A small correction. You write, “Mainstream Zionism basically pussy footed around the question of Arab presence in Palestine. They just tried to pretend there was nobody living there. The official motto was “A land without people for a people without a land”.”
The mainstream Zionists are, I assume, those who agreed with Herzl’s vision of a mutually beneficial relationship with the Arabs who would see the advantages of developing the area’s economy. Everyone knew that the area was populated, even if sparsely so.
The “official motto” to which you refer is not a Zionist one but of Christian Restoration from the 1840s. It never became a slogan of Zionism as much as one often attributed to it.
As to the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, my recollection is that it was Sharon’s attempt to have the world see if the Palestinians could turn the enclave into a peaceful entity and, if not, he had secured a written pledge from President Bush that would recognize Israel’s “facts on the ground.” Israel thought it foolhardy to allow Hamas to run in the elections as it had never endorsed the Quartet conditions but had to accede to US demands on the issue.
And, of course, in one of his first acts, President Obama rejected President Bush’s written pledge as inconsistent with his Administration’s policies - which was as true a statement as he ever made.
What I meant to add was that the word “people” referred not to individuals but to a group that self-identified as a “people” which the Jews always had (the people of Israel) but the resident Arabs and nomadic Bedouin did not (they saw themselves as tribes or clans).
Remember, this was occurring at the time the concepts of European nationalism were being debated and honed. By Herzl’s time, the concept of nationalism was part of everyday parlance.
This clarification is helpful in putting the “motto” in context and to recover its essential meaning. The Christian Restorationists themselves were not claiming the land to be unpopulated at the time.
And, of course, the great European powers whose longstanding disputes over which would represent the interests of which Christian group in the Holy Land - a dispute some believe led to the Crimean War - knew it to be populated.
A small correction. You write, “Mainstream Zionism basically pussy footed around the question of Arab presence in Palestine. They just tried to pretend there was nobody living there. The official motto was “A land without people for a people without a land”.”
The mainstream Zionists are, I assume, those who agreed with Herzl’s vision of a mutually beneficial relationship with the Arabs who would see the advantages of developing the area’s economy. Everyone knew that the area was populated, even if sparsely so.
The “official motto” to which you refer is not a Zionist one but of Christian Restoration from the 1840s. It never became a slogan of Zionism as much as one often attributed to it.
As to the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, my recollection is that it was Sharon’s attempt to have the world see if the Palestinians could turn the enclave into a peaceful entity and, if not, he had secured a written pledge from President Bush that would recognize Israel’s “facts on the ground.” Israel thought it foolhardy to allow Hamas to run in the elections as it had never endorsed the Quartet conditions but had to accede to US demands on the issue.
And, of course, in one of his first acts, President Obama rejected President Bush’s written pledge as inconsistent with his Administration’s policies - which was as true a statement as he ever made.
Nice. Thanks for the correction!
What I meant to add was that the word “people” referred not to individuals but to a group that self-identified as a “people” which the Jews always had (the people of Israel) but the resident Arabs and nomadic Bedouin did not (they saw themselves as tribes or clans).
Remember, this was occurring at the time the concepts of European nationalism were being debated and honed. By Herzl’s time, the concept of nationalism was part of everyday parlance.
This clarification is helpful in putting the “motto” in context and to recover its essential meaning. The Christian Restorationists themselves were not claiming the land to be unpopulated at the time.
And, of course, the great European powers whose longstanding disputes over which would represent the interests of which Christian group in the Holy Land - a dispute some believe led to the Crimean War - knew it to be populated.
Indeed. Many threads to pull here Charles. I go into some of this material here: https://jacklively.substack.com/p/the-public-enemy-part-02 Certainly planning a post on the origins of the mess....