18-11-2002 02:46									#61
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat The thing about those maps, is that they show how unfair the partition was to Israel. The partition plan would have given the Palestinians an independant State, yet the Arabs still attacked Israel in 48'.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is noting that the the vast majority of the land (55%) was owned by the Arabs in the area to be given over to the Jewish state, and that's not including the Nagev (which no one owned).

Another is noting that neither the Arab states nor the Jewish state wanted to see an independent Palestine. Almost all of the battles of the '48 war took place outside the area to be given to Israel, which means that Israel was on the offensive when the war began.

In fact, the war was one giant land grab by all the viable states in the region. Israel had secretly agreed with Jordan to split up Palestine, the only place those two countries fought was in Jerusalem, which Jodran could not let go without a fight.

Lebanon grabbed the West Galilee and then did nothing to Israel. Syria tried to take the area around the northern lake, which old French maps show as being part of Syria. Egypt sent troops to cut off Jordan, because the other states were afraid that Jordan would try to take the whole thing (given that Jordan was originally part of Palestine, they certainly had claim to it).

There were no good guys in the 1948 war, but there were a lot of innocent victim, Jewish and Palestinian. But you certainly cannot justify what was done to the Palestinian people because of the actions of the Arab states. That would be like justifying the theft of Cherokee land because the Creek sided with the British in the War of 1812.

	18-11-2002 02:47									#62
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The diplomat

What!

Look at that map: the land in red is owned by Jews, everything else by Palestinians. So compare how much land the jews loose in the partition (all red lands in the dark green and olive green) vs all the land the Arabs loose: all lands not in red in the light blue.

To put it another way: in 1947 Jews made up 33% of the population and owned 6% of the land. The partition plan gave them 50% of the land. How on earth is giving half the land to a group that makes up a third of the people and owes 1/20th of the land unfair!!!

Oh, and get the timeline straight. The first violent acts were Jews driving Aarbs out of lands given to Jews by the partition. The invasion of the Arab amies came later.

	18-11-2002 02:54									#63
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Arab-Israeli violence went both ways. What about Israeli massacres of palestinians between 1948-49?

were after the events of 21' ( yes, I think it was 21'), and 29' , and 36-39'. and the 40s until the turn of the tide late 47'. doesn't make it right, but we're playing the 'he started it' game , right?

The maps are very informative, indeed. they show that the jews were given most of the land of the mandate. and that most of the arrable land given to the jews was indeed jewish. Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

	18-11-2002 02:54									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, the first violent acts were anti-Jewish riots instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem in the late 1920s.

In the birth of Israel, when the UN release the details of its plan in Nov. 1947, the Arabs revolted. (Note that they had been very quiet since 1939, when the Arab uprising was defeated by the Brits). The Palestinian Civil War between Jew and Arab lasted from Nov. 1947, to March 1948. It was after fighting had stopped that the infamous massacre at Dier Yassin occured, and despite Israeli apologia for this, there was no warning of the attack (the truck with the loud speaker had fallen into a ditch before it got close to the village). 254 men, women, and children were executed there.

Anyway, following the collapse of Arab resistence, for about a month and a half, the Jews slowly expanded the area of Palestine under their control. That's why all of the fighting, with the exception of one battle with the Syrians, was outside the Jewish territories.

	18-11-2002 02:58									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In fact, the war was one giant land grab by all the viable states in the region. Israel had secretly agreed with Jordan to split up Palestine, the only place those two countries fought was in Jerusalem, which Jordan could not let go without a fight.

I agree with you that it was a giant land grab.

Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

The bottom line is that there would be an independant Palestinian State if the Arabs had agreed to the UN Partition in '48. But they did not want a Palestinian State nor a Jewish State, and now 54 years later, the place is still fighting over a Palestinian State.

	18-11-2002 03:00									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Azazel were after the events of 21' ( yes, I think it was 21'), and 29' , and 36-39'. and the 40s until the turn of the tide late 47'. doesn't make it right, but we're playing the 'he started it' game , right?

No, I am playing the who's crime is more fundamentally at fault for the current situation game, whic is different.

quote: The maps are very informative, indeed. they show that the jews were given most of the land of the mandate. and that most of the arrable land given to the jews was indeed jewish. Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

Yes, there was a 2:1 ration, 2 arabs for every one jew. Hence 66% Arab, 33% Jewish. It is a well documented fact. In fact, the Jewish/Arab split for the lands given to the jews was about 500,000 Jews to 400,000 Arabs, the lands under UN mandate (Jerusalem, bethelhem) were even, about 100,000 jews and 100,000 arabs, and the lands given to the Arabs were 700,000 Arabs to 10-20,000 Jews. for a total of about 600,000 Jews more or less to 1.2 million Palestinians.

