Hundred Flowers Campaign
1. Mao's motive for launching the Hundred Flowers Campaign was because he felt that he was in touch with the people and he thought it would be a good time to let people express their satisfaction and approval of Communist China. This shows that Mao wanted recognition and praise. Additionally he was trying to do everything he could to prove that Hu Feng's challenges of Marxist-Leninist values (who stated that Marxist-Leninist values were not the only criteria for judging artistic merit) were not true.
Great Leap industry
1. By the 'Great Leap Forward', Mao was referring to the second Five Year Plan of 1958-1962. His goal was to turn China into a modern industrial state, eventually to overtake the other major nations in production. The idea of a 'leap' forward is that China would become an industrial state in a short amount of time and not go through the steps toward getting there as slowly as the other great nations did.
2. Mao planned to achieve industrial 'lift-off' through the following; 1) The collectivized peasants, working in their communes, would produce a surplus of food. This food would be sold to other nations and the money would support the expansion of Chinese industry, and 2) The workers would create with their own hands a modern industrial economy which would be powerful enough to compete with the Soviet Union and the capitalist West.
3. With the second Five Year Plan, the term 'plan' was only somewhat accurate. Quotas and targets were set but these numbers did not have any economic value, that is, they did not have a realistic basis but were rather pulled out of the air randomly due to Mao's faith in Communist China's ability to produce. Since the provided figures were changed so frequently it can be said that there was only a vague plan to achieve some sort of quota or target but it wasn't really a plan because there was no set course of action that was supposed to take place.
4. The government's aim in introducing SOE's (state-owned enterprises) was to bring industry under total government direction. Existing firms and businesses could no longer be privately owned but now would work for the state. Prices, output targets, and wages were also to be fixed by the state - there was no negotiation. The purpose overall was for the government to have greater control over industry.
5. Mao did not achieve the Great Leap Forward because China lacked many essentials such as technical skills, managerial kn0w-how, efficiently run factories and plants, and an adequate transport system. Without these there was no chance of China becoming industrialized enough to overtake the rest of the world. Also, the output of industrial goods actually fell during this time period rather than achieving growth as hoped for.
6. Factors that prevented the Great Leap Forward from achieving its full targets were;
a) The quality of China's finished products fell a long way short of meeting its domestic industrial needs.
b) Political interference made the plan impossible to manage purely as an economic enterprise.
c) Officials issued demands and threats aplenty, but hardly any detailed instructions as to how things were actually to be done.
d) Despite the setting up of SOEs, so much was left to the local initiative that China really bever was operated as an integrated national plan.
e) As a result, quality control became difficult to manage and sustain,
f) In 1960 the USSR stopped providing financial assistance, and then China could not afford half of the 300 industrial plants that the Soviet Union had been sponsoring, including a number of steel mills.
7. The major limitations in Mao's economic thinking were the belief in applied Communism always being successful, as well as his unacceptance of the fact that his policies were at fault. Therefore, he would have been unable to make improvements if he did not even acknowledge that improvements could have been made. He didn't acknowledge failure as a result of Communist planning failing but he interpreted it as an intervention of the bourgeoisie and backsliders. His idea was to blame the messenger. It can be seen that his main limitation was that he blamed issues that he was responsible for, on outside factors that really were not relevant, thus no improvements could ever be made to any of his plans or goals.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Brezhnev Questions
BREZHNEV/CZECHOSLOVAKIA;
1. In 1968 Czechoslovakia was similar to Hungary in the following ways;
i. Both were brought on by policies carried out by incompetent, arrogant native leaders.
ii. Both sought to introduce a humane, progressive element into the Communist way of life.
iii. Both were repressed by the might of Soviet military while the rest of the world ceased to help.
iiii. Both were forced to accept Soviet-appointed satraps (Kadar in Hungary, Husak in Czechoslovakia.
2. The three commands that the Czechs made of Dubcek were;
i. The abolishment of the ‘central model of society’.
ii. Elimination of ‘administrative and undemocratic interference in all spheres of social and cultural life’
iii. The removal of Novotny as president of the republic.
3. The Soviets responded to the Czech judicial reform in that they became alarmed and they ordered extensive troop movement along Czechoslovakia’s eastern frontiers.
