Senate Israel/Palestine

Friends, riddle me this:

Why was Isreal/Palestine partitioned the way it was?

I mean, just looking at a map, having a gaza strip and the west bank carved out from Isreal the way it is seems unworkable from the start.

Why not just partition Isreal and Palestine into a straight up north/south division, and give one half to Isreal and the other half to Palestine? Does anyone know the reasoning behind how they did the partition?

 

Well, that's the way the UN thinks. When the partition plan was in the implementation phase, it was like that from the beginning, at least from 1947. Actually, the plan included a 3 way division. The Jewish state of Israel, the Arab state, and an internationally controlled "neutral zone" around Jerusalem, which would have been open to all. Here's a pretty good map of the 1947 UN proposal:

[image=http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelMaps/UN1947PalestineMap.gif]

The salamander nature is obvious by design. The idea was to allow both sides have as equal access as possible to the Mediterranean Sea and other resources, under the UN desire to prevent one sector from dominating the resources. (Israel actually received 56% of the land, while Palestine got 44%.) The "messed up" nature that you just commented on was born out of a UN plan to be overly fair, which would probably make it the first example of political correctness gone amok. Remember, all of these territories were being divested after the end of WWII, and I think in its own naive way, the UN thought that both mish-mashed sections would live together in peace because no major power wanted war anymore.

Of course, that was back in 1947. The actual outcome turned out to be the exact opposite of what the UN intended.

 

I wish I had the time to properly address this. The UN Partition Plan was doomed to fail because it did not reflect the proportion of Jewish/Arab settlement in Palestine at the time. In 1947 the Jewish population was quite small and represented only a small proportion of the entire population. Yet, they received the lion's share of the land and nearly all of the prime agricultural holdings with plentiful water acquifers. The Palestinians were left with a chunk of non-arable land and no functioning port. If that is an example of the UN being "too fair" then I'm speechless. The Partition Plan was manifestly unfair which is why it was rejected by the Palestinian leadership.

There is a better map of the UN Partition and description here:

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

More importantly, the concept of partition, ie, kicking Palestinian families out of their homes who had farmed the land for hundreds of years and declaring that land to be the property of the Jewish people, was also not considered to be an equitable solution. For the Palestinian people who had lived and farmed the land for generations, a change in ownership (from Ottoman rule to British Mandate for example) did not result in a need to leave their farm holdings. Partititon meant packing your bags and never returning.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure the Palestinian leadership regrets the decisions made in 1947. Obviously they weren't to know what was to come in 1948.

 

I have to admit, this is a really good point.

Anyways,

Really sad news out of Palestine--one of my former professors posted this article today:

Link

Here's a summary:

Palestinians, artists and peace activists worldwide are mourning the loss of a leading figure in Palestinian creative nonviolent resistance. Juliano Mer-Khamis, the founder of a theater for Palestinian children, was killed Monday by masked assailants in the West Bank town of Jenin. He had received a number of death threats from extremist Palestinians for his work with the Jenin Freedom Theatre. The theater has helped Palestinian youths deal with the hardships of life under Israeli occupation by expressing themselves through the arts?film, photography, art and theater. We are joined in Jenin by Nabeel Raee, director of the Acting School at the Jenin Freedom Theatre, where he worked closely with Mer-Khamis for many years, and by Constancia "Dinky" Romilly, founder and president of the board of the New York City-based Friends of the Jenin Freedom Theatre, who also worked closely with the program in Jenin.

 

We should seize both of their lands and enslave them.

 

Why doesn't Egypt just annex the Gaza strip, and Jordan annex the West Bank?

Egypt's probably going to have more strained relations with Israel now, but both have signed peace treaties, I don't understand why Israel doesn't just give the land to them. And independent Palestine of just the West Bank and Gaza strip will be so small and resource-poor.

 

A potential game-changer:

Palestinians test tactic of unarmed mass marches
Demonstrations 'will present us with difficult challenges,' says Israeli defense minister

Palestinian activists are calling it a preview of new tactics to pressure Israel and win world support for statehood: Masses of marchers, galvanized by the Arab Spring and brought together by Facebook, descending on borders and military posts ? and daring Israeli soldiers to shoot.

