Some Brit named Beaman likes Israel. He explains why in quite a nifty essay: Why I Strongly Support Israel. No need for an excerpt. You might go check it out and see if you agree with his reasons.
I liked his essay, just as I like any intelligent arguments for Israel. I'm espeically grateful to hear such arguments coming from a European...and a left-of-center European to boot.
His reasons are fine as far as they go, but they don't address what anti-Zionists regard as the "original sin" of Israel: the fact that it was established on land in which 90% of the occupants had been Arab (although Jews were a slight majority in Jerusalem).
The fact that Israelis have a parliamentary system or can boast lots of inventions doesn't erase this stain for anti-Zionists. In order to convince them, you have to address directly their belief that Israel's very founding was an injustice.
"the fact that it was established on land in which 90% of the occupants had been Arab" I don't believe that's right, Joanne, at least not as far as the original partition lines go. Now, as to the totality of the final armistice line goes, that may be closer. Not sure.
When "anti-zionists" single out Israel for so-called "original sin", while turning a blind eye to the US, Canada, Australia, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, British presence in the Carribean, the European presence in South America, the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan, it looks a tad ANTI-SEMITIC.
"Don't look at the man behind the curtain, I am the objective, anti-occupation, anti-imperialist PROGRESSIVELY MENTALLY ILL hypocrite.
Thanks, Beaman. And again, I'd like to say that your essay is excellent. How refreshing! I'm also an atheist and left-of-center, yet pro-Zionist (without being anti-Palestinian). So, for me, it's nice to see a kindred spirit out there.
Solomon, I hope you're right. I have read that the population figures are extremely vague because the Ottomon Empire was not census-minded. The records are scanty or non-existent. Also complicating the issue is the fact that some of the Palestinian population was itself of recent origin, having migrated to the area because of an upswing in the economy there. I've heard this upswing attributed to development generated by the energetic Yishuv. One source less friendly to Israel attributed it to development generated by the British Mandate. Whatever. Maybe it was both.
I also read that, in the late 1940s, UNWRA allowed any Arab to be classified as a Palestinian who had been living in Palestine for as little as two years.
The question is what proportion of the population was really native and what proportion wasn't. Another question is how much this should matter.
On this last point, arguing that it doesn't matter because Israel is now an irreversible fact won't convince the Left or the Arabs to leave it alone. They don't consider it an irreversible fact. And this argument won't relieve Israel of its pariah status among these people.
Thanks Beaman! Your article was so refreshing and my friends and I deeply appreciate it.
Joanne, the question of "land ownership" has always troubled me, not least because in the case of Israel apparently people are drawing a line for all future human migration or regional demographic change, legal or otherwise.
That of course is silly. People move. It's what people do. If that weren't a fact we'd all be living in Africa.
It also begs the question of ongoing territorial struggles, some of which are extremely bloody, many of which are occuring in Muslim regions or in regions desired by Muslims (Thailand for one, Darfur for another). And of course it totally ignores the fact that huge empires were created under the banners of Islam, the local populations subjugated and in some cases actually enslaved. In view of that history regarding modern Israel as the child of a sin is reprehensible.
Also, millions upon millions of people were dislocated in the wake of the two World Wars. There were huge population exchanges between Greece and Turkey, between Pakistan and India; both were accompanied by death and dispossession. Yet only one group of refugees has remained refugees, has its own UN agency, its own special consideration for having become a refugee in the first place (two years residence), and has passed refugee status throughout several generations. And meanwhile, who has cared for the Jews?
Yet Israel, which itself absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced within the Arab world, remains the locus of attack because people who had the opportunity to remain and form a state, waged war. This followed decades of internal strife between Palestinian Arab factions, in which the al Husseini clan attacked more moderate families and also there was religious intimidation as well, of Christians as well as Jews. Benny Morris details some of this in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited."
Sacher and Morris both discuss Arab immigration, and Churchill mentioned it before Parliament when he was trying, unsuccessfully, to fight the notorious White Paper. That's written about by Gilbert and Peters. Moreover Morris mentions a salient fact: farmers had been leaving the land for generations already, migrating to the towns, and of course he discusses the importation of people by the Sultan, from other regions of the Ottoman Empire, because the Holy Land had become so underpopulated.