4. The alleged defenestration of Jan Masaryk became an issue again because in 1948, he died mysteriously and then this led to an interrogation and because the Czechoslovaks refused to participate in the inquisition, their Eastern European clients sent them a letter of unparalleled insult.
5. The Czech and Soviet perspectives on the ‘broad statement of principles’ differed. The Czechs considered their signature of the document as compliance and adherence to all Soviet demands, while the Soviets considered it carte blanche for intervention in Czechoslovakia to maintain their style of Socialism there.
6. The Czech response to the Soviet invasion was that they were stunned, because they for years entertained pan-Slav sentiments as well as pan-Soviet sentiments.
7. Two of Dubcek’s new policies were; censorship of press, and appointed pro-Soviet sympathizers to highr positions in the government.
8. The ultimate outcome of the invasion for Czechoslovakia was that it became the most oppressive Communist state of Eastern Europe, as Brezhev and his government became increasingly entangled wit Czechoslovak politics.
BREZHNEV/AFGHANISTAN;
1. What two justifications did the Soviets publicly offer for their Afghan invasion?
One was that Babrak had requested their military presence in Afghanistan to preserve his country for socialism, which was threatened by the United States and China. The other was that the threat to Afghanistan was also a threat to the USSR.
2. Other factors that may have motivated the USSR are that they had been friendly with Afghanistan and had made substantial financial investments in the country, as well as that the Soviets had signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship with the Taraki government, which had introduced many Soviet political, economical, social, and cultural institutions in the country.
3. The international reaction to Soviet policies in Afghanistan was condemnation of Soviet behavior and activity. Efforts to solve the problem (for example, efforts of the United Nations) were fruitless because of Soviet intransigence.
BREZHNEV/POLAND;
1. The six areas of conflict between the Soviets and the Poles were;
i. Religion - Poles are largely Catholic while Soviets are largely Russian Orthodox.
ii. "ideological deviation" - Poles withdrew from Soviet labor unions.
iii. Resistance to Soviet control of the Polish economy and exploitation of their resources.
iv. The security of the USSR and to its interests in central and eastern Europe.
v. It was a historic challenge.
vi. It was a protest against corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR.
2. The six events that precipitated the '80-'81 Polish crisis;
i. The growing nationwide disillusionment with the government's policies.
ii. The government's failure to introduce desperately needed economic reforms that would improve the low living standard.
iii. The growing tension between religious and political leaders, which culminated the government's refusal to allow Pope John Paul VI to visit Poland in 1966 to commemorate the milennium of Polish Catholicism.
iv. The arrest and trial of several young party intellectuals who were critical of the official establishment and its policies.
v. The government's stoppage of a theatre production of a poetic drama (Dziady) because of its anti-Russian lines.
vi. The nationwide student unrest in March 1968 which was put down with excessive force.
3. Of the six areas of conflict, the most destructive one to Soviet-Polish relations definitely related to the Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions and the results of this. Steep price increases caused demonstrations, protests, and work stoppages. Poland came close to a working-class insurrection, and attempts to fix the economy were difficult as officials did not know how to handle them, and strikers' demands such as family allowances, early retirement, etc. and the appearance of an independent trade union alarmed the Soviets, and the defiance of the Polish to Soviet authority in these areas caused the Soviets to act again in 1980.
4. The least significant hindrance to the Polish-Soviet relations was their difference in religion. While the Pope's visit to Poland did put pressure on both sides, it did not yield destructive results and there were no outbreaks of anti-Polish or anti-Soviet sentiments. On the other hand the other five areas of conflict (historical reasons, economical reasons, Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions, etc.) seemed to have a more direct impact on events to come, while religious differences did somewhat hinder relations but were not one of the core reasons for worsening of Polish-Soviet relations.
1. In 1968 Czechoslovakia was similar to Hungary in the following ways;
i. Both were brought on by policies carried out by incompetent, arrogant native leaders.
ii. Both sought to introduce a humane, progressive element into the Communist way of life.
iii. Both were repressed by the might of Soviet military while the rest of the world ceased to help.
iiii. Both were forced to accept Soviet-appointed satraps (Kadar in Hungary, Husak in Czechoslovakia.
2. The three commands that the Czechs made of Dubcek were;
i. The abolishment of the ‘central model of society’.
ii. Elimination of ‘administrative and undemocratic interference in all spheres of social and cultural life’
iii. The removal of Novotny as president of the republic.
3. The Soviets responded to the Czech judicial reform in that they became alarmed and they ordered extensive troop movement along Czechoslovakia’s eastern frontiers.
4. The alleged defenestration of Jan Masaryk became an issue again because in 1948, he died mysteriously and then this led to an interrogation and because the Czechoslovaks refused to participate in the inquisition, their Eastern European clients sent them a letter of unparalleled insult.
5. The Czech and Soviet perspectives on the ‘broad statement of principles’ differed. The Czechs considered their signature of the document as compliance and adherence to all Soviet demands, while the Soviets considered it carte blanche for intervention in Czechoslovakia to maintain their style of Socialism there.
6. The Czech response to the Soviet invasion was that they were stunned, because they for years entertained pan-Slav sentiments as well as pan-Soviet sentiments.
7. Two of Dubcek’s new policies were; censorship of press, and appointed pro-Soviet sympathizers to highr positions in the government.
8. The ultimate outcome of the invasion for Czechoslovakia was that it became the most oppressive Communist state of Eastern Europe, as Brezhev and his government became increasingly entangled wit Czechoslovak politics.
BREZHNEV/AFGHANISTAN;
1. What two justifications did the Soviets publicly offer for their Afghan invasion?
One was that Babrak had requested their military presence in Afghanistan to preserve his country for socialism, which was threatened by the United States and China. The other was that the threat to Afghanistan was also a threat to the USSR.
2. Other factors that may have motivated the USSR are that they had been friendly with Afghanistan and had made substantial financial investments in the country, as well as that the Soviets had signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship with the Taraki government, which had introduced many Soviet political, economical, social, and cultural institutions in the country.
3. The international reaction to Soviet policies in Afghanistan was condemnation of Soviet behavior and activity. Efforts to solve the problem (for example, efforts of the United Nations) were fruitless because of Soviet intransigence.
BREZHNEV/POLAND;
1. The six areas of conflict between the Soviets and the Poles were;
i. Religion - Poles are largely Catholic while Soviets are largely Russian Orthodox.
ii. "ideological deviation" - Poles withdrew from Soviet labor unions.
iii. Resistance to Soviet control of the Polish economy and exploitation of their resources.
iv. The security of the USSR and to its interests in central and eastern Europe.
v. It was a historic challenge.
vi. It was a protest against corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR.
2. The six events that precipitated the '80-'81 Polish crisis;
i. The growing nationwide disillusionment with the government's policies.
ii. The government's failure to introduce desperately needed economic reforms that would improve the low living standard.
iii. The growing tension between religious and political leaders, which culminated the government's refusal to allow Pope John Paul VI to visit Poland in 1966 to commemorate the milennium of Polish Catholicism.
iv. The arrest and trial of several young party intellectuals who were critical of the official establishment and its policies.
v. The government's stoppage of a theatre production of a poetic drama (Dziady) because of its anti-Russian lines.
vi. The nationwide student unrest in March 1968 which was put down with excessive force.
3. Of the six areas of conflict, the most destructive one to Soviet-Polish relations definitely related to the Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions and the results of this. Steep price increases caused demonstrations, protests, and work stoppages. Poland came close to a working-class insurrection, and attempts to fix the economy were difficult as officials did not know how to handle them, and strikers' demands such as family allowances, early retirement, etc. and the appearance of an independent trade union alarmed the Soviets, and the defiance of the Polish to Soviet authority in these areas caused the Soviets to act again in 1980.
4. The least significant hindrance to the Polish-Soviet relations was their difference in religion. While the Pope's visit to Poland did put pressure on both sides, it did not yield destructive results and there were no outbreaks of anti-Polish or anti-Soviet sentiments. On the other hand the other five areas of conflict (historical reasons, economical reasons, Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions, etc.) seemed to have a more direct impact on events to come, while religious differences did somewhat hinder relations but were not one of the core reasons for worsening of Polish-Soviet relations.
Friday, June 11, 2010
IRL TOK, June 11, 2010.
* 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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)