Take for example, this op-ed which bemoans
the racism of the British government 100 years ago, which disturbingly, continues to reverberate in the conflict to this day.
and that
The British government’s interest in the weapon of supposed Jewish power far outweighed their concern with the future of Zionism in the Holy Land.They did not engage in any wartime planning regarding the development of "a national home for the Jewish people."
and
the Cabinet had no intention of giving Judaea to the Jews
and
British Orientalists saw the Palestinian population, instead, as an impure mix of different races, who were not 'authentic', 'racial' Arabs. This was why the Declaration invoked the phrase "non-Jewish communities" to describe the Arabs who constituted approximately 90% of the population.
If Ken Livingston and crew accuse Zionism of collaborating/cooperating with Nazism, well this predates Zionism's "sins".
In an earlier article, four years ago, the author, James Renton, a Senior Lecturer in History at Edge Hill University whose lectures have been sponsored by anti-Zionists, wrote in Haaretz that
the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was based on miscalculations, anti-Semitism and propaganda
Some of the other articles this year included
(which uncritically quotes a Gazan Arab saying:
“The Jewish people took their rights after Hitler
committed massacres against them...
Britain gave our lands to the Israelis
and they never cared to give us our rights.")
Oh, there were some good ones. Here. Here. And here. Even here.
The paper, however, was negatively overloaded, and I am not inclduing the "news" stories on the events and how they spun out.
Zionist history, a la Haaretz.
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment