Golda Meir's famous quote is an unhelpful oversimplification

[Tom Joad]

By JOHN M. CRISP
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once said something like, "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us." Many slightly differing versions of this quotation can be found easily on the Internet. Some quote Meir as saying "Arabs," while in others she says "Muslims," "terrorists" or "Palestinians." In whatever form, this is an example of an expression that is so apt and resonant with its hearers that they embrace it and, before you know it, you find it everywhere.

For example, I heard the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, use the Meir quotation recently on several occasions to defend Israel's current situation in Lebanon. Other commentators and politicians have used it liberally, as well. Soon the quotation began to make its way into other contexts in slightly modified form. In early August, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, facing the uncomfortable task of admitting to a congressional committee that Iraq is on the point of civil war, said, "Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other." Bloggers weren't far behind. Recently one wrote, "We will win this war when Democrats love their country more than they hate George Bush."
More....
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/11289
________________________________________________________________________________________
Note that this is someone who supports much of Israeli policy, and US support for same.

golda meir's statement, implying that "arabs" don't love their children... sounds quite racist to me, but this is not surprising. after all, this is someone who said
"There were no such thing as Palestinians."
In one sentence, denying the reality of Palestinian dispossession from their homeland and their humanity. Such a tragedy. Historical revisionism at its worst.

There will be peace when Israel comes to grips with its responsibility for its actions in creating Palestinian refugees and an occupation that has caused such suffering and works seriously to rectify the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. I don't think anyone expects some miraculous undoing of history (anymore, than we in the US can undo the fact that slavery existed, for example)... all that is expected is some measure of justice.

Israel needs to listen to its prophets... Uri Avnery, Tanya Reinhart, Jeff Halper (and many more)... not to cling to myths and oversimplification, the kind you expect to hear from right-wing extremists (e.g. Bush and Gen. Pace) whose agenda is to defend indefensible positions, who seek to blame the victims of their policies.

[AlamoDemoc]

1. Israel attack on Lebanon explained to many of us

Israel attack on Lebanon explained to many of us that Israel is no longer
the victim in the Middle East. We have heard the saying 'Israel have the right to defend itself' but many of us are tired of hearing the same saying from the lobby itself: As well, paying off Israeli war in the Middle East of Lebanon and Palestine including recent donors list of Lebanon is rather questionable: 960 million to rebuild Lebanon while we as the international community watched Israel drop cluster bombs in civilian population in the last 72 hours of the announced ceasefire. Again, my question is, why is the international community always building what Israel destroyed?

[breakaleg]

2. It's about land, not religion...

I think with all the rhetoric on both sides of the argument, we are losing focus of what the current conflict is really about.

from your article:
"On the other hand, the conflict isn't about loving children or even hating Jews. At the heart of the issue is land, and disputes about material things are often much more complicated and ambiguous than straightforward moral issues like whether or not one should love one's children."

[Tom Joad]

3. I really agree with that. This is about land, justice, and not

tribal/ethnic affiliations. It is simply wrong to take other people's land. It is wrong to continue military occupations.

No one accused me, when i was supporting the south african struggle for justice, of "being a self-hating White Person" yet Jewish folks who support Palestinians are accused of this all the time. and those of us who aren't Jewish are accused of simply being anti-semitic, a slander anyone who is active in this movement can find about themselves all over the web (sometimes with their names and descriptions). Of course, these are posted by simpletons.

this whole issue is not about being pro or anti jewish or Palestinian. We should support all people. It is not choosing one ethnic/religious group over another. It is about human rights, it is about justice. It is also, for those in the US, about challenging a fundamentally unjust foreign policy, which this is but one example.

[breakaleg]

4. The whole slander thing, to me, is a reaction from someone who

recognizes they are losing the argument, at least on some level. Why else would they bring such an emotionally charged accusation into what would otherwise be a real debate?

I have no patience for that kind or thing and I try not to engage with those who level such accusations, since once it's gotten to that level, there really is no point in continuing.

I think if we take religion out of it, and just look at the now, then surely we can come up with a solution that will satisfy both sides. It seems like it's the extremist on BOTH sides that are driving the current conflict and policy.

[pelsar]

6. my reaction:?...your so "white"...

so "white elitist"....its very much about religion, tribal belongings, ethnic affiliations, western and eastern values, culture and history....try talking to many of the people involved.

believing that its just a "land issue"....is for the "white/elitist at Berkely" who know little of "people' involved, and worse, refuse the get down from the hi ivory tower perch and learn what the people involved believe.

i would suggest learning arabic, grab a backpack and go to the westbank.....talk to the palestenain children, teens and listen to what they have to say, the ones in the villages, if you have an open mind, you'll be surprised to learn how much religion and culture is involved. Then go to gaza and your learn how tribalism is further entrenched. And one thing: dont preach about civil rights to the common "people"..you'll be shown the door rather quickly.

[Andromeda]

7. Simple and to the point, pelsar...

"believing that its just a "land issue"....is for the "white/elitist at Berkely" who know little of "people' involved, and worse, refuse the get down from the hi ivory tower perch and learn what the people involved believe."

I think they'd rather stay in their sterile environment where they are safe and not expose themselves to some truths they are not prepared to accept.

[newyorican]

8. Not civil rights...

...HUMAN RIGHTS.

If you are going to belittle the poster, at least be accurate in doing so. Don't know why -people- is in quotes. Doesn't look very good though. While you claim to be closer to the situation than most of us, you are also completely aligned with one side of the conflict. Lends and detracts credibility at the same time, as much as credibility exists in anonymous Internet postings.

[pelsar]

11. i meant civil rights....

thats why i wrote it and i put the world "people" in quotes because it always sound so general and niave. The conflict is about identities, religions, tribal affiliation, history, land etc.

as much as i am aligned with one side, i also have far more experience and knowledge for those who have never been (and know far less than many who have been). Furthermore, unlike probably 99% of the "pseudo pro palestenians here"(... and i use the word pseudo, since i dont believe their concern is for the palestenain citizen as much as its anti colonialism/occupation)l, my concern is long term peace. That means civil rights for the palestenians within their own society. Only that will lend stability to their own society, without that the conflict will continue in one form or another. They're education in that respect is virtually zero....If they cant respect their own, in terms of civil rights, they will not be able to understand the concept of rights for others as well

I suspect that when israel pulls back and the palestenians get their independance, the interest here will drop off to zero. If the palestenains are living under a dictatorship, taliban style govt (as hamas promises) as in iran or saudi arabia, it will concern no one here but israel. It will concern us, because anything but a fully democractic palestenain govt will lead to further conflict.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

15. no excuses....thats what i expect.

who lives by "violence and hate"?..again your lack of first hand knowledge is showing. Palestenains go to school, go to high school, go to college...what do you think they do in classrooms?....they sit in chairs, listen to their teachers, and do their homework....and thats the majority of the time, the vast majority of the time. The violence is intermittent not constant. But that obvious for those who actually get out of their chairs and go there.

they can learn about civil rights, they can learn to apply it within their own society.....or are you saying they cant learn about it because......somehow israelis are preventing their brains from understanding the concepts?

i should start a list of the different excuses made up for the palestenians

on a different thread the lack of a non violent movement was also blamed on the israelis (as if one needs "their permission" for palestenians to believe in the concept. I guess that also relates to your above post: Israel has the ability to prevent concepts from being taught to the palestenians in their own society...pretty impressive ability for the israelis or lack of ability for the palestenains...its one or the other).

[Tom Joad]

18. I have been there, fool. I know Palestinians go to school.

They may walk miles around the checkpoint to do so... or it means for university students that they have to make all kinds of sacrifices to avoid the military restrictions, but they do go to school.

One time near Nablus i went out to where university students were being held for hours by the military, then eventually let go --how this was to fit into the story of somehow protecting Israel is anyone's guess... if they were a threat to Israel (course they were no where near Israel)... why were they released? if they were not a threat, why were they held? or was it simple harassment?

I tell you this... it is not in textbooks that Palestinian children learn about the State of Israel. Like anyone else, it is their personal experience that shapes their attitudes and perceptions. watching their parents (or even aged grandparents) humiliated day in and day out, listening to soldiers treat Palestinians worse than dogs, that is where they learn about Israel.

Watching Israel destroy thousands of homes (that means tens of thousands homeless) in just one month in Lebanon, that is another learning experience. The thing is, Israel has to learn that it cannot live by attempting to instill terror in those they are oppressing, because the resistance just widens.

All these learning experiences just inspires a more determined people to achieve their liberation.
The greatest threat to the status quo?
One word: Sumod

steadfastness. Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They will continue this struggle for their basic human rights. get used to it.

We won't give up here in the United States either. We will work for divestment of Israel just like we worked for divestment of South Africa. Churches are already responding. Labor organizations will be next. We start from the grassroots, while at first it is difficult, soon it will just be a logical thing to do. As more people learn of the reality of the situation, they will support human rights and freedom. Then Israel will have to make some real hard choices... beyond simply ceding a few bantustans surrounded by occupation. It really will have to do justice. But what more is required of man that to do that. Hardly anything.

[pelsar]

21. that right.....

"All these learning experiences just inspires a more determined people to achieve their liberation:"

and that is precisly how most of us israelis feel, but were one day after our liberation and understand what we have to do to protect it. Our history is filled with countries and societies that threaten and attempt to eliminate us. Hamas, Hizballa, iran....just new names for the same old story.

blues eyes of zahra, mein kamph, protocols of zion......long list of the usual anti semetic, anti israeli education/media that has no connection whats so ever to the occupation. but to us its very important.

No the palesteanins arent going anywhere, what is happening is that their lives are becoming more and more miserable as the years go on using the same strategy. They can be determined as they want, infact the the number of sucide bomber attempts have actually increased...their success rate however has dropped considerable as have their freedoms.

I believe you've confused us with "bush" and his war on terror. Ours is a bit more real: kidnapping our soldiers, kassams etc. We too are determined, not to commit national sucide as many would prefer, we dont get a second chance.

and the palestenian human rights and their enablers?....sad part is, they (you) could have more than half of the israeli population behind you if could learn a few things, beginning with being less ethnocentric respecting the israeli citiizen.

Your main failure and the palestenian "supporters" in general is an inability to look beyond the occupation. Something us israelis actually do. You constantly avoid any discussion about the "day after. " Infact on the "day after" the palestenains supporters and enablers wont be found, having 'done their job'. And if that palestenian entity is a copy of iran, lobs mortors in to jersusalem, afula, and kills hundreds, it wont be your concern. And if the IDF fights back and starts shooting at apt buildings to destroy snipers.....where will you be?

(lets see if you have the ability to even talk to an israeli and relate to our fears..... so far you havent been able to....)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

40. I'm don't think anyone is hung up on violence.

I'm saying that Israel can't expect violence to stop from the Palestinians until they do themselves. You expect more out of the people you occupy than the occupying force that is forcing Palestinians to live in ruin.

The Palestinians main objective is to get Israel out of ALL occupied lands. IF Israel withdraws, then I suspect there will be peace.

You seem to be anticipating problems of continued violence after a withdrawl. And that would only be likely if the withdrawl is incomplete - as in, they keep some settlements, retains control over the borders and other things you know Israel will do.

If that's the case, then Israel can only blame themselves. Half-hearted attempts won't work.

[pelsar]

41. complete withdrawl....

so what your saying is that if the PA comes to an agreement with israel, whatever it is and assuming that it doesnt includes all of the territories, the palestenaians who disagree will have the right to keep on shooting


did i get that right?

btw complete withdrawl as your defining it, is that 67 or 48?

[breakaleg]

44. From the sounds of it, you already recognize that Israel will

never withdraw to the 67 borders. You know this because even now, they are expanding the settlements in the West Bank and while they may eventually give up some settlements, they won't pull out completely, and the won't give up East Jerusalem, nor will they give up their Apartheid roads that split the West Bank into pieces.

Who do you think will find this solution acceptable?

[pelsar]

46. tsk tsk tsk ...backup to my post

you seem to have forgotten to answer my questions...i promise to get to yours, i have no problem in answering yours, but its not very nice to skip....

[breakaleg]

49. I have answered all of your questions.

In fact I've humored you more today than I usually allow myself.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

32. So violence is ok, as long as it's done by Israel and because you've

determined it will work? But it's not ok to fight back using violence? Talk about a double standard!

[pelsar]

33. no, the palestenains can fight back using violence...

its just not getting them anywhere.....in case you havent noticed fighting israel/jews for the last 50+ years has been a losing proposition for them, starting from pre48. . Perhaps you dont have to live with it, the palestenains do. I'm just suggesting a different strategy which would work.

btw, its hardly my original idea, its been known around israel since intifada I, when the almost non violence, limited to the westbank and gaza brought oslo and the idea of giving the palestenains their own country......they had a good thing going, with good potential, shame they started intifada II and ruined it. (ask bargoutti why they started it, leader of the tanzim)

[breakaleg]

34. that's what I said. Violence is ok as long as it works. That's what

you said. It's nice to know your excuse for condoning violence is so simple.

[pelsar]

35. I'm not a pacifist....

there is a time for violence and time for non violence:

in 1940, germany, had the jews sat down and peacefully protested, it wouldnt have helped them.....had they done that in 48 in israel, it also wouldnt have helped them. The palestenains have been using violence for a long time now and getting nowhere.....

but since tom cant seem to answer my #25, perhaps you can?

[breakaleg]

37. I never said you were or weren't a pacifist.

I'm just pointing out the double standard you have concerning who is allowed and isn't allowed to use violence at when. And it's pretty convenient that under your rules, Israel.

[pelsar]

38. violence is very much "allowed"

you keep trying......shall i say for the forth time?.....the palestenians can try to kill as much as they like....i'm just suggesting its not worth their while.

shall i write it in capitals: I"M SUGGESTING, got it?
and my opinion would hold if i was a palestenain as well, i like to do efforts that produce results...(suicide bombers have produced very negative results for the palestenains in case you havent noticed)

now about my questions in #25.....no one seems to want to address them?...are us israelis so disrespected, so subhuman, that what worries us is of no consequence?

[breakaleg]

43. Is violence working for Israel? Do you have the peace you claim

to want?

[pelsar]

48. of course not...

but its like you wrote:
IF Israel withdraws, then I suspect there will be peace...and there might not. Trouble with that proposal is "that there might not".....take that scenario and try to describe it to me.....

unlike gaza, which a far from israeli population centers and strategic interests, the westbank is not.....how many thousands of palestenian and israeli deaths, cities destroyed are you willing to bet on your "i suspect" theory?

and just for the sake of additional info:
I dont believe islamic jihad believes in an 67 borders, just as hizballa doesnt believe in the northern blue line (agreed to by all the states involved). Hamas official line remains all of israel as far as i can tell..P.F.L.P wants all of israel (funded by syria), Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades appears to be broken up in to different groups some listening to fatah some not...

hizballa is a good example of states agreeing to a border and a "non state actor" funded by a different country, calling the shots. That scenario is quite possible after any withdrawl....then what?

[xchrom]

9. manifest destiny.

people cover material objectives with religous drapery all the time.

winners in a conflict ALWAYS get to write volumes about how right they were for their excesses.

first nations people grabbed the Ghost Dance -- poor palestinians grab the koran, israelis and evangelical christian grab the bible.

[Tom Joad]

12. Been there, done that.

You are the one who should go to West Bank without the M-16 you usually have to order everyone around with, telling even elderly people they can't walk to their village (that lies no where near Israel, but just too close to an illegal settlement).

Live a month as a Palestinian. try to go to work after waiting in line at a checkpoint. Watch your olive trees being burned by Israeli settlers as soldiers look on... or watch your children being stoned as soldiers look on (and their parents egg them on)... or watch your home being demolished by orders of central command... or watch your neighbor being awakened in the dead of night as they search the premises and soldiers come in to ransack the home.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. thank you Tom

"To criticize Zionism is to confront an endless wall of denial."

--the late Edward W. Said

[pelsar]

16. feel free to criticize...

just try sticking to the facts...(its seems to be a problem here on the DU)

[pelsar]

17. been to the westbank...

with and without an M-16 (and gaza)....i've seen the olive trees, settlers, entered palestenian homes at 2:00am..etc.

I also believe that they are an intelligent people that can grasp the concepts of non violence (if they choose to), civil rights etc, reguardless of the general environment,

you dont seem to....(strikes me as strange, as if you believe that they "cant" learn certain concepts by themselves, do you really thing that?)

[Tom Joad]

19. You have Been to the west bank with an M-16 and it is Palestinians who

do not understand nonviolence????????!!!!!?????

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Wow, that was an Egg On Face moment, pelsar...

The problem with pretending that unless someone has been somewhere, then they're not qualified to speak about it, is that apart from it being one hell of a lame argument which simply translates as: 'Unless you agree with me I'm going to tell you to go to the West Bank blahblahblah', there's also the chance that the person yr telling to go there has been there themselves. Better luck next time :)

[AlamoDemoc]

5. we are losing foreign policy to the lobby

"With the exception of the Eisenhower administration, which virtually compelled Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai after the 1956 war, American presidents, and to an even greater degree (not withstanding many senators on a napkin)Senators and Representatives, have been subjected to recurrent pressures from what has come to be known as Israel lobby." Charles Mathias

[cassiepriam]

10. When love is greater than hate, all wars will end.

All the killing, torturing, raping will stop.

[Tom Joad]

24. Why couldn't Golda Meir learn nonviolence? or respect for other

people's history? Why did she seek to rewrite history?

"There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." golda meir

* Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969; The Washington Post (June 16, 1969)

Yet the reality is that over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee, over 500 villages destroyed.
It is as bad as someone who denies Nazi persecution of Jews... denying that history or the Nakba is attempting to deny the humanity of the other.

[pelsar]

26. try reading the palestenian post...

seems that some of those palestenians actually left of their own free will, AFTER the fighting:

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Layout/Includes/PalestineP/ArtWin.asp?From=Search&Key=Palestine%2F1948%2F04%2F25%2F1%2FAr00103%2Exml&CollName=PPOST%5FNew&DOCID=755071&Keyword=%28%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Erefugee%3Cand%3E%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Earab%29&skin=PalestineP&AppName=2&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

or here:
http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_palestinepostings_archive.html

______

and of course there were those arab villages like Pharades (and hundreds of others) who chose to live side by side with the jews in peace and didnt flee and didnt attack and are now a part of israel......so much for the simplistic black and white version.

[Tom Joad]

27. Why didn't golda learn nonviolence?

[pelsar]

28. because....

her country was full of walking examples that it doesnt always work......and the small fact that the surrounding arab states tried a couple of times to destroy israel and much of the survivors of the holocaust...but then thats obvious to us israelis.

but i really think you should answer my post above.... number 25. I think there are some very interesting questions for you there....or at least have the courtesy of explaining why you cant (communication by the way is considered a good thing)

[Tom Joad]

30. Is this why Israel used terror against the people of Lebanon?

killing hundreds of children, destroying thousands of homes, destroying the environment? spreading thousands of cluster bomblets for people to be killed even after the initial conflict. Is this why even after theis so-called truce, that Israel defies the UN and continues the blockade of a soveriegn country? is this why israel has refused to release info on where its landmines in Lebanon are located, even years after it withdrew (in haste, because of the resistance)Is this why it drops bombs on kids on the beach? Is this why it says Palestinians must accept its bantustans? is this why while there is talk of "getting out of the west bank" the Israeli action is in expanding the settlements?

[pelsar]

31. a deal?...

you answer my #25....and i'll answer any further question of yours.....can you do it?

they're only questions, its not like your signing on a morgage or anything...

[Tom Joad]

50. i have answered you again and again. Like talking to a brick wall

I am amused, however, with this:
"i want to be sure that the palestenains have a stable society ... not putting their women in black ninja outfits"

What are you doing when women, men, children, being forced to sit with vomit-soaked hoods over their faces in Israeli prisons. Many of these people are not even, or will not ever be, charged with a crime or given a trial. I can hear the silence way over here. i doubt you will complain to the Israeli authorities when they do that. This is standard behavior. Read B'tselem

Hey, Israel even has the US military copying it in Iraq. Good thing Israel didn't get it copyrighted or anything.

anyway, there is this story, which may not be true:

a U.S. journalist is in Jerusalem, and wants to do a story about interesting people. She hears of this devout Rabbi who goes every day to the Wailing Wall and prays for peace and good things for all people, that all people may dwell in peace. So she goes and finds him, and sure enough he is praying intently. After he is finished, she introduces herself and asks him how long he had been praying like this. He answers her, almost everyday for the last 28 years. So she asks, "What is it like to come here and make these prayers for peace?" "What's it like!? I'll tell you! It is like talkin' to a freakin' brick wall, thats what its like!"

So if anyone asks me what its like talkin to you... i know how to answer.

[pelsar]

51. no you never have answered the questions....

you usually 'go away" or do what you do now....change the subject......

the questions above in 25 are pretty straight forward.....just try answering them (i'll even copy your answers so i wont forget that you did)

(I'm pretty familiar with what happens to the palestenains-but thats not the subject here)...back to #25.

[Tom Joad]

53. Haven't you got better things to do at 1 in the morning?

[pelsar]

56. actually i do...

i'm reading a book about how the US military politics made a mess of iraq post war (no realistic planning: Cobra II) send to me by my professor brother...... and am considering going to sleep...and at the sametime have a morbid fascination with these discussions......

but you just convinced me that enough it enough...good night.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

29. Why did golda deny that Palestinians even existed?

How much more racist can one get than that?

[msmcghee]

39. Because they never did.

Palestine was never a state with a government. It was a territory inhabited by many different ethnic and religious groups. It was just a tax administration area to the Ottoman Turks who managed it for a few hundred years before the British/French mandate of the ME.

After WWII the plan was to create states out of much of that territory. Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria became states. Palestine remained a territory because there was no visible group who could speak for the many different people in the region.

The only focus of any governmental authority was in the religious city of Jerusalem.

It was a time of displacement and upheaval generally in Europe, Russia, China, etc. There were already many Jews in the area and European Jews who had lost all their property and possessions (and usually familes) were asking for the rights to settle that territory and turn it into a nation. The world considered the request and the first act of the new UN was to give them (some) of that land.

You can argue about that decision all you want but most see it as reasonable given the alternatives at the time. Recall that almost a million Jews were in the process of being expelled from Arab states in the region and they also needed a place to call home. In any case, the reality is they were given the state of Israel, part of the territory of Palestine to live in. Just as some Kurds, Sunnis and Shaias were given Iraq as a state.

This is what was happening at the time. It's called geo-politics today. People who win wars make the rules. You can believe that had Germany been victorious that the million Jews displaced from Arab lands would not have been simply asked to leave and go somewhere else. Also, that there would have been no remaining European Jews around looking for a home either.

The problem is IMO, that instead of dominating the Arab quasi-states that had almost all assisted the Axis materially, if not politically, during the war, and forcing some truly submissive political reality on them - the allies chose to treat them with some kindness and respect and hoped that they would seize the opportunity to improve their own lot and modernize their institutions. The British especially were quite fond of their Arab buddies - remember Lawrence?

Instead, the Arab League decided to cooperate with each other for once, and attack the new state of Israel militarily. The problem was not that anybody's land was being taken. Those Arab states expected to get that land for themselves if they were victorious. The last thing they would have done is give it to the Arabs living there to form some new state. The problem was that they were not about to allow Jews to have any legal presence in their midst.

And today, it is the vicious and deadly anti-semitism of the third Reich that still lives on in the religious insanity of radical Islam that is the root cause of the problems that continue. That's the real elephant in the room that no-one will acknowledge. But it is quite visible in the words of any Arab (or Persian) leader in the region - for anyone who cares to see them.

It is amazing to me that the far left in the US, who can spot bigotry in the most carefully coded and seemingly innocent phrases of congressional Republicans, can be completely blind to the most obvious and blatant racial hatred and bigotry expressed against the the Jews of Israel. I wonder why that is.

[bemildred]

42. You are conflating two entirely different things.

1.) That they never had their own state
2.) That they never existed

It's not the same thing at all.

[msmcghee]

45. If, as you admit, they never . .

. . had their own state - then there was never a state called Palestine, as I asserted. And they never had a governing authority or the rights of self determination granted to a state.

When you call them Palestinians, many here who don't know history, imagine that Israel took their statehood away from them. They had no statehood to take.

It is good to be clear when discussing this, I think.

Certainly, you knew I was not claiming they never existed as people who inhabited that territory.

[bemildred]

55. Well, Tom said:

"Why did golda deny that Palestinians even existed?"

and you said:

"Because they never did."

So that "confused" me into thinking you meant the Palestinians never even existed. I suppose I'm just too literal minded. So then do you disagree with Golda?

[msmcghee]

58. Tom didn't provide a link . .

. . for that statement. However, the same thing has been said by Arabs as well. I assumed that Golda meant it in the same way that I did and other Arabs did. I doubt that she thought that the Arabs living in the Palestinian Territory were apparitions.

Why do you anti-Israeli folks get so obsessed with these nuances in meaning? Aren't there more pressing things to discuss about this topic?

[bemildred]

59. I'm trying to prevent sloppy thinking.

I don't know what anti-Israel folks are up to.

I can't think on anything more important than being clear and accurate in discussing I/P issues, there is so much tortured bullshit bandied about over it.

[msmcghee]

60. OK - then let's be clear.

You said that I was conflating two things,

1.) That they never had their own state
2.) That they never existed

Did you really believe that I was claiming that they never existed? That there were never any Arabs living in the Palestine Territory?

I doubt anyone misunderstood my meaning. I think your assertion that I was conflating two things - only helped to muddy the water and distract from the point of my post - which you never addressed.

You could do that now, if you like.

[bemildred]

61. Yeah, I did. You said it, not me. Those are your words.

You are not the first to assert that here, believe it or not.

[msmcghee]

62. I have posted several messages . .

. . commenting on the mixture of inhabitants of the Palestine Territory at the time of partition by both religion and ethnicity - one of them today. The first two sentences in my first post in this sub-thread were:

"Palestine was never a state with a government. It was a territory inhabited by many different ethnic and religious groups."

Golda Meir moved to Palestine in 1921 and was active in the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm sure she noticed the non-Jewish people there who were shooting guns at her and other Jews. I'm also pretty sure she referred to them as Palestinians.

I hope that clears this up for you. :eyes:

[bemildred]

63. T. E. Lawrence' "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" has a nice section on the

cultural stratification of the area when he was there. I've seen it's accuracy criticized here a bit, but it's still a good read and quite illuminating in some respects.

[msmcghee]

64. Thanks. I'll check that out . .

. . on my next trip to the library. But, I'd trust you to give me your take on it if you think it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[bemildred]

75. Then you would be wrong.

I often like to let people make their own assessments. I often bring things up on the chance that they might wish to do so.

[msmcghee]

80. I should have said . .

. . "But, I'd trust you provisionally to give me your take on it if you think it is relevant to the discussion at hand so we don't have to wait a week for me to get to the library and another few days to read it and thereby effectively end the current discussion - if it is relevant.

But then I wouldn't have given you the opportunity for a snarky comment.

[bemildred]

82. That would still be wrong.

You can't trust me to tell you what to think.

[msmcghee]

84. Agreeing to hear your opinion . .

. is not the same as letting you tell me what to think. I let no-one do that. But I try to listen to many opinions.

[bemildred]

86. I offer my opinion when I choose. nt

[msmcghee]

89. Oh yeah?

Well, you're a big pooh pooh. (Satire mods.)

[The Magistrate]

65. It Seems Worth Pointing Out, Mr. McGhee

That there was nothing in the Near East that could be called even by courtesy a state or nation in the modern sense until some years after the end of World War One.

Arab Nationalism only commenced as even an embryonic political force only about the start of the twentieth century, and envisioned a single Arab Nation, not a collection of Arab States. Oddly enough, one of the earlier centers of Arab Nationalist speechifying was Palestine, specifically Jaffa, if recollection without consulting the shelves does not mislead me, and mosty of the firebrands in the early days there were not Moslem but Christian, natural enough as a more European education exposed their intellectuals to more modern currents of thought, which Nationalism at the time was.

[msmcghee]

66. And your point is? nt

[The Magistrate]

74. The Point, Sir

Is a gentle reminder that the line you are pressing, that no Arab Palestinian "national identity" existed until fairly recently, is disingenuous. It treats the general as the exceptional: there was no particular "national identity" in the modern sense anywhere in the Middle East until fairly recently, nor was it generally present throughout the world as a whole. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century was the time of the rise of nationalisms, and in a great many places older tribal and dynastic identities gave way to the modern form through agitation and revolution and war. To press the point that only places in which a "national identity" was present prior to this period should be regarded as having one today would require considerable alteration in maps....

[Tom Joad]

76. Still.... There were people living there. It was their homeland.

There were a people who felt their home was in this place called Palestine. They belonged to these villages that were ethnically-cleansed many of them destroyed and leveled completely after '48. Hundreds of villages (over 500) were emptied of the people that lived there. Despite UN resolution after UN resolution, the people who lived there were not allowed to return. Despite the fact that they had been forced out of their homeland of countless generations.

It is natural for someone like Golda Meir to deny the existence of these people. Golda wanted desperately to keep the myth alive that Israel was, until the settlement of Jews, a land without a people waiting for a people without a home. It was *not* uninhabited, there was a people there, it was their homeland, and it was taken from them.

People may disagree as to what way is best to address this historic injustice, but it seems best, for people who want peace, to acknowledge history, that would at least be a start.

[msmcghee]

78. And yet again, no link to Golda's actual words. nt

[bemildred]

79. Here:

8) On peace, she said in 1957, before the National Press Club in Washington: Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. (She also made a similar statement specifically regarding Nasser.) In a similar vein, she would say, Peace will come when an Arab leader is courageous enough to wish it.

http://www.mscd.edu/~golda/Norm%20Stuff/CENTER%20FAVORITES.html

The Nasser quote is here:

I have given instructions that I be informed every time one of our soldiers is killed, even if it is in the middle of the night. When President Nasser leaves instructions that he is to be awakened in the middle of the night if an Egyptian soldier is killed, there will be peace.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/golda_meir.html

[msmcghee]

81. The head of this subthread is:

"Why did golda deny that Palestinians even existed?"

Neither of those quotes provides that context.

[bemildred]

85. That one is easy to find too:

http://www.netanyahu.org/golquotonjer.html

Nice pic of Bibi there, BTW.

[bemildred]

87. FWIW ...

It is clear that the quote is somewhat out of context, and one can find similar quotes (about no Palestinian people existing or having existed) from some Arabs on the net, also out of context.

[msmcghee]

90. I have seen some of those. And I guarantee . .

. . there are all in the same context . . that of people identified with a state of Palestine. Nice try.

[bemildred]

93. Palestine is a state now?

Bibi is identified with the state of Palestine?

[msmcghee]

88. Thanks, I will display it for you:

Golda Meir's Quote on the existence of Palestinians:

"There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969; The Washington Post (June 16, 1969)"

When the whole quote is shown - it is crystal clear from the context that she meant exactly what I said she meant:

"From my reading of history it would be wrong to think of the people who lived there during the period you mention - 1917 thru 1946 - as an homogeneous ethnic or religious group who thought of themselves as "Palestinians" in any sense other than to indicate their geographic location. There were tribes of Bedouins, religious sects, some ethnically identifiable groups, extended families, many of whom held legal title to land there - but there was no nation or state in any sense.

This is important to understand because many here seem to believe that Israel (or the UN at Israel's behest) came in and took their national identity away from them and kicked them out to make way for millions of European Jews. That certainly did not happen."

Thanks for posting the link. Nothing at all in her quote alludes to Palestine being an empty place with no people in it as some here have claimed.

[bemildred]

94. You are welcome.

I try to be helpful.

[Tom Joad]

98. so, you don't have google in your house?

[msmcghee]

99. Those using quotes to make a point . .

. . have the responsibility to provide adequate context to show they are not torturing the meaning for their own purposes.

I was not the one who asked, "Why did golda deny that Palestinians even existed?" - followed with - "How much more racist can one get than that?"

You were.

Had you provided the context it would have been obvious that your characterization of the comment as "racist" was absurd. It is interesting that you never did - leaving it to another poster to finally provide that honest context.

[The Magistrate]

83. If You Note Carefully, Sir

You might see that my comments are not without elements of support for your view, at least some portions of it, in this particular matter. The idea that Arab Palestinians are not really a "nation" or a "people" strikes me as without real foundation, and as a useless line in debate.

The early Zionist promoters certainly indulged themselves in some comforting myths: anyone out to remake the world, even some small portion of it only, generally does, as a steeling against the difficulty of the self-imposed task, the world being a famously recalcitrant beast, most difficult to shift in any great degree. As most myth has some grain at least of truth at its root, however, you may forgive me for engaging on two such grains that strike me as pertinent to assessing this question.

First, the area was, at the commencement of the Zionist enterprise, certainly very sparsely populated, and able to have supported a much greater number of people than it did, even at then-current levels of technology anmd agricultural practice. A great proportion of the land acquired by the immigrants was wasteland when it was purchased, and reclaimed to productive use. There was room, and it was not impossible for the peoples to have lived amicably alongside one another.

Second, it is true that there was no unified local political culture in the area. Indeed, that could be said to be true still today, and this continues, despite the fact of a genuine national feeling having entere into the people of Arab Palestine, to be a major difficulty besetting that people. The social structure was feudal; several leading clans competed for authority and dominance, and were used to employing as their leading tool in rivalry the enlistment of support from imperial overlords, who found the locals' quarrels most useful in maintaining their own dominance over the place. This unwillingness or inability to cohere into a single political body as a fully empowered expression of national identity and nationality made difficult effective resistance. The habit of playing to overlords in aid of local rivalries proved of great use to the English and the Zionists, and led the Arab Nationalists finally into the fatal political trap of embracing the Reich in the thirties and early forties.

The final calamatous mis-step was, of course, the resolve to greet the U.N. partition in '47 with a cry of "Double or nothing!" and putting the matter up as a stake to the decision of war. The outcomes of war have nothing to do with whatever claims on justice or right any party to the conflict might make: they have to do with what degree of power the contending parties each can muster and wield to good effect against the other. Defeat for either side of the conflict of '48 would have been a calamity of massacre and dispossession and driving out, and one side or other was going to suffer it, because the only certainty in war is that someone is going to lose, and suffer the consequences of losing. Nor are the outcomes of war ever reversed by anything short of winning a subsequent one: what is lost on the battlefield is not restored at the negotiating table, nor handed back by the statements of an outside party that is unwilling or unable to muster and wield the force necessary to compell obedience to its directives.

[msmcghee]

77. It is a fact of history that nation-states . .

. . have existed since it was possible to feed large numbers through organized agriculture and to protect geographic assets with large armies. This goes back a few thousand years before Christ and is thought to have actually originated in the ME - the Fertile Crescent.

The more modern version of nation-state allowed for the establishment and recognition of international rules of conduct that accompanied the need for protection from neighbors wielding modern weapons with great destructive power.

This took a few hundred years but for at least the last 4 centuries, people who lacked sufficient wealth, weapons and armies and had no such state apparatus and no ability to sign treaties, etc. were at a distinct disadvantage - against those who did. The whole history of colonialism is based on that inherent imbalance of power.

That is how Arabs generally, including those living in what is called the Territory of Palestine - came under the control of the wealthier, better organized and militarily superior Ottoman Empire even earlier than that - at around 1300 AD.

The Ottomans lasted a long time but they unfortunately picked the wrong side in WWI. That's how the Brits ended up with the League of Nations Mandate to administer the territory at the end of that war.

By the end of WWII there were two groups seeking to establish statehood in Palestine - Jews and non-Jews - each of which wanted to establish their own nation-state in all of the Palestine Territory.

The UN, led by the US and Britain, the winners of the war that had defeated the Axis - decided to split it up (the Partition) - between the Arabs there (who had generally sided with the Axis) and the Jews (whom the axis had tried to exterminate). The Jews reluctantly agreed to the Partition believeing that half a legal state was better than nothing. The non-Jews did not agree to Partition and believed that having no state was better than having to share their land with Jews.

The Arab League went to war to take all of Palestine as their own and kick the Jews out. They lost. Ironically, even if the had won that war the local Arabs would still have lost - since the states of the Arab League would have divied up the Territory for themselves and there still would be no state of Palestine.

The idea of the modern nation-state is central to the discussion and any understanding of what has gone on there - or what will go on in the future. There was no nation-state of Palestine - although there were both Jews and non-Jews who hoped to create one. Because the non-Jews still refuse to accept the existence of the state of Israel - their continuous armed struggle against the existence of Israel (mostly financed and fought for the interests of other Arab states) has prevented them from establishing their own state there.

I hope they eventually put down their guns and that they some-day get their own state. Most Jews in Israel hope for that as well. But, until they recognize Israel's right to exist and can form some political movement that can assume the responsibility of keeping their citizens from attacking Israel - rather than sposoring those attacks - they will remain as stateless martyrs, the disposable human-bombs serving the political ambitions of other Arab states.

[The Magistrate]

91. Either End Of The General Question, Sir, May Be Argued Effectively

"Nation", indeed, has an older meaning of "a people", and such identitification as a nation under that meaning is of very long standing. But the idea that a state is a nation, and the further claim that every nation ought to have a state, appeared only very recently, as consideration of human political thought and organization goes, and had not spread much from Western Europe and North America before the middle of the nineteenth century. Most political organization prior to then had little real identity to a national state as we presently conceive it. Above the level of the tribe or clam, the leading principle of state organization was dynastic, in which the people ruled are in essence the personal retainers or property of the ruling house, which may be of any nation, in the older sense of the word. A polity so ruled qualifies well enough as a state, but is certainly no nation. The old imperiums partook even less of the quality of a nation in any modern sense. Even in the most compact and culturally cohesive of them, Imperial China, national feeling in the modern sense was largely absent among the populace.

[msmcghee]

92. You said,

" . . there was no particular "national identity" in the modern sense anywhere in the Middle East until fairly recently, nor was it generally present throughout the world as a whole."

Yes, well there was enough "national identity" that by 1949 the Mandates of Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria had become nation states. The Palestine territory in their midst had not.

I would assert that had a similarly clear coherent "national identity" appeared in Palestine it too would have become a state.

[The Magistrate]

95. Should You Wish, Sir

To compare any of those entities, to, say, France, as coherent nations, you would find the exercise a disappointing one. The most extreme example of the lack of true national feeling among them, one conspicuously in the news just now, is Iraq, which was and is no more a nation in any real sense than was Yugoslavia, or is the Congo or Nigeria or Indonesia. The nearest thing to a genuine nation among them is Syria, which has some extended history as a minor imperium of its own.

All four of the places you reference commenced their modern history as colonial possessions of England or France. Iraq was created in modern form for English convenience, and given to the Hashemite shiek Feisal as a sort of consolation prize for his having lost a promised Arab Kingdom centered on Damascus, an action none too popular among his new subjects. Trans-Jordan was set up, and given to his martial brother Abdullah, in an effort to quash guerrilla activity against French Syria that threatened real difficulties between England and France, without too much exertion on England's part, and Emir Abdullah bitterly resented that his emirate did not include Jerusalem, or any Mediterrean coastline. Lebanon was carved out from the Syrian coastline particularly to create a jurisdiction that would have a Christian majority under direct French rule, an act the Arab Nationalists of Damascus at the time rebelled violently against, and which the modern government of Syria continues to view as a null and void. Syria was the leading spoil of the Great War for France in the region, territories promised and claimed in Anatolia having been lost to the victories of Gen. Kemal and his Nationalist Turks. Further, the establishment of these places as "independent" states was in all instances done under the aegis of colonial protectorate status rather than true sovereignty: in other words, they became "nation states" because it suited the interests of a dominant foreign power at the time that they take on such a coloration. The ebb of European colonial power attendant on the Second World War simply left them there like rocks amid a receding tide.

The situation in Palestine was rather different. The League of Nations Mandate directed two things, that the place be readied for self-rule, and that it be the location of a "Jewish national home", the Balfour language having been incorporated in the Mandate itself. Local Arab Nationalist political leadership refused to co-operate with any project for tutulary participation in local administration, as an embodiment of its refusal to acquiesce in the implementation of the Balfour language. Combined with the endemic violence set in already by the time the Mandate was formalized, and with the English view that Palestine represented a valuable buffer to the Suez, this led the English authorities to take no real action towards preparing the territory for any form of self-rule, as was indeed done in the other areas you name to some degree, and to edge rather into the view that the place was a de facto colonial possession to be held in perpetuity.

The Arab Nationalist leadership made a very poor decision in the eventual event of the Partition, by holding out for its reversal by war, and intending after victory the establishment of their state through the whole of the territory. A contributing factor was the enmity between King Abdullah and the Grand Mufti al' Husseini, with the former quite unwilling to tolerate the latter in rule of anything. The course of war proving out quite contrary to the expectations and hopes of Arab Nationalist leadership in Palestine, declaration of any state by them became wholly impossible. The heartland of the remaining territory outside Isarael was in the hands of the Jordanian military, and the southern remnant round Gaza was in the hands of King Farouk of Egypt, and both those local powers meant to keep the places for themselves. in the climate of the times, agitation against Israel, and expressing determination to reclaim that "occupied" land as Palestine, paid better politically, and was a good deal safer for agitators, than pressing for the independence of what was left from Jordan and Egypt. Lack of coherent "national identity" had little or nothing to do with the failure to establish a state of Arab Palestine: misjudgements by Arab Nationalist leadership, and a plethora of contingent circumstances circumscribing their situation, had everything to do with it.

[msmcghee]

96. Your history lesson is generally very good.

I most appreciate your posts where your grandiloquent prose (which I find generally fun to read) doesn't obscure your meaning - like this one that shows many of the actual political forces at work at the time.

Your final sentence however,

"Lack of coherent "national identity" had little or nothing to do with the failure to establish a state of Arab Palestine: misjudgments by Arab Nationalist leadership, and a plethora of contingent circumstances circumscribing their situation, had everything to do with it."

. . causes me some concern.

I generally agree with that statement - except that had some coherent national identity existed in Palestine then England would have been more compelled to follow the dictate of her mandate - and prepare the territory for self-rule. At least, she would have had to justify her failure to do so. And the English have a well-known attachment to doing the "proper thing".

Also, a more coherent national identity would have no-doubt affected Arab League actions regarding Palestine. One could even argue that some Arab states would have reason to pursue relations with leaders in the nascent state - hoping for advantage and alliances against other members of the League. But, there were no leaders who could speak for enough of the people to make even that, worthwhile.

But you are right to point out the complexity of the issue and your point is taken.

I would say however, that the

" . . misjudgments by Arab Nationalist leadership, and a plethora of contingent circumstances circumscribing their situation, . ."

. . were very much the result of a lack of any coherent "national identity" in the territory - among other things.

[The Magistrate]

97. A Coherent Identity, Sir, May Make Poor Choices

And that is pretty much what seems to have occured here. The state of "national feeling" was no lesser or greater among the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine than it was in, say, Iraq or Trans-Jordan at a similar time. The suite of problems facing its leadership, and the choices they made for dealing with them, and the interests and decisions of other entities with considerable influence in events around them, combined to produce an outcome very different from that they might have desired.

What does begin to interest me somewhat is why it strikes you as of importance to argue that there is no sense of national identity among Arab Palestinians with appreciable roots more than a couple of decades old. It does not really seem of much utility as a postion in the present situation. Salvaging an old stump-speech line of Ms. Meir's does not really gain anything: those who dislike her will continue to do so, and those who do like her do not need the exercise of it. Generally, when people press the "there is no Palestinian national identity" line, they are setting up a claim that "Jordan is the real Palestinian state", or that "Palestinians never wanted a state until Israel took the West Bank in '67", or some other position of the sort encountered in F.L.A.M.E. advertisements or the like, and in general aiming at undermining the idea of a two-state solution in ways that leave just about everything west of the river potentially Israeli territory. No solution to the present conflict lies in that direction.

[msmcghee]

100. In response . . .

You say, . .

"The state of "national feeling" was no lesser or greater among the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine than it was in, say, Iraq or Trans-Jordan at a similar time. The suite of problems facing its leadership, and the choices they made for dealing with them, and the interests and decisions of other entities with considerable influence in events around them, combined to produce an outcome very different from that they might have desired."

Yes. But in Iraq or Trans-Jordan there were no Jews advocating for a Jewish state there. I'm sure that advocacy created an incoherent and problematic picture for a clear "national identity" in the eyes of England. Then there was the question of proximity to the Suez, as you correctly pointed out. As events unfolded it is obvious that the English were correct in worrying about its possible use by Arab states against their interests.

The next part of your post raises the more troubling question of my motives. I think that's fair.

First, I didn't raise the question. Tom Joad did by asking why Golda Meir had made the racist statement that Palestinians had never existed. I entered the thread to correct his assertion which I believe I accomplished.

However, in my posts in this thread, others challenged some of my assertions (you were one). I answered those challenges and in that way made the statements that you refer to. As you can see from my posts generally, I usually try to go far enough to assure at least myself that they hold together for the larger picture. There was no ulterior motive. The thread just went in that direction and I stated what seemed relevant at the time.

I have tried to be as honest as I can about my understanding of the I/P situation. Feel free to ask me anything else that you think might reveal whatever hidden motivations I may have - and you'll find me to be just as open as I have been so far.

I have in no way been secretive about my beliefs that:

* The Partition was a reasonable effort to address the difficult problems that existed at the time.

* Israel accepted it and the Arab League went to war with them. The Arab League lost.

* The accommodations by Israel - the victors in the numerous wars and attacks initiated by her enemies since then - seem more than generous to me. Each time giving back land won in battles always started by her enemies - at the cost of Israeli lives - and for the hope of peace.

* If Israel's enemies put down their guns today there will be peace - if Israel puts down her guns today there will be no Israel.

* That leaves peace in the hands of her enemies. So far they've chosen not to pursue it.

* I don't like to see innocent people die and children killed. All the killing will stop as soon as the Palestinians decide to pursue peace rather than conflict with Israel. I think they should do that.

* People who initiate violence against others should be condemned - not rewarded. I see that as a moral principle that, if followed in 1948, Palestine would be a modern and wealthy state today. If Israel was pursuing war with the Palestinians to take their land I would condemn Israel just as strongly.

That pretty well summarizes my beliefs about this whole thing. I have stated each of those beliefs more than once in my previous posts. Those beliefs seem reasonable to me - that they are based on logic and not some anti-Arab ideology.

It's possible that I have some psychological motive for my beliefs that are unknown to me. You're welcome to speculate on that if you like.

[The Magistrate]

101. Thank You For That Answer, Sir

It certainly satisfies my curiousity adequately. We would seem to have few substantial differences in the matter. You may forgive the mental habits of a chess-player, who is very familiar with the patterns of debate on this question, and tends to look towards what future moves a position established may be made platform for. We get all kinds here, you know.

[msmcghee]

102. You're welcome. Understood. n/t

[lumpy]

69. Great Britain had control over Palestine

territory from 1917 until 1946. Of course they had no statehood but the Palestinians did have generational rights to the land they lived upon.

[msmcghee]

70. Yes, they held title to the land they lived on.

Just as many Jews and Christians held title to the land they lived on in the Palestine Territory. My point was that Palestine was an administrative territory. It was never a state with a distinct national identity, a founding event and history, etc. It was a place where an administrator, Britain in this case, collected taxes, kept civic records like land titles, oversaw disputes and supervised the maintenance of public works like water systems, etc. - until some coherent national identity and structure could be established by the residents of the territory.

Neither did Britain steal the national identity of the Palestinians previously in 1917. Britain assumed that "mandate" at the end of WWI when the Ottoman Empire which had administered the territory for the preceeding few hundred years and which had unfortunately sided with the Kaiser during that war, was dissolved. Remember Mel Gibson in Gallipoli?

From my reading of history it would be wrong to think of the people who lived there during the period you mention - 1917 thru 1946 - as an homogeneous ethnic or religious group who thought of themselves as "Palestinians" in any sense other than to indicate their geographic location. There were tribes of Bedouins, religious sects, some ethnically identifiable groups, extended families, many of whom held legal title to land there - but there was no nation or state in any sense.

This is important to understand because many here seem to believe that Israel (or the UN at Israel's behest) came in and took their national identity away from them and kicked them out to make way for millions of European Jews. That certainly did not happen.

What did happen is that the UN, in an attempt to partially deal with the mass dislocations of millions in the aftermath of WWII - partitioned the Palestine Territory into two zones of about equal size - one for the Jews, some of whom already lived there, and others who were seeking to relocate in their historic homeland and form a Jewish state - and the other zone for anyone else who chose to remain there and not live in the new state of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Of course the Palestinians existed as a people...

That's what Golda Meir was talking about, and it's denial and it's bigoted. It's got nothing to do with whether or not there ever was a state named Palestine. It's the same as if someone said the Kurds didn't exist and the reasons for doing so are to deny the existance of a particular group of people...

Recall that almost a million Jews were in the process of being expelled from Arab states in the region and they also needed a place to call home. In any case, the reality is they were given the state of Israel, part of the territory of Palestine to live in.

I think you might be wrong with yr time-line there, though maybe 'in the process' is meant to loosely cover people who either were expelled, forced to flee, or who left willingly over a period of several decades AFTER the creation of Israel?

[msmcghee]

71. Now another poster claims to know what Golda . .

. . meant by her words - but who has failed to provide a link for those words.

Regarding the time line: (From Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

The Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century emigration of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from majority Arab lands. Typically, this emigration followed discrimination, harassment, persecution, and financial confiscation on the part of the majority population and/or government agencies. Approximately two-thirds of affected Jews emigrated to the modern State of Israel; other common refuge destinations included the United States, Canada and France. Disruption overall was significant: the ancestors of many Jews had resided within Arab lands for centuries before the advent and spread of Islam in the seventh century CE. The ancestors of others had immigrated in later centuries. Previously sporadic Jewish emigration from Arab lands accelerated following the establishment of Israel in 1948. The process accelerated as Arab nations under French, British and Italian colonial rule or protection gained independence. Further Arab-Israeli wars were sustained by, and in turn exacerbated, anti-Jewish sentiment within the various Arab-majority states. Within a few years after the Six Day War there were only remnants of Jewish communities left in most Arab lands.

Many, but by no means all, writers on the topic regard the Jewish exodus from Arab lands as a historical parallel to the Palestinian exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War. Jews in Arab lands have been reduced by more than 99% since 1948 while the Arab population of Israel has grown larger than its 1948 base.

***************************************************

So, yes. I should have specified those two decades from 1947 thru 1967. And I think you are correct that my emphasis on the concurrence with the events of partition and the Israeli War for Independence is not entirely accurate.

I would say though that Arab distaste for "Jews in their midst" increased significantly during WWII as can be seen in the letters of the Mufti of Jerusalem to leaders of the Reich.

Re: Golda's words. As I said before, a link would be useful for context.

[Igel]

36. "golda meir's statement, implying that "arabs" don't love their children"

involves a patently false inference. There is an implication, but it's not what you believe it to be. It entails "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to hate us less than they love their children."

Proportions are tricky in logic. But not that tricky.

[Tom Joad]

47. She is saying they don't love their children enough....

not much different. Still being very simplistic.

[bemildred]

72. Some history for those interested:

Two versions just to be fair. Posted mostly to show that there were efforts to assert a Palestinian national identity beginning around 1919, i.e. at the beginning of the British Mandate. Note the entries on the various meetings of the Palestinian National Congress, etc.

Jewish Virtual Library version:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/brits.html

A more Palestinian oriented version:

http://www.alnakba.org/chronology/second.htm

[bemildred]

73. And a version from the UN:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument

Edit to add beginning paragraphs:

The origins of the Palestine problem as an international issue, however, lie in events occurring towards the end of the First World War. These events led to a League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.

After a quarter of a century of the Mandate, Great Britain submitted what had become "the Palestine problem" to the United Nations on the ground that the Mandatory Power was faced with conflicting obligations that had proved irreconcilable. At this point, when the United Nations itself was hardly two years old, violence ravaged Palestine. After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized. The partition plan did not bring peace to Palestine, and the prevailing violence spread into a Middle East war halted only by United Nations action. One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and, in a series of successive wars, its territorial control expanded to occupy all of Palestine. The Palestinian Arab State envisaged in the partition plan never appeared on the world's map and, over the following 30 years, the Palestinian people have struggled for their lost rights.