Mitchell to Israel, PA: Annapolis accord non-binding

[azurnoir]

Mitchell told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the understandings reached following the 2007Annapolis Conference are non-binding in the current round of negotiations, Haaretz has learned.

The American envoy also called on "the parties, and all concerned, to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

The United States has told the Palestinians that if the sides do not meet expectations, it will "act accordingly."

Olmert had offered Abbas an Israeli withdrawal from 94 percent of the West Bank, and Israeli territory in exchange for the remaining 6 percent. In addition, Israel would symbolically accept 5,000 Palestinian refugees and enable international governance for the holy sites in the Old City.

Abbas never responded to Olmert's offer, but the Palestinians insisted that the negotiations resume from where they stopped during Olmert's term as prime minister.

The U.S. apparently accepted Israel's position on the matter, which was to ignore everything that was not signed as part of an agreement.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155106.html

[Chulanowa]

1. Question

94% of the west bank according to which map?

Question 2:

What right does Israel have to negotiate with land that doesn't belong to it anyway?

[azurnoir]

2. well the percentages change

PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010812.html

easy seeing as how nothing was ever "presented officially on paper" until after the fact, and Olmert offered more than Israel was "able" to give, not to mention the offer was made just days prior to Olmert's being forced to resign due to corruption charges

Haaretz exclusive: Olmert's plan for peace with the Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135699.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Revisit the original UN map and then ask, who really owns some of the land in question

[Chulanowa]

4. The original UN map?

You mean the 1948 one?

I don't think that map looks how you think it looks. You should maybe double-check.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. the November 29, 1947 U.N. partitian plan map?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

.

[proteus_lives]

6. Too late for that.

Since 1948 when the Arab world tried to destroy Israel.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. that is such an gross oversimplification of history that it would be tedious

to even respond.

Of course the Palestinians rejected the partition plan. No indigenous people would have accepted the loss of more than 50% of their homeland when they were almost 70% of the population to a group of recent arrivals who were only about 30% of the population.

Imagine if today the people of Alabama were told they had to give up 54% of Alabama to some recently arrived group of immigrants who had an ancient claim. Would they accept that? Would the surrounding states accept that? Would it not appear transparently unfair to practically everyone?

As Ze'ev Jabotinsky said way back in 1922, "No indigenous people in world history have every accepted the usurpation of their homeland without a fight to the end. And the Arabs will be the same."

EVERY significant early Zionist understood perfectly well that the Palestinians were simply doing what anyone else in their situation of having a land that they had every natural right to consider their homeland usurped from them. Early Zionist understood this.

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. "

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

--David Ben-Gurion -- as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.

[proteus_lives]

8. Tell me.

What did the Zionists steal from Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? They attacked too.

Oh, they fought because of their immense love of Palestinians. :sarcasm:

Other reasons perhaps? Azzam said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Sounds like the goal was the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. why do countries intervene in the world all the time?

That is hardly unusual in the course of human events. America has intervened in matters on the other side of the world numerous times. European countries have intervened numerous times throughout history in the affairs of other European countries and much farther afield than that. The Arab/Islamic world fought the crusades almost a thousand years earlier to defend Palestine from what they quite naturally saw as outside intrusion - just as they saw the establishment of the Israeli state in a very similar light.

Although, some of the other Arab countries did clearly have their own agendas - as is usually the case when foreign interventions occur.

[proteus_lives]

10. Outside intrusion?

You purposefully forget the Israeli claim to their own country, a claim that is ancient and valid.

You also purposefully ignored the quote. They weren't going to war to save Palestinians, they were going to war to exterminate Jews. The world might have been a different place if the Arab states first impulse wasn't to destroy their new neighbors. Maybe the borders would be different. Maybe the Arab states would have never put their foots on the Palestinians. (A boot print just as large as the Israeli one.) And kept them as refugees. (They kicked out 700,000 Jews. There was room for their Palestinian "brothers".)

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Douglas is right. That's such a simplistic portrayal of the war...

Have you read any books about what happened in 1948? I'd be interested to know what you've read to strip the war down to such a simplistic thing where yet again Arabs get portrayed as bloodthirsty antisemites. Are you aware for instance that the Zionists and Jordan colluded to divide the area allocated for the Arab state between them? That gives a hint as to what one of the main motivations was for the main players in the war, and anyone trying to claim that Iraq for example was a main player in the war and on the same level as Jordan really doesn't have much knowledge of the war...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I asked you a question. Do you think you could knock off the snark long enough to answer it?

