'NY Times' publishes defense of racial segregation in Israel

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Israel is not the only reason that there is no real State of Palestine. You can't start a war, leave and lose the war you started, then claim a right of return.

Historic reality is complicated, but the fact is that all along the line Palestinians have been badly led. And the best opportunity for a new State of Palestine was 1948. Yes Israel has done and continues to do some awful things, but give credit where credit is due.

One by one, Israel's coalition members abandon two-state rhetoric

More and more, members of Israel’s ruling parties are matching their public statements to the reality they are implementing every minute on the ground: Israel’s opposition to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict.

A group photo of the 33rd Israeli government, March 19, 2013 (Avi Ohayon, GPO)

Economy Minister and Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett is the latest MK to join a robust list of Israeli government coalition members who have publicly stated that the two-state solution is dead and that the notion of a Palestinian state is a thing of the past. Although it’s no new position for him, Bennett is making it clear that no matter what Prime Minister Netanyahu says or what polls show, the Israel of 2013 is squarely against a two-state solution.

Bennett stated that ”the idea of forming a Palestinian state in Israel has reached a dead end,” speaking at a settler council meeting Monday morning, comparing the “Palestinian problem” to a “piece of shrapnel” lodged in someone’s rear end; that instead of trying to live with such a pain in the ###, it must be surgically removed.

Bennett also asserted there is no occupation, since Israeli Jews cannot be occupiers in their own home (echoing the Netanyahu-commissioned Levy Report from nearly a year ago that concluded there is no occupation) and called on Israel to annex Area C of the West Bank.

This is similar to what Likud MK and former Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin said last year: “Today, almost 20 years since Oslo, one could clearly argue that the idea of separating between the nations has failed … Between the Jordan River and the sea, there can only be one state, Jewish and democratic, with a solid Jewish majority.”

There are plenty of other coalition members who have publicly come out against the two-state solution and the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, as a Knesset committee meeting on the subject exposed last month. It’s not just fundamentalist Hebron settler Orit Struck from Jewish Home, who said two states are ”not part of the government’s guiding principles, and for good reason.”

MK Yoni Chetboun, also from Jewish Home, said at that meeting that, “the government has not even decided that it supports two nations for two peoples.” He is also the MK who publicly accused the Obama administration of boycotting Ariel University in the West Bank when the student body was not invited to his Jerusalem speech in March.

MK Ofer Shelah, from Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, said recently that Israel will become an apartheid state if it does not pull out of the West Bank and called the occupation “corrupt.” Yet two of his party members – Pnina Tamano-Shata and Dov Lipman - attended the launch of the Knesset pro-settlement caucus a few days ago, which is committed to “bolstering the legal status of the Jewish people in the entire Land of Israel” and “rectifying the grave mistake of the disengagement [from Gaza] and preventing its recurrence.” Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein also attended the event.

Yair Lapid isn’t any better. His declaration that there will be no compromise on Jerusalem and no settlement freeze is pretty much as good as saying no to a two-state solution.

Likud of course has its fair share of anti-two-staters who openly oppose establishment of a Palestinian state. Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, at the start of this year said the two-state solution is an “illusion.” Just the other day, Likud MK and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis said settlements are actually good for peace and followed it up with the declaration that “Palestinians are not ready for statehood.”

Deputy Defense Minister from Likud Danny Danon takes the cake with his statement last week that the government will block any chance of a two-state solution and that any efforts at negotiations are futile. (MK Ahmed Tibi rightly said Danon is the most honest in the coalition as he at least does not hide Israel’s plans.)

Likud MK and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in Washington a few days ago that the Arab Peace Initiative (for a two-state solution along 1967 borders in exchange for normalized relations with the Arab world) is just “a spin.”

As for Likud chairman, Prime Minister and acting Foreign Minister Netanyahu, he has himself said Israel must reach an agreement with Palestinians to avoid becoming a binational state and that a “demilitarized’ Palestinian state could be established. So Netanyahu is in fact – as far as the political rhetoric goes – the most moderate of the bunch. Scary. Though an official in his office just stated just the other day that in fact the government “has no official position on the Palestinian issue.”

