Posted By Henry Siegman Thursday, July 7, 2011 - 3:35 PM Share
Shlomo
Avineri, a leading Israeli intellectual and politically very much a centrist,
is to be commended for dismissing Israeli fears that outside criticism of their
country's occupation policies is an effort to challenge Israel's very right
to exist. Writing in Ha'aretz, Avineri
notes
there is not a single country in the world that maintains diplomatic ties with Israel that has ever questioned the legitimacy
of Israel's
existence.
Avineri
maintains that whatever political problems might result for Netanyahu's
government from a United Nations decision to recognize a Palestinian state
within the 1967 borders, it would in no sense "delegitimize" the state of Israel. On the
contrary: recognizing Palestine within 1967 borders, he argues, would result in
the international recognition of the 1967 lines as the border of Israel, which
would mean recognition for the first time of West Jerusalem as a legitimate
part of the state of Israel. Avineri concludes, therefore, that "there are no significant
moves afoot anywhere on Earth to delegitimize Israel."
He is right. But
it apparently eludes Avineri that there is nevertheless a threat to Israel's legitimacy that comes not from outside Israel but from
within: the refusal of its government to set a border between itself and the
territory inhabited by millions of Palestinians living under its
occupation.
Every effort
exerted to date by even the friendliest of countries -- including the United States -- to get Israel to accept the 1967 border, with provisions
for mutually-agreed territorial swaps to accommodate Jewish settlement blocs past
the 1967 line, has been rejected by Israel. More than that, Israel's
government has refused to declare where it believes that border should be.
Of course,
there have been broad hints of what Israeli leaders expect to be the
consequence of their policy of deliberate obfuscation of their territorial
ambitions. For example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that in
addition to a large number of settlements, Israel
must retain the entire Jordan Valley, which alone constitutes 30 percent of the West Bank. Their expectation is that if they manage to
draw out a meaningless peace process indefinitely, enabling them to continue
the expansion of Israel's colonial enterprise in the West Bank, "facts on the
ground" will continue to move Israel's border to include 60 percent of the West
Bank.
The
point of the foregoing is that by rejecting the terms of its own membership in
the United Nations -- in this case the respect for international borders -- and
seeking to acquire by violent means (i.e. its army and air force) territory
beyond these borders in violation of international law and bilateral treaties,
it is in fact Israel that is engaged in the "delegitimization" of the Palestinian
people's right to national self determination and statehood, not the reverse.
For proof of
this one need look no further than Israel's near-hysterical efforts to prevent
the Palestinians from bringing their case to the United Nations, the
institution that happens to be the source of Israel's own legitimacy, as
acknowledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence. For what Israel's
current government apparently most fears is the legitimacy that the United
Nations uniquely can confer not only on Palestinian statehood but on the 1967
borders.
A state that
since 1967 (i.e. for most of its existence) has imposed a military occupation
on its neighbor, confiscating its territory and dispossessing its population,
is guilty not only of an abstract challenge to its neighbor's claim to
statehood but of violently preventing it on the ground. Such rogue-like
behavior does indeed bring Israel's
own legitimacy into question.
But does not a
Palestinian state pose legitimate security concerns for Israel? Of
course it does. But given Israel's
overwhelming military superiority, not to speak of the one-sided support it
receives from the world's greatest military power, its security concerns are
nowhere near the security concerns that Palestinians have about an Israeli
state, particularly one under whose occupation and subjection they have now
lived for nearly half-a-century. Israel can no more deal with its security
concerns by denying the Palestinians' right to a state of their own within 1967
borders than Palestinians can deny Israel's right to statehood within the 1967
borders to satisfy their security concerns.
Before casting
the promised veto at the United Nations that would deny Palestinians their
right to national self-determination, President Obama might well want to
rethink the fairness, legality, and morality of such a course, not to speak of
its damage to America's
credibility in the region and beyond. It is damage the will continue to haunt
him and the country well into his next term, should he achieve it. Surely he
must know that no one anywhere believes any longer that the peace process as
its exists, to which he has urged Palestinians to entrust their future,
promises anything other than hopelessness and despair.
Henry Siegman, President of the
U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident visiting professor at the Sir
Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London.
