Palestine National Charter of 1964

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

42 posts / 0 new

http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

"Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Comments

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israeli-minister-chastises-kerry-ov...

"An Israeli minister on Sunday said Washington's top diplomat was "wrong" for pressuring Israel in peace talks, a day before western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas visits the White House.

His remarks came two days after US Secretary of State John Kerry criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"John Kerry is wrong because he is putting pressure on the wrong side," said Environment Minister Gilad Erdan, who is considered close to Netanyahu.

"Kerry should be asking Abu Mazen (Abbas) why he is stubbornly refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish state," he told public radio."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Actually, the West Bank belongs to Jordan. It was seized by Israel.

The Gaza Strip belongs to Egypt. It was seized by Israel.

Israel currently utilizes Gaza as a rather large outdoor prison for Palestinians. It's the largest concentration camp ever created.

Retired Monk - "Ideoology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Wage an illegal war and lose, you have to live with the consequences.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Continuing the Israeli hard-ass negotiation tradition of "surrender, and then we can talk."

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

Continuing the Israeli hard-ass negotiation tradition of "surrender, and then we can talk."

Wage war 5 times and lose, you damned right the negotiations will be "hard-ass."

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

"

Affirming that this agreement marks the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens;

"

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Making sure that the people on the "other side" have what they need is the fundamental of negotiations. Otherwise, you are twisting the knife of surrender and submit. Israel has been a very bad actor in the art of diplomacy requiring others to submit and surrender to make "peace.'

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

I think this brings to the fore.......just by what right does Israel as a state have to exist at all?

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm
Quote rs allen:

I think this brings to the fore.......just by what right does Israel as a state have to exist at all?

You can probably start here:

Quote mjolnir:

http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/that-anglo-american-convention-of-1924.html

'America’s ratification of the 1924 “Anglo-American Convention on Palestine” made the U.S. a "contracting party" to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Assigned to Britain for administration, the Mandate was not only devoid of any provision for an Arab state within Palestine’s borders, it specifically prohibited the partition of the land and its use for any purpose other than the creation of a National Jewish Home.

With President Calvin Coolidge’s signature on the Anglo-American Convention, the terms of the Mandate for Palestine became incorporated into American law. The words of America’s 29th president, in proclaiming the treaty, made it clear that this was no mere ceremonial act. "Now , therefore, be it known," he declared, that “I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to be made public to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.”

Coolidge wasn’t plowing new American legal ground with these words. In fact, he was simply reinforcing a unanimous joint resolution of the 67th Congress of the United States three years earlier, signed by his predecessor, President Warren G. Harding, recognizing a future Jewish state in “the whole of Palestine.”'

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

You don't really want to go there...but, of course, YOU do. You have flogged this pro-Israel Zionism history here a number of times, and others have responded with rebuttals without any success because you are fixed on your evangelism. You have the truth to bring to Thomworld where we dare to ask such questions as, "does Israel really have "a right to exist?" Or is it like every other country in the world with limits on its ability to be a problem for others? Do we really let Israel do whatever it wants to do with the Palestinians while we always accept their "right" to do it because they do not have to earn the respect of their neighbors or engage in the kind of conduct for which other nations are held accountable all the time?

Their land title is not in the Bible. That would be absurd and give the Caananites and Philistines a prior claim. This "God" thing could get out of hand. The present state is a European colonial project with all the trappings. Like the East/West racism and presumption of "empty lands" to conquer and claim. And modern v. primitive and a failed model of development that installs Westernized elites to manage their low income populations. Jewish Identity is a more tangled problem than Holocaust Survivors and martyr righteousness. All that stuff gets this East/West racism mixed into a complex brew that is not quite what it gets called, but close enough to make the point.

As in the reaction to "apartheid." How dare anyone invoke this word in Gaza or the West Bank!

Just ask this question, "Does the United States have a right to exist?"

At the very least, it is a right that is qualified by our conduct at home and abroad. Political borders are temporal, and "peoples" include several that have no national turf to claim or 'defend.' Or, they are making these claims but not getting the lines drawn in their favor. So, is it about being in the club already, having how many people of national unity and identity ready to be recognized, or some other need for a "homeland" that is behind the presumed "right" for Israel to exist?

