Is the Creation of a Palestinian State Feasible? Should U.S. Play a Role?

Posted by Frederick Jones
October 10, 2007
Palestinian Peace Celebration

Secretary Rice arrives in the Middle East this week to continue discussions with leaders from Israel and the Palestinian Authority in support of the ongoing efforts to lay a foundation for serious negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Later this fall, the United States will host an international meeting to help Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

Is the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state feasible? Should the United States play such a major role in its establishment?

Comments

Comments

GEO
|
Virginia, USA
October 11, 2007

Geo in Virginia writes:
NO & NO

Leslie
|
Texas, USA
October 12, 2007

Leslie in Texas writes:
A Palestinian state is as feasible as the Israeli state.

The United States could promote an atmosphere of hope by initiating plans to relocate the United Nations,and supporting infrastructure, to the disputed territory.

Will it work? Yes.

Dave
|
Texas, USA
October 12, 2007

Dave in Texas writes:
Fundamentalist Islam is utterly intransigent. Its proponents do not make the effort to lie about this; they consistently and publicly state their intentions, which are murderous and destructive.

Given this, any accomodation with Hamas is doomed to failure. As long as Hamas is in any kind of leadership position, let alone elected to govern by a majority, then giving it its own state is a step toward the surrender of Israel to destruction.

Individually, they will lie and steal and cheat and dissemble in order to accomplish their missions; we are fortunate that they are too proud to maintain a group public image that is dishonest. It is in their call to murder and destruction that they find their principal appeal, and so they tell the truth in public. Hey, it helped Hamas get elected!

I've had exposure to State personnel active and retired, and was aghast at the consistent anti-Bush posture they take. I've long believed that State is acting, or at least large numbers of its personnel are acting, to undermine Bush's administration and cause him to fail.

Cocktail party conversation does not lie, especially at the third round of drinks. State is infested with what amounts to traitors, people who take for themselves a role they were not intended to have-- evaluators and rejectors of the policies of the man who is constitutionally their superior, and whose orders they are charged with carrying out.

It's appalling, and I would not have believed it without personally hearing it from their mouths, but they were in their cups and among friends and the truth always comes out under such circumstances. And this was retired ambassadors and present ambassadorial staff in a European country I'm talking about, AT AN AMBASSADORIAL MANSION DINNER PARTY.

incidentally, that's a helluva mansion they live in at my expense.

David
|
Georgia
October 12, 2007

David in Georgia writes:
Yes the creation of a Palestinian state is not only feasible but necessary. The two state solution is the only way to bring some semblance of peace to the area. The U.S. can play a role, however, I think that another mediator should be brought in as I do not think that there is enough trust amongst the Palestinians to the neutrality of the United States to negotiate a perceived fair settlement from the Palestinian perspective.

Steve
|
Florida, USA
October 12, 2007

Steve in Florida writes:
The creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state is not only feasible, but absolutely necessary. Also necessary is the payment to every man, woman and child in the occupied territories of Palestine for the taking of their land following World War Two for the creation of the State of Israel. Simply citing the Biblical existence of Israel as being in Palestine, and then proceeding to take over settled Palestinian land for that purpose is ludicrous. Further explanation of that fact is not necessary. Spend the money on war "ad nauseum", or spend the money on the creation of peace; the cost is the same, except in the calculation of loss of human life in the process of the former. Then recover Israeli land to that which existed in its establishment of 1947, and the two countries will have a starting point for peace. What's this -- too difficult to understand? There will be no peace in the Middle East until these two sovereign states can coexist, and there will be no coexistence without compensating Palestinians for their land taken in 1947. I am an American Vietnam Veteran, born in 1950 and raised in the United States of America. Decades of conflict have merely fogged this path to peace, but the solution is simple.

Bill
|
Texas, USA
October 12, 2007

Bill in Texas writes:
@ Steve in Florida --

I understand that most people believe that history begins when they were born, but that's not really the case is it? Without ruminating over ancient history from the early Roman Empire and the Jewish wars to the rise and militant expansion of Islam and 14 centuries of dhemmitude for the Jews, I'll skip directly to the more recent events.