It could prove more problematic for Israel than the suicide bombings and other deadly violence of the past ? which the current Palestinian Authority leadership feels only tainted their cause.

After attempted border breaches from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza left 15 Palestinians dead Sunday, Israeli officials openly puzzled over how to handle an unfamiliar new phase.

"The Palestinians' transition from terrorism and suicide bombings to deliberately unarmed mass demonstrations is a transition that will present us with difficult challenges," said Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Sunday's protests were driven by renewed hopes that Palestinian statehood ? at least as an internationally approved idea within specific borders ? is approaching after years of paralysis.

The optimism is fed by reconciliation efforts between the Islamic militant Hamas and the Western-backed Fatah movement after a four-year split, as well as growing international support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' plan to seek U.N. recognition of a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in September over Israel's objections.

Although some say U.N. recognition will change little on the ground, the pro-democracy revolts in the Arab world have instilled a new sense of possibility among Palestinians, who had been dejected after two failed uprisings against Israeli rule and fruitless peace talks over the past 20 years.

Meanwhile, the Facebook generation is increasingly taking a lead in the Palestinian arena, at times sidelining political veterans stuck to more traditional ways.

"There is a new energy, a new dynamism," said Hanan Ashrawi, a former Palestinian negotiator. "The Palestinians feel they have put themselves on the map again."

Sunday's marches occurred on the day Palestinians mourn Israel's 1948 creation, when hundreds of thousands of their people were uprooted and scattered throughout the region.

Marking the anniversary, called the "nakba," Arabic for "catastrophe," Palestinian organizers bused hundreds to Lebanon's border with Israel and to the Syrian frontier in the Israeli-held Golan Heights. Surprised and overwhelmed, Israeli troops fired to keep the crowds from breaching the borders. Four Palestinians were killed in the Golan and 10 in Lebanon, while a 15th was fatally shot as dozens rushed Israel's border wall with the Gaza Strip.

It's unclear whether future calls for more mass marches will produce a similar turnout since Sunday's casualties underscored the heavy risks.

However, Palestinian activists in recent months have spoken of employing such tactics throughout the West Bank, the core of a hoped-for future Palestinian state.

Some in Israel suspected that allies of arch-foe Iran, including the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, had a hand in the border breaches or that Syria helped instigate them to divert attention from its brutal crackdown on domestic unrest. In Lebanon's border area, Hezbollah activists with walkie-talkies directed buses and handed out Palestinian flags.

However, the Palestinians say it was purely their initiative, launched on Facebook several months ago, with heavy involvement by expatriates. "No one expected it to work, and it did work," said Hazem Abu Hilal, a Palestinian organizer.

Palestinian officials quickly embraced the campaign as a boost for their three-pronged strategy ? seeking U.N. recognition, building a state from the ground up and fostering nonviolent protests.

Abbas declared a three-day mourning period for Sunday's dead, and flags were lowered to half-staff. "You

 

It has potential, I have been saying this for awhile.

However, one must temper this with cautious optimism. While I would hope that Israel would never be so foolish as to fire on unarmed protestors, I am equally wary of a militant sneaking into a non-violent crowd, firing on Israeli soldiers, and then "losing" his or her weapon, making a provoked response look unprovoked. The world has proven time and again it is more than willing to blame Israel first in these situations, regardless of the facts, and ask questions later, and this could be no different.

As for America, I think reaction would be mixed. Cautious optimism would rule first, followed by a call for realism on all sides.

The best outcome would be a return to the Roadmap, with Palestinian statehood and sharing of Jerusalem to follow. The worst outcome (IMHO) would be protestors demanding to basically take over Israel, which would cause a lot of political tension worldwide as the US would be forced to get in the way of such a demand.

To clarify, nonviolent protest is a great way for the Palestinians to finally get to the "two-state" solution. If they think that it is going to give them license to completely get rid of Israel, then they will be disappointed, and I think that eventually, nonviolence will once again devolve back into violence.

But here's to hoping.

