Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, but it was considered an illegal action and only two countries recognized it as valid - Great Britain and Pakistan. The rest of the world, including the Arab world, did not.
Regardless in 1988 Jordan formally ceded all their claims to the West Bank to the PLO ( which the Arab League, over Jordanian objections, had recognized as sole representative of the Palestinians in 1974 ).
However the rights of the Palestinians to the land derives not to the PLO or PA claims, but rather to their continuous historical occcupation of the lands ( from the time of the the U.N. mandate ), their being classified as the ‘original inhabitants’ vis-a-vis 1967 and to the West Bank being part of the mandate territory slated to become an Arab state in 1948.
The settlers, however, do not enjoy equivalent status. Since Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967 ( from another illegal occupier, but that’s a moot point ), it is considered ‘occupied territory’. As such transfers of population into the West Bank from Israel of Israeli citizens are considered illegal under the Geneva Convention ( settlements began in 1968 ). This, I believe, is the official U.S. State Dept. stance on the matter.
Couldn’t tell you for sure. However I will say the only specific cites I have ever seen for “Palestine” replacing Israel on maps in recent years has been the controversy over the Palestinian textbooks produced in the PA-controlled areas and for Syrian textbooks. But I’m really not well-enough informed on that particular issue to say yea or nay for the entire Arab world.
Iraq until recently did. I beleve Libya may still ( or may have done so within the last decade ).
On the flip side of that Egypt and Jordan at least ( and I believe Saudi Arabia, at least informally ) have acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and the entire 22-member Arab League agreed to do so if Israel would accept the SA peace proposal ( which included a pullback to the 1967 borders and an independent Palestinian state w/ East Jerusalem as its capital ). Now obviously this didn’t happen, but it seems to indicate that while a) some nations are still withholding such formal recognition, b) all of them have become realistic enough to realize that it is no longer an article of confidence, but rather just another diplomatic bargaining chip. You might say the proposal was less important for what it produced, than for what it implied about the shift in Arab priorities.
Hmmm…Well, Libya, Iran, and Iraq were already somewhat shunned, but mostly for other reasons, I’d say.
However in general I’d say most Arab nations weasle on this a bit. While not necessarily supporting groups like Hamas, they are nonetheless reluctant to publically condemn them either.
Possibly. But the Arab governments are in part caught in a public relations trap of their own making after years of propaganda. It isn’t easy for them politically to publically attack a Palestinian group like Hamas. At best they can make distressed noises and deplore terrorist attacks that kill civilians.
My position is perhaps slightly more nuanced than that. It’s not that charisma doesn’t play a role, just that it may be is less of one overall than ideology.
I’m not sure the analogy is a good one. Their are more attractive alternatives in the U.S… There are fewer in the occupied territories. Middle-class in an occupied territory context, does not imply the same thing as middle-class in our context.
They may work long-term, I don’t know - I don’t have a crystal ball. But I think the current Israeli methods, at the very least, leaving aside the policy, leaves a lot to be desired.
No, but it is often not the poor that are the most disaffected in this region. The educated, but powerless, are sometimes far more volatile. Again I think basing a comparison on American cultural notions can be misleading.
More persuasive at least. I wouldn’t argue against this of course. The question is just how crippling losing the occasional leader is and how difficult are they to replace.
To recruit? I doubt it.
To operate? Maybe. That remains an open question.
shrug I disagree. Not much more I can say than that. Again, more dead civilians = more terrorists.
I don’t fault them at all - I might make the same decision. The question is how to go about it without making the situation worse.
Mojo - that’s exactly the thing isn’t it? Where does it start? We could just go back and back through history, but the point is I guess, that is doesn’t really matter any more who started it, all that matters is that it ends. Soon.
Even Hamas admitted that they don’t have the capability to have that kind of turn-around on a suicide bomber. The bomber was already on his way when the strike was made on Rantissi. They described the timing as “fortuitous”. Moreover, considering that there was a joint Hamas/Islamic Jihad/al-Aqsa (the armed wing of Arafat and Mazen’s Fatah movement) strike that killed five or six Israelis just prior to the strike on Rantissi, one cannot intelligently claim that Israel set off the current spate of violence.
MC, “propagandist shit” would be the notion that Arafat, et al. envision anything less than a “Palestine from the river to the sea”. Do you deny that there was a joint Hamas/Islamic Jihad/al-Aqsa strike prior to the Rantissi strike?
Remember also that the action against Hammas happened not only after an attack by Hammas, but more importantly after Hammas declared that it would not take part in a cease fire and Abbas’ reaction was that he would never use force against them: The Pretty Please Policy.
