Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I don't like to dodge a question and I appreciate the reminder.
You used the term "potted history". Indeed, that is what I intended. There was no selectivity about it, 1948 seemed the correct starting point because that was when the first war between Israel and its neighbours started. I don't see what the British mandate had to do with any of this current stuff, which is rooted in the ideological clash between certain Arabs and Israel as a whole. The Ottoman stuff is irrelevant. Arabs with guns hate Jews and last week murdered hundreds. Jews with guns will fight Arabs with guns but won't murder ordinary civilians.
|
You’re wrong on all counts. Fatally so, for anyone in a position of diplomatic influence in these matters. Thankfully you aren’t (nor, I assume, is anyone else here, including me).
First, as I said, (and as you appeared to agree), if you start your examination when the guns start firing you will not understand why the guns are firing. You can’t understand WW2 from 1939 and you can’t understand Israel-Palestine from 1948.
Second, it was during the British mandate that Palestinian political consciousness was born. Prior to the inter-communal riots of the 1920s - which occurred under British rule and which the British Mandate authorities did little to address - the concept of Palestinian nationhood simply did not exist. That’s not to say the ethnic Arab inhabitants there had no aspirations to self-determination, but there was no politically driven, common Palestinian identity as there is today. The British influence in the very existence of the concept of Palestine as a national identity cannot be overlooked.
Third, again, under the British Mandate, Arabs were prevented from unifying effectively under their developing Palestinian identity because the British authorities actively worked to keep the various factions squabbling with each other. This was standard Empire tactics designed to make administration easier (basically, divide and rule). The British ruled by the issuing of patronage, in ways that were deliberately fuzzy around the edges. In Jerusalem, for example, civic and religious order were given to two rival factions. Jerusalem being what it always has been, that was always going to be a recipe for chaos.
Fourth, the Ottoman stuff is absolutely not irrelevant. Your dismissal of it in this way indicates that you actually don’t understand the Ottoman stuff at all. Perhaps if you prove me wrong by outlining *why* you think it’s irrelevant, I’ll respond by demonstrating why it absolutely is.
Remember, the Palestine-Israel conflict is never just about resolving the latest flare-up. It is the intractable search for a lasting peace in which two deeply opposed groups of people can learn to live side by side. Dismissing their mutual history - which you are so obviously doing, even while pretending you’re not - is exactly the way to ensure no such settlement occurs.