The other factor underappreciated, is the Arab population boom that accompanied the Mandate. Simply put, better food and medicine reduced infant and maternal mortality rates and extended longevity.
Finally, there is the fact that Jewish immigrants were fleeing an absolutely desperate situation. They played by the rules of their time. They tried to buy land openly and honestly, they did their best not to harm people in the process. They would have purchased more but were denied the opportunity. Worst of all publicity about the violence in Germany was apparently suppressed and refugee ships were turned away, some within sight of Haifa Harbor, some were sunk, some returned to Europe where people died in the Holocaust.
3/4 of the Mandate was lopped off and given to the Arabs, who in fact were rewarded with an enormous and enormously rich land mass for helping the Brits destroy the Ottoman Empire. Jews were not allowed to settle in or purchase land east of the Jordan River and the UN Partition left Judaism's holiest sites, 1/6 of the Yishuv's population and its one holy city, Jerusalem, outside the proposed state. To this day it is punishable by death to sell land to Jews in the PA let alone in Saudi Arabia and there has been a TRUE ethnic cleansing of Jews throughout the Arab world.
People who see Israel's existence as an "injustice" are truly looking at the world through a very strange lens.
I linked to Beaman's blog on my own--in my mind, it was the least I could do for such a fine essay, as well as his calm reaction to the troll who repeatedly attacked him in the comments section.
Sophia, that was very, very interesting. I had forgotten about the Sultan. That could explain why I'd heard that some Palestinians of recent lineage were actually descended from Turks.
I guess that we're used to hearing one short and clear narrative over and over again: The Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. As you show, this story is taken out of context, out of the broader pattern of movement throughout the region, and the world.
I guess that the simple narrative of Palestinian dispossession is the modern left-wing version of the Passion Play. It is over-simplified, at variance with a lot of history, but very compelling and emotionally moving. And it's the central focus for a political faith.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I liked his essay, just as I like any intelligent arguments for Israel. I'm espeically grateful to hear such arguments coming from a European...and a left-of-center European to boot.
His reasons are fine as far as they go, but they don't address what anti-Zionists regard as the "original sin" of Israel: the fact that it was established on land in which 90% of the occupants had been Arab (although Jews were a slight majority in Jerusalem).
The fact that Israelis have a parliamentary system or can boast lots of inventions doesn't erase this stain for anti-Zionists. In order to convince them, you have to address directly their belief that Israel's very founding was an injustice.
Thank you for the mention. Much appreciated.
Beaman
Joanne, you make a very good point and one I admit, I neglected to cover. That is indeed an essay in itself. Thank you. :)
"the fact that it was established on land in which 90% of the occupants had been Arab" I don't believe that's right, Joanne, at least not as far as the original partition lines go. Now, as to the totality of the final armistice line goes, that may be closer. Not sure.
When "anti-zionists" single out Israel for so-called "original sin", while turning a blind eye to the US, Canada, Australia, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, British presence in the Carribean, the European presence in South America, the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan, it looks a tad ANTI-SEMITIC.
"Don't look at the man behind the curtain, I am the objective, anti-occupation, anti-imperialist PROGRESSIVELY MENTALLY ILL hypocrite.
Thanks, Beaman. And again, I'd like to say that your essay is excellent. How refreshing! I'm also an atheist and left-of-center, yet pro-Zionist (without being anti-Palestinian). So, for me, it's nice to see a kindred spirit out there.
Solomon, I hope you're right. I have read that the population figures are extremely vague because the Ottomon Empire was not census-minded. The records are scanty or non-existent. Also complicating the issue is the fact that some of the Palestinian population was itself of recent origin, having migrated to the area because of an upswing in the economy there. I've heard this upswing attributed to development generated by the energetic Yishuv. One source less friendly to Israel attributed it to development generated by the British Mandate. Whatever. Maybe it was both.
I also read that, in the late 1940s, UNWRA allowed any Arab to be classified as a Palestinian who had been living in Palestine for as little as two years.