	18-11-2002 03:01									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

Not quite, the percentage of Arabs withing the Jewish Partition was 45% of the population. This was unacceptable to both sides, as the Arabs didn't want to live under the Jews and the Jews didn't want to have a Jewish state that was only a few decades from becoming a majority Arab population.

If the Arabs hadn't obliged the Jews by fleeing from the war, it would have been necessary to expell them, which was done in somce cases anyway, as with the Arabs of Lyddah and the imfamous Lyddah Death march, and the forcing of some of the remaining Arabs of Jaffa into the sea (where they were rescued by Egyptian boats).

And for all equations, we should exclude the Negev, which was uninhabbited. Neither Jew nor Arab owned the place. Only beduins used the area as a trade route.

	18-11-2002 03:02									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat I agree with you that it was a giant land grab. Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too. The bottom line is that there would be an independant Palestinian State if the Arabs had agreed to the UN Partition in '48. But they did not want a Palestinian State nor a Jewish State, and now 54 years later, the place is still fighting over a Palestinian State.

So perhaps finally we should figure out what the Arabs living in that land, the palestinians, want and need, since we seem to agree that no one stopped to listen back in 1948.

	18-11-2002 03:03									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert.

Attachment: unsettlements.gif
This has been downloaded 39 time(s).

	18-11-2002 03:03									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

Not really. Everyone in the area knew that the only state that stood a chance in an armed confrontation with the Jews was Jordan, which is why Jordan got the lion's share of Arab Palestine. At no point in the war did the Arab forces in Palestine ever outnumber the Jews, and by wars end, the Jews outnumbered the Arabs almost 2 to 1 militarily. Furthermore, they were better equipped and better trained. State department records from the time echo this.

	18-11-2002 03:06									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

I cannot see how the Arabs of Palestine gained any right to exclude Jews from settling in the West Bank and Gaza as "if" they had accepted the UN partition plan and had formed a state. I also cannot see how Jews, or for that matter, any resident of Palestine, lost their right to live anywhere in Palestine outside of the state of Israel after '48. They were all Palestinians then.

And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank. How did the Jews lose their right to live what is now called Jordan, but which historically is still Palestine. A possible eventual solution is to include Jordan in the mix.

As to making the people of the West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, I think it could be done "gradually." When the South was re-united to the North after the civil war, members of the Confederate government, high ranking (colonels and up) officers, and ex US officers, judges and congressment who joined the South lost their right to vote and participate in government. Everyone else had to take an oath of allegience in order to have their civil rights restored.

I think something similar could be done with Palestinian Arabs.

But most importantly, Isreal needs a constitution and federal form of government to guarantee the continuation of Jewish civil liberties in a Arab-majority state.

	18-11-2002 03:07									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert.

So whats with the red blotches south of that line you drew? That seem to be owned by someone. Most jews were ciy dwellers, most palestiians were rural farmers: the Jews were given the most fertile lands overall: hmmm, whom does that type of agreemnt hurt most?

Oh, and isn't Beersheeba, one of the bigger cites in Israel south of that line? as well, as diamona .

Oh, and what about the population issue?

	18-11-2002 03:14									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

yes, but those numbers dont include a local, albeit a very poorly organized, population which was mostly armed. Plus, at the beginning, the only operational units of the jews were the Palmah, which were indeed well trained. The ordinary hagana soldier, AT THE BEGINNING of the war was a conscript basically, a weekend warrior, and was of lower quality than the arab army soldier. however, at the beginning of the conflict the other arab armies didn't even come into play, and the greatness of the Israeli effort was the swiftness of transfer of these local militias into a nationwide army, and the fullness of the mobilization of the little industrial and agricultural productivity they had, while arranging support from abroad. This is where the war was won.

