Harry’s Place

Nasser stated in his ideological testament, The Philosophy of Revolution, they have learnt from the Zionists that it is possible to win against British imperialism.

Does modern Egyptian nationalism not owe much to Sepharidic Jews such as Yaqub Sanu and Rene Qattawi?

Great Post there S.O. Muffin.

So, this is the big family secret that nobody [enthusiastic Israeli supporters to her most unflinching opponents] wishes to acknowledge today, each for their own reasons.

A nice post. However, I don’t really see enthusiastic supporters of Israel denying any of this. That is, it’s not my experience. Can you please cite some evidence?

Great post Muffin, thank you.

It would be interesting if someone could develop a comparison between the Socialist-style Zionism you trace in this post with the fascism openly embraced by some Arabs during this period.

Good post.

The rabid nonsense put out by the Israel-haters need to be challenged. And the idea that it was the creation of ‘Western imperialism’, whatever that was in 1948, is one of the most nonsensical.

Well, Shmuel, this is really my take on the Israeli Zeitgeist, rather than something readily quotable. You simply don’t hear about it much in Israel, don’t study it at school, don’t read about it in newspapers. It is not as much hidden explicitly, as somehow showed to the back of national consciousness. For many reasons, both good and bad.

Good post, Muffin. Coincidentally just read in the JC Israel at 60 mag,an article The era of ideology and austerity, and found the following most uncomfortable:

For many years Mapai, together with the United Workers Party Mapam, had an absolute Knesset majority. The Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany and its early support of Israel had left deep impressions. When Stalin died in March 1953, Mapam officially expressed its shock “at the great catastrophe which befell the people of the Soviet Union, the Proletariat of the World and all of progressive Mankind”.

During a fierce Knesset debate, Mapam leader Yaacov Hazan once asserted: “I have two homelands — one is Israel, the other is the Soviet Union,” a statement he later regretted.

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s19s238&SecId=238&AId=59629&ATypeId=1

Good, serious post. I have two questions though. Is not the narrative here somewhat oversimplified with respect to Britain’s relationship with early Israel, saying Britain back the Arabs? Did not Churchill say to the Palestinians in 1937 “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

Wasn’t it British policy as evident in the Balfour declaration, to support the Zionist project, and create in Palestine a home for the Jews? Hadn’t the spheres of control by the British, French and Russian empires been agreed in the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916? And of course, in the UN resolution to create the state of Israel, did not Britain vote for it too?

I’d like more info on the British arming the Arab armies in 1948?

Evidently this is a complex, and nuanced issue. This account strikes me as slightly off balance though. Would be great to have a respectful discussion of these historical issues rather than abuse for a change.

Great post - very informative.

Would be great to have a respectful discussion of these historical issues rather than abuse for a change.

I rather think that is in your own hands Irie don’t you?

Ami: Yaacov Hazan said this and more. He said that, were the Red Army to reach Israel’s borders, “we” (i.e. Mapam) will not stand in its way. Which was doubly awful, since large proportion of senior army generals were associated with Mapam. Predictably, after 1967 the very-same Hazan became a friend of the settlers and the Inquisitor General of Mapam, purging the peaceniks. (Yes, including yours truly.)

TheIrie: You are confusing different historical eras. British position on Palestine and the Zionist Movement was always confused and changing, thereby providing enough quotes for all partisan quoters. After 1945 it was unashamedly anti-Yishuv and, in Bevin’s case, probably antisemitic. During the 1948 war the Arab Legion (the Jordanian army) was British-led at senior and middle-rank officer level. (Thus, the six months of siege and unrestricted artillery bombardment of Western Jerusalem, with large civilian casualties, perhaps the greater single atrocity of that war, was commanded by British officers.) British units were attached also to Egyptian troops, although they never crossed the international border. Egyptian air force was British supplied and led which, incidentally, didn’t stop it, until Israel acquired few fighter aircraft, from bombing Tel Aviv. Insofar as Attlee’s Britain was concerned, this was a fight for the fulcrum of the British Empire: the Middle Eastern oil and the Suez Canal. Jews (like in World War II) were expandable.

