Could an Arab-Palestinian State Israel
by YJ Draiman
A second Arab-Palestinian State Jordan Israel Jordan River ),
is not viable; not even in theory. There is nothing to debate. The past
70 years has proven that the Arab culture and mentality is not conducive to
coexistence with its own people, much less with the Israelis.
If there is to be peace
for Israel Middle East ,
it is imperative that Israel
Reviewing all the efforts Israel Israel Israel
Examining the facts of what has taken place in
Gaza since Israel withdraw its forces in 2005 proves that the Arabs do not want
peace and instead of using their resources to build an economy and improve the
lives of their people, the terrorist organizations who run Gaza use these
resources to build attack tunnels, purchase weapons, rockets, missiles and
other war making instruments and supplies and attack Israel. All the while
taking a section of Gaza Israel Gaza Israel
An examination of the devastating effect
on Europe and the U.K. Middle East and the steps
being taken by those countries to rectify the problem proves the above factual
statement. Perhaps those countries should set-up an Arab-Palestinian State
The situation in other Arab/Muslim countries
is no different with some minor exceptions. About 400,000 Arab-Palestinian were
employed and living in Kuwait Iraq Israel Israel Arab-Palestinian State Israel
The Arab-Palestinians and their supporters are
waging war against Israel Israel
The only true solution is for Israel Israel
What Israel Israel Israel
Israel Jordan River . It is legally and
historically Jewish territory which was guaranteed by the Supreme Allied Powers
as part of an international agreement after WWI. At the same time the
Arabs were allocated over 13 million sq. km. (6 million. sq. mi.) with a wealth
of oil reserves, plus they took over 77% of Jewish allocated land of Palestine Arab State Jordan Israel Israel Jordan Israel Israel
Another solution would be for the total and
crushing defeat of all Arab-Palestinian organizations by Israel Israel
YJ Draiman
If you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which
emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising
that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in
Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab
entity west of The Jordan Rive. The San Remo Conference of 1920 does not state
an Arab entity west of The Jordan River. The Mandate for Palestine Jordan
River . It specifically states a Jewish National Home in
Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine Jordan River .
As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders andJordan Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan
As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and
No where in any of the above
stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River . The U.N. resolutions are non-binding with no
legal standing. The Oslo Accords are null and void.
YJ Draiman
YJ Draiman
If you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab entity west of The Jordan Rive. The San Remo Conference of 1920 does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River. The Mandate for Palestine terms does not state an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. It specifically states a Jewish National Home in Palestine without limiting the Jewish territory in Palestine. It also states that the British should work with the Jewish Agency as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine to implement the National Home of the Jewish people in Palestine. I stress again; nowhere does it state that an Arab entity should be implemented west of the Jordan River.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of historical record, The British reallocated over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and Jordan took over additional territory like the Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan.
No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing.
YJ Draiman
Jews who for the most part either couldn’t give a damn about our future (as long as we have enough money to buy a luxury car) or we are too scared to demand our rights to live freely and without fear in our Jewish homeland.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of hearing how great the Israeli medical and technical innovations are without mentioning how we let our Arab enemies rule and terrorize within our own country. It’s really absurdly upside down.
“Who’s Occupying Whom in the Land of Israel? The deceptive impersonation of David by Goliath.”
ReplyDeleteA “Free” People in Our Land?
ReplyDeleteWhile today this may seem like a fantasy – imagine what it would be like if Israelis could walk around their land securely and worry free, just like a Japanese person feels like in Japan, a Swiss citizen in Switzerland or a Canadian in Canada. Imagine if we could travel to the North, South, East and West of the Land of Israel without being afraid of being stoned, knifed or shot? Don’t Jews have the right to feel free and secure in their own country, just like the citizens of the rest of the world?
As the saying goes – “it’s harder to take the Exile out of the Jews than the Jews out of the Exile.” After 2000 years of living as second and third class citizens in foreign lands, it is understandable that Jews find it hard to stand up for their rights in their own land. But as long as we grovel before the foreign encroachers, as long as we allow them to scare and control us, we will never be truly free.
Make no mistake about it. Israel is morally and legally entitled by International Law and post WWI agreements to occupy the entire territory of the original Balfour Declaration, including all of what is now the country of Jordan.
ReplyDelete.
Let us have no more stupid talk about the creation of a Two-State solution. The “Two-State Solution” currently exists; there are two sovereign nations now occupying “the national home for the Jewish people”—Israel and Jordan. And let us have no more stupid talk about “the West Bank” aka Judea and Samaria or “the occupied territories.” Those geographical areas are Israel, period!
.
Those areas are no more “occupied territories” than is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of Texas. If there is an “Occupied Territory” in the Middle East, it is Jordan who is unlawfully occupying over 75% of Israel’s homeland and the self-proclaimed “Arab-Palestinians” who are unlawfully occupying an additional 10-15% of Israel’s homeland.
And here’s something modern history has conveniently forgotten: “Arabs welcome Jews home”
ReplyDeleteThe Emir Hussein of the Hejaz replied “with an expression of goodwill towards a kindred Semitic race”, when the Balfour Declaration was communicated to him in 1918, and his son Feisal, acting officially for the Arab movement, wrote on March 3, 1919:
Throughout Arabia, the chiefs were for the most part, distinctly pro-Zionist, as were the Palestinian peasantry, who were delighted at the benefits that Jewish immigration was bringing them. The Muslim religious leader, the Mufti, was openly friendly, even taking a prominent part in the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
And what of “Arab nationalism”? At that time, no one had heard of a “Palestine Arab people”; the term was not invented until after 1964, entirely for political reasons. The British Peace Handbook No. 60, published in 1918, declared that “the people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arab speaking… In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race…they (the Arabs of Palestine) have little if any national sentiment…they hide their weapons at the call of patriotism.”
The idea that Palestine should be Arab was never even contemplated. On the contrary, the attitude of the Arabs to the Jewish National Movement was one of almost unanimous approval. In 1906, Farid Kassab, a famous Syrian author, expressed the view uniformly held by the Arabs: “The Jews of the Orient are at home. This land is their only fatherland. They don’t know any other.” A year later, Dr. Moses Gaster reported that he had “held conversations with some of the leading sheiks, and they all expressed pleasure at the advent of the Jews, for they considered that with them had come ‘barakat’ – blessing, since the rain came in due season.”
The Emir Hussein of the Hejaz replied “with an expression of goodwill towards a kindred Semitic race”, when the Balfour Declaration was communicated to him in 1918, and his son Feisal, acting officially for the Arab movement, wrote on March 3, 1919:XX
“We Arabs look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through. We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”
In fact, there is a list of over 50 eminent people from more than 20 countries who appear in the gallery of non-Jewish Zionists. Representing the political, intellectual elite of many nations, many of them had traveled widely throughout the Land; but all – even those who had not – could hardly have been unaware of the written evidence – report after report – of travelers who testified as to the barren and desolate state of Palestine. The most famous was Mark Twain, who recorded after his visit in 1867: “Stirring scenes occur in the valley (Jezreel) no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for thirty miles in either direction. ...One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings.” Of the Galilee, he wrote of “...these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness...” Nazareth he described as “forlorn”, Jericho as “a moldering ruin”.
ReplyDeleteThirty years later, in 1898, German Kaiser Wilhelm II also visited Palestine. He was appalled at the condition of the country. The Ottomans had stripped the forests for lumber and firewood. The Palestinian Arabs had let an old Roman aqueduct fall into ruin. The ultimate ecological curse was the ubiquitous herds of black goats. For nearly 2,000 years after the dispersion of the Jews, Arabs had allowed their goats to graze unfenced across Palestine. They had eaten the grass down to its roots, and the topsoil had eroded and blown away. The biblical land of milk and honey had become a dust bowl.
In 1891, Dr. W.E. Blackstone, quoting the foremost authorities on international law, pointed out that since the Jews never gave up their title to Palestine, the general “law of dereliction” did not apply in their case; “for they never abandoned the land. They made no treaty; they did not even surrender. They simply succumbed, after the most desperate conflict, to the overwhelming power of the Romans...” Blackstone quoted the leading legal authorities of his day, who agreed that the Jewish claim is legally sound – and this remains so to this day.