	18-11-2002 03:18									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

Ahh, Ned, here we go again:

The paletinians were badly organized. According to modern israeli historians, like Beni MOrris, who has studies the records, the most fighters the Palestinians ever got together was 2000. Compare this to the 30,000 member fo the hagana back in 1947. The fact is that the first act of the 1948 conflict, as Che has stated, was composed of Jews attacking and forcing Palestinains to abandon thier lands within the lands partitoned for the jews, and then atatcking into lands given to the Arabs. This is history, not opinion.

quote: I cannot see how the Arabs of Palestine gained any right to exclude Jews from settling in the West Bank and Gaza as "if" they had accepted the UN partition plan and had formed a state. I also cannot see how Jews, or for that matter, any resident of Palestine, lost their right to live anywhere in Palestine outside of the state of Israel after '48. They were all Palestinians then.

Well, see first that none of the west bank and Gaza were intended to fall into the Jewish state. An independent Palestiian state would have had the ame rights as the Independent Jewish state, to set its own immigration laws, and if that meant no jews in, that would have been legal. As for loosing rights, as che said, the Intended jewish state had 45% arabs i it. Now, you live in California. ll of a sudden, the Hispanics take over, and state that they want a state design primarilly as a Hispanic state. How well would your interest as a non-hispanic be served by such a state? Interstingly, one of the conditions the UN wanted was for new state to have a constitution that guarantees equality for all citizens regardless of ethnicicty. Can a non-Jew be president of a Jewish state? if your answer is no, then obviosuly all citizens are not equal in the state.

quote: And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank. How did the Jews lose their right to live what is now called Jordan, but which historically is still Palestine. A possible eventual solution is to include Jordan in the mix.

The Mandate treay which gave britian the mandate in the first place states, clause 25, that Britain reserves the right to divide the Mandate along the Jordan River. Britain exercized its legal rights under the League Mandate it was given to do so and give the East bank to the hashemites. Thus jordan plays no part in this discussion.

quote: As to making the people of the West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, I think it could be done "gradually." When the South was re-united to the North after the civil war, members of the Confederate government, high ranking (colonels and up) officers, and ex US officers, judges and congressment who joined the South lost their right to vote and participate in government. Everyone else had to take an oath of allegience in order to have their civil rights restored. I think something similar could be done with Palestinian Arabs. But most importantly, Isreal needs a constitution and federal form of government to guarantee the continuation of Jewish civil liberties in a Arab-majority state.

Israel was designed as a Jewsih state. can a Jewsih state exist with an Arab majority? Or even 45% Arabs. NO. which is why a federation would have to lead to the end of the notion of a Jewish state, which no one in Israel, the left included, wants.

	18-11-2002 03:19									#75
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

First of all, we need to remember that Arab acceptance of the plan was a necessary precondition of its being approved by Great Britain. The UN didn't have authority over the region. Britain was sick of fightin with the Jews and asked the UN to come up with a solution acceptable to both sides. The Partition plan has no legitimacy. It was not seen as written in stone even then, and the UN envoy to mediate peace during the fighting suggested modfying the plan to give the Negev to the Arabs. He was then assassinated by the Israelis.

quote: And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank.

Actually, the League gave Palestine to Britain, and didn't say anything about Jewish immigration. It was the Balfour Declaration of Britain where Britain agreed to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This, coupled with the release of the Sykes-Picot Treaty by the Bolsheviks, in which the European powers argreed to carve up the Ottoman Empire and not recognize the independence which the Arabs had won for themelves created some alarm in the Arab world.

The Arabs liberated themselves from the Ottomans, and the newly established Arab Kingdom of Syria included the whole of Palestine within it. France and Britain then invaded, carved the area up, gave Iraq to the erstwhile King and gave Palestine to his brother Abdullah. Then in 1922 Britain split Palestine in two, creating East and West Palestine, East Palestine becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

On thing I should note, both King Faisal of Syria and King Abdullah of Transjordan welcomed the Jews into their Kingdom. Both offered the Zionist movement half the parliament in the new countries, correctly seeing that the Jews would help make their countries modern and wealthy. The Zionists, however, were uninterested. They were nationalists and wanted their own state just for themselves.

I think, however, that had the British not been involved, the Zionists would have accepted the offer, as they had proposed something like this to the Ottoman Empire previously.

All sides can agree, this mess is all the Brits fault. If only the Israelis and the Palestinians could unite on a common hatred of Great Britain.

	18-11-2002 03:21									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap According to modern israeli historians, like Beni MOrris,

I should not for accuracy that Benni Morris no longer stands by his earlier work. I don't think he's repudiated it, but the 2nd Intifada has made him rather anti-Palestinian.

