posted
I asked a question over in the Hamas vs. Israel thread, but it was pretty basic, and I think it might result in a derailment if anyone answered it. So here it is, in its own thread:
"I'm curious, before this whole hundred-year history of bloodshed and revenge took place, what was the inciting incident? I mean, what were the Jewish immigrants doing that warranted violent uprisings?"
The question is in reference to Farmgirl's linked timeline, which basically said that the Jews started moving into Palestine around the turn of the century, and that there were subsequent uprisings among the local Palestinians. Then Israel was formally created and really bad things started happening.
I know both sides say that the other side started it, so I'm looking for something at least slightly unbiased ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main catalyst was the disservice of Britain and France with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that subverted and basically annulled from behind the scenes the agreement they made to the various Arab nations who helped them overthrow the Ottoman Empire. This, coupled with the Balfour(sp?) declaration and mounting Jewish immigration (the Yishuv) and Jewish purchasing of land sparked hatred against the people who, the Arabs thought were the implementors of new western Imperialism/colonialism that they thought they had been promised wouldn't happen.
I replied to this post in the other thread, though I think BrianM has hit on an even more relevant point. For reference, though, here's what I posted:
Well, the Zionist movement committed to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1897. I can imagine that the Palestinians living under Ottoman and British rule in the early 1900s weren't happy, given that the stated goal of Zionist immigrants (not all of the Jewish immigrants were Zionists, of course, but the Zionist movement was certainly a major impetus behind the influx of Jews to Palestine) was to make Palestine their own.Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is interesting is that prior to the Russian Revolution, the Sykes-Picot Agreement had a third name, a Russian one (I can't remember what it was). However, when the rebels came to power in Russia they had no intention of going along with it and not only removed Russia from the Agreement, but they were the ones who publisized its existance and blew the whole thing wide open.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my knowledge it also has a bit to do with the "old" vs "new" methods of agriculture and medicine as well. The Jewish immigrants started out using farming technology gained in Europe that the local Arab populations were unaware of. This made them appear "rich" even if they were poor to begin with. And it led to further rifts as Jewish settlers cornered the agricultural markets since their produce was better. They also brought "westernized" medicine which led to lower infant mortality rates.
Varying sources disagree how willing or not willing the westernized Jews were to share their technology with the Palestinians and how willing the Palestinians were to try the new ways. But that it contributed to the resentment between the two is undeniable by most historians.
posted
From my own understanding, the problem is a basic one of cultural misunderstanding (obviously).
The bloodshed actually started before 1897, though there wasn't as much of it. But one problem was that Jews were buying land in palestine, and obviously, when they bought the land, they figured the land was theirs.
At the same time, there were arab farmers working on that land, as much of it was large farms. The olive trees on those farms were owned by the arab workers, according to the culture and customs, and were not part of the land transfers.
Anyrate, the jews thought they owned the land including the trees, and the arabs thought they owned the trees, and since olive trees were an extremely valuable resource... there were problems.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so we start with these relatively minor disputes, but then Israel is formally created as a Jewish homeland in 1948. What happens at that point? Are the original Palestinians disenfranchised under the new government, or is the "Jewish homeland" thing more of a titular arrangement? Does most of the violence stem from external military conflicts at this point, or internal rebellion?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Are the original Palestinians disenfranchised under the new government, or is the "Jewish homeland" thing more of a titular arrangement? <<
It was more the fact that in the creation of Israel, some 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled in May 1948.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More like they feared the blood sucking Jews who were going to eat their children and enslave the men and women so they tried to flee to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon where they were rejected by their own people and decided to create their own identity.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so which is it? Forcibly expelled by Israel, or voluntarily left in anger, only to be rejected by neighboring countries?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
In fact, I wouldn't try to get to the bottom of that. You'll have both sides swearing at each other REALLY fast.
Just say "it was both" in your head, and don't try to get any further then that, cause not only will you fail, you'll cause the next hatrack war Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is so much written on both sides and in the middle on all these issues surrounding Israel and Palestine you could read your whole life and still not get everyone's opinion. See Paul ^.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Okay, so which is it? Forcibly expelled by Israel, or voluntarily left in anger, only to be rejected by neighboring countries? <<
I'd say you should do the research yourself, if you're really interested. The hardest part is finding comparatively unbiased sources (rather than biased sources quoting unbiased sources selectively). To do that, though, you'll probably have to go to a library. There really isn't much of anything on the Internet that isn't biased one way or the other. That's the nature of the beast Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had hours of fun funding the the most biased sources on both sides, from official sites. But yes, the most unbiased books are in university libraries.
<-- Essay topic is Israel in 1948...
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't particularly enjoy reading heavily biased stuff on this subject, regardless of which side it supports, because there's a great deal of garbage and propaganda to sift through.
I much prefer what you can find in libraries, which is generally properly referenced and thus allows you to at least try to find the original source.
When I'm doing internet reserach, though – for example, for a forum debate – I try to stick to sites biased against my actual position.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sticking to the saucy handmaiden theory.
The historical rift between Arab and Jew goes back that far and is Scriptural in origin. The patriarchs are shared. Many of the laws (especially food laws) are shared. What's the difference? Who inherited and who did not.
More modern concerns are layered on top of this sibling rivalry.
quote: because there's a great deal of garbage and propaganda to sift through.
Propaganda, yes. But on the more "official" sites there isn't so much garbage as the select pickings of bias that backs up whatever the claims made on the site. I discovered a lot of stuff had happened that wasn't even mentioned in passing on a site that had the opposite opinion.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'd say that's an accurate assessment. "Garbage" is mostly confined to "fringier" extremist sites.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found an interesting, though I wouldn't say completely unbiased, but definately entertaining read on this is James Michener's "The Source". It is the story of an Acheological dig in Isreal that alternates between the people doing the digging and the people who's lives they uncover. All of this builds up to a modern view of Isreal, though by Modern I mean mid-70's or so.
I may be off. Its been a few years since I read him
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palestinians and Hebrews are genetically the exact same people (genetic testing done since the 80s on the oldest useful samples place the genetic markers as the same ethnicity, living in the same region, with only habitual differences), so it's not a "racial" difference. It is, and has always been, over who should have the land. In the past, everything from religious reasoning to catering to the conquering state has been used one way or the other, and after Balfour lied to both the Palestinians and the Jews in 1917, it's turned into an all-out catfight over who deserves the deed. But rest assured, this isn't a dispute between two different peoples, but between two different groups within the same people. The reason it's so long-lived is because not a single entity who has ever been a world power has done a thing to appease both sides of the hostilities and demand concession (from both sides). Until that happens, this will continue to be the longest running grudge-match in all of history.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