I want to know what you've read when it comes to the war of 1948 because what you said was incredibly simplistic and as usual involved portraying Arabs as frothing at the mouth irrational antisemites.

You listed Iraq along with key players in the war, btw. Also, I'm not sure how spotting someone somewhere neglecting to mention something justifies you neglecting to mention something. For the record, I don't think you neglected to mention anything as I don't think you were aware of it in the first place...

Yes, what you said was totally simplistic. And neither Douglas nor I believe everything is Israel's fault, nor that Israel is 'bad'.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. to see the conflict as about wanting to kill the Jews is simply demonizing a people for doing what

anyone else would have done in a similar situation.

There is absolutely no reason why the Arabs would have bought the claim that European Zionist were entitled to a state based on the idea that there was an ancient Jewish kingdom there - two-thousand years ago. Even most Jewish people didn't buy the idea until well into the 1920's.

But the fact is all Arab countries are now willing to accept Israel and offering a very reasonable peace agreement - that ask for a tiny little Palestinian state - approximately one-fifth the size of Israel.

[proteus_lives]

14. Actually....

I was thinking about the Jews that have always lived there. But the other one works too. There's no reason for the Israelis to accept the claim of former Ottoman provinces either. They were barely older then Israel.

"But the fact is all Arab countries are now willing to accept Israel and offering a very reasonable peace agreement - that ask for a tiny little Palestinian state - approximately one-fifth the size of Israel."

Really? Which one is that? What Jerusalem? What about ROR? What about the Golan Heights? What about Hamas and Hizbollah?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. It's the Arab Peace Plan and it's been posted here many times in the past...

I'm not sure how you could have missed seeing it...

[proteus_lives]

19. That piece of shit?

67 borders? Israel has give up everything? Yeah, not going to happen. Peace is a two-way street.

[Chulanowa]

22. Yes. The '67 borders

Yes, Israel has to give up everything in the occupied territories.

It's a prerequisite to peace, and would make it vastly easier to achieve.

The reason is simple; That land does not belong to Israel. if Israel chose to move Arabs out and move Israelis in, oh well, sucks for them, and maybe next time Israel won't violate international law. Those Israelis can face a choice - either they can get their asses back to Israel, or they can become Jewish Palestinians.

Do you want peace, Proteus, or do you just want to see Arabs get fucked over? A lot of Israel supporters are confused as to what they want, so I want to know what your angle is.

[proteus_lives]

28. I want peace.

An equal peace between Israel and Palestine. And the Arab Peace deal doesn't provide that. That's why Israel won't bite. I want the settlers out of the WB and I think Israel should drag them out in exchange for Palestinians giving up ROR. As for Lebanese territory and the Golan Heights, they have nothing to do with the Palestinians and shouldn't be included in a Palestinian peace deal.

As for Jerusalem, I don't think either side should get. Make it an international city governed by a three-faith council and guarded by the UN.

Peace can only come when both sides compromise.

"The reason is simple; That land does not belong to Israel."

It belonged to people who used it to attack Israel over and over.

Chulanowa, a lot of Palestinian supporters are confused, they only want peace if Israel suffers for it. Which one are you?

[Chulanowa]

40. Those make nice internet soundbytes

Equal peace. Compromise. Kumbuya, motherfuckers.

Compromise doesn't work too well in situations like this. We're not looking at a difference of opinion, or even a murky, equal dispute. Where territorial claims are concerned, Israel is 100% in the wrong. There's no reason to compromise there. If I beat the snot out of you and take your shit, are you going to agree to forget about the whole thing if I offer to give you back some of the stuff? No, you're not. This seems to be what you expect from the Palestinians, though. You also seem to be in favor of beating them and stealing from them until they're willing to agree that it's okay to beat and steal from them.

The right of return is another tricky one. The fact that you shorten it to "ROR" conveniently masks that first word - RIGHT. The people displaced by the Nakba are entitled, under international law, to return to their homes; barring that they are entitled to restitution for losing said homes and being driven from their countries. if this right applies to Jews who fled Poland, and the Congolese who fled the wars in Kongo, then it applies to Palestinians who fled Palestine, there's simply no argument.

So what you're asking, when you talk about compromise, isn't so much a compromise as it is a validation and acceptance of criminal acts and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel.

