Jaffa, Palestine: The beginning of the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. British riot police clash with Palestinian demonstrators protesting Britain's pro-Zionist policies (specifically increasing Zionist immigration into Palestine), Central Square, Jaffa, 12 June 1936. (via Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora).
MY RIGHT WORD
Here is one of the most concise and stunning statements - it's from 1936 when the "Arab Revolt" was declared - that explain the Arab-Israel conflict, its background, its complexity, its own internal contradictory and mendacious framework in which the Arabs enwrap it:
(and watch how many takes are required for another, later statement from 1939)
Let's fisk it, also concisely and briefly.
a) "replacement" (13-15 secs.)
Zionists never sought to replace Arabs with Jews but simply to bring Jews home. As have been proven by today's reality, millions of persons could live in this country and so all the Arab claims then were just to keep the Jews out. And the Arabs would still be in the country if they hadn't adopted the path of violence and terror from the start.
b) "principles" (16-18 secs.)
While the Arabs promoted a claim of 'self-determination' and 'democracy', they would not permit the Jews to practice the same and predicated their hostility and violence on a nationlist paradigm I term inventivity which denies Jews those rights when Jews possessed primacy as regards history, culture, religion and other aspects over and in this land. Moreover, almost 60 nations, all the civilized world in the post-World War I period, decided in the League of Nations that Jews would be granted the political rights in Palestine while non-Jews would be granted their rights in other areas of the Middle East and in Palestine only civil and religious rights. And that was only fair and just.
c) "Balfour Declaration abhorred" (19-25)
Well, that's true but the Arabs themselves, through their allegiance with Great Britain, their correspondence with MacMahon, their negotiations with Lawrence, etc., were doing exactly what the Zionists were doing. They fought in the desert and the Jews fought in Palestine. No difference. The British, faced with two options, elected to give Palestine to the Jews and backtracked out by awarding, in 1921, TransJordan to one of three brothers, Abdullah, while the other brother, Feisal, first was King of Syria and then King of Iraq (and who was sympathetice to Zionist aims, to an extent). Ali, the thrid brother, was for a very short time King of Saudi Arabia. We Jews abhorred that act of diplomatic treachery.
d) "forgot" (34 sec)
The British did no such thing. Besides the truncatation of the Jewish National Home by suspending their Mandate provisions to TransJordan, they suggest an Arab Agency, parity proposals, failed to provide adequate security for Jews against Arab violence and later, sought to partition, again and again, the rest of the territory that was to become the Jewish National Home.
e) "stoppage of immigration" (44-46 secs.)
Not only was that demand of a halt to Jewish immigration totally immoral at the time when Hitler had been in power three years, and illegal, but in flies in the face of the 1800-year history of the Land of Israel which always received its returning Jews.
f) "essential change in government policy" (50-53 secs.)
The British were always changing their policies to the detriment of the Jews and in 1939, with the St. James Conference and the White Paper, completely reneged on the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations commitments.
There you are. In less than one minute almost all the basic points you need to understand why Arabs are wrong. And an insight into the perversion of their thinking.
P.S.
I am fairly sure that spokesman is Jamal el-Husseini and if so - On Jamal.
^
Let's fisk it, also concisely and briefly.
a) "replacement" (13-15 secs.)
Zionists never sought to replace Arabs with Jews but simply to bring Jews home. As have been proven by today's reality, millions of persons could live in this country and so all the Arab claims then were just to keep the Jews out. And the Arabs would still be in the country if they hadn't adopted the path of violence and terror from the start.
b) "principles" (16-18 secs.)
While the Arabs promoted a claim of 'self-determination' and 'democracy', they would not permit the Jews to practice the same and predicated their hostility and violence on a nationlist paradigm I term inventivity which denies Jews those rights when Jews possessed primacy as regards history, culture, religion and other aspects over and in this land. Moreover, almost 60 nations, all the civilized world in the post-World War I period, decided in the League of Nations that Jews would be granted the political rights in Palestine while non-Jews would be granted their rights in other areas of the Middle East and in Palestine only civil and religious rights. And that was only fair and just.
c) "Balfour Declaration abhorred" (19-25)
Well, that's true but the Arabs themselves, through their allegiance with Great Britain, their correspondence with MacMahon, their negotiations with Lawrence, etc., were doing exactly what the Zionists were doing. They fought in the desert and the Jews fought in Palestine. No difference. The British, faced with two options, elected to give Palestine to the Jews and backtracked out by awarding, in 1921, TransJordan to one of three brothers, Abdullah, while the other brother, Feisal, first was King of Syria and then King of Iraq (and who was sympathetice to Zionist aims, to an extent). Ali, the thrid brother, was for a very short time King of Saudi Arabia. We Jews abhorred that act of diplomatic treachery.
d) "forgot" (34 sec)
The British did no such thing. Besides the truncatation of the Jewish National Home by suspending their Mandate provisions to TransJordan, they suggest an Arab Agency, parity proposals, failed to provide adequate security for Jews against Arab violence and later, sought to partition, again and again, the rest of the territory that was to become the Jewish National Home.
e) "stoppage of immigration" (44-46 secs.)
Not only was that demand of a halt to Jewish immigration totally immoral at the time when Hitler had been in power three years, and illegal, but in flies in the face of the 1800-year history of the Land of Israel which always received its returning Jews.
f) "essential change in government policy" (50-53 secs.)
The British were always changing their policies to the detriment of the Jews and in 1939, with the St. James Conference and the White Paper, completely reneged on the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations commitments.
There you are. In less than one minute almost all the basic points you need to understand why Arabs are wrong. And an insight into the perversion of their thinking.
P.S.
I am fairly sure that spokesman is Jamal el-Husseini and if so - On Jamal.
^