Jews begin to prosper and their numbers increase in their ancient homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century. This resulted in riots in Palestine in 1920, the Jaffa riots of 1921, the 1929 Palestine riots and the Great Arab Revolt from 1936 to 1939; and, these are only the highlights. Then another minor thing occurred in Europe called the Holocaust which by the way was actively supported and cheered on by the Arabs. Then came the outright wars: The 1948 Arab-Israeli War; 1956 Arab-Israeli War; 1967 Arab-Israeli War; 1973 Arab-Israeli War; And, again, these are only the highlights of which all were won by the Jews. There were four major offers of a separate Palestinian state during these years that were flatly rejected by the Arabs. I would contend the Arabs don't want peace or a state. I would content that the Arabs want no Jews whatsoever in Israel or any place else (where they are not dhemmis). Thus, I contend that Arabs and Jews cannot co-exist on the same ground. I would suggest, however, that there is a solution.

There are 22 Arab countries covering an area of 14 million square kilometers not to mention the millions of square kilometers of other Muslim countries. Israel has an area of 20,770 square kilometers and is the world's only Jewish country. Separate the Jews and the Arabs - Jews to tiny Israel and Arabs to, well how about Arabia? Are the Arabs afraid they can't compete with tiny Israel or are they so intolerant that they can't accept "the other" in their midst? But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? The Arabs will murder or enslave "the other" every chance they get. And that's the real history of it.

Separate the Jews and the Arabs.

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 13, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Bill in Texas --
History must include all of the facts, Bill, not cherry-picked scripts. The latter is called propaganda aka Hasbara. It's not working anymore as more and more people become increasingingly aware that the focal point of the judao- portion of the judeo-christian creed is a vicious tribal god who, at the time of Joshua, sanctified genocide, theft, displacement, treachery, deceit, spying, dividing peoples and exploiting their lack of unity to defeat them. Yesterday, we learned that the IDF has been instructed to take over a million square meters of land from the Palestinians. A professor at BenGurion University said that the purpose of the expropriation of Palestinian land for Israel was to fragment Palestinians so that they would be unable to form a strong, unified government. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Jews and Arabs lived in peace in Palestine until a hack journalist from Vienna put his finger to the wind and perceived that Germans would no longer tolerate the economic disruption Jews had imposed on Germany since the time of German unification in 1871. Herzl calculated that Jews needed an escape plan; Uganda was suggested, but Palestine was settled on.
Every European power knew that Jews were looking for a sponsor, and they also knew that that sponsor state would enjoy the favor of Jewish wealth and political & media acumen. Still, only England took the bait, in the Balfour Declaration delivered to Baron Rothschild, but even that closely proscribed document represented double-dealing on the part of Britain--the same land had been promised in the Sykes-Picot Agreement--and Jews have not honored the clause in Balfour that states that the pre-existing inhabitants of Palestine shall not be displaced.

Repeating the same script from however many media outlets money can buy cannot and will not change the facts, and the facts will ultimately trump Hasbara.

I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979. Curious that 1979 is the year the US relationship with Iran derailed; Israel saw an opportunity and stepped in to fill the vacuum.

The question for the United States is how will they manage a soft landing for themselves and their too-close alliance with Jews. How manage the fact that the god that many thought for centuries was the center of their creed has sociopathic tendencies. America has a built-in solution: Thomas Jefferson understood the nature of the Judaic god over 200 years ago and based his creation of the backbone of the United States on the Morals and Teachings of Jesus, a volume he compiled by stripping the King James bible of mythical and miraculous references and compiling only the moral sayings of Jesus, whom Jefferson condisered the greatest moral genius the world had known. That guide, Jefferson's compilation of the Morals of Jesus, is the basis of American government to which Americans can and must return. But what has Israel to turn to? Herzl's Judenstadt? Netanyahu's and Sharon's murderous exploits? The 800,000 homes that Israelis have stolen from Palestinians, in contravention of the Balfour Declaration?

That's real history, too, Bill.

Bill
|
Texas, USA
October 13, 2007

Bill in Texas writes:
@ Susan in Maryland --

Before I take the time to refute your post point by point in detail, please tell me what part of the Holocaust do you deny?

Atilla
|
Germany
October 14, 2007

Atilla in Germany writes:
Well since America is the most powerful country in the world + the big brother of Israel and long years supporter with billions of Dollars ( after Israel became strong... ) it has to play an important role in this process.

The truth is, Israel is America (like all other U.S. supported countries ) and it is not the question if creating a sovereign Palestine is correct, it is the question if it is correct of the U.S.A. to just watch and while the blood is running.

It is not about god, it is about oil and power in the Middle East. Palestine should be accepted as state, so the people have a chance to get some food & freedom! And it is only the U.S.A. who can change this situation.

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 14, 2007

Susan in Maryland:
@ Bill in Texas -- Hasbara in action, Bill: nail any critic with "holocaust denial" charge. If you had said, Do you think it's fruitful to continue to research Holocaust with honesty & objectivity, I would have had more respect for your writing.

Instead, you want to put loaded words in my mouth then condemn me judged on the standard of your prejudice while simultaneously condemning even the presentation of critiques of the evidence or the offering of alternative evidence or interpretations of it. In a number of countries, criticizing any aspect of holocaust is a crime; this very day people are in jail for that 'crime.'

Before I take the time to prepare a detailed answer to your question based on history that cannot be changed, please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?

Mathew
|
Texas, USA
October 15, 2007

Mathew in Texas writes:
The establishment of a politically autonomous Palestinian state existing alongside Israel is most definitely feasible--the true question at hand is what must the international community do to expedite the acquirement of independence. Quite simply, barriers to the creation of an independent Palestine exist within the management policies of Israel, which do not comply with the political and humanitarian goals of Israel's neighbors or allies. If the international community continues to stand back as Israel cuts off resources from Gaza and isolates the West Bank, it is very likely that we will not see a democratic, autonomous Palestine in many years. This is where the United States' role comes into play. It is absolutely necessary that the US contributes to the establishment of an independent Palestine for two main reasons: diplomatic legitimacy in the Middle East and political legitimacy internationally. By refusing to interfere in Israel's policies towards its environment (2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, recent actions within Syria, diplomatically isolating itself) whilst still blindly supporting the Israeli government, the United States is bringing upon itself an outward appearance of belligerence and incompetence. How are we to progress in the Middle East like that?

yonason
|
Florida, USA
October 15, 2007

Yonason in Florida writes:
Susan in Maryland tells Bill in Texas that he doesn't know his history? I would have to write many pages to untangle all the errors she makes, so I'll just try to briefly address a couple, and then put the whole into an Historical perspective many may not have considered, but I think is important.

Jews did NOT displace the Arabs. The Arabs displaced themselves at the behest of their fellows to make it easier to distinguish between Jew and Arab when the Arabs invaded to exterminate us Jews.

Earlier, when Jews were first settling Israel, they either bought land from Arabs or developed empty land, much of which was malaria ridden swamps which Jews (not Arabs) reclaimed. And as Jews began to prosper, even more foreign Arabs came to get jobs. Now these squatters are claiming Jewish land. THAT is history.

The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine," a term originally given to Israel by the Romans to disguise the fact that it was Jewish land (even though the world, until recently, was able to remember who's it really was, anyway). And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs.

Then the Brits hacked off most of the mandate, also illegally. Then the UN further restricted Jews from land rightfully ours. And if a Jew was caught in possession of a gun to defend himself, the Brits hung the Jew, but if an Arab had a gun to kill a Jew, nobody bothered him. If the Brits caught a Jew entering the "Palestinian Mandate" area against British "laws" (laws contrary to their "mandate") he was shipped back to Hitler's death camps. THAT is history.

Susan says, "I just did a quick search through the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. "Holocaust" was not a topic categorized in the Guide until 1979."

I am nearly 60 years old. And all through my teens there were war news reels played in television specials, often showing what everyone then knew as "The Holocaust." The term was first used in the early 1940's and became widespread in the 1950's, which is when I was growing up and first heard it used. It was well known. THAT is history.

Since Susan also invokes Jefferson, and his historical period, I wonder if she knows that if it weren't for Jews, America might never have come to be?

Has she ever heard of Chaim (Haym) Saloman? He used his entire personal fortune of $600,000 (billions in today's dollars) and raised another 3.5 million Pounds from Rothschild and others in France, to finance America's Revolution. And, when the fledgling democracy couldn't pay salaries? Salomon personally supported Jefferson, and others, by paying them a pension. When the "Palestinians" were just Arabs, many of them desert marauders, Jews were helping build America. In fact, there were a lot of Jews who fought for America, like Saloman's wife's brother, who was an officer on Washington's staff at Valley Forge. THAT is history.

Now the USA wants to pay Jews back by giving our mutual enemy the advantage it needs to destroy our fledgling country?

