If not for Mufti (w/ Shukeiri) murdering thousands & secularists on De Haan

The killing of Yaakov Yisroel De Haan is one of the Haredim’s arguments against draft in IDF .

However the Mufti ym”s and his continuing hate legacy including in textbooks, is most at the obstacle for PEACE in the ME.

The British spent a lot of effort to make sure the above happened. Indeed the whole of British colonial policy was directed at starting the Arab-Israeli conflict. They found plenty of fools, who “fell for it”. They tried the same trick in both Ireland and the Raj (India, which included Pakistan and Bangladesh). It worked perfectly at starting a war, but failed miserably as the locals didn’t come begging Britain to stay.

If the zionists and the Arab nationalists weren’t fools, the result would have been a single Arab state of all Arabs east of Suez (now made up of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the various countries of the Arabian peninsular), probably as a constitutional monarchy under the family that now leads Jordan, with a Jewish population about twice that of Israel (probably fewer European socialist immigrants, but they would have picked up almost all non-secular refugees from what would have been the German-led expulsion of European Jews).

@akuperma
This is one of the rare times I agree with what you post.
My late FIL Z”L was an officer in the British Police during the mandate, transitioning to the Mishtara upon independence.
We discussed this topic many times.
Most westerners just don’t understand that European colonial rulers drew maps and established countries where none had existed. A line in a map cannot unite tribes into a country.
In countless countries we have seen decades of civil war and genocide after independence.

I laugh at the mention of Pakistan and Bengladesh above. Lumping two territories separated by thousands of kilometers into one country because they were to be a homeland for Muslims was a joke.

@MarxistParticipant, @akuperma

The Brits, at first were protecting, then, at times were employing ‘divide and conquer.’

In addition, I recommend the book, The Rape of Palestine</em, by William Ziff, 1938.

Marxist: The Brits couldn’t care too bits about the welfare of “Palestine”. The need it to secure control of the seaway to the Raj, which was the “jewel in the crown”. The Brits knew who assassinated De Haan, and never objected. They knew about the 1929 pogroms before they happened, and made a point of encouraging it. Their greatest fear in the 1920s, when the “dice was cast” was that the agreement, acceptable to the Arab’s leaders, the zionists and the hareidim, and previously agreed to by the British, would go into effect, and there would be large powerful and independent Arab state east of Suez. The British Colonial Office played the zionists and the Arab for fools, and were successful at it. What we saw as a pogrom or riots, and the Arabs saw as an uprising, the British saw as an opportunity to maintain their Empire by making sure that the potential trouble-makers were too busy fighting each other rather than fighting the British.

The “divide and rule” policy was successfully implemented throughout the Empire, including Ireland and India. It was successful in starting conflicts which continue to this very day, but was a total failure at saving the Empire, which dissolved in a matter of months in 1947.

Yaakov de haan was originally a mizrachi, so it’s no surprise that avi will accuse him, a martyr, killed while on a mission from the gadol hador, as selfishly motivated.

He defected from mizrachi after seeing the sham of its ideology and the many flaws of its leadership.

Afterwards, to cover up their murder, zionists planted slanderous claims about his personal life. There’s no way that the aidah charedis would have accepted him as a member if he was involved in the things they accuse him of, which the zionists claim he didn’t hide. Rav zonnenfeld would have appreciated his help, but wouldn’t have accepted him the way he did if such things were remotely true.

Avira,

1. DeHaan was writing libelous articles in gentile European newspapers. Being that I want my response to be published, I will not denote his motives. They are well-known. Rav Sonnenfeld wanted unlimited Jewish emigration and thought that he could get it by giving up on the idea of statehood. However, the Arabs knew that at some point they would not be able to hold onto control. They never would have agreed. Thus, the Faisal-Weizman Agreement also failed.
2. If frum Jews had come to EY en masse as Rav Kook urged, Israel would have been a Torah state from the beginning. Instead, it is taking longer.
3. The rest of your post is nonsense. Shuls in America have police guards. A frum Jew who works in the general job market just might be fired for speaking against toeva. The media constantly attacks Orthodox Judaism. Assimilation is rampant and also affects the frum community.

Historian,

1. The State of Israel is a Torah commandment (see Ramban, Mitzvot that Rambam “Forgot”).
2. As for the hareidן community, Rav Kook explains that this approach made them unable to start the Geula rolling. They were passively waiting for Mashiach to fall from heaven. However, we must do hishtadlut as in everything else. They did not want to revach v’hatzala came from others.
3.Tell me, would you have advised Yehoshua bןn Nin to try to make peace with the Canaanites? Would you have advised David haMelech to take peaceful steps to avoid the Plishtim’s hatred?

Avira,
I think sephardim are more assimilated in America than in Israel. Non-observant Ashkenazim in T-A are probably similar to their counterparts in US, but at least their children are Jewish and have some hope.

Reading through this interesting discussion, I doubt that I’ll ever be able to fully understand Hashem’s ways but that doesn’t and shouldn’t stop me from trying to piece together the pieces of the puzzle that He has put in my hands and make as much sense of them as I can. אין עוד מלבדו שום כוח ורצון בעולם והכל מלא רק אחדותו הפשוט יתברך שמו so Hashem is the One Who has done, is doing, and will do every minute detail of everything that happens. So here are some more pieces that haven’t come into this discussion and I’m interested in the knowledgeable olam’s insights into them.
1. R’ Amram Blau, ztl, gave an interview a few years before he was niftar in 5735/1975 (published as Mishnas Rebbe Amram), including several interesting points. He was already in his 20s during the few years of De Haan’s period of activity in Yerushalaim and even if he wasn’t yet the major figure he later became, he was probably already an astute observer of events.
a. The British didn’t like De Haan that much because as a top legal scholar he was able to out argue and outfox the British legal experts and prevent them from doing many of the things they wanted to do.
b. De Haan advised the Eida HaChareidis and its representatives on the British-run Jerusalem City Council to ally with the Mufti’s faction rather than with the moderate Arab elements who were more willing to cooperate with the Zionists. Rav Hutner, ztl, famously said that in the early days, before the Zionists became dominant, the Mufti got along very well with the Old Yishuv. Said Rav Hutner, it was only after the Zionists took control over Jewish public life and started threatening to throw all the Arabs out of their homes that the Mufti turned against all Jews and did all the terrible things he did.
c. De Haan arranged for a telegram to be sent [presumably to the Colonial Office in London, R’ Amram didn’t say] protesting against Zionist interference in religious life. This telegram was signed by Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, ztl, and [in R’ Amram’s lashon] להבדיל אלף הבדלות the Mufti and the Pope in Rome. Does anyone know any specifics about this telegram, which R’ Amram said would certainly have appeared in the newspapers of the time?
2. Concerning De Haan’s personal development, an interesting source is the biography written by Yehuda Meshi Zahav ע”ה (may his neshomo have whatever tikunim it needs) in his early years. I think in there he says that De Haan kept prominently on his desk a sign reading ובא לציון גואל ולשבי פשע ביעקב. Once he met Rav Sonnenfeld he became a totally devoted chassid but even devoted chassidim might not find it so easy to quickly discard all their earlier baggage of thoughts and desires.
Again, I’m interested in any insights people have concerning these points.

Zushy wrote sense in last paragraph.

I want to add this quote from Lyn Julius who often writes about the Farhud:

Palestinian anti-Semitism spilled into the Arab world, JNS, May 14, ’19.

Exclusionary Palestinian nationalism, fathered by the mufti, was a hybrid creature of racial and religious anti-Semitism.</blockqote>