In this thread It is suggested that “The only people standing in the way of Palestinian statehood are the Palestinians.”
The question is also raised whether Israel has ever acted to deny the creation of a Palestinian state.
I’d be interested in a debate on these statements from folks who are informed about middle east history and politics since 1947 or so.
My initial reaction is that having the armed forces of one nation dominating an area pretty much precludes any state the troops’ nation disapproves of.
Palestine still doesn’t exist. No matter what they do or say, there’s no national identity there. I’ve said it before: they’re Arabs, using it as leverage against Israel.
Don’t get me wrong, the Israelis have committed their share of atrocities against the people in their region, and I don’t really think they should be there in the first place, but if something is ever actually done about that, I’m sure it’ll be after our grandchildren grow old.
Even if Israel did suddenly decide to allow the Palestinians to form an official state, which one would they get? Gaza Strip? West Bank? If they got both, what do you do about the fact that they’re geographically separated? You’d either have two different states, or one separated state trying to run itself from across a field of Israelis. Quantum mechanics doesn’t understand how subatomic particles interact instantly at a distance, and I don’t understand how Palestinians could do it either.
Palestine as a state has never existed. After Rome committed genocide against the Jews and smashed the Temple around 70AD, the Romans referred to the area as Palestine, but it was never an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.
The area referred to as the “occupied land” is a result from The Six Day War in 1967. After attacks against Israel including a blockade, Israel took steps to defend itself. As a result of the conflict Israel took control of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria on the west bank of the Jordan River from Jordan. Also, control of the Golan Heights from Syria and control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Desert from Egypt.
So, we have Jordanians, Egyptians & Syrians. Hmmm… no Palestinians. Where did they appear from then? This is Arafat and his PLO’s invention.
Israel has bent over backwards to resolve this issue, however, compromising on the security of their people and state is not acceptable. Neither would it be for us. Considering our recent defensive actions in the Middle East, I’d say Israel has shown quite a bit of restraint.
I was in my teens in 1967 and what is reported on this issue here and here is what I personally recall from that time period. You might find it an interesting history lesson.
While the situation is quite complex and the surrounding Arab nations and some of the people on the West Bank share in the blame for there not being a Palestinian nation, the claim that it is an invention of Arafat’s is pure hooey.
The U.N. authorized the formation of a Palestinian state at the same time that it authorized the formation of Israel. I would not make any simplistic claim that Israel prevented its creation, what with the Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist and the capture of the region by Jordan (which named itself, for a while, Trans Jordan), but to claim that the notion of a Palestinian state was “invented” 20 years later is simply a denial of history.
I think that Arafat and the PLO and all the suicide bombers have done a far better job denying the possibility of a Palestinian state than the Israelis have. Walking away from good deals, refusing to control people, and blowing stuff up indiscremenately makes it harder, if not impossible, to be taken seriously and to be dealt with without your opposition using force.
To be fair, there were massacres the same day Israel was established. Probably better not to try to assign overall blame on one side. And as far as the “there are no Palestinians” thing, I might ask what the people who lived in that area prior to Israel were. It was a state called Palestine, was it not?
So let me ask a question of the all the UN boosters around here. What has the UN done to resolve the I/P issue? Certainly this is one of the key problems to be resolved in our world today. What effort is underway? I’d be very curious to know. Seems like every effort to get a handle on this problem has been spearheaded by the US. Where is the UN leadership on this most critical issue?
Insofar as I am sure he may have gathered to date that the UN is not an independent supra-national, but rather quite dependent on members nations, and insofar as he may just have noted that a certain superpower has a noted tendency to veto UN Sec. Council motions on Israel, what does he think the UN could do? What does he think “UN Leadership is” and how does he think “UN Leadership” is able to spearhead anything at all, sans Sec. Council support?
I will note for the record the relevant UN agencies have since 1948 been involved in supporting the Palestinian refugees, ensuring education etc. At the very least, some minimal -often quite good- level of education has been ensured for a future state.
(In re peacekeeping, I direct Mr. Mace to readings on Lebanon, and the habit of both sides but especially one with Merkava tanks to fire upon the blue helmets.)
I hope before Mace decides to ask more nonesensical rhetorical questions that they will be framed in some manner responding to actual UN structure and reality.
As to the following:
Roman repression of the Jewish state was harldy “genocide.” Let’s keep the anachronistic scare words to the minimum.
The Romans adopted the local Hellenistic usage, they did not make up the name.
Islamic crusaders? That’s a most un-felicitious phrase if I ever saw one. Islamic empire and various successor states.
The Brits agreed to a lot of contradictory things, it not being very clear they as Mandate holders were entitled to do, but such is Empire, gets one into hot and sticky spots.