That isn't to say there's no room for compromise at all; it's just that these two matters are not up for argument. Israel has no right to any scrap of land outside its 1967 borders. Not a single yard of dirt. The Palestinians displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars have the right to return to their homes. Similarly, Israel has the right for its citizens to live in safety and security, and to maintain the land and resources within its legitimate borders. Those are also non-negotiable. Just as you would not think Israel should accept a compromise allowing "a little terrorism," I do not think the Palestinians should accept a compromise allowing Israel to keep "a little land" - and for the same reason, there's just no compromise to be reached on these issues.

And what does an "equal peace" mean, exactly? it's been a very unequal conflict, with one party being given high-tech weapons, unlimited cash, political immunity in the UN, and the other side having their kids condemned to death by much of the western world for the horrendous crime of chucking rocks at tanks that are in their cities. So what does an "equal peace" mean, as compared to a "just peace"?

I suspect you understand the inequality of the conflict so far, and also understand that in a scenario of unequal conflict, a theoretical "equal peace" simply ends up screwing the lesser party even more while. Just as I suspect you understand that compromising on an issue where one party is completely in the wrong is simply a legitimization of that party's wrongdoing.

So you say peace, then you qualify peace so that it doesn't actually mean peace, and you toss out the idea of compromising on issues that aren't up for compromise, all to the benefit of Israel and the further screwing of Palestinians.

You're either a liar, or you're far dumber than I'm giving you credit for. Either way you're amazingly short-sighted.

Now, do I want Israel to suffer? Not particularly. But if suffering is the product of justice for the crimes committed - whether by Israeli ethnic cleansing and land theft, or Palestinian terrorism and racist murders, then so be it.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I'll put that one in the 'Gun Control Is Right-Wing' file...

Yes, the 1967 borders. Y'know, that territory that isn't part of Israel? Also, you haven't read the peace plan if all you come away from it with is 'Israel has to give up everything?' That's not what the peace plan is about, so you should go and read it and then comment on it after that...

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. well to begin with

It is absolutely true that there were Jewish communities in Palestine going back 2000 years. In fact prior to the first wave of European Zionist migration - they made up as much as 4% to 5% of the population.

But they didn't welcome the European Zionist either:

To quote from Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of Jewish History at the University of Montreal in his book: "A Threat from Within: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism":

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1842776991

page 41

"Palestinian Jews reacted with fear and even horror at the arrival of the secular Jews from Russia. The legendary "Jewish solidarity" reviled by so many anti-Semites was nowhere to be seen. The Palestinian Jews would certainly not have responded in the same way to an invasion of Palestine by a foreign power, which, from a theological point of view, would have changed little for them. True to the particular responsibilities Jewish tradition imposes upon the Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Israel, they lashed out at the new settlers in dramatic terms. "They do not walk in the path of the Torah and the fear of God...and their purpose is not to bring the redemption close but to delay it..God forbid."

"When the first "proto-Zionist" settlements of Horevei Tzion were established in Palestine in the early 1880s, largely in reaction to the pogroms that had swept Russia, several rabbis gave public support to the newcomers. However, their enthusiasm quickly turned to dismay when they realized that many of the settlers were not practicing Jews."

page 137

"Opposed to the Zionist enterprise from the beginning, the Old Yishuv waged "the fight against Zionism when it grew to the point of invading the holy land.. Its contacts with earliest Zionist settlers were all but non-existent. The Zionist attempt to convoke a "Jewish National Assembly" in 1903 was received with indifference by the pious Jews of Palestine."

Fred M. Donner
Professor of Near Eastern History
The Oriental Institute
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.

link:

http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_

The population of Palestine (west of the Jordan river) in 1880 was under 590,000, of whom 96 percent were Arabs (Muslim or Christian); roughly 4 percent of the population was Jewish.

By 1914, the population of Palestine was about 650,000. Of this, the Jewish population was about 80,000, or a little over 12 percent. Of the 88 percent remaining, 570,000 people, Israeli and non-Israeli scholars estimate that at least 550,000 were Palestinians (Christian or Muslim) who were descendants of families in Palestine already in the 1840s — or almost 85 percent of the total 1914 population of Palestine. The great majority of them, in other words, were not recent immigrants.

There was a lot of immigration to Palestine between 1880 and 1948, of course, but most of it was by European Jews, who came in several well-defined aliyot ("waves"), drawn to Palestine by the Zionist dream or fleeing economic hardship and persecution in Europe. The first aliya (up to 1903) brought 25,000 new Jewish immigrants, roughly doubling the Jewish population of Palestine.

The second aliya (1904-1913) brought another 35,000 Jews. The third aliya (1919-1939) saw the arrival of 350,664 Jewish immigrants, according to British Mandate statistics.

In 1945, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at about 554,000, or about 30.6 percent of the total population of Palestine at that time, which was 1.8 million. Mr. Schell is absolutely right: Some Jewish communities have existed in Palestine for hundreds of years. But, as the figures above make clear, most Jews in Israel today are, in relative terms, newcomers — descendants of people who arrived during the past three or four generations; to call them "colonists," as Professor Doran did, is not inappropriate.

On the other hand, Mr. Schell is absolutely wrong to hint that Palestinians are generally newcomers: As we see, most Palestinians of today can trace their ancestry to families who have been resident in Palestine for hundreds of years. The debate over immigration figures is, of course, merely part of the broader effort by Palestinians and Israelis to delegitimize each other by claiming the other side to be interlopers. Mr. Schell's evident desire to cast doubt on the historical roots of the Palestinians' claim to their land suggests that he has been taken in, like many other people, by such works as Joan Peters's tract "From Time Immemorial," which popularized for obvious political purposes the myth that many Palestinians were descendants of recent immigrants.Such a view is simply not supported by the evidence. "

and again the Arab Peace Plan restated in 2002 - Unanimously supported by all 22 members of the Arab League, endorsed by the PLO and further endorsed by all 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference and has been reaffirmed every year since:

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.

The Arab Peace Plan

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

[proteus_lives]

20. Ah, the Arab Peace plan.

Aka "Give us everything and receive nothing but vague promises of peace."

It's not peace plan because Israel will never agree to it and they know.

Israel shouldn't agree with it. It's unfair, what does the Arab world give up?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. the real question is for Israel is, "what would Israel gain?"

Actually Israel gives up nothing that it is recognized by the world community and international law.

I believe that it would be only about a three or four hour drive between Jerusalem and Damascus or Jerusalem and Beirut for that matter - if such movement was allowed. The commercial implications of this would be enormous.

It is accepted as a given than a withdrawal from the Golan would include a network of early warning systems and international monitors along with a workable arrangement on water usage. All proposals regarding a withdrawal from the Golan assume a large array of early warning systems. and a large demilitarized zone - both of which would be under international or perhaps even American control. It appears that Syria would be quite willing to accept this in exchange for a full peace and full diplomatic relations with Israel along with an end to any support either side might give to armed groups hostile to the other side

If the Gulf states such as Kuwait, the UAE or Bahrain would ever normalize relations - these are all places only about a one to one and a half hour flight from Tel Aviv or about twelve hours by land travel - small but wealthy countries with enormous economic resources and their own gateway free trade zones. Again the commercial implications of this would be enormous.


I can think of numerous benefit of Israel normalizing relations with most or all of the 22 countries of the Arab world along with 57 countries of the Islamic world.

These are just some of the many benefits of a full peace with normalized relations.

1. A broad regional peace with normalized relations with most of the Arab and Islamic world - finally real acceptance into the region and a genuine framework for their own security.

2. It would greatly weaken the influence of Iran. Syria is Iran's only state allie in the Arab world.

3. It would mean the end or at least dramatic reduction in Syrian and most other state support for Hamas, Hezbollah and any other armed groups hostile to Israel - including much Iranian support via Syria for Hamas and Hezbollah.

4. The normalization of relations with all countries on Israel's border

5. Normalized relations between Syria and Israel would have the potential for opening up a great deal of commercial exchange and open movement of goods services between not only Israel and Syria, but Israel and the wider Arab world including the much more prosperous Gulf states. Syria is to a large degree still stuck in a Soviet era time warp, They very much do want to joint the international world. They have a very strong incentive for wanting to make a peace agreement work - Syrian as well as most Middle Eastern states have very strong domestic state security apparatuses. They would have both the incentive and the ability to control anyone from within their border who might want to disrupt a peace agreement.


John Kerry's Remarks at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha on February 13, 2010:

Then in 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative, since endorsed by every Arab country, provided another key piece to the final puzzle: The promise for Israel that a comprehensive peace agreement would bring normalized relations with the Arab world.