And we mustn’t forget Justice Minister-cum-chief Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni of Hatnuah, one of the last ministers in the governing coalition still publicly invoking a two-state solution as the only way to keep Israel Jewish. But considering her work environment, she cannot be seen as much more than a fig leaf for this government.

http://972mag.com/one-by-one-israels-coalition-members-abandon-two-state-rhetoric/73829/

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Ok, relax, that's not what I meant. Do you have a map of what you/Palestine want to see happen? Like, ultimate goal.

It's not about what I want to see happen.

This is a map of the West Bank and Gaza - the territories that have been recognized as the State of Palestine by the UNGA:

[GandD 5,966]

That's a lot less land than the original proposal

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNGA_Resolution_181_(II)._Future_government_of_Palestine_Annex_A_Plan_of_Partition_with_Economic_Union.gif

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

That's a lot less land than the original proposal

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNGA_Resolution_181_(II)._Future_government_of_Palestine_Annex_A_Plan_of_Partition_with_Economic_Union.gif

You are correct.

The Palestinian Authority has made a very generous offer - to cede to Israel more than half of the territory that the UN Partition Plan set aside for the Palestinian State.

However, the Israeli government has continued to rebuff this offer, as its ongoing plan has been to appropriate the remaining territory as well, and to squeeze out most of the remaining Palestinians into neighboring countries or points beyond.

[GandD 5,966]

You are correct.

The Palestinian Authority has made a very generous offer - to cede to Israel more than half of the territory that the UN Partition Plan set aside for the Palestinian State.

However, the Israeli government has continued to rebuff this offer, as its ongoing plan has been to appropriate the remaining territory as well, and to squeeze out most of the remaining Palestinians into neighboring countries or points beyond.

So, Britain never backed this since both sides didn't agree. Arabs completely rejected it and Israel began claiming the land mapped out in the agreement anyway. Then the two went to war and Israel began annexing parts mapped out for the Arabs. Then in 1967 nearly the entire Middle East went to war with Israel and Israel annexed even more land. Eventually Israel had to give the Sinai penensula back to Egypt.

So, directly after the initial Israel/Arab war, what if any were the considerations for the initial proposal map from both sides? Were the Arabs willing to consider it at that time? Sorry I keep using Arabs because that's what wiki refers to them as prior to 1988. What about directly after the six day war? Where the Arabs willing to consider the map you showed? If not, at what point did this become an acceptable palenstinian state?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So, Britain never backed this since both sides didn't agree. Arabs completely rejected it and Israel began claiming the land mapped out in the agreement anyway. Then the two went to war and Israel began annexing parts mapped out for the Arabs. Then in 1967 nearly the entire Middle East went to war with Israel and Israel annexed even more land. Eventually Israel had to give the Sinai penensula back to Egypt.

So, directly after the initial Israel/Arab war, what if any were the considerations for the initial proposal map from both sides? Were the Arabs willing to consider it at that time? Sorry I keep using Arabs because that's what wiki refers to them as prior to 1988. What about directly after the six day war? Where the Arabs willing to consider the map you showed? If not, at what point did this become an acceptable palenstinian state?

Not exactly, although this is pretty much the Israeli narrative of what happened.

UN 181 was never implemented - it was a proposal, but never implemented. The Security Council, after extended discussion, determined that such a plan could never be fair to the Palestinian inhabitants, and would probably start a war. So they sent it back to the General Assembly to come up with something else.

The British Mandate was set to expire on May 15, 1948. After years of Zionist terror attacks by groups like Irgun and LEHI (also known as the Stern Gang,) Britain announced it would be withdrawing its troops when the Mandate expired. Its troops were the only military force that offered any protection to the Palestinian inhabitants, who had no army.

In the months after UN 181 was proposed, heavily armed Zionist militias began attacking Palestinian towns and villages both inside and outside the area proposed for the Jewish state, conducting massacres, destroying homes and crops, and driving Palestinians out of the territory. Most of these civilians were unarmed and had no way to defend themselves. I have maps showing when and where these operations took place, if you would like me to post them.

As hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing the violence began to stream across the borders of neighboring countries, the Arab League begged the international community to step in to stop the ethnic cleansing and protect Palestinian civilians. However, no Arab state invaded the area, as the British still had control there.

On the evening of May 14, 1948, just before the Mandate was to expire, the Zionist council unilaterally declared The State of Israel on the lines proposed in UN 181.

At that point, upon the expiration of the British Mandate, several Arab states deployed their forces into the territory designated for the Palestinian state, trying to protect the civilians there and stop the mass expulsions. It was a feeble effort, undertaken with great reluctance.

Zionist terror gangs were merged into the Israeli army, which had a greater number of better trained troops, and was far more well equipped than any of the Arab forces it met. By 1949, armistice agreements ended the fighting. Israel continued to occupy about half of the territory designated for the Arab state. It refused to allow any of the refugees to return to their property, instead bulldozing more than 400 Palestinian villages, distributing other Palestinian homes and businesses to Jewish immigrants, and rapidly building new Jewish settlements on the occupied land.

By the end of the war, Israel had been recognized as a state by the UN based on the borders described in 181, and on the basis of it complying with all UN resolutions and international law.

Israel launched the 1967 war in order to take the rest of the territory, and its leaders have gone on record admitting this. It occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and continued to dispossess Palestinians from their property, building illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied land. This is where Resolution 242 comes in, calling for Israel to knock it off and go home.

Just because Israel claims to annex land does not make it legal. Under international law, you can't do that - taking foreign territory by force is illegal.

The PLO formally recognized Israel and accepted Resolutions 242 and 338 in 1993.

[GandD 5,966]

Not exactly, although this is pretty much the Israeli narrative of what happened.

UN 181 was never implemented - it was a proposal, but never implemented. The Security Council, after extended discussion, determined that such a plan could never be fair to the Palestinian inhabitants, and would probably start a war. So they sent it back to the General Assembly to come up with something else.

The British Mandate was set to expire on May 15, 1948. After years of Zionist terror attacks by groups like Irgun and LEHI (also known as the Stern Gang,) Britain announced it would be withdrawing its troops when the Mandate expired. Its troops were the only military force that offered any protection to the Palestinian inhabitants, who had no army.

In the months after UN 181 was proposed, heavily armed Zionist militias began attacking Palestinian towns and villages both inside and outside the area proposed for the Jewish state, conducting massacres, destroying homes and crops, and driving Palestinians out of the territory. Most of these civilians were unarmed and had no way to defend themselves. I have maps showing when and where these operations took place, if you would like me to post them.

As hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing the violence began to stream across the borders of neighboring countries, the Arab League begged the international community to step in to stop the ethnic cleansing and protect Palestinian civilians. However, no Arab state invaded the area, as the British still had control there.

On the evening of May 14, 1948, just before the Mandate was to expire, the Zionist council unilaterally declared The State of Israel on the lines proposed in UN 181.

At that point, upon the expiration of the British Mandate, several Arab states deployed their forces into the territory designated for the Palestinian state, trying to protect the civilians there and stop the mass expulsions. It was a feeble effort, undertaken with great reluctance.

Zionist terror gangs were merged into the Israeli army, which had a greater number of better trained troops, and was far more well equipped than any of the Arab forces it met. By 1949, armistice agreements ended the fighting. Israel continued to occupy about half of the territory designated for the Arab state. It refused to allow any of the refugees to return to their property, instead bulldozing more than 400 Palestinian villages, distributing other Palestinian homes and businesses to Jewish immigrants, and rapidly building new Jewish settlements on the occupied land.

By the end of the war, Israel had been recognized as a state by the UN based on the borders described in 181, and on the basis of it complying with all UN resolutions and international law.

Israel launched the 1967 war in order to take the rest of the territory, and its leaders have gone on record admitting this. It occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and continued to dispossess Palestinians from their property, building illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied land. This is where Resolution 242 comes in, calling for Israel to knock it off and go home.

Just because Israel claims to annex land does not make it legal. Under international law, you can't do that - taking foreign territory by force is illegal.

