receptive to facts but you might do some reading of the actual offical documents and papers in goverment circulation in Britian at that time to learn whereforof you speak..or you can stick to myth..whichever.

The Arabs are Israel's enemy because they made them their enemy, instead of sticking to the immigration outlines and to the original portion of land given them, they declared they would establish "Greater Israel" and set about doing that by attacking Palestines for their land from the begining. And frankly most Americans are tired of this paraniod holocaust hysteria being raised as a defense everytime anyone states any facts about the Israel or Palestine. I don't see anyone killing Jews except some of the people whose land they have stolen...and that's to be expected... no people are going to roll over and give up their country's property without a fight.

And no one aquainted with the facts needs to apologize for saying it's way past time to quit enabling the occupation of Palestine and get Israel out of the American taxpayers pocket book.

Posted by: Carroll on March 30, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Carroll, Britain's Jewish Problem in the late 1800's? Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until after WW1. You're just making shit up, now. And no, the UN didn't give Israel to the Israelis. The UN passed a partition of Palestine, which would have established two countries -- which the Arab nations rejected. They invaded with the proclaimed goal of driving the Jews into the sea, and the UN did - what? Nothing, of course, what the UN always does when murderous dictators decide to exterminate an ethnic group they don't like. So spare us, please, the nonsense that the UN gave anything to the Israelis.

After the war, which left Jordan in control of most of the land that the UN had set aside for Palestinians, did Jordan set up a Palestinian state? No. It incorporated the land into its own territory. The reason that there was no Palestinian state after 1948 was that the Arab countries didn't want there to be one. And what did Jordan do with the Palestinians that had fled the parts of Palestine now in Israel to the part of Palestine now in Jordan? It put them in camps. Yes, Jordan put its Palestinians in camps, while Israel made its Palestinians citizens.

But these are quibbles. The main thing, "frankly" - thank you for your honesty - is the joy you take in your fantasy of "killing Jews." God, that gives you pleasure, doesn't it.

Posted by: JR on March 30, 2006 at 3:31 AM | PERMALINK

No JR, I am not going to spoon feed you 70 years of history. But you have some choices, pay the fee to read the British national archives on line, subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly to access their archives, go to the presidential libaries online (free) or purchase the offical documents in book form from the source below:

http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/Leafcopy%5CA050-2.html

Resum of the work
These ten volumes draw together documents found in the British National Archives to trace the origins and development of the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, with specific reference to the idea, and eventually the goal, of establishing a Jewish homeland. Material is relatively sparse in the 19th century and volume 1 is rather an historical volume covering the rise of Zionism, including the work of Theodor Herzl and the first Zionist Congress at Basle, ending in 1916 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The bulk of the material, volumes 2 to 8, relates to the years 1916-1948 when the Zionist debate raged, the movement became factionalised, split, and eventually, partly because of events surrounding World War II, achieved its goal of the creation of Israel. Volume 10, like volume 1 ranges over a greater number of years in less detail, covering the period after the creation of Israel in 1948 to the most recent releases by the British government from 1972, when the main question for Zionism, perhaps, was whether it still had a role to play beyond the inception of the State.

Breakdown of the volumes by date
Volume 1: 1839-1916
Volume 2: 1917-1918
Volume 3: 1919-1928
Volume 4: 1928-1934
Volume 5: 1935-1937
Volume 6: 1937-1940
Volume 7: 1941-1945
Volume 8: 1945-1946
Volume 9: 1946-1948
Volume 10: 1948-1972


The following list summarises key documents from the collection. Also shown (in brown) are events of particular importance in considering the development of Zionism.

l Herzl's view is that the Jews are partly accused of living off host nations and he raises the argument for a Jewish Homeland from The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (c.1896)l [1:1]

l 1914 Ottoman Turkish Empire destroyed, Middle East now full of opposing factions/interests
l HusainMcMahon Correspondence 1915-1916 hoped for a greater Arab Kingdom
l SykesPicot secret arrangement between British, French and Russians 1916 to divide the Middle East into their respective spheres of influence

l 1916, Lucien Wolf, respected journalist and leading member of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of British Jews, writing to James de Rothschild, argues against Zionism which sees "Jews as aliens in foreign lands" as being similar to anti-Semitism in insisting that Jews will never be integrated into other cultures [1: 86]

l Weizmann, influential Jew living in Britain, secured the help of Judge Louis Brandeis, Principal Advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, in bringing the USA into the War on the Allied side, 1917

