Are today's Muslims barbaric?

[Arnab]

Fab, questions:

1. Do you agree that warfare is the ultimate in barbarism?

2. To what extent muslims were engaged in the two world wars we had?

3. How many muslim countries possess lethal atomic weapons?

4. If you also consider gunfare and arms trading barbaric, do muslim countries dominate in the world arms trade? How about manufacturing guns?

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Arnab]

[Ockey]

Arnab,

The retorical question that you have posed is what the most Muslims use to justify why Muslims countries should have nuclear programs.

"3. How many muslim countries possess lethal atomic weapons?"

Perhaps more appropriate questions would be:

Which Muslim country can safeguard thier nuclear weapons and make sure it won't to used annihilate the "Infidels and Zionists" of the West?

Another question is: Can these Muslim nations gaurantee that someone involved in the program won't sell the secrets to the highest bidder? Here is an article that might answer ths question. Link:Pakistani scientist apologises for nuke leaks

We can all agree that the Muslim countries that do have nuclear weapons, namely Pakistan and possibly Iran, have unstable governments and if there is sudden shift to the Islamic hard-liners, those weapons will be unaccounted for. Frankly I would feel a lot safer is Muslim nations didn't go about trying to develop nuclear programs.

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Ockey]

[Arnab]

Ockey, there is irony to all this. Muslims didn't use atomic bombs to annihilate more than a hundred thousand civilians in the matter of a blink. That was the most monumental crime or act of terrorism against humanity. Muslims didn't invade America or a western nation, the opposite happened. Muslims didn't invade Vietnam. But you are happy to call muslim states unstable, while keeping mum about the infinitely more barbaric acts the west has inflicted upon themselves and the world. It's a double standard, don't you think?

Objectively, the west has no moral authority to tell the muslim states what should be done or not. They grossly violate their own standards over and over again in massive proportions.

Invading a country or initiate a war under false pretenses was considered the number one, the ultimate crime against peace and humanity in the Nuremburg trials, and based on that the nazi leaders were prosecuted. Now, not only you can get away by doing such a crime, you can joke about it with your docile media.

[fab]

Arnab,
The examples you cited are generally pursuits of governments/leaders, not individuals of a society. I am not saying that the Western governments are better than the Islamic governments. I am talking of barbarism at the social level, in which I think Muslims exceed. You might say this is a result of the West screwing around with us for so long. Perhaps religious fundamentalism is a result that, but what about socially ingrained attitudes like corruption, honour killings, acid throwing, NO freedom of speech? Do we blame the West for that too? I just think there's no way we're ever gonna improve if we keep pointing the finger and blame others.

But I do agree that non muslim governments are more barbaric (read: US, China, Russia, Western EU). They spend more money on warfare than health, education and general welfare. What's more despicable is that they MAKE money from extremely poor and crisis ridden countries.

Ockey,
So basically you are saying that only rich countries have a right to defend themselves? btw, mutually assured destruction is good war hindrance. The world would be a better place if NO ONE had WMDs... Why is that so unacceptable to you guys?

[Zobair]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pompous
He felt that there was growing awareness about Islam "as a way of life" particularly in the West where he felt Islam was a solution to the maladies that plague the society here...very relevant in other words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What about the maladies of the Islamic world which Islamic Shariah has not been able to stamp out (in fact it seems to breed it quite nicely!)? Out of interest, what type of Western maladies is he talking about? I dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has a high divorce rate, teenage pregnancy and gay marriages than a one with honour killings, acid throwing, no freedom of speech and corruption (hence why I am living in a Western country).
----------------------------------

I don't want to live in either actually Of all the ills that you mention plague Muslim societies the only one that can be linked to Islam is "honour killing"...the rest are symptomatic of all poor third world counties....wouldn't you agree?!

[Arnab]

Well, fab, I don't know how you can differentiate it like that. The western people can be very civilized in their own personal spheres, but they are also implicitly guilty for the barbaric crimes their leaders do. Where do these leaders come from? Muslim countries? No, they're born and raised in the west with western "values".

And in all seriousness, Islam doesn't promote barbarism. In fact, Islam has no specific stance for or against barbarism. Just like any other old school religion, it's pretty vague and philosophically inadequate to apply to our current complex society. Islam cannot elminate barbaric mentalities, because it doesn't even address it!

The only way to eliminate it is ensuring a democratic, civilized education to the people.

It's pretty hard to accomplish though. America, the founder of democracy, lost its track in true democratic education and tradition a long time ago. That's why its leaders have gotten away with such massive crimes.

