Israel seems to be the perennial bad boy to a lot of people. I don't really know why this is the case. I am guessing at least part of the reason is that a lot of people tend to favour the underdog in a fight. Everybody wants to see the little guy win. Nobody likes a bully. The Arabs are seen as the underdogs in this fight and Israel as the bully. Let's examine this historically. I have been studying this stuff after a recent conversation and now know enough to be dangerous.
I will focus on the early history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because that is where the genesis of the problem is. Since those early days, neither side can claim moral high ground because both sides have been guilty of assassinations, massacres, war, and terrorism.
Here's how it all started. (History majors can fuck off. I am not saying anything that isn't in any decent textbook. The rest of you gather around.)
Before 1947, Palestine was a mandated territory. A mandated territory is land that is taken from the losing side in a war and placed under the administration of the victor. Since Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Empire disintegrated after the defeat of Turkey in the First World War, Palestine was placed under British Administration. In the 1920s, Palestine had the following population profile: 80% Muslim, 11% Jews, 9% Christian and others.
This profile changed--mainly because of the influx of Jews fleeing persecution in post World War I Europe--and by 1947, Palestine was 67% Muslim and 33% Jewish. I want to note here that these numbers are similar to the percentages of Hindus and Muslims in British India, before the partition of India in 1947. Also, just like the Muslims of British India wanted an Islamic homeland, so too some Jews raised a call for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This movement became known as Zionism. In contrast to the Muslim demand for a separate homeland in India though, not all Zionists necessarily wanted a separate Jewish state. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement envisioned Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in harmony. I quote from Wikipedia, that fountainhead of all wisdom.
"...but are to be brought about simply by grouping all the best efforts and ideals of every race and nation; and each such effort is quoted and referred to in such a manner as to show that Altneuland ("Old-New land"), though blossoming through the skill of the Jew, will in reality be the product of the benevolent efforts of all the members of the human family.
Herzl envisioned a Jewish state that was devoid of most aspects of Jewish culture. He did not envision the Jewish inhabitants of the state being religious, or even speaking Hebrew. Proponents of a Jewish cultural rebirth, such as Ahad Ha'am were critical of Altneuland."
And this:
"Other Zionists believed in Labor Zionism, and had strong socialist leanings. They organized the labor movement in Palestine, and joined with the Palestinian masses in campaigns for improved wages and working conditions."
Note that this is not to say that Zionism was a picture of sugary benevolence. Revisionist Zionism was extreme and said that Jews could not live together with Arabs.
It seems to me that the other difference between Zionism and the Two-Nation Theory with Indian Muslims was that Zionism was born in response to a real persecution of Jews in Europe, whereas the Two-Nation movement was born simply because Muslims imagined that they would be discriminated against in Hindu-majority India. Thedor Herzl was exposed to anti-Semitism first-hand as a journalist while covering the the Dreyfuss Affair in France and was personal witness to French mobs marching and shouting "Death to the Jews!" on the streets of Paris. That may have set off some alarms. Just sayin'.
In any case, I am not defending Zionism. I suppose that every movement that is based on ethnicity is to a degree abhorrent and brings the world just that much closer to ruin. So I would simply like to say that up to this point, the situation in Arab-Jewish Palestine and that in Hindu-Muslim India was very similar. The parallels are there.
Then the fun started. Arabs started attacking Jews in Palestine.
The similarity breaks down there because as far as I know, no Hindus attacked Muslims in British India in response to Muslim separatism. The majority Arabs in Palestine, on the other hand, took to violence. The local Arabs repeatedly attacked the growing Jewish population during the years of the 1920s. In a riot in 1929 for instance, 67 Jews were massacred in Hebron. In the summer of 1935, Arabs destroyed thousands of Jewish farms and orchards and attacked and killed Jews. Entire Jewish communities such as those at Beisan were uprooted.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent his time fruitfully and well, collaborating with the Nazis during the Second World War and making radio broadcasts asking Muslims to ally with Germany in annihilating Jews. In one broadcast, he said: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." Such a nice man. I bet he has nice grandkids too.
