The Founding of the State of Israel
When we last left off (https://www.sechel.info/post/lies-and-truths-the-history-part-ii), the Palestinians had rejected the British offer of their own state. This offer, put forward by the Peel Commission (so named as it was chaired by Lord William Robert Peel), recommended a partition of the land into two portions. Under the proposal, the Jews were to receive less than one-fifth of the land. The remaining four-fifths were to be rejoined to what was then Transjordan (i.e., Jordan). Similarly, the Peel Commission recommended an “exchange of population” without which the Jewish portion would have approximately as many Arabs as Jews. As one can undoubtedly conclude, the Arabs rejected the proposal. As one Arab leader, ‘Awni ‘Abd al-Hadi, stated, “We will fight. We will struggle against the partition of the country and against Jewish immigration. There is no compromise.” (emphasis added) The more things change . . . .
At this stage, it is important to note that the Jews recognized, and quietly supported, relocation of Palestinians. Despite the anticipated substantial increase in immigration of Jews (once the British discontinued their severe restrictions thereon), the Jewish leaders were well aware that they would not constitute a majority, an obviously essential element to having a Jewish state. Furthermore, there was fear that any substantial co-existence without any relocations would result in tremendous bloodshed, a concern of course born out by events soon to transpire. It should also be acknowledged that the Jews did not merely accept the Peel Commission. Nonetheless, the Jews were willing to negotiate its terms whereas, as noted above, the Arabs flatly – and emphatically – rejected it.
Without any progress on the issue, events were essentially frozen in place until after World War II. In its aftermath, the British did not, as one might have thought humane to do, open the doors to Jewish refugees from Europe. It continued to severely restrict immigration to the area and went so far as to imprison many who tried to reach the Holy Land by sending them to detention camps on Cyprus. One must pause here to consider this: Jews who had miraculously survived the Nazi death camps only to return to their homes to often face pogroms, were intentionally placed in new prison camps by the British, their “liberators.” And yet today we see regrettably substantial criticism of Israel, not to mention substantial anti-Semitism, emanating from those rain-soaked islands that were so instrumental in many of the conflicts that exist today. (See, for example, India and Pakistan.) If one is a former colonizer, it helps to have a short memory.
The British, having had enough of their colonizing ways now that they were becoming too costly to maintain (as opposed to some sense of righteousness), handed the situation in their mandate over to the United Nations, effectively abdicating any prior promises or sense of responsibility for the situation they were partially to blame for creating. The Arabs were not averse to matters being handed over to the UN as they (incorrectly) forecast a favorable resolution. Conversely, the Jews were wary of UN involvement, portending many decades of future problems with the organization. Nonetheless, in the spring of 1947, the UN, over initial objections from the Arabs, formed yet another committee, the UN Special Committee on Palestine, to determine a settlement. Given the composition of UNSCOP, the Arabs expected an easy victory at the UN. After visiting the area and speaking to numerous representatives, during which the previously-skeptical members of the Committee were impressed by what the Jews had created, a place that was “European, modern, dynamic” and a “state in the making.” Finally, UNSCOP issued its report to the UN General Assembly on September 1, with a majority supporting partition into two states. Finally, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly, which required a two-thirds vote to approve UNSCOP’s recommendation, passed Resolution 181 adopting the partition plan with only the Arab and Muslim states, Cuba and India objecting. A few other nations, including the ever-useful British, abstained.
In fairness, while the Jews celebrated, the Arabs were angered by the fact that 37% of the population would be given 55% of the land (of which the Jews only owned 7%). The Arabs felt that they were being made to pay for the sins of the Holocaust and questioned why they should become a minority in a Jewish state. Of course, others have pointed out that the numbers of Jews was kept lower due to the strict limitations on Jewish immigration discussed above while Arab immigration was unfettered. (It is key to keep in mind that many, if not most, of members of both populations were themselves effectively “immigrants” to the land in the years leading up to partition. This reality is often lost in today’s debates.) And although many factors contributed to the UN’s decision, perhaps at least some answers might be found by looking to Haj Amin al-Husseni, the Mufti of Jerusalem’s, World War II record: Haj Amin fled to Germany in 1941 to meet with Hitler, Himmler and others in an attempt to persuade them to extend the Nazi’s anti-Jewish actions to the Arab world.
The Jews, despite celebrating the UN’s decision knew this would lead to war. Actually, two successive wars. First, the Palestinians, on November 30, 1947 (i.e., within hours of the UN General Assembly’s vote), launched a civil war against the Jews. This was a largely unsuccessful and demoralizing misadventure on the Palestinians' part. Following shortly thereafter, on May 15, 1948, the day after Israel declared its statehood, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, along with Palestinian and foreign volunteers, attacked the newborn state. As we all well know, the combined Arab forces were defeated. But, importantly and regrettably, no peace treaties were entered into with any of the warring forces. Ceasefires were the best that could be brokered.
No discussion of the Israeli-Arab conflict could be complete without the elephant in the room: the Palestinian “refugee” problem. Despite what many may wish to believe about their respective side’s complicity or lack thereof in creating the displaced Palestinian issue, the fact is that there is disagreement. Having reviewed multiple historical sources, there seems to be no simple answer as to whom is to blame, which should not really be surprising. All of the Palestinians did not voluntarily leave their homes on the promise of a “certain and swift” Arab victory (although some did). Many Palestinians were forced out by the Israeli forces for a variety of reasons. Yet not all of them by any means. And, while it is not ever discussed, more than twice the number of Jews living in Arab countries were displaced from their countries in the years after Israel’s founding as were Arabs displaced by the creation of the Jewish state. While nearly 200 resolutions of the UN deal with the Arab “refugees”, not a single one deals with these displaced Jews. Perhaps this is in part due to the fact that Israel resettled them in Israel at great expense despite not ever receiving a penny in reparations for them from the offending Arab states. Contrast this with Israel’s consistent position that any settlement deal with the Palestinians must include reparations to be paid to the Palestinians for their property. As Abba Eban famously stated, “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
Comments