Oh, and neither Mr. Saloman nor his descendents was ever reimbursed for their trouble. That may not be gratitude. But it is history.

yonason
|
Florida, USA
October 15, 2007

Yonason in Florida writes:

@ Susan in Maryland -- ...who says to Bill in Texas, ". . . please tell me what part of criminal human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinians do you deny?"

Well, I can't speak for Bill, but for myself, my answer is an unequivocal ALL OF THEM.

Jenin was a lie. Even the UN says it was a lie. And so all the others.

An Arab kills a Jew, and an Arab in need of an organ transplant is a match and gets the Jewish organ in a Jewish hospital, then she goes home and tells her child to be a shahid to kill Jews for their god.

When they were under Israeli jurisdiction, the Arabs of "Palestine" were much better off than most of the rest of the Arab world. According to CAMERA, "The U.N.'s 2005 Human Development Report, released to coincide with this month's opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, ranks the Arabs of what it calls "Occupied Palestinian Territories" at 102 out of 177 countries. . . " Now, they rule themselves and there are roving gangs, many members wearing police uniforms. But, till then, they were much better off " . . . than Algerians (103), Syrians (106), Egyptians (119), Moroccans (124) and Yemeni (151). Based on data for 2003." If they stopped their attacks, then ALL the violence would stop.

All the suffering of the so-called "Palestinians" is at their own hands. You want to talk civil rights? What about the "Palestiinian" who is accused by his fellows of "colaborating" with Israel? He was given a show trial, and then executed within a matter of hours, his death sentence signed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Arafat, when he was still around.. That's a real human rights abuse. Why aren't you up in arms about that?

In short, you show me a case of "Palestinian" persecution by Jews, and I'll show you a lie.

Bill
|
Texas, USA
October 15, 2007

Bill in Texas writes:

@ Susan in Maryland -- Once when I was much younger I saw a man in the restroom of a bar pouring his beer down the urinal and asked him what he was doing. He responded that he was just saving the middle man. That's why I asked you straight away about the Holocaust. It saved a lot of needless rhetoric and those reading the blog now know exactly with whom they're dealing. For those readers interested in some new Holocaust research and interpretation, I invite you to view Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president, and listen to him in his own words.

Please see: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1575.htm

If you sympathize with these views then I can convince you of nothing. The only possible response I have is that Germany lost World War I and lost land. The Turkish Empire also lost World War I and they also lost land. Germany lost World War II and lost more land. The Arabs lost the war in 1948 and they lost more land. The undeveloped land called E1 near Maaleh Adumim that you previously noted is yet another example of losers losing more land. If the Palestinian Arabs continue on this course then my sense is that they will continue to lose land and their naqbahs will multiply accordingly. I can only repeat that the Arabs have been offered (progressively smaller tracts of) land for peace four times in the last 70 years and rejected it each time. If you are inclined to visuals, please look at a map of what the Peel Commission offered the Arabs in 1937. This alone is worth far more that I anything I have said.

Please see: http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/nopalestinianstate.html

Finally, if anyone believes that a relationship exists between the Holocaust not being a topic in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature until 1979 and the US relationship with Iran in the same year then they can follow that rabbit down the hole. Susan, do I have to ask you what part the Mossad played in 9/11?

Ken
|
California, USA
October 15, 2007

Ken in California writes:
A sovereign Palestinian state is only feasible if the West Bank and Gaza are somehow physically connected into a single state. With the Palestinian people having complete control of the entire area.

The past offer from Israel to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank was an insult. Israel was to keep most of Jersulem, the entire area bordering the Jordan River, and the rest of the West Bank was divided into three parts. Israeli settlements were to remain with Israeli only roads connecting the settlements, further braking the West Bank into at least 23 small separated parts.

If Israel really wants Palestianians to accept Israels right to exist, Isreal must also accept the right of Palestine to exist as a real state.

Ron
|
Kansas, USA
October 15, 2007

Ron in Kansas writes:
@ Ralph in Greece --
1.) As long as our Congress funds and arms Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, that's how long America will continue to be the target of Muslim terrorism.

2.) As long as our U.S. military continues to occupy Muslim land, that's how long America will be the target of Muslim terrorism.

3.)Despite what Bush & Cheney says, it doesn't have a thing to do with hating our freedoms, hot dogs, apple pies and Chevrolets. Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007

Sir,

1- Please refresh my memory as to when the Isrealites actually lost any claim to at least some of the land where their ancestors existed before the expansion of the "muslim" empires

2- I wonder if you could explain where "muslim lands" vs not yet muslim lands is supposed to end. Am I incorrect in my understanding that the teachings are that any land that can is to be taken and once it has will therefore after be considered such?

