Zionism is an Example of National Self-Determination

[Jerry Galinda]

My mother never talked about it much since she had no direct memory of this experience. But from what I gather, it had something to do with men with guns knocking on the door and saying you've got 48 hours to get out! It probably had nothing to do with any legal notice, but during the chaos of the time, most of the Germans living in that area left. Supposedly, they were guaranteed the right to stay if they adopted Polish citizenship and accepted Polish as their language, but few, if any Germans stayed behind.

I have many doubts of what you are writing.

Why ?

Because I had family - part of my family comes from Bromberg.

They were Germans- and they lived there - in Poland - as a Germans -all their long life.

I know the history of this land.

Forgive me - but probably it’s a false - nobody had to “accepted Polish as their language” - and so on.

My great-grandmother was a German -but nobody evicted her. They had properties (tenements) - all the time.

Properties were guaranteed by law - international law.

What’s more - majority of inhabitants of the “corridor” were Poles.

I suspect that history of this land is a bit more sophisticated - than you think.

Btw. Genealogy of the family - it’s a very interesting matter.

[WIP]

Of course you are, Jews are the master race don't you know?

I guess you're not paying very close attention, because I've already mentioned my German heritage on my mother's side of the family; and I also had uncles who talk just like you - resenting Jews for finding ways to succeed in spite of discriminatory laws like not being allowed to own land and being forced to live in designated areas of towns and cities. Where do you think the term "ghetto" comes from in the first place?

Christians forbid the charging of interest, or usury, so did Muslims. Jews did as well, but only to fellow Jews. That's why the Jews were bankers. And we all know about Jewish "legalism", and the following of the "law". That's why there's so many Jewish lawyers. You know what they say about lawyers?

So, your're blaming Jews in dark ages Europe for seizing upon an opportunity left open because of the stupidity of religious authorities! And in the Muslim World, they are still too dense to accept the principle of loaning money for interest, instead of creating complicated and convoluted "Islamic Banking" practises.

And what exactly is preventing non-Jews from becoming lawyers? When I was young, there were many Jewish doctors; but today there are few because like other native Canadians and Americans, the young people who have the capability of excelling in demanding professions are choosing law, finance and engineering rather than medicine, because the rewards for being a doctor have diminished so greatly over the years. That's why all of our new doctors are coming from India or the Far East!

[WIP]

I have many doubts of what you are writing.

Why ?

Because I had family - part of my family comes from Bromberg.

They were Germans- and they lived there - in Poland - as a Germans -all their long life.

I know the history of this land.

Forgive me - but probably it’s a false - nobody had to “accepted Polish as their language” - and so on.

My great-grandmother was a German -but nobody evicted her. They had properties (tenements) - all the time.

Properties were guaranteed by law - international law.

What’s more - majority of inhabitants of the “corridor” were Poles.

I suspect that history of this land is a bit more sophisticated - than you think.

Btw. Genealogy of the family - it’s a very interesting matter.

Sure, the majority of people living in the Corridor may have been Polish and they probably harboured their own resentments after decades of being under Prussian rule, but there were sizeable German populations in towns like Zempelburg, near their home.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here since I only offered it up to illustrate how complicated dividing up territories for self-determination are on the ground, and we're talking about events that happened almost a century ago! My mother has no memory of those days, so the stories I heard were from my uncles who were young at the time, but old enough to recall some of the events. Their animosity towards Poles (and Jews) likely was a key part of forming their sympathetic attitudes they had towards Hitler and the Nazis.

[WIP]

No need to demonize. Muslims aren't filled with homicidal jealousy. Acedemic greatness will not achieve thier aims? Whose aims? What aims? Jordan's aims? Syria's aims? Egypt's aims? Indonesia's aims? Irans aims? Osama bin Laden's aims? Libya's? Iraq's? Turkey's? The Grand Mufti's? Sudan? Afghanistan? The Taliban?

Or maybe you mean the aims of Hamas or maybe Palestinians in general or maybe Hezbollah or maybe someone else.

To say they all have the same aim and that aim that they all have they are attempting to achieve through belligerence and aggression is

obviously not true.

So please define whose aim's you are talking about; what those aims are and how acedemic greatness will achieve them and then perhaps we can have a rational discussion on another thread instead of hijacking this one

I'm not absolving Israel of all guilt since they allowed complacency to set in and carried on with an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, without offering any avenue towards "self-determination." Instead, they encouraged the most radical groups, giving Hamas an assist in their goal of overtaking the PLO. Now that we can see how Hamas behaves when they have a little bit of power, they likely wished they had encouraged the more pragmatic forces in the Palestinian movement!

But, what really bothers me about the Palestinians as a group is that they violate one of the cardinal rules of behaviour: most populations who feel under occupation are sensible enough not to rock the boat if it threatens their economic well-being (think of Quebec, for example). But what have the Palis done? The Gazan economy didn't exist before the Israeli occupation, and 30 years ago, Palestinians living on the West Bank were the wealthiest Arabs in the world; their per capita income was almost on par with many Western nations.

I think the Israeli leaders assumed that the majority would be pragmatic enough to accept occupation along with prosperity. But they were wrong, weren't they? Instead, the Palestinians went from being pragmatists to being among the most crazy religious people in the Arab World. And what have they gained? Their lives are shattered; most want to leave the territories if they get the opportunity, and their standard of living(especially in Gaza) is below third world standards today. I don't think there is any other force besides religion that can make people act against their own best interests, and these people are exhibit A!

[Peter F]

. I don't think there is any other force besides religion that can make people act against their own best interests, and these people are exhibit A!

Death of those near and dear; humiliation; Those are two that obviously supercede religion when it comes to what motivates people to do what they do. In those two perceptions usually run counter to religion and over-ride it. I believe that to be the case in Palestine/Gaza.

[Jerry Galinda]

Sure, the majority of people living in the Corridor may have been Polish and they probably harboured their own resentments after decades of being under Prussian rule, but there were sizeable German populations in towns like Zempelburg, near their home.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here since I only offered it up to illustrate how complicated dividing up territories for self-determination are on the ground, and we're talking about events that happened almost a century ago! My mother has no memory of those days, so the stories I heard were from my uncles who were young at the time, but old enough to recall some of the events. Their animosity towards Poles (and Jews) likely was a key part of forming their sympathetic attitudes they had towards Hitler and the Nazis.

there were sizeable German populations in towns like Zempelburg, near their home.

FACT, TRUE.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here since I only offered it up to illustrate how complicated dividing up territories for self-determination are on the ground, and we're talking about events that happened almost a century ago!

I like history and I like be honest and accurate.

That’s why - I try to check all the items.

My mother has no memory of those days, so the stories I heard were from my uncles who were young at the time, but old enough to recall some of the events.

I see - but - if it was almost a century ago - it’s very little possible that they were evicted from their property.

Their animosity towards Poles (and Jews) likely was a key part of forming their sympathetic attitudes they had towards Hitler and the Nazis.

I SEE - they blame Poles for their …… BUT what cause their animosity towards Jews ?

As I said before - I suspect (forgive me) that in history of your family is any mystery .

They probably can’t lost their property in such circumstances as you said.

E.g. My second great-grandfather lost his property (mansion house and ground) - he was profligate in his spending and so on.

Btw. You should try to check history - genealogy of Your family - it’s a very interesting matter.

AD REM.

What cause their animosity towards Jews ?

[WIP]

FACT, TRUE.

I like history and I like be honest and accurate.

That’s why - I try to check all the items.

I see - but - if it was almost a century ago - it’s very little possible that they were evicted from their property.

Oh really! Why did the Germans leave the corridor then during the intervening years before the outbreak of WWII?

I SEE - they blame Poles for their …… BUT what cause their animosity towards Jews ?

Why did Poles hate Jews? Why did French hate Jews? Jealousy perhaps! They managed to prosper in spite of economic restrictions, and many people, like my uncles, determined their success had to come from some ill-gotten gain.

As I said before - I suspect (forgive me) that in history of your family is any mystery .

They probably can’t lost their property in such circumstances as you said.

E.g. My second great-grandfather lost his property (mansion house and ground) - he was profligate in his spending and so on.