A safe place to be a Jew is another thing. Even a recognized Jewish community/'nation' where Jewish culture could thrive can be embraced because we recognize that diversity is not homogeneity. It just has to be at home for others as well. Religious nationalism is never a great idea.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=152

"President Woodrow Wilson (the twenty-eighth President, 1913-1921) was the founder of the League of Nations for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919. Wilson's efforts to join the Unites States as a member of theLeague of Nations were unsuccessful due to oppositions in the U.S. Senate.

President Wilson was the first American president to support modern Zionism and Britain’s efforts for the creation of a National Home for Jews in Palestine (the text of the Balfour Declaration had been submitted to President Wilson and had been approved by him before its publication).

President Wilson expressed his deep belief in the eventuality of the creation of a Jewish State:

"I welcome an opportunity to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement in the United States, and in the allied countries, since the declaration of Mr. Balfour" (August 31, 1918).

"I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth" (March 3, 1919).

President Warren G. Harding expressed support for a Jewish home in Palestine:

"It is impossible for one who has studied at all the service of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity." (June 1, 1921).

"I am very glad to express my approval and hearty sympathy for the effort of the Palestine Foundation fund in behalf of the restoration ofPalestine as a homeland for the Jewish people. I have always viewed with an interest, which I think is quite as much practical as sentimental, the proposal for the rehabilitation of Palestine and the restoration of a real Jewish nationality, and I hope the efforts now being carried on in this and other countries in this behalf may meet the fullest measure of success." (May 11, 1922).

The Lodge-Fish joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original] (June 30, 1922).

President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland inPalestine (September 21, 1922). Writing to the Zionist Organization of America, Harding stated:

"A long-time interest, both sentimental and practical, in the Zionist movement causes me to wish that I might meet the members of the organization and express the esteem which I feel in behalf of the great movement" (June 25, 1922).

President Herbert Hoover stated:

"On the occasion of your celebration of the 15th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which received the unanimous approval of both Houses of Congress by the adoption of the Lodge-Fish Resolution in 1922, I wish to express the hope that the ideal of the establishment of the National Jewish Home in Palestine, as embodied in that Declaration, will continue to prosper for the good of all the people inhabiting the Holy Land" (October 29, 1932).

President Calvin Coolidge ratified the Convention between the United States and Great Britain - a relationship governed by international law.

The U.S. (not a member of the League of Nations) Government maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the "Mandate for Palestine."

The outcome of this request was a Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and Great Britain with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine. The Convention which contains the entire text of the "Mandate for Palestine" including the preamble word-for-word was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.

The United States of America upon ratifying the said Convention formally recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. "

Quote drc2:You don't really want to go there...but, of course, YOU do.
Damned right I do. @rs allen asked for justification for the State of Israel to exist. I assume the poster meant legal justification and the U.S. being signatories to the Convention is as good a place as any to start.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Yes mjoin, that would be (part of) the British Mandate. Correct?

It's going to take more than a colonial mandate to make Israel a state.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm
Quote rs allen:

Yes mjoin, that would be (part of) the British Mandate. Correct?

That still doesn't make Israel a state.

Perhaps you could share with us exactly whats constitutes statehood in your world?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Don't be so condescending.

Israel as a country/state was created in the late 1940's out of thin air by the powers that be and since that time Israel has done nothing but used alternately victimhood and force to expand well beyond their original mandate given to them by 'the powers that be' at the time.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

Carrying on, I'll further add that Israel has shown it's true colors by being now an overtly apartheid state that should be obvious to anyone willing to take an objective view of today's realities. However that fact has been more than evident since Israel's inception.

This is probably old news to some here but this link is a world wide grass roots movement to bring Irsael to heel and force them to become a better actor on the world stage:

http://www.bdsmovement.net/

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

mjolnir, I love the classics and your revival post echoes all the other recitations of the Zionist cause and how international agreements led to it coming to being in the heritage of Israel. It has all that Western Colonial sense of entitlement and nobless noblige, and that double feature with Exodus and the dance number, "A Land Without A People for a People Without A Land!" Such a chorus line synchronized finale for the show!