3- At least we here still have the ability to get a hot dog on just about any street corner, can eat apple pies day in day out without any compunction, and can buy a chevrolet without having to use an entire life savings.

We can only hope to provide others with the opportunity to experience such for themselves and their children.

@ Kenneth in Canada --

You are right in one context reference the Palestinian state and that is that we cannot create it, good thing we're not trying to.
We are however in our efforts doing everything we can to enable the Palestinian people ( note: not those who seek to control through fear, terror)
but the real people who have families and wish to simply live, worship, and grow without constant interference from outside parties.

In doing so it must be admitted that we have definately done more towards that end than the many neighbors who for their own reasons have chosen to work proactively against exactly that.

Speaking of neighbors, I think Chavez has enough to worry about with his own neighbors that we needn't waste the time in invasions, etc.
PS: I would think he does a good enough job on his own proving his despotism without any help.

:)

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 15, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:
@ Yonason in Florida -- You've made about 7 assertions in 2 posts.
Let's deal with them one at a time,starting with this one:

yonason wrote: "The British were required by the League of Nations to establish a Jewish homeland in all of what they renamed "Palestine,"... And part of that mandate (legally binding under international law) was that Jews would be assisted to emigrate there and Arabs would be limited. The Brits reneged on that, and prevented Jews from coming while encouraging Arabs."

The elided part mentions the naming of Palestine, who 'owned' it in some earlier millenia and on and on and on and on. Suggest you read some unbiased histories; I have found very good Teaching Company lectures such as Prof. Harl's "Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor" and Salim Yaqub, "US & Middle East, 1914-2001."

For those who can't Google the Balfour document and the League of Nations , here are relevant portions. Compare the actual words to yonason's desiderated meanings, above.

"Balfour Declaration 1917

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour"

Please note three items:
1. The Declaration is addressed to Baron Rothschild;
2. It grants a national home for the Jewish people "IN Palestine," not "OF Palestine;"
3. It is "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, states in its Preamble:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,** [ie the Balfour Declaration, above] by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment **in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,** it being **clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,** or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

In other words, the terms of the League of Nations=the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate of 1922 gave mandatory powers to Great Britain, ie. GB was to administer and enforce the "establishment IN Palestine of national home for the Jews," AND GB was to ensure that "the civil & religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" were not prejudiced by the establishment of Jews IN Palestine."

I have read the entire League of Nations Mandate and could find nothing that would support your assertion that "Arabs would be limited" in living in Palestine; the documents seem to state the opposite.

Great Britain may, indeed, be accused of double-dealing: Balfour signed an agreement with Baron Rothschild for territory that was already the subject of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, subdividing the same territory between the French and the British.

And indeed, the British did seek to stem the flow of Jews to Palestine as the demographic balance began to shift, causing consternation among Arabs that "IN" was becoming "OF," and as the rights of Arabs were not being protected as the League of Nations Mandate required. Zionists responded by attacking British troops and British government authorities and installations, waging guerrilla war against the British mandatory authority and harrying Arabs who were attempting to establish a sovereign state of their own in the wake of the collapse of the Ottomans.

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 15, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:

@ Bill in Texas-
I don't drink beer.

I don't speak Farsi and must be skeptical of a MEMRI translation of Rafsanjani's comments. Nevertheless, assuming the translation is accurate and unbiased, I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement.

I believe a distinction between "Jews" and "zionism" was more than implicit; I believe zionism was identified as a political force and movement; I believe Rafsanjani is historically correct and is supported by historians such as Amos Elon in "The Pity of It All" in stating that zionists controlled great wealth, political power, and media in pre-war Germany; that their disproportionate wielding of that wealth and power played a role in inflaming the World Wars that destroyed many parts of Germany and over 2 million German civilians and that included the holocaust of Jews as well as millions of Russian Christians, Polish Catholics (thousands of whom found refuge and safety in Iran, where they still live peacefully), and others.

Bill
|
Texas, USA
October 15, 2007

Bill in Texas writes:

@ Susan in Maryland --

RE: "I see nothing that is factually in error or problematic in Rafsanjani's statement." speaks for itself.