Btw. You should try to check history - genealogy of Your family - it’s a very interesting matter.

I have an older brother who has done a little research on family history (mainly on my father's side); I haven't been as interested in the subject. Ultimately, I don't care a great deal about how much of my uncles' stories I can verify. I just assumed they had to have some basis in fact. I can't see a reason why they would lie about it, but I still don't get why you're so sure that they, and the other Germans who left during that time, weren't forced out.

[WIP]

Death of those near and dear; humiliation; Those are two that obviously supercede religion when it comes to what motivates people to do what they do. In those two perceptions usually run counter to religion and over-ride it. I believe that to be the case in Palestine/Gaza.

And how many Palestinians were dying in the years before the first intifada?

Humiliation! What was so humiliating that they would feel the need to act out in nihilistic rage? Before the Intifada, Palestinians faced some restrictions on travel and weren't allowed to vote; but in economic terms, they were living better than their brethren in the rest of the Arab World. I would propose that the key humiliation is religious in nature, since Muslim lands are never supposed to fall under infidel rule. During the reign of the Ottoman Empire, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Jerusalem:

Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem3.htm

But they were allowed to live there because they were still under Muslim rule. The great humiliation that caused the mobilization of Arab armies, was having the infidels declare independence from the Muslim authorities..............and again, that boils back down to religion as the root cause of the conflict.

[Peter F]

And how many Palestinians were dying in the years before the first intifada?

Humiliation! What was so humiliating that they would feel the need to act out in nihilistic rage? Before the Intifada, Palestinians faced some restrictions on travel and weren't allowed to vote; but in economic terms, they were living better than their brethren in the rest of the Arab World. I would propose that the key humiliation is religious in nature, since Muslim lands are never supposed to fall under infidel rule. During the reign of the Ottoman Empire, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Jerusalem:

Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews.

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem3.htm

But they were allowed to live there because they were still under Muslim rule. The great humiliation that caused the mobilization of Arab armies, was having the infidels declare independence from the Muslim authorities..............and again, that boils back down to religion as the root cause of the conflict.

[Peter F]

But they were allowed to live there because they were still under Muslim rule. The great humiliation that caused the mobilization of Arab armies, was having the infidels declare independence from the Muslim authorities..............and again, that boils back down to religion as the root cause of the conflict.

Isreal did not declare independance from Muslim authorities. In 1948 Palestine was not under Ottoman rule and hadn't been for 31 years.

[M.Dancer]

Isreal did not declare independance from Muslim authorities. In 1948 Palestine was not under Ottoman rule and hadn't been for 31 years.

He's referencing the 19th century...while under the Ottomans.

[jbg]

I'm not absolving Israel of all guilt since they allowed complacency to set in and carried on with an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, without offering any avenue towards "self-determination." Instead, they encouraged the most radical groups, giving Hamas an assist in their goal of overtaking the PLO. Now that we can see how Hamas behaves when they have a little bit of power, they likely wished they had encouraged the more pragmatic forces in the Palestinian movement!

But, what really bothers me about the Palestinians as a group is that they violate one of the cardinal rules of behaviour: most populations who feel under occupation are sensible enough not to rock the boat if it threatens their economic well-being (think of Quebec, for example). But what have the Palis done? The Gazan economy didn't exist before the Israeli occupation, and 30 years ago, Palestinians living on the West Bank were the wealthiest Arabs in the world; their per capita income was almost on par with many Western nations.

Your post is a good one but you're forgetting some history here. 30 years ago, most of the West Bank was under the control of mayors and other relatively moderate local authorities. Around this time the PLO was being built up, largely by the then-extant Soviet Union, to promote a "secular democratic state" (more like a so-called "democratic republic"). This served the Soviet's larger geopolitical aims of taking control over the Middle East and Africa. Remember, during roughly this period the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The PLO, also around this time, began assassinating mayors and for that matter anyone else that cooperated with the Israelis. This is hardly a case where the West Bankers found that moderation didn't pay and decided, on their own accord, to revolt. The PLO's and ultimately the former Soviet Union's bloody hand was in this. In short, as a practical matter there was plenty of "self-determination" until the PLO forced a confrontation.

I think the Israeli leaders assumed that the majority would be pragmatic enough to accept occupation along with prosperity. But they were wrong, weren't they? Instead, the Palestinians went from being pragmatists to being among the most crazy religious people in the Arab World. And what have they gained? Their lives are shattered; most want to leave the territories if they get the opportunity, and their standard of living(especially in Gaza) is below third world standards today. I don't think there is any other force besides religion that can make people act against their own best interests, and these people are exhibit A!

As I pointed out above, the Soviet geopolitical struggle had more to do with this than radical Islam. After the Soviet Union imploded, the PLO was essentially cast adrift. That led directly to Oslo, as the PLO needed to "buy time". Without Oslo, with the Soviet Union being dead the Israeli Defense Force would have made short work of the PLO (Soviet pressure allowed the PLO to evacuate Lebanon for Tunisia in 1982). After the breathing spell or "houdna" created by Oslo, the PLO turned for help to their Saudi Arabian brethren. The Saudis were practitioners of Wahabi Islam, a particularly virulent form of the religion. Essentially, radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology, supplanted Communism as the main anti-Western force in the area.

[jbg]

Death of those near and dear; humiliation; Those are two that obviously supercede religion when it comes to what motivates people to do what they do. In those two perceptions usually run counter to religion and over-ride it. I believe that to be the case in Palestine/Gaza.

How much "self-determination" did Jordan give the West Bank between 1948 and 1967? How much "self-determination" did Egypt give Gaza between 1948 and 1967? Was that "humiliating"?

[Peter F]

How much "self-determination" did Jordan give the West Bank between 1948 and 1967? How much "self-determination" did Egypt give Gaza between 1948 and 1967? Was that "humiliating"?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

How much(expression of measure) "self-determination" (Noun)did Jordan ( Pronoun)give(verb) the West Bank (Pronoun)between 1948 and 1967?(period of time)

Does that make it easier?

[BC_chick]

How much(expression of measure) "self-determination" (Noun)did Jordan ( Pronoun)give(verb) the West Bank (Pronoun)between 1948 and 1967?(period of time)

Does that make it easier?

Classic. That's what you get for being so patronising.

Oh, let me know if you'd like my niece to help you with the intricacies of a noun. It was part of her elementary school homework the other day.

The way she memorised it was "Place, person or thing"....

Edited May 1, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

Your post is a good one but you're forgetting some history here. 30 years ago, most of the West Bank was under the control of mayors and other relatively moderate local authorities. Around this time the PLO was being built up, largely by the then-extant Soviet Union, to promote a "secular democratic state" (more like a so-called "democratic republic"). This served the Soviet's larger geopolitical aims of taking control over the Middle East and Africa. Remember, during roughly this period the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The PLO, also around this time, began assassinating mayors and for that matter anyone else that cooperated with the Israelis. This is hardly a case where the West Bankers found that moderation didn't pay and decided, on their own accord, to revolt. The PLO's and ultimately the former Soviet Union's bloody hand was in this. In short, as a practical matter there was plenty of "self-determination" until the PLO forced a confrontation.

As I pointed out above, the Soviet geopolitical struggle had more to do with this than radical Islam. After the Soviet Union imploded, the PLO was essentially cast adrift. That led directly to Oslo, as the PLO needed to "buy time". Without Oslo, with the Soviet Union being dead the Israeli Defense Force would have made short work of the PLO (Soviet pressure allowed the PLO to evacuate Lebanon for Tunisia in 1982). After the breathing spell or "houdna" created by Oslo, the PLO turned for help to their Saudi Arabian brethren. The Saudis were practitioners of Wahabi Islam, a particularly virulent form of the religion. Essentially, radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology, supplanted Communism as the main anti-Western force in the area.

I forgot to mention the effect that Soviet involvement played in the conflict. But it illustrates a fatal error made by both the Israelis and the Americans during this period: they both focused on the Communist menace and encourage Islamic forces to be an ally against the Reds. The Americans did it with their strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and the Israelis allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to organize in Gaza and the West Bank. They believed the Islamists were the lesser of two evils. Now that Hamas has taken control of Gaza from the P.A., and the Saudi clerics have spawned Islamist movements all over the world, it looks pretty clear that they are the worst kind of enemy.

Also, how much damage was done when the Likud took power under Menachem Begin? He declared that the West Bank was "Judea and Samaria" and refused to negotiate any land deals. Instead, he increased the number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Any moderate leaders on the West Bank were caught between a rock and a hard place. With more settlements being built, especially strategic settlements designed to disrupt the ability of Palestinians to move about freely, the occupation became a fact of daily life, and any hopes of negotiating independence were gone.

[jbg]

How much(expression of measure) "self-determination" (Noun)did Jordan ( Pronoun)give(verb) the West Bank (Pronoun)between 1948 and 1967?(period of time)

Does that make it easier?

I hope so.

[jbg]

I forgot to mention the effect that Soviet involvement played in the conflict. But it illustrates a fatal error made by both the Israelis and the Americans during this period: they both focused on the Communist menace and encourage Islamic forces to be an ally against the Reds. The Americans did it with their strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and the Israelis allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to organize in Gaza and the West Bank. They believed the Islamists were the lesser of two evils. Now that Hamas has taken control of Gaza from the P.A., and the Saudi clerics have spawned Islamist movements all over the world, it looks pretty clear that they are the worst kind of enemy.

Given the choice of enemies between a technologically sophisticated and militarily powerful former Soviet Union and a bunch of 9th Century Islamists, I'd choose the latter any day. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Also, how much damage was done when the Likud took power under Menachem Begin? He declared that the West Bank was "Judea and Samaria" and refused to negotiate any land deals. Instead, he increased the number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Any moderate leaders on the West Bank were caught between a rock and a hard place. With more settlements being built, especially strategic settlements designed to disrupt the ability of Palestinians to move about freely, the occupation became a fact of daily life, and any hopes of negotiating independence were gone.

The problem is that outside Egypt no other country was prepared to trade land for true peace. Even with Egypt, fate was not terribly kind to Anwar Sadat for advocating and practicing peace.

[WIP]

Isreal did not declare independance from Muslim authorities. In 1948 Palestine was not under Ottoman rule and hadn't been for 31 years.

If you consider how long Britain and France kept colonies in Africa and Asia, the occupation of Ottoman territories after WWI was hardly a blip on the radar screen. The mandates set up by the League of Nations in former Ottoman territories were similar to the present situation in Iraq. The Arabs were still directly ruled by their local councils and they were aware that the British wouldn't be there for long, because they demanded that a permanent government be set up by majority rule. The fighting started when they realized that the British were going to partition Palestine to make a Jewish state possible.

Once again, they were fine with having Jews living in Palestine as long as they were ruling over them.

[WIP]

Given the choice of enemies between a technologically sophisticated and militarily powerful former Soviet Union and a bunch of 9th Century Islamists, I'd choose the latter any day. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

But they should have realized back when the Brotherhood was building hundreds of new mosques in Gaza, that this was more than a political adversary. They were re-moulding the Palestinians into religious zealots who can't be negotiated with. Some military analysts say that the hawks in government, the armed forces and working for defence contractors, deliberately over-hyped the Soviet threat during the Cold War. All I know is it's easier to deal with a rational enemy than one who is willing to strap on an explosive vest.

The problem is that outside Egypt no other country was prepared to trade land for true peace. Even with Egypt, fate was not terribly kind to Anwar Sadat for advocating and practicing peace.

Hard to say! For a time it appeared that King Hussein would join in, but in Egypt, Sadat's deal to get the Sinai back was very popular among most Egyptians who felt that they had born the brunt of the costs for fighting Israel and wanted to improve their living conditions. Sadat's failure to deliver on economic reforms may have had a lot to do with his downfall. The Muslim Brotherhood has tried to fashion itself as a populist movement, so if Sadat was still popular, they would have been reluctant to go after him.

[BC_chick]

Once again, they were fine with having Jews living in Palestine as long as they were ruling over them.

So... many non-Muslims have felt the same way about hosting a different people vs. living under their rule. First Nations are a perfect example of that.

Think also what would happen if the doom-filled prophecies of Muslims penetrating and taking over a land do come true in Canada or any other western nation. People would take up arms... and it would have absolutely zero to do with being a "homocidal Muslim" (your words which triggered this debate).

The common denominator in each of these scenarios is therefore human-nature, not Islam.

[Jerry Galinda]

Oh really! Why did the Germans leave the corridor then during the intervening years before the outbreak of WWII?

Hmmm- I’m not sure if I understand You but from what I know - Germans lived in Pommern in Poland - all the time between First World War and WWII (as my family).They had farms, tenement houses, factories, schools, political parties and so on. In Bromberg almost 10 % inhabitants were Germans. Political emigration didn’t exist.

Germans were ethnic minority with all the laws of the Poland’s ordinary citizens. What’s more - they were good organized and usually wealthy -e.g. my family.

Why did Poles hate Jews? Why did French hate Jews? Jealousy perhaps! They managed to prosper in spite of economic restrictions, and many people, like my uncles, determined their success had to come from some ill-gotten gain.

I thought that they (Your uncles) were more “original”.LOL

I must agree - probably jealous is a very important factor in this “matter”.

I have an older brother who has done a little research on family history (mainly on my father's side); I haven't been as interested in the subject. Ultimately, I don't care a great deal about how much of my uncles' stories I can verify.

I don’t know how old are you - but I know FROM MY EXPERIENCE that usually we are interested in the “subject “ TOO LATE !! It comes with time - when we are older - but grandfathers - usually died earlier.

Memory - it’s not a history - but even myths are possible.

. I can't see a reason why they would lie about it,

but I still don't get why you're so sure that they, and the other Germans who left during that time, weren't forced out.

First of all - I write about 1918-1939 years.

Next - I know “a little” - the history East Europe in 1918-1939 years.

I’m ALMOST sure that - in this period didn’t exist in Poland :

- displacing of people,

- evicted people from properties,

Why ?

Because everything what new administration did - had to do according with the law. The law which was Prussian law - it means that law was change after several years.

From what I remember - The Treaty of Versailles banned to lot (parcel out) - Germans ground landlord - for 15 years.

It caused that (in practice) - land reform - wasn’t almost possible in West Poland.

And so on, so on.

BTW. Land reforms (in Latvia - 1920, Lithuania - 1922 and Estonia -1919y.) was very radical and cause almost “damage” of Germans ground landlords properties (Latvia, Estonia) and Polish ground landlords in Lithuania and partly Latvia.

Why I write - ALMOST ?

Because we can only be SURE that we die.

Everything what I write cause that I have many doubts - about this history (e.g. - new “owner” of the farm had to have - legal claim).

But I can’t state that it’s - for certain - falsehood.

THE MOST IMPORTANT.

Are you sure - that it was before WWII ??????

[Peter F]

If you consider how long Britain and France kept colonies in Africa and Asia, the occupation of Ottoman territories after WWI was hardly a blip on the radar screen. The mandates set up by the League of Nations in former Ottoman territories were similar to the present situation in Iraq. The Arabs were still directly ruled by their local councils and they were aware that the British wouldn't be there for long, because they demanded that a permanent government be set up by majority rule. The fighting started when they realized that the British were going to partition Palestine to make a Jewish state possible.

Once again, they were fine with having Jews living in Palestine as long as they were ruling over them.

and not wanting to lose power is un-natural because...?

[Peter F]

If you consider how long Britain and France kept colonies in Africa and Asia, the occupation of Ottoman territories after WWI was hardly a blip on the radar screen. The mandates set up by the League of Nations in former Ottoman territories were similar to the present situation in Iraq. The Arabs were still directly ruled by their local councils and they were aware that the British wouldn't be there for long, because they demanded that a permanent government be set up by majority rule. The fighting started when they realized that the British were going to partition Palestine to make a Jewish state possible.

Once again, they were fine with having Jews living in Palestine as long as they were ruling over them.

and not wanting to lose power is un-natural for Muslims but ok for all other folks? Is that the contention here?