The foundation of Israel

[L.A.P.]

We all know most people believe the State of Israel was founded by the UN to give Jewish people a nation to make up for the Holocaust and such.

But wasn't Israel basically founded by a coalition of terrorist organizations? People make it seem like the UK just gave up Palestine to be nice to Jewish people, but I've never seen it brought up - even by leftists - that the UK gave up Palestine in response to an insurgency of Zionist paramilitaries designated by the British Empire as terrorist groups that lasted from pre- to post-WWII. The largest group at that time was Irgun, best known for exploding the King David Hotel, and is now the direct prdecessor to Israel's ruling political party Likud. Another group called Lehi was pro-Nazi during World War II thinking an Axis victory would lead to British withdrawal, then went pro-Soviet after WWII and unsuccessfully tried to get funding from Stalin. It's not even like Israel was started as a settler state on the West's own initiative, it was under the pressure of an ongoing insurgency by Zionist groups calling for the creation of a Zionist state in Palestine.

Why is this part of Israel/Palestine's history never mentioned?

[Sasha]

Its quite a lot more complicated then that, the Jewish population was several times promised autonomy and/or self rule, already in 1917 the belfour declaration said; " His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

In 1936 it was decided that there would be first joint Jewish and Arab rule in Palestine and later partitioning against which the Arabs revolted for 3 years with a.o. bloody anti-jewish pogroms.

British not only blockaded the entry of holocaust refugees and survivors but even handed rule towards the great mufti that actually worked together with Hitler at a time.

The UN then again drafted a plan of partitioning which admittedly gave the Israelis more land but gave the Arabs the whole of Jerusalem, again the Arabs objected.

Only after this the Jews revolted and started an insurgency against the British state.

One should also consider that in the eyes of many Palestinian Jews the Arabs, while a majority at the time had no more claim to Palestine than they, Jews lived in Palestine for ages and before the British it was part of the vast Ottoman empire. Considering that the secular leaders denied the claim the Jewish fundamentalist laid to Jordan many felt that they in fact partitioned Palestine between Jews and Arabs.

And the Nakba (the expulsion and fleeing of Arab Palestinians and the mass immigration of Jews) didn't happen in a vacuum either, for one year and 7 months the Jewish Palestines (and from halfway the Israelis) didn't not only fight an internal civil war but also a war against what they viewed as invading foreign Arab armies.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone what happened but one could certainly understand it.

[bricolage]

One should also consider that in the eyes of many Palestinian Jews the Arabs, while a majority at the time had no more claim to Palestine than they, Jews lived in Palestine for ages and before the British it was part of the vast Ottoman empire.
yes an amount of jews had always lived in the area (specifically around jerusalem) but a very small amount, in 1800 there were about 7,000, in 1850 maybe double that and it's only from the 1880s that the numbers really start rising about 20,000. compared to the arab population this was minuscule and I think shlomo sand was right in saying that difference was that palestine had always been (prior to the late 19th century) a place where jews went to die and not live. the fact that *some* had live there for ages doesn't really connect to the increasing amounts that started moving there from the 1880s (which I should add were still a miniscule population compared to the arabs even when the balfour declaration was made). I don't particularly believe in national ethnic 'claims' to land but unless you believe in 200 year unbroken chain type discourse there isn't much to back up the israeli one (except that they won the war - which is how most claims become legitimised).

[hatzel]

I don't know if it's fair to say it's never mentioned; every time I pass the old colonial office in London with a friend, I tell them about the time Betty Knouth put a bomb in it...

Anyway, I'd suggest it isn't really in either side's interest to stress any of this, which is probably why it isn't spoken of a great deal. What, you think British friends of Israel want to acknowledge that their forces spent a fair chunk of their time in Mandate Palestine (particularly the period 1939-1948) killing Jews, hanging them left, right and centre? Do you think they want to taint the national mythology of Britain's (supposed) proud liberation of the Jew in WWII by remembering the antisemitic riots of 1947, after the Sergeants Affair? Obviously not, they prefer to focus on the Ben Gurions of this world and paint the Zionist project as a natural western ally from the very start (even though pre-1948 the generally accepted opinion in Europe was that the Jews were in allegiance with Arabs, Muslims, Turks etc.; look at the rhetoric employed by the opponents of Disraeli, for example, who accused him of being a 'Zionist' selling out Britain's interests to the Ottoman Empire, because apparently even Anglican Jews cannot help but stand alongside their eastern cousins in opposition to Christian Europe), whilst in fact some early British concessions to the Zionists weren't seen as support for an ally, but an attempt to bring an enemy back into the fray, so that they could be used for Britain's benefit, rather than being a thorn in its side.

The same is often true for the opposing side, though, which is also keen to brush over ambiguities and claim that there was a monolithic Zionism, in cahoots with Britain and the west against the Arab world. The reality is in fact more complex; remember, for example, that Lehi actually included - albeit alongside some who could justly be described as leaning towards outright fascism - communists, binationalists and canaanists, who joined Lehi (which by 1944 was united by strategy alone, rather than ideology) precisely because of its focus on confronting the British colonial administration rather than the Arab population (in fact many even considered themselves to be anti-colonial militants, and their offspring would go on to portray Israeli independence as an early blow to the British Empire), standing in clear opposition to the more Brit-friendly elements of the Zionist movement who were all too happy to push British (and French) interests in the region, by their own admission. But perhaps even this side is somehow under the spell of the hegemony of the western narrative; Europe (and, later, the US) has done a disconcertingly good job of obscuring its hand, which can actually be found throughout the conflict. As an example, it's quite alarming to see how many people fail to recognise the role the European colonial powers in the spread of antisemitism In the Middle East since the early 19th century at least; even those who understand that antisemitism (of the European variety) is a rather recent phenomenon in the Middle East claim with a straight face that it is simply a reaction to Zionism, thereby excusing Europe of all responsibility.

I feel the same thing has happened here; perhaps it's a little cynical to suggest that Europeans only let the Jews into their little club post-WWII because they'd killed so many that they couldn't escape their conscience any more, but I certainly feel this shadow - combined with a desire to portray the history of Zionist interaction with the west as universally friendly, in order to cement Israel's place as an extension of the west, rather than the rejection thereof that it was for some - has influenced Europe's decision to turn a blind eye to these conflicts between themselves and historical Zionists. This seems to have influenced those of a variety of political persuasions...

[Sasha]

yes an amount of jews had always lived in the area (specifically around jerusalem) but a very small amount, in 1800 there were about 7,000, in 1850 maybe double that and it's only from the 1880s that the numbers really start rising about 20,000. compared to the arab population this was minuscule and I think shlomo sand was right in saying that difference was that palestine had always been (prior to the late 19th century) a place where jews went to die and not live. the fact that *some* had live there for ages doesn't really connect to the increasing amounts that started moving there from the 1880s (which I should add were still a miniscule population compared to the arabs even when the balfour declaration was made). I don't particularly believe in national ethnic 'claims' to land but unless you believe in 200 year unbroken chain type discourse there isn't much to back up the israeli one (except that they won the war - which is how most claims become legitimised).


except that almost all Palestinians probably are from Jewish decent who got Arabized much later, if we are going to play the "we got there first" game the Jews actually have the better cards... so lets not, its stupid.
as revolutionary leftists we should be of the opinion that all humans have the right to the entirety of this earth (and beyond), which is why ethnic/national-liberation is not leftist by definition.

[goalkeeper]

the british were allies with zionism ,not enemies.as was suggested


Oh yes, these guys were certainly allies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Hanged_sergeants.jpg

[bricolage]

except that almost all Palestinians probably are from Jewish decent who got Arabized much later, if we are going to play the "we got there first" game the Jews actually have the better cards... so lets not, its stupid.
and a lot of european jews probably don't have much of a genetic link to the ones that lived in palestine how ever many thousand years ago. but I'm not actually playing who got there first at all and I don't think it's relevant. but I do think it's important to understand the demographics just before and at the time of the collapse of the ottoman empire and to understand the balfour declaration in the context of proposing a homeland to a population that a) had only started moving in mass to that area from about 30 years prior to the declaration and b) would only move in real substantial numbers after the declaration was made. saying that jews had always lived in the area is misleading as the numbers were small, predominantly based around jerusalem and had had no real interest in a homeland or state until very recently.


as revolutionary leftists we should be of the opinion that all humans have the right to the entirety of this earth (and beyond), which is why ethnic/national-liberation is not leftist by definition.
of course.

[Luís Henrique]

One should also consider that in the eyes of many Palestinian Jews the Arabs, while a majority at the time had no more claim to Palestine than they, Jews lived in Palestine for ages and before the British it was part of the vast Ottoman empire.

