"...one needs to remember that there was a good deal of support for the Nazi cause in Palestine prior to and during WWII." And not just from the Palestinians. 'In 1940 and 1941, Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine and to offer their assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe arguing that "common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO (Lehi)." Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29 Simon ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:46 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: U.N. Special Committee on Palestine Irene begins a response by saying Selbourne's overview is balanced and then goes on in the rest of her note as though she hadn't read it. Omar declares it false and historically inaccurate without reading it -- very interesting. If there was any "stealing" or "conquering" being attempted in the 1947-49 period, it was the stealing and conquering attempted by the armies that invaded the land allotted by the UN to the Jews. A legal (as much as anything could be legal) partition had taken place by the UN and then the invading armies, Egypt, Syria, TransJordan, and Lebanon, supported by the Palestinians, attempted to "steal" and "conquer" it in defiance of the UN. Israel's action during that period could only be described as "defense." Selbourne refers to the UN being overgenerous to the Jews in the partition, but one needs to remember that there was a good deal of support for the Nazi cause in Palestine prior to and during WWII. The UN was formed by the victors, the anti-Nazi victors, after WWII and they were not inclined to be overly generous to the sympathizers of the defeated enemy. Prior to and during WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini provided "enthusiastic support" . . . "not only for the Palestinian national cause but for Hitler's Germany. He spent part of the war years in Nazi Berlin, where a 'pan-Arab government' in exile was formed, a forerunner of the Nasserite Pan-Arabism of the postwar years. 'Slaughter the Jews wherever you find them', al-Husseini declared in a broadcast from Berlin in 1942, 'their spilled blood pleases Allah'. The widespread denial in the Arab and Muslim world of the scale, and sometimes even of the fact, of the Holocaust ties the knot of odium between Jew and Arab still tighter. So too does the record of the asylum given in Arab countries, such as Syria and Egypt to German Nazis, as well as to several leading post-war neo-Nazi 'revisionists' who fled persecution at home." [Selbourne pp 181-182] Lawrence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Helm Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:54 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: U.N. Special Committee on Palestine Stan: In one of the books I'm reading, Selbourne's The Losing Battle with Islam, on page 182, he seeks balance and provides an interesting overview of some of the matters under discussion: "The United Nations decision on 29 November 1947 to partition Palestine, to the perceived disadvantage of the Palestinians, contributed to the confusion and bloodshed which were to follow. It also ensured the hostility which the very existence of Israel was to arouse. In their pro-Israeli partiality, some historians and commentators have sought to ignore the implications of the disproportions in territorial allocation in the UN partition plan. Others, in their pro-Arab partiality, have sought to cancel the implications of the invasion of Israel on 15 May 1948 -- within a few hours of the proclamation of the new state on 14 May 1948 -- first by Egypt and then by the armies of Iraq, Transjordan (as it the was), Lebanon and Syria. "Others have elided the complexiti4es of the passage of events from 1947 to 1949. A Guardian commentator in January 2004 could therefore reduce these events to 'the war that gave birth to the state of Israel in 1948', which by omission contains its own falsehood. Others have translated the flight of Arabs in 1948 and 1949 -- thousands fled even before the hostilities had broken out -- into their 'expulsion'; or, better still, into their 'deportation' by the new state as it was attacked. Some of those who were intended to be assisted by the attack -- the local Arab population -- stood their ground, fighting alongside the invading armies so that in certain sectors they for a while gained the upper hand. Others cut and ran, led in their flight by their own communities' heads, many other tens of thousands of Arabs were driven from their ancestral homes and terrains at the hands of the Israelis. "In some villages and cities, including Haifa, Jaffa and Tiberias, the exodus appears to have been ordered by Arab community leaders themselves, often they were among the first to flee, having the means to do so. As the then British High Commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, reported, 'the collapsing Arab morale in Palestine' was attributable in part to what he called 'the increasing tendency of those who should be leading them [sc. The Arabs] to leave the country'. Furthermore, 'in all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period, and the tempo is increasing'. As Hussein Khalidi, one of the Palestinians' leaders complained, 'Everyone is leaving. Everyone who has a cheque or some money -- off he goes to Egypt, to Lebanon, to Damascus'. "Even before the invasions of May 1948 Israeli militias had acted brutally against local Arab population, as at the village of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948, when more than one hundred villagers were killed. But in the repetitions of the history of this period, the numbers of those who were expelled, who were deported or who were 'ethnically cleansed' have often been exaggerated. Perhaps 700,000 fled the fighting in search of safety, or were driven from their homes as the Israeli army conquered, '600,000' were displaced according to the British Foreign Office estimate at the time. In addition, from 1948 to 1950, hundreds of thousands of Jews also left, or were driven by expropriation and attack from their homes in Egypt, Iraq -- where 118,000 of the total Iraqi population of 4.5 million were Jews -- Lebanon, the Maghreb, Syria and elsewhere in the Arab world, in August 2004, the Libyan leader offered compensation of their losses. "The fate of the Arabs in conflict which lasted until the uneasy truce in 1949 was a many-sided matter. So, too was the multiple invasion of Israel -- which at the time had an army of only 30,000 -- by neighbouring Arab nations. Nevertheless, a simplified history of complexity, war, fear, crime and flight as reduced the events, for many, to the victimization of Arab by Jew. Contrariwise, and with related simplification of the truth, it has been asserted by a Jewish historian that 'had the Palestinians and the Arabs refrained from launching a war to destroy the emerging Jewish state, there would have been no refugees and none would exist today'." Comment: With such a small army, only 30,000, fighting the armies of Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria, supplemented by Palestinians, who wished to drive the Jews out of the land, it would be too much to expect that the Israelis would fight according to Marquis of Queensbury rules. They were desperately fighting for their survival, and while no one can know for certain at this late date how many Palestinians were driven out of battle zones, Selbourne tells us of the large numbers who fled in advance of the war. Could they see the war coming? I don't see why not. Surely Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria did some marshalling of troops that would have alerted the Palestinians to what was coming. To stay could have meant becoming a victim as Irene suggests they all were, but to stay could also have meant joining the invading armies that had come to throw the Jews into the sea. Lawrence