There is no distinction between "Jews" and "zionism". The gas chambers did not discriminate and neither has any other irrational Jew-hater throughout history. In your world view the Jews are responsible for their own incineration. That view is a perversion beyond my ability to describe. I have made my case and will leave it to all of the readers of this blog to make up their own mind - no need for you to respond to the 9/11 inquiry.

Gary
|
Virginia, USA
October 15, 2007

Gary in Virginia writes:
I assume the question refers to a Palestinian state as part of a 'two-state solution.' Surely that solution is not feasible, at least not unless the Palestinian side wants there to be two states. The Arab League absolutely rejected the partition of Palestine back in 1947,[see: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947UN181.html] and the Palestinian National Charter affirms that rejection, especially in Articles 2 and 17 [see: http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html]. Unless and until that changes, and a couple of generations have passed, I see no reason to expect a two-state solution to work.

Should the U.S. play a major role? Maybe, but I wonder why we are even bothering with peace negotiations at a time when the Palestinian side is violently divided into its al-Fatah and HAMAS wings. Until the Palestinians make peace with themselves, how can we talk about them making peace with Israel?

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 15, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:

@ Bill in Texas:

You are reading what you want to read, not what Rafsanjani said. The point Rafsanjani was trying to make is similar to the point Ahmadinejad has made several times, most recently at Columbia University. Ahmadinejad said:

"given this historical event, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?

The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time."

Here's what MAMRI says that Rafsanjani said:

"Europe resolved a great problem ã the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. **This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less.**

Rafsanjani is saying that Muslims are being punished for the wrongs of Germany. That is not disputable.

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 15, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:
What happened to the Iran blog?

Susan
|
Maryland, USA
October 15, 2007

Susan in Maryland writes:

@ Bill in Texas -- I will not permit my statements to be perverted; I did not say Jews were responsible for their own incineration: stick to the text at hand, not the way you want to pervert it.

There WERE causes to the wars, they did not emerge from insubstantial ether. In "The Pity of it All," Amos Elon explains at length how Germans and Jews lived together to their mutual benefit for many generations. Zionism, however, introduced attitudes and practices that DID inflame the passions of Germans, similar to the way Naomi Klein explains that impositions of the "Shock Doctrine" inflames rage in people, rage that boils over in deadly ways. John Maynard Keynes made the same observation in 1920 in "The Consequences of the Peace," when he warned that the extreme punishment levied on Germany after WWI would result in a very dangerous reaction. History proves that he was right.

Today we have an opportunity to learn from Klein and from Keynes and from the bitter experience of the Jewish people as well as from the ongoing tragedy that the Palestinians are enduring. Instead, some are denying not only facts as they occurred but even denying the search for the facts, while simultaneously repeating the very acts of violence and horror that had created victims in the past.

It is intellectually dishonest as well as dangerous to attack a dispassionate search for facts, patterns, and behaviors as to how it came about that-- to stick to the Rafsanjani statement-- Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes and lands by Jews who had been victimized by Germany. Problems cannot be solved if their causes are not understood, and understanding is not advanced by propaganda but by hard-headed analysis of the facts as they happened.

yonason
|
Florida, USA
October 16, 2007

Yonason in Florida writes:
Excerpts from "The Palestine Mandate" and How the British Violated Them:

It seems there are those who don't like my interpretation of the Palestine Mandate. Maybe these comments will make it clearer.

The mandate was a result of the "...recognition ... [of] ... The historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;..."[my emphasis, here and below]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm

Not the "palestinian people" but the "Jewish people." [@Susan of Maryland, please note this well!]

And, so, how were the Brits "mandated" to do it?

"ART. 6.
... Facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall ENCOURAGE, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, ... " (IBID) [where "close settlement" means many and densely populated areas)

So, how did the Brits "faithfully" execute their "mandate?""The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, ... "
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php

More sordid details of how these Jews were sent back to die in Hitlers death camps can be found here.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/struma.htm

And that was just one example. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved from extermination had the British, who knew what Hitler was up to, allowed Jews the privilege that the "mandate" required.

Meanwhile, Arab immigration went unrestricted,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html
... despite the fact that Jewish immigration was ostensibly drastically reduced because the land allegedly couldn't support any more, a claim the Brits later admited was false..

That was only one way the Brits savaged the intent of the "mandate." Another involed violation of this portion, . . .

"ART. 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

How did they do that? They gave 70% of it, East of the Jordan river, to be a kingdom for Abdullah, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, as in what is now "Saudi Arabia."
_____________________________________

But, apart from the fact the Jews were denied what they eventually won, with G-D's help, the question remains. Should the "Palestinians" have their own state, and should the USA help?