And you know what, TheIrie? When anti-imperialists in late 1940ties chanted “No blood for oil”, they meant something altogether different to today.

Well, Shmuel, this is really my take on the Israeli Zeitgeist, rather than something readily quotable. You simply don’t hear about it much in Israel, don’t study it at school, don’t read about it in newspapers. It is not as much hidden explicitly, as somehow showed to the back of national consciousness. For many reasons, both good and bad.

Explicit, widespread anti-zionist propaganda involving accusations of “imperialism” that inevitably lead to further charges of “racism, ” “apartheid” and overarching attempts to delegitimize the Jewish state are not symmetrical to a vague de-emphasis or apathy for a particular bit of geopolitical history in Israel. I would argue (and I have before) that the historical perspective you express on this blog tends to suggest moral equivalence where there is none. The history, as usual, is interesting though.

Yes as Graham says, great post. Goes a long way to help explain why some leftists, er like.. who grew up with other lefties from a Jewish background, find it very difficult , or rather impossible, to say anything whatsoever about the Middle East for fear of putting our feet in it.

“The kibbutz movement, trade unions and trade-union owned industrial enterprises were at the heart of the entire project.”

—

When the Histradut trade union launched banks and factories, they no longer had anything to do with the left. Many thanks to Harry’s Place for reminding us of how Labor Zionism sold out.

As does the change in perception which SO highlights Andrew. I first met Jewish people as leftists. Now - and for a few years - it seems (from a lot that I read anyway) that many Jewish people feel unwelcome on the left because of this perception of Israel as an “imperialist” rather than “progressive-leftist” state which has happened over the last 50 years. I fully realise that things change, but surely not to the extent of ostracising a people (and a people from which many progressive things have emerged) just because perceptions of a state have changed. It seems (and don’t hold back from telling me that I am wrong) that as the Jewish people I knew on the left in the late seventies faded away, feeling more and more unwelcome that NOBODY was prepared to defend any aspect of the country of Israel to the british left. I suspect that in his opening remarks SO was thinking of Tolstoy’s: Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way which seems to me a far better way for those of us in the comparatively “happy families” of Europe to think about the troubles of the region.

But as I don’t usually comment on this and have not read Yehuda Bauer beyond his work on WW2 please feel free to tell me I’m talking bollocks.

Great Post SO, Many thanks. One of the things that needs to be explicitly stated in much the debates around ‘big’ issues such as I/P and Leftist history is that monoliths viewed from 50-100+ years distance are in fact just as complicated and nuianced as today. I’ve always been fascinated by the Bundist phenomena and how it relates to both Zionists and the pre-1917 left, but enough mindless musing. Again great post

Muffin - I yield to your knowledge. It is interesting though, that Britain flipped between 1937 supporting Israel, to 1947/8 supporting the Arab countries, to 1956 again siding with Israel to invade Egypt. I suppose the imperial calculus was going through many changes in this period, and things were changing rapidly. I wasn’t aware of the role Britain played in the 1947/8 war, though I can’t say I’m surprised - throw another log on the fire of Britain’s shamefully history.

here’s what the Socialist Standard wrote back in ‘48.

Excerpt:For the Arab and Jewish worker neither Arab nor Jewish national independence will remove the mark of subservience from their brows. Their only hope of a life of comfort and security lies in joining with their brethren of other countries in a world socialist
movement to overthrow capitalist domination in all its forms and establish Socialism in its place. Only a world Socialist system can remove from society the machinations of the oil and other capitalist interests that periodically turn the world into turmoil and bring greater misery to the millions of the workers.

It is instructive to see how Jews on the left have found themselves marginalised and carved out.

