At the end of World War II, the British Empire was on its last legs. Its economy badly damaged by the ravages of two world wars and the Depression, it no longer had the strength to hold onto its more troublesome holdings. There were two in particular it needed to divest itself of as quickly as possible.
Both Palestine and India were situations that even with sensitive and delicate handling were potential powder kegs. Tensions between the two major ethnic communities in each country were extreme. In India, the split was along religious lines between Hindus and Muslim.
In Palestine, it was both a nationalistic and a religious split between two groups claiming the same territory through historic precedent. Both Jewish Zionists and Arab nationalists had legitimate title to being original inhabitants in the narrow strip of land we now know as Israel.
Far from showing the wisdom of Solomon in either case, the British decided to actually cut the baby in two and leave the two mothers to squabble over the remains. Partition may have looked good on a map (two areas in each land, one for each group) but in actuality, it was a fiasco.
Arbitrarily drawing lines on a map results in massive upheavals of individuals. One day you’re living in your house happy and content, the next you discover you’re living in a land ruled by people who may or may not welcome you. In theory Arabs in the new state of Israel were free to stay, as were Muslims in India, but in practice hardly any felt secure enough to do so.
Although Pakistan did provide a destination for India’s Muslims, the prospect of uprooting oneself and running a gamut of Hindi anger from one end of the subcontinent to the other was overwhelming. Although the leaders of the new India did their best, they were unable to restrain their more fanatical brethren from exacting a price on the refugees.
But unlike their counterparts in Palestine they at least had the comfort of knowing they would be building their own country at the end of the line. While there have been border disputes, skirmishes, and war between the two nations, they can each claim to have established individual countries for their people’s.
In the late 19th century and early 20th, the Zionist movement had been formed. Mainly wealthy Jews and intellectuals to start with, its goal was the creation of a Jewish homeland where Jews would no longer be the victims of another government’s caprice. As many Jews considered themselves exiles from Palestine (the ritual of saying “Next Year in Jerusalem” at the end of each Passover seder is embolic of this), it was a natural progression for most of them to think of Israel.
Article comments
1 - The Proprietor
An interesting historical tidbit is left out of this discussion - the role of the Mufti of Jerusalem, the notorious Haj Amir Al-Husseini, whose rabid antisemitism inflamed the Arab populace (his infamous quote "Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country" was the blueprint for his later actions). Husseini of course instigated the 1936 Arab rebellion which killed hundreds of Jews and Arabs, with the active use of Nazi money and arms. Husseini of course spent the war years in Berlin as the guest of Hitler, who had promised Husseini a vernichtungslager of his own in Nablus once he took Palestine from the British.
This man is revered as a Palestinian national hero and was a mentor to the senior PLO leadership. While there is undoubtedly plenty of blame to be shared amongst the Israelis and Palestinians for many things that have happened, there has been a pernicious, vicious stream of anti-Jewish hatred from the Palestinian "leadership" since the 1930s, (if you ever listen to the original Arabic when hearing a Palestinian talk about Israelis, the word you hear is "el Yahoud" - the Jews, not "the Zionists") it's unsurprising that trust is in short supply on the Israeli side.
2 - Victor Plenty
Shameful prejudices can be found on both sides of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Such "tidbits" can be allowed to poison the negotiation process. They could also be allowed to fade into historical obscurity like the slurs and prejudices common on both sides during the American civil war of the 1860s, or during the European religious wars of the 1600s.
That choice, like the land itself, is shared by both peoples.
3 - The Proprietor
I find the author's comment about "Jewish Nazism" to be both inflammatory and very telling of the author's prejudices, especially considering the Palestinian leadership was quite cozy with the genuine article.
4 - Victor Plenty
Calling Palestinians vermin is no better than calling Jews vermin, and ranting nonsense about "pure Jewish blood" is no better than ranting nonsense about "pure Aryan blood."
There is no "pure blood" in the world, and in fact there never was. If you hate something in another human's ancestry, you have chosen to hate yourself too. That same bloodline is also somewhere in your own ancestry.
5 - theSliver
Palestine was never part of the British Empire, it was administered under a UN Mandate after WWII and under the Treaty of Versailles before that from 1918. The UN Mandate came to an end in 1948, the British had to leave.
As it also happens the notion of a Jewish State as a part of a State of Palestine was defined in the Balfour Doctrine.
Yes the Mufti provoked riots with what he said but its also true that Israelis took over Palestinian property which had been abandoned by fleeing Palestinians, not all of those flights were unjustified.
6 - gypsyman
I would like to thank the silver for correcting me on the specifics of the history, I had honestly forgotten the Belfour decleration and that the Brits were being controled by the U.N. The point I was trying to make was that partition had not been the best solution in India and was a mistake again. Whether it was the Brits or the UN the result was the same. The Brits were still the force responsible for the keeping jewish refugees fleeing Europe out of Palastine, and the occupying army. My impression was that they did what they wanted and were controlled by the League of Nations/U.N. in name only.
As for my positions on Israel do not presume to speak for me... As a person of Jewish descent with family who died in the camps, I have long supported the right and the need for the state of Israel, just because I don't happen to like the form it takes on occasion doesn't mean I'm opposed to it.
My country right or wrong has never been my philosophy about Canada, and it's not going to be my philosophy about Israel.