Question c.
Source E recounts a conversation in a bar where a Palestinian Jew describes how he dealt with some Arabs who used to raid his father’s factory. He explains how the Arabs would lie on a hill overlooking the factory and fire at their men. After an incident when a man was killed this Jew and another man mined the hill ready for when the Arabs came back. When they did come back every one of them was killed. The Jew justifies his actions with the phase “An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.” His attitude could be partially justified by the fact that religion has played a huge part in the conflict. His last sentence is from the Old Testament, this shows the Jews way of thinking and beliefs.
The thing that makes this so shocking is the detached and blunt way in which this is told, which creates a sort of melodrama. Although the story itself is very shocking, you can almost understand the man’s reasoning behind his actions but the way he coolly recounts picking up the limbs of the dead Arabs is quite disturbing. It is this lack of compassion that is so surprising. This however could be interpreted in another way, as him picking up the limbs could be a sign of respect from the dead.
Another reason why this account is so shocking is that the situation in Palestine had already become so bad that both the Arabs and the Jews felt they needed to take the law into their own hands. The speaker does not even consider the possibility of dealing with the situation by going to the British authorities. However his actions are quite similar to those of Jewish organisations such as Irgun who began a series of assaults against hostile Arab neighbours.
These circumstances seem to suggest that both communities felt that they were already at war with one another and seen in this way the man’s behaviour is perhaps not so surprising since he is acting in the way a soldier would do in a time of war, because soldiers are regarded as justified in performing violent acts in defence of their own country, and this is most probably how he felt.
Question d.
Both these sources are useful, but in different ways. Source F comes from the Israeli Declaration of Independence made by David Ben-Gurion in May 1948. It is useful in giving a clear idea of how Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders wanted to justify the creation of the state of Israel. It makes a very definite statement that the Jewish people really belong in Israel, “Here their identity was made”, and “They never stopped praying and hoping for a return to their homeland”. However, as it is a piece of political propaganda written by Jewish politicians, so therefore biased towards the Jews. It is not a useful source if you want to know about the real feelings and ideas of ordinary Jewish people in Palestine and also the Arab point of view.
Source G is by a Palestinian Arab writer who grew up in one of the refugee camps outside Israel. He is talking about the experience of ordinary Palestinian Arabs living for a long period in the refugee camps, and always longing to return to their homeland. I think it is much more useful that source F in helping us understand about the feelings of a lot of ordinary people involved in the conflict. It is useful as it could help us understand why so many Palestinians chose to stay un the camps instead of being given homes somewhere else, and why the Palestinian national feeling is still strong. It is a first hand account, which does not talk about pride and right of lands, only the wish to return. On the other hand, source G is just the opinion of one person while source F represents the views of a group of Jewish leaders. Both these sources do however, give us an insight into the nature of the problem, and help us to understand what was going through the minds of many people at the time.
Question e.
The main reasons why the three sources disagree is because they come from very different points of view.
Source H is a statement made by Theodore Herzl, who was one of the original Zionist leaders. He claims that the Jews have tried to live together with non-Jews while having their own religion, but that they haven’t been allowed to do this. For this reason, he says that the Jews need to have a state of their own. However, he does not say that the country has to be Palestine or in-fact any specific place.
Source I is a statement made by Arthur Balfour, who made the ‘Balfour Declaration’ in 1917. This stated that the British government supported the idea of there being a ‘national home for the Jews’ in Palestine. In this source, he is trying to persuade the Arabs to accept this idea. The main reason he gives for this is that as Britain is preparing to make an independent sate for the Arabs in Iraq, they should be grateful for this and not object to a very small Jewish state being created in Palestine. Balfour’s reason for being in favour of a Jewish homeland is different from Herzl’s. He believes that as the Jews once lived in Palestine they should be allowed to return there. He probably only said this because he had already made a pledge to support the Jewish state being in Palestine.