2 November 1917 Balfour Declaration of principle of support for the Jews

l April 1917, Sir Mark Sykes, under instructions from the Prime Minister and Mr Balfour has been assisting Nahum Sokolov in looking for a solution to the Jewish problem and invites Mr Weizmann, another prominent Zionist to join them [2: 12]

l August 1917, E.S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, circulating a memorandum criticising "The Anti-Semitism of the Present [British]Government" explaining that by suggesting a Jewish National Home they will increase anti-Semitism in every country where Jews presently reside [2:65]

l March 1918, Lord Curzon forwarding a copy of the programme which Suleiman Bey Nassif and the Arabs are going to present to the Zionist Commission as a basis for mutual understanding between Palestinians and Zionists, particularly that land sales should be suspended lest due to the general impoverishment caused by the war they become exploitative [2: 114]

l April 1918, Dr Weizmann to Louis Brandeis, reporting the reaction to the Balfour Agreement in Palestine itself among the population. He states that the British Army who know little of the politics are informing the people that they have come to liberate the country from the Turks and hand it over to the Jews [2:116]

l April 1918, Military Governor of Jerusalem reporting on a dinner party at which Dr Weizmann and the Grand Mufti were present, Weizmann is reported as explaining Zionist aims to dispel misconceptions and the Mufti as looking forward to a spirit of co-operation [2:118]

l June 1918, Brigadier Clayton to the Political Officer of the Zionist Commission regarding excisions required from the notes of the 17th Meeting of the Zionist Commission before they can be passed by the British government for public view [2: 135]

l Zionists (1919) defined (the Jewish home) as including southern Lebanon, Jordan valley up to the outskirts of Amman, south as far as a line from el Arish on the coast in Egypt, to Sharm el Sheikh on the Gulf of Aqaba

l April 1919, letter from Lord Balfour to Dr Weizmann, regarding the future of Zionism and current anti-Zionist propaganda in Palestine [3:33]

l San Remo Conference 1920; League of Nations decisions: 1920 French Mandate troops in Damascus; 1920 British Mandate awarded for Palestine and Transjordan

l Britain grants Transjordan to Emir Abdullah, 1921

l 1922, Terms of the British Mandate agreed with the USA (not a member of League of Nations) before agreeing at the League of Nations: restatement of Balfour agreement principles; also provided for an appropriate Jewish Agency to co-operate with the Palestine Authority and develop the country the Mandate suggested the Zionist Organisation as suitable

l November 1921, leaflet published by the British Committee of the Palestine Arab Delegation [3:93]

l Jewish population in Palestine in 1923, 56000

l January 1927, comments respecting Zionism, by the Polish Press, during a visit by Sir W. Deedes, such as "Zionism is a reactionary movement supported by the Jewish bourgeoisie and British Imperialism" [3: 106]

l February 1928, evidence of 3 major individual Zionist donors: Warburg, Rosenwats, and Rockfeler, promising some $10,000,000 to the Russian Government in return for assurances in respect of Jewish colonies to be set up in Siberia [3: 120]

l Arabs bitterly opposed the Balfour declaration and land sales to Jews. Arab violence broke out in 1922 and 1929, Arabs found themselves in conflict with the Mandatory government

l February 1933, Cabinet paper expressing disquiet at the growth of a new class of poverty-stricken Arabs, caused by the sale, by Arab landowners, of land they had previously cultivated as tenant farmers [4: 66]

l March 1934, Extract from the Jewish Chronicle, reporting the reception of Dr Weizmann by Mussolini [4: 87]

l October 1934, Jewish Telegraphic Agency Bulletin, expressing opposition to the formation of a Legislative Council under current circumstances given that the present circumstances would condemn the Jews to be a minority population [4: 92]

l August 1935, 19th World Zionist Congress: David Ben Gurion draws a comparison between the treatment of Jews in Germany and conditions under the Spanish Inquisition; the Misrachi Orthodox wing of the movement announces a refusal to participate in the conference because of their view that there is irreligion in Palestine; Dr Weizmann, who had resigned as President of the World Zionist Organisation in 1931, was elected President of this 19th Congress [5: 13]

l Four British Commissions of Enquiry and two White Papers were issued between 1920 and 1936