Now Jews are just like Hindus but with two important differences--they have a backbone and a pair between their legs. So they decided that passively getting killed and then migrating en masse--both of which Hindus have fine tuned to a precision art form--just wouldn't cut it for them. They also noticed that the British had no desire of protecting them from the Arabs. So they organized.
They created an organization called The Haganah (Hebrew: The Defense) to protect their communities. The Haganah eventually became the Israeli Army. The period from 1936-45 was therefore a little different for the Arabs. The armed Arab uprising of 1936 against the British and the Jews was brutally countered by the Haganah and the British. 5000 Palestinians died. The Haganah was no campfire organization. They were brutal and countered brutality with even more brutality.
The Arab uprising of 1936 sent the message that Jews and Arabs could not get along and that some sort of partition plan was required. So the UN came up with one in 1947. The plan, called Resolution 181, proposed that Palestine be divided up into an Arab state and a Jewish state, approximately evenly in terms of land area. The Arabs would keep the all the fertile highlands and one-third of the coastline. The Jews would get 50% of the land but a large portion of this land would include the Negev Desert. The resolution was passed in the General Assembly, with 33 countries voting for the plan and 13 countries voting against. India, ever the international nerdy good boy with the round glasses, voted against the plan. Ten Islamic nations including Pakistan also voted against the plan.
As an aside, I don't find it surprising that Pakistan voted against the plan, but I do find it ironic. An irony no doubt lost on the Pakis themselves. Because I would think that the Pakis, of all people, would be totally okay with this sort of partitioning of stuff and dividing of people.
But not when the Partition involves taking land away from Muslims, eh, you fucking Paki piece of shit hypocrite cunts?
Uh, okay. Moving right along...
The Jews acquiesced to the plan; the Arabs did not. No surprises there.
The Jews acquiesced to the plan; the Arabs did not. No surprises there.
Great Britain refused to implement the plan because it was not acceptable to both parties. So the plan was never officially implemented and Great Britain withdrew from the mandated territory of Palestine in 1948.
Six Arab states--Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia--along with the Palestinian Arabs and volunteers from other Arab nations (notably Yemen), immediately attacked the Palestinian Jews.
The war ended in the defeat of the Arab forces. The newly created state of Israel essentially drew its own borders and grabbed 70% of Palestine. It is ironic that Israel did so well in the 1948 war. Ironic because the Haganah played a large part in the war, and if one remembers, the Haganah was created and strengthened by the Arab attacks on the Jews in the 1920s and 30s. Life sometimes comes full circle, wot?
History is full of what ifs. What if the Arabs had decided to get along with the Jews after the British? Would we have a single country called Palestine with an Arab majority and large Jewish minority co-existing? Or would some Jewish group have tried to forcefully execute the UN plan? Would there even be an Israel today had the Arabs not attacked? What would have happened if the Arabs had won the war? Would the Jews be massacred and the survivors living in refugee camps now instead of the Palestinians? In other words, would we have a mirror image of the problem that we have now? Would that somehow be more acceptable? What do you think?
In any case, instead of the 50% of high fertile land (at a minimum, if the UN Plan had been followed) or 100% of the land (had Palestine decided to remain one country) that the Palestinians would have had if they had decided to live with the Jews in peace, they found that Israel, victors of the war, drew its own borders and took 70% of Mandatory Palestine.
Six Arab states--Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia--along with the Palestinian Arabs and volunteers from other Arab nations (notably Yemen), immediately attacked the Palestinian Jews.
The war ended in the defeat of the Arab forces. The newly created state of Israel essentially drew its own borders and grabbed 70% of Palestine. It is ironic that Israel did so well in the 1948 war. Ironic because the Haganah played a large part in the war, and if one remembers, the Haganah was created and strengthened by the Arab attacks on the Jews in the 1920s and 30s. Life sometimes comes full circle, wot?