At times I wonder if Israel is not the greatest vengeance anti-Semites could visit upon the Jews, but that is hyperbole born of frustration. We want our "lessons of history" to be easy to understand moral fables rather than actual examples of deep human complexity and shared moral ambiguities. We want our wars to be crusades instead of part of a deep tragedy in which imperialism is drenched in blood. We would like to have Israel justify our Western "lessons of history" from Hitler and, of course, the heroic triumphant West. Sometimes we acknowledge that Russia had a part in defeating Hitler, but it is always democracy and freedom which comes out on top, not military force per se.

The rhetorical cover of democracy and freedom makes our militarism "moral." It also continues the illusion that Western colonialism left civilization and the foundations of modernity in its wake, justifying the White Man's Excursion and Power Grabs. Israel repeats the "developed" in the midst of the "undeveloped" colonial attitude toward its "inferiors." The claim of unyielding hatred between Arabs and Jews or Islamic intolerance is not based in real history, and the cultural/racial divide of East and West in Israel is the dominant one.

Settlements, the Wall and the steadfast unwillingness to negotiate anything other than the surrender of the Palestinians to bantustan statehood, show an Israel firmly committed to "the West" and not to its neighborhood.

American support for Israel is deeply enmeshed in our own Colonialism in the American Century and our 'right' to exercise global great power cop authority. There is no moral integrity in this vision, but it claims great responsibility without the authority or ability to back it up. If you want to trace Israel's "right to exist" back to the conniving of the Colonial Powers and what they thought would be useful or noble, it only makes the case worse and more dependent upon the sins of the past than people believe.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote rs allen:

Don't be so condescending.

Israel as a country/state was created in the late 1940's out of thin air by the powers that be and since that time Israel has done nothing but used alternately victimhood and force to expand well beyond their original mandate given to them by 'the powers that be' at the time.

I'm not being anymore "condescending" than you were with your original quip about Israeli statehood. "160 of the 192 other UN member states (83%) currently recognize Israel." I tried to ascertain what your idea of "statehood" is:

"* De-facto recognition: Expression of international legitimacy "concerning fact"

De-jure recognition: Expression of international legitimacy "concerning law"'

"On May 14, 1948, the Jewish People's Council officially approved a proclamation establishing the independence of the State of Israel.

The Jewish state was granted de-facto recgnition by President Harry Truman eleven minutes after the initial proclamation of independence, making the United States the first country in the world to recognize Israel. Less than seven months later, President Truman extended America's de-jure recognition to Israel."

The "original mandate", as you put it was almost 11,000 sq. mi. before G.B. started screwing the Zionists:

"“The total land area of Palestine is estimated at 26,320 square kms. or 10,162 square miles. In addition there is an inland water area of 704 square kms. or 272 square miles, comprising Lake Huleh, Lake Tiberias and one half of the Dead Sea. The total area of the country is thus 27,024 square kms. or 10,434 square miles.” See “A Survey of Palestine” Volume I. Chapter III, p. 103. Prepared December 1945-January 1946 for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. "

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Nicely written as always, yet again, as always, sadly lacking in facts.

Quote drc2:Settlements, the Wall and the steadfast unwillingness to negotiate anything other than the surrender of the Palestinians to bantustan statehood, show an Israel firmly committed to "the West" and not to its neighborhood.
In another thread which I don't feel like looking up at the moment but I think I can find, you and poly finally gave acknowledgement to the fact that there are no moderate voices in Hamas with which to negotiate.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

I fail to see why one would expect to see any moderate voice from those that were displaced and are deprived of what was and is rightfully theirs up till a mere 60 years ago. And still counting.

Cut the feeding tube:

http://www.bdsmovement.net/

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

What you always miss is what we really say. When Israel gave Arafat the shaft and he lost credibility with a lot of Palestinians, Hamas became the radical alternative to the "sell-outs" with whom Israel would negotiate, if you call it that. It is in the nature of playing the short-term, divide and conquer, to weaken the ability of the other side to agree and work together against you. Israel was quite good at that bad strategy to the point that it made a radical alternative in its occupied territories attractive to the frustration and conniving of the officials who traded off their 'access.'

Real moderates who were working across the borders lost in the heating up of the division. They have had virtually no voice in policy or the mainline media. People are always surprised to learn that there are Jewish/Palestinian organizations and institutions. They also tend to be shocked by what they find in Gaza and the Left Bank. This is not about 'border tensions' or ethnic communities in proximity finding some grievances. This is about apartheid and large scale concentration camps.

And, about the propaganda fed Americans as part of our "free world" frontier, etc. to the point that, even were politicians here inclined to be honest and to push Israel toward sanity, it would be considered heresy and outrage rather than a prophetic word.

Way back inside this increasingly polarized and brutal policy lies this "right to exist" myth and meme. What may have made sense early on became a way of avoiding talks with anyone who represented a serious political consensus on "the other side." Israel's ability to exist and defend itself has existed for some time, and with those facts on the ground, it could easily have entered into "negotiations" with anyone who had credibility on "the other side" because they could deliver and not just posture. Once the Palestinians had what they needed guaranteed, Israel's "right to exist" would become a moot point. With peace with sufficient justice to live with, those who wanted to debate the legitimacy of Israel could withdraw to their private smoking and drinking clubs to engage the deep philosophical truths of the cosmos. They would get nowhere in political campaigns with such stuff.

Now we have "no moderates with whom to deal" becomes the new cry of the orphan who killed his parents. The real political task is to turn the radicals against you into politicians against you--unless to do so would be your own undoing. Nitwityahoo is great at this self-serving political realism, but terrible about a politics that works. It is the "political realism" that does not work and turns out to be very bad at the "realism" issue. You can see the results in the present crisis.

Had Israeli leadership been able to survive doing what was smart instead of having to play with Sharon and Bibi and AIPAC, we might well have seen a popular two-state agreement decades ago. Had Israel bribed its neighbors with the offers of inclusion in a common economic zone driven by Israeli capital, but shared benefits, very little resentment about the past would have been festering as people got on with a future that worked.

And, to return to our starting point, nobody would be questioning Israel's contribution to the neighborhood and earned "right to be." It has always been about the State of Israel and not about "the Jews." Like the Kurds and Pashtuns, their "right to exist" is not about their national turf, although it is about being safe and secure where they live. How good it would be for the Tartars or Roma to have a "state" is questionable, but their right to exist is not. The same is true for Jews, and how well or poorly they "do" Israel is what will earn it any longevity. Masada is a lousy model.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

And by the way mjoin, the question is there still unanswered.

What right is claimed for the creation of Israel?

Don't be so shallow, there's a larger question in that simple phrase.

Starve the beast:

http://www.bdsmovement.net/

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

There is no "Palestinian people" as an ethnic group. There never was. It is a concept invented by the Soviets with the formation of the PLO during the cold war. Under the Ottoman Empire many people referred to the area as "Southern Syria."

Where Arabs there, certainly, but so were 10's of thousands of Jews, Druze and other groups including Christians.

'[7] Count Bernadotte was an investigator for the UN during the UNSCOP hearings in 1948, considering whether Palestine should be partitioned. He had noted in his diary that there was no evidence that there was a nationalism movement among the Arabs local to Palestine nor that there ever had been.

"The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan."'

[7] Cited as "New York Post, (July 14, 1948). Folke Bernadotte, To Jerusalem (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951), p. 113," by the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/bernplan.html). See also: Wallace Edward Brand, "The Year the Arabs Discovered Palestine"

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

I gave you an answer in post #17. It's not my fault that you are either unable to comprehend it, or being willfully obtuse s alle.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

I know exactly what you are saying. The trouble is all you offer are platitudes that support your politicized view point but nil for proof. Israel "scuttled" Arafat how? Arafat, whose uncle collaborated with Hitler on the "final solution" never seriously tried to make peace until he was old and feeble and had essentialy lost control of the movement.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

So that's your answer to the question?

Israel has a right to it's creation through fiat.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

Yep, that's what it boils down to. Remember and Repeat: There never has been a Palestinian "nation" and those people who happened to be living there are sort of like our Indians. AAARRRGGHHH!!!

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.597130

"The Australian government will no longer refer to East Jerusalem as an occupied territory, it emerged Wednesday in a statement released by Attorney-General George Brandeis after a Senate Estimates hearing. This constitutes a dramatic shift in Australian policy on Israel since 1967.