19361939 Arab strike and rebellion

l January 1936, private meeting between David Ben Gurion, Dr Weizmann, Mr Shertok and Sir A. Wauchope, High Commissioner of Palestine: this meeting is in reaction to the British Government proposal to setting up a subsistence area for small owners, a measure to allay Arab fears over the extent of Jewish land purchases. Dr Weizmann sees it as "his life's work ruined" [5: 30]
l April 1936, Presidency of the New Zionist Organization to the Colonial Secretary voicing concerns about the recent murder of Jewish settlers, and further to that stating that the underlying cause of the murders is the misconception in Arab minds that settlement growth should be subject to Arab agreement. The offer by the British Government of a Legislative Council to run the country, in their view, only adds to this misconception. [5: 43]
l April 1936, V. Jabotinsky, New Zionist Organization, to Sir Josiah Wedgwood thanking him for his concern to reunite the split Zionist organisation but repeating the reasons for the rift as being of supreme importance, for example the Zionist Organisation supported the mass sale of German goods in Palestine [5: 44]

l 1939 On the eve of War, third White Paper was issued stalling everything while the Britain concentrated on the war. Details: no significant increase in immigration; curtailment of immigration after a further 75000 and self-governing institutions to be set up after 5 years, which would have preserved the Arab majority in the country and its legislature.

l April 1939, Report from German Embassy, Washington on Aryanisation in Germany. Deliberate removal of Jewish businesses and property into German hands. Document presenting it as a lawful exchange [6: 10]

l September 1939, V. Jabotinsky, President of the New Zionist Organization to Prime Minister N. Chamberlain, openly stating the aspirations of the New Zionist Organization, "the most uncompromising conception of State" and suggesting the reformation of the Jewish Legion as a recruitment drive to Jews worldwide to get behind the allies [6: 55]

l September 1939, reaction of V. Jabotinsky to the 1939 White Paper: he suggests that on the eve of war and in the face of the situation for Jews in Europe, that the British Government should either ignore illegal immigration or increase the immigration quota [6: 56]

l March 1940, the question of an alternative Jewish Homeland, perhaps in British Guiana is raised but the British Government decides "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come" [6: 64]

l June 1941, Antony Eden Foreign Secretary admitting that "the situation in the Middle East has now passed the point when a conciliatory move by the Jews...would have any chance of success"
[7: 1]

l October 1941, secret despatch from the High Commissioner for Palestine to the Colonial Secretary concerning terrorist activities of the Irgun Zvaei Leumi [7: 3]

l 1942, During WWII Jewish regiment fights with British against axis powers

l 11 May 1942, Zionism revises itself in response to Nazi policy the Biltmore (hotel) Programme: demands that the Jewish Agency be in control of immigration into Palestine: and that Palestine is declared a Jewish Commonwealth

l August 1942, Foreign Office admitting the removal of documents from the luggage of David Ben Gurion on his recent trip to the USA. According to notes in the documents, Zionism now has two objectives: a Jewish Army and a Jewish State, with a Jewish Army being the main means of achieving a Jewish State [7: 19]

l June 1942, Special Operations Executive has been working in Palestine and judges that the Jewish population would work with the allied forces to deny an invading force but that they would also be working to further their "parochial nationalist aspirations". Nonetheless, the High Commissioner of Palestine accepts this duality in the face of occupation by axis powers. [7: 24]

l April 1943, King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia speaking out against the opportunistic propaganda activities of American Zionists and claiming that even were there no Arabs in Palestine there would not be room enough for the Jews of the world [7: 30]

l December 1944, after the murder of Lord Moyne, Lord Halifax, British Ambassador in Washington sends a telegram with extracts from the US Jewish press, for example: "What is it that leads to a despair so bitter and hopeless, that it leads even so small a minority as the Palestinian [sic] terrorists to the extremity of taking human life, knowing that their own life almost certainly will be forfeit too? [7: 108]

l August 1945, World Zionist Conference, Dr Weizmann reserves particular criticism for the 1939 White Paper that restricted immigration of Jews into Palestine and saved too few from the holocaust in Europe. He warns that while the war was on the Zionists fought with the British but now the rift caused by the policies in the 1939 White Paper threatens to open again. [7:139]

l September 1945, Charg in Iraq writes expressing the concern among Arabs at the pressure being exerted by the USA upon the British government "...President Truman is urging the British Government to open Palestine to Zionist immigration, thereby promoting the interests of Zionists and the realisation of their ambitions." [8: 8]

l 1946 As well as civil administration, the Jewish Agency has formed its own Military Organisation, the Haganah, strengthened by troops who had fought with the British in the War

l Extremist groups the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvaei Leumi work to make the Mandate unworkable and to impose the Biltmore Programme

l Jewish population in Palestine in 1946, 608000

l Transjordan becomes independent in 1946. Many Arabs fleeing Palestine go to Jordan.

