Tzipi Livni just said that Israel must give up "half of the land of Israel." Good for her; and why are you expanding settlements? But she says that Israel must control the planning re two states. "Any plan put on the table will not be in our interest," she said, intending to "head off international programs," AP reports.
This is the same obdurate posture adopted by Ariel Sharon, who reportedly withdrew from Gaza in 2005 because he feared the excitement over the internationally-brokered Geneva Accord, and the resulting pressure on Israel to agree to outsiders' terms for peace. Livni is appealing here to American Jewish leaders: You have to support Israel so no one pressures us to different terms.
Just as we did at Camp David...Which demonstrates: Nothing fair will happen without pressure. No just solution can be achieved by allowing one side to frame the terms. Henry Siegman wrote as much nearly two years ago, and three years ago, Roane Carey of the Nation (the editor of Clayton Swisher's great book on Camp David) made the same statement in a letter to me:
It would be better for the US AND Israel if Washington were finally to say something like the following: 'Look the game is up. As your ally and friend, we're telling you that you have to come to terms with your neighbors, and that we will no longer act as your enabler. Therefore, we have decided to throw our full support behind the Arab League's Beirut Declaration offering full peace for full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, first announced in 2002 and reiterated since, and urge you to do the same, which would give you peace and diplomatic relations with all 22 members of the Arab League in return for full withdrawal from the territories, including East Jerusalem, and a reasonable resolution of the refugee issue (probably return of a significant chunk, maybe 100,000 or so, plus public recognition of the expulsion of '48, and generous monetary compensation for the rest, which we will contribute to).
If you do this, we will remain your ally and even sign a mutual defense Pact—hell, we'll even station a permanent brigade or division of US troops on your borders as a tripwire if you want—but in return you must agree to these measures. If you refuse this offer, fine—it's your right as a sovereign state. But if you do refuse, we will henceforth cut off all aid, military and economic, and will never veto a UN resolution against you again. You'll be left to sink or swim on your own. Take your pick.
That was nearly 3 years ago. The lesson's as clear now as it was then: the international community can't expect any leadership from a weak and brutalized government. And Jack Ross asks: If she really means half, is she returning to the '47 U.N. Partition plan, which gave the Palestinians a little less than half of Mandate Palestine as a state?
Palestinians received 3/4 of mandate palestine and renamed it Transjordan. They were then granted an additional 45% of what was left, but that wasn't good enough.
No Ross, Israel is not going back to 47 or 67. They will give the palestinians enough land for a viable state. but thta's about it.
Peace talks are about how much of illegally occupied land can Israel keep indefinitely.
Palestinians received 3/4 of mandate palestine and renamed it Transjordan.
Did they? Interesting. I thought they didn't even exist, were no nation, had to right to any land? As they had no influential assets with access to the imperialist powers? …
And the UN based it's partition plan not on the British Mandate of Palestine, but on Israel/Judea, Samaria in spite of the fact that the Palestinians had already been given 3/4 probably because the UN has always been ardently antisemitic? But this UN plan was celebrated by the Hayishuv Hayehudi b'Eretz Yisrael nevertheless?
Something really sad is happening to the Jewish mind.
You seem to be deliberately confusing the point. Based on your previous posts, one might assume you were smart enough to read the history. There is a difference betweem Mandate Palestine and British mandate palestine. The mandate, that included all of historic palestine, included the land that eventually became Jordan. It was separated during the total mandate period, cleansed of jews, laws made forbidding Jews to settle, and named transjordan. 70% of its population consists of Palestinians. And the next king will be an ethnic palestinian. The previous kings were ethnic saudis.
I am surely aware, I am reacting on "the Palestinians received … and renamed it Transjordan". That's cynical. I am assuming you read the two books by Avi Shlaim on the issue?
Next king of Jordan will at best be half Palestinian, quarter English and Quarter Jordanian. Current king of Jordan is half English. This does not make him ethnic English any more than future king will be ethnic Palestinian.
Catchy propaganda, doesn't wash at a closer inspection.
"Regardless how the solution is achieved, the Palestinians should run their lives," he said. "They should govern themselves, but they shouldn't have certain powers that would threaten the state of Israel."
Sorry, but at this point, it's becoming too obvious, too glaring, too tempting:
"Around the [settlers'] city, there will be a ring, some 30, 40 kilometers, of beautiful villages, connected by the best roads. What comes beyond is the other world, in which they may live as they wish. Only that we rule them. In case of an uprising, we'll just need to drop a few bombs on their cities and that will settle it."
Per Berely,the USA is now transKenya.
Next king of Jordan will at best be half Palestinian, quarter English and Quarter Jordanian. Current king of Jordan is half English. This does not make him ethnic English any more than future king will be ethnic Palestinian.
Catchy propaganda, doesn't wash at a closer inspection.
Posted by: Eva Smagacz | February 17, 2009 at 02:59 AM
Then you are claiming that there are next to no ethnic palestinians. Arafat was an Egyptian. Born and raised an Egyptian. Most of those claiming some sort of refugee status, IAW the UN, were in the region for a relatively short time prior to the Arab armies declaring genocidal war in 1948.
Talk about catchy propaganda.
Britain had the mandate. It chose to give part of it to Jordan. The Pals had no say. The UN gave the Jews about 60% of
the rest of the mandate, the Pals got the remaining 40% or so, which directly conflicted with the proportionate respective populations of jews and non-jews in the target area at the time. At the UN,
the arab nations were strong-armed, then ignored.
Chris,
Joan Peter's book "From Times Immemorial" has been discredited some time ago. Arab armies did not declare genocidal war in 1948. Arafat was born in Cairo of Palestinian parents. His mother was half Egyptian, which does not make him Egyptian.
Again, you gave us one opinion and two endlessly repeated propaganda talking points.
"Palestinians received 3/4 of mandate palestine and renamed it Transjordan. They were then granted an additional 45% of what was left, but that wasn't good enough."–chris berel
This is not historically true. England gave non-palestinian arabs Transjordan. Then the jews were given close to 60% of what was left of the mandate. This at a time when the demographics should have reversed
the proportional giving. And today, the Palestinian arabs can't even get the 22% undecided except possibly in the form of what the apartheid regime gave to the native blacks. Not even worthy of being called a rump state.