During the hearing, which focused on the country's foreign policy in the Middle East, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon called East Jerusalem occupied territory several times. Brandeis, who was responding to questions during the hearing, rejected use of the term "occupied" and said such a label predetermines an issue that is subject to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations."

Good for you, Australia.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Typical of mjolnir's idea of "open-minded." Were you to ask why Israel gets to have nukes, would that be prejudiced? What word replaces "occupied" for Aussies? Is this a Foster's ad for how Aussies say it in some cute "down under" lingo?

The facts on the ground, as Nitwityahoo loves to say, are worse than "occupied" and with the illegal settlements belie any integrity to any diplomacy Israel pursues today. As to who gets to screw people after winning wars, I thought we had gotten over the Wild West and taken public credit for the restoration of Japan and Germany rather than their devastation and exile. Israel's claim to use its post-colonial wealth and military advantages to secure some holy right to exist becomes a mythic story to those who close their eyes and see only dreams of Exodus and a land without a people for a people without a land. Lies, but so beautiful until they corrupt into the Israel Holocaust of the Palestinians.

Of course they do not do Hitler with goose steps and ovens. It is about as absurd as the idea that Arafats's ancestors were in bed with Hitler. Out in the colonies, the enemy of one's enemy was one's friend, and what went on in Europe had little to do with it. The Hitler card is always a loser.

But, pathologists do find that beaten children become child beaters. There is a point worth making in the internalization of victimhood in the assertion of the "right to exist," not for Jewish people and culture, but for this Israel, this nation in this place doing these things. No state has a right to do this to human beings. If there is resistance to the claim of a right to exist, it has facts on the ground behind it.

Finally, if there are no moderates left, as pointed out above, it is because divide and conquer has short term appeal even if it has these long term consequences. Radicalization serves the forces of force and weakens the middle on both sides. Israeli diplomacy has been a radicalizing factor as it constantly asked for way too much and refused to see what the other side needed to be able to agree to something that could last. Israel always had the options the Palestinians lacked, btw, and has been stupidly self-righteous in regional politics as well. The Masada Strategy does not end well.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

You can deny history all you want but the connections of the Grand Mufti to Hitler and the subsequent Muslim SS persecutions in the Slavic and Baltic States is well documented.

The "radicalization" of Arabs in the region started long before the Nation of Israel was even born and then 5 failed wars of aggression added to the problem. People like you continue to try to re-write history to suit their agenda but the truth is out there, you just have to look.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

In the politics of the present, you get to bring your Zionist terrorists out of the shadows and into elected office. Tit for tat, but that is what Israel's double standard or moralistic self-righteousness never will do.

My point is that the alliances in the Middle East had very little to do with the Jews, period. It would have been logical to have opposition from the people of the Middle East to the establishment of a European Jewish State, claiming some ancient land title from history. People who have been through colonialism might have a dim view of such "entitlements" and such blatant ignorance about who has been living where, for how long and under what kind of "national" or "regional" sense of local identity. If there was no Palestinian nation, that means there was no Western state, not that there was no governance or social identity among the people living there. This is the kind of bias that gets built into the moralistic questions of "the right to exist."

I am totally open to the facts on the ground and the historical record, but I do call busshit on hagiography and ideological justifications of Israel or America. "Personal responsibility" for patriots would be "blame America first" before judging others. The same "never again" moral humility ought to be guiding Israel, but far from it, we get turned tables with new "vermin" to blame for their own plight. I would like to see Israel as a true witness to the Holocaust and a true land of peace and religious tolerance. Most Jews I know see that kind of home as "safe for Jews." They are not looking to have a Jewish State so they can push their dogma down the throats of their neighbors. They get that "may all nations bless themselves in My Name" as being the model of faith rather than the baddest ass in the hood.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

The West Bank and Gaza were designated as the "unassigned" territories by the U.N. Gaza never belonged to Egypt and, anyway, Egypt has refused to accept it. The West Bank never belonged to Jordan; it was, however, occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, along with East Jerusalem, during which time Jordan expelled all the Jews. Jordan contains the largest percentage of Palestinians although it keeps two million more in refugee camps. Gaza is completely run by Hamas, a terrorist organization.

If ideology is a disease, then you are very sick.

sharonsj's picture
sharonsj
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There are 28 Muslim countries, 22 of which declare they are officially an Islamist state. No one asks if they have a right to exist or if they should include others. To the latter: you might have noticed that most of these Islamist states have gotten rid of their Jewish citizens and are now getting rid of the Christians, along with any other religion they disagree with. I'm waiting for you to call them apartheid.

sharonsj's picture
sharonsj
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were part of the territory west of the Jordan River of Mandatory Palestine under British governance, formed in 1922. From the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the 1967 Six-Day War, the West Bank was occupied and annexed by Jordan (annexation recognized only by UK and Pakistan) and the Gaza Strip occupied by Egypt, though limited authority had been exercised in Gaza by the All-Palestine Government from September 1948 until 1959. The legal borders of the Palestinian territories are currently recognised by pro-Palestine factions of the international community to be as established by the 1949 Armistice Agreements,[9] and by Israel to fall within Israeli borders.

Since Israel overtook the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, from Jordan and Egypt repectively, in the Six Day War of 1967, and has maintained control of them since, the international community, including the UN and international legal bodies, has often referred to those areas as the occupied Palestinian territories.

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

Do understand that the area was occupied by predominantly Arab populations before the establishment of the State of Israel. The land wasn't vacant. Be thankful it wasn't established in your own community...taking over your own home and expelling you. Chances are, you'd object.

The entire area was once governed by the British under the name "Palestine".

Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is sometimes considered to include adjoining territories. The name was used by Ancient Greek writers, and was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Umayyad and Abbasid province of Jund Filastin. The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el),[1] the Holy Land, the Southern Levant,[2] Cisjordan, and historically has been known by other names including Canaan, Southern Syria and Jerusalem.

Situated at a strategic location between Egypt, Syria and Arabia, and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, the region has a long and tumultuous history as a crossroads for religion, culture, commerce, and politics. The region has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphates, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians.

Boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were last defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum of 16 September 1922, during the mandate period.[3] Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and Palestinian territories in which the State of Palestine was declared.[3]

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

Generally, a population is refered to by the area it resides in...thus "Palestinians"...those who lived there prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. The land wasn't vacant.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

No need to wait for my opposition to any and all religious nationalism, but there can still be a priority of focus related to the power abuses and threats they play, and Israel has a hard time finding cover down the list when it is Top Dog in this problem.

Israeli Religious Nationalism has a large role in sparking and giving appeal to Islamic Religious Nationalism, so I reject it all and wish that moderates could be given a chance as the flamethrowers take the stage. Your posts defend a polemic anti-Arab position that twists and ignores way too much of the historical and moral truth. I do not have to defend the purity of the people Israel has refused to see as human people to comment on Israel's actions and prejudices.

In kindegarten thinking, it goes with the pot calling the kettle black, except in this case it is the defenders of Israel trying to make Israel look good by citing the worst radicals on the other side. In a way, it is a confession of sin by default, but that is not how it is treated in your posts. It becomes a justification for doing unto others what you think they would do unto you. The bully down the block also rapes children, and we only cripple them. Aren't we better?

If I could get Israel to behave according to traditional Jewish teaching and be a "light" to the nations instead of a Militarized Masada, it would go a long way to making moderation and secular civility with religious freedom more appealing in the Islamic world. Islam does have a problem with inwardness and exclusion; but it also has a history that has reinforced these strategies rather than undermining them. What gets lumped into the Arab Spring, for better and worse, is a desire to get out of the corruptions of the recent past. When there is a foreclosed modern future, back to the Golden Age is the typical response. There is no real Golden Age, but it does allow you to oppose "modernism" when it shuts you out or demands loss of identity to convert.

When you kill the moderates, don't blame the radicals you have created. When you have the margin of power, don't extract the last ounce of flesh and blood. If you want peace and security, create a peace where the other side has what it needs, even if it wanted more, but not less than it can live with just because you could twist their arm one more twist. Work with those interested in the future, including those adamant that the future not repeat what was offensive and unacceptable in the past. That is where negotiations take place, and nobody who has a stake in the future should be left out.

