On
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
I'm not going to dissect the whole of this site's history. That would take a book.
I do want to draw attention to places where the author is making opinion serve in the place of fact.
$1:
From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Based on what he says here, the author is going to attempt to treat all of today's Isreal and Jordan as one 'Palestine'.
However, the Palestine mandate was NOT one nation or one state. It was simply a League of Nations mandate zone. There's no reason to assume the lines drawn on the map in 1917 corresponded to anything substantive. Nor is there any reason to accept those lines over any other set.
$1:
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine.
The fact that the British 'looked favorably" on something is hardly a reason for anyone accepting that it should have been done. The British also "looked favorably" on Jewish homelands in Uganda and Madagascar.
Also basing a claim to land on the views of a European Imperial power is hardly the surest grounds in a new era that doesn't highly value European Imperialism.
The League of Nations mandates were intended to give European powers limited, basic influence in encouraging eventual self-rule of indigeneous people, not necessarily including the project of establishing various people in ethnic homelands.
$1:
...In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Hence, it was the British's fault that Jordan was lost to Palestine. But since Palestine was never a nation or state, then how can you violate the
political integrity of a people when they are not a political community?
Or to put it another way, who could be cheated out of their right to
the other side of the line when nobody has any real claim to it at all, (except the British, via the League of Nations, in trust for the indigeneous)?
The percentages are a nice touch it has the effect of making things seem inherantly unfair. However, if you look at the extent of habitable area, the two sides are more equal.---But why even be equal? it seems nice to say, two sides, therefore 50-50. But the relevant populations were not the same size.
$1:
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out.
"Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism..." is a nice phrase. Especially the use of "incite". It makes the Arabs seem irrational and violent. ---Which, of course,
maybe they are. As I said, I'm not trying to disprove the author's positions, just drawing attention to what he's doing and how.
The phrase "launched never-ending murderous attacks" is obviously inflammatory, and it makes the Arabs seem just a bit unhuman, again.
The effect of this is to create a picture where the innocent Jews were there in Palestine, where the British cut off 75% of the territory and then the irrational and ungrateful people of the 75% started groundless attacks on the Jews of the 25%.
True? Perhaps it's possible. But it looks more like self-interested propaganda for a position than a reliable history of a region.
CKA Moderator 
CKA Super Elite 
and know who they are. 