Peace,

V-03

 

The Palestinians learned a long time ago that non-violent, mass demonstrations will just lead to them being detained with no charge (possibly for months or years) and/or shot by the IDF. There is a long history of this and I have posted links in this thread to reports of Palestinian protestors being shot and detained in the past by the IDF, including children. In many cases, the IDF uses rubber bullets, but those rubber bullets can do serious damage and can be lethal.

So, yeah, I hope it all works out, but please let's not pretend that the Palestinians have never tried peaceful, non-violent demonstrations before. They were organising such measures decades ago. They didn't work then and they probably won't work now. It's one of the reasons why a violent resistance movement developed in the first place.

Vaderize03 - I honestly don't think that there is any real expectation among the Palestinian people (even the militant types) that they will ever be rid of Israel. Israel is there to stay. The PLO formally accepted this over 20 years ago. Hamas accept this (despite the wording of their charter). The people may chant "Death to Israel"" at public rallies but that is merely the rehetoric of grief and frustration, particularly among the Gazans. If life were to improve in Gaza and a viable independent Palestinain state established then the attitude of the Palestinian people will change from anger and grief to optimism. The struggle now is to achieve an independent Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. It will happen eventually. The tide of international opinion is changing and it is becoming more apparent that the violence is a result of Israeli occupation rathen than a wider plan to remove Israel as a sovereign state.

Ghost - just out of curiosity, why would Egypt and Jordan want to annex Gaza and the West Bank? That ship has sailed. Jordan gave up the West Bank decades ago. Egypt gace up Gaza over a decade ago. Why go back? The Palestinian people want an independent state of Palestine in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - they don't want to be Egyptians or Jordanians. It solves nothing.

 

But could the IDF get away with it in the age of the mobile phone, where videos of any oppression can be quickly uploaded to the Internet for the entire world to see? Egypt and Tunisia have fallen, Libya and Yemen and Syria are seeing significant unrest (as were Bahrain and Iran earlier). Perception is everything, and if the world sees Israel abusing peaceful protestors, then Israel could lose any international support it still has, even among Americans who usually see support of Israel as a religious necessity.

What do you think about what I said above, about Egypt just taking Gaza and Jordan taking West Bank? It just seems like an independent Palestine would be very resource-poor, with the poor and tiny Gaza Strip having the only access to the sea, and West Bank being larger and more prosperous but being stuck inland.

 

Israel could get away with it quite easily, as any footage can be explained away in terms of self defence. Israel has done so in the past many, many times. If some footage was uploaded to the internet which appeared damaging then Israel would merely hold a press conference and say that they were the victims of a "terrorist" action and label everyone in the crowd as "terrorists". There is a difference of perception between an opressed civilian population demonstrating against its totalitarian government and a bunch of Palestinians (read "terrorists") protesting against the democratic state of Israel. Israel has done a fantastic job over the years of deflecting the real issues as to why the Palestinians are in the streets demonstrating in the first place. Israel has shot, killed and illegally imprisoned dozens of civilians, women and children, bombed UN installations and killed UN staff, bombed entire civilian buildings, killed innocent bystanders in assassination attempts and contravened more UN Security Council Resolutions than any other country, including Iran and Iraq. All with impunity.

Well, like I said, I don't see the point in Egypt and Jordan annexing Gaza and the West Bank. It solves nothing. Jordan gave up the West Bank nearly twenty years ago. An independent Palestinian state need not be resource poor if Israel withdraws its illegal settlements from all of the prime agricultural land in the West Bank, including all of the land where there are good sources of water. The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are strategically placed to maximise access to the prime agricultural land and to marginalize Palestinian land holdings so that the Palestinians are forced to give up and leave. Every aspect of Israeli policy concerning planning and development is aimed at maximising the discomfort of the Palestinian people so that they go live somewhere else, like Jordan or Egypt.

 

contravened more UN Security Council Resolutions than any other country, including Iran and Iraq. All with impunity.'

Let's be fair about the reasons for this. They have contravened more resolutions because they have been the target of far more said resolutions, by almost an order of magnitude, than Iran or Iraq, who traditionally have been protected by other voices in the UN.

Even today, when it is more than clear Iran's intentions are suspect, Russia, and to a lesser extent China, stand ready to veto any resolution with real teeth.

