The Facts of the Conflict Do Not Inspire Confidence in the Annapolis Conference

Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have returned to the center stage with this week’s Annapolis conference. While peace between the parties remains an honorable and elusive goal, organizers of the conference are repeating the mistakes that doomed past negotiations. Instead of letting realistic analyses of data guide them, they place faith in unproven — indeed counter-indicated ideals. Foremost among these is the belief that Israel ceding control of land to the Palestinians will lead to peace with a democratic Palestinian state. Oslo, southern Lebanon, and Gaza suggest otherwise.

Prof. Bernard Lewis, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, clarifies the conflict with a simple question – what is the conflict about? He takes an unsentimental approach and lets the implications of his answers lead him to the conclusion that Annapolis is unlikely to succeed.

On the Jewish Question

By BERNARD LEWIS
November 26, 2007 Wall Street Journal

Here with some thoughts about tomorrow’s Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel- Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, “What is the conflict about?” There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.
PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that’s not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much- discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways — Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement — Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the “return” of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.

Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose — to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

20 Responses to The Facts of the Conflict Do Not Inspire Confidence in the Annapolis Conference

  1. [...] My Paintings/Michael crohn’s gallery, placed an interesting blog post on The Facts of the Conflict Do Not Inspire Confidence in the Annapolis… [...]

  2. fp says:

    This has been so damn obvious for decades and it has defeated any attempt at a peaceful solution.

    But the islamist threat, the islamization of europe and american decline while still utterly dependent on oil have made this reality an inconvenient one so nobody wants to face it, because the consequences are more than inconvenient. Hence Annapolis.

    I am not so sure as Lewis is that the destruction of Israel cannot be achieved. If the whole world deems Israel an inconvenience and deludes itself that its destruction will solve its problems there is little Israel can do.

    fp
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  3. Rich Rostrom says:

    A few comments:

    There were about 900,000 Arabs in 1948 Palestine. About 150,000 remained in Israel after the war, and about 300,000 lived in Gaza and the West Bank. Thus, only about 450,000, not 750,000, were displaced by the war.

    What the post-Oslo events demonstrated is that Palestinians are incapable of forming a responsible government, much less of making peace with Israel as a body.

    However, part of the responsibility for this condition lies with Israel, which governed these people for 25 years. Instead of building a Palestinian nation, Israel left them to stew, in hopes they would all go away. They didn’t go away – they bred, creating the current demographic nightmare.

    Israel also must answer for the illegal and provocative settlements policy. As a concrete act, all the settlements together did very little actual harm to Palestinians; far less than Fatah, or Hamas, or Arafat all by himself. But they were a clear and unambiguous sign that Israel would never give up rule over the occupied territories. Because even if all the Arabs “made peace”, quite sincerely, what would become of the thousands of Israelis living in places like the Gaza Strip and Hebron?

    If Israel intended to rule the territories forever, then Israel very possibly intended to annex them. In that case, demography meant that Israel would have to “remove” the Arabs, if they did not emigrate willingly. (Some Israeli politicians, such as MK Aryeh Eldad, openly advocate this.)

    This factor alone would make a full peace settlement impossible, even if the Arabs somehow turned sane.

    Sharon tried to minimize the factor by evacuating settlements in Gaza and elsewhere. But Israel cannot give up east Jerusalem. Olmert is trying to evade the demographic issue there with a Palestinian zone. But there are still circles to be squared: the city of Ariel, for instance, or Kiryat Arba. And Israel retains ultimate de facto sovereignty over the territories; the Palestine Authority has no army nor can any other military enter.

    Israel has allowed a monster to grow on its front porch. Israel cannot release the monster, nor tame it. There was hope that the monster would submit to necessity: that Hamas, in power, would accept peace rather than forfeit the revenue and aid required to govern. This was futile.

    IMHO, the only possible resolution to the problem is for authority over the territories to pass to a body that is neither Arab nor Israeli. Palestinians cannot rule themselves, nor can they refrain from trying to kill Israelis if left unrestrained. Israel has abused its acting authority as occupier, and cannot rule justly. A joint administration (1/3 Arabs, 1/3 Israelis, 1/3 neutrals)?

    The Annapolis talks have of course not the slightest hope of producing any genuinely useful result.