l January 1946, British Consul, New York reporting a mass demonstration for Jewish freedom put on by the New Zionist Organization of America. "It was constantly patrolled by the Betarim, the new Jewish Youth Army, attired in a Hebrew version of the old Nazi Bund uniform." "Great Britain was public enemy no. 1 of the Jewish people, more dangerous and shrewder than the Nazis..." [8: 44]

l February 1946, formation of B'rith Trumpeldor of America or Betar, affiliated with the NZO. "there is noticeable similarity in the organisation's character, structure and aims to those of the Hitler Youth", reported by British Embassy, Washington [8: 65]

l March 1946, British Foreign Office memorandum on the situation in Palestine: "The belief that the fundamental cause of the Jewish tragedy is Jewish homelessness gains a widening currency... and banishes historical perspective. The Jewish State is the panacea..." [8: 76]

l April 1946, Outline Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry. Expected hostile reactions from both the Jewish and Arab sides [8: 103]

l January 1947, one of a series of at least 5 meetings between representatives of the Jewish Agency and the British Cabinet, Foreign and Colonial Offices. Those present included, on the British side: the Foreign Secretary, Colonial Secretary, Prime Minister, the Cabinet Minister; and those present for the Jewish Agency included: David Ben Gurion, Moshe Shertok, Professor Brodetsky, Nahum Goldman and Mr Neumann. [9: 26]

l Jewish population in Palestine 650000 in 1948
l May 1948 the State of Israel was declared

l January 1949, Mr Bevin, Prime Minister of Britain considering the present need to recognise the Government of Israel, and diplomatic moves to get the USA to recognise Transjordan [10: 48]

l West Bank Arabs agree to join Jordan 1950

l October 1967, from the British Postmaster General's speech on behalf of the British Government in Israel at the 50th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration: "Only the creation by Adolf Hitler of mass Jewish homelessness made reconciliation of Arab and Jewish nationalism impossible ... It was now clear that the Jewish nation could not be re-born except at the price of Arab nationalism - that Arab nationalism could not be appeased except by thwarting the National Home.."


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/israel.htm

If you don't want to and I doubt you do, slog thru the offical British reports on Jewish terrorism, the Times of London did a partial outline from the archives here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,690-5823,00.html

Chronology: Palestine 1946-48
By Simon Motz

1946

May 1: Both Arabs and Jews are offended by an Anglo-American plan to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews, which recommends that the present British Mandate should continue "until Arab-Jewish hostility disappears".

July 22: Irgun, Jewish hardliners, launch a successful bomb attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the HQ of the British Palestine Army Command.

August 11: British clampdown on Jewish immigration by blockading port of Haifa.

October 4: US President Harry Truman urges Britain to admit more Jews and create viable Jewish state in an "adequate" area of Palestine.

November 17: Jewish terrorists kill eight British troops in Jerusalem as part of intensified shooting and bombing campaign.

1947

January 31: British families and non-essential civilians are evacuated from Palestine.

March 2: British declare Martial Law in five Jewish areas, including Tel Aviv.

April 24: Stern Gang blow up a British police barracks at Sarona, east of Tel Aviv.

May 4: Irgun blow up the British jail in Acre; 251 Jewish and Arab prisoners are freed.

July 18: The Exodus, a converted troopship, arrives in Haifa with its cargo of nearly 5,000 European Jews. The 1 hour-long fight with British naval ratings, who wish to stop the immigrants from disembarking, leaves three Jews dead and 22 seriously injured.

July 31: Jewish terrorists kidnap two British soldiers and hang them as "spies".

August 5: 35 Zionist leaders are detained for terrorist activities.

September 26: Colonial Secretary, Arthur Creech-Jones, announces to the UN General Assembly that Britain has decided to get out of Palestine in the near future.

November 30: UN votes to partition Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs and create a separate regime for the city of Jerusalem. Jewish leaders are jubilant; the enraged Arabs call for a "crusade against the Jews".

December 7: Arabs and Jews "call up" young men to fight.

1948

January 9: British and Haganah jointly repel 600 Arabs who have crossed over the Syrian border to attack Jewish settlements.

January 16: Bombs in Jerusalem and Haifa mark an escalation of Arab-Jewish violence. In six weeks the death toll is: 1,069 Arabs, 769 Jews, 123 British, 23 others.

March 11: Offices of the Jewish Agency are blown up in Jerusalem.

March 22: Jews blow up the Arab quarter in Haifa. Fighting continues until the Jews take the port a month later. British artillery pounds Arab positions in the hills of Har Tuv, 20 miles west of Jerusalem.

