Posts
The events involving this ship inspired the book "Exodus" by Leon Uris and the movie by the same name starring Paul Newman, who played the Character of Yossi Harel...now dead at age 90.
The ship was packed with over 4,500 refugees, Holocaust survivors, mostly women and children who were desperately seeking to reach the shores of Palestine in 1947. The British Navy ceased the ship in open water killing three refugees and sending it back to Germany where they were put in camps.
The events triggered world-wide disgust and exposed the British policies for what they were... blatant interference on behalf of Arab interests to halt the creation of the Jewish State in their homeland. Eventually the British caved and high-tailed it out, as the State of Israel was proclaimed.
As much as I admire the British for their larger contributions to human events in centuries past, the list of really disgusting episodes of misjudgment is a long one... including this legendary incident.
7 hours ago
Well to be fair,the British were in a no win situation and its easy 'now' to say they should have done this or that, because we now know how the future developed.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, they couldn't really see where this whole thing was going to go. Pressured from one angle internally and externally to help the Jews, and pressured from another angle internally and externally to help the Arabs who were rioting (understandably in some cases) about a sudden vast influx of people arriving on their shores with no apparent means of regulating this flood, it must have been a nightmare for them. You call it a misjudgment but that's because you weren't in that situation of having a mob of local fiery Arabs just waiting to riot and start killing people again if another boat landed with more outsiders.
Politicians were making one deal with one group and simultaneously making a deal with somebody else, so the whole thing was bound to collide eventually, with the British troops being the ones who had to sort out the mess. The British authorities were juggling several balls at once, and there was no way that could carry on without some cases of great unfairness occuring. It occured for the Arabs just as much as it did for the Jews. Implying we were blatantly Pro-Arab is a half truth. We were trying to please everybody (impossible). That was our mistake.
And to be fair to the British again, the British were responsible for training some of the Jewish militias who eventually carved out,created, and later defended the state of Israel, and we helped structuring the night squads who would go out and take out Arab militia elements.
Overall they were more pro-Jew than Pro-Arab during this whole thing, and that was quite an achievement considering the conditions. Unfortunately, boats had to be turned away at the time in order to tame the flames.
My Grandfather (no longer alive) was stationed there during that time and the whole thing was a horrible mess, with both Jewish militant and Arab militant elements making life considerably harder for the British than it needed to be. We could easily find ourselves looking at Iraq decades from now and saying the U.S should have done this or that, because we know how things have developed since. But at the time the people on the ground just had to deal with it the best they could.
“British” has left a well reasoned defense of the British position at the time, and I do understand and share his (or her) distaste for history in hindsight…Indeed I detest those who argue historic issues in hindsight and would never want to be caught doing it myself. Of course I agree that the British were in a no-win situation in their efforts at so-called neutrality and that British soldiers were asked to carry the burden of this no-win policy. It is my argument however that it was immoral and wrong to maintain a policy of “neutrality” in a struggle between the arsonist and the fire-brigade….and I don’t mean that in hindsight.
ReplyDeleteThe fire-brigade being those who were seeking to establish a tiny refuge for hundreds of thousands of wretched souls who had just survived the greatest crime in human history, and were mostly willing to share the land with the Arabs…. And the arsonists being the Arabs, who had no compassion or willingness to live side-by-side in peace with these “infidels”. These are matters of historic fact and the greatest proof of that came on the day the British left Palestine and the creation of Israel was declared. Ben Gurion publiclly offered, indeed begged, to live in peace with the Arabs, who answered with a full scale invasion of the tiny state from all directions in order to destroy her and push the Jews into the sea.
Now, tt is true that without certain British policies….Israel would likely have never been created. Orde Charles Wingate did lay the foundation of the IDF, as did the British creation of the Jewish Brigade which served during WWII. And of course, there was Winston Churchill, a passionate Zionists, and many others like him who saw the issue clearly. But in my view, it would be insincere to suggest that the British “white paper” policy, which overturned the valiant Balfour Declaration, was anything but a morally bankrupt policy and a stain on a largely glorious British history.