  4. fp says:

    Rich,

    You have no clue about the real circumstances of the conflict and you seem to have bought the anti-israeli propaganda lock stock and barrel.

    Until you acquire some independent, critical faculties, ability to reason, and knowledge about middle-east reality you won’t be be taken seriously.

    fp
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  5. Rich Rostrom says:

    So, you don’t agree that Yasser Arafat, personally, did more harm to Palestinians than all Israeli settlements together? That’s just anti-Israeli propaganda?

    I suppose I should make it clear there is a difference between east Jerusalem and environs and the far reaches of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has a right to annex East Jerusalem, or for that matter any other area of the territories. What Israel does not have the right to do is to exercise the powers of a sovereign, such as ownership of state lands, while evading the obligations of a sovereign, such as admitting the residents of the area to nationality.

    Such areas as Israel wants actual sovereignty over should be annexed. The rest must be handed off to somebody else eventually, preferably soon – so Israel’s quasi-sovereign improprieties stop. (Not the Palestinians: they are deranged.) It would also help a lot if Israel’s annexations weren’t a blatant slice’n'dice gerrymander.

  6. fp says:

    Forget the obvious about Arafat, that’s not where ignorance and stupidity is filling your post.

    Numbers is not the central refugee issue. They were not driven out, they ran away (in part told to do so by their “leaders” who abandoned them and ran away first; and in part to allow the arab armies to get rid of the jews so that they could return; and in part because they were afraid (and scared by arab countries). They did not accept partition, attacked, and lost. Bummer. Their responsibility, not anybody else’s.

    Furthermore, there were hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees who were REALLY thrown out by the arabs and Israel integrated them, did not leave them to fester as a weapon like the arabs did with theirs. There is no other example of refugees like the pals.

    If the pals are incapable of nationhood, how can anybody build a nation for them? Anyway, it’s obvious why they can’t: they ARE NOT A NATION AND NEVER WERE. They were arabs who came from arab countries to settle in the area now israel to find work where the jews started developign the land. There was never such a thing as the palestinian people. This was an invention by the arabs coincidental with the creation of israel.

    Anyway, the israelis tried exactly to a society. Check out the status of the territories and their economy when israel ruled and compare it with when the PLO took over.

    Israel obtained the territories not via agressive war of conquest, but in self-defense after it was attacked. It offered to return them for peace immediately after the war and was soundly rejected by the 3 no’s of the arab league. By that they forfeited the option to get the land back. Given the terror out of the territories and the closeness to the israeli large populated areas in the center, and the terrorist campaigns of the pals, israel was in its right to build buffering zones for defensive purposes.

    Therefore, it is a perfectly acceptable policy everywhere else that if one side refuses to negotiate peace, the victor (part. one who did not start the war) can create facts on the ground that the more the loser delays negotiating for peace, the more he will lose. Why does it apply everywhere else, but not to Israel? Why don’t americans give the land back to the red indians? The pals could have had the whole shabang and refused. Now they calim its theirs. Bullshit. In fact, it was NEVER theirs. It was Jordan’s (and Egypt’s).

    You are belaboring under the illusion that the arab (not palestinian) problem are the settlements. They are not and never were. The MAIN AND ONLY PROBLEM is that the arabs never accepted the existence of israel. when they complain about the settlements it’s part of the PLO strategy of slow jihad–get whatever areas you can back and apply terror and demographics from there–vs the Hamas fast jihad (keep murdering them).

    If the pal side does not want to accept Israel existence no matter what, there is nothing Sharon or Olmert or anybody else can do, except try to minimize the cost at the margins. In fact, Olmert is undertaking suicidal policies precisely BECAUSE he understands the demographic bomb; and Sharon got out of Gaza for similar reasons. Had it not for the idiotic support by europe and the rest of the world, the pals would have self-destructed a long time ago. But each time they reach a new low, their ass is saved by the world, in large part because of explicit or implicit anti-semitism.

    The monster has been a monster by its nature, and nothing the world tries will change that. All you gotta do is look at the arab world with all its money and see what a monumental monstrosity and failure it is. The pals are nothing but a component of that. And the US is finding that out in Iraq, but still fails to learn from it. You focus on israel for not solving a problem that the whole world cannot solve and for which the west will pay with destruction of its culture and civilization.