While new leaders have emerged, I believe the Clinton parameters and the Arab Peace Initiative still provide the only realistic basis for lasting peace and security – and I’m confident that deep down, most of the Israeli and Palestinian people understand this as well. - Sen. John Kerry

http://www.dohanetwork.org/content/text-senator-john-kerrys-remarks-us-islamic-world-forum-doha-february-13-2010

[aranthus]

31. Here's what isn't a gross simplification.

The Palestinians rejected not only the 1947 Partition Plan, but also every compromise before or since. They rejected the concept of compromise and tried to take the entire territory for themselves by force. The reality was that there were two nationalities seeking states in Western Palestine. The Jewish community had a legitimate right to a state of their own, and the Palestinian Arabs and their allies sought to deny them that right, so that they could have it all. The fact is that the Palestinians chose war, and lost. Unless you want to argue that the Palestinians were right to go to war to take everything (in which case, screw peace talks), then they are stuck with the consequences of the war.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. It's not only a gross simplication, but totally untrue...

Maybe yr not aware of doing it, but you appear to be trying to make out that Israel has continually offered compromises, which get knocked back no matter what they are....

The Jewish community had a legitimate right to a state of their own, and the Palestinian Arabs and their allies sought to deny them that right, so that they could have it all.

How is that any different from the simplistic story proteus trotted out a few posts ago? Jordan and Israel colluded to divide up the Palestinian state between themselves. It gets a bit tiring to see the war turned into some fairy tale where Israel was the poor and weak victim...

The fact is that the Palestinians chose war, and lost. Unless you want to argue that the Palestinians were right to go to war to take everything (in which case, screw peace talks), then they are stuck with the consequences of the war.

And what are these consequences that yr claiming the Palestinians are stuck with? The expulsion and flight of 750,000 refugees? The loss of their homes? The later invasion and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. You know the old saying, repeat the lie loud enough and often enough, and people

soon forget it's a lie.

[aranthus]

39. You have evidence of this?

Especially, "Jordan and Israel colluded to divide up the Palestinian state between themselves."

Also, do you deny that the Jewish community in Palestine had a legitimate right to a state of its own? (In which case, discussion over). Do you deny that the Palestinians rioted, attacked Jewish neighborhoods and communication lanes immediately after the Partition vote? Or that the first organized military attack of the war was a Palestinian attack on a Jewish settlement? Do you deny that the Palestinians rejected any compromise prior to the Partition Plan? Where was the Palestinian compromise plan that allowed for a Jewish state? Where was the Arab League plan that allowed for that?

As for the consequences of the war, refugee status, yes (expulsion is largely a lie), loss of homes, yes, occupation of West Bank and Gaza, yes. Those are all consequences of the war that the Palestinians started.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[aranthus]

45. In other words, you have nothing.

I've read many books on the subject, including Avi Schlaim's "War and Peace in the Middle East," Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims," and many others. Can you point to one that actually says that the Jews started the war?

[Chulanowa]

49. That wasn't what you were asking for

You were asking for evidence of Jordanian interest in having the West Bank for itself and collusion with Israel to get it.

No, the Israelis did not start the 1948 war - but nor did the Palestinians. it was started by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, with backing from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

But by all means, feel free to wheel the goalposts even further out. it's all you've got.

[aranthus]

52. I was asking for evidence of several things.

The collusion issue was one of them. And if you read the Schlaim article that Douglas Carpenter posted, you'll see that even he admits that if there was an attempt to collude between Jordan and Israel, it didn't come off. There was no actual collusion; the two countries fought each other rather savagely.

No, the Arab states did not start the war. They joined a war already in progress since December 1947 (or January 1948, if you want to take the first organized attack on Kfar Szold as the starting point). The people who launched those attacks were Palestinians, not the Arab states, and not the Israelis. And if the war was started by the Arab states, why is that Israel's fault? I grant that Israel still has some responsibility for resolving the problems that resulted from the war, but if the Arab states started it, then shouldn't they bear the lion's share of fixing it?

[Chulanowa]

54. War starts when a war is declared

Not when some guy on the internet feels it would have been most convenient to his argument for it to have started. We could go back to the mass murderers of irgun and Lehi and call THAT "the first shots of the war". And then i suppose you could go back to some violence against Jewish immigrants in the 20's and call that it, and we could keep on going back to the late 1700's. The exercise would be futile.

