montelatici, et al,
You get this very wrong quite frequently, along with several other related issues.
The Jews decided to create a Jewish state where many more people were non-Jews than Jews. Does that make a lot of sense? Do you think that any native people would just passively allow people from another continent to enter the land they and their ancestors had lived on for a thousand years or more become the rulers? Why would the native people of Palestine behave any differently?
(COMMENT)
Everyone has both wants and needs. Not every has the power or capacity to make a decision.
Q1: The Jews decided to create a Jewish state where many more people were non-Jews than Jews. Does that make a lot of sense?
A1: The question presupposes that the Jewish People did decide! That would be absolutely wrong:
Excerpt ---
San Remo Convention 1920: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
Q2: Do you think that any native people would just passively allow people from another continent to enter the land they and their ancestors had lived on for a thousand years or more become the rulers?
A2: The Longevity of tribal territorial inhabitance was not at issue. There were several Maslow type reasons the Arab Palestinians were interested in fulfilling. The 1920 Riots of Jerusalem were an opportunity for the former Arab Ruling Elite to to incite discontent; and an opportunity for the Mufti and followers to regain the power and influence they
(leaders within the Arab elements lead by the rival Sheikhs of el-Husseinis and Nashashibis) had prior to the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration. In particular, the strategy of Sheikh Hajj Amin of the el-Husseins, believed that he could replicate the successes of Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk), he might rise to power in a similar way; taking advantage of the concentration of Arabs during the Observance Passover (1920). While not a success, Hajj Amin came to the attention of the British as a potential threat to peace and security. By the British appointing Hajj Amin (1921) as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the British thought that Hajj Amin would be satisfied or placated - somewhat under their control. The Mandatory was not of a single mind when it came to the "Question of Palestine." The senior military commanders were trying to persuade the British Foreign Office to to “accept the situation”: to jettison their government’s pact with the French, to abandon the Zionists, and to give Syria and Palestine to Faisal. [
As reported by the Dutch (Netherlands) Crethi Plethi] The position was taken, not so much on any political, moral or obligatory grounds; but, more purely as a means to expeditiously re-establish peace.
Q3: Why would the native people of Palestine behave any differently?
A3: Our Friend "P F Tinmore" is often trying to lay blame for the regional political and security shambles of the present day to mistakes made early-on by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. "Tinmore's" criticism is not totally unfounded; but I think for the wrong attached reasons (food for a different discussion). One very serious mistake was not suppressing the Arab Belligerents (as opposed to placating them) early on in the Mandate years. Not all native inhabitants are Belligerent. To think that all people, under a similar situation, act in the same manner, and for so long, as the Arab Palestinians, is simply to say all people react the same way without and diversity. We know this is wrong. In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, different motivational drivers and emotional stimuli have herded the Arab Palestinian into a cycle of continuous conflict. They would rather seeks means and reasons to fight, as opposed to productive endeavors. The population of countries and their success do not follow formulas; the mold their own formula. Nation-building is a process which does not produce clear, quick results; but it is always moving forward in ways that support its people.
If the finger pointing is merely to assign blame, then you can point the finger at all the players, and in every direction; to included the Arab Palestinian. BUT!
IF the objective is to point the finger at the more successful path and the evolutionary way to progress and prosperity,
THEN everyone one should be pointing in a single direction and with a single voice. In this regard, the Arab Palestinians are severely handicapped.
Most Respectfully,
R
