The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Status
Not open for further replies.

A Zionist Success 125 Years Later


On the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the First Zionist Congress, it is time to take stock of what has unfolded so far. The ongoing Zionist revolution is one of the few from that era that have actually succeeded in effecting change in a radical way all the while constantly evolving to the emerging challenges.

It transformed the Jewish people and saved it from gradual dissolution into a group of Orthodox zealots and a fringe of assimilating Jews. It brought the Jewish people back into history as a nation that could stand on its own two feet and shape its future.

Binyamin-Ze%E2%80%99ev-Herzl-on-the-veranda-of-the-Three-Kings-Hotel-in-Basel-August-29-1897..jpg


The lay of the land at the outset had many obstacles that were seemingly insurmountable. After all, the vision included the establishment of national sovereignty for the Jews without meeting the pre-requisites: a functioning people, a national living language, and a concentration of Jews in the desired land. On top of that, there was active opposition to this effort by the locals.

A majority of the Jewish people were not an active part of this revolutionary vision. Only a small minority, including among its many supporters, were willing to step up to the plate and take action. The majority of rabbinical leaders opposed it and some of them even rejected the idea of returning to Zion, saying this was akin to blasphemy.

Most of the Jews who did gradually take up this cause were unwilling to have skin in the game. The Zionist accomplishment is unique not because it overcame external opposition from the Palestinians or the world, and not even because it managed to convince a small cadre of determined idealists. Its stellar success is rooted mainly in that it managed to convince Jews that had been attracted to it for non-Zionist reasons to convert their passions into real Zionist fervor that made pre-state Israel a reality that would eventually become a viable and strong national homeland.

An overwhelming majority of the Jews who live in Israel are those who arrived here because of necessity, not because of their Zionism. They could not stay in their home countries, and upon leaving, they could not reach the destinations they had sought. The ultimate test Israel faced ー its Zionist test ーwas to integrate them despite the many hardships they faced and to convince them and their descendants to stay here by choice and make it their home.

The challenges that lie ahead

By far, the most important accomplishment of the Zionist movement was its success in making Israel the home to the largest amount of Jews (close to a majority of Jews live in Israel) and making it ー almost from scratch ー the place where the continuation of Jewish peoplehood is guaranteed. Thanks to this enterprise, the Jews returned to their historical homeland as a functioning people, their national language was revived and their historic sovereignty was applied.

The bridgehead established by a minority with a radical vision in the Land of Israel became the vibrant center of Jewish life. What began two generations ago as a third-world, poor, and weak country that had only 6% of the Jews, transformed thanks to the dedication and talent of later generations into a regional democratic power with a thriving economy and top-notch accomplishments.

More important than the successes of the past are ensuring gains down the road. It is almost inevitable that Israel will continue to be the focus of Jewish life at the expense of the second most important Jewish concentration ー North America. The widespread assimilation in younger generations, coupled with declining birth rates, compared with almost zero mixed-marriages in Israel and a very high birth rate ensures that Israel will be the epicenter of Jewish life.



(Comment)

Is it usually mentioned that Dr. Herzl also envisioned the Temple?

 
Last edited:




Later this month, Ken Burns is releasing a documentary, The US and the Holocaust, on how the United States did not help Jews escape their doom.

Here is one example of how some Americans thought on the eve of the Holocaust.

William Bruckart was a moderately successful and influential columnist in the 1930s, who published a regular syndicated column called Washington Digest.

In December 1938, only ten months before World War II would break out and when there were no longer any illusions about Hitler's attacks on Jews, he wrote about how terrible Hitler was - but sympathy for German Jews was not enough reason for the US to allow Jews to immigrate.
Danger of 'Jewish Problem' for United States in German 'Purge'

Opening of Gates to Refugees Might Introduce Disturbing Influence.
By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNU Service, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON. — Press service wires and cables and radio from abroad have been clogged for several weeks with hundreds of thousands of words about the plight of the Jews in Germany; about the abuses visited upon the Jewish race by the European madman, Hitler, and his camp followers; about the humanitarian pleas of our own President, Mr. Roosevelt, for appeasement of the conditions. There has been what I believe to be one of the greatest waves of emotion, waves of resentful national sentiment, that this country ever has known. I recall none like it, none as overwhelming, none as deep-seated as that through which we have been passing, and in my opinion our nation should have resented such outrages.

While no one with a heart can fail to grieve to a greater or less extent about the indescribable harshness, the unforgivable meanness of Hitler, it occurs to me that we should begin to temper these waves of emotion somewhat. There are other factors to be considered, factors and consequences of the thing that is now called "the Jewish problem," that require calm reasoning. In other words, let us say that America is and must remain for Americans, and charity, while it is sweet, cannot be exploited, or carried to extremes simply because we feel a sadness for a group upon whom an injustice has been sent. Like millions of other Americans, I am hopeful that some way will be found to aid the Jews who are being driven out of Germany, but I am unwilling that we, as a nation, shall create additional and unwarranted difficulties for ourselves by extending a helping hand. Therefore, the United States must not be the goat.