The most notable example, in recent times, must be the knifing of Searchlight: which boasts a fair number of Communists of jewish ethnicity. They were basically drummed out of UAF, supposedly for being “Zionists”.

I posted this link in a thread below, but perhaps more people will see it here. I found Abba Eban quite impressive. It’s interesting and tragic to see how little “the issues” have changed despite Israel’s clear desire to live in peace with her neighbors.

The Mike Wallace Interview
Abba Eban
4/12/58
As Israel celebrates its tenth anniversary, Abba Eban, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, talks to Wallace about Arab nations, the Arab refugee problem, Egypt’s President Nasser, Jews in America, and the charge that Israel threatens world peace with a policy of territorial expansion.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/eban_abba.html

(The cigarette ads are pretty hip too.)

Graham, I think you’ll find that Shiraz Socialist is not exactly hostile to the Jewish people, or that there are ‘Bundist’ leftists, in, say, Jewish Socialist, who may be anti-Zionist, but are not of the Tony Greenstein champing-at-the-bit, chewing-the -rug, genre. Or that there are many leftists, and human rights lefties in particular, from a Jewish background around today. By no means all carrying their bus passes. Or indeed that some of us at least have more than a passing regard for their contribution to the cause of humanity.

I can remember Israel’s 25th and at that time many around said it would never last another 25 years.

It is absurd to see the county’s founding as an act of ‘imperialism’.

Acts of imprialism are committed by nations with power and influence and might, and that certainly wasn’t the case with Israel in 1948.

Happy 60th!

A fascinating post on a neglected topic well worth exploring. And - I never thought I’d say this - for once I actually agree with John Palubiski…

Happy sixtieth birthday, Israel ! I have a post up on this topic on my blog, for anyone interested; I agree with S.O. Muffin - this history and these issues need reexamining and reevaluating - without all the various ideological cliches and baggage…

Andrew Coates,

Up to 1967 Jews were more than well represented in many leftist organisations. Going back even further, I am aware of accusations of “Jewish Bolshevism” but in practice the leaders of the Mensheviks that was dominated by Jews. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was not unheard of for Jews to be both in a Zionist organisation and in a revolutionary socialist organisation at the same time.

On a similar note, I find the following anecdote by Richard Kuper quite interesting:

I do remember when the International Socialism Group (as it was then) had its first international meeting in 1970 with comrades from Lutte Ouvriére, the American Independent Socialists (I think it still was) and others, four of us from four countries ended up drunkenly singing Hatikvah [Israeli national anthem] as the one song we all knew in common.

Kuper was of course very senior in IS, the forerunner to the SWP and a founder of Pluto Press, the left-wing publishing house associated with the SWP. More recently Kuper heads Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

For people who like this trainspotter stuff, on the same post Kuper mentions that Frank Furedi “spent some productive years in Betar in
Montreal before his Revolutionary Communist Party and Living Marxism
incarnations.” Elsewhere, the anti-Zionist activist Roland Rance admits that he was “very active in the Federation of Zionist Youth in the 1960s”; Rance’s anti-Zionist comrade Tony Greenstein puts his up and admits that he “used to be a member of Bnei Akiva which is affiliated to the National Religious Party” and finally the former WRP activist Charlie Pottins admits to have being in the Zionist youth movement Habonim and recounts an old joke:

“Why did the League Communiste Revolutionnaire stop holding its central committee meetings in Yiddish?”, “Because Bensaid is a Sefardi”. Boom boom.

Acts of imperialism occur with a nation having might over their target, in this case Palestine vs Israel.

The faux history lesson is laughable. The west AND the USSR set up Israel within Palestine, but since the USSR no longer exist it is pointless to hammer a ghost about it, though we can still blame the west (and ourselves as well as our government at the time voted yes).

The west AND the USSR set up Israel within Palestine

These damned Jewish capitalist/communist conspiracies (where have we heard that one before?)

It is not a conspiracy since it is a fact.

