LONDON A bitter row broke out at the end of a rally Friday in Golders Green, north London. Under the slogan Golders Green Together, the rally was called to demonstrate opposition to a proposed neo-Nazi gathering that had been planned for the neighborhood, which is nicknamed Londons Jewish heart. But the display of Israeli flags at the largely good-natured event proved divisive.
Earlier this week, Londons Metropolitan Police announced that it had relocated the neo-Nazi rally to a secure area in Richmond Terrace, Whitehall, where the demonstrators will be confined to a one-hour slot on Saturday before being made to disperse.
In preparation for the anticipated neo-Nazi invasion, however, mainstream Jewish opponents, including the umbrella organization the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the London Jewish Forum, and the pluralistic anti-fascist group HOPE Not Hate, had banded together in Golders Green to declare a Day of Action on Friday.
A variety of faith communities in the area had lent their support to the Day of Action, and organizers decided it would go ahead despite the relocation of the far-right action.
On Friday morning two women appeared at the event carrying a huge Israeli flag and proceeded to decorate parts of the Golders Green war memorial, where the rally was being held, in Israeli bunting and pennants.
Sharon Klaff (left) and Amber Shetreet, claimed to represent five grassroots organizations which monitor anti-Semitism, and sparked a quarrel at the Golders Green Together rally against neo-Nazis with their use of Israeli flags, on July 3, 2015. (Jenni Frazer/The Times of Israel)
The women, Sharon Klaff and Amber Shetreet, claimed to represent five grassroots organizations which monitor anti-Semitism. They denounced the Board of Deputies for what they called its kumbaya cooperation with HOPE Not Hate, which they insisted is virulently anti-Israel. (Gemma Levine, HOPE Not Hates deputy director, emphatically denied this claim.)
Although the women attempted to broadcast their ideas through a megaphone during the mornings event, for the most part the other participants, busy draping lamp posts and flower troughs in the Golders Green campaign colors of gold and green, did not interact with them.
But a furious Israeli businessman, Eyal Landau, was not ready to ignore them. Despite angry protests from Klaff and Shetreet, Landau accused them of disrespecting the Israeli flag.
People died for that flag, he proclaimed, as he went around the war memorial taking down the womens flags. You have no right to use this flag here, Landau told the women. You are doing great damage. This event is not about Israel, it is about anti-Semitism. Enough is enough.
Israeli flags not welcome at London rally against anti …
Members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brigades, the armed wing of Hamas movement, take part in a military march in Gaza City on Monday. Photograph: Wissam Nassar/Xinhua Press/Corbis
Islamic State insurgents have threatened to turn the Gaza Strip into another of their Middle East fiefdoms, accusing Hamas, the organisation that rules the Palestinian territory, of being insufficiently stringent about religious enforcement.
The video statement, issued from an Islamic State stronghold in Syria, was a rare public challenge to Hamas, which has been cracking down on jihadis in Gaza who oppose its truces with Israel and reconciliation with the US-backed rival Palestinian faction Fatah.
We will uproot the state of the Jews [Israel] and you and Fatah, and all of the secularists are nothing and you will be overrun by our creeping multitudes, said a masked Islamic State member in the message addressed to the tyrants of Hamas.
The rule of sharia [Islamic law] will be implemented in Gaza, in spite of you. We swear that what is happening in the Levant today, and in particular the Yarmouk camp, will happen in Gaza, he said, referring to Islamic State advances in Syria, including in a Damascus district founded by Palestinian refugees.
Islamic State has also taken over swaths of Iraq and has claimed attacks in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen.
Hamas is an Islamist movement that shares the jihadis hostility to Israel but not their quest for a global religious war, defining itself more within the framework of Palestinian nationalism.
Deemed a terrorist group by Israel, the United States and the European Union, and viewed by neighbouring Arab power Egypt as a regional security threat, Hamass struggle against Islamic State-linked jihadis has not won sympathy abroad.
Israels intelligence minister, Israel Katz, accused Hamas on Tuesday of partnering with Islamic State affiliates in the Egyptian Sinai a charge long denied by the Palestinian group.
There is cooperation between them in the realm of weapons smuggling and terrorist attacks. The Egyptians know this, and the Saudis, Katz told a Tel Aviv conference organised by the Israel Defense journal.
Islamic State threatens to topple Hamas in Gaza Strip in …
If for whatever reason you are one of the very few people on this Earth who wants to go into,rather than get out of,the Gaza Strip, you may want to know what to expect.