Here is some more information of the "moderate""leaders," like Abbas, who would be in control of that little corner of Hell on Earth.

"In mid-March Abbas met with a delegation of 13 terrorist groups in Cairo and invited them to come to Gaza after Israeli Prime Minister Sharon completed his pullout. In doing this he assured the creation of a terrorist entity at Israelãs border.

By late March he met with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and offered them the opportunity to join the PLO - without renouncing terrorism.

In early April he gave the order for the incorporation of wanted gunmen into the PA Security Forces. This was specifically to protect them from Israel; once they began collecting salaries, they had immunity. Before long, he was recruiting Hamas."
http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/InsideFateh.pdf

Those are the kind of "states" that we want to see destabilized, not established. It is amazing that with what we know about the "Palestinian" Arabs and their leaders that any sane person could want them in charge of anything, let alone a state.

Heck, even many of the "Palestinian" Arabs living in Israel prefer it to Arafat's Islamic, Judenrein "paradise."
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2534

yonason
|
Florida, USA
October 16, 2007

Yonason in Florida writes:
A misconception that many today labor under is that the "Palestinian" Arabs were some sort of ancient people who have inhabited Israel for millennia and the Jews are trying to displace them.

There is NO connection between the "Palestinians," who acquired that name in about 1967 as a propaganda tool to fool people into believing that "Palestine" was named for them, and the Philistines who evaporated from history well before the common era (2000 plus years ago) leaving no remnant. The "Palestinians" couldn't possibly be related, especially since most were immigrants to Israel after the Jews began making it a fit place to live in.

Of course, there is one striking connection between the Philistines and the "Palestinians," and that is the fact that Philistine comes from the Hebrew word meaning "invader" which is what those people were.
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/055422.php
And I will grant you that, in that aspect, the Philistines and the "Palestinians" are exactly the same.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 16, 2007

Eric in New Mexico writes:

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

And in the knowing, all things are possible.

Regarding America's role playing:

The concept of "Karma" is simply put, reaping what you sow. It goes way beyond this, and forms the basis of living in peace with your actions in the world.
People who bring trouble between them to your door, are asking you to engage in their karma, and feed it. They often blame you when it's still unresolved opon leaving. If you've taken sides, one blames the consequences of the other's action opon you. You have just incurred karma and have done so by allowing the dispute to continue in your home first, and in siding with a disputant, and the attachment to the conflict that it represents, secondly. I'm speaking as if it were
two individuals involved, not nations.

If Arafat and Sharon personalized this conflict, they ignored the best interests of their citizens. Hamas should read the writing on the wall.

A people can elect terrorism to power, but a democracy it doesn't make.

Diplomacy is done by individuals, and words are the worst form of communication ever invented.

But to rid the Karma of attachment to that conflict that America has been burdened with. I mean until they start thinking in the public's interests first and foremost, we will not advance the interests of peace and security, and while we may encourage them to engage in peace, they must find it in their own best interests, and work toward that end to find security.

Any way we approach the situation, our efforts have been consistently sabotaged by seeming to be taking sides, and when we don't step in to stop the slaughter, we are blamed for it.

The goal of a Palestinian State as supported, gives hope to the stateless, and is worthy in that regard.

The thought of a Palestinian state without terrorism is today, unthinkable without the change in attitude necessary from all parties to find peace and eventual trust in that peace.

Bold steps and perhaps controversial ones are required, when a plan is not working, everything must be considered to find one that does. I believe this situation must be next on the list to effectively win the war on terrorism. It must be done through diplomacy, not armed intervention, however that option too must be considered if a peace keeping force is necessary in supporting diplomacy.

Peace comes through strength, this is a given in today's world, how we employ it, ethically, diplomatically, economicly and militarily, let the lessons of Afghanistan be the guide. There is a way. I have faith in this, as I do in my government's ability to correct past mistakes and to address the future with those lessons in hand.

To all the parties I would offer the following advice:

You can achive this most difficult of things, finding the "undiscovered country", so long as you remember your joy. One cannot have hope without it.

Pages

.

Latest Stories

January 20, 2009

Careers at the U.S. Department of State: April

Human Resources Specialist discusses her experiences working at the U.S. Department of State. Full Text available at: http://careers.state.gov/resources/transcripts.html Author: statevideo… more

Pages