SEARCH RESULTS

Miko Peled’s transformation to an anti-Zionist was slow. Although influenced by his father, the death of his niece by suicide bombers in 1997 traumatized him. Smadar was 13 years old. (19)

Anita Shapira. Israel: a history. OTTOMAN TURKISH EMPIRE Palestine was politically fragmented during the late Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, “the first stirrings of an Arab national movement existed in Palestine, led by educated Christian Arabs.” The Muslim Arabs supported the Ottoman Empire and were politically independent. An anti-Jewish newspaper was published but little Palestinian nationalism. The Arabs viewed Jewish settlement as a foreign incursion. In 1891 Arab dignitaries petitioned the Ottoman Sultan “to stop the wave of Jewish immigrants coming to Palestine,” which he did. (53) THEODORE HERZL Theodor Herzl is the father of Zionism. “His knowledge of Judaism was meager and, of the Jewish people, superficial.” (16) Shapira argues that Herzl’s, The State of the Jews, is on par with “the treatise by Abbe Sieyes that helped spark the French Revolution, and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which created widespread support for the American Revolution. . . . The Jews were hatred both as capitalist and revolutionary; wealthy and poor; educated and ignorant.” (16) The Alfred Dreyfus trial spurred Zionism. The French accused Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus of treason stating that he gave military secrets to Germany. Being Jewish, this was significant to Jews. (17) Some Jews came to believe that they were not allowed to assimilate and therefore should settle in their own country. (17) “Herzl outlined a process of transferring millions of Jews from Europe to Palestine . . . that such a process must be supported by a binding international document.” (18) Herzl hoped wealthy Jews such as the Rothschilds would finance this “but his meetings with these men were unsuccessful.” Wealthy Jews saw in Herzl a “fevered imagination laking roots in reality.” (19) Perhaps not surprisingly Herzl found more support in Eastern Europe rather than in Western Europe. (20) ZIONISM Anita Shapira explores the essence of Zionism in her book, Israel: A History. (3) “In 1881 Dr. Yehuda Leib Pinsker published a pamphlet titled Auto-Emancipation. Writing in the wake of the wave of pogroms that engulfed Jews in the Tsarist Empire. Pinsker analyzed antisemitism in-depth and concluded by calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland,” where Jews would be the “masters.” (3) Attacks on Jews in Eastern followed by “modern anti-Semitism” in "Western Europe.” The new religious hatred added racism against the Jews and employed nineteenth-century Social Darwinism. (13) Jews were accused of “all of capitalist societies’ ills, inciting to revolution and undermining the existing order. They pictured the Jews as parasites, incapable of establishing a society or culture of their own, who rode on the backs of other peoples and copied or prevented their cultures.” (13) In the nineteenth century, some Jews argued for a “national movement.” Theodore Herzl viewed Jews as “one people.” (15) Justification for their nationalism came from the Bible, which presented something of a paradox since until the nineteenth century the Bible was considered secondary to Jewish oral law. . . . It was the Protestants who discovered the Bible and extolled its importance in educating the younger generation. Even the idea of the Jews returning to their ancient homeland as the first step to world redemption seems to have originated among a specific group of evangelical English Protestants that flourished in England in the 1840s.” (15) This appears to contradict the idea of “Next year in Jerusalem.” (15) However, “instead of passively waiting the coming for the coming of the Messiah, the Jewish people would take their own action. This concept met with bitter opposition from conservative religious circles, who saw it as opposing divine will. The left on the other hand objected that this concept was based upon religion - something enlightened Jews should keep their distance from.” (15) Russian Zionists “stopped talking about the Land of Israel as a mythical land and began referring to it as a real country that could be settled.” (16) Teachers were the “heroes” of Zionism in the settlements of Palestine. They “formulated a Hebrew vernacular and teaching language . . . wrote textbooks.” (58) It was the teachers who changed “the Hanukkah festival . . . to a celebration of the heroism of the Maccabees.” (58) Zionism relied on the Bible. One Zionist leader described it as a “sort of birth certificate that . . . nurtured the sense of homeland. . . . a Bible in almost every worker’s room.” (58-59) Shapira describes the Balfour Declaration as from a time when “a handful of statesmen in smoke-filled rooms decided the fates of peoples and states and how to divide up declining empires, with no participation by the media or the masses.” (73) The Western powers ignored “the opposition of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine.” Balfour stated, “The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.” (73) “The British conquest of Palestine in 1918 did not take place under the banner of the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration was not officially published in Palestine, although its contents were known to both Jews and Arabs.” From the Jewish point of view this was what Herzl wanted; from the Arab point of view the Balfour Declaration undermined “their centuries-old superiority in Palestine.” They understood that they would simply have a new ruler. (74) The thirty-year transitional Mandate period enabled the Jews to establish a society and economy of their own in Palestine. Without British bayonets, the Jewish community would have been unable to develop in size and strength until it passed the point of no return. Two sides developed in Zionism. One point of view, led by Vladimir Jabotinsky believed “that a clash between Jewish and Arab nationalism was inevitable and that Zionism could not be realized without an active British policy establishing a colonial regime in Palestine that would grant state lands to the Jews, enable mass immigration and large-scale settlements, and stop any Arab resistance by force. Brit Shalom, for its part, advocated reaching an agreement with the Arab national movement at any price. Its watchword was binationalism, which neutralized the issue of majority versus minority by agreeing that in Palestine there were two peoples entitled to an equal share in the country, each of which would have an autonomous cultural life (an idea known as cultural Zionism as it related to the Jews).” The British would act as mediators between the Arabs and the Jews. Brit Shalom believed “not a majority but many” but the Arabs were not impressed. “Brit Shalom was now prepared to consider capping Jewish immigration, if only as a way to reach an agreement with the Arabs.” (82) In the 1920s Russian Jews were inspired by the Balfour Declaration . (104) Hence, Zionism became a mass movement. A “pioneer” movement formed “in the Crimea to train youngsters before they immigrated to Palestine.” There were pogroms in the Ukraine. (104) Jewish life in Russia changed following World War I and the Russian Revolution. “Religious practice was forbidden and Zionists prosecuted.” (104) Zionists inculcated in the children arriving in and born in Palestine a love and connection to the land. They instilled “a sense of togetherness . . . They acquired the feeling of being masters of the country from Jewish history and Zionist ideology. . . . If on their field trips, they encountered Arab villages, they perceived these as part of the scenery.” (150) WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1948 The British