The incredible shrinking Palestine

[Scurrilous]

Israel is whittling away at Palestinians' land again, but it needs the U.S. to sharpen the knife.

<snip>

"THE HISTORY of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be glimpsed through a series of maps.

First is the sepia-toned map of Palestine under the British Mandate, circa 1936. On its surface it suggests one unified country where Arab and Jew can live together between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the map that some Palestinians still place on their walls: A whole Palestine, representing the dream of an independent, secular, democratic and Arab-majority state. Many Israelis still see this map as representing their dreams too: Eretz Yisrael, the whole Jewish homeland.

Second is the United Nations partition map of November 1947, which divided Palestine into two states — one for Arabs (who were to get 44% of the territory) and one for Jews (who were given 54.5%), with Jerusalem and Bethlehem under international stewardship. For Zionists, it was a triumph born of the Holocaust and the belief in much of the world that Jews needed and deserved a haven.

For Arabs, who were the majority population, it was a disaster. Why, they asked, should their homeland become the solution to the Jewish tragedy in Europe? They fought the partition, and in the 1948 war that followed, 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out and became refugees.

After Israel's 1948 War of Independence, a third map emerged, based on additional territory captured by Israel. Palestinians lived in the West Bank and Gaza, under Jordanian and Egyptian rule, on 22% of old Palestine — or outside of the historic territory entirely, often in U.N. refugee camps set up in neighboring Arab countries.

The fourth map was drawn after Israel's stunning victory in the 1967 Middle East War. It showed yet more territory — the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula — under Israeli occupation. Soon dozens of little dots, representing Israeli settlements, would be added to each of these areas. (In the early 1980s, Israel withdrew from the Sinai, and last year from Gaza.)

Now comes the new Israeli prime minister to Washington, carrying yet another map. When Ehud Olmert meets with President Bush on Tuesday, he will present a new page for the Middle East atlas, in which, according to recent reports, Israel will have pulled up stakes from some of the occupied West Bank but will still control large portions of it. Palestinians would end up with less than 20% of their original dream for the whole of Palestine."


more

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Please

If it was the US that won the 1967 war none of that land would have been given back. Almost our entire country has been stolen by force. The Israelis aquired land by defending themselves. I am definately with the pro-Israeli side of the Democrats. They are far from perfect but so is every other nation on Earth. The Palestinians do not negotiate anything with the Israelis. They just ask for more and more. Also, they can't even show that they can responsibly govern themselves. Many of the people in the West Bank aren't from Israel they are from the surrounding countries.

[Tom Joad]

2. There is something illegal about acquiring land by force.

International law and things like that. That is what a future peace will be based on. It can only be based on justice.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. There

is something illegal I am sure, for every arab nations to rise up and INVADE a nation in the first place.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. There most definitely is

and one of the worst crimes was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending America's war of agression against Hispanic people, and the subsequent breach of its terms and conditions as to language rights and freedom of movement rights of the conquered people (Articles VIII and IX of the Treaty).

[Poll_Blind]

21. Let me be the second to publicly denounce the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo!

When a colonial invader uses military force to conquer land from an indigenous people it is a crime against all humanity and should not go unanswered, even after almost 160 years.

Speaking of colonial invaders, did you have thoughts on the recent expansion of Jewish settlements two days ago that you would like to share?

PB

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xeric]

9. If the shoe fits

When someone stereotypes a group of people as you have done then it is called bigotry. Of course bigots never admit to that. Being Jewish, I could hardly be called an anti-Semite. I just expect that America and the Democratic Party stick the principles of upholding freedom for everyone and to International law.

[BayCityProgressive]

11. How is saying

that a group of people can't seem to govern themselves bigoted? It can be said of many unstable areas in the world. If Palestine would have followed the UN resolution of 1947 they would have a state. The other arab nations use the Palestinians as a political ploy...They do not integrate the Palestinians into their societies and give them rights...which is odd considering how much they claim to care for them. Also, after the war an almost equal number of Jews were forced out of the arab nations and were not compensated at all for their losses. Israel took them in and gave them full democratic rights.

[pelsar]

16. BayCityProgressive.....

that a group of people can't seem to govern themselves bigoted

...its not...Infact the world is full of societies/groups that have failed for one reason or another....a group of people that didnt succeed in governing themselves, succeeding in business etc, studies of sociologists, anthropologists.

and in fact if we look at the palestenian society....it would be one to study for its successes and failures. If however you want to put forth the thesis that perhaps as a society the palestenians (like Haiti, Norse settlers, hippie communes of the 60s, many kibbutzim) are failing or may fail, or simply dont have the culture to make a modern democratic society....your running into some very sensitive ground.

the whole discussion here is based on the premise that the palestenians can govern themselves and control their various jihadnikim once they have a state..whether that is in fact true is actually a good question (gaza 2006?)..but its a question that, as you have seen leads one to be called a bigot.

Because if such a possibility is discussed, then the question of the occupation is no longer a 'given" as the evil of evils..and that destroys the thesis for so many posters here.

got it?...your questioning is in fact valid, where open questions are part of the culture of the discussion...thats not unfortunatly the culture here.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Succession Of Maps, Sir

Has always struck me as the soundest argument demonstrating the Arab Nationalist leadership of Palestine ought to have made a peace of compromise at the earliest possible date. Accepting the '47 Partition would have left them more than accepting the line at the end of the '48 war, and so on and so on. Accepting the Peel plan partiction before WWII would have given them even more than '47 Partition did. Every bout of violence ensuing from every rejection of compromise has left the Arab Palestinians less than they could have got before. This is the hallmark fo a failed policy, and perhaps the most regretable aspect of it is that now, it is probably too late by far to reverse it and acquire any great gain by doing so. The most that can be done is to prevent further erosion, though even that is probably worth doing.

[pelsar]

5. and that is how I see it....

the more the palestenains/arabs fight israel the more they loose.....its seems so obvious that they're strategy of "throwing the jews in to the sea, or whatever the variation on that, doesnt seem to work very well.

after 50+ years of a failed policy based on violence, they might try something else.....

[Tom Joad]

12. Mr. The Magistrate, the question is peace with justice, not

just peace and quiet.
As a result of the Oslo agreements the Labor govt to proceeded to greatly enlarge settlements. Illegally. A sign of failure. Of oppressing a people being dispossessed of their land and homes.

Seems like any cop worth his salt would see that.

[The Magistrate]

13. Justice, Sir

Is a flexible concept, meaning different things to different people, for all its touting as an absolute ideal.

"Peace and quiet" is a measureable, observable state that can be seen to exist or not for a fact.

Hence my preference for the latter as a standard....

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Some people's concept of "justice"

is the "Pale of Settlement" or the slight improvement over the "Pale of Settlement" offered by Birbidzhan.

[Tom Joad]

17. And since it was not your homeland taken, what the heck, right.

anyway, as i said, there will be no peace without justice. So what you are suggestin is not good for Israelis or Palestinians, but of course much worse for Palestinians.
Nelson Mandala spend extra decades in prison because he did not accept South Africa system of "self-governing" Bantustans.
He chose a peace with justice.

[barb162]

22. Political expediency, compromise and good negotiators

will possibly be far more important for both sides, especially if it results in a deal

[The Magistrate]

26. My Goals, Mr. Joad

Do not really extend very far beyond a marked reduction in the number of people killed over the dispute. Those who are not killed, and those they are near and dear to, doubtless will count that a good thing as well. Persons who seek to prolong the hostilities by reference to concepts like "justice" bear a degree of responsibility for any consequences of the prolongation of violence, and if you are to call my comments into question over the ground in dispute not being my homeland, you must be willing to accept someone calling your commitment to a prolonged struggle on the similar ground that you and yours are under no risk from the thing, no matter how long and how bitterly the thing may be prosecuted. It is, therefore, a pretty sterile line of argument, we can probably both agree.

[Poll_Blind]

27. "Persons who seek to prolong the hostilities by reference to concepts...

...like "justice" bear a degree of responsibility for any consequences of the prolongation of violence..."

No Sir, no they do not. Persons who are seeking a just solution, in my opinion, are the only ones who have a hope of resolving these disputes once and for all. Those who commit the atrocities are responsible for the loss of life, not those who seek a just solution to a very complex religio-political issue.

I did not include the rest of your compound sentence because the first clause is independent of the remainder. In fairness, however, is is excerpted from your message in its entirety at the bottom of this message.

I would suggest you visit any or all of the following websites for organizations which are concerned with "justice" but at which you will find no desire to prolong the hostilities:

Search for Justice

Jews for Justice for Palestinians

The newly-formed "Fighters for Peace" whose goals are referenced here, among other places.

There are others, many similar groups across the socio-economic spectrum, like Black Laundry.

Sir, what you will not find at those sites is a desire to to prolong hostilities under a false-flag of "justice" any more than you would find it with the person your comments appear to be directed at.

PB

Persons who seek to prolong the hostilities by reference to concepts like "justice" bear a degree of responsibility for any consequences of the prolongation of violence, and if you are to call my comments into question over the ground in dispute not being my homeland, you must be willing to accept someone calling your commitment to a prolonged struggle on the similar ground that you and yours are under no risk from the thing, no matter how long and how bitterly the thing may be prosecuted.

[Lithos]

30. I think you missed his point

The word justice and the affiliated antonym, "unjust", has been used time and time again as a way to avoid dealing with the situation at hand. People have walked away from peace in order to take a harder line in the name of justice. For various reasons both sides contain groups who feel that they are "justified" in their actions. This has only served to maintain an adversarial relationship which has promulgated itself in many negative ways.

From just before the start of the major campaigns

The Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission's recommendations as being "unjust"
Arab governments refused the mandate in 1947 as being "unjust".

and on into today...

The Palestinians rejected Clinton's Camp David meetings as being "unjust".
The Israeli government has categorized the Hamas government as being "unjust".
The Palestinians consider the occupation of the West Bank (and for some, the whole affected area) as being "unjust".
The Israeli government views the complaints of the world as "unjust".

etc.

True justice will only happen with both sides can agree what the meaning is. Unilateral expressions of Justice are not helpful and as history has shown has only caused things to degenerate. At this time, there are groups within both sides who feel perfectly justified in maintaining the status quo. Course, is is real justice when children keep dying?

L-

[Tom Joad]

32. It's not all that complicated. There are international laws, treaties,

and so forth. The resolution must be based on law.

It seems clear, that as a start, that all colonial settlers must be removed from the West Bank. Not just outposts, but every last settlement. Its not just a good idea, its the law.
Home Demolitions must stop. (A Home is not an abstraction!)
Targeted assassinations must stop.
All armed attacks on civilians, Israeli and Palestinians, must stop.
Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homeland, or given just compensation, as they choose.

What is happening is that Israel continues to escalate land confiscation, home demolitions continue, farmlands taken or destroyed,settlers riot and attack children.
Is this only a violation of some metaphysical unattainable definition of justice?
Or does it shock the conscience of humanity?

When Palestinians resist nonviolently, they are brutalized, and their international/Israeli friends along with them. In silence. I would expect that no more than 10% of Americans even have heard of Rachel Corrie (who has some name recognition), much less know that there is any nonviolent Palestinian movement to defend their homes and lives.

When Palestinians resist violently, then the world takes notice, and the media reminds us, and politicians remind us, that "see, Palestinians are a failure".

[Lithos]

33. I would not look to the law

If what you are trying to impose is justice. Justice is nothing more than codified morality and given the current situation, there are no grounds for anyone to judge themselves moral. Case in point, most of the items I cited above were rooted in law and still were considered "unjust". History is full of events which are considered "unjust" by at least one side even though they were fully rooted in "International" law at the time.

To repeat myself again, if both sides are not active participants, then anything which happens will be perceived as "unjust" by the other side. There is enough artificially pumped up morality and sanctimony to go around on all sides. I can provide a counter argument to any point raised by you or anyone else here in the forum which either claims a greater moral position or severely minimizes or compromises any such claim.

For the most part what you are proscribing are unilateral actions which unless taken up actively by both sides will result in continued cries of a need for "justice". At this time, I don't see that happening as Palestine at this time is redefining itself and Israel is being led by a man and a party which are starting to chart their future political waters and not necessarily interested in leaving a heritage which is the big difference Sharon had over Olmert.

L-


On Edit: Grammar

[pelsar]

35. Lithos....

very well written....a cry for flexibilily and for the false claim of "moral superiority/absolute justice"...will it have an effect in the little world of the I/P conflict of DU?

[Lithos]

37. LOL

Thanks for the comment.

To answer your question, the answer is no. I've written the above in some form or fashion several times over the years. No effect.