Because although its been just a bit less than a year since the Israeli-Gaza conflict of 2014 or Operation Protective Edge, as the Israeli Defense Force called it came to a halt, you shouldnt expect to find a society rebuilding. No, according to The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, the new book from Max Blumenthal, the journalist behind 2013s incendiary Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, what youll see instead is mountains of rubble, barely any less than there was at the conclusion of the war.
Based on his contacts in Gaza as well as his own first-hand reporting, Blumenthals book does two things, neither of which are especially welcome in U.S. politics and the mainstream media. Blumenthal not only provides a methodical breakdown of the run-up to the conflict one that differs in crucial respects from the narrative most commonly found in American media but also offers a more detailed accounting of what was happening behind the fog of war. He also tries to answer some of the still-vexing questions about the war: Why did it last so long? Why so many civilian casualties? And what was even accomplished?
Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Blumenthal to discuss the book, the history of Gaza many Americans dont know, why he believes the war was an almost deliberate result of longstanding Israeli policy, and why he believes it wont be the last. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length.
You argue that last summers war cannot really be understood in isolation, that one has to see it in a larger context. For example, why do you think the situation today is a consequence of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharons disengagement from Gaza in 2005?
The withdrawal of religious nationalist Israeli settlers (who numbered about 9,000) from the Gaza Strip was celebrated by liberals, because they saw these fanatics being forced by Israeli troops from an area that Israel [had] occupied. This actually should have been a scenario, this unilateral withdrawal, that anyone who had any concern for the people in the Gaza Strip would have opposed, because the agenda was very clear and out in the open. It was to remove [Israel] from the obligations of the Geneva Convention regarding the Gaza Strip, to claim that it was no longer occupied.
What did that new footing do for Israel?
It enabled it to establish a panopticon-style system, where it controls the exterior; the sky, the sea; and can place the Gaza Strip under a very high-tech siege, a robotically-controlled siege. Secondly, it allowed Israel to retrench its control of the major settlement blocks around East Jerusalem. They received a letter from George W. Bush [requesting] the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and guaranteeing these gigantic settlements on top of the Palestinian aquifer which cut deep into the heart of the West Bank and will eventually separate the West Bank from itself will remain in permanent Israeli hands under any US negotiated peace agreement. Thats point number two.
And point number three?
Point number three is that withdrawal, in the words of then Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter, allows the military more freedom of action in the Gaza Strip. If there arent Jewish Israelis in the Gaza Strip, that allows you to start using 150-mm artillery shells during these barrages of the border regions; that allows you to use 2,000-pound fragmentation bombs. As soon as the withdrawal took place, you started seeing the use of experimental weapons, like dime weaponry. Gaza started to become a laboratory for the Israeli weapons industry, and for the entire mechanism of control that Israels trying to market and export to the word as field-tested.
See the article here:
The question is just when: Max Blumenthal on war in the …
Anti-Semitism in Europe has increased to a level where many committed Jews ask themselves if they should emigrate. The same is true for a significant number of more assimilated Jews. Even more widespread across the Jewish community is the question of whether their children should remain in their native country.
In an environment where the Jewish community has great doubts regarding its future, it helps to get a greater perspective by looking back to the European anti-Semitism that reached unprecedented post-war levels after the Second Intifada in 2000.
Of all the European countries, France is a good one to use as an example, for a number of reasons. Since 2000, the level and nature of anti-Semitic incidents occurring in France which included several murders of Jews by Muslims have been more severe than in other European countries. France not only has the largest Jewish community in Europe, with half a million Jews, but also has the largest Muslim community, with an estimated five million. In addition, the first high-level analysts who came forward to assess the new anti-Semitism which differs, to a large extent, from the classic religious and ethnic anti-Semitism, did so in France.
The work of these analysts is not well-known internationally because most of it was published in French. It remains of great importance, however, because so much of what they originally observed has expanded to even greater proportions. This is due, to a large extent, to the failure of governmental authorities. The sociologist Shmuel Trigano, one of Europes leading Jewish thinkers, was one of the first to make a substantial contribution in exposing and assessing the situation. At the end of 2001, Trigano began publishing a series of articles titled, Observatoire du monde juif. (Observatory of the Jewish world), a series which lasted more than two and a half years.
Trigano succeeded in organizing the collaboration of a substantial number of authors who analyzed many aspects of the hate-fueled outbursts. The first issue, dated November 2001, contained titles indicative of the climate for the French Jewish community: The Jews of France Targeted by the Intifada?, An Atmosphere of Insecurity, The Middle East Conflict is Exported to Western Democracies, The Anti-Jewish Aggressions, The Perverse Logic of French Politics, Religious Anti-Semitism, Political Anti-Semitism, and The Extreme Left and its Ideological Manipulations. These could very well be titles of current essays. since the situation has only worsened.