    It takes monumental ignorance and stupidity to blame israel for an utter arab failure.

    And this is an excellent example of ignorance and stupidity. The 1967 war that gave rise to the settlements that you so much misblame started PRECISELY from a solution like the one you suggest (thinking that you invented something new). It was the UN who withdrew and Nasser’s order which left Israel exposed and forced it to defend itself.

    Olmert, in factm accepted such a solution after the war in Lebanon. With what results? The UN force did nothing to stop Hezballah from rearming and even doing exercises, it only had problems with Israel’s flying over to track these happening. If Hezballah starts something, the UN either will be the first to take their ass out of there, or will defend Hezballah against Israel’s response. It happened every time in the past when Israel put its security in the hands of foreigners.

    You’re wrong about Annapolis. The purpose there is for an America in decline and eating crow to appease the arabs by fucking israel. It is the typical american behavior when it does not have the power it is used to: dumping its allies. Annapolis is the start of the process by which a declining america is trying to appease its way out of what is an end of the american era. that’s what annapolis achieves.

    and here’s an obvious proof of that (imagine this after what happened in Gaza):

    Anti-terror training for terrorists
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58863

  7. fp says:

    hey, rich,

    Is israel to blame for this?

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/11/28/torture-at-main-palestinian-university

    If their universities look like this, do you have any idea what their societies look like? And if you do, do you want yet another of those? Don’t we have enough? Aren’t the jews supposed to have just one?

  8. fp says:

    hey, rich,

    Here’s the settlements that the palestinians are bothered by. Not the ones on the west bank.

    Palestinian Authority TV Erases Israel from Map
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28083_Palestinian_Authority_TV_Erases_Israel_from_Map&only

  9. fp says:

    hey, rich,

    here’s a nation that already exists:

    The Heinous Teddy Bear of Blasphemy
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28080_Update-_The_Heinous_Teddy_Bear_of_Blasphemy_-_Teacher_Charged&only

    Is israel to blame for allowing it too?

  10. Rich Rostrom says:

    Some Zionists want to believe there were no Arabs in Palestine before Zionists settled there. And some Palestinians want to believe that there were no ancient Israelites. Both are myths. Palestine and Lebanon and Syria were all thinly populated in the 1800s; all developed substantially in the late 1800s and early 1900s. By 1914 there was a railroad linking Jaffa and Jerusalem to Damascus and Turkey; did Zionists build it?

    As for Israel’s responsibility for the culture in the West Bank and Gaza: Israel ruled these areas for twenty-five years, and arguably improved life for the inhabitants. Who then gave Arafat a hero’s welcome when Israel let him take over. Why?

    Because mixed in with Israel’s generally benevolent rule were actions and policies that were unmistakably and willfully offensive and threatening.

    Arab societies are power-based, not law-based. Dominant tribes or ethnic groups bully and plunder the rest. Arabs expect Israel to behave similarly. Israel has done some of that: not very much, but enough to insure that no Arabs trust Israel to rule justly.

    The magnitude isn’t the issue: if A deliberately tramps on B’s toe, B will never trust A, and B will want A gone.

    The problem with the outpost settlements was not the settlements themselves: it was the settlements as evidence that Israel was just another dominant, plundering tribe. And Israel is foreign: non-Arab, non-Moslem, not assimilable into the traditional pattern. Also intrusive, and thus the apparent enemy of all older factions.

    Israel could have had peace on the Ottoman millet or modern Syrian pattern: buy off a few notables, and crush all resistance by force. But Israel wanted peace with law and cooperation. To get that, Israel needed to convince the Arabs of the territories that Israel was not a conqueror. Israel had to work at this: Israel didn’t even try, AFAICT.

    Even most Israeli Arabs don’t trust the Israeli government or identify with Israel; there’s a history of discrimination, occasional land seizures, and other injuries. Some of this has been remedied in Israeli courts, but not all, and not quickly.

    For these reasons, Israel bears part – not all, but part – of the responsibility for the present situation.