>And the arsonists being the Arabs, who had no compassion or willingness to live side-by-side in peace with these “infidels”.
ReplyDeleteHow things went,were nowhere near as simple as 'good guys' and 'bad guys' Joe,and I think you already know that. Anyone who knows the history (as you surely do) knows that it wasn't so Jedi and Sith lord. During the early Zionist colonys of the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, Arabs and the early Zionist settlers lived side by side and had a good relationship with each other because Zionist ambitions were fairly small then.
Only at the end of the 1920s did things turn sour,due to the unrestricted numbers that were now coming in (even prior to the holocaust),large land purchases taking place beyond the initial settled coastal areas, and hardening Zionist goals which simply wanted more and more land.
Once the influx of immigrants became a flood after the holocaust,locals could see the risk of their own homes under threat.
If Palestine had been the size of the United States, then the issues would not have been so fierce. But it wasn't such a massive land mass.
Overall it all boils down to a matter of speed,numbers,and regulation (or lack of it) when it comes to immigration and whether or not locals are receptive,compassionate,and accomodating or go on the defensive because they see a threat to their own situation, in order to accomodate outsiders.
Look at Britain right now for example, where immigration has become a bitter issue here since E.U deals we had no say in whatsoever (as it was decided in Brussels by people we've never seen or elected) decided anyone in the E.U of any type could pack bags and come here to work and live without any regulation of numbers, no check on possible criminal backgrounds, no check to see if there were even enough places for work in small towns to accomodate these foreign workers aswell as the locals, virtually no preparation for the strains it has had on local councils when it comes to health care, schools, and housing.
Adding insult to injury, locals have had to shoulder the tax costs of dealing with this screwup and people are not happy about it.
Our government told us we'd only see about 15,000 people maximum.
What we got (from Poland alone,never mind the rest of the E.U) was 600,000 people and that was 2 years ago. Now it's over 1 million and that's just from Poland. Add to the number of recent immigrants from Portugal,India, Malaysia and others settling in small towns instead of the usual migration to cities, and it's a recipe for resentment and anger at the government and also making some feel a grudge against the immigrants themselves when they are given priority in housing and other issues because of multi cultural prioritys. Britain is a very densely populated place indeed.
Ordinarily people don't mind immigration when it is slow,small scale,and absorbed. But after the 1920s it was no longer like that in Palestine. Arabs knew this wasn't just a case of some poor people seeking home. They knew that behind them in Palestine (and from countries 1000s of miles away) there were lots of Jews who were not victims, not refugees, but were loaded with money, and viewing this all as a Religious prophecy of return at the expense of whatever society or people lived there already.
With my response I could address lots of the issues regarding differing of opinion within the Zionist movement regarding the Palestinian Arabs, but this could go on forever. Ultimately I think it all boils down to how fast things happened, how local people's practical and political needs were ignored both by the British politicians and also by Zionists.
When Zionism was created in places like Ukraine, lots of these people thought Palestine was virtually an empty land with a few goat herders wandering here and there. When people started to come, they found something quite different. They also found that since the mid 1800s there had been equal ideas of creating an Arab palestinian state of their own (an Arab one) once (and if) the Ottoman Empire fell.
Overall, not just a few uneducated Beduin with no fixed home or infrastructure. Ben Gurion saw this, and his only hope was that the Arabs would be fine with all this dramatic change. In that way I agree that he wanted Arabs on for the ride. But that was just wishful thinking as he knew it was unlikely. Over time he saw many Arabs weren't, but he and other Zionist leaders had to sweep the issue under the carpet and continue on, knowing full well it would end up in an almighty collision and a big bust up sooner or later.
There were Arabs for whom the issue wasn't one of race of Judaism,but who didn't want to be ruled by a secular outside ideology even if allowed to live under it. Reasons for Arab resistance were many and not just a simple case of them being irrational xenephobic lunatics (although admittedly some were,like the Mufti and his buddy Himmler over in Berlin).
