- 15 Dec 2015 21:41
#14632754
The Mere presence of foreign invaders determined to dispossess the Native population by force WAS in itself inequality. The Zionists were foreigners it was not a movement by Jews living in Palestine but of foreign European Jews.
The Zionists movement wanted to remove the local native population , 'transfer' in Europe even before it was certain where they were going to establish their state they were clear that the large scale removal of the native population of where ever was a good idea. Refuse them employment, refuse to sell them land. Zionism was hostile to whatever native population it chose to dispossess. The Zionists in Palestine wanted to suppress ant native political rights, and if possible remove them.
The British Mandate as long as it was forcing the Emigration of Jews against the will of the local native population was favouring them. It was helping to build them up. Foreign immigrants arriving with the intent to set up their own state , that they would run the region, and if possible force out the local native population. British bayonets enable the Zionists to grow in strength. The British allowed the Zionists to organise but not the Palestinians. When it came to revolt against British policies, the Zionists were treated carefully, the Palestinians were treated Brutal, collective Punishment. The Palestinians were disarmed, the Zionists Armed. In the economic life of the Mandate the Zionits successfully lobbied that when employed by the Mandate Jews would be paid more than Arabs even when doing the same work. The Zionsits were favoured with all government concessions, the concrete concession, the power concessions, the development of waste regions ( the Zionists claim that they made the desert bloom, well there were competing bids for the Government concession audit was just allocated to the Zionists).
Right down the line the overall impact of the British Mandate is examined it is massively favourable the Zionist settlers. It enabled them to arrive in large numbers (not in the numbers the settlers wanted and for that the British were murdered) The Zionists were allowed to organise, they got greater political rights, they were paid better when employed by the mandate and the mandate was required to employ them in favourable numbers too, their business were supported by tariff protections, business concessions granted favourably by the Mandate as well. When there was revolt the Palestinians were punished brutally collectively innocent and guilty. Many more Palestinians were executed than Zionists, mere possession of arms could be a capital crime for a Palestinians/, not for Zionists. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Zionists and made possible the state of Israel.
wat0n wrote:So now the mere presence of the Jews in the region is itself inequality. Thank you of making that stuff clear.
And no, the Zionists' objectives would have been fulfilled had the Palestinian leaders accepted the bipartition of the Mandate, which in any event would have been rather convenient for them and much better than what they have now. And, since you claim to care about equality so much, it would have been way more equitable than living as second-class citizens in an Arab state - because, as we know, non-Arab citizens were treated as second-class citizens in each and every Arab state at the time, from Levantine Kurds and Assyrians to Berbers in the Maghreb.
Also, if the Mandate favored the Zionists so much, please explain why didn't the British protect the Jewish population of Hebron and Safed in 1929 and why didn't they restore ownership of Hebron's Jews' properties after they were ethnically cleansed from the city.
The Mere presence of foreign invaders determined to dispossess the Native population by force WAS in itself inequality. The Zionists were foreigners it was not a movement by Jews living in Palestine but of foreign European Jews.
The Zionists movement wanted to remove the local native population , 'transfer' in Europe even before it was certain where they were going to establish their state they were clear that the large scale removal of the native population of where ever was a good idea. Refuse them employment, refuse to sell them land. Zionism was hostile to whatever native population it chose to dispossess. The Zionists in Palestine wanted to suppress ant native political rights, and if possible remove them.
The British Mandate as long as it was forcing the Emigration of Jews against the will of the local native population was favouring them. It was helping to build them up. Foreign immigrants arriving with the intent to set up their own state , that they would run the region, and if possible force out the local native population. British bayonets enable the Zionists to grow in strength. The British allowed the Zionists to organise but not the Palestinians. When it came to revolt against British policies, the Zionists were treated carefully, the Palestinians were treated Brutal, collective Punishment. The Palestinians were disarmed, the Zionists Armed. In the economic life of the Mandate the Zionits successfully lobbied that when employed by the Mandate Jews would be paid more than Arabs even when doing the same work. The Zionsits were favoured with all government concessions, the concrete concession, the power concessions, the development of waste regions ( the Zionists claim that they made the desert bloom, well there were competing bids for the Government concession audit was just allocated to the Zionists).
Right down the line the overall impact of the British Mandate is examined it is massively favourable the Zionist settlers. It enabled them to arrive in large numbers (not in the numbers the settlers wanted and for that the British were murdered) The Zionists were allowed to organise, they got greater political rights, they were paid better when employed by the mandate and the mandate was required to employ them in favourable numbers too, their business were supported by tariff protections, business concessions granted favourably by the Mandate as well. When there was revolt the Palestinians were punished brutally collectively innocent and guilty. Many more Palestinians were executed than Zionists, mere possession of arms could be a capital crime for a Palestinians/, not for Zionists. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Zionists and made possible the state of Israel.