The PLO formally recognized Israel and accepted Resolutions 242 and 338 in 1993.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have more questions if you're up to it but I'm done for the night. Pm or post the map, whichever you prefer.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have more questions if you're up to it but I'm done for the night. Pm or post the map, whichever you prefer.

It's ok. It's a lot to digest in one sitting, and the more you learn, the more and more disturbing it gets.

Maps:

"Clearing operations" to drive out Palestinian inhabitants inside the territory designated for the Jewish state - all of these happened before the war ever started:

Attacks on Palestinian areas in the area designated for the Palestinian state - again, all before the war ever started:

In these operations, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Palestine by the Zionists - and before any Arab army ever set foot in Palestine.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

"Plan Dalet" was formally adopted by Zionist leaders on March 10, 1948. Its stated objective was to "gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders" and that “it also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders”

April 1, 1948 - Operation Nachshon carved a corridor from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
April 27, 1948 - Operation Hametz captured Jaffa
April 28, 1948 - Operation Yiftach - consolidated control of all the eastern Galilee
May 3, 1948 - Operation Matateh - took Tiberias and the eastern Galilee
May 14, 1948 - Operation Ben'Ami - took Acre
May 14, 1948 - Operation Kilshon - took the New City of Jerusalem

All of this before any Arab army invaded.

Other Plan Dalet operations drove most of the Palestinian population out of the coastal plain, as well as from Lydda, Ramla, Tiberias, Safed, Beersheba, Beisan and West Jersualem. The only Palestinian towns to remain intact in the areas seized by the Zionists were Nazareth and Shafa'amr in the Galilee.

The Arab League waited until the end of the British Mandate to take action to stop the Zionist aggression. UN Charter Article 52 gave them the right and duty to do so, to protect the lands which were designated for the Arab state from being invaded and seized by the Zionists.

This is the reason there are no UN resolutions condemning the actions of the Arab states.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."

- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

Just a few quotes from Arabs a bit closer to the situation in 1948. But do carry on with the new version of the events.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."

- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

Just a few quotes from Arabs a bit closer to the situation in 1948. But do carry on with the new version of the events.

Erskine Childers did an extensive study of all radio broadcasts during 1948 (the BBC had monitored and transcribed them) and he found that in fact it was Zionist broadcasts that urged Palestinian civilians to flee - Arab leaders were urging civilians to stay in their homes:

There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put. To select only two examples: on April 4, as the first great wave of flight began, Damascus Radio broadcast an appeal to everyone to stay at their homes and jobs. On April 24, with the exodus now a flood, Palestine Arab leaders warned that:

Certain elements and Jewish agents are spreading defeatist news to create chaos and panic among the peaceful population. Some cowards are deserting their houses, villages or cities. . . Zionist agents and corrupt cowards will be severely punished (Al-Inqaz, the Arab Liberation Radio, at 12.00 hours).

Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

The fact is that Israel's official charges, which have vitally influenced the last ten years of Western thought about the refugees, are demonstrably and totally hollow. And from this alone, suspicion is justified. Why make such charges at all? On the face of it, this mass exodus might have been entirely the result of "normal" panic and wartime dislocation.

We need not even touch upon Arab evidence that panic was quite deliberately incited. The evidence is there, on the Zionist record. For example, on March 27, four days before the big offensive against Arab centres by the official Zionist (Haganah) forces, the Irgun's radio unit broadcast in Arabic. Irgun, a terrorist organisation like the Stern Gang, was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah. Yet just four days before the Haganah offensive Irgun warned "Arabs in urban agglomerations" that typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out, "heavily" among. them "in April and May."

The effect may be imagined. Two weeks later, it was this same Irgun, apparently so solicitous of Arab welfare, that butchered the people of Deir Yassin. Irgun then called a press conference to announce the deed; paraded other captured Arabs through Jewish quarters of Jerusalem to be spat upon; then released them to tell their kin of the experience. Arthur Koestler called the "bloodbath" of Deir Yassin "the psychologically decisive factor in this spectacular exodus." But this was only Irgun, it may be said. Is there evidence that official Zionist forces-the Haganah under Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency-were inciting panic? An Israeli Government pamphlet of 1958 states that "the Jews tried, by every means open to them, to stop the Arab evacuation" (this same 1958 pamphlet has diluted Deir Yassin to "the one and only instance of Jewish high-handed (sic) action in this war").