Arabs Welcome Jews Home
And what of “Arab nationalism”? At that time, no one had heard of a “Palestine Arab people”; the term was not invented until after 1964, entirely for political reasons, instigated by Russia. The British Peace Handbook No. 60, published in 1918, declared that “the people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arab speaking... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race...they (the Arabs of Palestine) have little if any national sentiment...they hide their weapons at the call of patriotism.” The idea that Palestine should be Arab was never even contemplated. On the contrary, the attitude of the Arabs to the Jewish National Movement was one of almost unanimous approval. In 1906, Farid Kassab, a famous Syrian author, expressed the view uniformly held by the Arabs: “The Jews of the Orient are at home. This land is their only fatherland. They don’t know any other.” A year later, Dr. Moses Gaster reported that he had “held conversations with some of the leading sheiks, and they all expressed pleasure at the advent of the Jews, for they considered that with them had come ‘barakat’ – blessing, since the rain came in due season.”
ReplyDeleteThroughout Arabia, the chiefs were for the most part, distinctly pro-Zionist, as were the Palestinian peasantry, who were delighted at the benefits that Jewish immigration was bringing them. The Muslim religious leader, the Mufti, was openly friendly, even taking a prominent part in the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Emir Hussein of the Hejaz replied “with an expression of goodwill towards a kindred Semitic race”, when the Balfour Declaration was communicated to him in 1918, and his son Feisal, acting officially for the Arab movement, wrote on March 3, 1919:
We Arabs look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through. We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.
Presidents Harding (signed a resolution past by Congress and the Senate in 1922 recognizing The Palestine Mandate as the reconstituted Jewish National Home) and Coolidge confirmed and approved the Mandate for Palestine, a trust agreement carried out by The British as trustee for the Jewish people, recognizing the Jewish People’s immediate right to close settlement on their historical land and a future right to rule when their population achieves a majority, as a sovereign Nation when that became practical. The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results, from any act, which implies the intention of recognizing the new sovereign state.
ReplyDeleteOn January 3, 1919 the Faisal Weizmann Agreement was executed, which recognized Palestine (with no limitation) as The Jewish National Homeland. In a report delivered on January 21, 1919, the tentative proposal of the US for settlement of WWI at the Paris Peace Talks incorporated The 1917 Balfour Declaration and provided for the automatic acknowledgement of Jewish sovereign statehood when it met conditions that made it practical for the Jews to exercise sovereignty. The vesting of the legal domain of political self-determination would be self-executing. The Jewish People’s collective right to political self-determination would vest when that occurred. It is understood that any agreement and terms survive in perpetuity. In any of the post WWI agreements does not mention or grant any autonomy to the Arab-Palestinians west of the Jordan River.
"We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers"
Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory and the Jewish people living there and the towns there. They are mostly rebuilt Jewish communities. Prior to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem the Jewish people in Greater Israel numbered about 12 million. The Romans, during their battles and occupation of The Land of Israel have killed over 4 million Jews.
ReplyDeleteYJ Draiman
Someone once stated that in war, there is no morality, only the goal to win, that it is a mater of survival and you must crush and eliminate the enemy that he cannot come back at you and unfortunately that includes the enemy’s descendants. “If someone comes to kill you, you should beat him to the task and kill him first”.
While many of us have studied about the Balfour Declaration and understand that what was legal under the 1920 San Remo and the League of Nations became recognized and accepted as international law; thus, under the United Nations, after 70 plus years with the more recent trends in the biased UN to back away from Balfour Declaration as a British Colonial decision that discriminated against the former colonies (i.e.: an excuse for former colonials to seek reparations from the former Colonial Powers, etc) how can Israel then convince and persuade other UN Member states (especially those who exercise on being politically correct European States whose agenda is primarily maintaining access to oil at all costs, no matter who suffers the consequences) as well as turning their backs against supporting the legitimacy granted to both Jewish and Arab-Palestinians as agreed to by the Balfour Declaration? Most countries today say Balfour is illegal because it was a colonial era agreement and not relevant today, which we know is an illusion. My concern is that the anti-colonial era position taken by the UN member states today is only mercerized to de-legitimizing the right of existence of Israel as a Nation State and Jews to have their own historical homeland. Can we argue that the Roman invasion of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and expulsion of its legal inhabitants also was an act of colonialism and illegal, and the expulsion of Jews was an example of ethnic cleansing too? How about the rights of the Australian aborigines or the Native American Indians or Hawaiians, or even the Ainu who once ruled Northern Honshu and were pushed into living in Hokkaido, Japan. Why are we not drawing a line in the sand and state that colonialism and the upheaval it caused was a tragedy, but history is history? Today, we need a solution that is respectful of both Israel and the separate "future" Arab-Palestinian State. The land space is limited and Right of Return is not possible without changing the demographics of Israel. Let us start from here. Arab-Palestinian militia factions must disarm and accept the borders based on Balfour Declaration, albeit the rightful gains when Arab aggressors invaded in the 1948 and 1967 and 1973 Wars and lost. The territories such as the Golan Heights, Western and Eastern Jerusalem rightfully belong to Israel. As has been the policy and practice of Israel to respect all religions and their access to their houses of worship. Gaza belongs to the Arab-Palestinians. Whether Gaza can operate as a nation state remains to be seen, in view of its current oppressive government and past and current belligerence. The example of the two states of Pakistan that eventually became Pakistan and Bangladesh would serve to suggest that formal recognized borders would be far more secure for both the Arab-Palestinians and for Israel. That may become another future issue, but first, we need limits on the debate regarding the illegality of past colonialism. Former Colonial powers have a duty to pay reparations and most have done so to one extent or another. That includes reparations by the Arab States to Israel for Jewish assets confiscated and retained by them and reparations by Israel for Arab assets retained or used by Israel.
