I wrote:
> > Kevin [John M.] wrote: > >> Now as far as Israel is concerned.....[...] > > And Jerry responded: > > Thanks for an excellent historical overview of relations between the US > > and Israel. This makes slogging through some of the other shit on the list > > worthwhile. > > And Minoru responded: > > Your favorite JM says: > > Truman's motivation had little to do with the fact that the fledging state > > was a > > settler state, however; it appears to have been based on a mixture of > > motives, > > including the feeling that such a state was necessary as a refuge for the > > world's Jewry following the horrors of the Shoah. > > > > > If the above statement is truly what is recorded as a fact in > historical records, not what John invented, I would have to say > that Truman had a very poor insight of the things. He supported > the creation of a new nation for a group of refugees to creat > another group of refugees and endless fights between the former > owners of the land and the new ones. Anybody can see it. > Feeling a bit bipolar today, Minoru, so I will write two responses, one in line with your snarky comment, and the other passably polite. You can choose which you prefer, and respond accordingly. (1) Snarky response: Well, the only way that you would actually know whether or not what I said has been "invented" would be if you ever bothered to read anything about the subject yourself. But being of a democratic temperament, I will put the matter to a vote, and ask the list members which probability they think is greater, that I have fabricated facts, or that you would ever bestir yourself to learn a few. (2) Passably polite response: Truman did no such thing. He supported a partition resolution whose purpose was the creation of two states, one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians. He was in fact warned by Secretary of Defense James Forrestal that creating a Jewish homeland on Arab land in this manner was a formula for constant conflict, but a mixture of successful lobbying by American Jews supporting the UN resolution, the importance of Jewish votes and contributions in truman's past and future elections (he had plans to run for president himself in 1948) and his own Christian beliefs combined to make him support the resolution. In addition to the books I mentioned in my follow-up message to Jerry yesterday (the studies by Sachar and Schoenbaum), you can get a good sense of Truman's dilemma from Alonzo Hamby, "Man of the People: A LIfe of Harry S. Truman" (Oxford, 1995), pp. 404-417, which covers the events surrounding the partition of Palestine. > Why didn't Truman think of offering Louisiana, for example, for > those refugees of Shoah, if he was so sympathetic to them. > He allowed the new state to be built in a very obstinately > religious group's homeland. May be he was bribed? > (1) Snarky response: Maybe it was because Truman was not a 19th century Zionist leader, and he was not exactly in charge of procuring the real estate for the Jewish homeland? The idea that Truman "allowed" the Zionists to do any such thing further underscores your ignorance of the history of this conflict, which you apparently think started in 1945. (2) Passably polite response: This question pre-supposes too many things, Minoru, for example that Truman had the power to simply give land in the US to the Zionist movement, or that the Zionists would have taken such an offer seriously in 1945-1948. The Zionist cause dates back to 19th century Europe and the efforts of journalist Theodor Herzl to convince various European rulers to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Jewish immigration into Palestine began in earnest in the last decades of the 19th Century, and was subsequently promoted by the British, the mandatory power in Palestine after WWI, based on the Balfour Declaration. By the time Truman came to office, there had been more than half a century of Jewish immigration to Palestine, and the Jewish population of Palestine had increased from a relative handful of Jews in 1880 (mostly concentrated in Jerusalem) to around 650,000 in 1948 (http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm, and also the good survey study by Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims"). The Shoah of course created the immediate backdrop for the UN vote, and Truman was also sympathetic to the Zionist cause because of his own Christian beliefs and also the importance of Jewish voters in key states like New York. The main opposition to Truman's support of the UN partition resolution came not from any domestic constituency, but rather the State Department, where there was deeply entrenched anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, one of the casualties of the War of Israeli Independence was the Palestinian state that should also have been created. Egypt absorbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan ruled the West Bank, in collusion with Israel (the subject of Avi Shlaim's first book, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine"), until the 1967 War when these territories were occupied by Israel. The Arabs certainly bear their share of guilt in the current mess - the Palestinian issue has been cynically manipulated by Arab regimes, as well as Iran, again and again to stir up domestic support - but the refugee problem was ultimately created by the Zionist forces, and will have to be resolved through some sort of historic compromise on Israel's part. And now time for some Jimi Hendrix... John M. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Persons posting messages to not_honyaku assume all responsibility for their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting, and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