left Palestine “embroiled in civil war - or a war between national communities - that rapidly evolved in a war between countries.” The Jews survived the war to create the State of Israel. (74) Shapira cites November 30, 1947 as the date the Arabs began the war against the Jews. “Roads linking Jewish settlements all over the country suddenly became dangerous, since they passed through Arab villages.” (157) “The Arabs’ fighting capacity appeared serious and their military resources limitless.” (158) “Palestine Arab society started to disintegrate.” The ruling elites were unable to impose either civil or military authority. The Arab militias were not formed into an army. . . . the wealthy rushed to depart for the neighboring Arab states.” (158) Arab propaganda declared that they would drive “the Jews into the sea - in other words, total war.” However, the tens of thousands of Arab soldiers ere poorly trained and their armies poorly led. Therefore, they were not coordinated. At first the Arab armies outnumbered the Jews. But the IDF organized to finally recruit enough soldiers to meet the Arabs. (157-158) Shapira describes a Jewish army just being organized in 1947. They didn’t have proper analysis and made plans on bravado than facts. Consequently, the Israelis remember the war as being “fought for the nation’s very existence . . . endless sacrifice . . . and many casualties.” (158) She writes of 60,000 Jewish refugees. For the Arabs the Nakba or Israeli War of Independence in 1948 “made them a minority in their own land. . . . that have become the focus of a national myth [Shapira argues that all nationalities rely on myth] emphasizing their victimhood at the hands of the Zionist state.” (461) Shapira writes that some scholars that “most Israeli Arabs . . . have accepted Israel’s existence as the Jewish state, and as citizens seek equal opportunities and cultural autonomy.” However, Arab leaders disagree. (462) The concept of “the Arab problem” came from “internal Jewish attitudes toward the Arabs. Two Jewish writers criticized Zionist “mistreatment of their Arab workers,” and the “dispossession of Arab tenant farmers.” However, there were too few Zionists in Palestine at the time and they had little to offer the Arabs. (53-54) Conflicts between Arabs and Jews centered around “land, water, and grazing.” The Jews protected themselves and this was “an inseparable part” of Zionist beliefs. (54) A Zionist chant, “In fire and blood did Judea fall; in blood and fire Judea shall rise.” (54) Jewish immigration to Palestine in the early 1930s concerned the Arabs who viewed their country’s domination by Europeans; they were losing their country, “which only a few years earlier had been essentially theirs.” (81) “Old privileged families” in Palestine formed a modern political party that drew in young, educated, Arabs. They targeted the British, not the Jews. They demonstrated for self-government. (81) The decision to Partition Palestine was looked at by the Jews as a “divine miracle.” The Arabs believed it a “flagrant wrong, a miscarriage of justice, and an act of coercion. They were being called upon to consent to the partitioning of a country that only thirty years earlier had been considered Arab, and to the establishment of a Jewish state in it. They resorted to “armed resistance.” The Jews call the 1948 war, the War of Sovereignty” but it is known as the War of Independence although the war was against the Arabs and not the British. (156) “It was not a war of liberation, but a war between two peoples striving for control over the same land. For their part, the Arabs referred to the war with the neutral phrase, “1948 war,” implying that it was just one in a series that had been and would be waged.” Most important was 700,000 refugees. Thus, it was called the Nakba. (156-157) “The war’s biggest losers were the Palestinians.” The first cause was the “collapse of governmental systems in Palestinian society.” After the Arabs invaded “the IDF expelled the Arab population and destroyed its villages to prevent its return.” (174) Officers of the IDF blamed the Palestinians for the war and abuses. Shapiro claims that both the Jews and the Arabs committed massacres. (174) “Shapira claims the Israelis were “aghast” at the Palestinians fleeing their villages. This was another miracle for the Israelis. She claims all of the Jewish villages assigned to the Arab area were destroyed. Coupled with the Palestinians fleeing their villages, “a new reality materialized: two ethnically homogeneous states, a mainly Jewish one and a purely Arab one. The conclusion was that the State of Israel could not allow the Arabs to return to their homes.” (174) Moshe Sharett claimed it was incredulous to believe the Zionists forced the Palestinians to leave their homes. (174) However, the IDF was ordered to “prevent the Arabs from returning to their villages, either by force or by destroying the villages.” (175) Unfortunately, Shapira cites World War II actions as precedents justifying Israeli behavior. (175) Shapira also claims that the Palestinians have unrealistic demands to return to their homes “for the war erased the reality to which they wanted to return.” In addition, the Arabs refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel. (175) Shapira also describes their desire to return as a myth. (176) Nevertheless, after the War of Independence the best IDF officers left the military and it “experienced a period of disorganization and weakness . . . unsuccessful battle . . . near the Sea of Galilee to destroy a Syrian force that had taken a position in the demilitarized zone.” (275) SINAI CAMPAIGN Moshe Dayan became Chef of Staff in 1956 and improved elite units including 101. Infiltration from Jordan occurred in 1956 with help from the then lax Jordanian army. Ariel Sharon’s infamous Unit 101 carried out reprisal raids. On one raid many women and children were killed inside their homes. (275) Just before the Sinai Campaign of  1956, an IDF commander changed the curfew for Arabs without telling field workers. 47 men, women, and children were shot for violating the curfew. The defense establishment was in shock but covered up the atrocity. (197) The Arabs never forgot. (198) An IDF reprisal raid in the Gaza Strip in Egypt in 1955 is believed to have inflamed Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser took his army’s failure to defend against the attack as a humiliation. He switched from sponsoring limited raids by Palestinians to training units to go “inside Israeli territory, killing civilians, destroying installations, and undermining security along the border and inside Israel.” (276) In addition in 1955 Nasser declared his “commitment to armed struggle against Israel.” Consequently, the Israeli General Staff concluded, “a preventative war against Egypt was unavoidable.” (279) The result would be “Israeli control of the Gaza Strip, open the Straits of Tirana, and perhaps even give Israel control of the Gulf of Eilat coastal strip leading to the straits. The idea of a preventative war was based on Israel’s vulnerability. Because Israel was so small, an attacking enemy “could quickly cut the country in half.” (279) “Ben-Gurion . . . . proposed that Israel conquer the Gaza Strip.” Interestingly, he had opposed “Yigal Allon’s proposals to conquer the West Bank [in 1949] which was militarily achievable.” He was concerned about “governing hundreds of thousands of Arabs.” (280) In 1956 nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt led the British, the French, and the Israelis into an alliance. (281) The 1956 Suez War or Sinai Campaign “was a great Israeli military success.” The Israelis quickly took the Sinai Peninsula just short of the Suez Canal. However, the attack as well as British and French attacks against the Egyptians drew the ire of the Soviet Union and the United States. “Gunboat diplomacy had ended with World War Two.”  (281-282) The Israelis claimed they wanted to prevent guerrilla attacks on their country. Nevertheless, the U.S. told the Israelis to withdraw. (282) Interestingly, for the next ten years the Palestinian attacks from Egypt stopped. (283) SIX-DAY WAR The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War, known to the world as The Six-Day War, but referred to as “the June War” by the Arabs. Shapira writes that it “broke out without premeditation on either side and without anyone having predicted that it would occur when it did.” (295) The Arabs exchanged accusations with each other and the Arabs and Israelis did the same.  Arab threats concerned Israeli citizens who feared another Holocaust. Also, Western behavior during the crisis left Israel feeling abandoned. “Over and over commentators compared Israel to Czechoslovakia.” (298) Again, the IDF believed it would win a war against Egypt as long as it could launch a preemptive attack. (299) While the Israeli government was reluctant to go to war the General Staff “pressed for approval going to war.” (299) A retired David Ben-Gurion thought Israel needed a powerful ally. He criticized Chief of Staff Rabin for “belligerent statements and mobilization of the reserves. . . . had led Israel into a trap.” (300) Public pressure led to retired General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli hero of the Sinai Campaign, to be appointed Defense Minister. According to Shapira, “Israel was drawn into this war under duress and without preplanned objectives. . . . Israel went to war to defeat the Egyptian army and open the Straits of Titan to Israeli shipping. (301) In November 1967 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242 however the Arabs refused to recognize Israel. Israel in turn refused to withdraw from the territory it had just conquered. A consequence of the war Shapira writes “was the reemergence of the Palestinian problem. After the War of Independence, the Arab states and Israel appropriated the territories assigned to the Palestinian state.” (305) After the Six-Day War Israel could no longer ignore the Palestinians. “The awakening of Palestinian nationalism was a direct result of the Arab states’ failure to destroy Israel militarily.” (305) Israel’s 1967 victory worsened its relations with the Arabs. (307) “Rule over new territories became a leading topic in Israeli political discourse.” Are they “bargaining chips”? Are they needed for security? How moral is it to rule other people? (307) Jews fulfilling their views of Israel settled in the newly conquered territories. (307) Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan and his eye patch symbolized Israeli daring and defiance. He “sought to maintain a soft occupation of the West Bank that interfered as little as possible in the lives of the Arabs.” (310) Furthermore, Dayan opposed annexing the newly conquered territories. (311) Even “Ben-Gurion spoke openly about returning all the occupied territories, except for Jerusalem, in return for peace.” (312) Nevertheless, following the victory of 1967, Israelis became arrogant and condescending. The victorious generals became celebrities. (312) However, according to Shapira, the sight of fleeing Arab soldiers during the war, and seeing refugees, left them feeling pity. “They felt no hatred toward the Arabs.” (314) Not surprisingly conquering areas mentioned in the Bible impressed Israeli soldiers. Some “hoped that the uncompleted mission of 1948 could be fulfilled. But they were the minority.” Israel did not want “to rule these territories.” (314) A leader of the settler movement stated that Israel is “not permitted to relinquish any part of the Greater Land of Israel: We are bound by loyalty to the integrity of our country . . . and no government in Israel has the right to Surender that integrity.” (316) The 1967 victory did not impress young Israelis as it did those who experienced the 1948 war and who “still retained the notion of a Greater Israel.” However, messianism captivated “religious-Zionist youth.” (316) In 1968 Israelis who held these views “flouted” the government and settled in Arab areas. They received government support from “disparate circles” in Israel. (317) At first, these Zionists planned to settle “areas thinly populated by Arabs.” Reminiscent of General Yigal Allon’s sincere wish to take the West Bank after the 1948 war, Allon now looked to a more balanced occupation order to avoid “rule over Arabs and what he perceived as the country’s security needs.” (317) The issue of “defensible borders” for Israel came up. They wanted to keep the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley, the Rafa approach, and southern Mount Hebron. Israel allowed Jews to settle in those areas. (317) Although there was hope among Israelis that the Six-Day War would bring peace, it did not. The Israelis and the Arabs dug in. (319) Israeli and Egyptian forces clashed. The Egyptians had superior artillery against the Israelis Bar-Lev Line. The IDF “raided Egyptian positions on the western bank of the Gulf of Suez. This did not stop the Egyptians so the Israelis bombed military installations and infrastructures. The cities along the canal were turned into heaps of ruins, and hundreds of thousands of Egyptian refugees fled toward Cairo.” (319) On the Jordanian border in the fall of “1967 Palestinian terror groups began organizing . . . which hoped to rouse the West Bank population into a guerrilla war against the occupation.” (320) The Palestinians attacked Jewish settlements in the West Bank so the Israelis destroyed settlements in Jordan. (320) In addition, these conflicts and the wake of the Six-Day War disrupted Israeli society. (321) Exposed was the “psychological difficulty of withstanding a protracted war, the sensitivity to the loss of life, and the longing for peace.” Most Israelis felt they “were in a war of choice.” Also, the Israelis claimed there was no one to talk peace with. (324) DAVID BEN-GURION Ben-Gurion stated that in the early 1900s, 90% of the Jews who arrived in Palestine left. (33) Following Israeli independence Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion disagreed as to whether the IDF should conduct “reprisal raids” against Arab villages for attacks by Palestinians on Israeli villages. Sharett thought the ‘reprisal raids’ could “fan the flames of hatred.” (176) While Sharett put his faith in the United Nations, Ben-Gurion used derogatory terms describing the organization. (276) Ben-Gurion believed television “corrupted the public.” Although Israel claims it has a free press the “Broadcasting Authority” approves or disapproves stories.” (199) ARABS Ben-Gurion and others believed the Arabs “were descendants of the ancient Jews who had converted first to Christianity and then to Islam; now, with Jewish settlement, they would assimilate among the Jews.” (53) Prior to the War of Independence “Arab nationals were developing far more rapidly than the rate of Jewish immigration to Palestine.” (82) “The Arabs refused to recognize any Jewish right whatsoever to the country. They were prepared to allow Jews who had come to Palestine before the Balfour Declaration to remain, but not recognize them as a collective with a historical connection to the country.” (82) Arab public opinion in response to “Jews’ alleged brutality” caused pressure on the Arab countries to aid the Palestinians. (162) The Jordanian Arab Legion was the best-trained Arab army. (162)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/opinion/trump-second-term-illiberalism.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FibIgDdXRAM

Theodore W. Reedy. A Brief History of the American Labor Movement. This was published by the U.S. Department of Labor based on information in the Department of Labor and the Division of Industrial Relations, supervised by Nelson M. Bortz. Labor unions began in the United States long before the founding of the country. They fought for “financial assistance in the event of serious illness, debt, or death of a wage earner.” Local craft unions “formed separate organizations in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston . . . largely to resist wage reductions. . . . shorter hours . . . establishment of the . . . closed shop.” Collective bargaining established by the early 1800s. In addition, workers used the strike to aid them in negotiations with employers. (3) To counter this employers “formed organizations to resist wage demands.” They would also hire “nonunion workers.” (3) “Unions were prosecuted as conspiracies in restraint of trade.” Throughout the 1800s the definition of what is a conspiracy turned toward strikes being considered “lawful.” (3) In the early 1800s the unions became involved politics, for instance, the working mean now had a right to vote. In addition, the Industrial Revolution caused an increase in population in the major cities such as, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. In Philadelphia “the Mechanics’ Union of Trade Associations . . .  began to nominate and elect candidates to represent the interests of the working classes in the Philadelphia city council and the Pennsylvania State Legislature. Local labor parties organized by workers also sprang up in many states.” A question in my research is how radical, leftist, militant was the American labor union movement before the 1930s and before the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Defining militancy is incredibly difficult and has not been done. Hence, arguing that the Taft-Hartley Act defeated and removed militant trade unionists (under the guise of removing communists) its difficult to argue. Most labor historians don’t believe it did. However, I wrote a Master’s Thesis arguing that it did. At the same time the Great Ellen Schrecker published Many Are the Crimes which unequivocally proved the point. Nevertheless, the argument continues. Soon, the workingmen’s economic activity dropped in favor of political action. The workingmen had emphasized craft unions. Their political action gave attention to “social and economic inequality experienced by workers. . . . Eventually, state legislatures prohibited imprisonment for debt, enacted the 10 - hour day for women and children.” “In the early 1830s the interest of workers in reform movements and political action declined.” However, “rapidly rising prices between 1835 and 1837” workers returned to organizing. Consequently, they discussed “problems common interest and to promotion of lion-made goods.” An attempt to expand the local unions in 1835 and 1836 failed due to the financial panic of 1837 and the period of depression and unemployment which followed during most of the forties.” This relies on Poulantzas argument of relying on outside forces is not good. American industry improved in the late 1840s and workingmen resumed organizing. In the “1850s several national unions were founded. . . . The decade was marked, also by many strikes . . . involved in almost every known craft and the majority of American cities. Collective bargaining . . . slowly becoming more prevalent. (6) In 1840 President Martin Van Buren implemented the ten-hour work day for government workers. Massachusetts implemented the ten-hour day state-wide. (7) Factory workers had been working “11 to 12 hours a day.”  Wages rose to about $1.25 per day. By 1860 better skilled workers could earn $2.00 per day. (8) Unions created in the Civil War in power and grew nationally. In the 1870s there were “three unsuccessful attempts . . . to unite the various craft organizations into national labor federations.” There were also calls for the 8-hour day movement and the first signs of the long, bitter, and sometimes violent industrial warfare which characterized the struggle of American labor unionism for recognition and survival.” (8) In 1866 the National Labor Union was formed because workers demanded “unification of labor groups throughout the country.” (8) Workers organized “cooperatives” as a way of freeing themselves “from the control of capitalism.” (8) The National Labor Union politically supported the “Greenback movement which fared large issues of paper money and easy credit at low interest rates.” (8) The National Labor Union fell apart in 1872 as did the National Reform and Labor Party. (8) Nevertheless, the Union successfully promoted the 8 hour day in some workplaces and a Bureau of Labor which later became the Department of Labor. (9) Trade - union membership dropped in the 1870s due to a “new economic depression.” (9) Workers were unable to sustain strikes in their fight “against wage reductions.” (9) 1877 railroad strikes “brought in their wake riots, martial law, intervention of State and Federal troops, and some fatalities.” (9) The 1870s brought an understanding of the need and benefit of a national labor movement. Also, unskilled workers contributed to organized labor. (9) The Knights of Labor was founded in 1869 amid hostility toward “trade-union organization.” (10) By 1886 they had 700,000 members. Their primary mission was “the replacement of a competitive society by a cooperative one which would give workers the opportunity to echo the wealth thy created. Sounds very marxist to me. This was to be achieved “primarily through reducing the money power of banks, not through battles with individual employers. . . . called for the 8-hour day, equal pay for work by women, abolition of convict and child labor, public ownership of utilities, and the establishment of cooperatives. Reliance was placed on educational and political methods rather than on collective bargaining. Strikes were to be employed only as a last resort.” (11) However, some in the Knights of Labor”favored processes of collective bargaining clashed with those committed to political means and basic social change. (12) There was also conflict over whether skilled and unskilled workers should unite. (12-13) The creation of the American Federation of Labor led to the demise of the Knights of Labor. The American Federation of Labor was founded in 1881. They focussed on “pure and simple unionism” striving for higher wages and improved working conditions.” (13) not trying to change society or have a revolution. Put to 1920 the AFL grew into “the principal federation of American unions. (13) Nonetheless, “large corporations” began to fight the unions. (15) “At times these clashes resulted in violence, injuries, and even death. For example, the unsuccessful struggle of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers against the Carnegie Steel Co. at Homestead, Pa., in 1892” led to a battle between the workers and Pinkerton detectives. 10 people died. The “National Guard restored order.” (15) “Twenty-five persons were killed and 60 were injured” during the American Railway Union Strike in Pullman, Ill. Federal and state troops were used and court injunctions were obtained against the union.” (15) In the early 1900s “employer opposition stiffened and became more highly organized.” (16) “Scientific management and efficiency systems were introduced.” The workers were not pleased. Employers organized “citizens’ committees . . . to resist unionization.” The courts supported the employers. Nevertheless, union membership grew. “The stabilization of industrial relations and the attainment of job security are considered by many authorities as important factors in the success of AFL trade-unionism at this period.” (17) The AFL avoided politics, operating on “the principle of non-partisan politics, summed up in the dictum to defeat labor’s enemies and to reward its friends.” (17) Ironically, friendly labor laws passed throughout the country, such as, “laws regulating the employment of women and children in industry and providing for protection against industrial hazards. Workmen’s compensation laws were adopted in most States, and in 1913 the United States Congress created a separate Department of Labor.” (17) Clauses were inserted in the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914, at the insistence of the AFL, exempted unions.” (17) However, the courts continually ruled against the unions.” (18) Almost revolutionary unions were formed which challenged the AFL and Samuel Gompers. They were “committed” to “class struggle.” They believed they must be involved in politics. This conflict began in the 1890s, and lasted until the First World War. The AFL won “the great majority of the country’s organized workers.” (18) The Socialist Labor Party, and the Industrial Workers of the World opposed the AFL. (18) Dissident workers created the Industrial workers of the World in 1905. Their goal: abolish “wage system” and create a “great mass of unskilled workers and of migratory or casual laborers.” (19) The IWW fell out of public favor side to its “militant tactics . . . particularly during the First World War.” Some states outlawed the IWW. Leaders were imprisoned. (19) World War I saw “increased industrial activity and labor shortages brought a rapid expansion of unions. A National War Labor Board was created to promote union-management cooperation.” Thus, the federal government accepted the “right of workers to organize in trade unions.” (19-20) In addition, the Board would hear worker “complaints about industrial conditions.” (20) Union membership grew including “semi-skilled and unskilled workers joined unions.” (20) This was the “result of organizing activity in the favorable climate of Federal Protection.” (20) In addition, wages grew “particularly during the years of and immediately following the First World War. . . . At the same time, average hours worked per week . . . declined from more than 60 in 1890 to 49 in 1914. In 1923, the average workweek approximated 46 hours.” (20) Post World War I inflation hurt wages and the Federal Government withdrew protection of labor’s right to organize. Gramsci don’t rely on the government. Protection for workers ended. Therefore, "numerous employers refused to recognize labor unions which had been organized in their plants. . . . Many labor leaders called for more aggressive action.” (21) Iron and Steel Workers launched a failed strike. Courts imposed an injunction and ruled against a mine workers strike in 1919. A railroad strike in the early 1920s failed and also failed to prevent loss of wages, hence union membership dropped. (21) Thus, this became the “open shop era. To weaken or disrupt labor organizations employers in these years introduced a variety of welfare measures, ranging from athletic fields to pension plans, as well as repressive measures as the use of spies and strikebreakers. Company unions dominated by employers were likewise established. Yellow dog contracts, requiring a worker to promise, as a condition of employment, that hew would not join a labor union, were also used effectively.” (22) Nevertheless, some workers’ wages increased although others suffered. (22) “From 1920 to 1923 total union membership fell from 5 million to slightly over 3 1/2 million. . . . Of the 105 AFL international unions active in 1929, only 44 had held their own or expanded their membership after 1925.” This is during America’s “prosperity.” (22) Trade union membership increased precipitously after passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933 which guaranteed the right of employees, that trade-unionism in the United States began to revive. . . . Another contributing factor was the enactment, in 1932, of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which limited the use of court injunction in labor disputes.” (23) “The National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), passed July 5, 1935, guaranteed the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. It also prohibited employer-dominated or financed company unions.” (23) Consequently, union membership continued to grow through 1937. (23) Now we have been talking about the government protecting workers, hence, the unions are dependent on the government. “The Fair Labor Standards Act (of 1938), set minimum wage, overtime and child labor standards which apply to employees engaged in interstate commerce.” (23-24) Conflict within the AFL over organizing previously ‘unorganizable’ workers. (24) Debate over industrial versus craft workers. A “schism” in the AFL developed. (25) Soon the Committee for Industrial Organization was formed. (26) It first met in 1938. (26) Nevertheless, union membership goes. Unions were now recognized. (27) However, “strikes remained relatively high. Interestingly, the war in Europe caused prices to increase in 1941 and so work “stoppages again became more frequent. Most of the prewar labor-management conflicts, however, revolves around demands for better wages and greater union security.” (27) Labor and management united after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (27) President Roosevelt had labor agree not “to sanction strikes” and management not to lockout workers. A National War Labor Board would mediate disputes. (28) Union membership increased during the war. (29) “Workers obtained various so-called fringe benefits, such as improved vacation and holiday provisions, shift differentials, and welfare and pension plans.” (28) World War II was a boon to union membership. (29) Although the end of the war saw factories converting to peace time manufacturing, the immediate drop in production saw a drop in working hours and hence, a drop in “take-home pay.” (31) Employers resisted. “Both labor and management wanted to the free to bargain across the conference table and, if necessary, to test their economic strength.” (31) There were “42 large strikes . . . from VJ-day to the end of June 1946.” (36) They were successful in increasing wages. As a result the government ended price controls. (36) By the Fall of 1946 industrial production increased and by the end of 1947 prices outpaced wages. (36) 1948 was a year of conflict between management and labor. Industry resisted wage increases which caused unions to fight back. (36-37) In 1949 unions negotiated for pensions, and health and welfare benefits. (37) Up to 1926 the occurs limited the rights of labor. (38) “The Railway Labor Act of 1926 was a significant reversal of the trend of legal opposition to union activity.” It was supported by both management and labor and, “was based on the premise that peaceful labor relations can reattained through free collective bargaining between employers and unions.” (38) “The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 brought to an end what has often been called the era of government by injunction.” (38) The Wagner Act of 1935 extended labor rights to all union “activities outside of the railroad industry. This law guaranteed to employees the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Section 7, NLR) (39) The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 revised the Wagner Act in favor of industry. Taft-Hartley banned the closed shop and grievance procedures were restricted. (39) President Truman vetoes the Taft-Hartley Act but Congress overrode the veto. (39) A list of what were alleged to be unfair labor practices by unions were prohibited. These had been allowed under the Wagner Act. (39) Limitations “on strikes and lockouts. Secondary boycotts” became illegal. (39) Injunctions against strikers for up to 80 days could be obtained. (39) Labor viewed the “right to strike” a protection of the “United States Constitution which forbids involuntary servitude.” (39) Nevertheless, the Fair Labor Standards Act set “minimum wage and hour standards for workers manufacturing goods for, or engaged in, interstate commerce and the Social Security Act . . . unemployment insurance.” (40) By 1950 union membership skyrocketed to almost 15 million. Unions are  increasingly politically active by 1950. (48) Much of this political activity spurred by the implementation of the Taft-Hartley Act. (48) A demonstration of labor’s conservative shift is its support and participation U.S. anti-communist activities. American communist involvement in the labor movement began in 1920 under the Trade Union Education League with a policy of “boring from within established unions.” (50) They did not succeed so, they “sought to establish industrial unions independent of the AFL.” (50) This also failed so they worked within the new CIO. (50) Their allegiance to Soviet Russia, however, alienated both CIO “leadership and rank-and-file membership.” (50) Following the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 the CIO expelled Communists. Furthermore, they prohibited any member of aunty totalitarian organization to join the CIO. Full lions were expelled due to communist activities. (50) Those unions were the United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers, the United Electrical, Radio and machine Workers, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, the United Office and Professional Workers of America, and the United Public Workers of America, the American Communications Association, the International Fur and Leather Workers’ Union of the United States and Canada.” All were expelled in 1950. There was also the International Longshoremen’s and Warehouseman’s Union, the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, and the International Fishermen and Allied workers Union of America. The CIO “noted six periods during which the expelled unions followed Communist Policy after the mid-1930s.” The most significant support for the Soviet-Nazi Pact of 1939 and the switching their views after the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941. The Communists then “called for complete cooperation with the capitalist class only to reverse this position after the war with “increasing sharp criticism of American foreign policies and labor’s espousal of the Marshall Plan.” (51) The AFL and CIO basically united in the 1950s in their opposition to communism. In addition, they became ardent supporters of defense industries. (52)

The Balfour Declaration - describes the period from 1917 to 1939 as the first declaration of war. Before World War I “many prescient Palestinians had begun to regard the Zionist movement as a threat, the Balfour Declaration introduced a new and fearsome element.” (24) Lord Balfour referred to the Arabs “as the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” (24) Zionists such as Chaim Weizmann secured the support of the British during world War I. (24) Once the British occupied Palestine they would not allow the population to be informed of the Balfour Declaration. Soldiers traveling through Syria or Egypt found out and protested to the British Foreign Office. They were horrified that their home would become a home for European Jews. (26) Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi understood this danger more than most of the Palestinian population. Believed that the Jews would expel the Arabs. (26) There were two newspapers which criticized the alliance between the British and the Zionists. “And the danger that it posed to the Arab majority in Palestine.” (28) A new rail line built in 1929 favored the Jewish settlers and the Palestinians were ignored. Some wrote of the complacency of the Palestinians in the face of this threat. (29) Palestinians organized and had “a series of seven Palestine Arab congresses which demanded Palestinian independence, “rejection of the Balfour Declaration, support for majority rule, and ending unlimited Jewish immigration and land purchases.” The British dismissed them. (31) After the Nakba the Palestinians were devastated. 80% of the Palestinians were “forced from their homes and lost their lands and property.” The origins of this disaster can be traced to their defeat in the rear Revolt of 1939.” It did not help that their were internecine conflict among the Palestinians. (58) Palestinian experience in World War II was fragmented unlike the Jews who served in cohesive units. (59) President Truman made Israel a part of “the emerging American hegemony in the Middle East. (60) The Palestinains did not have an established state, effective relationships with other Arab countries and “this proved to be a fatal weakness militarily, financially, and diplomatically.” (62) “By contrast, the Zionist movement applied a highly developed understanding of global politics.” (70) From November 1947 to May 15, 1945 the Zionist paramilitary defeated the Arab resistance which was “poorly armed and organized Palestinians and the Arab volunteers who had come to help them.” (72) “Plan Dalet involved the conquest and depopulation in April and the first half of May of the two largest Arab urban centers, Jaffa and Haifa, and of the Arab neighborhoods of West Jerusalem, as well as of scores of Arab cities, towns, and villages, including Tiberias on April 18, Haifa on April 23, Safad on May 10, and Beisan on May 11. Thus, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began well before the state of Israel was proclaimed on May 15, 1948.” (72) Although Jaffa was supposed to be part of the Palestinian Arab state no one challenged Israel’s conquest. Israel argued that this was a spoil of war. (72-73) As the Jewish forces massacred Palestinians, Dayr Yasin, most notable, “people fled.” Before May 15, 1948, Israel’s date of independence, saw the “expulsion and panicked departure of about 300,000 Palestinians  overall and the devastation of many of the ARab majority’s key urban economic, political, civic, and cultural centers.” (74) None of these refugees would be allowed to return under Israeli law. More Palestinians have been forced out since 1948 so the Nakba is “an ongoing process.” (75) The Nakba is one of the most significant events in Palestinian history. For over a thousand years there had been an Arab majority; after the Nakba Palestine, or Israel, became a Jewish majority. (75) The experienced and British led Arab Legion of Jordan “succeeded in keeping Israel from conquering the West Bank and Was Jerusalem.” (77) One of the Zionist lies is that Israel was outnumbered and outgunned in 1948. The opposite is true. The British would not allow the Arab Legion to attack areas assigned by the UN to the Jews. (77) The State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA opposed the Truman Administration’s support for Zionism. However, this would quickly change. (79) The 160,000 Arabs who remained in Israel were viewed “as a potential fifth column. Until 1966, most Palestinians lived under strict martial law and much of their land was seized (along with that of those who had been forced from the country and were now refugees). (82) The Palestinians, formerly the majority in their own country, bow found themselves “a despised minority” ruled by outsiders. (82) King Abdullah of Jordan annexed the West Bank after the 1948 War and gave the Palestinians their Jordanian citizenship. This refutes the Israeli claim that the Arab countries refused to allow the refugees to enter their countries. (84) The Arabs were not happy with King “Abdullah’s fealty to the hated British colonial masters, his opposition to Palestinian independence, and his widely rumored contacts with the Zionists.” (84) The 1948 defeat of the Arab armies at the hand of Israel caused political turmoil in the nearby Arab nations as well as great fear of Israel’s military. The latter also because the Israelis conducted military reprisals against Arab villages for refugee attacks or they trying to return to their homes. The United Nations reports of these attacks differed from the Israelis view as well as the view in the American press. (87) An attempt to establish a Palestinian government in exile or in Gaza failed because of lack of support from the Arab countries. (87) This would see the last of the participation of “the Palestinian old guard” in politics. Few Palestinian organizations survived the Nakba. (88) Most Arab nations “hindered” Palestinian resistance to the Israelis, King Abdullah foremost. One reason, any attacks on Israel by guerrilla forces would result in severe retaliation from Israel. As a result Fatah formed in 1959. (89) Egypt became a leader in the Arab world with the revolution of 1952. Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s president, “sought to avoid in particular to avoid providing Israel.” Years later Yasser Arafat and other Fatah leaders spoke of Egyptian intelligence arresting, torturing, and harassing Palestinians trying to fight Israel. (90) Israel’s inflicted massive and disproportionate casualties particularly against the Gaza Strip for Palestinian attacks. The West Bank also suffered from Unit 101 commanded by Ariel Sharon who in 1953 “blew up forty-five homes with their inhabitants inside, killing sixty-nine Palestinian civilians.” This in response to a Palestinian attack that killed three Israelis. Jordan did as Egypt by imprisoning and even killing possible Palestinian “infiltrators”. (91) Ben-Gurion ordered the attacks to force the Arabs to recognize Israel. Interesting Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett believed this counterproductive. Nevertheless, both did not want to allow the “return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.” (91) Seemingly related, Ben-Gurion proposed a full scale attack on Egypt in 1955. The attack would take place in 1956. (91) Major military leaders throughout Israel’s history implemented Ben-Gurion’s aggressive policies. These generals were Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ariel Sharon. Nothing has changed throughout Israel’s history. (91-92) Before attacking Egypt in 1956 the Israelis attacked Egyptian police stations and villages killing many Egyptian soldiers and civilians, including Palestinian. This caused the Egyptians to try to build up their military. First, they purchased from the West which refused so they agreed to buy weapons from Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, the Egyptians began helping the Palestinians in their attacks on Israel which most Arab governments did not like. Thus, Israel launched the “Suez War of October 1956.” (91-92) Israel swept through Gaza killing more than 450 people, “most of them summarily executed.” (93) No one in Israel or America heard of this. (94) The tensions building before the Six Day War of 1967 caused many American Jews to fear for the Jewish state as Arab leaders shouted what turned out to be empty threats. (96) President Johnson did not believe Israel was in danger as the Pentagon assessed that Israel would win in just a few days. Besides, the Arabs were not ready to attack. And,“Israel’s military was far superior to the militaries of all the Arab Staes combined. . . . Yet, the myth prevails: in 1967, a tiny, vulnerable country faced constant, existential peril, and it continues to do so.” (97) Rashid Khalidi addresses causes of the Six Day War. One was the increase in Palestinian commando attacks on Israel. Two, “the Israeli government had recently begun to divert the waters of the Jordan River to the center of the country despite great Arab popular dishes and even greater impotence on the part of the Arab regimes.” (97) Egypt was fighting in the Yemeni civil war and so had limited soldiers for its own defense. They didn’t help the situation by moving more of their soldiers in to the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt also wanted to aid the Syrians who sponsored Palestinian attacks from their territory. This gave the Israelis the opportunity to attack in self defense. (98) The Arabs felt tricked by the Americans who claimed they would restrain the Israelis. However, it became known that the Johnson administrations had given the Israelis the “go-ahead for its surprise attack.” (104) The Americans allowed the Israelis to keep the conquered territory and the United Nations Resolution 242 was ambiguous on the subject. As a result the Israelis have colonized the West Bank and controlled Gaza and the Golan Heights. Again, the Palestinians were never consulted; “instead it contains a bland reference to a just solution of the refugee problem.” (105-106) This meant that the issue was the Arab refusal to recognize Israel. (106) In 1969 Israeli Prime Minister claimed that “there were no such thing as Palestinians . . . they did not exits.” However, another writer pointed out that she held Palestinian identity papers while living in Palestine under the British. Khalidi argues that “she thereby took the negation characteristic of a settler-colonial project to the highest possible level: the indigenous people were nothing but a lie.” (106) “1967 marked an extraordinary resurgence of Palestinian national consciousness and resistance to Israel’s negation of Palestinian identity, a negation made possible by the complicity of much of the world community. In the words of one seasoned observer: A central paradox of 1967 is that by defeating the Arabs, Israel resurrected the Palestinians.” (108) “Fatah was founded in Kuwait in 1959 by a group of Palestinian engineers, teachers, and other professionals, headed by Yasser Arafat.” (114) Fatah launched its first attack against Israel by sabotaging a “water pumping station in central Israel.” However, the Egyptians worried that this would provoke Israel. In addition, with this attack “Fatah deliberately tried to show up the Arab states for their lack of true commitment to Palestine. Fatah’s appeal to the Arab population led to “early success of the Palestinian resistance groups.” (115) In the end however, these attacks contributed to Israel attacking Egypt in June 1967. Western countries had the image of tiny Israel against large, hostile Arab nations. The Arabs believed that Israel, especially with nuclear weapons, was incredibly powerful. (116) The Arabs nations created the Palestine Liberation Organization after the Six-Day War in order to counter Palestinian independent actions. However, “militant resistance groups took over the PLO.” (116) “Hardline Zionists” believed that Israel replaced Palestine. Mere mention of Palestine or Palestinians “constituted a moral threat to Israel.” Zionists associated Palestinians with terrorism and hatred” in their world wide public relations campaign. (117) Evidence supporting Miko Peled’s recent arguments that Israel is not an invincible force, Khalidi recounts a March 1968 Israeli attack in Jordan against Palestinian soldiers. This was less than a year after the Israeli victory of 1967. However, the Jordanian army and the PLO forced the Israelis to withdraw. (118) Overall however, the PLO failed to develop “a successful guerrilla strategy that might have countered the superiority of Israel’s conventional forces or the limitations of being based in Arab countries vulnerable to Israeli military pressure.” (119) In the 1970s the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked commercial aircraft. In addition, Palestinian arrogance in Jordan led King Hussein to use military force to push them out. (121) Israel attacked Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon. (121) The Camp David peace process of 1979 between Israel and Egypt froze out the Palestinians just as Begin designed it to do. It also allowed “unimpeded colonization of the Occupied Territories occupied in 1967, and put the Palestine issue on hold.” (135) Israeli Likud prime ministers, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu “were implacably opposed to Palestinian statehood. . . . Ideological heirs of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, they believed that the entirety of Palestine belonged solely to the Jewish people, and that a Palestinian people, with national rights did not exist.” (136) More attacks on the PLO occurred. In 1982 the U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig signed off on “Ariel Sharon’s plans for Israel to finish off the organization and with it Palestinian nationalism.” (137) Currently, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does not have a good record of accurate analysis of world affairs. However, in 1982, Village Voice columnist Alexander Cockburn quoted Friedman as telling his editors, “You are afraid to tell our readers and those who might complain to you that the Israelis are capable of indiscriminately shelling an entire city.” (139) Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon had much more destruction than before. Ariel Sharon did not inform the Israeli leadership of “his real goals and his operational plans.” Defeating the Palestinians in Lebanon would, he believed, destroy Palestinian nationalism. (142) The New York Times did not print Thomas Friedman’s descriptive of “the Israeli bombardment as indiscriminate.” (147) The Israelis used car bombs to terrorize and kill civilians, including rescuers of previous Israeli bombings. One Mossad officer described this as “killing for killing’s sake.” (149) The United States supported Israel’s core war aim: the defeat of the PLO and its expulsion from Beirut.” (149) “Begin and Sharon, had early on convinced President Reagan and his administration that the PLO was a terrorist group aligned with the evil Soviet empire and that its elimination would be a service to both the United States and Israel.” (149) Khalidi fiercely criticizes “the capitulation of the leading Arab regimes to American pressure.” (150) Israel’s invasion of Lebanon could not have occurred without U.S. consent. (151) The people of Lebanon resented “the PLO’s heavy handed and often arrogant behavior . . . eroded popular support for the Palestine cause in general and especially for the Palestinian presence in Lebanon.” In one instance a senior PLO official killed a Lebanese couple he felt disrespected him. (151) PLO attacks on Israeli civilians also damaged their cause. (152) The Israelis pressured the Reagan administration to ignore concerns for civilians and block international rules to protect them. (154) American diplomat Ryan Crocker witnessed Israel’s complicity in the Christian Lebanese forces slaughter of refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps. (158) Israeli documents released in 2012 demonstrate Sharon’s planning to have the refugees murdered. American diplomats were outmaneuvered by the Israelis. (159) The 1967 Six Day War the U.S. gave the go ahead for Israel to attack. (161) As for the Lebanon War “Sharon told Haig exactly what he was about to do in great detail.” The U.S. supplied the weapons. (161) The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon “produced the first significant and sustained negative American and European perception of Israel since 1948.” (164) Rather than destroying the PLO the invasion relocated them inside Palestine. (165)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tci4tj4Hiog

Max. L. Margolis and Alexander Marx. A History of the Jewish People. This is a classic work about the Jews written in 1927. Our knowledge of the Jews comes from the Bible. The land that Abraham heard from God was then occupied by Canaanites. The Romans called this land, Philistine, which actually had a “medley of stocks.” (8) Zionism - The trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew, for treason caused journalist Theodore Herzl, to consider the “Jewish question.” On its own this situation may not have been significant. But taken with the history of European anti-semitism, especially recently, Herzl expressed concern. For Herzl this was a “political” issue, not an economic or religious one. “The Jews, he reasoned, were a nation and one united nation. From this premise he drew the conclusion the Jews must concentrate and for a state of their own - in the Argentine or in Palestine.” (703) Negotiations for land would be made by an “organization called the Society of Jews. . . . Another organization, The Jewish Company, with its seat in London and under the protection of the British Government . . . was to regulate the migration . . . and build up the new community.” (703-704) Herzl was ignored and ridiculed. His “closest friends feared for his sanity.” (704) Nevertheless, several Jewish intellectuals responded positively. In addition, anti-Semitism in Austria rose in the late 19th century and this alarmed Herzl. Austrian Jews believed it a passing phase. (705) Jews in Eastern Europe decided to emigrate to Palestine. Powerful people did not support Herzl so he asked the sultan of Turkey for assistance in exchange for helping the Ottoman’s with their financial difficulty. (706) Zionism became powerful in European politics. (708) In 1901 Ottoman Turkey expressed willingness for individual Jews only to migrate to Palestine. (708) Zionist societies developed and promoted “a revival of literature and art and in the rebuilding of a manly spirit through the cultivation of physical exercise in gymnastic societies.” (708) Zionists continued to bring attention to East European pogroms against the Jews, policies subjugating Jews, and in “Rumania, an anti-Semitic League, organized in 1895 and using any means to to attain its end, strove to render the situation of the Jews unbearable and thus to force them out of the country . . . bloody pogrom [in Russia].” (709) Consequently, Herzl, used these horrible events “to induce the Russian government to use its influence at Constantinople in favor of Zionism.” (711) In 1903 the British offered the Zionists part of Uganda. The Zionist Congress vociferously debated the offer as a vocal minority from Russia opposed settlement in Uganda. (711) In 1904 Pope Pius X told Herzl he opposed “Jewish possession of Palestine.” (711) Herzl died on July 3, 1904 of a heart attack. (711) He was succeeded by Russian resident of Germany David Wolffsohn. (712) To calm peoples’ nerves Wolffsohn pulled back ob calling for a Jewish state and instead “spoke of the future of Palestinian settlement as a national home.” (712) Those who insisted that Palestine be the Zionist target put forth “small scale . . . Zionist activity.” (713) In 1909 Zionists founded Tel Aviv which is next to Jaffa. (713) Some Zionist settlers insisted that the new migrants speak Hebrew. (713) As the Turks withdrew from Palestine ahead of British forces Zionist leaders entered Palestine. (731) The post World War I San Remo Conference allowed the Balfour Declaration to rule Palestine. (734) Most British officers opposed Zionism. Arabs rioted against the Jews and many Jews were imprisoned. British Jewish politician Sir Herbert Louis Samuel became the first High Commissioner of Palestine under the League of Nations mandate. “His first official act was to grant a general amnesty . . . A second enactment declared Hebrew as an official language on a par with English and Arabic.” The League of Nations accepted this in 1923. (735)

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/palestine-before-the-nakba/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCJlhHlf-g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AOr1Rfn15Y

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/03/israel-our-palestine-question-zionism-american-jews/