Seigman loves to through dust in your eyes. There was never an international border. There was an armistice line from 1948. The Palestinians rejected the U.N. partition plan and invaded Israel hoping to destroy the nascent state. They lost. There was a border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Sorry there was never a Palestinian state. History? Our legitimacy is that G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. We don't have to apologize for anything. I can't colonize that which is mine. Oh yes who is occupying the Temple Mount after all? What normal people would allow another people on their holiest spot? Palestine a Roman province populated by Jews 2,000 years ago.
The Jews were in Palestine for more, according to old Egyptian scripts they have been in the area 3,100 years back. however, the Palestinians (Canaanites) have been present in Palestine for 4,000 years. Even in the Torat, where there is Sampson and David, there is Delilah and Goliath... So skip the historical reference.
As for the religious reference, god allowed the Babylonians and Romans to occupy your land given by him in the past. It can happen again.
Israel is strong nowadays. If it deals justly with their weaker foes, it can sustain its existance. If not, no one will treat it fairly when/if it weakens with your rationale.
Jews coexisted with Muslims and Christians for thousands of years. Judaism is an Abrahamic religion respected by both throughout history. The conflict is not about Jews, it is about Israel.
The Muslims invaded Palestine (part of the Byzantine empire) in 650A.D. However, Jerusalem as a capital of the holy land was occupied 44 times through history!
The Arab tribes of Mecca through their conquest spread Islam, but they never had the numbers to become a majority in the areas they conquered (Iraq, Syria, jordan Palestine, Egypt, Persia ....).
The name Palestine is derived from Philistines a Greek tribe that invaded Palestine in 12 century B.C. however, the name is misleading as the origins of Palestinians are proven in many books and researches to be Canaanite.
Arabs (like the Romans, Persians, Greeks,...) conquered the middle-east at a certain time, but Iraq has Sumerian, Assyrian and babylonian roots,
Lebanon Phoenician roots,
Egypt has Coptic roots and
Palestine has Canaanite roots...
Those ungrateful Arabs. They didn't welcome the 1947 Partition Plan. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that although Jews (90% of whom were of foreign origin) made up only 31% of the population (only 30% had taken out citizenship and thousands were illegal immigrants) and owned less that 6% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal status, contrary to the terms of the British Class A Mandate, never adopted by the UNSC) shockingly and outrageously recommended they be given 56% of the land. (10% of the Jewish population consisted of native anti-Zionist Palestinian/Arab Jews.)
Although native Palestinians made up at least 69% of the population and owned over 94% of the land, the Partition Plan recommended they have a mere 42% as a state with 2% set aside as a corpus separatum comprising Jerusalem and Bethlehem and environs. No wonder the incredibly unjust and illegal Partition Plan was rejected by the Palestinians and other Arabs. Indeed, it proved so unworkable that when Polish born David Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al. declared the "Jewish State" of Israel after Jewish forces had already expelled 350,000-400,000 Palestinians, the UNGA was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favor of a UN Trusteeship for all of Palestine. The ongoing and accelerating expulsion Palestinians forced the outnumbered and outgunned Arab state armies to intervene.
To quote Professor Ilene Beatty, the late highly renowned historian/anthropologist whose area of expertise was the Holy Land: "...[being of ] Canaanite origin, Palestinians have priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and (except for the 800,000 dispossessed refugees [of 1948, not including the hundreds of thousands subsequently expelled]), they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their land." (Ilene Beatty - Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan, 1957)
You may also be interested to learn that emigrants from the Arabian Peninsula arrived in the region in approximately 3500 BCE and that Jerusalem was founded by the Jebusite/Canaanite ancestors of today's Palestinians about 800 years before King David was born (if he in fact existed as no archaeological or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations prove he or Solomon did.)
Bottom line: The independent United Kingdom of Israel lasted a mere 73 years, a grain of sand on the beach when compared to other rulers of the region. (BTW, the Hebrews never gained control of the region from Jaffa to Gaza.) To quote John Bright: "The Hebrews were in fact latecomers on history's stage. All across the Bible lands, cultures had come to birth, assumed classical form, and run their course for hundreds and even thousands of years before Abraham was born." (John Bright, A History of Israel, 1959)
Furthermore, setting aside the fundamental flaws in your silly religious thesis that God gave Palestine to the Jewish people, I remind you that the Bible is not a real estate document and God (presuming for argument's sake that He/She exists) is not a racist, which he would have to be in order to approve of the dispossession and expulsion of over one million virtually defenseless Palestinians from their homeland between late 1947 and 1967 by Jews, most of whom originated in foreign lands.
