ForumGarden

This is the title of an essay written by King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951) to The American Magazine, November 1947.

In his essay, King Abdullah answers a few questions that are still asked today. Do Arabs hate the Jews? Why do they deny the legitimacy of Israel? And is the Israel/Palestine conflict related to hostility between Arabs and America?

It is a long essay but one that clarifies the reasons for Arab hostility since the Balfour Declaration.

source



"As the Arabs see the Jews"

His Majesty King Abdullah,

The American Magazine

November, 1947



Summary

This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

That was extremely interesting Koan....very thought provoking.

Bez wrote: That was extremely interesting Koan....very thought provoking.


I'm really glad you read it. I think the only person who can explain a point of view accurately is the one who holds the point of view.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.




Interesting. People who make statements like that today are called "racist."

Lulu2 wrote: Interesting. People who make statements like that today are called "racist."


It's not racist. Perhaps xenophobic, when taken out of context, but not so when they are not being permitted to oversee their own immigration policies. You might have quoted the numbers involved to keep the statement in context.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.


the bit that comes immediately after your quote puts it in perspective

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Lulu2 wrote: Interesting. People who make statements like that today are called "racist."


True, but there was an honesty in his words....words that make people uncomfortable today. Remember...this was nearly 60 years ago.

We'd have reacted then the way we're reacting now, as we're being overrun with illegal immigrants. I didn't mean to imply that the man was racist...I was speaking ironically (should've used an icon) because it's not "pc" to admit one doesn't wish to be overwhelmed with "foreigners."

koan wrote: It's not racist. Perhaps xenophobic, when taken out of context, but not so when they are not being permitted to oversee their own immigration policies. You might have quoted the numbers involved to keep the statement in context.







the bit that comes immediately after your quote puts it in perspective


exactly

How about "as the Israeli Defense Minister sees things"...

came across this in research on the Druze nonviolent resistance efforts.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan acknowledged in his diaries in 1967 that there was no clear strategic rationale for seizing the territories, and he later admitted to an Israeli reporter that the Golan was seized out of greed for its waters and fertile farmland. Many contemporary Israeli strategic analysts agree.

Without Soviet support, Syrian military power has fallen dramatically while Israel's has been further strengthened, in large measure with U.S. assistance. Indeed, in this era of medium-range missiles, controlling high ground such as the Golan would not yield Syria a significant military advantage. Despite this—and despite Israel's unprecedented military advantage—successive Israeli governments have convinced much of the Israeli public and Israel's supporters in the United States that retaining this territory is critical to Israel's survival.