A post by Maynard
This is an interesting bit of historical perspective. It’s worth peeking at a view that may well have its own prejudices but isn’t swayed by today’s politics. The Economist has republished this short editorial from their March 22, 1958 edition. It explored the question of why Egypt’s then-President Nasser had not moved to turn Gaza into an independent entity (the region was under Egyptian control until 1967). Remember that there were many millions of refugees in the aftermath of WWII, and all of these people were eventually settled somewhere. Or, if nothing else, refugee issues eventually diminished through attrition. The Palestinians are unique in being the world’s perpetual motion machine of refugees; the only never-ending ever-growing encampment. This situation has now been going on for several generations. It’s not a simple accident of history or a Jewish plot; it’s a wound that the Arab world could have solved but preferred not to.
Yes,it is funny,Maynard…1000′s of Jews were expelled from their ancestral homes in North Africa in 1947,yet they went straight to Israel and made beautiful lives.The so called Palestinians are nothing but cats paws of the Arabic elite….
I have a hard time being sympathetic to the Palestinian people. Really, this issue has been made far too complex over the years, thanks to articles and editorials such as the one posted in the Economist, 1958.
All of these issues are washed away when one boils down the evolution of the region, from the British Mandates and Balfour Declaration, to the blatant Arab aggression in 1948. Sure, there were some interesting issues in between Churchill’s white sheet and Oslo, but the fact remains that what should have been Palestinian amounts to the original footprint of Transjordan ( now, who didn’t want them there?). A good treatment without the complications is found at:
http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html
Download the Flash if needed, it only takes a second or two.
Nevertheless, your point is not missed and well-taken Maynard, and is certainly correct.