Palestinians are NOT descended from Canaanites. After the Land of Israel was united under the Kingdom of David, *ALL* Canaanites eventually assimilated into the Israelite culture. By the end of the Iron Age, there are NO Canaanites except Jews and Samaritans. Jews and Samaritans are the aboriginal Canaanites. PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIMS ARE NOT CANAANITES WHATSOEVER! Moreover, these Arab Muslims from Arabia even genocided the aboriginal Canaanites, being the Samaritans.
The Canaanites:
The Canaanites are historically acknowledged as the first inhabitants of the Land of Israel, before the Hebrews settled there. Indeed, the correct geographic name of the Land of Israel is Canaan, not "Palestine" (a Roman invention, as we will see later). They were composed by different tribes, that may be distinguished in two main groups: the Northern or Coastland Canaanites and the Southern or Mountain Canaanites.
·The Northern Canaanites settled along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea from the southeastern side of the Gulf of Iskenderun to the proximities of the Gulf of Hayfa. Their main cities were Tzur, Tzidon, Gebal (Byblos), Arvad, Ugarit, and are better known in history by their Greek name Phoenicians, but they called themselves "Kana'ana" or "Kinachnu". They did not found any unified kingdom but were organized in self-ruled cities, and were not a warlike people but rather skilful traders, seafarers and builders. Their language was adopted from their Semitic neighbours, the Arameans, and was closely related to Hebrew (not to Arabic!). Phoenicians and Israelites did not need interpreters to understand each other. They followed the same destiny of ancient Israel and fell under Assyrian rule, then Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Seleucian and Roman. Throughout their history the Phoenicians intermarried with different peoples that dwelled in their land, mainly Greeks and Armenians. During the Islamic expansion they were Arabized, yet, never completely assimilated, and their present-day state is Lebanon, erroneously regarded as an "Arab" country, a label that the Lebanese people reject. Unlike the Arab states, Lebanon has a western democratic-style official name, "Lebanese Republic", without the essential adjective "Arab" that is required in the denominations of every Arab state. The only mention of the term Arabic in the Lebanese constitution refers to the official language of the state, which does not mean that the Lebanese people are Arabs in the same way as the official language of the United States is English but this does not qualify the Americans as British.
The so-called Palestinians are not Lebanese (although some of them came from Syrian-occupied Lebanon), therefore they are not Phoenicians (Northern Canaanites). Actually, in Lebanon they are "refugees" and are not identified with the local people.
·The Southern Canaanites dwelled in the mountain region from the Golan southwards, on both sides of the Yarden and along the Mediterranean coast from the Gulf of Hayfa to Yafo, that is the Biblical Canaan. They were composed by various tribes of different stocks: besides the proper Canaanites (Phoenicians), there were Amorites, Hittites and Hurrian peoples like the Yevusites, Hivvites and Horites, all of them assimilated into the Aramean-Canaanite context. They never constituted an unified, organized state but kept within the tribal alliance system.
When the first Hebrews arrived in Canaan they shared the land but did not intermarry, as it was an interdiction for Avraham's family to marry the Canaanites. Nevertheless, eleven of the twelve sons of Yakov married Canaanite women (the other son married an Egyptian), and since then, the Tribes of Israel began to mix with the local inhabitants. After the Exodus, when the Israelites conquered the Land, there were some wars between them and the Canaanites throughout the period of the Sofetim (Judges), and were definitively subdued by King David. By that time, most Canaanites were married to Israelites, others voluntarily accepted Torah becoming Israelites, others joined up in the Israelite or Judahite army. Actually, the Canaanites are seldom mentioned during the Kings' period, usually in reference to their heathen customs introduced among the Israelites, but no longer as a distinguishable people, because they were indeed assimilated into the Israelite nation. When the Assyrians overran the Kingdom of Israel, they did not leave any Canaanite aside, as they had all become Israelites by that time. The same happened when the Babylonians overthrew the Kingdom of Judah.
Therefore, the only people that can trace back a lineage to the ancient Canaanites are the Jews, not the Palestinians, as Canaanites did not exist any longer after the 8th century b.c.e. and they were not annihilated but assimilated into the Jewish people.
Conclusion: the Palestinians cannot claim any descent from the ancient Canaanites - if so, why not to pretend also the Syrian "occupied territories", namely, Lebanon? Why do they not speak the language of the ancient Canaanites, that was Hebrew? Because they are NOT Canaanites at all!
Today's Palestinians are the indigenous people of the region between the River Jordan and the Med. Sea. Although they carry the "blood" of others, they remain descendants of the Canaanites. For obvious reasons, you and your ilk reject this simple fact as you also refuse to recognize that the Hebrew/Jewish experience in Palestine was/is minor when compared to that of other peoples, including today's Palestinians. Your whole thesis is based on mythology, racism and neo-fascism. Thankfully, the Zionist enterprise in historic Palestine is moribund. Its days are numbered as evidenced by apart from its internation pariah status, the fact that nearly one million Israeli Jews have emigrated and immigration is less than a trickle. Non-Jews now comprise 25% of the population of Israel proper and they are the most rapidly increasing segment. Furthermore, non-Jews already outnumber Jews between the River Jordan and the Med. Sea. Today's Israel is an anachronism, a blip.
While archaeologist Finkelstein is certainly a strong critic of the historical accuracy of the Bible, he admits that there was a group of people called "Israel" as early as the late 13th century BCE --- and that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem.
Moreover, in an article in April in the Forward, Finkelstein writes: "Contrary to Palestinian claims, there is a scholarly consensus that the Temple Mount was indeed the location of the two Temples. Orthodox Jewish and Muslim sensitivities, however, have prevented modern archaeological work on the Temple Mount, which for the past 1,300 years has been the site of two Islamic holy places, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock."
He further writes about the City of David: "Scholars agree that starting in the late 8th century BCE, it was part of the enlarged city of Jerusalem. Illustrious biblical figures, such as Kings Hezekiah and Josiah and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, probably strolled here at that time. Monuments unearthed here include impressive fortifications from the Bronze Age, the Kingdom of Judah and the period of the Hasmoneans, as well as water installations associated with the nearby Gihon Spring, ancient Jerusalem’s main water source."
Thus, readers who are interested in Finkelstein's archaeological work should go to the source himself (Finkelstein) -- and not rely on what reader Tarquinis says.
My understanding is that Palestine is asking the United Nations General Assembly for recognition of a Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 boundaries. As a General Assembly vote, the same body that accepted Israel's membership, it is not subject to a veto by a Security Council Member.
The acceptance is to be on the 'recommendation of the Security Council but '"where the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall seize itself of the matter."
This is why both Israel and the US are becoming increasingly hysterical. If they could veto it, there would be no problem for them.
Former IMF chief recently charged with rape says Israel is first thing on his mind every morning.
Although his alleged sexual exploits are making waves, it is Israel, not women that is in former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's heart.
In an interview with the newspaper "Liberation" back in April, just over a month before he made headlines for attempted rape charges (that are looking increasingly shaky), DSK told the French daily that only three things could prevent him from becoming the next president of France - his money, his women and his Judaism.
The fallen-from-grace financier recounted an interview he gave some years back with the "Tribune Juive"(The Jewish Tribune), in which he said "I wake up every morning and think about how I can help Israel."
For starters, some good baguettes and camembert would be appreciated, as for diplomacy – let's hold off until we are once again sure he truly is a mensch.
accuser was a liar, extortionist, and illegally procured immigration benefits from the US.
If you want to go with great bedfellows: Ahmedinijad in Iran loves the Palestinians. So does Bashar al Assad, who is busily slaughtering his own people as we speak. Omar Al-Bashir, who did some genocide work on the black darfur people also supports the Palestinians. So does neo-nazi David Duke.
$80/year AID to genocide-committing Israel since 1948 when Jew US Prsdnt Harry Truman created it, is not enough to continue demonizing decent Arabs-Christians-Moslems. US ‘Gentiles’ (Jew for ALL leprous others) paid for atrocities of Jews Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld-Murdock-12 tribes: 35K actual dead, 700K crippled, $5 trillion cost, wrecked economy, loss of trust in US + 1,500,000 Arabs killed! Evil MASTER Israel commits atrocities with impunity since its SLAVE US will cast another UN Veto (85%) to shield it! Since 1932, ALL US Prsdnts (but JFK) are converts from Judaism (Bushes) or have Jew blood incldng Mr Obama! When US supports evil Israel, ENABLER US is even more evil! Arabs are angry at their US-puppet rulers! The CHOSEN Jews are Arab tribe but I refudiate them, to quote a nitwit. Monotheism was created by Chinese Tao 6500 years ago with his ‘The ETERNAL ONE who lives in heaven’. Pharaoh Akhenaton stole it for Egypt 4000 years ago. Moses stole it from Akhenaton 2500 years later. IS-RA-EL is Arabic-Egyptian-Iranian acronym. IS= Egyptian Fertility Goddess, RA= Egyptian Sun God & EL= Akkadian Earth God! Early popes bragged their CREATION of CHRIST myth gave them great wealth and power! Islam is re-hashed Judaism for Abe’s children from slave Hager but it ordered the rich to provide for the poor and dropped the 200+ Bible references to being CHOSEN! Enough US-Israeli terrorism!