[al Furqaan]

i am also critical of many things that muslims and the islamic world do. but one must realize that they are not acting in the way of the rasool (SAW).

acid throwing is not mentioned in the quran or the hadith and so is haram, harming civilians or even animals or crops (whether at war or in times of peace) are completely against the teachings of islam. i did read one hadith saying that female circumscion was favorable, however remember that many hadith are not authentic. the fact that sex was made by allah to bring pleasure to both adam (AS) and eve leads one to conclude that this practice is wrong.

i don't know what your (all in banglacricket.com) personal beliefs are, but if you claim to be a muslim, know that just because the vast majority of muslims thinks a certain way does not make it right. only authentic teachings of islam are deemed correct.

next i would like to say a few words on my own personal beliefs:

after much thought, it is my sincere belief that at this point of the islam vs. the west conflict, muslims by and large are on the wrong side. to me, the palestinian-israeli conflict is the crux of the issue we face today. it is because of israel's security that the west has supported her in all her wars against the muslims. israel's security has also been the number one influence on american foreign policy affairs in the muslim world. these are the reasons that muslims all over the world range anywhere from distrust of the west to outright hatred.

when one looks at history, he or she sees that in 1947 the UN created israel as a state for jews. palestine was more or less split equally between arabs and jews. we had shared sovereignty of jerusalem, and a chance right off the bat to have a peaceful muslim state right next to the jewish one. what did we (the ummah) do? we declared jihad on israel.

i understand that it is not fair for us to pay for the german nazis mistakes. in reality the entire western world was causing us to pay for all of their anti-semitism which had gone on unabated for 2 millennia. still, we should not have reacted with warfare. we should realize that the jews lived in this land and they were forced out of it. it does not matter that islam is the one true relgion...that does not mean that all of the land is ours and the jews should live as second class citizens. they are just as free to live as they want, as long as they dont harm us. however we didnt choose this islamic path. and this has resulted in most of the misery faced by 1.3 billions muslims for the last 50 years.

i am NOT justifying israel's killing of innocent palestinian civilians, but likewise i cannot support the massacre of jews by suicide bombers. this does not mean that i don't support the self defense of innocent victims. if muslims are unjustly attacked, they should wage war as a last resort. but the same rights should be awarded to jews, christians, and all others. the prophet muhammad (SAW) commanded his followers during his last khutbah: "hurt no one, so that no one may hurt you."

so what do i think will happen? well i think the whole "war on terror" will continue indefinitely. no amount of force will intimidate the terrorists; in fact it will only spawn more. this is the natural way of things.

islamic prophecy tells us that islam will not prevail until jesus (AS) and the mahdi comes and reforms islam. together these 2 will return us to the true form of our religion, and under the banner of the pen will we conquer, not by the sword. the west will never win by use of force and neither will the muslims.

so if we can't do anything to change the situation what should we do? nothing? no, it is true that a few people cannot reform the muslims as a whole, but we can do our best by advocating tolerance and multilateral dialogue. in the end, only allah by his mercy can bless the children of adam (AS) with peace on earth.

[al Furqaan]

I also do not support the murder of innocent iraqi and afhgan civilians by american troops, but if u read my last post you will see that ultimately we are to blame.

it is indeed a sad but real part of this world that innocent civilians must die.

[Arnab]

when one looks at history, he or she sees that in 1947 the UN created israel as a state for jews. palestine was more or less split equally between arabs and jews. we had shared sovereignty of jerusalem, and a chance right off the bat to have a peaceful muslim state right next to the jewish one. what did we (the ummah) do? we declared jihad on israel.

Wrong history.

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by Arnab

Wrong history.

evidence?

[al Furqaan]

Originally posted by Arnab

And in all seriousness, Islam doesn't promote barbarism. In fact, Islam has no specific stance for or against barbarism. Just like any other old school religion, it's pretty vague and philosophically inadequate to apply to our current complex society. Islam cannot elminate barbaric mentalities, because it doesn't even address it!

arnab bhai,

if islam doesn't mention barbarism...then it is in incomplete relgion. we know that allah sent islam to finalize the revelations he had been sending to mankind for millennia.

the fact of the matter was that the arabs of jahiliyyah (pre-islamic times of ignorance) were very barbaric. evidence? here it is:

1) they used to drink alcohol profusely
2) they practiced adultery with the zeal that desis follow cricket
3) they practiced pimping which knew no bounds
4) they used to marry their mothers
5) they used to exploit the poor, orphans, and women, mainly widows
6) they employed an illogical method to settle tribal disputes by killing any member of a guilty tribe, regardless of whether that person was innocent or not.
7) they performed the hajj naked
8) they used to drink camel's blood
9) they practiced female infanticide
10) slaves had no rights
11) women had no rights

all of these things are barbaric and islam effectively ended these atrocities.

and how is my 1947 history wrong? as far as i know the UN approved the partition plan but the arabs rejected it. if you can prove me wrong with hard evidence then i will change my views.

