tant history of Palestine is vague, King Abdullah in his 1947 letter asserts correctly that the awarding of it to the Jews by Britain, helped along by America, is one of history’s most dubious and inequitable actions—the giving of a gift neither the English nor the Americans had the right to offer.
Taking each of his arguments in order, the charges of Arab anti-Semitism are clearly out of context and seem suspiciously part of the Zionist plan to use the tragedy of the Holocaust as justification for the takeover of Palestine. Rubin (1987) writes, “Among large and increasing numbers of U.S. Jews, the ideal view of Israel... of a poor little Israel that is surrounded and threatened by big, hostile, anti-Semitic Arab countries has been drastically changed to something much closer to the reality” (12), a reality that existed then as it did today. Clearly history recalls that the tribes of Israel lived, thrived and prospered with other tribes all over the Middle East. That there is evidence they were somewhat subjugated in Palestine at some period in the middle ages had little to do with their ultimate Diaspora to the European continent, and even less to do with their modern claims on Palestine as “theirs.” If any enmity exists it is more likely over arguments as to the location of the Temple Mount as Jewish sacred land, and the over the years it also became important to the Moslem religion. It seems then that the real enmity has more to do with religious claims than toward a certain group. Even Rubin (1987) suggests that the new anti-Semitism may be, in reality, anti-Zionism, a quite different matter. As the King points out, the Jews thrived in Spain under the Moors (Abdullah, 1947), until, that was, Christians eventually drove them out or killed them during the Christian sponsored Inquisition. The King points out correctly that it was European Christians, not Arabs who persecuted the Jews, a persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.
The King makes an