Is this thread being moderated. I tried to post a long comment earlier and I get the following comment:

“Thanks for your comment! It has been placed in the moderation queue, and if it is approved it will be published here soon!”

It is not a conspiracy since it is a fact.

That statement is at best logically incoherent.

OFF TOPIC

Narallah of Hezbollah looks like he has declared war on the Lebanese government.

Dunno what happened to that post - and why there is such a thing as a moderation queue, and what triggers it…

But… it is up now. And very good it is.

“That statement is at best logically incoherent.”

Perhaps you are correct, I lapsed with the colloquial definition of conspiracy.

Mikey - its not that far off topic when you consider WHY he has “declared war” on them.

Flanker: You once asserted here that 9-11 was “Bush’s Reichstag.” Were you suggesting a conspiracy? In what sense?

what a daft post. So Israel was supported by Soviet imperialism, I bet the existing population took comfort in the red flags as they fled their homes…

Muffin,

very interesting angle, been thinking of my 60th post too

Graham/Andrew,

good points, please do remember the incident as Anna Chen recounts:

“I couldn’t help marvelling how at a time when maximum mobilisation was needed, the SWP clobbered the left, refusing to allow Jewish socialists and the SA on the platform,”

http://www.davidosler.com/2006/11/the_future_of_trotskyism.html

PS: Wordpress will place into the moderation queue any post with a large number of links, it thinks they are spam

Thanks guys. By the way, just for completeness for some reason the Charlie Pottins link did not come out, so here it is.

And - I never thought I’d say this - for once I actually agree with John Palubiski…

For you info, Marko, I actually agree with quite a lot of what you ( and Oliver Kamm) say.

There’s a lot more to the world than just Serbia and Kosovo, you know.

great Post SO Muffin.

The role of the British in the 48 war is indeed an incredibly shameful one.

I am no expert on this but I thought that the main intention of successive British policies in the early 20th C was to avoid implementing the Balfour declaration at any cost.

I would have thought that the obvious self interest in Britain later supporting israel against Egypt was fairly clear.

Incidentally my experience of UN organisations is that Britain was never seen as pro-Israeli by Arab country representatives until the mutation of Arab nationalism towards Islamist lines, especially following the first Gulf war .

Is there a good historical source on this SO that you would recommend?

(I am not asking for absolute impartiality of course but a reasonably fair assessment of the degree of British anti-semitism and its obstructive influence on the establishment of Israel would be nice)

The idea that the establishment of Israel was a twinkle in the eye of twilight of British Imperialism with the baton handed over at dawn to the new American Capitalist Imperium is quite fantastic.

I don’t agree with John. He agrees with me. I avoid a psychotic episode that way.

A fascinating post… until the inevitable and cheap punchline. You know, American Imperialism may actually be a real phenomenon, and one worth being “anti”? And it may even, conceivably, be possible to do so without being a deranged antisemite? Scoff all you like.

I mean, if you want to have a go at antisemites hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, then why not just have a go at antisemites, “anti-Imperialist” or not?

It’s annoying, and typical of the problem round here. If you’d cut off the last paragraph, you could have made common cause with people around the political spectrum. You may even have *persuaded* some people, as opposed to merely haranguing them.

As it is, people who don’t share the Harry’s Place world-view are instead forced onto the defensive, to protest that they are not antisemites: all your historical insights are wasted, and melted down into a yet another crude weapon for bashing the same enemies as every other day of the week.

“The idea that the establishment of Israel was a twinkle in the eye of twilight of British Imperialism with the baton handed over at dawn to the new American Capitalist Imperium is quite fantastic.” Yes, I’m persuaded that this is correct. How’s the following explanation?

