Top ten dating books for women Adult dating oxford
Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”.The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”The fact that this term is used exclusively with regard to Israel is instructive as to its legitimacy, as is the fact that the demand is placed upon Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”, while no similar demand is placed upon Israelis to recognize the “right to exist” of a Palestinian state. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination.The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).A proper understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires exposing numerous myths about its origins and the reasons it persists.Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well.For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.” Representatives from all sides of the emerging conflict testified to the commission that prior to the First World War, “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.” The problem was that “The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government”, but were being denied that right by the Zionists and their British benefactors. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOP’s in its Resolution 181.The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a . recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs.
It must be emphasized that the Zionists had no right to most of the land they declared as part of Israel, while the Arabs did.
For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.
After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict.
For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors.
This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.