No human being could have lived "for ages" anywhere. And cultures don't have a life in any similar sence.

Luís Henrique

[hatzel]

the british,french and zionist mvmnt were allies .most of the british military and police were zionists settlers.not all regiments were.what ever your pic proves

Do you not even read threads before posting or something? Everybody knows the Haganah was more than happy to be the Brits' little lapdogs and the Brits (naturally) didn't have all too many problems with this arrangement, but the OP very clearly asked why people don't talk more about Irgun or Lehi, self-declared terrorists (and outspoken critics of the Haganah for their allegiance with the Brits, by the way) who spent most of their time flogging, killing and bombing British soldiers - generally not the behaviour of allies, even if post-48 many of these currents would arguably be coopted and brought back under direct Euro-American influence. Instead of flatly refusing to talk about these groups or their actions in the pre-state period, wouldn't it be more on-topic to tell us why exactly you're not talking about them, and this might actually contribute something to the discussion and answer the OP's specific question, as I'm sure you have some valuable insights to offer us on this matter, it falling within your area of expertise (or so we have been lead to believe)...

[goalkeeper]

the british,french and zionist mvmnt were allies .most of the british military and police were zionists settlers.not all regiments were.what ever your pic proves

I don't get it. Are you just refusing to accept that there ever was an anti-British insurgency among Zionists?

The picture, by the way, are British soldiers executed by Zionist militants.

[Hexen]

From my understanding, The current state of Israel is white/European colonialism of the Middle East much like South Africa was to Africa.

[goalkeeper]

From my understanding, The current state of Israel is white/European colonialism of the Middle East much like South Africa was to Africa.

Then your understanding is wrong.

[Hexen]

Then your understanding is wrong.

What is it then?

[Rurkel]

I'd say it's incomplete, rather then wrong as such - there're certainly obvious parallels both in the situation and the ideology.

I don't get what Hexen's post has to do with British-Zionist rivalry, though.

And yeah, neither side wants to emphasis it. Israel doesn't want to disrupt its cozy relationship with the "West", and anti-Zionists, as we've seen in that thread, don't want to grant shiny "anti-imperialist" credentials to the Zionist movement.

[Hexen]

I don't get what Hexen's post has to do with British-Zionist rivalry, though

That wasn't what I was specificity implying but my main point was, it has it's western origins (I heard it was founded by the US/UN) therefore it's essentially European/Western colonialism of the Middle East.

Well if I'm wrong, could someone explain what Israel is or basically what I can counter Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists (those who claim "They control the U.S. Government and the world", "It's the capital of One World Government", etc) with.

[bricolage]

That wasn't what I was specificity implying but my main point was, it has it's western origins (I heard it was founded by the US/UN) therefore it's essentially European/Western colonialism of the Middle East.
there was a 1947 UN partition plan for dividing what had been the british mandate of palestine, that gave the legal basis for a jewish state but not on the borders that it would later make claim to.
a lot of israelis came from europe but about 40% of the current population are mizrahi jews, that doesn't mean they are any less colonialist in their outlook though.

[Sasha]

That wasn't what I was specificity implying but my main point was, it has it's western origins (I heard it was founded by the US/UN) therefore it's essentially European/Western colonialism of the Middle East.

Well if I'm wrong, could someone explain what Israel is or basically what I can counter Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists (those who claim "They control the U.S. Government and the world", "It's the capital of One World Government", etc) with.


many of the Zionists that played a pivotal role in the establishing of Israel where socialists that came from Russia, fleeing the return of institutional anti-semitism under Stalin, wont help in your discussion with the tin-foil nutters but maybe something our ML friends should take note of...

[Rurkel]

Well, Stalin initially supported Israel, the USSR being one of the first countries to recognize it (another rarely-acknowledged bit of initial Israeli state history), so I doubt that Soviet anti-semitism initially played much of a role.

[Sasha]

I'm talking 1930s here, not 1948, also Stalin supported Israel because a. he wanted to rub one in for the brittish and b. Saved him the trouble of deporting Jews to the oblast.

Friends like those...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Just for the record, the British also promised Palestine to the French and the Arabs before they promised it to the Jews. To the French as part of a colonial carve-up, and to the Arabs as an independent nation in exchange for starting an anti-Ottoman revolt in modern day Saudi Arabia. Tsar Nicholas II witnessed the British deal with the French in 1916, and the Bolsheviks gleefully announced this secret event to the world a year later.