That being said, stating that Israel has "ignored more resolutions", tacitly implying that they are a rogue state in the same category as North Korea, and done so with impunity, is a bit of an oversimplification. The UN has also ignored, and failed to condemn, multiple acts of terrorism, not only against Israel proper, but also against european nations that have suffered at the hands of the PLO.

Does anybody remember how often there were airline hijackings back in the '70s and '80s?

I'm not defending Israel by any means here, as they have absolutely abused human rights, but I think, for the sake of fairness and advancing the discussion, we need to leave the UN out of it.

They have been about as far from an impartial body as one can get when it comes to dealing with the conflict in general, and Israel in particular.

The reasons for that? Well, we all can speculate.....

Peace,

V-03

 

Well, there was really no idea of a Palestinian "nationality" until recently, before it ws just Arab nationality complicated by tribal allegiances. The ship has probably sailed, but it would still seem best.

I don't think it would work so well for Israel this time, and could change the perception of Palestinians as only terrorists here in America. Especially with the Arab Spring going on all around it.

And I really, really dount that Israel will withdraw its illegal settlements anywhere, especially not from the good water sources and agricultural land. An independent Palestine doesn't make economic sense.

 

I remain doubtful, Ghost. For one, there were mass peaceful protests just this Sunday at the border crossings. In spite of the fact that the Israelis responded with live ammunition, it received almost no press coverage in the West. Similarly, the happenings in Bahrain have been hugely under-reported. Employing the moral force of non-violent mass protests depends on a willingness of people to pay attention. They sort of have a point in complaining that stuff can just be ignored.

 

Well, Obama has just called for a return to the pre-1967 borders.

Interesting. This will certainly energize his opponents with cries of "anti-Israel!".

I'm not sure exactly what all the fuss is about. A Palestinian state will involve the West Bank and Gaza, two areas which Israel seized in the 1967 war.

Peace,

V-03

 

Wait, so we weren't pushing for a return to the pre-1967 borders this whole time? I thought that was the whole premise of the peace negotiations.

Oh sure, Israel and its first-class military is going to be so threatened by the Palestinians with their AK-47's and their 1960's vintage APC's. As for the settlements, well that's what they get for trying to take land that was never theirs to begin with.

 

I've got to agree, this is probably the stupidest and most baffling choice of headlines for a speech that I can think of. But I guess it's just a sign of how warped the national dialogue has become. Similarly, that people would chafe at the suggestion that torturing people is a bad thing.

 

Same, I thought that was what we've been trying to do for the last few years.

It made news. Not major headlines, but it was on all the websites and talked about on the news shows on MSNBC (and Shepard Smith on FOX).

I was kind of surprised that Obama spoke up about Bahrain today, and specifically condemned their destruction of Shia mosques. Bahrain was being reported on, along with Yemen, fairly closely, until the Libya thing happened, and the Bahrain revolt was mostly crushed.

 

Oh sure, Israel and its first-class military is going to be so threatened by the Palestinians with their AK-47's and their 1960's vintage APC's. As for the settlements, well that's what they get for trying to take land that was never theirs to begin with.

Well, a couple of things are interesting here. First off, Israel has been looking outward with regard to its military for a while now. (outward meaning toward Iran and/or Syria) If anyone didn't know, Israel is going to spend 2 billion dollars to complete its wide-focused air defense system due for completion in 2015.

Obama's speech is puzzling, because just last year (last April/May 2010) Obama asked Congress to appropriate 200+ million dollars under this year's budget to provide Israel with additional anti-air defenses. If anyone is keeping score, the bill was approved by the House, and was sponsored by Rep. Glenn Nye from Virginia. (Nye was one of the (D) representatives who was not re-elected in the last election, although not because of this issue.) Here is a passage from the specific statement released by the White House on the matter back then, and it's pretty clear which side the White House has taken:

"(Obama) recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome."