It would seem more realistic to say British Imperialism supported the Zionist project prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, presumably for the divide and rule type of reasons that the British had successfully used elsewhere. When it looked like the Jews might exercise some degree of sovereignty over their own state, this was a nightmare outcome for Britain, hence it opposed this, and effectively lost. Unable to beat Israel, Britain joined with them, and in 1956 Britain’s last imperial invasion was carried out in alliance with Israel. This failed. Britain was broken as a world power, and chose to become a US client. At the same time, Israel allied with the US against the SU (not sure why?). Hence, today Britain is quite irrelevant, and is rather like a brother to Israel, craven to the same master.

The lesson from all of this, surely, is to oppose Imperialism in all its forms. It tears human lives apart leaving a bloody legacy that lasts for years. Why the scorn, then, on those like me who identify themselves as anti-Imperialists? You can’t complain about British dis-interest in the situation of Jews in Israel/Palestine in 1948 if you don’t equally complain about US dis-interest in the lives of Palestinians in 2008.

I agree with what Larry just wrote too.

The Irie,

Can you please tell us exactly what was wrong with America in 1948 which I assume for you would not be too different now.

Don’t understand what you mean?

mettaculture: Most sources that come to my mind are in Hebrew (and, as any sources, must be read critically). However, I gather that Colin Schindler has just published a book on this very subject. I didn’t read it but I’ve heard him talking about it and it sounds fascinating, scholarly and as impartial as one can expect in the circumstances.

Larry Teabag: Of course, American imperialism is a real phenomenon, as real as other forms of imperialism. How is it connected to my post?

And yes, I am perfectly happy to have a go at all antisemites. This includes fascist and neo-Nazi thugs, this includes the wild fringes of American Christian Right, happy to “support” Israel as a preamble to Rupture and mass conversion of Jews – and this also includes, Larry, those on the “Left” who are obsessed with Jews and their state and who often descent into overt antisemitism. And, incidentally, this trend can be traced back to infighting in the Russian Social-Democratic Party 110 years ago, well before a single Palestinian had suffered because of Zionism.

What I hear you saying, Larry, is a demand for a universal “get out of jail” card: I am on the Left, so I can’t be racist. Well, in my experience the Left is riddled with racism. (I am saying this neither lightly not with joy: my entire political life was spent in that corner and I don’t feel like moving.) If I really want to persuade you and those like you in just one thing, it will be this: that prejudice and racism, hating people not because of what they do but of what they are, is not conveniently restricted to a single portion of the political map. Part of being a moral being is to question yourself before you question others. In particular if you are on the Left.

“What I hear you saying, Larry, is a demand for a universal “get out of jail” card: I am on the Left, so I can’t be racist”

What I hear you saying, Muffin, is that the “anti-Imperialist camp” has a “toxic hatred” for Israel: I am against Imperialism so I must be racist. This is ridiculous.

BTW Colin Schindler is giving a talk at my uni next week entitled “Israel at Sixty: 60 Glorious Years?”

The Irie,

You continually slate “Imperialism” and what you mean by that in practice is slating America. You accuse both Britain and Israel of being “a US client” and of being “craven to the same [US] master.” The fact that both Britain and Israel are democracies is probably lost on you, but please tell us what is so wrong with America? This goes beyond the war in Iraq as I assume you felt similarly pre 9/11 - so what, in general, is so wrong with America and why should it be opposed?

Metta wrote:

the main intention of successive British policies in the early 20th C was to avoid implementing the Balfour declaration at any cost.

you’re right, from reading FCO papers it becomes clear that the prime goal seems to have been to protect British interests in Egypt, Palestine was seen as a backwater and contrary to most of the “cut and snippet” school of history (see TheIrie’s characteristically ill formed comments) the British administration was not pro-Zionist, who they found to be an annoyance

I think that for the British it was a balancing trick, keeping in with Arab rulers, not irritating the up-and-coming superpowers (the US) and holding on to Palestine, one way or the other

There are some good discussions of these issues in English, but sadly I can’t remember where they are

TheIrie: It behoves you to remember the difference between universal and existential quantifiers: What I am saying is that some in the self-styled “anti-imperialist camp” harbour toxic hatred towards Israel. Stop being defensive and observe that there is a problem among people with whom you claim affinity. This doesn’t make you guilty by association, of course. But not acknowledging it is not helpful in trying to eradicate all forms of racism. Everywhere.