In another issue published in 2002, Alexandre del Valle explained the convergence of various totalitarianisms in an article titled, The New Red, Brown, and Green Faces of Anti-Semitism, referring to the coming together of communism, fascism and Islamism in regard to anti-Semitism. In the next issue, Michle Tribalat described how the Islamist social network was full of messages comparing Israel with Nazis.
Another important scholar who greatly contributed to diagnosing the anti-Semitic reality in France is Pierre-Andr Taguieff. This non-Jewish philosopher published his book, The New Judeophobia in 2002, which made a major contribution to the understanding of anti-Israelism. Taguieff discussed this latest mutation of anti-Semitism and how it hit French Jewry. He noted that although classic anti-Semitism is considered to be politically incorrect, anti-Israelism did not encounter such resistance and was thus able to expand rapidly.
…[Taguieff] identified the new myth of the intrinsically good Palestinian, or, in other words, that the Palestinians can do no wrong. Taguieff exposed the process by which the crimes of the allegedly deprived, a group to whom the Palestinians claim to belong, are condoned. He described the role of the media in justifying violence and portraying criminals as victims. He pointed out that the next step in the distortion process was to declare that the criminals, now disguised as victims, were not to be held responsible for their acts because they are molded by their socio-economic conditions.
Taguieff also exposed other key issues such as the belief that Muslims and Arabs behave as they do because they are supposedly humiliated or persecuted. He identified the new myth of the intrinsically good Palestinian, or, in other words, that the Palestinians can do no wrong. Taguieff stated that blind pacifism places both the aggressor and his victim at the same level of morality and turns legitimate self-defense into a criminal transgression. These days we can see many examples of this phenomena, including the newly published report of the United Nations Human Rights Commission report on the 2014 Gaza war.
Taguieff also exposed the widespread fallacy that Islamophobia was a larger problem than anti-Semitism. The risk for Jews of being attacked in France was and remains many times greater than the risk of Muslims being attacked.
France: The Early Diagnosis of the New Anti-Semitism – Op …
When the diary of Anne Frank was first published in English, as Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, a full decade had passed since a young Anne received the fateful journal for her 13th birthday. Five years had passed since the diary had been published in the Netherlandson this day, June 25, in 1947, as Het Achterhuisand more than dozen had passed since its author stopped writing down her days.
And yet, despite the passage of time, her story was something new, a different way of understanding the horrors of the Holocaust. The resulting diary is one of the most moving stories that anyone, anywhere, has managed to tell about World War II, as TIMEs book reviewer put it, describing the diarists experiences:
As the war dragged on and news trickled in of mass deportations of Jews, Anne became desperate. She had terrifying fantasies about the death of Jewish friends. Often she saw rows of good, innocent people accompanied by crying children [walk] on and on . . . bullied and knocked about until they almost drop. With appalling prescience she wrote that there is nothing we can do but wait as calmly as we can till the misery comes to an end. Jews and Christians wait, the whole earth waits; and there are many who wait for death. When her pen fell into the fire, she wrote that it has been cremated.
Though not much interested in politics, Anne tried to understand what was happening to the world. I dont believe that the big men, the politicians and the capitalists alone, are guilty of the war, she wrote. Oh no, the little man is just as guilty, otherwise the peoples of the world would have risen in revolt long ago! Theres in people simply an urge to destroy, an urge to kill, to murder and rage, and until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, wars will be waged
But sometimes she cried out from the heart, as if for all the Jews of Europe: Who has inflicted this upon us? Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up to now? It is God that has made us as we are, but it will be God, too, who will raise us up again.
Many more decades have passed by nowthis year marks the 70th anniversary of Anne Franks death at Bergen-Belsenand her fathers decision to execute her wish to have her diary published continues to prove significant. According to the Anne Frank House, it has since been published in 70 languages.
Diary of Anne Frank: Read TIME’s Original Review of the Book
Anne Frank,in full Annelies Marie Frank (born June 12, 1929,Frankfurt am Main, Germanydied February/March 1945,Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, near Hannover),young Jewish girl whose diary of her familys two years in hiding during the German occupation of the Netherlands became a classic of war literature.
Early in the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, Annes father, Otto Frank (18891980), a German businessman, took his wife and two daughters to live in Amsterdam. In 1941, after German forces occupied the Netherlands, Anne was compelled to transfer from a public to a Jewish school. Faced with deportation (supposedly to a forced-labour camp), the Franks went into hiding on July 9, 1942, with four other Jews in the backroom office and warehouse of Otto Franks food-products business. With the aid of a few non-Jewish friends, among them Miep Gies, who smuggled in food and other supplies, they lived confined to their secret annex until August 4, 1944, when the Gestapo, acting on a tip from Dutch informers, discovered them.
