At the risk of irritating all my readers in Berkeley, I would like to remind everyone that today marks the anniversary of the historic United Nations vote that grudgingly acknowledged the inevitable: The Jewish homeland would once again become a Jewish state.
Possibly further irritating all my readers in Berkeley, I hasten to point out that the United Nations vote in effect did not really mean anything – it was the Haganah and the other organized groups among the Jews in the Land who made it happen, but it was the Britain and the United Nations who were entirely powerless to stop Israel becoming a state, OR prevent the Arab armies from trying to wipe the young state off the map.
[Well, the English did not actually have any intention, ever, of keeping the Arabs from invading - the Arab forces were largely armed by Britain, allied to the British, and led by British officers. Hugely embarrassing that they lost, eh what? So badly, too. Tssk, tsk.]
And also probably irritating to my readers in Berkeley: the Arabs of the part of British Mandate Palestine which was not carved off and given to the Hashemites (gotta park those hosers somewhere, they might prove useful eventually) could have had a state as early as 1947.
Let me repeat that:
The Arabs of British Mandate Palestine COULD have had a state as early as 1947!
That they did not get their state was due entirely to their fellow Arabs and their British puppet masters.
It also proved the United Nations impotent even at that early date.
That the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine STILL don’t have a state is because of their peculiar pathology.
And the help of their friends.
The Arabs of British Mandate Palestine could have had a STATE as early as 1947!
Since then, of course, the United Nations has become a patsy of the Arabs, and Berkeley has become a sanctuary for hatefilled scumsuckers.
Sorry, Berkeley.
==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DON'T PANIC
There is a very sweet looking woman of an age which would be most unsuitable friends and acquaintances would be shocked oh my yes we didn...
5 comments:
Or under the Peel Commission Plan, they could have had a larger state in 1937. Each time the Arab leaders rejects peace, it is at the cost of territory, and the lives of their own people. The worst enemy of the Arab people has always been the Arab leadership. Among the many misconceptions that seem to dominate Berkeleyite thought is the notion that the Arab-Israeli Conflict is strictly a rational, territorial conflict. A brief review of history demonstrates that neither the Arab leadership nor the average Berkeleyite is deeply tuned into reality.
I wouldn't get all too Israeli-triumphalist about this anniversary.
For all the Israeli right-wingers and the right-wing Jews everywhere like to mock the UN, this resolution is the legal basis of the legitimacy of the Jewish State, which was the intention of the founders of Israel -- the goal of Zionism, according the the resolution of the First Zionist Congress was a Jewish state "secured by public law."
In this resolution, the Zionists/Israelis agreed to the partition of British Palestine, and for Jerusalem to **NOT** be part of Israel. (It was to be an international zone, run by the UN.)
As you pointed out, the Arabs rejected this, and as a result of the consequent war, the Israelis occupied and annexed considerable territory, including West Jerusalem. This was pretty much accepted by everybody, because in 1848 the right of conquest was still recognized by international law.
However, in 1949, Israel signed and ratified the 4th Geneva Convention, which eliminates any right of conquest of territory. You can occupy territory in self defense, presumably to be disposed of as part of a negotiated settlement, but a country can't unilaterally annex territory or settle its people there. Which is exactly what Israel has been doing since they occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan in 1967. Yes, it was reasonable for Israel to hold the land to induce the Arabs to come to a settlement, but the annextion of East Jerusalem and the settlements elsewhere are blatant violations of international law and commitments made by the State of Israel. The legal adviser to the Israel prime minister said so when asked by the prime minister in 1967. Yet the Israelis did what they did, and as far as I can see they have no right to complain when people call them on it.
As for the Arabs, it's absolutely true that at first they were 100% unreasonable and have reaped the sorry fruit of that folly. However, by the time I lived i Israel (~1975) the Arabs were starting to realize that Israel was here to stay, and they needed to make peace. By the time of the Oslo agreements, you had an Arab world that was perfectly ready to accept the existence of Israel, even if they weren't 100% happy about it. Unfortunately, but that time, the Israeli right and settler movement had become so powerful that shutting down the settlements became an impossible task, and it's impossible to come to an agreement with the Pallies without shutting down the settlements. And who can blame the Pallies? They want a real state that they control, not live in some bantustan run by the Jews, which is about all that the Israeli political system can offer these days.
So as far as Im concerned, while the Arab terrorism does cause problems, I think the bulk of the blame lies with Israel. It's really a shame. I used to be a Zionist, and I even thought of making aliyah, but given that Israel is on its way to blood-and-soil fascism, I think I made the right choice by staying in the Diaspora.
(I'm not sure this comment was saved, and I got a message that it was oversize, so I'm resending it in 2 parts)
I wouldn't get all too Israeli-triumphalist about this anniversary.
For all the Israeli right-wingers and the right-wing Jews everywhere like to mock the UN, this resolution is the legal basis of the legitimacy of the Jewish State, which was the intention of the founders of Israel -- the goal of Zionism, according the the resolution of the First Zionist Congress was a Jewish state "secured by public law."
In this resolution, the Zionists/Israelis agreed to the partition of British Palestine, and for Jerusalem to **NOT** be part of Israel. (It was to be an international zone, run by the UN.)
As you pointed out, the Arabs rejected this, and as a result of the consequent war, the Israelis occupied and annexed considerable territory, including West Jerusalem. This was pretty much accepted by everybody, because in 1848 the right of conquest was still recognized by international law.
However, in 1949, Israel signed and ratified the 4th Geneva Convention, which eliminates any right of conquest of territory. You can occupy territory in self defense, presumably to be disposed of as part of a negotiated settlement, but a country can't unilaterally annex territory or settle its people there. Which is exactly what Israel has been doing since they occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan in 1967. Yes, it was reasonable for Israel to hold the land to induce the Arabs to come to a settlement, but the annextion of East Jerusalem and the settlements elsewhere are blatant violations of international law and commitments made by the State of Israel. The legal adviser to the Israel prime minister said so when asked by the prime minister in 1967. Yet the Israelis did what they did, and as far as I can see they have no right to complain when people call them on it.
--to be continued
Part 2
As for the Arabs, it's absolutely true that at first they were 100% unreasonable and have reaped the sorry fruit of that folly. However, by the time I lived i Israel (~1975) the Arabs were starting to realize that Israel was here to stay, and they needed to make peace. By the time of the Oslo agreements, you had an Arab world that was perfectly ready to accept the existence of Israel, even if they weren't 100% happy about it. Unfortunately, by that time, the Israeli right and settler movement had become so powerful that shutting down the settlements became an impossible task, and it's impossible to come to an agreement with the Pallies without shutting down the settlements and moving the Jews out of the Arab state. And who can blame the Pallies? They want a real state that they control, not live in some bantustan run by the Jews, which is about all that the Israeli political system can offer these days.
So as far as I"m concerned, while the Arab terrorism does cause problems, I think the bulk of the blame lies with Israel. It's really a shame. I used to be a Zionist, and I even thought of making aliyah, but given that Israel is on its way to blood-and-soil fascism, I think I made the right choice by staying in the Diaspora.
"This was pretty much accepted by everybody, because in 1848 the right of conquest was still recognized by international law."
The right of conquest was also accepted by international law in 1948, which was when Israel conquered more land than was allocated by the 1947 Partition Plan.
Sorry for the typo
Post a Comment