History is full of what ifs. What if the Arabs had decided to get along with the Jews after the British? Would we have a single country called Palestine with an Arab majority and large Jewish minority co-existing? Or would some Jewish group have tried to forcefully execute the UN plan? Would there even be an Israel today had the Arabs not attacked? What would have happened if the Arabs had won the war? Would the Jews be massacred and the survivors living in refugee camps now instead of the Palestinians? In other words, would we have a mirror image of the problem that we have now? Would that somehow be more acceptable? What do you think?
In any case, instead of the 50% of high fertile land (at a minimum, if the UN Plan had been followed) or 100% of the land (had Palestine decided to remain one country) that the Palestinians would have had if they had decided to live with the Jews in peace, they found that Israel, victors of the war, drew its own borders and took 70% of Mandatory Palestine.
Now could Israel have won the war and then returned the land as an unilateral gesture of magnanimity? Yes, they could have. But one thing got in the way--they were not Hindus and therefore not stupid. Which moron would return land to its attackers just so that the land could be used as a base to attack them again? Indians, you should know the answer to this one. Does anyone remember the 13,000 sq km of Pakistani territory and 90,000 Paki POWs during 1971? Can you say 1971, people? Give me a Hallelujah! Can you smack your foreheads and go Aaaahh, people?
[Short prayer: If by chance Hindus are right and there is reincarnation and shit, I do not want to be reborn a Hindu. Please god, anything but a limpdick Hindu.]
I would like to reiterate at this point that since 1948, neither side has covered itself in glory. Israeli warplanes have bombed Palestinian refugee camps, Israeli soldiers have stood by while the Phalangists--Lebanese Christian militia--have massacred Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. The PLO has launched attacks against Israeli civilians using Southern Lebanon as its base. The PLO has played a part in the Lebanese Civil War and massacred Lebanese Maronite Christians--who were Israeli allies--in Damour.
So who do we blame, given the events in 1948 and prior that started this all? I don't know about you, but does anyone seriously expect me personally to have any respect or sympathy for the political decisions that the Palestinians (or Lebanon and the other Arab states) took in 1948 that brings us to this sorry state of affairs?
And of course, as noted above, Israel is no angel either. Here's my take. They managed to carve out a homeland for themselves the hard way. They had no opportunity to plead and bargain for their freedom over a table, like some countries that we shall not name. As a result, they quite likely have a very fixed idea of what it will take to hold on to that freedom. They react, and react violently, to any threat they perceive to that freedom. Sometimes with overwhelming, brute force. Is this warranted? An average Indian, not having any first-hand clue to this mindset since generations, will likely respond in the negative.
I would like to reiterate at this point that since 1948, neither side has covered itself in glory. Israeli warplanes have bombed Palestinian refugee camps, Israeli soldiers have stood by while the Phalangists--Lebanese Christian militia--have massacred Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. The PLO has launched attacks against Israeli civilians using Southern Lebanon as its base. The PLO has played a part in the Lebanese Civil War and massacred Lebanese Maronite Christians--who were Israeli allies--in Damour.
So who do we blame, given the events in 1948 and prior that started this all? I don't know about you, but does anyone seriously expect me personally to have any respect or sympathy for the political decisions that the Palestinians (or Lebanon and the other Arab states) took in 1948 that brings us to this sorry state of affairs?
And of course, as noted above, Israel is no angel either. Here's my take. They managed to carve out a homeland for themselves the hard way. They had no opportunity to plead and bargain for their freedom over a table, like some countries that we shall not name. As a result, they quite likely have a very fixed idea of what it will take to hold on to that freedom. They react, and react violently, to any threat they perceive to that freedom. Sometimes with overwhelming, brute force. Is this warranted? An average Indian, not having any first-hand clue to this mindset since generations, will likely respond in the negative.