G
gilliam
Guest
This is really history not news, but since I was asked for a history, this one is very good:
Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine (the Land of Israel) had an Arab population (though some spoke naively of “a land without a people for a people without a land”) Still, only few regarded the Arab presence as a real obstacle to the fulfillment of Zionism. At that time in the late 19th century, Arab nationalism did not yet exist in any form, and the Arab population of Palestine was sparse and apolitical. Many Zionist leaders believed that since the local community was relatively small, friction between it and the returning Jews could be avoided; they were also convinced that the subsequent development of the country would benefit both peoples,
thus earning Arab endorsement and cooperation. However, these hopes were not fulfilled.
Contrary to the declared positions and expectations of the Zionist idealogists who had aspired to achieve their aims by peaceful means and cooperation, the renewed Jewish presence in the Land met with militant Arab opposition. For some time many Zionists found it hard to understand and accept the depth and intensity of the dispute, which became in fact a clash between two peoples both regarding the country as their own - the Jews by virtue of their historical and spiritual connection, and the Arabs because of their centuries-long presence in the country.
The need to grapple with Arab violence towards the Jewish community and to find the appropriate response to the mounting dispute gave rise to three main approaches to the “Arab problem” within the Zionist movement:
minimalism, maximalism and realism.
The minimalists held that the land belongs to both peoples; thus Zionism cannot be realized without the prior consent of the other nation. They sought a dialogue with local Arabs and rejected the Zionism establishment’s approach based on negotiations with outside powers and the leaders of the
Arab states. To secure a Jewish-Arab agreement, the minimalists were willing to renounce the establishment of a Jewish state and accept in its stead a binational state based on social and political parity of Jews and Arabs.
At the opposite extreme were the maximalists, who believed that the national struggle between the two peoples would have to be resolved by force. They rejected the presumption of Arab national rights in the Land of Israel, noting that the Arabs had never had a state in Palestine. They saw no need to negotiate with local Arabs, and their hope was to acquire the entire
country either through diplomatic contacts with outside powers or by armed force.
Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine (the Land of Israel) had an Arab population (though some spoke naively of “a land without a people for a people without a land”) Still, only few regarded the Arab presence as a real obstacle to the fulfillment of Zionism. At that time in the late 19th century, Arab nationalism did not yet exist in any form, and the Arab population of Palestine was sparse and apolitical. Many Zionist leaders believed that since the local community was relatively small, friction between it and the returning Jews could be avoided; they were also convinced that the subsequent development of the country would benefit both peoples,
thus earning Arab endorsement and cooperation. However, these hopes were not fulfilled.
Contrary to the declared positions and expectations of the Zionist idealogists who had aspired to achieve their aims by peaceful means and cooperation, the renewed Jewish presence in the Land met with militant Arab opposition. For some time many Zionists found it hard to understand and accept the depth and intensity of the dispute, which became in fact a clash between two peoples both regarding the country as their own - the Jews by virtue of their historical and spiritual connection, and the Arabs because of their centuries-long presence in the country.
The need to grapple with Arab violence towards the Jewish community and to find the appropriate response to the mounting dispute gave rise to three main approaches to the “Arab problem” within the Zionist movement:
minimalism, maximalism and realism.
The minimalists held that the land belongs to both peoples; thus Zionism cannot be realized without the prior consent of the other nation. They sought a dialogue with local Arabs and rejected the Zionism establishment’s approach based on negotiations with outside powers and the leaders of the
Arab states. To secure a Jewish-Arab agreement, the minimalists were willing to renounce the establishment of a Jewish state and accept in its stead a binational state based on social and political parity of Jews and Arabs.
At the opposite extreme were the maximalists, who believed that the national struggle between the two peoples would have to be resolved by force. They rejected the presumption of Arab national rights in the Land of Israel, noting that the Arabs had never had a state in Palestine. They saw no need to negotiate with local Arabs, and their hope was to acquire the entire
country either through diplomatic contacts with outside powers or by armed force.