It is one thing to render aid. It is quite another thingto inject into our own bloodstream of national life additional elements without knowing what those elements are. After all, the damage is something that we did not cause; the injured are a people who have no knowledge of our way of doing things and may never cooperate with us, and we must prevent being dragged into the other fellow's fist fight.

I suppose there are very few persons in the United States who do not believe that Hitler's "purge" of German Jews constitutes a blot upon modern civilization. I know that leading Germans in the United States wish there were ways and means to stop the action. There can be no defense of the outright seizure of $400,000,000 of money from the Jews of Germany under the guise of a "fine" although there is a lesson of warning in it. ...
....
The unwanted race is simply the victim and a knowledge of how its members have had the sufferings brought upon them adds little or nothing to the search for a method to protect their lives. Where are they to go? That is the real question. Hitler doesn't care where they go or what happens to them. Some one else has to lead the way. Our nation has joined in that leadership, and rightly so. But we have policies and principles and traditions which must be respected. If, in our eagerness to help the German Jews, we should transgress those established principles, then we, as well as the Jews,will have to pay a penalty.....

We ought not kid ourselves. There are many persons swearing allegiance to the United States who do not like Jews. Those persons may be otherwise good citizens, but they distrust a Jew because he is a Jew, making no distinction between individuals. It is stating nothing new to say that there has been almost a steady undercurrent of criticism of Mr. Roosevelt from certain quarters because Jews have been given prominent places in the New Deal. I think it is not stretching the imagination at all, therefore, to point to the Jewish problem as one that may become involved in politics at some future time, although I hope it never does.

Mr. Roosevelt has proposed removal of some of the immigration restrictions as a means of bringing into this country more German Jews than our immigration laws now permit. In so doing, he verged on politics himself. Any one familiar with the debates on immigration policies in the early 1920s must recall the severity of that battle. The issue was whether we, as a nation, were going to be haven for all corners and just hope that they would do things the American way, or whether we should restrict the number coming here to live to a number which could be absorbed into our national life. Labor unions and most employers favored the restrictions, and when we think of the number of unemployed in the last five or six years—people fed and clothed by the federal government—it appears that we allowed too many to come in. It seems we could have excluded all of them to advantage.

Behind the scenes of the immigration restriction also was a determination on the part of Senator David A. Reed of Pennsylvania, then a senate power, to prevent introduction into the United States of all kinds of "isms." The senator foresaw the spread of radicalism by means of entry of the European backwash and rubbish. There was not much discussion of this phase because our government did not want to offend any foreign nation. It was a basic reason, however, and it is too bad that it was not given more public consideration.

Fortunately, there can be no change in the number of foreigners admitted from any nation without action by congress. The United States can take only so many—something like 30,000 a year—of those purged Jews, unless congress amends the law. And when I say it is fortunate that there must be action by congress before there can be a change in policy, I mean no inferences.

In consideration of whether we ought to let a deluge of refugees enter, I cannot help thinking of a possible spread of trouble. For example, if our definite national position of protest against Hitler's policies should bring retaliation, every Jewish refugee allowed in this country would be clamoring for the United States to take revenge on Germany and Hitler.Their influence would be great because they could tell what happened to them and give an idea of what is happening.

As far as relations between Germany and the United States are concerned at the moment, all that can be said is that the United States has let the world know of its disapproval. When Ambassador Wilson was recalled, it was just the same as saying to the world of nations that Uncle Sam hasn't any respect for Hitler.

Bruckart isn't an antisemite - no, he really cares about the Jews in Europe. He feels very bad about them. He hopes nothing bad will happen to them, even though it is already happening.

But doing anything to save them? That's un-American.

His mention of Senator David Reed refers to one of the architects of the 1924 Immigration Act which was designed to limit immigration to the US, especially of Jews and Asians. There was an element of Nazi-style eugenics in that law: northern Europeans were considered more wanted and healthier than those from central and southern Europe, where most Jews were attempting to immigrate from. It reduced Jewish immigration by about 90%.

This article assumes that there were desirable immigrants and undesirable ones - and Jews were definitely on the undesirable side of the equation. Moreover, it implies that the many Jewish immigrants who had come to the US in the early part of the century were still not real Americans, and that they were radicals.

That next to last paragraph is something. Bruckart is saying that Jews who arrive in America would tell the truth about how the Nazis act, and it would be bad for "real" Americans to hear the truth because it might prompt them to do something to stop it.

I was curious whether Bruckart would have continued his isolationist position after Pearl Harbor, but we'll never know - he died suddenly of a heart attack in 1940 at age 48.


 
The thrust of the Palestinian legal case today is that Palestine is a centuries-old geopolitical entity whose residents are entitled to statehood as a matter of international law. But that has not always been the Palestinians’ legal position.

Immediately following World War I and continuing through most of the British Mandate period (1922-1948), Palestinian lawyers and witnesses argued repeatedly before various tribunals that there was no such place as “Palestine.” Instead, they claimed the area known colloquially as “Palestine” was in fact part of Syria, or “southern Syria” to be precise. Following the Israeli War of Independence, the Palestinians changed course and pledged their loyalty to Jordan.