	18-11-2002 03:25									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap The diplomat Oh, and get the timeline straight. The first violent acts were Jews driving Aarbs out of lands given to Jews by the partition. The invasion of the Arab amies came later.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you there. CNN did a very fair and balanced review of the Arab-Isreali conflict two years ago and it said the Arab population was the victim of the propoganda of Arab governments. As a way to motivate people to attack the Jews several Arab news organizations said the Jews would rape Arab women, kill the Arab men, and drink the blood of Arab children if they were not defeated. After the broadcastes Arab populations heard of the advancing Jewish army and mass hystaria broke out; many Arabs believed that they and there family would be killed and so fled as refugees.

After the '48 ended Ben Guren offered to let the Arab refuges return but only if the Arab states signed a peace treaty with Isreal and recogniced Isreal's right to exist. To the last every Arab government refused so Ben Guren refused to let the refugee return.

That fact more then anything else is why Isreal ended up with so much of prepartition Palistine.

	18-11-2002 03:25									#78
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GePap:
1) The red blobs are jewish settlements that were formed in the specific effort to grab no-ones land. That means that no-one was around them, because whenever a jewish settlement was surrounded by arab ones, it was usually given away to the arabs.
2)The fertile lands weren't always that fertile. They were muddy and swampy, and that was the reason why the jews could own them at the first place, because the arab land owners didn't really mind selling them.
3) currently , Israel is a highly industrialized economy, and the equipment it posseses allows it to grow oranges in the desert, while many polluting industry, and phosphate extraction plants exist. This didn't exist in the 40s. yet, still, over the 50 and something percent of land that comprise the negev, lives only one million people, 2/13s of the population.

happy now

	18-11-2002 03:31									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap [b] Look at that map: the land in red is owned by Jews, everything else by Palestinians. So compare how much land the jews loose in the partition (all red lands in the dark green and olive green) vs all the land the Arabs loose: all lands not in red in the light blue.

The only significant part of the blue area that the Arabs lose is the Negev which is a desert.

The rest of the blue area is not much bigger than the red. The UN designated Jewish State is basically a small sliver near the Golan and a disconnected sliver from Haifa to Tel Aviv and a worthless desert. You call that a viable Jewish State?

The Arab get all the rest: all Gaza, all of Judea&Samaria and pretty much all of Galilee by the Lebanese border.

You call that fair?!?!?

	18-11-2002 03:39									#80
	Remove this text

quote: The Arabs liberated themselves from the Ottomans, and the newly established Arab Kingdom of Syria included the whole of Palestine within it. France and Britain then invaded, carved the area up, gave Iraq to the erstwhile King and gave Palestine to his brother Abdullah. Then in 1922 Britain split Palestine in two, creating East and West Palestine, East Palestine becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan

well, that's a rather interesting pov. 'The arabs liberated themselves from the ottomans'. The whole move was a big british scheme to clear away the remains of the ottoman empire, using british forces, ( The brits fought the turks, and captured the area), and then install, in conjunction with the french ( of course! ) a series of puppets, that were ordered to preside over people that had little or no connection to them. While the kings were desert dwellers, the people in the principalities were mostly farmers. The land that is now called Jordan, should be IMO, a part of a future arab state here. It would be only fair, I don't care how much this king of theirs is cute, etc. oh, and this will happen.

	18-11-2002 03:40									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin CNN did a very fair and balanced review of the Arab-Isreali conflict two years ago

Fair and balanced my ass. CNN US takes a fairly pro-Israeli line. Repeating that old chestnut about Arab propaganda only confirms it. Arab propaganda accounted for a only a minority of Arab refugees, as did the accounts of massacres of Arabs which were spread far and wide by the Jews themselves.

The major factor which caused Arabs to flee was the approach of armies, Arab and Jewish. As in every other war in history, when war comes to your town, you leave. When the fighting is over, you go home and try and put your life back together again, but they couldn't go home.

Also, Oerdin, in order for Israel to join the UN one of the conditions was that Israel allow the return of the refugees. It was also a general resolution, and, IIRC, a secutiry council resultion. Israel accepted this. It wasn't contingent on peace with the Arab nations.

	18-11-2002 03:42									#82
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat The Arab get all the rest: all Gaza, all of Judea&Samaria and pretty much all of Galilee by the Lebanese border. You call that fair?!?!?