David have you heard of Olmert's offer to Abbas. Please do not tell us fairy tales.
He didn't say that Israel should retain the Jordan Valley, he said that it needs to keep a military presence on the boarder, why do you keep stating wrong facts.
Iran has Iraq now and only the Jordan valley is what separates us if something would happen in the hashemite kingdom.
So if you feel like taking that risk go for it, for Israel it is an existential threat. you saw what happened in the boarder with gaza as soon as Israel has left it you know what you can amuggle from the huge long jordanian boarder.
Violation of what international law, the U.N decision said the boarder would be negotiated and there was never a palestinian state there so please, enough with the bull legal argument. There was never a sovereign palestinian entity and unless it is private land it belongs to the winner , have you heard of such a case in history that the side that was attacked and won the land needs to give it back to the side that lost and wanted to destroy it .
Please.
The Palestinians have a commitment under oslo to not go to the U.N and that the status of the territories would be negotiated, they are violating the oslo accords,
what a one sided nonobjective piece of work you did here with teachers like this no wonder people have the facts wrong about the middle east.
What if Israel retreats and the palestinians would start firing rockets into The heart of Israel would you support a full military campaign and the reoccupation of the west bank? or the destruction of it?
Because all of you intellectual smart guys were awfully silent about Israels right to defend itself from the rocket terror in the gaza strip.
When will you understand it isn't a territorial conflict but an ideological one, the arabs refuse to see the jewish people living in this territory, they are the colonial forces that came from Saudi arabia and raped, killed and made everything into muslim territory from the arabian peninsula to north africa.
Israel has a historical connection, religious connection, and coltural connection to these territories, when the palestinians and all arabs decide they care more about living in peace rather than see Israel destroyed Israel would be willing to make concessions for true peace until than you guys want to keep your arab honor and live in the middle ages go right ahead.
being kept, like the money that Israel transfers to the palestinian authority for its fake customs, its all not for nothing, otherwise Israel would just annex whatever it wants from the west bank, that is also a part of the agreement.
Reality:
At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt. The attack took place just hours before Egypt's VP was to fly to Washington for an arranged June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson's envoy, Robert Anderson. In a cable sent to Johnson on May 30, Israel’s PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June 11 in order to give diplomacy a chance to succeed. However, on June 4, when it heard about the June 7th meeting and the distinct possibility that it would rule out war, Israel attacked Egypt the next day. In short, the war was another massive land grab by Israel.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Minister without portfolio in Eshkol's cabinet, while addressing Israel's National Defence College on 8 August 1982: "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, 21 August 1982)
There is no ambiguity in UNSC Res. 242: In accordance with the UN Charter, its preamble, which determines all that follows, emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."
Res. 242 is also very precise regarding what lands Israel is required to withdraw from: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories OCCUPIED IN THE RECENT CONFLICT [my emphasis.]" Indeed, Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister at the time lobbied unsuccessfully to have "occupied in the recent conflict" removed as he knew full well it meant total withdrawal from all lands Israel occupied during the war it launched on 5 June 1967. Moshe Dayan concurred with Eban.
BTW, regarding the 2000 Camp David Summit:
In fact, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat's throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)
When all the armies around are declaring they are going for a war of extermination and are massing troops to go to war, that means they are going to war so Israel did not wait for them to make the first move. Please don't try to convince us that it wasn't their intention.
There are many books and historians who have documented the events that led to the 6 day war. Don't even try to blame Israel for making the first move
Get educated!!! Begin by throwing away your Hasbara Handbook.
The U.S. State Department: "...international law almost certainly did not confer on Israel the right to initiate the use of armed force against the UAR [Egypt] in the absence of an armed attack by the UAR on Israel. A blockade... did not of itself constitute an armed attack, and self-defense did not cover general hostilities against the UAR."
As the UN Emergency Force (UNEF)Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade: "[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."
Roger Fisher, professor of International Law at Harvard: [T]aking the facts as they are, I would rather defend the legality of the UAR's action in closing the Straits of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case, and I would certainly rather do so than to defend the legality of the 'preventive war' which Israel launched.”
Prime Minister Eshkol: "The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."
Meir Amit, chief of Israel's Mossad: "Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war."
Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister at the time: "All this story about the danger of extermination [of Israel in June 1967] has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory."
Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent."
On May 26, while in Washington, Abba Eban was informed by President Johnson that "...even after instructing his 'experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true', it was still 'their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack."
On May 26, in reply to Eban’s assertion that according to Israeli intelligence, "an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent," Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismissed the claim and assured Eban that Israel faced no threat of attack from Egypt. On the same day, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Eban was also told by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his aides that "...Egyptian forces were not in an aggressive posture and that Israel was not opening itself to peril by not attacking immediately. The contrary was true, Eban was told.”
Although Israel used Nasser’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran as a casus belli to justify its attack against Egypt, with Foreign Minister Aba Eban claiming that it was being “strangled...condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung,” according to the UN Secretariat, "not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years." Also, at most, only five per cent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat.
According to The Statistical Abstract of Israel (1967), "the relative importance of Eilat to the total number of ships arriving at the four other principal Israeli ports (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Ashdod) was 2.20%, 2.46%, 2.75%, and 2.91% for the years 1966, 1965, 1964, and 1963 respectively; while the percentage of net tonnage registered at Eilat to the net tonnage registered at the other four ports was 1.90%, 2.48%, 1.71% and 1.55% for the same years respectively."
Nice try Mr. Siegman; you start by quoting the supposedly moderate Sholomo Avineri to trap a reader into thinking that he/she can expect an objective article and just a few sentences later we read about "Israel's near-hysterical efforts to prevent the Palestinians from bringing their case to the United Nations." You write that "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that in addition to a large number of settlements, Israel must retain the entire Jordan Valley" as an example of "policy of deliberate obfuscation of their territorial ambitions." In the rest of the article you continue your condensending tone by telling us how much Israel stands to gain from agreeing to a Palesinian state within the 1967 borders and a recognition of West Jerusalem as its capital. Really?
In your imaginary world Mr. Siegman, all the offers Israel made through the peace process, by Prime Ministers Barak and Ulmert to return to Palesinian control 97% (acknowledged by US officials) of the West Bank never existed. Israel invaded the West Bank in a defensive war in 1967. Based on its experience through one Intefada after another, it has no reason to return territory, when more than half of the Palestinians expressed their views when they voted for Hamas which is openlycommited to Israel's destruction. Yet inspite of all this, no country on earth has shown more willingness to return territory from which it was attacked. Your ludicrous suggestion that a UN recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 border will bring Israel peace flies in the face of history, when in 1948 right after a UN recognition of Israel it was attacked by 7 Arab armies. Peace is a state of mind, not an agreement on a piece of paper. The Palestinians have shown time and again and are showing it today openly in Gaza, that their intention is never to accept Israel as a Jewish state. After wars and Intefadas did not get them what they wanted, they now reverted to a third approach, relying on people like you Mr. Seligman to portray Israel as an opressor with teritorial ambitions. You are clearly deceiving your readers, who may not be familiar with the history of Israel and everything it did for accomodating the Palestinians, by accusing the Netanyahu government without any historical context.
Finally, the fact that in your imaginary world Israel should be thankful for geting a UN recognition of West Jerusalem as its capital, says it all. There is no West and no East Jerusalem. Jews lived in Jersualem for 3000, with the exception of 19 years from 1948 - 1967 after they were expelled by the Jordenian Army. Jerusalem was the Jewish capital when London was a swamp and Washington DC had only Indian settlements. There is no clearer example of attempt to delegitimizing Israel than statements like yours that Israel should be grateful for recognition of West Jerusalem!
If you haven't heard the Romans killed off all the Jews and if you haven't heard of Masada, there the Jews committed mass suicides themselves.
There were no Jews left in Palestine when Rome implemented its final solution to the Jew Problem.
Of course some survived, here and there, and they few centuries later became Muslims; so the modern day Palestinians are the descendants of old Jews and of course they have lived in Palestine consistently for 3000 years.