[al Furqaan]

...i agree with many other things u said such as the hypocrisy in the western world...but i believe there is hypocrisy in the ummah as well. true islam eradicates this hypocrisy. the problem is no countries practice true islam.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by Zunaid
evidence?

ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT IN PALESTINE (1880s- 1920s)

by Arnab

The purpose of the following is to show the origin of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The conflict is a modern one, beginning in late 1800s (1870s to be more precise). Having studied a lot on the subject recently, I felt I needed to organize my knowledge in an orderly, chronological fashion. This is the first phase of my “history” posts on this highly contentious issue. In this phase, I present mainly facts regarding what happened in the land of Palestine from late 1870s to 1920s. I present these in a “Question and Answer” fashion for easier understanding. I have also tried to mention explicit sources for my facts. My sources are mainly modern Western and Israeli historians, who in turn also rely on U.N. reports, U.S. Govt., British Govt. and Israeli Govt.’s public files archives and recently declassified documents.

Since when did the land of Palestine become a predominantly Arab land?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation..." [1]

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin.” [2]

So, for how many years have Arab people living in the land of Palestine up till 1900?

The Arabs have been living in Palestine since 700 AD. This means they have been living there for about 1200 years at 1900 AD. i.e. for innumerous generations.

How many indigenous Jews have been living in Palestine?

There have been a indigenous Jewish minority who had also been living in Palestine for innumerous generations. In 1870, out of the total population of 375,000 in Palestine, the indigenous Jews numbered 7,000 only which is roughly 2% of the population. [3]

Have these indigenous Jews been living peacefully with their Arab neighbors all this time?

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." [4]

”The Arabs throughout their history have not only been free from anti-Jewish sentiment but have also shown that the spirit of compromise is deeply rooted in their life. There is no decent-minded person, he said, who would not want to do everything humanly possible to relieve the distress of those persons, provided that it was not at the cost of inflicting a corresponding distress on another people.” [5]

How and when did Zionism form?

In the late years of the 19th century, anti-Semitism (Persecution of European Jews in European Christian Countries) became especially virulent in Russia and re-emerged in France. Some Jews concluded that only in a Jewish state would Jews be safe and thus founded Zionism. In 1885, Austrian journalist, Theodor Herzl attended the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, falsely accused of treason by French army officers and Catholic clerics. He was inspired then to write the book "Judenstaat" ("The Jewish State") calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in which Jews would be safe from anti-Semitism. The World Zionist Organization, established by Herzl in 1897, declared that the aim of Zionism was to establish "a national home for the Jewish people secured by public law.” Most European Jews at the time rejected Zionism, preferring instead to address the problem of anti-Semitism through revolutionary or reformist politics or assimilation.

Did any indigenous Jew conceive Zionism? What was their reaction to Zionism?

Zionism was a purely European Jewish idea. The small Jewish community in Palestine maintained that a Jewish state could only be established by God, not by humans.

What is the relationship between Judaism, Zionism and Anti-Semitism?

Zionism is not Judaism, Judaism is not Zionism, and to be anti-Zionist is in no way to be anti-Semitic. Zionism is a political movement, first devoted to the foundation of the state, and then to the advancement of Israel, politically, diplomatically, financially and otherwise. On the other hand, Judaism, which gave birth to Christianity and Islam, is a relationship between man and God requiring no political loyalty -- only a belief in certain immutable universal principles of conduct, notably, righteousness and justice -- totally unrelated to any piece of land.

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

The pogroms(riots) forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone

Does history support the claim support the Zionist contention that Palestine belonged to them alone?

History does not support the Zionist contention that Palestine belonged to them alone. Twelve Jewish tribes started in Canaan thirty-five centuries ago and not only did ten of them disappear, more than half of the other two never returned from exile in Babylon. Israelite, Judean, Judaism, Jew and the Jewish people are used by the myth-makers synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. In fact, they were different people at different times in history with varying ways of life who continually intermarried with the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Midianites and other Semitic ancestors of present-day Arabs whom they found there. In his book, "The Thirteenth Tribe," Arthur Koestler pointed out that today's Jews were for the most part descendants of the Khazars who converted to Judaism seven centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. People who wished to follow one God became Jews in a colorful ceremony in the 8th century and then spread Judaism throughout the Rhine and Rhone valleys. This view of the non-ethnicity of the major portion of Jewry is sustained by prominent anthropologists such as Ripley, Weissenberg, Hertz, Boas Pittard, Fishberg, Mead and others.

Why would the Arabs (or for that matter, any person who exercises even minimal logical reasoning) fail to understand the unique and special historical connection of Jews to the land of Palestine/Eretz Israel?

The alleged “historical connection” of only the Jews to Palestine raises all sorts of questions legitimately asked by the Palestinian Arabs. Questions like:
• Is there any connection between Tsarist Russia’s pogrom(or even Nazi Holocaust) and inflaming the “unique and special connection” Jews have to “Eretz Israel”?
• Since “Eretz Israel” historically spanned the borders of occupied West Bank, western parts of Jordan, occupied Golan heights, Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, and Southern Syria, does that imply:

Israel must never relinquish “Jewish Sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank, occupied Golan Heights and liberated Southern Lebanon?

Israel must reoccupy and reinvade southern Lebanon?

Israel must eventually nullify the peace treaties it has signed with Egypt and Jordan since “Eretz Israel” spans some of Egypt’s and Jordan’s present day borders?

• Let us assume that all of the above arguments makes no sense to the average Jew and Zionist, then:
What makes this “unique connection” different from the “unique connection” German, Polish, Greek, Italian, Egyptian...etc. Christians have for Jerusalem, Nazareth and Bethlehem?
Why would this “unique and special” connection imply Palestinian dispossession?

Who controlled the area during late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century?

The area was part of the Ottoman Empire at that time.

So what was the population statistics in Palestine at this point of time (1878)?

According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews.

How many European Jews were present in Palestine at this time (1878) ?

According to the same Ottoman records, there were approximately 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship. They were the recent immigrants to the land. These foreign Jews consisted 2% of the total population in 1878. In total, the Jews consisted about 4% of the total population at that time.

What did the European Zionists think of the indigenous Arab majority( 98% of the people) at that time?

In October 1882, Vladimir Dubnow, one of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote to his brother articulating the ultimate goals of the Zionists movement:
"The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel… the Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.” [6]

In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:
". . . There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become a the strong and papules ones." [7]

Chaim Weizmann, who became Israel's first President, was one of the three Zionist leaders (along with Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion) most responsible for turning Zionism into reality.

Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Weizmann wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:
"[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." [8]

Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion wrote at that time: “THE RIGHTS TO PALESTINE DO NOT BELONG TO THE EXISTING SETTLERS (note: these ‘settler’ Arabs have been living there for 1200 years), WHETHER THEY BE JEWS OR ARABS (note: here Ben-Gurion doesn’t even care about the native non-European Jews). THE CRUX IS THE RIGHT OF RETURN OF JEWRY DISPERSED.”

Another Zionist Leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky said, “THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS NO LAW, AND NO GOD IN HEAVEN, ONLY A SINGLE LAW THAT DECIDES AND SUPERSEDES ALL – [JEWISH] SETTLEMENT [OF THE LAND].” [9]

Were these European Zionists right in their view of right of the indigenous Arab people of Palestine? How did the European Jewish settlers treat the Arabs?

The Zionist Organization’s second president David Wolffsohn, remarked in 1908: “One has to pay special attention to the important fact that Arabs are, after all, the master of the country.” [10]

Ahad Ha'Am, a liberal Russian Jewish thinker and a leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, who visited Palestine in 1891 for three months. In 1891, Ha'Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:
"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated. [11]
"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."

Ahad Ha'am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside. [12]

Ha’Am could see through the injustice of Zionism towards Palestinian people and remarked:
"Better to die in the Exile than to die here and be buried in the land of fathers, if that land is considered the 'homeland' of the [Palestinian] Arabs and we are strangers in it." [13]

In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Zionist political and military leader, wrote of how Palestinians really felt of their attachment to Palestine:
"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor the Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence."

Yitzhak Epstein was one of the few Zionist Jewish leaders who were Palestinians, which gave him especial understanding of Arabs way of life and thinking. In 1905, during the Zionist Congress convention at Bessel (Switzerland), Yitzhak Epstein delivered a lecture about the "Arab question":
"Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs. . . . We have FORGOTTEN one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it. . . .

We are making a GREAT psychological error with regard to a great, assertive, and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land of our forefathers, we forgot that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds."

Later in 1925, Arthur Ruppin, the leader of Jewish Bi-Partitionist organization Brit Shalom, wrote that what Zionists were doing “has no equal in history. The aim is to bring the Jews as a second nation into a country WHICH ALREADY IS SETTLED AS A NATION.. History has seen such penetration by one nation in to a strange land only by conquest. “ Never in history it has “occurred that a nation will fully agree that another nation should come and demand national autonomy at its side.” [14]

So, now that it is clear that the European Jews didn’t really have the 'right' to dispossess the current inhabitants of Palestine as admitted by themselves in their quotes, how did they want to accomplish their ‘belated’ colonialist adventure of planting European Jews in that land?

The Zionist strategy was obvious:

-Buy land and never sell them back (which didn’t really prove very fruitful)
-Become the majority in the land through immigration
-Appeal to a superpower who would allot them the Land.

All these were done WITHOUT ANY RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE MAJORITY (95%) OF INHABITANTS (ARABS).

Zionist Leader Ben Yehuda wrote to his friend in 1882, in an almost sinister tone: “The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, bit by bit…We can only do this covertly, quietly…We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy.” [15]

In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
“We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.” [16]

On 7 July 1902, Herzl was asked why Russian Jews could not be settled in uninhabited lands other than Palestine, such as Argentina, he replied:
"[Such resettlement would fail] because when you want a great settlement, you must have a flag and an idea. You CANNOT make those things ONLY WITH MONEY. . . With money you CANNOT make a general movement of a great mass of people. You must give them an ideal. You must put into them the belief in their future, and then you will be able to take out the devotion of the hardest labor imaginable. [For example,] Argentina has a very GOOD SOIL and the conditions for agricultural labor are MUCH BETTER than in Palestine, but in Palestine they work with enthusiasm and they succeed.

Regarding European anti-Semites, Herzl explained how it could benefit the Zionist enterprise, he wrote in his diary:
"The [European] anti-Semites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the anti-Semite [European] nations will become our allies."

Weizmann wrote:
"... should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there - perhaps more…” [17]

How did the British get to rule Palestine?

After the World War 1, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated. The Allied powers then formed the League of Nations, which decided the Arab world would be divided up among the British, the French and independent Arab rulers. The British got the mandate to rule Palestine.

What is the Balfour Declaration?

Weizmann realized that Zionism’s hopes for a Jewish state in Palestine lay with the British. He led the Jewish lobby to build links with Lloyd George, a future Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour , a future Foreign Secretary, Herbert Samuel, a British Jew and a future High Commissioner of Palestine. Constant lobbying led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917:

“His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people…it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.”

Did the Palestinian Arabs know of the “Balfour Declaration”?

The Balfour Declaration was made public only in 1920 after the installation of civilian administration, having been kept officially confidential until then to minimize protests anticipated from the Palestinians.

Did the British assure the Palestinian Arabs of their independence?

Correspondence between British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon and Sherif Husain, the Emir of Mecca during 1915-16 included this: “The whole of Palestine lies within the limits which His Majesty’s Government has pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of Arabs.” [18].

Therefore, the Palestinian Arabs at this point were right to think that they will achieve independence soon just like other Arab countries.

Population Watch: December 1918:

Jewish population in Palestine is 66,000(~10%). Arab population: around 580,000.

What happened soon after the World War 1(1914-191 ? What were the British, Zionist and Palestinian Arab activities and views during this period? What was the view of the United States?

Post World War 1 Situation(1918-) : Zionization starts under British rule and direct co-operation:

1918: Britain gains control of Palestine. Britain’s official policy on the region was based on Balfour Declaration: “zionizing” Palestine, i.e. dumping European Jews into Palestine through immigration. This was clearly opposite to their assurance given to Palestinian Arabs of their independence. But, when they tried to implement it, the British observed resistance from the inhabitants. The British tried to calm the justly angry Arabs, the official approach being “to apologize to the Arabs for a slip of tongue by Mr. Balfour.”