Source J was written by the Haifa Congress of Palestinian Arabs in 1921. It disagrees with Herzl’s statement that the Jews have tried to mix with other people, as it states the Jews are “un-neighbourly” and “cannot mix with those who live about them”. This statement expresses an opinion of extreme hostility towards the Jews, probably because the Arabs felt very threatened by the Jews moving into Palestine. Their claims were that the Jews “impoverish” the countries they live in, and make them do what they want; (“use the armies of the nations to do his bidding”) are ones which were often made by anti-Semitic groups in Europe, like the Nazis. Perhaps the congress is trying to suggest to the Prime Minister that Britain, which has agreed to support a Jewish state in Palestine, is being used by the Jews as well.
Question f.
Out of the ten sources A-J, five are roughly speaking pro-Arab, four are pro-Jewish and one is neutral. But not all the sources make any definite statement on the question of who has the greater claim to the territory of Palestine, and those that di, don’t always provide any clear argument or evidence.
Sources C, D and J express great hostility to Israel and the Jews, but do not provide any serious argument against the Jewish claim to a homeland in Palestine. Source C provides no argument at all, source D says that Israel is an “error” and a “disgrace”, and source J simply expresses anti-Semitic prejudice.
Source A certainly supports the view that the Palestinian Arabs have a claim to Palestine and should be allowed to live there. It is also implied that the right of return for Jews is unjust, since the Palestinians do not have a right to return, but it is not clear whether the demonstrators in the picture believe that the Palestinian Arabs actually have a greater claim to the land than the Jews.
Source G provides the strongest support for the Palestinian Arab case, since it highlights the injustice to the Palestinian Arab refugees who have been excluded from their homeland and long to return there. However, even though I suspect that the writer thinks that the Arabs have a better claim than the Jews, he does not actually say this.
Looking at the pro-Jewish sources, source E simply expresses the determination of the speaker to retaliate against Arab attacks on Palestinian Jews. He certainly feels the Jews have a good right to live in Palestine, but he does not say anything specific about who has a greater claim to the land.
In source H, Herzl expresses a powerful argument why the Jews need to have a homeland of their own, and it is an argument which seems even stronger after the events of the holocaust. However, he does not give any specific location or reason why their homeland has to be in Palestine.
Sources F and I do provide a definite argument for the Jewish claim to Palestine, which is that the Jews once lived there for many years and so should be able to return there. Source I also says that the Arabs should accept a Jewish homeland out of gratitude from the British, but that is not an argument that has any relevance today.
Finally, source B seems to be neutral on the question of who has the greater claim. Though it is too pessimistic about the Jews and Palestinian Arabs co-existing and co-operating, it does describe the real situation, that both the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews have a claim to a homeland in Palestine.
The Palestinian Arabs have a claim because they have lived there longer, long to return there and see it as a holly land. The Jews have a claim, not so much because their ancestors lived there two thousand years ago, but because they see it as a land given to them by God, and many of them have been living there for up to eighty years, and have no alternate home to go to. I believe that the Jews definitely deserve a homeland of their own, and as is mentioned in source F, Palestine is holly for the Jews but you have to consider that in 1948, it was not theirs to claim, as it was already the home of many more Palestinian Arabs. Taking all this into consideration it is very difficult to decide who has a greater claim to Palestine, as both sides have a strong argument. But it is the only home to people and it is not fair that either should be left without a home to return to. However, I still believe that the Arabs have a greater claim for the land, because although the Jews had lived their many centuries ago, and claim it was given to them by God, they had no right to take it from the current inhabitants in 1948. Nevertheless the fact that the Arabs have even less land now, I think is partly due to them, because their attempts to overthrow Israel failed numerous times, and because of these failures and constant hostility and threats to Israel and also the fact that Israel won. Israel was able to take other parts of Palestine that had belonged to the Arabs. This has made the situation much worse for now the Palestinian Arabs live in refugee camps along the boarder, with no really land to call their home.