EXAMPLE STORY

This just isn't limited to the US, as Germany of all countries, just agreed to sell Israel 6 diesel-electric powered attack subs that will be used to patrol the Mediterranean Sea and sink cargo tankers that are caught attempting to smuggle contraband to the Palestinians. I think Israel probably wanted them in order to avoid the perception problems posed by having commandos storm such cargo ships, as has happened in the past. But I bet there is going to be a rash of tanker ships mysteriously sinking in the Med, so it will be interesting to see how Germany addresses the issue.

 

Could you fill us in on the logic of how exactly this is "puzzling?" The speech came down largely in favor of the Israelis, and only "challenged" them in the sense that it asserted that the 1967 borders were the basis for negotiation. This only contradicts expanding support for the Israeli military if one feels such a posture would, necessarily and in perpetuity, seriously compromise the Israeli capacity for self-defense. While this canard has been a standard line from Netenyahu's government, it has been widely rejected by all other parties, given that (as many in this thread have pointed out), it has been in the unstated starting point of negotiations for not only the Obama Administration, but several US administrations prior, the European powers, and all international bodies.

What exactly is there to be "puzzled" about? It's not new.

 

Ok, so it's not puzzling at all.

I was only thinking in terms of there not being any real consequences if Israel didn't pull back to pre-67 borders because no one really cares about that, it's just rhetoric. So perhaps Israel should, if that is what one thinks, but even if they don't, they'll get a bonus 200 million bucks and 6 new submarines to ensure that they don't really have to, or not. It doesn't matter.

 

So you're saying we should threaten to cut all military aid to Israel, unless they agree to our demands to move forward the peace process?

 

Vaderize03 - I'm pressed for time at the moment but intend to respond fully to your comments regarding the UN in the next day or so. In short, the entire peace process has been driven by UN SC Resolutions, in particular, UN Security Council Resolution 242. UN Security Council Resolution 242 was made following the Six Day War and calls for Israel to withdraw from the the territories it has occupied following the end of the conflict.

UN SC Resolution 242 is the legal framework, in international law, for the return to pre-1967 borders, including the return of East Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees removed from their homes following the 1948 war - enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194. It should be noted that the US vetos UN GA Resolution 194 every year.

A return to pre-1967 borders means a return to the Armistice Line 1949 borders (or Green Line) which are the only borders which have even some sembelence of agreement about them. A return to pre-1967 borders has been contemplated as the basis for the peace process since the beginning of the peace talks and most recently at the Taba Summit which almost resulted in a partial settlement. So yeah, this issue has always been, and always will be, a major agenda item.

This is why the peace talks always stall and why there is still a cycle of conflict. The is the critical issue in a nutshell. The withdrawal of Israel from the lands it took in 1967. Without withdrawal, there can be no feasible or viable Palestinian State. It's that simple. The Clinton Parameters came close, but the argument is always going to revolve around agricultural land and water acquifers and whether they stay in Israeli hands or are withdrawn.

 

So you're saying we should threaten to cut all military aid to Israel, unless they agree to our demands to move forward the peace process?

Nope. Actually pretty much the opposite. I think we should either stop getting involved and let the victor among them sort it out, or, more realistically, just drop the pretense and declare that Israel is our ally in the region, and so we'll support (and forgive) them for whatever they have to do. I mean, realistically, when did Carter host the first Camp David Accords? 1977? 1978? US Presidents have been winning peace awards on a yearly basis since then because of the "Palestinian issue," even as every President has been giving whatever military aid Israel wants and needs for those same 30 years.

The entire notion of a "peace process" is an illusion for those outside of the area, because Israel brings with it too many benefits to the West. What I've said for a long time now is that the actual Middle Eastern nations are going to have to finally get involved and stop relying on outsiders who have competing interests to lend lip service to the process. But as you asked a couple of days ago, why doesn't Egypt or Jordan annex their respective areas and try to solve the problems? Well, because Jordan and Egypt care less about the plight of the Palestinians than Israel does, because those countries have their version of plausible deniability. Taking responsibility for an influx of a million palestinian refugees would cripple any of those countries, not matter what pretense is given to the humanitarian issues.

Things may be finally changing regarding the internal assumptions within the countries in the region. We'll have to see. Unfortunately, they may be finally getting their houses in order just in time to experience a massive shift in the resource driven economy away from anything they have to offer. (ie oil)