Palestine and Zionism

Frank Yuan
Zachary Lockman
Culture & Context
October 10, 2020
Palestine and Zionism
Analysis of The New York Times' article Ten Thousand Jews Thank Great Britain. Proclaim their Independence from Palestine – Promise Justice to Arabs
The New York Times published the report on July 21, 1920. It captures a demonstration of Jews thanking Great Britain for accepting the mandate for Palestine. Palestine had gone through a series of conflicts involving Jews and Arabs due to the migration of Jews into territories considered Arabs'. This essay analyses the article excerpt from the New York Times and the relevance of the demonstrations to Jews, which argues that the protest led to the Zionists' freedom.
The Jews had gone through tough times during the conflict, yet the Palestinian colonizers, Great Britain, was not doing anything to save the Jewish situation. The difference in religious ideas fueled the conflict. Some Jews were strong followers of the Bible, who placed a great significance on Jerusalem and Mount Zion as narrated in the Bible, while others were strong nationalists who wanted justice done. The Arabs, on the other hand, did not want to lose the land escalating the problem. However, through the mediation of Great Britain, Jews got their "justice." The article portrays the British colonial rulers' good intentions because they managed to restore the long-lost peace in the region.
On the night of the demonstration in Albert Hall, Great Britain unanimously adopted resolutions that freed the Jews from the political leaders' oppression, their allies, and other associated powers. The British's good intention is evident when they adopted the reforms that permit the Jews to sacrifice for the rebuilding of Palestine as their national home. During the council meeting, the Jews requested the Palestinian High commission to support them (The New York Times). This support was critical because it adds weight to the acceptance of the Jews in Palestine. Another instance from the article that shows Great Britain had good intentions is seen when Mr. Arthur Balfour, the council president, addressed the meeting. He urged the Arabs and Palestinians to remember that Great Britain freed them hence should not make any trouble (The New York Times). Though the word "free" should be taken with a grain of salt. Arabs have lost control of the land their ancestors have been living on for centuries. Yet, the colonial background of the British and their empire mentality puts them in the perception as saviors. According to Mr. Balfour, the greatest hindrance to peace in the region is the Jews failing to unite and obey the Palestinian leaders.
The council strongly advocated for corporation between Arabs and Jews where Arabs respect the rights of Jews to Palestine. Josiah Wedgwood, the Labour Member of Parliament, pledged full support from the Labor Party of Britain to the Jews to build the Jewish state, bring unity close and promote nationalism (The New York Times). These are signs from the article that Great Britain had good intentions for the Jews, Arabs, and peace in Palestine.
However, a closer look at the article shows that Britain had the final say in the matter. The council comprises stakeholders from different countries, incl...