SOM - I will acknowledge it freely. You would do well, however, to insert the word “some” in your sentences more often, if this was your intention. It doesn’t read like that.

Mikey - Wrong way round. I don’t criticise Imperialism because I hate America, I criticise America because I hate Imperialism. I like America in general very much - I’ve lived there, I consume the culture, music and so on. I don’t like US foreign policy, which is imperial policy. The reason I don’t like Imperialism is the same reason I don’t like dictatorship, and I don’t think needs much elaboration does it?

Irie,

It does need a bit of explanation. Why is US foreign policy “imperial policy” and in what way is it similar to a “dictatorship”?

“And then, in early 50ties, it all turned sour. The role of the socialist movement at the heart of the Israeli project became increasingly muted with the two huge waves of Jewish emigration, of Holocaust survivors and of refugees from Arab countries. Moreover, the need to pay for the absorption of waves of emigrants meant increasing reliance on Jewish American financial support and on Western political support.”
There’s also that wee complication of Socialism not working. At all. Ever. The Jews, it turned out, cared more about living in a functioning state than implementing an abstract ideology. Maybe some other people should take a leaf out of their book.

Mikey - I’d love to, but it would be thoroughly selfish on this thread to go off on that.

By the way, can I just re-iterate, despite being critical, I thought this was an excellent post, and I’ve learnt something from it. SOM - you should definitely post more often.

By the way, though Mapam was an unambiguously wicked organisation dedicated to extending the Gulag worldwide, I’d still take it over the tiresome pansies of Meretz any day. Same goes for Mapai vs. contemporary Labour, though in milder terms.

What happened to the Israeli left that now the editor of Ha’aretz can declare he want the U.S. State Dept. to ‘rape’ Israel? That’s the real question you should be asking.

Come on Irie,

One post in the comments box to explain why US foreign policy is “imperial policy” and in what way is it similar to a “dictatorship.”

Gabriel,

countries like people are often a product of their environment and had their been peaceful relations with the neighbouring Arab states from 1947 onwards (note the date), then who knows? Israel might have turned out very differently, but with local pressures, economic issues, the scale of the absorption and hostility from neighbouring states have contributed to the state of things today

no doubt if England had experienced continual conflict from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France for the past 60 years in a similar way, then it would have turned out considerably different, but it was fortunate not to

so given the trials and tribulations that the Israelis have been through then the creation and maintenance of the State of Israel is quite some achievement

Well, TheIrie, let me explain what is the problem I have with your version of anti-imperialism.

Actually, very little of it has to do with specific critique of American (or British, or Israeli) policies. I cut my political teeth demonstrating against the Vietnam war and in the nascent Israeli peace movement. And I was against the Iraq war, certainly against Guantanamo.

My problem is this. Self-seeking, selfish behaviour (and imperialism is, at its very essence, the wish to control others to your own ends, i.e. selfishness) is not restricted to your three favourite villains, arguably it is the rule, rather than exception, throughout the world and in annals of history. Look at the world today, at China and Russia and umpteen other countries, large and small. Don’t just look at Israel’s attitude to Palestinians, look also at the Syrian and Jordanian attitude to Palestinians.

Now, the critical difference is that in US, in Britain, in Israel, you can say it aloud. You can try to persuade your fellow citizens to embrace less selfish world view. And you know what, occasionally you’ll manage to persuade them and the world will be a better place. Try to do it in China!

This is not a trivial issue. Your “anti-imperialist” narrative makes democracies into villains, while the reality is that only democracies carry the seed of an ethical foreign policy.

I don’t have my sources with me, but I think that the change of heart of Britain against the Jews happened after the Arab pogrom against the Jews of Hebron, in 1929. It was then that the British government decided to award the perpetrators of the massacre with a limit in the quantity of Jews allowed to get into the British Palestine, thus openly violating the Mandate.