I do not think that the attack was wise, but I think that it was more of a heavy handed way to get across the message that if the PA will not even attempt to control the violence over the objections of the terrorist groups, then Israel will have to. That if Abbas proves himself to be impotent then there is no reason to engage any further. Sooner or later Abbas, or some other moderate force, with or without more external assistance, will have to take on Hammas. Or there will be no road to peace.
BTW Tamerlane, very generous of the Arab League and Jordan to recognize that the land belongs to the Palestinians after they no longer had any possibility of controlling it themselves.
It looks to me like many Arab nations have painted themselves into a politically untenable corner. They have enflamed the indignation of those who resort to terrorism and now find themselves in a situation where those selfsame terrorists are more than willing to take out all these (now) “moderate” leaders who sponsored or encouraged them in the first place. (Faint echos of ObL and the USA come to mind as well.)
As is often the case these days, my Frink-o-Matic irony meter is red lining. If millions of innocent lives were not at stake, I would gladly see these irresponsible governments crumble back into the sand they have so willingly poured over the peace process’ gears. Tamerlane, I really enjoy the well reasoned responses provided to my questions. You enable me to learn a lot without slogging through a bunch of rhetoric. Since you’re in my area, please let me know when I might buy you a spot of lunch or something. (Something tells me that a beer is right out.)
IIRC, the Saudi plan in 2002 was virtually identical to the Saudi plan in 1980. The killer isn’t the removal of settlements, it’s the “right of return.” All of these plans put forward by the Arab states insist that every Palestinian has a right to return to Israel proper. Some estimates of the worldwide Palestinian population who claim a right of return are in the 5-10 million range, and the numbers are growing.
Of course, right of return makes no sense if you believe in an honest two-state solution, since rather than getting a Jewish State and a Palestinian State, you will end up creating one state where Jews are forbidden to live (Palestine) and another where Jews are at best a slim majority (Israel, with right-of-return Palestinians).
When the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs renounce the right of return, when they can utter the words “Jewish State”, it will mean that they do accept the existance of Israel and peace can follow. Until then, it’s just more violence.
Actually JonBodner, the recnt Saudi plan called for a fair solution to the refugee problem which did not amount to the right of return but compensation.
First of all, why do the Palestinians get compensation, while the Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries get nothing? Where is their compensation? Why not just say “the Palestinians can have the assets of the Jews who fled in 1948 and 1967?” That would be fair, in some ways.
Secondly, and most importantly, “fair solution” are weasel words. Israel is being asked to give up something concrete (land) for something ephemeral (peace). If Israel is getting (in effect) words for land, the least that could be expected is that the Arabs should at least use strong, unequivocal words to show they are serious. If they mean “compensation is all we want”, let them say “compensation is all we want.” Until then, it’s meaningless.
Well for a start it isn’t Isreal’s land anyway, so what it’s getting is an end to beligerance in return for an end to beligerance. The Jewish assets lost in 1948 -1974(?) aren’t even close to the Arab assets lost in 1948 (the voluntary and forced immigration of Jews from Arab countries lasted roughly 2 and a half decades infact starting in 1949).
At the end of the day Israel probably won’t pay any compensation anyway it’s likely the US would foot the bill.
“The Arabs” are not a country. It’s true that Jordan, an Arab country, owned the land at one time. They lost that land in a war. That doesn’t mean that Palestinians own it now, simply because they are also Arabs.
Why isn’t is Israel’s land? Is California United States territory? Is Scotland part of the UK? Is Western Sahara part of Morocco? I fail to see why every other country on the planet is allowed to take territory in war, but Israel can’t. That strikes me as a double standard. Just because the UN says something is true, doesn’t make it so. Any organization that puts Libya as the head of its Human Rights Commission should have its judgement questioned.
Someone else already asked for this, but how about a citation for this statement? It seems highly unlikely, as the assets of the Jews of Iraq alone (some of whom traced their residence in the land to the days of the Babylonian Captivity) were substantial, as the community was wealthy.
At the end of the day, Israel shouldn’t have to pay any compensation. Did Pakistan and India pay any compensation to each other for the mass migration that took place after Partition of the Subcontinent? Did any of the Germans kicked out of Czechoslovakia or Poland after WW II get compensation? Has there been any compensation in Cyprus to Greeks or Turks? I could continue, but I hope you see the point. Again, it looks like a double standard to me. I don’t think Israel is asking for too much when it wants to be treated like every other country.
The interesting thing is that you’ve diverted this discussion off the main topic: the Arab refusal to give up the demand of right of return for any Arab who claims that they or their ancestor lived inside of Israel’s 1948 borders. When the right of return nonsense ends unequivocally, peace begins. Until then, there is going to be war.