The new Jew from Germany, America, Austria, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Ethiopia, India and China are really not from Palestine; they are obviously from the foreign countries just mentioned; thus 95% of the new Jew are foreigners with no legal, ethical or moral rights, not one iota on Palestine.
Do you ever hear of billions of Muslims moving to Saudi Arabia or Palestine and claiming it their god given right? Of course not, because Muslims are obviously smarter than the Khazar new Jew of foreign Eastern European extraction.
I know the Jew has a long tendency to distort, lie and cheat, even his own name; so, is your real name Mutterperl or something. Do let me know.
Mutterperl is not even faintly Semitic or Palestinian name; so would you tell us where your father, grand father and other ancestors came from; do you even know the names of all your great great father and mother, if not how can you claim to have immaculate knowledge of things that happened 3000 years ago?
Billions of Muslims have not moved because billions of Muslims do not exist. There are less than 2 billion Muslims on the face of the earth; ergo, there are not billions of Muslims.
Seldom have I read so much mis/disinformation and misrepresentation of the DOCUMENTED historical record. You really must throw your Hasbara handbook away and GET EDUCATED!!!!
In reality, Jossefperl raised no "facts" that I need address.
Regarding his utter misrepresentaion of what transpired at Camp David 2000:
In fact, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat's throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)
There are several sources available that reveal what actually took place at Camp David 2000. Here's one: "The Truth Regarding the Camp David 2000 Summit"
http://www.canpalnetottawa.org/campdavid.html
(It's a Canadian site.)
If we want to use millenia-old claims to decide who owns Israel, all of the ethnicities in the region, as well as the Italians and the Greeks, have a stronger claim to possession of Israel than the Jews. The Jews claim to historical fame is that they were subjugated by everyone else in the Mediterranean, with a tiny window of time in which they were a small, self-governing kingdom, and they wrote a book about how they were ground under the heel of history.
The Arabs living in Palestine are decedents of invaders who occupied Judea, Israel, and Samaria. Arabs last ruled the area over a thousand years ago. Prior to Jewish rule there was 30 years of British rule and 400 years of Turkish (Ottoman) rule.
then you belong back in Pakistan. So, be true to what you say. Get out of the US and go back to that dump called Pakistan, and the latrine....er.....home you live in.
because Jews have been around for over 4,000 years. And Palestinians have been around since......they invented that nationality for a bunch of common Arabs about 60 years ago.
Jews were exterminated almost completely in Palestine by the Romans before the advent of Islam.
The Khazars, like you and the 95% of the new jew variety are CONVERTS with not a single iota of ethical, moral or legal claim to even an inch of Palestine. You are of German, American, Russian, Polish or Ukrainian extraction and have nothing to do with Palestine.
You are a foreigner, an illegal and unwelcome alien in Palestine, for now and forever. Never forget that.
shouldn't you take your own advice and move back to pakistan? After all you are considered by many to be a "foreign invader."
And I take it you know so much about Jewish DNA history because you are a geneticist? Of course you must also be an anthropologist. And we all know that Pakistan produces the best geneticists of the world and the best anthropologists. Pakistan also leads the world in Jewish history studies too, right? LOLZ.
The Jews claim to historical fame is that they were subjugated by everyone else in the Mediterranean, with a tiny window of time in Tavares which they were a small, self-governing kingdom, and they wrote a book about how they were ground under the heel of history.
There is no one side is right answer in the continuing tragedy of Israeli/Palestinian peace non-negotiations. For a long time Israel has thrown mud on the Palestinians and gradually the PA has learned not only to duck but increasingly to give even better than it gets. This does not eliminate the daily horror of an occupation that has worked through successive Labor, Kadima and Likud governments to inflict enough pain on the Palestinian people to drive some but never enough away. It does not eliminate terror either or the likelyhood that there will be more and worse as the distribution of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas prepares both to inflict larger wounds on Israel. Of course part of the answer is that the world has grown tired of this eternal battle and is largely willing to recognize Israel with its tremendous military and economic advantages increasingly as the primary source of the stalemate. I believe fear rules both the Israeli and Palestinian people followed by an anger that makes real negotiations far more than difficult as some very well meaning western powers have re-discovered. As for Obama, if he moves one inch further towards rewarding Palestinians he will lose enough of his domestic base to put his re-election in even more jeopardy than it is already in with an unrepentant economy.
Read More
(38)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE