Posted on 07/15/2002 7:06:11 AM PDT by 1bigdictator
While recognizing the suffering of Palistinians, the historical facts concerning thier sorry state of affairs uncovers two undeniable truths: (1) But for the systemic and repeated violations of international law governing neighboring states by Israel's Arab neighbors between 1948 and 1967, the Palistinians would have thier homeland. International Law seeks to promote harmony over chaos among neighboring states and the Arab countries who attacked Israel four times within an 18 year period assumed certain risks for violating international law. Precedent in this arena is clear, agressor nations are not rewarded for attacking thier neighbors should they lose the conflict which their beligerent actions started. Hence, it is erroneous to label the West Bank as "occupied" as it was lawfully settled to provide both a buffer zone for Israel and a deterent from future attack. A proper analogy would be pre-war Nazi Germany, whose borders encompassed far more territory prior to the Nazis expansion into most of Europe. As the Agressor, once Germany was defeated, they lost much of the soveriegn territory which they held prior to thier unlawful expansion. To be consistant, European scholars must consider much of Poland and Austria to be "illegaly occupied" territory because it belonged to Germany prior to thier instigating WWII. (2)Israel has been unfairly scapegoated as the root-cause of Palistinian suffering. Israel's military is under a duty to protect its citizens from homicide bombers. But for the almost daily terrorist attacks on innocent Israelis the military would not need to re-enter the West Bank. It is instructive to note that the homicide bombings seem to cease when there is an Israeli military presence in the West Bank. It is counter intuitive to mandate under the Geneva Convention that a soveriegn nation both fulfill its duty to protect its citizens, yet find any action which sucessfully fulfills this mandate inherently immoral. This is precisely what this boycott of Israel represents, unless it is the contention of these european intellectuals that Israeli citizens fall outside this mandate which every member nation of the U.N. undertakes-- perhaps my european friends classify the value of an Israeli's life as something less than that of any citizen from other nations?
"Annexation" would require some inclusive status for the Palestinians; they would eventually have to becaome Israeli citizens, an unacceptable result. The Palestinians must be pacified and their real estate "acquired" without them having any status in Israel.
The Palestinians and Israeli Arabs breed so much faster than the Jews that there is real concern for the continued existance of a Jewish state is democracy in Israel is permitted.
In fact, the military conflict with the Palestinians makes the situation easy but the conflict can't continue. So, there will either be a Palestinan state where the non-Israelis will live but not cause trouble or an all inclusive Israel where Palestinians will eventually get to vote. It is difficult to see how this will all turn out.
No. The "palestinians" belong in Jordan. Not that Jordan in its present form is much more than another Arab/UN swindle, though.
Citizens? Non-voting nationals? Guest arbeiters [workers] holding passports of other nations [Jordan, Egypt, etc.] who can be deported thither if they cause trouble or become active politically?
If some nation out there in Araby, really cared about the plight of these Muslims then, it could offer some land or cities as special refuges and accept them into its territory, possibly giving them autonomy or even independence THERE! Why must any Palestinian state, if there is to be one, come at ISRAEL's expense? Let those who favor such a state, put up the land for it.
So long as Israel continues to build settlements annexation remains a viable solution.
Assuming the nation which issues them passports doesn't want them (a foregone conclusion), they would be citizens of the new Palestinian entity which would consist of Gaza (few suggest annexing that pit) and possibly a remnant of the West Bank.
Peaceful residents could continue to live and work in Israel, as they do throughout the Arab world, but would not be citizens. Terrorists would be imprisioned or deported.
Israel stop the madness, take control of your territory and move the muslims across the Jordan river. Plenty of sand there for them to eat.
Prior to the 1967 war, the Palestinians never differentiated themselves from the other Arabs of the region. Before 1967, the term Palestinians generally refered to the JEWS living in what became Israel. The original name of the Jerusalem Post, a Jewish newspaper, was the Palestinians Post, and the Jewish brigade that fought in the British Army in WWII was known as His Majesty's Palestinian Brigade.
A better analogy would be The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed between the United States and Mexico to end the war and resolve the disputed territories.
The Treaty ended the war, set up the peace process, renumerated Mexico for the land, granted citizenship, restored property rights, etc. You can't just "annex" the conquered land based on a 1919 Declaration that nobody recognizes and expect peace.
"Annexation" would require some inclusive status for the Palestinians; they would eventually have to becaome Israeli citizens, an unacceptable result. The Palestinians must be pacified and their real estate "acquired" without them having any status in Israel.
I don't see such a problem. Certainly in 1948 the Jordanians definitely "annexed" the same West Bank, declared it was a proper part of Jordan, sent their garrisons in, taxed the residents (but didn't let them have local elections, colleges, or newspapers), .... oh, and chased out ALL the Jews and confiscated whatever property they left behind.
Does anyone recall the UN or the US referring to the West Bank as "occupied" while the Jordanians were there? Does anyone recall any UN condemnation of the Jordanians driving out all the Jewish inhabitants, seizing their land, trashing Jewish shrines, etc.?
I'm just asking.
President George W. Bush has called for the realization of the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs. This national aspiration can only be realized in the form of several semi-autonomous Arab cantons with Israel maintaining over-all security control. The alternative is perpetual war and carnage.The sensible alternative is the above with Jordan maintaining oversight. This was called the "Reagan Plan" in 1982 and makes even more sense now that Jordan and Israel are on friendly terms.
The West Bank and Gaza were recognized as Muslim lands by the 1947 Mandate division, which was accepted by the putative Israeli government, and the 1949 Armstice between Israel and Jordan.
Annexation now would render them a pariah state and greatly increase the potential for terrorism. Annexation and expulsion would bring down what moderate states exist in the Moslem nations, and result in war sooner rather than later.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.