Zionism was essentially an outside invasion by a foreign people and foreign ideology,no matter how we slice it. Despite my empathy with the Arabs situation at 'that' time (I have 0% empathy for their Islamist propaganda nowadays that Jerusalem is second to Mecca and must be in any Palestinian state) I am for Israel.
I have been there, met its people, but I also understand 'why' the Arabs of the 'time' were furious about what was taking place without their say in the matter.
By the time the 1947 U.N plan came up (which seems like a reasonable proposal to everyone 'now' that we have witnessed the decades of fighting that followed), they were furious to the extreme and knew there was no time for further amendments because the British would be pulling out of there soon.
Even today the question - "Why did the Palestinians have to take the burden for the crimes of Europeans?" has never been sufficiently answered really.
Even Ben Gurion said that Israel had to steal the land of these people to accomodate Israel. Lots of Young Israelis I met in Israel say the same. They fully admit most of Israel was built on land stolen from the Palestinians Arabs, without me saying a word.
Like they say after that though, I don't think there is anything which can be done about that now. The Palestinian situation 'now' has mostly turned into an ugly Islamist goal to erase Israel from existance and capture their supposed 'holy of holys' Al Quds, rather than seek a Palestinian state next to it.
That is why I support Israel from 'this' view. But I utterly condemn new settlements being built in Palestinian areas with bizzare Religious claims that it was always their land. That is just pouring fuel on the fire.
The current generation of Israelis does not have to pay for the crimes of their fathers,and the majority of the Palestinians today are not the people who lived in Palestine when the war broke out in 1948.
British,
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of your Broader characterizations, but details are important.
The historic Palestine Mandate included what is now Jordan (well over 70+% of the land). The British GAVE that territory to the Arabs, mostly with Jewish acquiescence.
There is never a mention of the many Arab immigrants to Palestine seeking employment during that period... there is only mention of Jewish Immigration. Hmmmm. I wonder why?
There is never a mention of the number of Jews forced from Arab lands who took refuge in Israel. 856,000 Jews left or were forced from their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s. Some 600,000 resettled in Israel, leaving behind property valued today at more than $300 billion. Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands has been estimated at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the entire State of Israel).
These are greater numbers (both in people and wealth) than the 711,000Arabs who left or fled Israel in 1948 as a result of a war initiated by the Arabs themselves.
I could go on and on, but generally what we have here is a massive population exchange similar to what happened between Pakistan and India. The difference being that the Arabs have not come to accept the Jews, while most Jews have been more than ready to live in peace with the Arabs from day one.
A simple truth: If the Arabs disarmed today, what would happen? If the Jews disarmed today, what would happen? The answers to these two simple questions are really all you need to know, in terms of who the belligerent party is.
Joe
A simple truth: If the Arabs disarmed today, what would happen? If the Jews disarmed today, what would happen? The answers to these two simple questions are really all you need to know, in terms of who the belligerent party is.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree on that point, which is why for the 'most' part I separate my empathy for the Palestinians of the 1920-30s,from those of today (certainly their various militant organizations) where the cause has become a very ugly one indeed masquerading as a genuine desire to live in peace if only - "Israel would stop being nasty to us".
Israel certainly would cease to exist if it disarmed now, and I agree with those who say that if any Palestinian state was built right along side Israel without a very large no mans land between them, then this new state so close to Israel would just be used as a stepping stone from which to attack Israel.
Even during 1948 I recognize that the Jews had to fight for their very 'existence' when total war was declared on them by several surrounding states which (imo) had nothing to do with this matter whatsoever (and still don't). My empathy for their situation mostly lies in those early years before this turned into a horrendous Jihad .
The British GAVE that territory to the Arabs, mostly with Jewish acquiescence.
The British politicians certainly made a monumental mistake by promising two people the very same thing and just hoping it would sort itself out somehow. What I think they had realized though was that they had already blatantly lied to the faces of the Arabs years before during the Arab revolt, promising the Arabs a mighty unified state to rival the Ottomans once it was all over, but stealing it all out from under their noses after many had died fighting the turks alongside them. The Brits knew that if they did this again, Jihad would be waged against them. Despite being fooled once, the Arabs 'still ' exhibited amazing trust towards the British during the Palestine episode. Why, I don't know. Once bitten, twice shy I would say.
