DOCSLIB.ORG

Security Council 2020 Topic 1: Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Security Council 2020 Topic 1: Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict HSMUN 2020 Security Council 2020 Topic 1: Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 1.1 Background Information Historical Background (1516-2000) It is impossible to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without first understanding their complex history. For centuries, the area which we now consider Israel and Palestine was dominated by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire allowed certain amounts of religious freedom, but disallowed any form of sovereignty or national agency. During World War One, Britain and France created the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 with the expectation that the Ottoman Empire would fall following the conclusion of the war. This agreement dictated that Britain and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, would divide the Middle East for themselves and reap the rewards of the fallen empire. Furthermore, in 1917, prior to the conclusion of the War, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration which promised a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. During the peace negotiations at Versailles, the defeated Ottoman Empire was divided among the victorious. Critically, Britain took control over Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, rather than as a new colony, from 1920 until 1948. This mandate required the ruling power to create democracy and independence within the nation. During the time of the mandate, Palestine saw increasing violence between Arabs, who now considered themselves free to form an independent nation, and Jews, who considered Palestine their ancestral homeland according to both the Torah and the British government. In 1947, the U.N passed Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small international zone around Jerusalem. Arabs rejected this idea, 1 HSMUN 2020 however, the resolution moved ahead. Britain officially withdrew from Palestine in May 1948, and the Jewish National Council proclaimed the State of Israel. Arab nations openly rejected the notion of creating a Jewish state in Palestine, therefore, they met the establishment of Jewish statehood with guerilla warfare and terrorism. As such, the War of Independence or First Arab-Israeli War began. During this time hundreds of thousands of Jewish individuals migrated into Israel and thousands of Palestinians were made refugees due to the destructive nature of the conflict. The War concluded in the spring and summer of 1949 as Israel signed armistices with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Moreover, Jordan became incredibly supportive of the Palestinian cause following the conflict and advocated for the oppressed people internationally; domestically, they extended citizenship to Palestinians in 1949. Notably, Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a full member on May 11, 1949. The Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 was a critical moment in Arab-Israeli relations and is often labelled as the Second Arab-Israeli War. Egypt, in response to America’s and Britain's decision not to finance the construction of the Aswan High Dam due to President Nasser’s growing ties to communism, - unfavourable political connections due to the Cold War- seized the Suez Canal and declared martial law, consequently nationalizing the Canal. The Canal is critical to European and Middle Eastern trade and was owned by the Suez Canal Company, a British and French company. Britain and France feared the Canal’s closure and sought diplomatic efforts to settle the disagreements: these failed. They did, however, find an ally in Israel who was willing to be militarily involved. Therefore, on October 29, 1956, Israeli brigades invaded Egypt and advanced towards the canal, temporarily gaining control over the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Britain and France demanded the withdrawal of both Israeli and Egyptian troops and intervened in order to enforce a cease-fire; this was unpopular both 2 HSMUN 2020 domestically and internationally. Through a U.N negotiated cease-fire, British and French peacekeepers, alongside Israeli troops, withdrew, relinquishing control over the gained territory, in March 1957. Another crucial conflict occurred in 1967 and is entitled the Six Day War or the Third Arab-Israeli War. This war was a result of increasing tension and border skirmishes, particularly at Israel’s northern border with Syria. Syria was attempting to divert the River Jordan away from Israel’s national water grid and sheltered Palestinian guerilla fighters. On June 5th, Israel launched a pre-emptive air assault against Egypt which destroyed the majority of its air force; similarly, Israel launched an attack on the Syrian air force. Within three days of fighting, Israel had achieved victory and had captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. Jordan had begun to bomb West Jerusalem, but by June 7th, Israel had succeeded in driving the Jordanian forces out, not only of Jerusalem, but also a majority out of the West Bank. The U.N called for a cease-fire on June 7th and Egypt accepted the following day. On June 9th, Israel launched an attack on the Golan Heights and captured it from Syrian forces; Syria accepted the cease fire on June 10th. This war marked Israel’s dominance in the region with particular respect to the command of territory. This conflict also created hundreds of thousands of refugees and brought approximately over a million Palestinians into Israeli occupied territories. Additionally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist organization which seeks Israel’s destruction through militaristic violence, was formed in 1964. The PLO, with the support of Israel’s Arab neighbours, has become the governing body for the stateless nation of Palestine. Notably, in 1974, PLO leader Yasir Arafat addressed the U.N General Assembly, becoming the first stateless government to do so. 3 HSMUN 2020 The Yom Kippur War, or the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, had inconclusive results. The war began with Egypt and Syria simultaneously launching an attack on Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur and during Ramadan, a holy month for Islam, in October 1973. Egypt crossed the Suez Canal into the Sinai Peninsula and Syria broke through Israel’s defenses in the Golan Heights. Israel asked for American assistance which was provided by President Richard Nixon. Following intense and sporadic fighting, Israel and Egypt agreed on a ceasefire on January 18th, 1974, which included Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt's reduction in military forces on the east bank of the Suez Canal. A U.N peacekeeping force established a buffer zone between the two armies. On May 31, 1974, Israel and Syria signed their own cease fire agreement which likewise resulted in a U.N buffer zone, as well as an exchange of prisoners of war. A moment of peace occurred in November 1977 when Egypt's President Anwar Sadat declared his willingness to discuss reconciliation with Israel. Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin invited the Egyptian leader to address Israel’s parliament (Knesset). Following two years of discussions, on March 14th, 1979, the Knesset approved the final peace treaty and twelve days later Begin and Sadat, alongside President Jimmy Carter, signed the final document in a White House ceremony. Thus, Israel began to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula which Egypt subsequently annexed on May 25th, 1979. This peace, however, did not last long. It was officially broken on June 9th, 1982 when Israel launched a massive assault on southern Lebanon, where the PLO were stationed. Israel began to destroy PLO strongholds, however, a U.S mediated peace accord was negotiated between Israel and Lebanon which was signed on May 17th, 1983; this required Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. While Israel did not fully withdraw, 4 HSMUN 2020 they remained near the border in southern Lebanon. Lebanon, under Syrian influence, cancelled the accord in March 1984. In 1987 the intifada, or rebellion, began, otherwise known as the Gaza Strip Riots. These began due to the killing of four Palestinian civilians by Israeli’s at a checkpoint in the Gaza Strip, as well as the murder of a seventeen-year-old Palestinian by an Israeli officer. More than 20 000 individuals were killed in the fighting. Critically, in 1988, PLO leader Yasser Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist and his willingness to enter negotiations to create a Palestinian political entity that would coexist with the Israeli state. Three years later in 1991, the U.S and Soviet Union organized the Madrid Conference in order to establish a framework for peace negotiations between Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine. Discussions included Palestinian self-rule of the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank, the future of Palestinian refugees and a plan for economic development in the region, which had been forestalled due to decades of violent conflict and rebellion. By 1993, the PLO and the Israeli government agreed on the Oslo Accords. The Accords stipulated the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from six West Bank cities and approximately 450 towns. As well, the Accord outlined a timetable in order to develop Palestinian self-governance including a timetable for elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council. As a result, the Palestinian Authority, with Arafat as elected leader, took control of newly non-Israeli occupied territories and assumed government duties. Unfortunately, the progress to peace was halted and reversed with the election of a new hard-line Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who argued that the Oslo Accords offered too many quick concessions to Israel's enemies and jeopardized the nation's safety. Yet, another attempt at peace was held in 1997 through the Hebron Accord, however, actions from the Israeli government regarding the continued construction of Jewish settlements on the West Bank 5 HSMUN 2020 nullified progress. As a result, Netanyahu authorized right-wing Israeli’s to build even more settlements in primarily Arab East Jerusalem; additionally, Arafat was both unwilling and unable to curb violence of Arab extremists, including Hamas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel States of America
    UnitedIsrael States of America No. 413 JuneJuly 20072008 Israel In terms of area and population, Israel is quite a small coun- try. Its national territory roughly corresponds in size to that of the US state of New Jersey and, with about seven million inhab- itants, it is similarly densely populated. The amount of attention that the Middle East’s strongest economy has always attracted bears no relation to these somewhat unspectacular figures. Israel is constantly present in media and political discourse, primarily attributable to the often war-like conflict between Jews and Palestinians that has been smouldering for more than 60 years. With regard to the subject of migration, too, Israel is unusu- al in one very important way: the state is virtually built on immi- gration. Apart from brief interruptions, Jews have immigrated continuously into the originally Ottoman and later British-ad- ministered Palestine since 1882. The holocaust in Europe lent the Zionist ideal1 worldwide legitimacy and accelerated its re- Background information alisation. Mass immigration characterised various periods of the 20th century, especially the years immediately before and Capital: Jerusalem after the founding of the state in 1948. The subsequent war Languages: Hebrew, Arabic that broke out with the neighbouring Arab states (War of Inde- pendence) led, on the other hand, to a wave of Palestinian refu- Area: 20,770 km² (CIA World Factbook) gees and displaced persons. Later wars generated further Population (2008): 7,112,359 (CIA, includes Israeli settlers in refugee movements, with the result that today almost three der West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) quarters of Palestinians (about 7 million) live outside their home- 2 Population density (2008): 342 inhabitants per km² (CIA) land.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiating Jewish Nationalism in Interwar Warsaw
    chapter 16 Negotiating Jewish Nationalism in Interwar Warsaw Kenneth B. Moss The memoir literature on Jewish life in interwar Warsaw reveals a peculiar ambiguity. Some memoirs present Warsaw as the center of a newly intense interwar Jewish nationalism. Moyshe Zonshayn describes Nalewki Street as the heart of a Jewish national “kingdom,” where the Jewish national council sought to shape the fate of a putative Jewish nation, where every “national holiday” brought forth grand Jewish national processions, and where every soccer game between ethnically Jewish and ethnically Catholic-Polish teams was a nationalistically-framed event.1 Another memoir by the Łomża Zionist activist Yisroel Levinsky represents Warsaw as a site of “historic” Zionist achievement, as when he recalls with evident pride his participation “in the historic national conference in Warsaw for the Jewish National Fund, when [Menahem] Ussishkin, the president of the fund, [demanded of] the Jews of Poland a levy [. .] [towards] the half million pounds sterling [. .] needed for the redemption of 100,000 new dunams of land” in Palestine.2 Conversely, other memoirs of interwar Warsaw register little Jewish nation- alism there or maintain that Jewish nationalism in Warsaw was notably weak by contemporary standards. Indeed, this perspective can sometimes be found in the very same memoirs that elsewhere trumpet the city’s significance in the annals of Jewish nationalism. The aforementioned memoir by Zonshayn, for example, describes certain streets in the city’s Jewish neighborhood as almost wholly socialist in terms of their public political culture, and pinpoints other sites in the city—like the marriage-halls on Franciszkańska street—that served as stages for manifestations of a robust Hasidic subculture.3 The Yiddishist * The research for this chapter was conducted with the support of a Charles A.
    [Show full text]
  • Velednitsky Modernizing the Moshav
    MODERNIZING THE MOSHAV: ISRAEL’S SOCIOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF MIZRAHI JEWISH SETTLEMENT, 1948-1967 by Stepha Velednitsky A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geography) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2018 i Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 ANALYTICAL INTERVENTION ........................................................................................................................................... 14 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 1: THE JEWISH AGENCY’S LAND PLANNING ................................................................................. 34 PLANNING FOR SECURITY: MILITARIZATION AND GEOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 Page I
    Cohen: The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 page i The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 Cohen: The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 page ii blank Cohen: The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 page iii The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 Naomi W. Cohen Brandeis University Press Cohen: The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 page iv Brandeis University Press Published by University Press of New England, 37 Lafayette Street, Lebanon, NH 03766 © 2003 by Brandeis University All rights reserved This book was published with the generous support of the Lucius N. Litthauer Foundation, Inc. Printed in the United States of America 54321 Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Cohen, Naomi Wiener, 1927– The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 / Naomi W. Cohen. p. cm. — (Brandeis series in American Jewish history, culture, and life) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1–58465–346–9 (alk. paper) 1. Zionism—United States—History. 2. Jews—Attitudes toward Israel. 3. Jews—United States—Politics and government—20th century. 4. Israel and the diaspora. I. Title. II. Series. .. 320.54'095694'0973—dc22 2003018067 Cohen: The Americanization of Zionism, 1897–1948 page v Brandeis Series in American Jewish History, Culture, and Life Jonathan D. Sarna, Sylvia Barack Fishman, . , The Americanization of the Synagogue, 1820–1870 , , Follow My Footprints: Changing Images of Women in American Jewish Fiction , Taking Root: The Origins of the Canadian Jewish Community , , Hebrew and the Bible
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Political Elite During the British Mandate
    Journal of Literature and Art Studies, September 2016, Vol. 6, No. 9, 1085-1099 doi: 10.17265/2159-5836/2016.09.011 D DAVID PUBLISHING Social Background and Elite Composition: Jewish Political Elite During the British Mandate Taysir Nashif United Nations, New York This article, which utilizes the quantitative social-background approach, sets as its objective to empirically discern correlations between the behavior of the Jewish political elite, embodied in the Jewish Agency for Palestine in the period from 1921 to 1948, and the following social-background variables: age, foreign travel, occupation as a path to political power, regional affiliation, ideology, and political opportunity, of the JAE membership. Diversity of the social-background variables and, particularly, the multitude of languages they knew, explain, to a considerable extent, firstly, the wide variety of their social, political and economic views, and, secondly, the elite’s resort to direct contact with Western governments and peoples in communicating and promoting their political ideology, thus facilitating the realization of the Zionist project. Keywords: elite communication, circulation, Jewish elite, mandate over Palestine, politics, regional affiliation, Zionism Historical Background As a political movement, Zionism was launched in the 1880s by Jewish European intellectuals. These individuals and their successors were successful in providing the Zionist movement with effective leadership and organization (Khouri, 1971, p. 3). The World Zionist Organization (WZO), in particular, emerged as an important and powerful international body (Cohen, 1950, p. 312). To establish the Jewish national home, Zionist leaders envisaged the promotion of Jewish immigration to, and settlement in, Palestine, the unification of world Jews, the fostering of Jewish national consciousness and the taking of steps to secure various governments’ support for the Zionist goals (Patai, 1971, p.
    [Show full text]
  • 228 and the End of the Revolt, 1939
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Crime in the Mandate: British and Zionist criminological discourse and Arab nationalist agitation in Palestine, 1936-39 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8x61q5jz Author Kelly, Matthew Kraig Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Crime in the Mandate: British and Zionist criminological discourse and Arab nationalist agitation in Palestine, 1936–39 A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Matthew Kraig Kelly 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Crime in the Mandate: British and Zionist criminological discourse and Arab nationalist agitation in Palestine, 1936–39 by Matthew Kraig Kelly Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor James L. Gelvin, Chair This study examines British strategies for social control during the Arab revolt in Palestine in 1936–39. It focuses specifically on the British discourse of criminality vis-à-vis the Arabs, and the ways in which this discourse related to British and Zionist representations