ReplyDeleteLife is full of inequities, but relations among international powers must continue, and a resolution to the Arab-Palestinian and Israeli conflict needs to be expedited so we can close this sorry and unfortunate chapter. There will be no clear winners or losers. But there must be a viable Peace Treaty that is observed to the fullest and not simply a Peace Agreement. Compromises on both sides requires genuine strong leadership from within both the Arab-Palestinians and Israelis, as well as a recognition that outside interference from either the Arab States or from the Permanent members of the UN Security Council will not be and must not be accepted. This is ultimately a bilateral problem that cannot be imposed from or by outside parties. The question is do either politicians and leaders in Israel or in the Arab-Palestinian Authority want the hostilities to end or continuous bloodshed. Terrorism and violence is illegal and unjustifiable, it must be stopped if true peace is to be accomplished. Continued hostilities are unjustifiable and counterproductive. Doing nothing but blaming one another is unjustifiable for respective citizens on both sides. Are the parties willing to act as adults like the Irish did in Northern Ireland and the end of the sectarian terrorism? I certainly hope so. The process of peace requires open communications and a willingness to compromise and make hard decisions. It should be in the interest of both parties to come to a peaceful terms, this will bring about an increase in the standard of living, Jobs, education and healthcare.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about your basic information. But the British military and civil officials governing the Land of Israel from 1917 into the early 1920's were mainly hostile to Jews and Zionism. And Storrs was one of those who made things difficult for Jews in the country.
ReplyDeleteSince you mention Ulster, let us be honest about history. Unlike the Ulster situation. The Jews are the indigenous people of the country as recorded in the written historical record and in archaeological findings. There never was a "Arab-Palestinian people" in all of history. After 1948, Jew-haters in the British government, like Christopher Mayhew, had the psychological warfare experts in the Foreign Office invent and elaborate the notion of a "Arab-Palestinian people" that had never existed and that did not fit the Arab-Palestinians' image of themselves as loyal pan-Arabists. But the Arab leadership first and later on Western academia and the journalists were persuaded to use the term "Arab-Palestinian people" [around the year 1969 or 1970]. The PLO of course made its initial appearance in 1964 with the blessing not only of Nasser but Russia and certain powerful Western governments and institutions.
Professor Kramer's revelation of the collaboration of the Allies in the acceptance of the Balfour Declaration. Not everyone knows that the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into an international peace agreement at San Remo in 1920.
ReplyDelete
The misleading on two points:
"Similar mandates for Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and what became Jordan were intended to result in Arab self-determination."
As Prof Rostow acknowledges further on in the article, there was no mandate for Jordan or Transjordan, as it was called at the time. Transjordan was part of the Palestine Mandate and The Jewish National Home [JNH]. However, the League's Palestine Mandate in its Article 25 gave the mandatory power in violation of agreements, the UK, the right to postpone temporarily east of the Jordan the application of the provisions of the Jewish National Home as spelled out in the League's Mandate for the JNH, for 25 years, as I recall.
Prof Rostow does not mention that the Mandate itself gave the UK an illegal loophole for setting up a non-Jewish state entity east of the Jordan which is over 77% of the territory allocated for the National Home of the Jewish people, that is, in Transjordan [article 25]