    Israel also bears responsibility for handing over the territories to Arafat. That was an attempt to create a de facto millet regime: they knew Arafat was scum, but they thought he would hold down the Palestinians in return for power. Instead he incited more unrest, more terror, redoubled the propaganda – while looting Palestine. And Israel let him do it.

    Incidentally, you either did not read or completely misunderstood my suggested solution. There must be some authority to govern the territories: to collect taxes, enforce laws, pick up trash, operate schools, build highways. Palestinians can’t do it, without trying to kill Israelis. Israel can’t do it, without stepping on Palestinian rights. Some other body, then, has to do it. This authority should include Palestinians and Israelis, as both have critical interests at stake, and a proportion of neutrals, to moderate, and full power to govern.

    How this is “precisely like” a few hundred Swedes watching the Sinai border, or a few hundred Dutchmen and Chinese standing around Lebanon watching Hezbollah, I don’t understand. (Yes, the Chinese Armyhas 200 men in Lebanon.)

    What else? I don’t think citing U.S. dealings with American Indians is a good precedent. First, the manifest injustices are now generally regretted. Second, while in general, the injustices happened too long ago to remedy today, there are 200-year-old Indian claims being litigated now. Israel rejects Arab claims from only sixty years ago, even if the original claimant is still alive.

    I’ve said elsewhere that between Arab states’ responsibility for the 1948 war, and Israeli absorption of the Mizrahi refugees after 1948, any Israeli obligation to the Arab refugees is offset. But let’s not pretend that obligation never existed.

    And let’s not pretend that Israel has no obligation to help solve the “Palestinian problem.” The Zionists chose to build their state in Palestine. As Sir Anthony Absolute told his son, “Ods my life, sir, if you have the estate, you must take it with the livestock on it, as it stands.” Israel is cheek-by-jowl with four million Arabs, whom they have to live with on some basis. Vae victis isn’t sufficient.

  11. fp says:

    Rich,

    There WAS no Palestine you moron!!!!!!

    There was an area left over from the ottoman empire which the British inherited. Then they via the UN split it in 2 countries. The arabs did not accept the split, the Israelis did. The arabs who lived there ran away and the arab armies attacked and lost. By doing that they forfeited their rights, as it happens in all wars. Then it’s a matter of negotiations between the victors and the losers. And the arab losers never wanted to negotiate any solution which lets Israel there.

    The israelis do not owe the arabs anything. They just want an end to the fucking wars without them being pushed into the sea.

    All suffering of the arabs is due to the fact that they hate the jews more than they love themselves.

    And you haven’t a clue.

  12. fp says:

    You moron, you have no clue what you’re talking about, do you?

    The so-called “palestinian people” did not exist. There were arabs (syrian, egyptian, lebanese) who lived in the area as well as jews. There was nothing to stop them from living there, there was no country.

    Whatever the jews chose is irrelevant. Palestine was a geographical area, not a country. It was later mandated by the UN to the british. It was then split in two not by the jews, but by the UN. The israelis accepted, the arabs COUNTRIES did not!!! The arab countries attacked because they wanted the whole thing FOR THEMSELVES, not for any palestinan people. Had they won, they would have split the area among themselves.

    Weren’t the west bank and gaza jordanian and egyptian — why didn’t Jordan and Egypt create a palestinian state when they had them?

    The palestinian people were invented as a device in the annihilation war against Israel. Arab countries did not care shit about the local arabs — they used them. They still do.

    The first time we heard about the palestinian people was after the 1967 war, when israel conquered the two in self defense.

    “Palestinians” and Israelis
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018964.php

  13. fp says:

    Hey, rich, here’s what your so-called palestinian people want.

    Myth: ‘No state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity’
    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2007/11/myth-no-state-in-the-world-connects-its-1/

  14. fp says:

    hey, rich,

    not only that, but now that arab crappola corrupts the US institutions of learning and undermines your own civilization in the process.

    but you gotta have a brain to realize that.

  15. Rich Rostrom says:

    fp, how much are the Arabs paying you? No actual pro-Zionist I’ve ever met is so willfully ignorant and deliberately abusive.

    Britain conquered the area from Turkey during a war. But Britain never took ownership of the territory. Instead Britain asked for and got a “mandate” to administer the territory as a trustee.