Observation of British Authority stationed in Palestine:

The first British Military Governor of Palestine and also a self-proclaimed British Zionist, Colonel Ronald Storrs commented: “Palestine, up to now a Moslem Country, has fallen into the hands of a Christian power which on the eve of its conquest announced that a considerable portion of its (the Arabs’) land is to be handed over for colonization purposes to a nowhere very popular people( the Jews).” [19]

Major General Arthur Money, the then current authority of the region wrote that the Zionist encroachment was “a policy of oppression of the local inhabitants in favor of the Jewish minority.” [20]

Palestinian’s view on the British policy of Zionization:

On Nov 3, 1918, more than a hundred Palestinian Muslim and Christian notables notified the British administration that the Jewish settlers “pretend with open voice that Palestine, which is the land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in it defending it, is now a national home for them.” [21]

In April 1919, Money wrote to Lord Curzon to inform him the Palestinian’s view: “The Palestinians in fact desire Palestine for themselves, and have no intention of allowing their country to be thrown open to hordes of Jews from Eastern and central Europe.” Money also added that implementing Balfour Declaration would involve Britain in use of force “in opposition to the will of the majority of the population.” [22]

There were native outbursts and petitions against Zionism from the very beginning. The British Officials correctly noted that these outbursts conveyed “the fundamental antipathy towards Zionism felt by most politically conscious Arabs.”

United States’ view on the British policy of Zionization:

President Wilson, leader of one of the allied powers, appointed two Americans, Henry King and Charles Crane as the two members of a commission to prepare a report on the issue. Wilson was strongly in favor of the principle of Self-Determination, which backed the current inhabitants of any occupied land to choose their destiny.

In their report, the commission stated: “The wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine….the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole- are emphatically against the whole Zionist programme. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land would be a gross violation of the self-determination principle and of the people’s rights.” [23]

The commission also stated:
“For the initial claim...submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, CAN HARDLY BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED.” [24]

“Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.” [25]

So, what happened after this? (We are now in 1920)

The finalization of the British Mandate in Palestine:

The Allied Supreme Council met in San Remo in April 1920 to decide the final disposition of Palestine, i.e., the drafting of the Palestine Mandate. The Zionistss lobbied and exchanged drafts with the British Authorities to gain as much as advantage as possible. They had a lot of pro-Zionist British leaders(i.e., Balfour, Samuel, etc.) to help their cause. But they also had to face strong opposition from other members of the British Parliament and Government who could see through the Zionist schemes. Most prominent was Lord Curzon, who wrote in ironic fashion:

“The Zionists are after a Jewish state with the Arabas Hewers of wood and drawers of Water.

“Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 60,000 Jews( by no means all Zionists). Acting upon the noble principles of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document( the Mandate) which is an avowed constitution for a Jewish State. [26]

The Zionists, led by Weizmann, wanted to include the phrase “Recognizing the historic rights of the Jews to Palestine” in the preamble of the Mandate. But Curzon was vehemently against it: “ I could not admit the phrase..It is certain to be made the basis of all sorts of claim in the future. I do not myself recognize that the connection of the Jews with Palestine, which terminated 1200 years ago, gives them any claim whatsoever…I greatly dislike giving the draft to the Zionists, but in the view of the indiscretions already committed, I suppose that this is inevitable…” [27]

In the British Parliament, Lord Sydenham, discussing the Mandate, commented this which has turned out to be prophetic in the end: “…the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied.. what we have done by concessions to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far the sore will extend.” [28]

In fact, the House of Lords voted to repeal the Balfour Declaration, but a similar motion was defeated in the House of Commons and the British Government officially accepted the Palestine Mandate, whose final wordings included the ”historical connection” and “reconstitution” of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine.

Like the Zionists, were the Paelstinians ever consulted during the drafting and finalization of the British Mandate of Palestine, which later paved the way for a Jewsih state in Palestine?

The answer is an emphatic NO. The only move towards consultation had been the US King-Crane Commission, whose views were ignored. A few years later, however, the US officially declared its support of the British Mandate, thus consenting with the Balfour Declaration. The Mandate, surely, overrode the inherent political rights of the Palestinian people.

Did the Palestinians protest the clearly Zionist nature of the Mandate?

Yes. The Arab Higher Committee protested that “the Mandate was…not directed to the ‘well-being and development’ of the existing Arab population but to the promotion of Jewish interests.”

So what happened after this? Was the Palestine Mandate different from other Mandates?

The Palestine Mandate got established against the will of the Palestinian people, and the process of establishing the “Jewish National Home” commenced. The Palestine Mandate was in marked contrast to the mandate for Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. The Mandates System was in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, but the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of the Mandates. According to an opposing member of the British Parliament Lord Islington, “The Palestine Mandate was a real distortion of the mandatory system.”

Who was in charge of Palestine in now?