The family was transported to Westerbork, a transit camp in the Netherlands, and from there to Auschwitz in German-occupied Poland on September 3, 1944, on the last transport to leave Westerbork for Auschwitz. Anne and her sister, Margot, were transferred to Bergen-Belsen the following month. Annes mother died in early January, just before the evacuation of Auschwitz on January 18, 1945. It was established by the Dutch government that both Anne and Margot died in a typhus epidemic in March 1945, only weeks before the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. In 2015 scholars revealed new research, including analysis of archival data and first-person accounts, indicating that the sisters might have perished in February 1945. Otto Frank was found hospitalized at Auschwitz when it was liberated by Soviet troops on January 27, 1945.
Friends who had searched the familys hiding place after their capture later gave Otto Frank the papers left behind by the Gestapo. Among them he found Annes diary, which was published as The Diary of a Young Girl (originally in Dutch, 1947). It is precocious in style and insight and traces her emotional growth amid adversity. In it she wrote, In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.
The Diary has been translated into more than 65 languages and is the most widely read diary of the Holocaust, and Anne is probably the best-known of Holocaust victims. The Diary was also made into a play that premiered on Broadway in October 1955, and in 1956 it won both the Tony Award for best play and the Pulitzer Prize for best drama. A film version directed by George Stevens was produced in 1959. The well-received play was controversial and was challenged by screenwriter Meyer Levin, who wrote an early version of the play (later realized as a 35-minute radio play) and accused Otto Frank and his chosen screenwriters Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett of sanitizing and de-Judaizing the story. The play was often performed in high schools throughout the world and was revived (with additions) on Broadway in 199798. A new English translation of the Diary, published in 1995, contained material that had been edited out of the original version, making the revised translation nearly one-third longer than the first. The Frank familys hiding place on the Prinsengracht, a canal in Amsterdam, has become a museum and is consistently among the most-visited tourist sites in Amsterdam.
Anne Frank | biography – German diarist | Britannica.com
anti-Semitism,hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristicseven those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called scientific racism in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.
Anti-Semitism has existed to some degree wherever Jews have settled outside Palestine. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, religious differences were the primary basis for anti-Semitism. In the Hellenistic Age, for instance, Jews social segregation and their refusal to acknowledge the gods worshiped by other peoples aroused resentment among some pagans, particularly in the 1st century bce1st century ce. Unlike polytheistic religions, which acknowledge multiple gods, Judaism is monotheisticit recognizes only one god. However, pagans saw Jews principled refusal to worship emperors as gods as a sign of disloyalty.
Although Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples were practicing Jews and Christianity is rooted in the Jewish teaching of monotheism, Judaism and Christianity became rivals soon after Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, who executed him according to contemporary Roman practice. Religious rivalry initially was theological. It soon also became political.
Historians agree that the break between Judaism and Christianity followed the Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce and the subsequent exile of Jews. In the aftermath of this devastating defeat, which was interpreted by Jew and Christian alike as a sign of divine punishment, the Gospels diminished Roman responsibility and expressed Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus both explicitly (Matthew 27:25) and implicitly. Jews were depicted as killers of the Son of God.
Christianity was intent on replacing Judaism by making its own particular message universal. The New Testament was seen as fulfilling the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible); Christians were the new Israel, both in flesh and in spirit. The God of justice had been replaced by the God of love. Thus, some early Church Fathers taught that God had finished with the Jews, whose only purpose in history was to prepare for the arrival of his Son. According to this view, the Jews should have left the scene. Their continued survival seemed to be an act of stubborn defiance. Exile was taken as a sign of divine disfavour incurred by the Jews denial that Jesus was the Messiah and by their role in his crucifixion.
As Christianity spread in the first centuries ce, most Jews continued to reject that religion. As a consequence, by the 4th century, Christians tended to regard Jews as an alien people who, because of their repudiation of Christ and his church, were condemned to perpetual migration (a belief best illustrated in the legend of the Wandering Jew). When the Christian church became dominant in the Roman Empire, its leaders inspired many laws by Roman emperors designed to segregate Jews and curtail their freedoms when they appeared to threaten Christian religious domination. As a consequence, Jews were increasingly forced to the margins of European society.
Enmity toward the Jews was expressed most acutely in the churchs teaching of contempt. From St. Augustine in the 4th century to Martin Luther in the 16th, some of the most eloquent and persuasive Christian theologians excoriated the Jews as rebels against God and murderers of the Lord. They were described as companions of the Devil and a race of vipers. Church liturgy, particularly the scriptural readings for the Good Friday commemoration of the Crucifixion, contributed to this enmity. Such views were finally renounced by the Roman Catholic Church decades after the Holocaust with the Vatican II declaration of Nostra aetate (Latin: In Our Era) in 1965, which transformed Roman Catholic teaching regarding Jews and Judaism.
Read more from the original source:
anti-Semitism | Britannica.com
A year after the war that devastated the Gaza Strip, Israel is apparently helping Qatar which does not have official diplomatic relations with Israel partner with the Islamist movement and longstanding enemy Hamas to rebuild the the territory.
“Life is full of contradictions and strange things, Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of research for Israel’s military intelligence, told NPRwhen commenting on Israel’s recent move to allow Qatar to channel its reconstruction aid through Hamas, which is a US-designated terrorist group.
Israel has always tried to isolate Hamas and has accused Qatar of financing the Islamist movement. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, rejects all agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and calls for Israel’s violent destruction in its founding charter.
But now Israel is letting a Qatari official channel millions of dollars to help the Palestinian faction rebuild the Gaza Strip, which was heavily damaged during last summer’s war with Israel.
Kuperwasser told NPR that letting Qatar help Hamas will be beneficial for Israel in the long run. We believe that better conditions in Gaza would lessen the incentive of Hamas and the population to go again to a war, so in a way, it is helping the deterrence, he said.
He also mentioned that Qatar was the only country willing to help despite a pledge of over $5 billion in aid for rebuilding the Strip in 2014 after the war.
Qatar alone has pledged $1 billion, the USpledged $212 million, the European Union $568 million and the United Arab Emirates and Turkey both committed $200 million. But of February 2015, only about 5% of what had been promised reached Gaza, according tohumanitarian news service IRIN.
Mohammad al-Emadi, a Qatari official, has been traveling between Israel and Gaza to discuss reconstruction projects in Gaza,NPR reported. Qatar does not recognize Israel and the countries have no diplomatic relations.
Nevertheless, al-Emadi met with the Israeli brigadier general in charge of letting goods and people through the country’s various crossings with Gaza, according to NPR.
Emadi said that Qatar was there to help Palestinians and not specifically Hamas but that there was no way to achieve that goal in the Strip without Hamas’s help. “You have to support them. You don’t like them … But they control the country, you know,” Emadi said during a visit to Gaza, according to NPR.
Read the original post:
Why Israel allows Qatar to support Hamas in Gaza …
The newly retired Israeli general who served as the commander of the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 came out strongly on Monday against the notion of a two-state solution, saying that the demographic reasoning behind the removal of Jewish settlers was a manipulation and that Israel would yet build settlements in the Strip.
Maj. Gen. (res) Gershon Hacohen, who comes from a family of national religious rabbis and is himself a believer, was tapped to head the August 2005 Disengagement Plan precisely because of his deep ties to the settlement movement.
Over the years he has revealed how difficult the decision was for him on a personal level. On Monday, at a settlers conference for advocacy and media in Jerusalem, he told a semi-circle of still grieving settlers, after his formal address, that my heart was with you there and that I didnt want it to happen.
When a man from the Jewish settlement in Hebron told him he should have served as an example and stepped down the moment he received the order, he replied, You have no idea how much worse it would have been had I not been there.
Forgiveness, he said, was something he would seek from the Ruler of the World.
A Jewish settler argues with a female soldier during the disengagement from the Gaza Strip on August 17, 2005. (photo credit: Yossi Zamir/ Flash90)
The pullout from Gaza was part of prime minister Ariel Sharons plan to draw formal state borders and to receive US backing for unilateral moves that may have continued into the West Bank but likely would not have included all of the territory won in the Six Day War.
Speaking from the podium before a nearly entirely religious crowd, many of whom still feel hurt by the move, Hacohen said that the withdrawal had been an experiment and that the very idea of partition and of two states for two peoples was anachronistic.
Those who speak of a two-state solution, he said, belong to the 20th century. Whoever is part of the 21st century understands: one state.
Hacohen said that in an age of asymmetric warfare, civilian settlements were, once again, a pillar of Israels security. He added that even his dead mother, who lies in dust on the Mount Olives, was fulfilling a strategic role in holding a patch of earth.
Here is the original post:
Gaza pullout commander says settlers will return to the Strip
Creation of Israel, 1948
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.
Eliahu Elath presenting ark to President Truman
Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.
Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britains former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.
Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of States endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.
See the original post:
Creation of Israel, 1948 – 19451952 – Milestones – Office …