What the Arabs didn't know was that different British people were making deals with different people, and some with religious prophecy determining what would take place in this region. A recipe for hell on earth (which is exactly what some of these people sought, as they felt that when the 'Jews returned to Zion', Jesus would return afetr a mighty battle). Religious quackery, making people's lives chess pieces in their games (as Palestinian militant groups and surrounding Arab/Iranian states also do today).
856,000 Jews left or were forced from their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s.
Indeed. What I do know of the situation is mostly about what happened in Syria and Iraq after Israel was created. We could say though that this sudden change of view towards Jews was a direct result of the events surrounding the creation of Israel. I think of the Boxer Rebellion in China, in which whole European families of woman and even small children living in Peking were dragged out of their homes and put to the sword due to anger about Britain (uh oh, it's us again) and its meddling.
Jews were now clearly seen in Arab nations as the enemy, after the creation of Israel. We view it as terrible that Jews who had been living in those Arab nations for a long long time should become a scapegoat for anger over Israel, but it's not 'totally' surprising. After all, Israel wouldn't let the Arabs who had fled, back in once hostilities were over. They didn't because they didn't trust them (understandably, by this stage). Arabs in Arab nations probably didn't trust having Jews in their midst either after 1948.
There is never a mention of the many Arab immigrants to Palestine seeking employment during that period... there is only mention of Jewish Immigration. Hmmmm. I wonder why?
I agree there certainly was immigration to Palestine by Arabs during the peaceful early years of Zionist settlement when both were getting on well, and it seems that not 'all the Arabs that claim today they had all been living there for centuries, had been there for centuries at all.
But there must have been 'enough' living there for Ben Gurion and other Zionist leaders to note early on in the 1900s that the region wasn't just a windswept dusty bowl ready for the Jews to transform (as had long been believed). I think Arabs later began to see what was 'really' going on, with these Jewish settlers and what they sought. Once that was seen, attitudes changed tremendously and they got scared (and anger always follows).
I could go on and on, but generally what we have here is a massive population exchange similar to what happened between Pakistan and India.
Good comparison (uh oh,British involved again :/ ). Quite similar and certainly similar in terms of the fury that was aroused when people's lives were being uprooted and people's survival (both the Jews and Arabs) were at stake.
Muslims and Hindus slaughtering each other was a horrendous thing during the partition. As mentioned earlier, it seems it all boils down to panic and 'speed' of change. If things are taking place slowly enough that people can get used to each other and are not overwhelmed, then the possibility of a meeting and finding out what people 'do\ have in common is more possible.
If things go too fast for comfort, then compassion and hospitality goes out the window. If events in Europe had not been taking place, my guess is that the situation there today could be very different in the middle east.
But it didn't. And the process Hitler started, has now been adopted by Islamists worldwide it seems.
I congratulate “British”, for it is rare that I get to converse with someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Most communications of this sort involve folks who are hyper-emotional with very little actual knowledge of history (not that I don’t have certain gaps in my own knowledge).
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with almost all of your analysis, although I tend to lean stronger towards the pro-Israel position. Unfortunately for the Arabs, they were poorly led by people like the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amil el Husseini, and other rebel-rousers. Unlike the Jews, they lacked an element of highly educated and sophisticated people of the sort the Jews brought with them from Europe. More sensible and calm heads were unavailable on the Arab side to reach a compromise of mutual consent. Things moved quickly because that was what history required as a matter of self-preservation at the time.
Although I hold the British responsible in many ways for the mess in the Middle East and in other places, that does not diminish my overall admiration for the achievements of British civilization in human affairs. Indeed, my own son’s middle name is “Winston”, named after Mr. Churchill. On balance, I believe it’s fair to say that the British have had a far more positive effect on world history than negative…and there is far more to be proud of than ashamed.
Joe
Thanks for the discussion, Joe :)
ReplyDelete