It seems unthinkable that any Palestinian lawyer or legal scholar would argue today that Palestine is part of Syria or Jordan, but those were the predominant Palestinian legal positions from the end of World War I until the Six Day War.

For example, in November 1918 a Palestinian Arab group filed a petition with the French Commissariat in Jerusalem “begging that Palestine might be formally included in Syria.”

In February 1919 the Arab Delegation from Palestine to the Versailles Peace Conference submitted a formal petition urging that rather than be recognized as an independent state, Palestine should be deemed part of and merged into Syria. The petition said, “We consider Palestine as part of Arabic Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economical and geographic bonds . . . In view of the above we desire that our distinct Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arabic Syrian Government.”

The Arab legal argument that there was no such political entity as “Palestine” continued after the League of Nations awarded the Palestine Mandate to Britain in 1922. For example, in 1925 Jamal Effendi-Husseini, a prominent Palestinian Arab, challenged a decision of British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel allowing local postage stamps to bear an inscription in Hebrew identifying the country as “Palestine E.I.” (Palestine Eretz Israel).

Husseini’s lawyer, Auni Bey Abdul Hadi, argued to the court that “Palestine” was “not an Arab word.” Auni Bey insisted the correct name of the country was “Southern Syria.” “Palestine,” he argued, had no separate existence and was in fact part of Syria.

Following the Hebron Massacre in late August 1929, the British Government convened an inquiry commission under the leadership of Sir Walter Shaw. A witness for the Arab side, Saleem Farah, testified under oath on November 27, 1929 that prior to World War I, Palestine was never regarded as a separate political entity.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, also testified before the Shaw Commission. The Mufti conceded in his testimony that the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine granted political rights in Palestine to the Jews, but not to the Arabs.

Many other prominent Arabs also argued Palestine should have been regarded as part of Syria. George Antonius, author of the acclaimed book “The Arab Awakening,” testified before the Palestine Royal Commission (the Peel Commission) on January 18, 1937 in Jerusalem. Antonius spent a considerable portion of his testimony arguing Palestine had always been part of Syria. He noted “Palestine has always been an integral part of Syria and that what was common to Syria was common to Palestine.”

Following the Israeli War of Independence, the Palestinians declared their allegiance to King Abdullah I of Jordan at the Jericho Conference in December 1950. Abdullah invoked the resolutions adopted at the conference as the legal basis for Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank.

Lack of transparency​

Does any of this arcane history matter today? Yes, it does.

The early 20th ccentury Palestinian legal position negating the existence of “Palestine” in favor of Syria undermines the 21st century Palestinian claim to statehood.

Moreover, the Mufti’s 1929 concession that the Mandate granted no political rights to the Palestinian people contradicts the arguments of some modern Palestinian lawyers that the Mandate remains in effect today and grants sovereignty and statehood to the Palestinian Arabs.

And the Palestinian rejections of offers of statehood from Great Britain in May 1939 and from the United Nations in November 1947, their pledge of loyalty to King Abdullah in December 1950, and the language in Article 24 of their original May 1964 charter disclaiming sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, all stand in discontinuity with their current legal position.

The Palestinians have every right to change their legal position. But when lawyers abandon old arguments and replace them with new ones, they need to be transparent with the courts. Some judges may view a major shift in position as a sign of weakness regarding either the prior or the new argument.

Unfortunately, Palestinian lawyers and their supporters have not been transparent with the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court about their prior inconsistent legal positions. The judges in those tribunals should require the Palestinian lawyers to justify how they can now assert sovereignty over territory they previously renounced in favor of Syria and later in favor of Jordan.

 
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.
 
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.

That long copy and paste is making a case for Arab colonization and squatters rights?
 
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.

Compared to the Arab squatters, even you're superior.
 
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.

Thaer Al Nashef: “When we (Arabs) look at Israel, an advanced country, we must ask ourselves, ‘How come the Jews have excelled?’ They proved to the world they are a people able to make miracles out of the impossible.”

Syrian Journalist Thaer Al-Nashef: Israel Does Not Groom Arab Dictators; Arab Societies Are Responsible for Their Own Fate
 
Zionism = only country in the region where people are free, particularly Arabs and Muslims.
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.
Arab commentator: Israel is the biggest success in over a century…

Al Jazeera host calls Israel most successful project in 120 years; drama ensues
 
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.
Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.

And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.


A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught. Lying about Jews and Israel. As always.
 
Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.

And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.


A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught. Lying about Jews and Israel. As always.
Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.

And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.


A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught. Lying about Jews and Israel. As always.
Nearly 13 years posting about Israel. A wasted life.
 

Dear Palestine: A Social History of the 1948 War​



Renowned Arab scholar Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was Israel’s title to statehood. Palestinians and Arab powers chose the path of war. Their choice was calamitous. Palestine became a great Arab shame. Few Arabs were willing to tell the story truthfully, to face its harsh verdict”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top