The 1948 war began when war was declared on Israel by a joint of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It's a matter of historical fact. Your opinion, as amusing as it is, doesn't count for shit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. actually Avi Shlaim wrote two whole books specifically on the subject

Professor Slaim is arguably the world's foremost authority on Arab/Israeli and Arab/Zionist relationships. Professor Shlaim basis much of his research on Israeli government archives. However, the issue of collusion between the Zionist movement and later the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom is hardly controversial. It is very much accepted by mainstream historians as a historic fact; albeit with differences of interpretations.


Avi Shlaim was born in Baghdad in 1945, grew up in Israel, and studied at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2006. His books include Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, and War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History. He lives in Berlin.


"Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine" by Avi Shlaim



http://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Across-Jordan-Partition-Palestine/dp/0198278314?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0198278314

However, given that the book is very expensive an out of print - you should still be able to find it in a good library,

Also The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine 1921-1951 by Avi Shlaim
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Partition-Abdullah-Palestine-1921-1951/dp/019829459X


The basic details are in Professor Shlaim's more recent books, Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-Reappraisdals-Revisions-Refutations/dp/1844673669?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1844673669 and Dr. Shlaim's classic work that made him famous, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Arab-World/dp/0393321126?SubscriptionId=0TBPMRS0W3G0CB5F0902&tag=afncaie-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0393321126

And here is an academic article by Dr. Shlaim which deals with the Hashemite/Israeli collusion - but is not the main point of the article:

The Hashemite Connection

The weakest link in the chain of hostile Arab states that surrounded the Yishuv on all sides was Transjordan. Even since the creation of the emirate of Transjordan by Britain in 1921, the Jewish Agency strove to cultivate friendly relations with its Hashemite ruler, Abdullah ibn Husayn. The irreconcilable conflict between the Jewish and Arab national movements in Palestine provided the setting for the emergence of the special relations between the Zionists and Abdullah who became king in 1946 when Transjordan gained formal independence. Failure to reach an understanding with their neighbours spurred the Zionist leaders to seek a counterweight to local hostility in better relations with the neighbouring Arab countries. Indeed, the attempt to bypass the Palestine Arabs and forge links with the rulers of the Arab states became a central feature of Zionist diplomacy in the 1930s and 1940s.

The friendship between the Hashemite ruler and the Zionist movement was cemented by a common enemy in the shape of the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the leader of the Palestinian national movement. For the mufti had not only put his forces on a collision course with the Jews; he was also Abdullah’s principal rival for control over Palestine. Both sides perceived Palestinian nationalism as a threat and therefore had a common interest in suppressing it.<9> From the Zionist point of view, Abdullah was an immensely valuable ally. First and foremost, he was the only Arab ruler who was prepared to accept the partition of Palestine and to live in peace with a Jewish state after the conflict had been settled. Second, his small army, the Arab Legion, was the best trained and most professional of the armies of the Arab states. Third, Abdullah and his aides and agents were a source of information about the other Arab countries involved in the Palestine problem. Last but not least, through Abdullah the Zionists could generate mistrust, foment rivalry, and leak poison to weaken the coalition of their Arab adversaries.

In 1947, as the conflict over Palestine entered the crucial stage, the contacts between the Jewish side and King Abdullah intensified. Golda Meir of the Jewish Agency had a secret meeting with Abdullah in Naharayim on 17 November 1947. At this meeting they reached a preliminary agreement to coordinate their diplomatic and military strategies, to forestall the mufti, and to endeavour to prevent the other Arab states from intervening directly in Palestine.<10> Twelve days later, on 29 November, the United Nations pronounced its verdict in favour of dividing the area of the British mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. This made it possible to firm up the tentative understanding reached at Naharayim. In return for Abdullah’s promise not to enter the area assigned by the UN to the Jewish state, the Jewish Agency agreed to the annexation by Transjordan of most of the area earmarked for the Arab state. Precise borders were not drawn and Jerusalem was not even discussed as under the UN plan it was to remain a corpus separatum under international control. Nor was the agreement ever put down in writing. The Jewish Agency tried to tie Abdullah down to a written agreement but he was evasive. Yet, according to Yaacov Shimoni, a senior official in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, despite Abdullah’s evasions, the understanding with him was: entirely clear in its general spirit. We would agree to the conquest of the Arab part of Palestine by Abdullah. We would not stand in his way. We would not help him, would not seize it and hand it over to him. He would have to take it by his own means and stratagems but we would not disturb him. He, for his part, would not prevent us from establishing the state of Israel, from dividing the country, taking our share and establishing a state in it. Now his vagueness, his ambiguity, consisted of declining to write anything, to draft anything which would bind him. To this he did not agree. But to the end, until the last minute, he always said again and again: ‘perhaps you would settle for less than complete independence and statehood, for full autonomy, or a Jewish canton under the roof of the Hashemite crown.’ He did try to raise this idea every now and again and, of course, always met with a blank wall. We told him we were talking about complete, full, and total independence and are not prepared to discuss anything else. And to this he seemed resigned but without ever saying: ‘OK, an independent state.’ He did not say that, he did not commit himself, he was not precise. But such was the spirit of the agreement and it was totally unambiguous.


Incidentally, the agreement included a provision that if Abdullah succeeded in capturing Syria, and realized his dream of Greater Syria – something we did not think he had the power to do – we would not disturb him. We did not believe either in the strength of his faction in Syria. But the agreement included a provision that if he did accomplish it, we would not stand in his way. But regarding the Arab part of Palestine, we did think it was serious and that he had every chance of taking it, all the more so since the Arabs of Palestine, with their official leadership, did not want to establish a state at all. That meant that we were not interfering with anybody. It was they who refused. Had they accepted a state, we might not have entered into the conspiracy. I do not know. But the fact was that they refused, so there was a complete power vacuum here and we agreed that he will go in and take the Arab part, provided he consented to the establishment of our state and to a joint declaration that there will be peaceful relations between us and him after the dust settles. That was the spirit of the agreement. A text did not exist.<11>

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel%20and%20the%20Arab%20Coalition%20in%2019481.html

Dr. Shlaim also wrote another academic article looking critically at the "fled or expelled" issue:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

.

[aranthus]

46. Whatever the vague "understandings"

may be argued to have been, the reality was far different. Even the "understandings" only say that the Jews would not attempt to evict Jordan from Arab Palestine(which they obviously tried to do especial;ly around Jerusalem), and that Jordan would not attempt to evict the Jews (which they obviously did). So much for collusion. Nor would there have been any reason for the Jordanians to enter Palestine, but for the war that the Palestinians started. In fact, if the Palestinians really wanted there own state (as opposed to merely denying one to the Jews), then the only way that they were going to get that was by avoiding a war at all costs. This is because the war gave the surrounding Arab states the excuse to enter the country and take what they could for themselves.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. my point is that whatever one may feel about the legitimacy of the creation of the state of Israel

in Palestine - I would simply argue that even if one fully believed without reservation that the creation of the Israeli state in Palestine was a great and noble thing - one could hardly expect the Palestinians or anyone else in a similar situation to agree. Certainly David Ben Gurion and all Zionist leaders knew full well that the Partition of Palestine meant war - largely because as Ze'ev Jabotinsky said way back in 1922, "No indigenous people in world history have every accepted the usurpation of their homeland without a fight to the end. And the Arabs will be the same."

Considering that it took decades after the first Zionist conference in Basil in 1897 and it took massive anti-Semitic upheaval in Europe to even convince most Western Jewish people that it was right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine - it should not be surprising that the indigenous Palestinian Arab population who would quite naturally view Palestine as their homeland and would quite naturally view the recently arrived settlers from Europe as foreigners - Given that even most Jews didn't the buy idea of a Jewish state in Palestine until decades after the first Zionist conferences- and then only after massive and violent upheaval in Europe - it would be kind of absurd to expect the Palestinians to have accepted such an arrangement of a state established in their homeland in which they would at least be marginalized and perhaps even expelled and to expect the Palestinians to be agreeable to such an arrangement that was being thrusted upon them against their will. They simply reacted the same way anyone else in their situation would have reacted. They resisted and they fought. Just like you would have done, I would have done or anyone else would have done. -- rightly or wrongly is besides the point.

[aranthus]

48. But right or wrong is the point.

The Palestinians chose to fight. Now having lost, they want the Israelis to accept that they were right to fight, which is like asking the Israelis to admit that their state is illegitimate. No sane people would agree to that. The Palestinians started this war and the Israelis won. It's unrealistic to now expect the Israelis to make peace as if they lost, or as if the Palestinian attack on them was justified.

[Chulanowa]

50. But it is realistic to expect Israel to follow the rules of war, even if they were the victors

Or do you suppose that they have extra-special rights that absolutely no other nation on the face of the earth is afforded under international law?