Other will tell you that the change happened already when Britain created Transjordan with foreign Arab rulers in a land with was supposed to be part of the Jewish National Home, in 1921.

Menachem Begin thought that Britain never was pro-Zionist, but that it had a Master Plan to stay in control of the area forever, so it played the Arabs against the Jews and viceversa from the very beginning.

Why not copy the post in the thread below, since this has more movement?

I just came back from my mangel party in the forest. Expect to see soon some pretty cool pics in my blog.

We went to Yaar HaMeginim (the Defenders’s forest) close to Latrun. Found a pretty cool place and made a barbeque of homemade shish kebab with Argentinian coal. Next to us there were two or three Russian families, some of them sporting pretty big crosses in their chests. So we were treated to some 80s music like Scorpions and Sting (believe it or not, the song they played of him was “Russians”). Afterwards they played some folk songs in the guitar which was cool also because we knew some of them with Spanish lyrics. Farther still, two or three religious families were also enjoying the day.
We saw several formations of fighter planes pass us by in the sky on the route to Jerusalem and even a big one escorted by two fighter planes.
A monument in memory of three fallen tank soldiers during the Yom Kippur war was nearby uphill. The lunch place itself in the woods was donated in memory of a woman who died in a car crash in the year 2004 in the road 44, Sharon Ben Meir Z”L.
After the inevitable Argentinian mate, we head towards Tel Gezer, an important archeological site in the proximities, which is not very visited because you need to enter a town, Karmei Yosef on the way, and afterwards follow a dirt road.
Amazing view! the Masada of the plains, I think.
It was a caananite city and afterwards it was donated by a pharaoh to king Salomon. In the Tanaj it is said that Salomon used his tax money and slaves to build three things: the Temple, Shilo (I think it was Shilo) and Gezer’s fortifications!
From upthere you can see both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv at the same time, and even the Mediterranean sea close to Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza. Also you can see Modiin and the Judean mountain range, plus very interesting ruins.
A-ma-zing. And it is just next to road 1 (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv).
An Arab shepard was grazing his sheep and singing up there.

I made the whole trip with an Israeli flag attached to my windshield, just for you, Mike.

Fabian,

I think it is earlier than 1929, rather Herbert’s appointment of the Mufti in 1921/22 (I forget) sets the ball rolling, then of course there is the issue of the split of the Mandate with 4/5ths going to the eventual Jordan.

Interesting and I have to admit that I learned about the British support for the Arabs in ‘48 from a historic novel, “The Source”, by James Michener. Wonderful book that walks through the Jewish story from early history (cave dwelling) to modern history - talk about providing context for the creation of a Jewish state! If anyone here hasn’t read it, I do suggest taking a gander.

Thanks for the tip, American Mike!

American Mike and Fabian.

I have not read that novel, but novels are not quotable for historic facts. For British policy in Palestine pre-1948: indispensable books include:-

- Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel (pro-British)

- Nicholas Bethell, The Palestine Triangle (pro-British)

- Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete (post-Zionist nonsense: see the reviews by Anita Shapira in The New Republic and Yehoshua Porath in Azure.)

The Porath review article can be seen here and is worth a stand alone read anyway.

Mikey, thanks for the suggested reads - I plan on adding them to my library short list. Of course, one should never use a historical novel as a basis for historical fact. But the book does provide the color and context of the history of the Jewish people just the same. It was what inspired me, as an agnostic, to ultimately learn much more about Judaism and the creaiton of the Israeli state.

It was mainly Jews — largely from Russia and the Ukraine — that got the socialist project going in South Africa, and founded its communist party. And Johannesburg had (and to some extent still has) a strong Jewish left/liberal tradition. Prominent whites in the anti-apartheid struggle included Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Ronnie Kasrils and many others, some of whom featured in the infamous Rivonia trial. And there were thrilling parties …

American Mike,

Yes novels can be good, but I am amazed at the amount of Jewish people of a certain age that I meet that believe every word in Leon Uris’ Exodus as their basis for understanding the background to the existence of the State of Israel. However, I guess it is better that they read that than read nothing at all.

