Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
This instalment being the conclusion to what has developed into a 3-part series,is the instalment which puts up what was fore-shadowed in Part I, the Toynbee version, as it were, of the history of Palestine, the Jewish place not therein and thus the crumbiness of modern history, which fact free zone informs and guides the U.N., and leftoid journos of the usual daily propaganda organ grinders.

`Criticism’ is used, nowadays, as an attempt to claim grace for what so much today is mere juvenile opinion and, frequently, is nothing but ill-founded venomous diatribe. Brookesnews has splattered a few journos on these counts, more of the latter type, as have others have such as Tim Blair. Media watch is decidedly a bilger of the former while ABC news and 7.30 Report serves up the second. The U.N. has taken the latter case to the heights of savagery as Bayefsky relates , see the post below.Telling is, the U.N. assumes Isreal is the work of conquering Jews who kicked out the `natives’ of Palestine, `Palestinian Arabs’ and, having stripped of `their inalienable rights’ oppress them in every way imaginable, not only within the Palestinian Territory but inside Israel also.According to the U.N., Israel is guilty, not even a might be but is, of `human right’s’ abuse against Arabs within Israel itself. Needless to say, Israel really is an illegitimate creation of Lord Balfour ,on his declaration of 1917. They are the assumptions which accompany much mere opinion on Israel and the running conflict, and is asserted as the source of middle- east tensions and strife, fuelled by U.S. support of Israel. This, some 40 odd years after Toynbee said as much in his kindergarten paper, irrespective of the the modest flaw, it is fact free and a gross distortion of history. To say the unhappiness in the mid-east is Israel’s fault is short of sating the force of it, it is the fault of the Jews in Israel and supporters of Israel and symapthisers around the world -Jew and gentile alike , but, indeed, jews everywhere - there is no other force to it and it’s at best, that is to be kind, dis-ingeneous to say otherwise. So let us put up for one is not about to shut up on this matter.

1917, by the major victories over the Turkish army, Chauvel’s taking of Barsheeba and Allenby’s of Jerusalem in battle, the Ottoman control of Palestine was finished, the Ottoman’s having held Palestine since the 16th century (1. yes, for this essay there will be a modicum of footnoting) on conquest. The League of Nations charged Britain with the administration of Palestine and concurred, without demurral, to Balfour’s decision, the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Notice, homeland , and not an independent, sovereign `Israel’ in which the citizens holding the same traditions, not just Judaisms as of faith, of law and such like, with a govt. charged to ensure the independence of the people against foreign attempts at overthrwoing them by violence and war. To be sure, that is question begging inso far Jews’ hopes for independence would firm up and would seek to build on the protectorate established upon Balfour’s declaration towards that aim.

Even so, hopes for independence and its realisation was not contrary to he League’s affirmation of self determination, neither is it of the U.N.s today, unless, apparently the exception is jewish people in Palestine back then and Israel today. An altogether different matter, it seems.

In short, particularly for all those who believe any such act requires U.N. approval, in peace and in War, though, to me U.N. approval and League approval then, is tripe, meaningless, the Declaration and its execution was entirely regular.

Arab leaders opposed the Homeland. One reason is curious : they feared Arabs would be economically undermined by a `Jewish Homeland’. This matter requires treatment itself and reserve it, therefore for another post. It is a bizzarre motive but not altogether when the reality of middle east politics and economics during the 20th century until then and indeed right through to the present, is taken into account. Realities compounded by the tribalist barbarism of Mohammedism. Complicated , so let it stand for this essay, but on that tissue of considerations Arab leaders began to incite arabs to act against the Jewish population, the first major upshot being the massacre in Hebron, 1929, some 19 years before the declaration of Jewish independence in 1948.

[ Before continuing,note, on posting this what has been written so far, to alert readers, one will up-date the post as each section sufficient for argument is completed. For, one suspects this will take some more paragraphs than budgetted : originially a short but incisive piece but considerations are emerging, with out losing the spine of the schema, which require each a little bit of extended treatment Footnotes, obviously, will be added when all is complete ].

The position of the Arab’s was not some political dispute contended in some gentlemanly manner, therefore, over the future over Palestine. They added a political dimension which crystallised and so triggered the push of some of the Jewish population for outright indpendence, as no longer a desire only for independence but a matter of survival. It came to a head in 1948 with the launch of the first Arab war against the Jews.

The above is against the backdrop of the U.N. resolution for the partition of Palestine and rejected by the Arabs but not by the Jews. England, as the adminstrator, had decided to let the U.N. decide on what to do, had relinquished the authority the League had charged it with in 1917 . The Arabs wanted all , the terrirotry and the Jews out and backed Fauzi el Kaukji and supplied his army to do it.

The Jewish people defeated Kaukji in that first of two wars in 1948. The Jews were now militarily and politically united and thus could Jewish leaders declare independence. To say the least, Arab leaders had miscalculated, what they sought to ensure against in a permanent way by nothing less than a massacre of the Jewish population had become a reality, Israel. The response of the Arabs, they launched a second war against the Jewish people, in a coalition of five countries led by Egypt and Syria, and to finish, obviously, the new Israel, May 1948.

Those two wars were mounted to do nothing less than exterminate the Jewish people. Arab leaders enticed the Arabs in Palestine to leave on the promise, the army would massacre the Jews and they could, after the overwhelming victory, not only resume their properties but everything the Jews had built up ( well, obvioulsy, they wouldn’t be requiring assets thereafter).

The leaders of the Arabs declared, any Arab who remained in Israel is a traitor. The force and implication of that declaration can only be lost to the most dimmest specimen of the human race or else they are an inveterate liar when it comes to villifying Israel. Just to check, a `loyal Arab’ is free to murder any `traitor’. There are plenty of examples of that, including the most infamous case the assassination of Anwar Sadat for his high treason of suing for peace for Israel. One might also add, the numbers deemed `traitor’ by the IRA and murdered by the like s of Gerry Adams - likes of, I didn’t say by him though he is up to the eyeballs in blood, as an external illustration.

Not all Arabs did leave Israel. They, as much as Israelis, only wished to live in peace and get on with life, and enjoy it. Azam Pasha, Secretary General, Arab League, the Arab version of a U.N., made the great promises, May 1948.

Pasha’s sentiments have been held ever since by so many. May,1962, the Cairo paper, Al-Ahran cried, :

“The Israel- Arab problem can be solved only by war. And since Israel knows very well that we will not agree to anything less than her liquidation it is she who will start the war and will attack as in the near future.”

Well, the first claim is correct, but it wasn’t Israel who started the next war.Moreover, that view, has has been advertised over the blog world is the view of Arafat, is the postion of his PLO, the PLF, and Hamas and related associations. Which brings us to the PLO , it was founded by the Arab coalition to wage war against Israel by means other than army-based operations. The PLO was not a Spontaneous popular `liberation’ movement by former `palestinian Arabs’. And next to Arab govts. setting it up and financing it, there is the odd twist that Russia in the post-war decades supported the Jewish Homeland and didn’t demurr on Israel, went on to via the KGB also to provide support to the PLO.

The reason why one has short-circuited history since 1950’s should be plain enough.The gravamen of, Israel is illegimate, they dispossessed `native’ `palestinians’ of any things, thrust them out, and oppress them. The above background clears the ground on quite a few points though, do they need to be recounted? The recitation clears the ground for the force of this paper.

Unfortunately, this Part will have to be resumed tomorrow morning, I have run out of time, despite working, with other things in between, as swiftly as I could.
The next leg tomorrow morning as Part III Section C.