The game for peacemaking in Israel today is to make Hamas be politicians instead of guerilla fighters. You may not always deal with "terrorists" unless you are negotiating a hostage release. Third parties may be used, of course, but it is absurd to think that you are not negotiating with the enemy when they are the other side in this issue. What you need is for their terrorists to morph into politicians as that avenue opens and the terrorist option loses its rationale or strategic value. What really matters is the cred they have within the community you are "at war with." If you really are not interested in war, find out what their peace needs are and give them what they need. You will never come close to losing what you need doing this, but if you fail to do this, you risk everything.

I would call apartheid on those Islamic states who are driving their non-Islamic citizens and residents into exile were they herding them into an "occupied territory" where they lived in squalor. I think it is another awful piece of theocracy gone amok, but it is not about creating the world's biggest and longest lasting concentration camp or even keeping their labor force in barracks.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Heard the news today.......oh boy;

Lead in for article 'Presbyterians Vote To Divest Holdings To Pressure Israel'.

The council says it's not an action that's at all affiliated with BDS. Doesn't matter.....same cause.

Entire article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/presbyterians-debating-israeli-occupation-vote-to-divest-holdings.html?ref=us

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 4:55 pm

OMG, My People of the Book, have finally studied, task forced and compromised enough to run out of wriggle room and have to admit that Palestine is Israel's moral stain. Not only that, the actually divest from three big ones, and that is more than casual. The portfolio has always favored Presbyterian connected corporations, and their big donors.

What this shows me is that our long-standing mission work in the region has unmasked the Zionist lines and pressures, those very arguments defended here by a few; and people who have been working for peace on the ground for a long time have seen the trees they planted bear fruit.

I felt a similar sense of completion for the side-note on the GA voting to approve gay and lesbian marriages, to change the language in the Book of Order, and to recognize marriage equality where the law allowed. From 1976-78, and to those who made that Task Force possible before that, and all the way until now, fruition and maturity takes a long time. That was still two of the best years of my life and an education offered only one time in one place.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24445/Default.aspx?h...

"Sheikh Ahmed Aladoan of Amman, a member of Jordan’s well-known Adwan tribe, posted to Facebook this week that there is no such place as “Palestine,” and provided references from the Koran to back up his assertion.

One of the Koranic verses provided states that Allah gave the Holy Land to the sons of Israel until the Day of Judgment (Surah Al-Ma’ida, verse 21), and the other (Surah Al-Shara’a, verse 59) says that the land was bequeathed to the Jews.

The sheikh turned to those who “distort the words of the Koran,” whom he labeled as liars, and questioned where they had even come up with the name “Palestine.” He insisted their claims to the Land of Israel were forfeit because “Allah is the protector of the Children of Israel.”

And if that wasn’t enough, the sheikh went on to turn the tables on the anti-Israel propaganda machine by accusing the Palestinians of killing children, the elderly and women, of using human shields, and of having not an ounce of mercy for even their own children.

The sheikh’s words caused a storm in the Arab media, and were picked up by the Israeli Embassy in Amman.

The Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi further explained the sheikh’s position, noting that he supports the notion that Jordan is Palestine,..."

This "truth" has been advanced before in the 50's and 60's by Arab leaders. Of course you won't hear it in the MSM today.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

I apologize for the ignorant questions to follow, I'm not very knowledgable on this subject.

If native americans had been exiled instead of slaughtered, and came back today to claim this country as a native american country, and that was recognized by Russia, and we had fewer, and less sophisticated weapons, what would you do? Where would you hide your weapons? Would you stand up in a field somehwere, revolutionary war style, and say, "bring it on!"?

Why was the six day war, an "illegal" war?

drbjmn
Joined:
Jul. 22, 2013 4:52 am
One of the Koranic verses provided states that Allah gave the Holy Land to the sons of Israel until the Day of Judgment (Surah Al-Ma’ida, verse 21), and the other (Surah Al-Shara’a, verse 59) says that the land was bequeathed to the Jews.

Well, if the Koran said it, it must be true. LOL.