April 29: Jewish leaders agree to halt their five-day attack on the port of Jaffa after the British Army threatens to drive them out.

May 5: Ben-Gurion chairs a meeting of a provisional Jewish government of Palestine.

May 14: David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, eight hours before the British Mandate in Palestine is due to end. US President Harry Truman immediately announces American recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government. The Union Jack is lowered in Jerusalem as the British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, sails from Haifa. Sporadic fighting breaks out as Jews and Arabs move to consolidate their strategic positions.

June 1: Israel and the seven states of the Arab League agree to a UN request for a months truce.

July 9: Egypt and Iraq attack Jewish positions as the truce ends.

July 17: A new truce is agreed.

August 15: Two Jewish soldiers are killed in fierce fighting in Jerusalem.

August 29: Special Branch and MI5 in London uncover an explosive cache, believed to belong to the Irgun.

September 17: UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, dies in a gun attack on his car by Jewish terrorists.

September 20: Stern Gang terror group is outlawed

Now...if you want to look at jewish terrorism prior to the 1940's immigration of jews into palestine, they can be found also at the first link but in a seperate set of archive books dealing with Jewish communities in the ME from 1700 to 1978...just go to the home page and find the correct reference.

Posted by: Carroll on March 30, 2006 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK

JD, ..your comment:

"But these are quibbles. The main thing, "frankly" - thank you for your honesty - is the joy you take in your fantasy of "killing Jews." God, that gives you pleasure, doesn't it"

...you need mental help for this "killing" paranoia you have...we are commenting on "political" israel here, not jews. You have a problem fellow and this is not the place for such talk.

Posted by: Carroll on March 30, 2006 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

Good show, Caroll...

Posted by: john manyjars on March 30, 2006 at 6:28 AM | PERMALINK

Israel is a xenophobic theocracy. The only reason they have enjoyed modest American support is becaues of their extraordinary GRASP on American political leadership.

There are more Mormons than Jews in America - yet there are 36 Jews in Congress and 10 in the Senate.

Think about that... if Mormons were overrepresented in the congress and cabinet in such numbers there would be round the clock news shows on disproportionate Mormon "INFLUENCE" on government.

NOt so for Jews. But that's about to change.

Israel is worse than South Africa, yet never suffered the stigma because of the disinformation campaign by treasonous American Jews operating for a foreign government.

AND THAT'S about to change.

As the world engages Islam [and they must] - the truth of the holocaust numbers, the Mossad operation on 9/11 and the murder of millions of Muslims will become common knowledge within populations that have been in lockdown on the subject.

Jews are toast... they just don't know it.

It's time for another round of name changes.

Posted by: tj on March 30, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

The people who hate Jews - have been JEWED.

The poor dolt who thinks he can win in court because he has a Jewish lawyer - NEVER FORGETS - when he sees his lawyer collude with the opposition - simply out of ethnocentric crypsis.

Jews have been fucking with the locals for a long long time now, in a lot of host countries.

The result won't be pretty, because Muslims are reaching out to rural whites and others who have felt the Jewish boot, in business, law, admissions offices... everywhere the Jew colludes with other jews against the majority.

It's comeuppance time... FIRST in Europe, but Americans are going to get an ear ful as more and more Muslims give voice in public debate.

Muslims will actually FREE Americans to debate the treasonous acts of Jews in power slots - to advance the interests of Israel over the US.

Posted by: tj on March 30, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

TJ - keep it up. I don't even need to comment. The generally fair minded people who read and comment here can draw their own conclusions from your postings. I daresay even Palestinian Arab sympathizers like cmdicely and frankly 0 draw the line at Holocaust denial and 911 conspiracy theory.

Posted by: DBL on March 30, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Carroll-
You do a nice job of cutting and pasting. Your timeline shows the first use of political violence was the Arab riot of 1922. You missed the Jerusalem pogrom of 1920, in which Arabs - incited by the Arab Mayor of Jerusalem - rioted for 4 days and the British army sealed the city so that Jews could not escape.

And your distinction between "political Israel" and the lives of individual Israeli Jews is a false one. Hamas is not looking for a unified multi-ethnic state. It wants to kill the unbelievers.

David Remnick has an interesting article about Hamas in the New Yorker this week. One piquant detail is his interview with a Palestinian vegetable merchant named Eichmann. That's his first name. When Remnick thinks he hasn't heard right, the fellow says, "Eichmann, like the Nazi," and beams.

Posted by: JR on March 30, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly