DOCSLIB.ORG

Olive Press Research Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Olive Press Research Paper Olive Press Research Paper issue 4 february 2009 1 Churchill and the Jews: an assessment of two recent studies and their contemporary relevance by Michael Eldridge Churchill and the Jews: an assessment of two recent studies and their contemporary relevance by Michael Eldridge 2 Welcome to the Olive Press Research Paper – the replacement for the Olive Press Quarterly. This features articles that cover a wide spectrum of issues which relate to the ministry of CMJ. Articles are contributed by CMJ staff (past and present), also by Trustees, Representatives, CMJ supporters or by interested parties. Articles do not necessarily portray CMJ’s standpoint on a particular issue but may be published on the premise that they allow a pertinent understanding to be added to any particular debate. ‘The Faithful Friend of Zionism’ Among the many tributes paid to Churchill following his death in 1965 is one from Henry Sacher in the Jewish Chronicle which reads, ‘We Jews are under a special obligation to Churchill, the faithful friend of Zionism.’1 Sacher was one of the British Zionists who had helped with the drafting of the Balfour Declaration nearly fifty years earlier. Martin Gilbert’s recent book, Churchill and the Jews, seeks to show how this accolade came to be deserved, tracing Churchill’s involvement with the Jews from his opposing the Aliens Bill of 3 1904 which made it harder for Jews escaping the pogroms in Russia to enter Britain, to his pleading as Leader of the Opposition in 1948 for the immediate recognition by Britain of the newly self-declared State of Israel. Martin Gilbert is the official biographer of Churchill and Professor of History at Oxford; a prolific writer, he has also written books on the Holocaust and is the author of one of the major histories of modern Israel. But for many Jews Churchill proved a great disappointment and they hold that he did little to help them. The case to this effect is strongly argued by Michael Cohen, Professor of Bar Ilan University, whose 1985 book, also with the title Churchill and the Jews, was republished in a second edition in 2003. Gilbert includes Cohen’s book in his bibliography but otherwise simply ignores it. Where does the truth lie? Churchill had close dealings with the Jews, in particular, in three periods: when as Colonial Secretary 1919-21 he had special responsibility for Palestine and the Middle East; in his role in opposing both the Peel Commission’s proposals in 1937 and the infamous White Paper of 1939; and during the Second World War as Prime Minister 1940-45. Churchill’s Record as Colonial Secretary As Colonial Secretary in Lloyd George’s post-war Government, Churchill was charged with agreeing the terms of the Mandates for Palestine and the Middle East to be granted to Britain by the League of Nations. One significant step Churchill took was to separate the land east of the Jordan (now known as Jordan) from the rest of Palestine and to let the Emir Abdullah rule it in 1 Gilbert, 2007, p. 306. Britain’s name. For some Zionists at the time this was seen as a betrayal, for they believed that with irrigation this territory had great agricultural potential; they also saw it as part of the biblical land of Israel. But in fairness to Churchill, different and, many would argue, incompatible promises had been made to the Jews and Arabs respectively in the course of the War, and he believed, I think with good reason, that he was enabling Britain to honour the promises made to both groups. Further, not all Jews took this negative view. 4 Some thirty years later, James de Rothschild, a leading British Jew, wrote to Churchill, … you laid the foundation of the Jewish state by separating Abdullah’s kingdom from the rest of Palestine. Without this much opposed prophetic foresight there would not have been an Israel today.2 The Lloyd George Government was of course committed to the Balfour Declaration, but it is worth noting that Balfour himself did not mind if some other state such as Belgium or the United States was given the Mandate for Palestine.3 Initially Britain simply governed Palestine as an occupying power with a military administration, but this was soon to be replaced by a civil administration with Sir Herbert Samuel as the first High Commissioner. Samuel was himself Jewish and a moderate Zionist. Essentially some of the key British policies, for example, controlling the level of Jewish immigration, were developed in a pragmatic way under Samuel’s leadership. However, Britain needed a Mandate from the League of Nations to rule Palestine lawfully and the terms of the Mandate were set out in the 1922 White Paper which the League subsequently endorsed. Although in later years Churchill was to make much of the 1922 White Paper as a commitment which he personally owned, Cohen very clearly shows that Churchill made no personal contribution to its drafting, and only accepted the Mandate with great reluctance and under pressure from Lloyd George. In fact on three separate occasions, in October 1919, June 1920 and June 1921, Churchill had written to Lloyd George arguing that the acquisition of these ‘new provinces’ would be a mistake. Typical is the 2 Gilbert, 2007, p. 292. 3 Cohen, 2003, p. 85. last such letter, part of which reads, The only wise and safe course would be to take advantage of the postponement of the Mandates and resign them both and quit the two countries [Palestine and Mesopotamia] at the earliest possible moment, as the expense to which we shall be put will be wholly unwarrantable.4 Though Gilbert does indicate briefly what he sees as Churchill’s initial reluctance to accept the Mandate, he quickly passes over the matter; he does 5 not tell us of these letters, though he must have been aware of them.5 When we come to the terms of the White Paper itself – these are the legal obligations which Britain by Parliamentary approval undertook to fulfil– there is much that fell short of Zionist aspirations. While its provisions affirmed that the Jewish community ‘should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance’, they specifically dissociated Britain from such phrases as ‘Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English’, and made quite clear that the development of a Jewish national home in Palestine is not to be ‘the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole’. The Balfour Declaration itself said nothing about the rate at which Jewish immigration should be allowed. The White Paper ruled, It is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever is the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.6 In 1921 there were 83,000 Jews living in Palestine; by the end of 1935 the number had become 355,000: this was the outcome of the policy set underway by Churchill’s 1922 White Paper. The Peel Commission 1936 saw the beginning of what is now known as the Arab Revolt. This was a concerted insurrection, first taking the form of a general strike, followed by 4 Cohen, 2003, p. 96. 5 Gilbert, 2007, pp. 35 -36. 6 The provisions are well summarized by Tessler, p. 173. the Arabs taking control of several important towns. It took the British three years to restore order completely, some 20,000 troops being tied down in the operation. Following the first phase of the rebellion, the Peel Commission was set up ‘to ascertain the causes of the disturbances, to ascertain whether either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances, and to make recommendations for their removal.’ Lord Peel had been Secretary of State for India, and it is generally agreed that he and the Commission he chaired 6 brought to their task an objective, impartial approach free from political pressures. Because Churchill was responsible for the 1922 White Paper under which Palestine was being administered, he was naturally called to give evidence. However, under questioning Churchill made some very anti-Arab statements, and he asked for his testimony to be excluded from the published report, which was done. Nevertheless his evidence was recorded and provides some valuable insights into his thinking about the Mandate. Asked about the meaning and aim of the Jewish national home, Churchill indicated that if Jewish immigration, as controlled by the ‘economic absorptive capacity’ test, combined with natural increase, were to lead to a much larger Jewish population, ‘that population should not in any way be restricted from reaching a majority position.’ Indeed ‘some day, far off in the future’ he envisaged there being ‘a great Jewish state numbered by millions’. Asked to clarify when this might be, Churchill replied, ‘Over the generations or the centuries’. He was later asked whether this would not be an injustice to the Palestinian Arabs. Churchill protested, ‘Why is it injustice because there is more work and more wealth for everybody? There is no injustice.’7 From his replies it may seem that Churchill was adopting the ‘gradualist’ form of Zionism associated with Weizmann, but by speaking of ‘generations or centuries’ to come, he may in fact have been doing little more than asserting Britain’s right to hold the Mandate and control immigration indefinitely. In the result the Peel Commission concluded that the conflict was ‘inherent in the situation from the outset’. The Mandate had been founded in the belief of ‘the conciliatory effect on the Palestinian Arabs of the material prosperity which Jewish immigration would bring to Palestine as a whole.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mount Scopus Enclave, 1948–1967
    Yfaat Weiss Sovereignty in Miniature: The Mount Scopus Enclave, 1948–1967 Abstract: Contemporary scholarly literature has largely undermined the common perceptions of the term sovereignty, challenging especially those of an exclusive ter- ritorial orientation and offering a wide range of distinct interpretations that relate, among other things, to its performativity. Starting with Leo Gross’ canonical text on the Peace of Westphalia (1948), this article uses new approaches to analyze the policy of the State of Israel on Jerusalem in general and the city’s Mount Scopus enclave in 1948–1967 in particular. The article exposes tactics invoked by Israel in three different sites within the Mount Scopus enclave, demilitarized and under UN control in the heart of the Jordanian-controlled sector of Jerusalem: two Jewish in- stitutions (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Hadassah hospital), the Jerusa- lem British War Cemetery, and the Palestinian village of Issawiya. The idea behind these tactics was to use the Demilitarization Agreement, signed by Israel, Transjor- dan, and the UN on July 7, 1948, to undermine the status of Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum, as had been proposed in UN Resolution 181 II. The concept of sovereignty stands at the center of numerous academic tracts written in the decades since the end of the Cold War and the partition of Europe. These days, with international attention focused on the question of Jerusalem’s international status – that is, Israel’s sovereignty over the town – there is partic- ularly good reason to examine the broad range of definitions yielded by these discussions. Such an examination can serve as the basis for an informed analy- sis of Israel’s policy in the past and, to some extent, even help clarify its current approach.
    [Show full text]
  • As Mirrored in This Volume of His Letters, the Years 1937-38 Were For
    THE LETTERS AND PAPERS OF CHAIM WEIZMANN January 1937 – December 1938 Volume XVIII, Series A Introduction: Aaron Klieman General Editor Barnet Litvinoff, Volume Editor Aaron Klieman, Transaction Books, Rutgers University and Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, 1979 [Reprinted with express permission from the Weizmann Archives, Rehovot, Israel, by the Center for Israel Education www.israeled.org.] As mirrored in this volume of his letters, the years 1937-38 were for Chaim Weizmann the most critical period of his political life since the weeks preceding the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. We observe him at the age of 64 largely drained of physical strength, his diplomatic orientation of collaboration with Great Britain under attack, and his leadership challenged by a generation of younger, militant Zionists. In his own words he was 'a lonely man standing at the end of a road, a via dolorosa. I have no more courage left to face anything—and so much is expected from me.' This situation found its prelude in 1936, when Arab unrest compelled the British Government to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of its policy in Palestine. A Royal Commission headed by Lord Peel was charged with investigating the causes of the disturbances. Weizmann, alert to the implications, took great pains to ensure that the Zionist case was presented with the utmost cogency. As President of the Zionist Organization and of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, he delivered the opening statement on behalf of the Jews to the Royal Commission in Jerusalem on 25 November 1936. He subsequently gave evidence four times in camera, and directed the presentation of evidence by other Zionist witnesses and maintained informal contact with members of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Labour Party and Zionism, 1917-1947 / by Fred Lennis Lepkin
    THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY AND ZIONISM: 1917 - 1947 FRED LENNIS LEPKIN BA., University of British Columbia, 196 1 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History @ Fred Lepkin 1986 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY July 1986 All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Name : Fred Lennis Lepkin Degree: M. A. Title of thesis: The British Labour Party and Zionism, - Examining Committee: J. I. Little, Chairman Allan B. CudhgK&n, ior Supervisor . 5- - John Spagnolo, ~upervis&y6mmittee Willig Cleveland, Supepiso$y Committee -Lenard J. Cohen, External Examiner, Associate Professor, Political Science Dept.,' Simon Fraser University Date Approved: August 11, 1986 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay The British Labour Party and Zionism, 1917 - 1947.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Broken Promises: the Roots of the Israeli and Palestinian
    Britain’s Broken Promises: The Roots of the Israeli and Palestinian Conflict Overview Students will learn about British control over Palestine after World War I and how it influenced the Israel‐Palestine situation in the modern Middle East. The material will be introduced through a timeline activity and followed by a PowerPoint that covers many of the post‐WWI British policies. The lesson culminates in a letter‐writing project where students have to support a position based upon information learned. Grade 9 NC Essential Standards for World History • WH.1.1: Interpret data presented in time lines and create time lines • WH.1.3: Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past • WH.5.3: Analyze colonization in terms of the desire for access to resources and markets as well as the consequences on indigenous cultures, population, and environment • WH.7.3: Analyze economic and political rivalries, ethnic and regional conflicts, and nationalism and imperialism as underlying causes of war Materials • “Steps Toward Peace in Israel and Palestine” Timeline (excerpt attached) • History of Israel/Palestine Timeline Questions and Answer Key, attached • Drawing paper or chart paper • Colored pencils or crayons (optional) • “Britain’s Broken Promises” PowerPoint, available in the Database of K‐12 Resources (in PDF format) o To view this PDF as a projectable presentation, save the file, click “View” in the top menu bar of the file, and select “Full Screen Mode” o To request an editable PPT version of this presentation, send a request to
    [Show full text]
  • Playing with Dynamite: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Palestine, 1945-1948