L-

[Coastie for Truth]

34. The Old Wahabi Standard of Hadd for Hudud?

"Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homeland, or given just compensation, as they choose." That is like Hadd for Hudud.

"Hadd for Hudud" is the root of the insolubility. Take Hadd off the table - and you have made a massive step forward. And the massive step forward for a peaceful resolution may be more satisfying in the long run then the figurative hadd.

[Poll_Blind]

40. I believe it may have to do more with the scope and perspective.

  I appreciate your comments on the perception of justice by different parties each with differing perspectives. One cannot enter into a discussion of any length about matters of Middle-Eastern politics or offer solutions to problems in the region without acknowledgment that both sides may have equally valid points. However, the discussions in this forum, as opposed to discussions on Usenet or other forums which do not have an ideological anchor, are assumed to be within the context of the Democratic Party's planks.

  The scope and perspective of comments at Democratic Underground are arguably expected to be representative of a Democrat in the Democratic Party. I am not referring qualitatively to comments but to the shared definitions which users draw from, shared definitions being one of the benefits when using a limited scope from a shared perspective. The shared perspective is comprised of the party planks. While individuals may disagree with individual planks, the definition of "justice" is clear. Within this specific scope and perspective, "justice" is synonymous with impartial execution of and equality under the law along with recognition and adherence to such documents as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  The concept of "No peace without justice", then, is not a garland of oversimplified or vague ideas but, within the expected context of our political party, Democratic Underground and this forum, quite specific. Other definitions or dissections of "justice", while certainly valid in a different or much broader scope, fall outside of this expected context.

  "The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors." From Democratic Party plank, The Middle East

PB

[pelsar]

36. Fighters for Peace..

don't use the word "justice"....they understand the conflict and the conflicting values....and understand that "justice" is not an absolute....and they are the "natives in this conflict".


those who do proclaim that they KNOW what justice is, are simply proclaiming their moral superiority...something akin to the "elite colonialist white man telling the "natives" whats right and whats wrong"....rather ironic i would say.

[Tom Joad]

29. I think the conflict will be extended by blatant injustice,

such as the Israel's unilateral annexation of land in the West Bank, its isolation of Gaza, the continued demolition of Palestinian homes and farmland, the building of a wall.
Made possible by supporters (or those that maintain silence) in the USA.

[pelsar]

19. the thesis of the "believer"

justice is a flexible concept, meaning different things to different people, for all its touting as an absolute ideal.

______

very well said, i actually put it in the realm of the religious. Those who believe in "absolute justice" a single justice have the same belief as any religious extremist, as they totally exclude people who have different value systems...infact like the fanatic they cant even comprehand let alone discuss various possibilities, various types of "justice."

[barb162]

14. Someone, I no longer remember who it was, made a comment

about how each successive set of peace talks has resulted in less and less offered.

Yours: "The most that can be done is to prevent further erosion, though even that is probably worth doing." Yeah,I agree with this so much and your other well-stated comments here.

[Tom Joad]

4. For Map, see this link

http://www.strategicassessments.org/library/Disengagement/SAI%20ITAG%20DISENGAGEMENT%20MAP.pdf

It is kinda large pdf file, so takes a moment to load, more if you have a slow connection. Very good map of the "disengagement"

Thanks for the article.

[tatertop]

10. Israel's colossal criminal land grab continues

Anyone who watches world news knows this.
The question is, how does the world stop them?

[barb162]

20. Israel's colossal disengagment from Gaza occured 9/2005

[pelsar]

23. the palestenains colossal failure....

todate....to provide basic security to it citizens and the surrounding society 6/2006..and there are those who want to expand upon the chaos

[barb162]

24. Lately, it seems each day brings more assassination attempts

and factional fighting...yes, they have to straighten it out

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

38. *sigh*

So? Gaza = occupied territory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x125559#125611

[pelsar]

39. *sigh*

New York, October 29, 2004....just a few years old...might as well take something from 1938...its just as relevant.

but then why bother with dates and facts they only contradict ones belief, hence they're irrelevance

Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”

and since its NOT around its periphery...as in EGYPT...that big independant country to the SOUTH....israel is no longer responsble....but heck, thats only a fact

[Jim Sagle]

28. If it's such a colossal land grab, why is Israel so small?