[aranthus]

51. What are you talking about?

What rules of war do you think are applicable here? The obligation to return territory? That one doesn't exist (though the Palestinian right to self determination does, and Israel should allow that in the context of a peace agreement). Right of Return? That isn't one either. Perhaps you're referring to the way in which the Israelis have treated the West Bank as "occupied" while at the same time settling it as if it's their sovereign territory without offering citizenship to the Palestinians (effectively denying them either self determination or representation). No argument there, except that the settlements can be moved if a peace deal is reached. Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to.

[Chulanowa]

53. Actually, both of those do exist

You may want to engage in some actual study on the subject. Your clear ignorance doesn't benefit you.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Chulanowa]

23. No, Israel will never be "destroyed"

But the odds of it persisting as "The Jewish State" for more than 50 years are rather slim. Demographics and political fatigue, you know. Frankly I think 50 years is being conservative.

Either Israel will become a blended, truly democratic state... or it will become a segregated, truly apartheid state within its own borders, only to crumble in the same fashion as South Africa after the same sort of pariah status.

[proteus_lives]

24. Demographics and political fatigue?

Oh, if you can't destroy them by bombs, destroy them by ballots? Unlikely. The Palestinan leadership is going to have to declare a state in the WB because the Israelis won't allow themselves to become a minority in their own country again. History tells us that tends to end badly for them, you know.

[Chulanowa]

25. Yup

Israel won't "allow" it? I'd be curious how they plan to stop it. There's plenty of Israeli Arabs, and political moderates and people who are just fed up with the BS portions of the conflict are growing stronger in Israel. History tells us that conqueror states generally end up melting back into the people they've conquered. It's just a question of how long it takes. So what measures would be taken to prevent this? Israel's got two possible methods - South Africa, and Third Reich. Apartheid or extermination.

Since neither option is politically viable (or feasible, really) my conclusion is that Israel would not seek these methods (despite the fondest wishes of its extreme right, and of course, pretty much all American Israel supporters.)

However without htese exclusionary methods, Israel will be unable to maintain its exclusive status. Perhaps the best method would be to try something like Lebanon; you have X members of groups A, B, and C quotas in the government so that there is representation without any group becoming a political minority at the mercy of the other groups.

[Shaktimaan]

27. Riiight...

because Lebanon has historically been doing so much better than Israel. Of course Israel will want to emulate them.

I love it... Yes, "perhaps" that's the "best method."

Um, compared to what? Afganistan's method?

[Chulanowa]

42. Compared to the two other options

Did you read my post?

Israel is not going to be able to maintain its "Jewish character" (read; racial purity) in the long run. It's a simple matter of demographics. The only means it has to do this is to find some way to get rid of its Arabs, or at least keep them politically absent; extermination, expulsion, or apartheid.

I'm willing to think most Israeli politicians would look at these options and go "No, that's unacceptable." So then, what other options are there? A compomise situation where power is shared through a quota system. The government has X Jewish representatives, Y Muslim representatives. or it could go on ethnic boundaries - Arab, Falasha, Yemeni, Russian, European. There's any number of ways to divide it up.

The other option - one which I suspect most Israelis would find unacceptable - is true integration and creation of an actual democracy. This would mean abandoning the idea of "The Jewish State" and simply becoming "the state with a lot of Jews."

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Going to have to declare a state in the WB? Really? Pray tell, what will happen to the 1.5 million

Palestinians in Gaza? Will they just be left in the big concentration camp for eternity?

[proteus_lives]

29. Ask Hamas.

They're the ones who turned it into a prison.

That is, if you can bring yourself to assign the Palestinians their portion of the blame. I won't hold my breath.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. What portion of the blame do you assign Israel?

[proteus_lives]

33. Israel needs to examine the way they respond to Hamas aggression.

But they need to respond.

After everything in the Strip since OCL, I'd say about 40% falls on Israel. They need to blockade but they should have brought more medicine, doctors and food. They need to respond to Hamas attacks but they need to revise the weapons and tactics they use.

But it begins and ends with Hamas.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. Actually, proteus, it begins and ends with violent military occuation and siege.

We must face the reality that we are currently dealing with one nation with 4 levels of participation:

1) Full citizenship and democracy for Israeli Jews wherever they live.
2) Second class citizenship for Arab Muslims and Christians within the Green Line.
3) Apartheid for Muslims and Christians in the WB
4) Bare subsistence for the Muslims and Christians in the concentration camp that is Gaza.

The real questions is: will Israel be a democracy for all the human beings who reside there?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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