There is one recorded instance of such an appeal. It is beyond dispute even by Arabs, that in Haifa the late gentle Mayor, Shabeitai Levi, with the tears streaming down his face, implored the city's Arabs to stay. But elsewhere in Haifa, Arthur Koestler wrote in his book that Haganah loudspeaker vans and the Haganah radio promised that city's Arabs escort to "Arab territory," and "hinted at terrible consequences if their warning were disregarded." There are many witnesses of this loudspeaker method elsewhere. In Jerusalem the Arabic warning from the vans was, "The road to Jericho is open! Fly from Jerusalem before you are all killed!" (Meyer Levin in Jerusalem Embattled). Bertha Vester, a Christian missionary, reported that another theme was, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate." The Haganah radio station also broadcast, in Arabic, repeated news of Arabs fleeing "in terror and fear" from named places.

...

This is what Nathan Chofshi, one of the original Jewish pioneers in Palestine, wrote in an ashamed rebuttal of an American Zionist rabbi's charges of evacuation orders:

If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the fight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages ... some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises. It is enough to cite the cities of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Beersheba, Acre from among numberless others. (in `Jewish Newsletter,' New York, February 9, 1959).

Were official Zionist troops involved at any of these places? I propose to select, for the sake of brevity, only the Lydda-Ramleh area. It was about the exodus from this area, among others, that the Economist reported. "Jewish troops gave them an hour to quit."

- Erskine Childers, May 12, 1961, The Spectator

Of course the Palestinian civilians who fled thought they would return to their own homes and property when the fighting was over - this is the right of all civilians, no matter what their race or religion.

But do carry on with your hasbara to keep trying to blame the victims for the catastrophic crimes that Zionists perpetrated on Palestinians.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The Arabs massing along the border weren't loudly certain and promising to wipe out the new State of Israel? No promises made that Jewish investments in housing and infrastructure would not be spoils of war?

Not that you will, but your new narrative of events is so patently one sided,you could at least come up with one token mistake, one token heinous act, but no just stick to the purely victims narrative.

I have to admit it is impressive, carefully wording every response to frame this new version of the history of Palestinian victim hood so pure that even direct Palestinian and Arab actions and statements become part of the Israeli machinations to victimize said people. Not credible but impressive nonetheless.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The Arabs massing along the border weren't loudly certain and promising to wipe out the new State of Israel? No promises made that Jewish investments in housing and infrastructure would not be spoils of war?

Not that you will, but your new narrative of events is so patently one sided,you could at least come up with one token mistake, one token heinous act, but no just stick to the purely victims narrative.

I have to admit it is impressive, carefully wording every response to frame this new version of the history of Palestinian victim hood so pure that even direct Palestinian and Arab actions and statements become part of the Israeli machinations to victimize said people. Not credible but impressive nonetheless.

The "new State of Israel" was already in the process of wiping out Palestine. No Arabs were "massing along the border" until hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had already been driven out by Zionist militias and terror gangs.

But "spoils of war" is exactly what Israel called the private property it stole from Palestinian civilians, in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention and all international conventions and protocols. That is why there are so many UN resolutions condemning Israel's behavior, and none condemning the Arabs in 1947-1949 - the Zionists and later Israel's actions were clearly aggressive, and the Arabs' actions were defensive.

Zionists are always outraged that Palestinians wouldn't just say "Oh, a bunch of European Jews want our homes and land now ? No problem ! We'll just get right out of your way. Keep the house and the furniture and the crops in the field - we'll just go become stateless people living in tents across the border so that the Zionists might have our stuff. What a great idea !"

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Here is another graphic for you. Whatever the Israelis are doing, it must be working. The Palestinian terrorist attacks have gone way done.

Edited June 18, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[Karee 4,190]

Here is another graphic for you. Whatever the Israelis are doing, it must be working. The Palestinian terrorist attacks have gone way done.

Thanks for posting that. It makes my earlier point about the imagined security threat that Israel thinks it has.