What I hear you saying, Larry, is a demand for a universal “get out of jail” card: I am on the Left, so I can’t be racist.

Well then, Muffin, I advise you to invest in a really powerful hearing aid.

What I’m saying is that your final paragraph was rabid flailing in the direction of the “anti-imperialist camp”, in which you levelled very serious charges at them en bloc. Behoving on about existential and universal quantifiers afterwards doesn’t change that. But, hey, why do thoughtful analysis when grandiose vagary’s so much easier? As I say, it was an unworthy end to a post I had been enjoying.

If I really want to persuade you and those like you in just one thing, it will be this: that prejudice and racism, hating people not because of what they do but of what they are, is not conveniently restricted to a single portion of the political map.

I (and presumably people like me) am persuaded. But perhaps you should have a word in your own ear too, and those of people like you. You never know, maybe the “anti-Imperialist camp” might be bigger and more diverse than you believe, and less conveniently restricted to an antisemitic rump. Question yourself first and all that…

largely from Russia and the Ukraine: largley from Lithuania, to be accurate.

Larry wrote:

“…your final paragraph was rabid flailing in the direction of the “anti-imperialist camp”, in which you levelled very serious charges at them en bloc.”

so are you suggesting that anti-Jewish racism isn’t to be found in the faux “anti-imperialist” camp ? or not just with you?

do you need some examples?

what about the Cairo Conference of “anti-imperialists”?
see “Truth about boycott campaign comes out at Cairo Conference”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1804

or perhaps
“John Wight, organizer of Edinburgh Stop the War Coalition, pushes antisemitism” http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627

do you think that “we’re all Hezbollah” (a genocidal racist organisation) is a neutral statement and the thousands that fell in behind it are not stupid?

do think that the major british anti-imperialist organisation’s (StWC) almost cheerleading the “resistance” is a good thing?

Well, Larry, I am the first to question myself. But, to be frank, I am getting sick and tired with the general atmosphere and attitudes in your self-styled “anti-Imperialist camp”. Few minutes on CiF or similar haunts are enough to assemble example after example of the sort of vilification and deligitimisation that I have in mind: “ZioNazis” and “NeoZioCons”, and all the tropes about Israel being inserted into the Middle East by Evil Americans in their quest for oil. (Alternatively, Evil Zionists controlling Evil Americans.)

Other countries, other nations, other groups are subject to criticism – sometimes fair and sometimes not and always legitimate. But, insofar as the Zeitgeist of the contemporary “anti-Imperialist camp” is concerned, just one country and one nation is by its very nature illegitimate. Regardless of its actions, regardless of anything. And you know, it becomes rather tiresome.

I have had the misfortune of entering a room with unfamiliar (and some familiar) faces – all “progressives” – who, upon hearing that I have a Jewish-cum-Israeli name, proceeded to be offensive and unpleasant, without even giving me the opportunity to open my mouth first. In my many years in this country I have never heard any remark that I can interpret as even mildly antisemitic, except from self-styled “anti-Imperialists”.

And it always follows the same pattern. Two, three individuals shoot their mouth, often seamlessly segueing from anti-Israeli to classical antisemitic tropes. And everybody else sits quietly. Perhaps they are uneasy – I don’t know – perhaps they don’t approve, but they have neither the guts nor the decency to step in. It is so much easier with the mob…

So don’t tell me that “maybe the ‘anti-Imperialist camp’ might be bigger and more diverse than you believe”. If you disapprove of the toxic fringes of your camp then have the guts and the decency to stand up and tell them.
Loud and clear and in public.

As long as you allow them to contaminate you – well, you’ll be contaminated, what do you expect?