Occupied territories, standard international usage, and legally accurate, even if it does not please the Greater Israel crowd. West Bank and Gaza strip were administered from 48 to 67 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt respectively, with Jordan renouncing assertions of rights to the West Bank. The rejection of Hashemite rule by the Palestinians had much to do with that, little bit of coup d’etat being discouraging to his idea of becoming a King to the Palestinians.
And here we have settler agitprop with the Greater Israel names for WEst Bank
So enough agitprop.
Jordan is a pure colonial creation, and frankly there is not much of a Jordanian national identity. Name on the map. Egypt of course is an ancient country and shows signs of national identity even in the 19th century. Syria, somewhere in between, but certain Bilad ash-Sham had and has some real coherency that is lacking in Jordan.
Obviously insofar as Palestinian state never came into existance it hardly could have the bootstrap definition of being a people by virtue of being a state. But that’s simply a bootstrap – no Israelis before 1948 either, to be certain.
They didn’t appear from anywhere, nor is it an “invention” of the PLO - that is pure Israeli agitprop of the 1970s – at least get up to date my dear.
Anyone consulting standard histories, such as Lapidus, can find refernece to documentation of the emergence of a regional Palestine identity starting at least by the 1920s in contra opposition to European Jewish immigration, with Xian Arabs of the region also using the term as early as the 1890s.
In short, no fucking invention – that story is an invention.
Hardly, rather to the contrary, Israel has aggresively pursued its interests as well as expanding illegal settlements in the occupied territories (as well as it did in the Sinai and Golan, both being violations of international law - the Sinai settlements were of course uprooted, but did leave Egypt with good old Sharm al-Shaikh.); settlments that are clear obstacles to a settlement.
Israeli policy has been marked, in the past 20 years with quite a degree of schizophrenia as to what to do with the occupied territories, and hardly has been marked by “bending over backwards.”
I think that Arafat and the PLO and all the suicide bombers have done a far better job denying the possibility of a Palestinian state than the Israelis have.
Absolutely.
Wasn’t Arafuck offered 99% of what he wanted a few years ago, and he turned it down because it wasn’t everything?
Although it was somewhat difficult to wade thru your pompous response, I’ll take it that your answer to my question is: “quite simply, nothing.” Thank-you.
So, if Mace can come up with some explanation of what the fuck he thinks UN Leadership is, perhaps we can think about the relevance of his question, insofar as it implies an independent capacity on the part of the UN to take action when the US blocks such action.
Got that now, Mace?
But the UN has made efforts to provide brokering for putting in place deals, e.g. post Oslo and Madrid.
No. Just to say it again: No. He was offered close to all of what he wanted on one issue (an independent state, although Israel still wanted to keep security checkpoints and settlements in place, which would’ve broken up the state and also violated international law). On other issues, like the right of return for refugees, unrestricted access to water, etc., he wasn’t offered anything.
It is worth noting that the subsequent Taba negotiations came close to a mutually acceptable deal.
The 99% figure is something thrown around quite a lot, it obviously is a self serving one.
The Palestinians did not get certain key, core demands. Less the right of return (more of a neg. position than a core position) was something on Jerusalem and on the settlements. Taba, as I recall, addressed those, but then Israel went to elections and Sharon denied the Taba results.
I wish to note for the record that Israeli stubborness is as understandable to me and the Palestinian photo negative. I am more or less irritated by one sidedness and agitprop.
I see alot of ignorance about what the Israeli right and the settler movement stand for. They believe either for religious or non-religious reasons that the West Bank belongs to Israel and that the Palestinians are merely squatters. These people would be absolutely loathed to offere any kind of independant Palestinian state.
I must say that I understand the secularist position in re Golan and the Territories, and why settlements at one time seemed like a solution. Real and legit security concerns.
However, the time has come to move on, but the idealogues do not want to.
We have a danger of some groups, some, working towards ethnic cleansing. Take a look at the denial of Palestinian identity, the recourse to collective punishment and you see some elements of Israeli leadership setting up a Balkans style logic.
The converse sadly, is that some powerful elements in the PA have the same logic, inverse, and the two play to each other in a bloody kind of ballet.
The oft-repeated “Palestine was never a state” argument that Edlyn has brought up up always bemuses me.
Ok, so there wasn’t a firm Palestinian identity prior to 1948. Er… so what?
Fact is, there are a lot of stateless people living on some semi-occupied land. What does the aforementioned argument justify in terms of Israel’s actions? What does this allow Israel to do? Move the Arabs out of the land so that Israel can keep the West Bank (could Israel get away with such ethnic cleansing)? Rule over them as part of an expanded Israel (resulting, no doubt, in even worse terrorism)?
I just don’t see what this particular argument is meant to be justifying.
It’s meant to justify annexation. Ethnic cleansing in the end. No other real purpose.Functional equivalent of the same kinds of people among the Palestinians who stress the Euro origin of a large % of the Israeli populace. Deny the other guy legitimacy.