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2017 Playing with Dynamite: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Palestine, 1945-1948 Jared Paul Rivard University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Rivard, Jared Paul, "Playing with Dynamite: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Palestine, 1945-1948" (2017). Master's Theses and Capstones. 925. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/925 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Playing with Dynamite: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Palestine, 1945-1948 By Jared Rivard BA History, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2009 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History May, 2017 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History by: Kurk Dorsey, Professor of History J. William Harris, Professor of History Jason Sokol, Associate Professor of History On May 9, 2017 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS MAPS. ..............................................................................................................….. v ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. ...….. vii INTRODUCTION: THE POWDER KEG IN THE MIDDLE EAST…………… 1 A Crisis of Lasting Importance…………………....................................... 1 Historiography…………………………...….............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Holocaust: Factor in the Birth of Israel? by Evyatar Friesel
    The Holocaust: Factor in the Birth of Israel? by Evyatar Friesel It is widely believed that the catastrophe of European Jewry during World War II had a decisive influence on the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. According to this thesis, for the Jews the Holocaust triggered a supreme effort toward statehood, based on the understanding that only a Jewish state might again avoid the horrors of the 1940s. For the nations of the world, shocked by the horror of the extermination and burdened by feelings of guilt, the Holocaust convinced them that the Jews were entitled to a state of their own. All these assumptions seem extremely doubtful. They deserve careful re-examination in light of the historical evidence. Statehood in Zionist Thought The quest for a Jewish state had always been paramount in Zionist thought and action. For tactical reasons official Zionism was cautious in explaining its ultimate aims, especially when addressing general public opinion. Terms other than "state" were used in various political documents or official utterances by leading Zionist statesmen: Jewish home, Jewish National Home, commonwealth, Jewish commonwealth. But there is no reason to doubt that the ultimate aim of the Zionist mainstream was the creation of a state in Palestine. The question remained as to what methods should be used in order to reach the consummation of these hopes. One possibility was the evolutionary path, implied also in the political relations between the Zionists and leading British statesmen between 1917 and 1920. It found implicit expression in the terms and the structure of the Palestine Mandate approved by the League of Nations in July 1922.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of Zionist Organization Of
    Nos. 16-1436 and 16-1540 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL., Respondents. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HAWAII, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Courts Of Appeals For The Fourth and Ninth Circuits --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE BY THE ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA (ZOA) IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ELIZABETH BERNEY, ESQ. 633 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 481-1500 [email protected] Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae Zionist Organization of America ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. NUMEROUS SOURCES CONFIRM THE WEAKNESSES IN U.S. VETTING PRO- CESSES
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetorical History of the British Constitution of Israel, 1917-1948
    A RHETORICAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION OF ISRAEL, 1917-1948 by BENJAMIN ROSWELL BATES (Under the Direction of Celeste Condit) ABSTRACT The Arab-Israeli conflict has long been presented as eternal and irresolvable. A rhetorical history argues that the standard narrative can be challenged by considering it a series of rhetorical problems. These rhetorical problems can be reconstructed by drawing on primary sources as well as publicly presented texts. A methodology for doing rhetorical history that draws on Michael Calvin McGee's fragmentation thesis is offered. Four theoretical concepts (the archive, institutional intent, peripheral text, and center text) are articulated. British Colonial Office archives, London Times coverage, and British Parliamentary debates are used to interpret four publicly presented rhetorical acts. In 1915-7, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. Although these documents are treated as promises in the standard narrative, they are ambiguous declarations. As ambiguous documents, these texts offer opportunities for constitutive readings as well as limiting interpretations. In 1922, the Mandate for Palestine was issued to correct this vagueness. Rather than treating the Mandate as a response to the debate between realist foreign policy and self-determination, Winston Churchill used epideictic rhetoric to foreclose a policy discussion in favor of a vote on Britain's honour. As such, the Mandate did not account for Wilsonian drives in the post-War international sphere. After Arab riots and boycotts highlighted this problem, a commission was appointed to investigate new policy approaches. In the White Paper of 1939, a rhetoric of investigation limited Britain's consideration of possible policies.
    [Show full text]
  • PALESTINE: TERMINATION of the MANDATE 15 May 1948
    PALESTINE: TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE 15 May 1948 [Statement prepared for public information by the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, His Majesty's Stationery Office] His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to be responsible for the administration of Palestine from midnight on 14th May, 1948. The ending of thirty years of British rule in Palestine, begun when General Allenby's troop occupied that country towards the close of the first world war, provides a fitting occasion for a brief review of its history and of the policy pursued by His Majesty's Government. I. The Origin and Nature of the British Mandate for Palestine The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to His Majesty by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers in 1920, was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 and took effect in 1923, when the Treaty of Lausanne formally ended the war between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire, in which Palestine had previously been included. To implement this Mandate, His Majesty's Government set up in Palestine an Administration comprising a British High Commissioner, appointed by and responsible to the Colonial Office, assisted by an Advisory Council nominated by him from his officials. These, together with the police and judiciary, were initially mainly British, but, in the civil service, British subjects were gradually replace by Arabs and Jews in all but the most senior appointments. The Administration was supported by a British garrison. With this mandate His Majesty's Government accepted certain obligations, which are set out in two documents: the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate for Palestine.
    [Show full text]
  • The-Balfour-Declaration-Lookstein-Center.Pdf
    The Balfour Declaration - November 2, 1917 Celebrating 100 Years There are those who believe that the Balfour Declaration was the most magnanimous (generous) gesture by an imperial nation. Others believe it was the biggest error of judgment that a world power could make. In this unit, we will discover: What was the Balfour Declaration Why the Balfour Declaration was so important How the Balfour Declaration is relevant today 1. Which of the following Declarations have you heard of? a) The United States Declaration of Independence, 1776 b) The Irish Declaration of Independence, 1917 c) The Balfour Declaration, 1917 d) The Israeli Declaration of Independence, 1948 e) The Austrian Declaration of Neutrality, 1955 What was the Balfour Declaration? The Balfour Declaration was a letter written in the name of the British government, by Lord Arthur James Balfour, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, to the leaders of the Zionist Federation. 2. Read the letter: Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Partitions of British India and Mandatory Palestine, 1937-1948
    University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM UVM Honors College Senior Theses Undergraduate Theses 2015 Behind the Lines: The Partitions of British India and Mandatory Palestine, 1937-1948 Jessica Solodkin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses Recommended Citation Solodkin, Jessica, "Behind the Lines: The Partitions of British India and Mandatory Palestine, 1937-1948" (2015). UVM Honors College Senior Theses. 95. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses/95 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Theses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in UVM Honors College Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Behind the Lines: The Partitions of British India and Mandatory Palestine, 1937-1948 By Jessica Solodkin Thesis Supervisor: Abigail McGowan Honors College Thesis Department of History University of Vermont December 2015 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements……………………………3 Introduction……………………………………4 Chapter 1: British India………………………19 India Maps………………………………39 Chapter 2: Mandatory Palestine……………...40 Proposal Maps………………………48, 59 Chapter 3: Comparison……………………….63 Conclusion……………………………………92 Bibliography…………………………………..95 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project has taken me on an incredible journey of exploration, discovery, and growth. For the past year and a half, I have gained invaluable skills, knowledge, and created unforgettable memories. This journey, however, would not have been complete without the love and support of my family. Without the guidance, wisdom, encouragement, assistance, and kindness of Professor Abigail McGowan, this project and level of personal growth would not have been as meaningful. Your patience, advice, endless office hours, and investment in me have meant the world to me.
    [Show full text]
  • CILR Wish to Thank Mark Vandermaas, Founder of Israel Truth Week, for Launching and Coordinating This Event in a Flawless Way Th
    - 1 - CILR wish to thank Mark Vandermaas, founder of Israel Truth Week, for launching and coordinating this event in a flawless way that has earned the unanimous appreciation and gratitude of all the participants. Our thanks go also to Ilana Shneider and Evgenia Rachevsky of the Canada-Israel Friendship Association for their outstanding organizational skills, and to the management and staff of the Lodzer Synagogue for graciously offering their facilities. The current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs are once again at a turning point. The prospects of a successful outcome of the “peace process” are slim, at best. Anticipating the stalemate of the ongoing round – the “Kerry Framework” – we believe that, more than ever, the legal rights of Israel must be stressed and the usual challenges to these rights must be rebutted. We shall first briefly summarize the origin of the internationally recognized rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, with an introduction on the status of the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War One. Then we shall look at three common claims aimed at denying the Jewish rights to the Land, and explain why these claims are baseless. This Israel Truth Week event was dedicated to the late Attorney HOWARD GRIEF, z’l’, in memory of his pioneering work on Israel’s Legal Rights. Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR - 2 - The map shows the full extent of the Ottoman Empire. Starting in 1300 in a small portion of western Anatolia, Turkish conquests expanded considerably in the next three centuries to finally include all the colored areas, the different colors reflecting successive periods of conquest.
    [Show full text]