Can we please stop finding excuses for both sides to murder each other? Does anyone really think the words in a religious book should be relevant except to explain why something as dumb as this conflict really exists? If the Israeli constitution is the Torah and the Palestinian constitution is the Koran, these two countries are divided by much more than a man-made fence and they will not stop killing each other.

I say we forcefully integrate the two peoples into one. If they kill each other quicker, then it's a quicker resolution to the decades of war that have been their legacy and demonstrates the divisive nature of faith, as a lesson to the rest of us. If they learn to get along, then they can prove what a liability their gods and governments were to them all along, another lesson for the rest of us.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

Israel was not created by Britain and America after WW2

The Zionist movement founded before 1900 had decided
Palestine was the homeland of the Jews.

The British government's Balfour Declaration of 1917
stated that Britain would support such a homeland provided...

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights
of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

This was a place for jews to live,
not an idependent state.

By 1936 the steady flow of Jewish migrants led
to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

Essentially, the Arabs wanted the British out and no more
Jewish imigration to their country.
Britain agreed that immigration was too high and moved to limit it.

WW2 of course changed things.
The post war flood of Jewish refugees could not be stopped
without violence and prison camps.

That was not an option for Britain, with memories of
Nazi death camps and ghettos still very fresh.

There was also the hope of course,
that the Jews and Arabs could get along.

In 1948, the mandate given by the League of Nations
(later United Nations) to Britain, to run Palestine, ended.

The well armed and well organised,Jewish settlers declared
much of Palestine as now being their country, Israel.

There was no international agreement to create Israel.

Aldair's picture
Aldair
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:49 am
Quote Aldair:

Israel was not created by Britain and America after WW2

The Zionist movement founded before 1900 had decided
Palestine was the homeland of the Jews.

The British government's Balfour Declaration of 1917
stated that Britain would support such a homeland provided...

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights
of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

This was a place for jews to live,
not an idependent state.

By 1936 the steady flow of Jewish migrants led
to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

Essentially, the Arabs wanted the British out and no more
Jewish imigration to their country.
Britain agreed that immigration was too high and moved to limit it.

WW2 of course changed things.
The post war flood of Jewish refugees could not be stopped
without violence and prison camps.

That was not an option for Britain, with memories of
Nazi death camps and ghettos still very fresh.

There was also the hope of course,
that the Jews and Arabs could get along.

In 1948, the mandate given by the League of Nations
(later United Nations) to Britain, to run Palestine, ended.

The well armed and well organised,Jewish settlers declared
much of Palestine as now being their country, Israel.

There was no international agreement to create Israel.

Thank you for the historical outline of this crime but the truth is that Israel would never have existed, as a Jewish state, and wouldn't exist today if it weren't for Western intervention. It is only the superior military might of the West- and the accompanying political power- that enables the Jewish/Israeli position.

There was no international agreement about the creation of the US either. Maybe that's the bond we find with Israel, that we both inhabit others' land as a fulfillment of our religious perogative. If the Native Americans had missles, this might be a different story.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

"Actually, the West Bank belongs to Jordan. It was seized by Israel.

The Gaza Strip belongs to Egypt. It was seized by Israel."

Wrong and wrong. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were supposed to be part of the Arab state described in UNGAR 181 (1948). These areas were respectively under Jordanian and Egyptian control between 1949 and 1967, but under the UN Charter, their occupations of these areas was illegal. It's funny how no one remembers this when they talk about Israel "illegally" occuptying the West Bank and Gaza.

It might interest you to know that the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian martial law during the entire period of Egyptian occupation, with draconic measures to ensure that "Palestinians" did not leave the Strip into Egypt. Life in the West Bank wasn't much better, but at least Jordan, alone among all the Arab League nations offered Palestinians Jordanian citizenship. However, a Jordanian attempt to annex the West Bank was rejected in 1951 by the UN.

You really need to get your facts straight, sir.

thegreywolfe's picture
thegreywolfe
Joined:
Jul. 20, 2015 10:02 pm

"The Saddest Thing Is This Won't Be Breaking News"

Thom plus logo As the world burns, and more and more fossil fuels are being used every day planet-wide, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels passed 416 ppm this week at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In the 300,000 years since the emergence of modern humans, carbon dioxide levels have never been this high.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system