Since they owned it and lived there, yes. Just because what Israel was assigned wasn't a vialbe state doesn't mean it's not fair. The indigenous inhabitnats of a land have the ultimate right to decide whether they shall be part of one state or another. The rights of these people were respected by no one.

	18-11-2002 03:44									#83
	Suffering from ads?

The Diplomat:

Well, because the Palestinians made up 99% of the population of those lands that they were being given.. or about 700,000 Palestinians to 10-20,000 Jews.

And arabs still made up 45% pof the population of those lands given to the Jews- all of this discounting the Negev.

Thats why it was fair, at elast if one believes more in individual rights and such and not on colective rights, and even under that banner, it is still more fair to jews than Arabs.

Che:

Well, any good history book is based on sources. Can Morris repudiate his sources?

Oerdin:

I have never seen any evidence of those broadcasts. No one has ever produced a record of them, or a transcript, and those that fled repudiate their existance. To me they are a myth.

As for that offer, having read up on the diplomacy after 1949, including things the US was involevd, tell me that that is another relative 'falsehood'. It would be cheap to call CNN liars, but what they say does not sit with allt eh written texts i ahve read on the issue.

	18-11-2002 03:45									#84
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Compare this to the 30,000 member fo the hagana back in 1947. The fact is that the first act of the 1948 conflict, as Che has stated, was composed of Jews attacking and forcing Palestinains to abandon thier lands within the lands partitoned for the jews, and then atatcking into lands given to the Arabs. This is history, not opinion.

Please remember that this was done by a handful of illegal Jewish terrorist organizations, that it was only done in a handful of villages, and that the Isreali government (unlike any Arab government) took actions to arrest and imprision members of these organizations.

Again CNN has a great documentary about all this for sell and it deals with this subject very fair and impartially.

	18-11-2002 03:45									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Azazel 'The arabs liberated themselves from the ottomans'.

The Brits pretty much got nowhere with the Turks. Despite being the "sick man of Europe," they pretty much held theyr own against all comers. It wasn't until the Arab revolt that they began to start losing. It was the Arabs, albeit, led by a Brit, who defeated the Turks. They established their own state which was overthrown by the Anglo-French forces in 1919.

	18-11-2002 03:47									#86
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Che: Well, any good history book is based on sources. Can Morris repudiate his sources?

I'm not saying his former work is wrong, but it is important when the author no longer stand by his work. There are enough other New Israelis, however, that Morris' defection makes little difference.

	18-11-2002 03:47									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Maybe in Syria, but it certainly wasn't the case here.( I just hate the word 'Palestine')

	18-11-2002 03:51									#88
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Please remember that this was done by a handful of illegal Jewish terrorist organizations, that it was only done in a handful of villages, and that the Isreali government (unlike any Arab government) took actions to arrest and imprision members of these organizations. Again CNN has a great documentary about all this for sell and it deals with this subject very fair and impartially.

I have read many books on the subject, many biased, many not. All in all, they paint a very different picture. israel did not severly punish those involved in such crimes, during the 1948 campaign or after. An example:

Soon aftre the 1956 invasion of Egypt by isreal, in Gaza a gang of Egyptian laborers was captured and then killed. We are talking about 20-30 men, perhaps a little more. The israelia rmy investigate the crime and found an officer guilty. He was givenabout 3 years for ordeing these people killed. Ben Gurion stepped in and demanded the man be pardoned. He was. then he was given the job of admistring the Gaza strip during that short tme the israeli had it back in 1957.

That does not sound like very harsh punishment.

	18-11-2002 03:52									#89
	Increase Your PM Length

It was all Syria. It's just all the fighting took place in the North, Damashq being the capital and all.

Who do you think it was that capture al-Aqaba? It wasn't the Brits.

	18-11-2002 03:54									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The Brits pretty much got nowhere with the Turks. Despite being the "sick man of Europe," they pretty much held theyr own against all comers. It wasn't until the Arab revolt that they began to start losing. It was the Arabs, albeit, led by a Brit, who defeated the Turks. They established their own state which was overthrown by the Anglo-French forces in 1919.

It was a combination of Arab and British forces that drove the Ottomans out. After all, the British were at the forefront of taking jerusalem. At the same time without Arabs attacking Ottoman garrisons and hampering thier movements the british would not have gotten as far.

Oh, and the League mandate Britian was given over palestine did include the Balfour declaration.