Churchill in charge:

In March 1921, the responsibility of Palestine was given to Sir Winston Churchill. Churchill was definitely pro-Zionist. He published a white paper in 1922 which said “the existence of a national Jewish home in Palestine” was necessary and “should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.” To fulfill this policy, Churchill said it was necessary “the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration.”

What was the Palestinian view of the Churchill Plan?

The Palestinians opposed Churchill’s policy, declaring: “Nothing will safeguard Arab interest in Palestine but the immediate creation of a national government which shall be responsible to a parliament of all whose members are elected by the people of the country- Moslems, Christians and Jews.” [29]

Population and Land Ownership Watch: 1922:

Jewish: 70,000 Jews own 2.5 percent of total land Arab: 680,000 Arabs own 97.5% of the land.

What was the nature of Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 1920’s? How did it compare to the Jewish immigration to America?

Churchill’s policy made increasing Jewish immigration in Palestine possible. Between 1920 and 1929, about 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine. Ironically, this was far short of the “millions of Jews ready to come back to their homeland“ as claimed by the World Zionist Organization. In fact, over a million Jews have already immigrated to the US before 1900.

*******

Sources:

1. Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine"
2. Illeane Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan"
3. Alexander Scholch, "The Demographic Development of Palestine 1850-1882"
4. Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute"
5. British Government, Palestine Royal Commission - Report, Cmd. 5479 (1937), p. 395.
6. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 38
7. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 39
8. Nur Masalha, “Expulsion Of The Palestinians”, p. 17
9. Ya’akov Shavit, “Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925-1948
10. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 137
11. Rashid Khalidi, “Palestinian Peasant Resistance to Zionism before WW1”, page 216
12. A. Cohen, Israel and the Arab World”, page 58
13. Ibid.
14. Allan C Brownfeld, Washington Report on Middle East, March 1998, Pages 29-31
15. Eliezer Be’eri, “The Beginning of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1882-1911”, page 38
16. Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims”, page 21-22
17. UN: The Origins And Evolution Of Palestine Problem, section II
18. The Times of London, 17 April, 1974
19. British Government, Public Record Office, Cabinet No. 27/239(191, reproduced in Doreen, “The Palestinian Papers”
20. Bernard Wasserstein, “Britain and the Jews of Europe”, page 14
21. Bernard Wasserstein, “The British in Palestine”, page 31-32
22. Bernard Wasserstein, “Britain and the Jews of Europe”, page 48
23. United States Government, “Foreign Relations of the United States: the Paris Peace Conference(Washington 1944) Vol. XII, page 793.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. British Government, Foreign Office No 371/5199
27. British Government, Foreign Office No 371/5245
28. British Government, Hansard’s Reports, House of Lords, 21 June 1922, page 1025
29. British Government, Palestine: Statement of Policy – Cmd. 1700(1922), pages 19-28.

[Arnab]

Say,

1. Delete the quote of my post from your post.

2. Yes, I forgot to mention the Lilienthal speech. But I left a loophole for it in the introduction. I also forgot to mention other sources as well, like about four or five books written by prominent Israeli historians, some Palestinian websites, etc.

I was TIRED! It was not a paper to be published free of every bit of plagiarism, but my own attempt to understand the history. Deal with it!

The "by Arnab" means "It was Arnab who painstakingly sifted through thousands of pages of history books, UN Documents, website articles, etc." to compile a comprehensively chronological timeline."

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Arnab]

[say]

fair enough.. thanks for the clarification

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by say]

[Zobair]

I would also suggest reading Norman Finklestein on the subject of Palestine-Israeli conflict. Hardhitting, to the point, no nonsense outlook. For his stance on this issue, he, like many other likeminded jews, has been ostrasized as a "self-hating jew".

Here is a flavour from his website:

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict
(Updated: September 2002)


Background

To resolve what was called the "Jewish question" - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of Gentile repulsion or anti-Semitism and Gentile attraction or assimilation - the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. (1) Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, (2) the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. (3)

Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine's indigenous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. "Contrary to the claim that is often made, Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine," Zeev Sternhell observes. "If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking…. [I]n general both sides understood each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs." Moshe Shertok (later Sharett) contemptuously dismissed the "illusive hopes" of those who spoke about a "'mutual misunderstanding' between us and the Arabs, about 'common interests' [and] about 'the possibility of unity and peace between the two fraternal peoples.'" "There is no example in history," David Ben-Gurion declared, succinctly framing the core problem, "that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it." (4)