The question is what proportion of the population was really native and what proportion wasn't. Another question is how much this should matter.
On this last point, arguing that it doesn't matter because Israel is now an irreversible fact won't convince the Left or the Arabs to leave it alone. They don't consider it an irreversible fact. And this argument won't relieve Israel of its pariah status among these people.
Thanks Beaman! Your article was so refreshing and my friends and I deeply appreciate it.
Joanne, the question of "land ownership" has always troubled me, not least because in the case of Israel apparently people are drawing a line for all future human migration or regional demographic change, legal or otherwise.
That of course is silly. People move. It's what people do. If that weren't a fact we'd all be living in Africa.
It also begs the question of ongoing territorial struggles, some of which are extremely bloody, many of which are occuring in Muslim regions or in regions desired by Muslims (Thailand for one, Darfur for another). And of course it totally ignores the fact that huge empires were created under the banners of Islam, the local populations subjugated and in some cases actually enslaved. In view of that history regarding modern Israel as the child of a sin is reprehensible.
Also, millions upon millions of people were dislocated in the wake of the two World Wars. There were huge population exchanges between Greece and Turkey, between Pakistan and India; both were accompanied by death and dispossession. Yet only one group of refugees has remained refugees, has its own UN agency, its own special consideration for having become a refugee in the first place (two years residence), and has passed refugee status throughout several generations. And meanwhile, who has cared for the Jews?
Yet Israel, which itself absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews displaced within the Arab world, remains the locus of attack because people who had the opportunity to remain and form a state, waged war. This followed decades of internal strife between Palestinian Arab factions, in which the al Husseini clan attacked more moderate families and also there was religious intimidation as well, of Christians as well as Jews. Benny Morris details some of this in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited."
Sacher and Morris both discuss Arab immigration, and Churchill mentioned it before Parliament when he was trying, unsuccessfully, to fight the notorious White Paper. That's written about by Gilbert and Peters. Moreover Morris mentions a salient fact: farmers had been leaving the land for generations already, migrating to the towns, and of course he discusses the importation of people by the Sultan, from other regions of the Ottoman Empire, because the Holy Land had become so underpopulated.
The other factor underappreciated, is the Arab population boom that accompanied the Mandate. Simply put, better food and medicine reduced infant and maternal mortality rates and extended longevity.
Finally, there is the fact that Jewish immigrants were fleeing an absolutely desperate situation. They played by the rules of their time. They tried to buy land openly and honestly, they did their best not to harm people in the process. They would have purchased more but were denied the opportunity. Worst of all publicity about the violence in Germany was apparently suppressed and refugee ships were turned away, some within sight of Haifa Harbor, some were sunk, some returned to Europe where people died in the Holocaust.
3/4 of the Mandate was lopped off and given to the Arabs, who in fact were rewarded with an enormous and enormously rich land mass for helping the Brits destroy the Ottoman Empire. Jews were not allowed to settle in or purchase land east of the Jordan River and the UN Partition left Judaism's holiest sites, 1/6 of the Yishuv's population and its one holy city, Jerusalem, outside the proposed state. To this day it is punishable by death to sell land to Jews in the PA let alone in Saudi Arabia and there has been a TRUE ethnic cleansing of Jews throughout the Arab world.
People who see Israel's existence as an "injustice" are truly looking at the world through a very strange lens.
I linked to Beaman's blog on my own--in my mind, it was the least I could do for such a fine essay, as well as his calm reaction to the troll who repeatedly attacked him in the comments section.
BHG
Sophia, that was very, very interesting. I had forgotten about the Sultan. That could explain why I'd heard that some Palestinians of recent lineage were actually descended from Turks.
I guess that we're used to hearing one short and clear narrative over and over again: The Jews stole the land from the Palestinians. As you show, this story is taken out of context, out of the broader pattern of movement throughout the region, and the world.
I guess that the simple narrative of Palestinian dispossession is the modern left-wing version of the Passion Play. It is over-simplified, at variance with a lot of history, but very compelling and emotionally moving. And it's the central focus for a political faith.