of Arab Palestinian nationalism. Its primary finding is that British imperial discourse in the 1930s necessitated that nationalist movements such as that for Arab Palestinian independence be criminalized in a particular manner. London tended in the nineteenth century to regard the nationalist movements within its colonial domains as essentially criminal enterprises. Given the terms of the post-WWI mandates system, however, the British were poorly positioned to suggest that Palestinian nationalists in general were criminally inclined. After all, the entire justification for the British ii presence in the Middle East was the shepherding of its peoples across the threshold of national autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Philosophies of Religious Zionism 1937-1967 Alexander Kaye Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Th
    The Legal Philosophies of Religious Zionism 1937-1967 Alexander Kaye Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2012 Alexander Kaye All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Legal Philosophies of Religious Zionism 1937-1967 Alexander Kaye This dissertation is an attempt to recover abandoned pathways in religious Zionist thought. It identifies a fundamental shift in the legal philosophy of religious Zionists, demonstrating that around the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, religious Zionists developed a new way of thinking about the relationship between law and the state. Before this shift took place, religious Zionist thinkers affiliated with a variety of legal and constitutional philosophies. As shown in chapter 1, the leaders of the religious kibbutz movement advocated a revolutionary, almost anarchic, approach to law. They (in theory, at least,) only accepted rules that emerged spontaneously from the spirit of their religious and national life, even if that meant departing from traditional halakha. Others had a more positive attitude towards law but, as chapter 2 shows, differed widely regarding the role of halakha in the constitution of the Jewish state. They covered a spectrum from, at one extreme, the call for a complete separation between religion and state to, on the other, the call a rabbinic oversight of all legislation. They all, however, were legal pluralists; they agreed that a single polity may have within it a plurality of legitimate sources of legal authority and that, even in a Jewish state, other kinds of legislation may hold authority alongside halakha.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION POLICY in PALESTINE UNDER SIR HERBERT SAMUEL: BRITISH, ZIONIST and ARAB ATTITUDES Moshe Mossek Thesis Submitted
    IMMIGRATION POLICY IN PALESTINE UNDER SIR HERBERT SAMUEL: BRITISH, ZIONIST AND ARAB ATTITUDES Moshe Mossek Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy- University of London 1975 ABSTRACT During the three decades of British rule in Palestine (1918-1948), the question of Jewish immigration played a major role in the political arena of the country. As far as the Zionists were concerned, Jewish immigration was a vital and indispensable condition to the growth and strengthening of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine), to the x^^osperity of the country and to the building up of the Jewish National Home. On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs saw in Jewish immigration the most dangerous and tangible threat to their political existence. and their economic, social and religious position. The British Government, which, according to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, took upon itself to assist the establishment of the Jewish National Home by facilitating Jewish immigration, was well aware of the controversial nature of this question and devoted considerable endeavour to finding a solution satisfactory to all parties concerned. The present study examines the making of immigration policy during the first five years of the Civil Administration, which correspond to Sir Herbert Samuel's rule in Palestine. This includes an analysis of the different approaches and contributions of the various bodies and. individuals which took x^art in the framing of the policy; an examination of the political, administrative arid legal patterns, procedures and schemes of immigration; and finally, the implementation 3. of the schemes and their subsequent effects on the official policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 10892.Ch01.Pdf
    © 2008 UC Regents Buy this book University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholar- ship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2008 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cohen, Hillel. [Tseva ha-tselalim. English] Army of shadows : Palestinian collaboration with Zionism, 1917–1948 / Hillel Cohen ; translated by Haim Watzman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn: 978-0-520-25221-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Jewish-Arab relations—History—1917–1948. 2. Collaborationists. 3. Palestinian Arabs—Politics and government—20th century. 4. Zionism— History—20th century. 5. Jews—Palestine—Politics and government—20th century. I. Title. DS119.7.C632513 2008 956.94'04—dc22 2007011571 Manufactured in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 10987654321 This book is printed on Natures Book, which contains 50% postconsumer waste and meets the minimum requirements of ansi/niso Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper). Contents Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 PART ONE TWO NATIONALISMS MEET, 1917 – 1935 1 Utopia and Its Collapse 15 2 Who Is a Traitor?
    [Show full text]
  • Satan in America 4 High Zionism – What It Was
    Rabbi Alan Berg Satan in America 4 High Zionism – What it was. What did it mean? IV On Monday September 9, 1935 in a private circulated dispatch, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency – an American project of Va-ad Leumi – the Jewish National Council in Palestine – by the way having the same name as the Jewish national council for the Jewish post- medieval nation the Council of Four Lands – published a ten page document marked “Not for Circulation – For Personal Use Only; (and now available on the web) containing the following: “At a Zionist Congress in Vienna” – a meeting organized to supplant all other Zionist leadership, ideas and activities, now with that of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his movement, which he started in the 1910s in Palestine, Revisionist Zionism. Jabotinsky, who maintained contacts with both Polish and German officials, and that is where he went in Europe after departing from Palestine in 1920 – “…things seemed to be getting worse for the Jews,” Jabotinsky declared in Vienna, and that the British and the Germans are equal enemies of the Jews of Palestine. At that meeting, Jacob DeHass, Herzl’s former confidant, America’s leading Zionist, the man who brought Louis Brandies to Zionism, the head of the JTA, the most veteran American Zionist, “expressed the conviction that (Jabotinsky) it will win the day for ‘renewal of the destiny of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan.” This is from the Mediterranean to the West Bank, and across to the part of today’s Jordan that is on east bank of the Jordan River. Then, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article, Jabotinsky, at that time the leading militant in all of Zionism, Jabotinsky in an address declared that he spoke in the name of 700,000 electors; he 1 explained the tragic failure of Jewish emancipation – something that he had spent the last 15 years working to disable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Zionism Until the Founding of the State of Israel by Martin Kloke
    The Development of Zionism Until the Founding of the State of Israel by Martin Kloke This article traces the history of European-shaped Zionism during and after the First World War until the founding of Is- rael in 1948. Its primary aim is to show how the emerging project of the Jewish settlement of Palestine could withstand external and internal difficulties both under the British mandate and in the shadow of Nazism. From the beginning, politi- cal Zionism has been characterized by a triad of controversial partition plans, recurring "civil wars" and terrorism. This constellation gives an idea of why the State of Israel – regardless of some diplomatic successes – has failed, espe- cially in the Middle East, to achieve lasting legitimacy either in a historical-political sense or according to international law. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Jewish Palestine at the Beginning of the First World War 2. The First World War and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 3. Consolidation and Upswing: the Zionist-Socialist Project Under the British Mandate 4. Under the Shadow of National Socialism: Jewish Mass Immigration, Arab Insurgency and the Second World War 5. Partition Plans and the Path Towards the State of Israel 6. Civil War and Terror: Harbingers of the Mutual Israeli-Palestinian Relationship of Violence 7. The Founding of the State of Israel 8. Appendix 1. Sources 2. Bibliography 3. Notes Citation Jewish Palestine at the Beginning of the First World War Compared to the more than two million Eastern-European Jewish immigrants who had reached the North American con- tinent since the 1890s, the Jewish immigration to Palestine, which was at the time part of the Ottoman province of Da- mascus, was at first quite modest.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Politics in Central Europe: the Case of the Jewish Party in Interwar Czechoslovakia1
    JEWISH POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE: THE CASE OF THE JEWISH PARTY IN INTERWAR CZECHOSLOVAKIA1 Marie Chrova Jewish politics, its appearance and geo-political borders, have been readdressed in recent historiography and the commonly held opinion that Jewish politics appeared before the end of the nineteenth century in Eastern Europe has been revised. Historians and political scientists have explored the tradition of Jewish political practice and theory throughout history and shown that it was reflected both in the internal governance of the autonomous Jewish community and in its relations with external political institutions. Jews as an oppressed minority were constantly involved in seeking a modus vivendi with the ruling power in order to secure their existence. In modern times Jewish politics in the West did not disappear but were transformed. The emancipated Jewish communities exhibited diverse degrees of political agility both on the internal political scene (primarily to defend their full civic equality and freedom of religious expression) and on the international level when speaking on behalf of the persecuted East European Jews.2 The classics of historical writing on modern Jewish politics, like Jonathan Frankel or Ezra Mendelsohn, propose that modern Jewish ideologies and movements were born in the old multinational Russian and Habsburg empires where they won large numbers of followers among the ‘truly Jewish’ population (that is, the non-assimilated and non-acculturated strata). As Mendelsohn argued, a certain degree of acculturation and secularisation had occurred in Eastern Europe, but it took place gradually in the context of socio-economic backwardness and general anti-Jewish hostility and led most typically not to assimilation, but to modern Jewish nationalism.
    [Show full text]