"The tragedy of Zionism," Walter Laqueur wrote in his standard history, "was that it appeared on the international scene when there were no longer empty spaces on the world map." This is not quite right. Rather it was no longer politically tenable to create such spaces: extermination had ceased to be an option of conquest. (5) Basically the Zionist movement could only choose between two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled "the way of South Africa" - "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" - or the "the way of transfer" - "you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." (6)

Round One - "The way of transfer"
In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sights on "the way of transfer." For all the public rhetoric about wanting to "live with the Arabs in conditions of unity and mutual honor and together with them to turn the common homeland into a flourishing land" (Twelfth Zionist Congress, 1921), the Zionists from early on were in fact bent on expelling them. "The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings," Tom Segev reports. "'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality." The key was to get the timing right. Ben-Gurion, reflecting on the expulsion option in the late 1930s, wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out - a whole world is lost." (7)...

continued here

I would also recommend Prof. Finklestein's "Image and Reality of the Israel- Palestine Conflict" (1995).


Recently he has been involved in a public debate with Alan Dershowitz (a Harvard law prof. who is a vocal Zionist and wrote a book called "The Case for Israel") regarding the validilty of the latter's point of view and the "facts" he mentioned in his book. His demolition of Dershowitz is worth watching: You can watch it here

Palestine-Israel conflict is a really complex one and it is important to really read up on it before making any comments.

[al Furqaan]

you really spent a lot of time on this.

you gave the evidence and i said i would change my views but whatever wrong or illegal way the jews obtained palestine as their nation, they still derserved a nation. this is a complex issue and i think that we should negotiate for peace. im not saying that we should surrender but we should opt for a palestinian state with jerusalem as our capital. if we lay down our arms then perhaps they will give it to us. if not, then i dont know what to do...the situation will not solved until jesus (AS)returns.

[Zunaid]

Thanks Arnab, for that painstakenly compiled list.

[say]

Al, who are the 'we' in your writing? are you a palestainian??

Originally posted by al Furqaan
you really spent a lot of time on this.

you gave the evidence and i said i would change my views but whatever wrong or illegal way the jews obtained palestine as their nation, they still derserved a nation. this is a complex issue and i think that we should negotiate for peace. im not saying that we should surrender but we should opt for a palestinian state with jerusalem as our capital. if we lay down our arms then perhaps they will give it to us. if not, then i dont know what to do...the situation will not solved until jesus (AS)returns.

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by Zunaid
Thanks Arnab, for that painstakenly compiled list.

Having said that, there is much truth in what Al Furqaan said.

Leaving aside the issues of the NP-complete Arab-Israeli conflict and the hypocrisy of the West there is much to fault the Muslim world. As long we let a despcicable few define to the wrold who we are, how much authority do we have in voicing our concern for the evil that others do. Sins of omissions are just as blameworthy as sins of comissions.

cliche alert on:

If my own house is not in order how can I point my finger at someone else
People in glass houses should not throw stones
Let he be without sin cast the first stone

cliche alert off

[fab]

Arnab, thanks for your article/compilation! It was very well researched.

Originally posted by Zunaid
Having said that, there is much truth in what Al Furqaan said.

With all due respect, I don't think Arnab has touched on the Arab-Israeli wars (i.e. post 1947) yet (?), which is what Al Furqaan was referring to right?

Furqaan, I am interested to know why you think Jews 'deserve' their own state?

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by fab
Arnab, thanks for your article/compilation! It was very well researched.

With all due respect, I don't think Arnab has touched on the Arab-Israeli wars (i.e. post 1947) yet (?), which is what Al Furqaan was referring to right?

That's why I left aside the Arab-Israeli conflict which of course is rooted in all the past that Arnab researched.

There is truth in what Arnab wrote and there is truth in what Al Furqaan wrote.

[Arnab]

Following the adage "A picture is worth a thousand words", I present you a series of maps regarding the recent history of Palestine:

Disclaimer: The forum form factor has to compromise with the size of the pictures.

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/first_zionist_colony_in_palestine_1878.gif[/img]

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/zionist_colonies_in_palestine_at_beginning.gif[/img]

[img=400x650]http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Peel1937-new.gif[/img]

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/zionist_palestinian_landownership.gif[/img]

[img=500x650]http://www.pengon.org/wall/map4.jpg[/img]

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Landownership_UN-Partition.gif[/img]

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Arnab]

[Arnab]

Border after 1967 war.

[Arnab]

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Oslo-II.gif[/img]


This is the "peace settlement" offer by Ehud Barak that Arafat rejected in 2001. Look closely at the historical comparison submap.

[img=500x650]http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Taba2001.gif[/img]

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Arnab]