Korean Job Discussion Forums

[dbee]

Although Zionism in various forms has been around for hundreds of years. Modern Zionism seems to have taken shape early in the last century. Even before the first world war, there were calls for the Jews to actually seize a homeland for their people. Action commitee's were formed, calls went out, diplomatic missions were sent. The first thing of course, was to decide on a location, as the geography would drive the political necessities needed to secure a home at that location.

The world superpower at the time of course, was Great Britain. Who controlled vast overseas empires. Britain had always been a safe haven for the Jews. Free from presecution, many of the cabinet ministers and higher aristocracy professed the Jewish faith. Disraeli himself, a famous British prime minister was Jewish, as was Lord Shaftsbery.

Many locations were suggested, Argentina, Uganda, even the United States were deemed possibilities. At the end of the selection process however, Palestine was deemed the most suitable. The Jews, having lived in Palestine and Jerusalum on and off for almost 1000 years, still saw it as their spiritual home, as indeed did many other world religions.

Palestine had been touted by the Zionist committees as a 'Land without a people for a people without a Land' or some such. Unfortunately, this wasn't exactly true. It did have a people. A people who had lived there for thousands of years, and weren't in hurry to leave to accomodate the ideals of Zionism. So, the question remained then - What to do with the Arabs who lived and worked on the land that according to various interpretations of scriptures, had been granted to 'God's chosen people' ?

The Israelis had three options. First they could exile all arabs from the land of Israel, second they could integrate with the arabs and let them share in their culture and dream, or third they could occupy Israel and rule the Arabs by the gun.

The first option was too costly and unrealistic, the second had been considered realistically until history changed the world radically for the Jews. In the end the third option was the most expedient and cost effective.

The reason of course that things changed so radically for the Jews, was of course WWII and the rise of Nazi Germany, in which countless numbers of Jews were slaugthered, along with Gypsys, pacifists, homosexuals, disabled and last but not least - 22million Russians.

The holocaust understandably radicalised Jewish opinion. To such an extent that the Zionist lost patience with the British and in an act of terrorism - killed 90 people at the British HQ in Palestine. An act which even today, is celebrated as a national holiday by Israeli school children and soliders alike.

Albert Einstein, a great supporter of the Zionist cause, had always feared though that Zionism in Israel would desend into what he called a 'narrow Nationalism', and that Israel would isolate itself from the rest of the world.

What started as an act of terrorism and assasination led the way to an eventful century for the state of Israel, who soon found itself to be accused of committing genocide, murder and oppression on the native population. One war led to another, which led on to another, and fairly soon the Israeli state was a state that was built on perpetual war, whether it wanted it or not.

The Israeli's constantly found themselves at war with their neighbours and indeed with their indigenous populations. Attacks by the Israeli army would lead to bloody reprisals by desperate people with little left to lose. Which in turn fed the Israeli opinion that this was indeed a fight for survival and that they had to keep on attacking.

Zionism as we see it today has two great failings though IMO. Firstly, although it was a perfect war machine, the originals Zionists had perhaps learnt their lessons from the Nazi's a little bit too well. They had a plan for war, that took them from a random bunch of immigrants in the 40's, to what is today a modern, prosperous, nuclear power. But they never actualy had a plan for peace. Peace was never on the agenda, simply because their original aim of ruling the arabs by force of arms, was still their only plan 60 years later. As indeed is the problem with all the -isms, of the 20th century, feminism, communism, nazism. These movements all started out radically, but in order to accepted in the long term, they have to mellow and become accepted.

The second problem IMO, was that the Zionists were too greedy. In any negotiation, the most important thing you need is leveage. Arafat didn't sign the agreement at Camp David, simply because there was nothing left for the Israelis to take from the arab population. The Zionists had kicked the arabs out of Jerusalem, banished them to the West bank and Gaza. Both places are the equivalent of desert camps, with overcrowded camps and bad sanitation. Both places are unsuitable living environments. The Israelis had no leverage. Arafat didn't sign, because to sign would have meant giving away the only thing that the arabs had left ... Hope. As long as they were still fighting, there was still hope.