Thursday, 3 November 2011

Was Israel Condemned to a Perpetual Existential Struggle by the UN Partition?

Did the British and the UN foist a no-win or never-win situation by the very act of Partition in November, 1947? When Jews in Palestine danced for Joy, did they realize what a struggle they were in for? Did they contemplate how the world had "stacked the deck against them?

Read the prophetic sentiments of Ze'ev Jabotinsky below:

************************

In his memorandum [to Winston Churchill July 16, 1937, Zev] Jabotinsky stressed that a partitioned Palestine. would create a Jewish State too small in area to be. defendable [sic] from sustained Arab attack from outside it.

SOURCE: Churchill and the Jews (chapter 11, page 125)
by Martin Gilbert, year 2007)


************************


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/message/131
Shalom,
RRW

5 comments:

micha said...

That was the standard modus operandi. Look at the Pakistan-Indian boarder. The two sides are in perpetual war. To the point that India ended up having to put up a fence. Look up "Separation Barrier" and you'll see that it's pretty common among countries that were formed from divided colonies. There is even a West Bank-like disputed enclave, Kashmir.

And what was the slaughter in Rwanda over? Kenya? The Congo (although that was formerly Belgian)?

I'm not sure if it's a Machivellian move on the part of England (and to a lesser extent, France and the rest of West Europe), to keep the WOGs down by keeping them fighting among themselves. Or if it was simply apathy -- they drew up boarders without caring about the region's history. They promised the same land to multiple parties simply because they didn't take the promises seriously. Etc... On different days I have different opinions as to which would be more evil.

My mother was born in Palestine, with a birth certificate in English, Arabic and Turkish. (Note the omitted language.) My grandfather a"h had much to say about the British. All of it very heated.

Garnel Ironheart said...

I can second Rav Berger's assertion - the British traditionally left their former colonies in one of three ways:
1) They were kicked out (America)
2) They granted partial independence and created a dominion while leaving the Queen as head of State (the Commonwealth)
3) They evacuated before they could be kicked out but left the borders in such a mess as to guarantee perpetual fighting.
As for the other European powers, they left their colonies in a mass because
a) Their colonial borders were drawn up for convenience, not along tribal lines
b) local strongement/cum dictators were quite happy to be bequeathed the ungovernable new states and go to war with others.

Adam Zur said...

the English story is sad. They had an empire that spanned the world. but it fell. At the time it fell the places they left became disaster areas and garbage heaps. Israel is one place that despite this tendency has managed to become a first world country. But the problem remain. Part of the reason that Israel is not total chaos is though one empire fell another rose in its place--the American empire. This empire took Israel under its wings. But now with the end of the American Empire in sight, Israel is facing a serious existence problem.
No solution like partition could help it now.

Anonymous said...

We're getting signals that the time for reliance on empires has passed.

Adam Zur said...

I wouldn't be so happy at the fall of American power, when the roman empire fell we rejoiced yet we suffered from the implosion of Europe that took 500 years to recover more than anyone else. half of Europe population was decimated in the chaos that followed the Roma demise.