* Can history provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs? Can it provide a guide to the future? What might be “the lessons of history” for future generations?
History can provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs. Knowing what happened in the past and why it happened can give insight into what is happening today, given the context of the original situation compared to those today. History can also provide a guide to the future but only to the extent to which we as people can predict it. It can give some insight but there will never be complete certainty as to what will happen in the future. "The lessons of history" for future generations might be to make similar decisions to ones which worked, and to not make the same mistakes as the past.
IRL 20 ( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html) discusses the implications of the Balfour Declaration, its anbiguity in its message and the problems that this caused for Palestine, the Jews, the Arabs, and the British. The Balfour Declaration was the first instance of western support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, where the British stated that they supported a Jewish home in Palestine. However the British had also promised the Arabs independence, since they had helped them to fight against their Turkish rulers previously. The ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine, did not state anything about what would happen to the Arabs, and was interpreted by the Jews as a sign of support in the case that they reestablished themselves in their ancient homeland, while the Arabs were certain the British would not allow the Jews to take over their country. This was the beginning of a conflict which can provide insight into the issues going on in the Middle East today - the Arabs believe that their interests were not taken into consideration and that their land was given over to the Jews, who did not rightfully belong there. The Jews believe they finally made it back to their rightful homeland, and this conflict extends back to the Balfour Declaration, when the two groups first started to have increased contact with one another. The lesson that can be learned from this is that ambiguous statements should not be made when regarding issues that pertain to two groups, as each will interpret it however they want and act on it, causing conflict. In addition, this issue shows clearly how one group reacts when another comes into their land and takes it over increasingly with time, showing the hostility and intense conflict, as well as issues of nationalism that result.
IRL 16 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html) discusses a more recent issue, where the Israelis had approved the building of 1,600 new homes in a traditionally Arab/Muslim section of the city. This can be easily compared to past events, such as the invasion and massacre at Deir Yassin, where the Jews moved into an area that was not their own settlement and tried to force out the original group, making their presence there more stable. While there is no violence involved here (this is building new homes), it can be seen that historically and presently, the Jews in Palestine (today Israel) try to expand the area in which they occupy, especially extending into Muslim/Arab areas and switching them over. Looking at past events such as the Deir Yassin invasion, it should have been apparent that the Jews tend to not accept the amount of land they occupy and try to expand. The issue with this is that it does not take into consideration the wishes of the Arabs, or the agreements that were set as to who occupies what land, and this can be seen as a persistent issue that may continue into the future, assuming that these new homes are successfully built and purchased by Jewish people. The lesson that can be learned here is that when something is done successfully in the past, something similar (though in this situation to a MUCH lesser and less harmful extent) can also be carried out successfully, particularly if it is to a lesser extent.
While one can see the correlation between past and present, it is not always obvious, but looking more carefully into situations from both times can often show many similarities, with lessons to be learned from the past. As they say, the past does tend to repeat itself, and old issues often fuel present issues, assuming that the old issues were never solved, and issues relating to the Arab-Israeli crisis, overall, have never been "solved". Solutions have been attempted to be reached, but there has not yet been a solution that works for both sides. Anyone who knows about the history of modern Israel can see that situations similar to this (promising one group of people land on another peoples' land) is not a good idea and only leads to conflicts, and I sincerely hope that nothing like this ever happens again, given the number of reprocussions it has had in the Middle East today. I hope that people can see this as well, and know not to make the same mistakes in the future when it comes to land ownership.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
IRl 23, June 7, 2010.
URL; http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
IRL 22, May 27, 2010.
URL; http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Arab_Revolt.htm
This is an informative article which outlines and then describes the key information regarding the Arab Revolt/Great Arab Rebellion in Palestine, which took place between 1935-6 and 1939. This article relates mainly to the revolt as it relates to Zionism and to the Jewish people, which is the slant that the information presented here has, but it is still nonetheless valuable information, related to what we have been studying in class, as this rebellion is referenced.
It says here that this rebellion consisted of withholding taxes, acts of sabotage against British forces, and assassination of British officials, as well as the murder of Jewish civilians and other Arabs. These attacks were centered around the worry that the Arabs had about the large number of Jews that had immigrated to Palestine, worsening economic conditions due to the world depression.
Another valuable point mentioned here is that the Irgun, which was an Israeli 'secret police force' so to speak, was formed by the Jews in response to the violence that they had been enduring due to the Arabs' rebellion. The Haganah was also created as their military fighting force, and the end of the rebellion set the stage for the partition of Palestine and Israeli independence.
I also came to the conclusion on my own that the White Paper, issued by the British to pacify the Arabs' concerns about the large number of Jewish immigrants, must have been largely in response to their rebellion, and while I did know in the past due to what we've learned in class that the White Paper was one of the British attempts to not really take a definite stance on this, it must have largely been a result of the rebelling and the British would have wanted this to stop, as they would have been in the position of a mediator between the two sides.
The main limitation of this source is that there is so much information on it that for the purpose of completing this assignment or if I was looking for quick information, the first 10 or so paragraphs of text are all that are really going to be read, as it would take much more time to finish reading the page. There is so much information presented at once, whereas some people might be looking for a summary. Nevertheless, the information was very useful overall and amplified my understanding of the events happening between those years.
This is an informative article which outlines and then describes the key information regarding the Arab Revolt/Great Arab Rebellion in Palestine, which took place between 1935-6 and 1939. This article relates mainly to the revolt as it relates to Zionism and to the Jewish people, which is the slant that the information presented here has, but it is still nonetheless valuable information, related to what we have been studying in class, as this rebellion is referenced.
It says here that this rebellion consisted of withholding taxes, acts of sabotage against British forces, and assassination of British officials, as well as the murder of Jewish civilians and other Arabs. These attacks were centered around the worry that the Arabs had about the large number of Jews that had immigrated to Palestine, worsening economic conditions due to the world depression.
Another valuable point mentioned here is that the Irgun, which was an Israeli 'secret police force' so to speak, was formed by the Jews in response to the violence that they had been enduring due to the Arabs' rebellion. The Haganah was also created as their military fighting force, and the end of the rebellion set the stage for the partition of Palestine and Israeli independence.
I also came to the conclusion on my own that the White Paper, issued by the British to pacify the Arabs' concerns about the large number of Jewish immigrants, must have been largely in response to their rebellion, and while I did know in the past due to what we've learned in class that the White Paper was one of the British attempts to not really take a definite stance on this, it must have largely been a result of the rebelling and the British would have wanted this to stop, as they would have been in the position of a mediator between the two sides.
The main limitation of this source is that there is so much information on it that for the purpose of completing this assignment or if I was looking for quick information, the first 10 or so paragraphs of text are all that are really going to be read, as it would take much more time to finish reading the page. There is so much information presented at once, whereas some people might be looking for a summary. Nevertheless, the information was very useful overall and amplified my understanding of the events happening between those years.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
IRL 21. May 17, 2010.
URL; http://www.netanyahu.org/aliyah.html
One of the facts that was mentioned in my IA is that the name for a Jewish migration to Israel is known as an aliyah. I believe I specifically mentioned that the third of these, known as the Third Aliyah, resulted from harsh conditions in Russia that the Jewish people faced, and the support the Jews received through the Balfour Declaration encouraged them to make this migration.
This link above gives information on the religious significance of Jewish immigration to Israel. The Jews, according to this source, for centuries have viewed immigration back to the Promised Land as a religious obligation. In fact, the word aliyah itself means "ascent" or "pilgrimage", and those who make the aliyah are known as "olim", or "ascenders". There are many prayers that according to Jewish law, can only be prayed in Israel.
What I take from this is that I can now see that the land of Israel is not only culturally significant to the Jewish people and the land that they feel they deserve, but it is a key part of their religious life as well. How well could a group of people carry out their religion in another land if their traditions and traditional laws state that certain prayers can only be performed in one land? The land of Israel is very significant to the Jewish people in religious terms too - this fact corroborates the information I have formerly received that Israel was significant on many levels to the Jewish people, and I can now see another reason why they would strive to reestablish themselves there, which according to my research they did very successfully.
The only limitation of this source is that it does not give exact numbers as to how many Jews immigrated, but that is more a fact I want to know, and its exclusion does not detract from the overall purpose of the article.
One of the facts that was mentioned in my IA is that the name for a Jewish migration to Israel is known as an aliyah. I believe I specifically mentioned that the third of these, known as the Third Aliyah, resulted from harsh conditions in Russia that the Jewish people faced, and the support the Jews received through the Balfour Declaration encouraged them to make this migration.
This link above gives information on the religious significance of Jewish immigration to Israel. The Jews, according to this source, for centuries have viewed immigration back to the Promised Land as a religious obligation. In fact, the word aliyah itself means "ascent" or "pilgrimage", and those who make the aliyah are known as "olim", or "ascenders". There are many prayers that according to Jewish law, can only be prayed in Israel.
What I take from this is that I can now see that the land of Israel is not only culturally significant to the Jewish people and the land that they feel they deserve, but it is a key part of their religious life as well. How well could a group of people carry out their religion in another land if their traditions and traditional laws state that certain prayers can only be performed in one land? The land of Israel is very significant to the Jewish people in religious terms too - this fact corroborates the information I have formerly received that Israel was significant on many levels to the Jewish people, and I can now see another reason why they would strive to reestablish themselves there, which according to my research they did very successfully.
The only limitation of this source is that it does not give exact numbers as to how many Jews immigrated, but that is more a fact I want to know, and its exclusion does not detract from the overall purpose of the article.
Friday, May 7, 2010
IRL 20, May 7, 2010.
URL; http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html
This is an article written by Avi Shlaim, explaining the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and how it was interpreted differently by the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs believed, after the Balfour Declaration was written in 1917, that the interests of the Jews and the British goal to help them establish a national home would not conflict with Arab independence in Palestine. King Hussein was not opposed to Jewish settlement in Palestine, as he saw them as "People of the Book", meaning the Bible, but he was opposed to a Zionist takeover of Palestine. He did not want to see a Zionist agenda there.
The Jewish perspective is that they interpreted the Balfour Declaration as a sign that the British would be willing to support them in achieving their long-standing goal of re-establishing themselves in what they perceived to be their homeland once again, and eventually the Arabs there did see conflicting issues, and both sides eventually turned against the British, realizing that they could not depend on the British to achieve their goals.
The importance of this source to me is that it gives me some further background on one of the points I have made in my IA. In my IA, I analyzed the impact of the Balfour Declaration on the creation of an independent Israel, and like I discovered in my own research, this source backs up my point that although Israel was not established as a direct result of British actions, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration definitely contributed to Jewish immigration to Palestine, and allowed them to reestablish themselves there in larger numbers, feeling comfortable about doing so.
This is a sentence from the source above that demonstrates how the Balfour Declaration's impact on Jewish immigration angered the Arabs;
"The consequences of the Balfour Declaration were not confined to Palestine. The Declaration engendered anger towards Britain throughout the Arab world and at all levels of Arab society from the intellectual elites to the masses. "
The limitation of this source is primarily that it focuses more on the Arab perspective than the Jewish perspective, and apart from the fact that the Balfour Declaration inspired Jewish immigration, there is no explicit reference or quote to give the Jewish perspective in a more detailed manner than the generic one that I expressed above; Balfour Declaration gave the Jews the idea that Britain would support their endeavors.
This is an article written by Avi Shlaim, explaining the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and how it was interpreted differently by the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs believed, after the Balfour Declaration was written in 1917, that the interests of the Jews and the British goal to help them establish a national home would not conflict with Arab independence in Palestine. King Hussein was not opposed to Jewish settlement in Palestine, as he saw them as "People of the Book", meaning the Bible, but he was opposed to a Zionist takeover of Palestine. He did not want to see a Zionist agenda there.
The Jewish perspective is that they interpreted the Balfour Declaration as a sign that the British would be willing to support them in achieving their long-standing goal of re-establishing themselves in what they perceived to be their homeland once again, and eventually the Arabs there did see conflicting issues, and both sides eventually turned against the British, realizing that they could not depend on the British to achieve their goals.
The importance of this source to me is that it gives me some further background on one of the points I have made in my IA. In my IA, I analyzed the impact of the Balfour Declaration on the creation of an independent Israel, and like I discovered in my own research, this source backs up my point that although Israel was not established as a direct result of British actions, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration definitely contributed to Jewish immigration to Palestine, and allowed them to reestablish themselves there in larger numbers, feeling comfortable about doing so.
This is a sentence from the source above that demonstrates how the Balfour Declaration's impact on Jewish immigration angered the Arabs;
"The consequences of the Balfour Declaration were not confined to Palestine. The Declaration engendered anger towards Britain throughout the Arab world and at all levels of Arab society from the intellectual elites to the masses. "
The limitation of this source is primarily that it focuses more on the Arab perspective than the Jewish perspective, and apart from the fact that the Balfour Declaration inspired Jewish immigration, there is no explicit reference or quote to give the Jewish perspective in a more detailed manner than the generic one that I expressed above; Balfour Declaration gave the Jews the idea that Britain would support their endeavors.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
IRL 19, April 27, 2010.
URL; http://www.adl.org/durban/zionism.asp
This is an article from the Anti-Defamation League, designed to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people ... to secure justice and fair treatment for all." This article is explaining Zionism, which is one of the aspects being acknowledged in my IA, in the process of determining to what extent Israel is a product of British involvement in the Middle East. Zionists, who are Jewish nationalists, were also one of the groups that contributed to Israel's development and establishment, so this serves as a background for me as to what Zionism really is, and when it became prominent.
It is described here as the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in Israel, the birthplace of the Jewish people. Ever since the Jews were expelled from this land, the desire to return has been a key part of Jewish literature, prayer, ritual, and culture. Zionism emerged to prominence in the late 1800s as a result of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and the "father" of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who advocated for a Jewish state and homeland. Today, Zionism is a guiding national movement among many Jews, and some believe it is responsible for their determination to remain in Israel despite opposition among many.
The value of this information is that it shows me that in part, the establishment of Israel is in part due to intense Jewish nationalism, and the fact that the Jews have managed to fight opposition and remain established there for these turbulent 60 or so years shows me that they are a very proud and determined people, due to their desire to maintain their culture and establish a homeland for themselves once again. Zionism had been brought up in class and in my reading for my IA, but this clarifies for me what it actually means to the Jewish people.
This is an article from the Anti-Defamation League, designed to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people ... to secure justice and fair treatment for all." This article is explaining Zionism, which is one of the aspects being acknowledged in my IA, in the process of determining to what extent Israel is a product of British involvement in the Middle East. Zionists, who are Jewish nationalists, were also one of the groups that contributed to Israel's development and establishment, so this serves as a background for me as to what Zionism really is, and when it became prominent.
It is described here as the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in Israel, the birthplace of the Jewish people. Ever since the Jews were expelled from this land, the desire to return has been a key part of Jewish literature, prayer, ritual, and culture. Zionism emerged to prominence in the late 1800s as a result of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and the "father" of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who advocated for a Jewish state and homeland. Today, Zionism is a guiding national movement among many Jews, and some believe it is responsible for their determination to remain in Israel despite opposition among many.
The value of this information is that it shows me that in part, the establishment of Israel is in part due to intense Jewish nationalism, and the fact that the Jews have managed to fight opposition and remain established there for these turbulent 60 or so years shows me that they are a very proud and determined people, due to their desire to maintain their culture and establish a homeland for themselves once again. Zionism had been brought up in class and in my reading for my IA, but this clarifies for me what it actually means to the Jewish people.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Key Issues, Pages 45-50 of "Crisis in the Middle East".
1. How did Israel develop into a strong, modern state?
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)