    The initial mandate to govern Palestine was issued to Britain by the Allied Supreme War Council – that is, Britain, France, and I suppose Italy and America – in 1920. The formal mandate was issued by the League of Nations in 1923. The UN didn’t exist till 1945.

    Incidentally, the mandate was issued under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League, which says

    Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

    (emphasis added)

    Thus, Palestine as a political division was defined by Britain in 1920-23 and recognized by the League of Nations. After that was established, its Arab inhabitants began to act as a group.

    Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine identified themselves as “Palestinian” (Filastini) starting around 1930. The Palestine Arab Party (‘Al-Hizb al-’Arabi al-Filastini) was started by the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem and his Husseini relatives in 1935. The Arab governments set up a token “All-Palestine Government” (Hukumat ‘umum Filastin) during the 1948 war. Arafat’s terror gang, Fatah, was founded in 1954. “Fatah” is a reverse acronym from the Arabic name “HA_rakat al-_TA_hrir al-watani al-_F_ilastini” (Palestinian National Liberation Movement). All long before 1967.

    Israel established itself in the midst of these people. Israel has to live with them – or forfeit its status as a civilized country by killing or expelling them. The Arabs need to do most of the changing. But it’s not possible to tame a vicious dog if someone jabs it with a stick every day.

  16. Rich Rostrom says:

    (format error fixed)

    fp, how much are the Arabs paying you to play Zionist troll? No actual pro-Zionist I’ve ever met is so willfully ignorant and deliberately abusive.

    Britain conquered the area from Turkey during a war. But Britain never took ownership of the territory. Instead Britain asked for and got a “mandate” to administer the territory as a trustee.

    The initial mandate to govern Palestine was issued to Britain by the Allied Supreme War Council – that is, Britain, France, and I suppose Italy and America – in 1920. The formal mandate was issued by the League of Nations in 1923. The UN didn’t exist till 1945.

    The mandate was issued under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League, which says

    Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

    (emphasis added)

    Thus, Palestine as a political division was defined by Britain in 1920-23 and recognized by the League of Nations. After that was established, its Arab inhabitants began to act as a group.

    Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine identified themselves as “Palestinian” (Filastini) starting around 1930. The Palestine Arab Party (‘Al-Hizb al-’Arabi al-Filastini) was started by the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem and his Husseini relatives in 1935. The Arab governments set up a token “All-Palestine Government” (Hukumat ‘umum Filastin) during the 1948 war. Arafat’s terror gang, Fatah, was founded in 1954. “Fatah” is a reverse acronym from the Arabic name “HA_rakat al-_TA_hrir al-watani al-_F_ilastini” (Palestinian National Liberation Movement). All long before 1967.

    Israel established itself in the midst of these people. Israel has to live with them – or forfeit its status as a civilized country by killing or expelling them. The Arabs need to do most of the changing. But it’s not possible to tame a vicious dog if someone jabs it with a stick every day.

  17. fp says:

    if there is a troll here, it’s not me.

    do you have a mirror somewhere?

  18. Eliyahu says:

    Rick, you have several half-truths here but I don’t have time to go over and refute or correct every half-truth. I don’t necessarily agree that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing or worse than none. You do know something. But it is very partial. Now, I will take up only one of your half-truths.

    You’re right that Fatah is a reverse acronym of “palestinian liberation movement” [I'm not sure that the word "watani" is in the original name]. But why did they use a reverse acronym?? That’s the question. Does the word fatahh mean something that they wanted say in addition to the words “palestinian liberation movement”??? FATAHH is an Arabic word meaning conquest or invasion, especially of a city. It is related to the word for “to open,” compare the Hebrew word “patahh.” Recall that “open city” in English [= citta` aperta] is a city that has been conquered or has surrendered. Moreover, FATAHH refers primarily to Islamic conquests, etc. So the name fed and feeds their traditional Arab vainglory and rodomontade, their inflated ego as great warriors and conquerors.

    Feed me some more half-truths in the future and maybe I’ll complete them for you.

  19. fp says:

    since when is there any need to know the meaning of fatahh to know what the pals orgs are all about????
    the evidence that they want to eliminate israel is so overwhelming that only a fool or a liar would continue to say otherwise. and rich is no liar.

  20. fp says:

    >Palestine as a political division was defined by Britain in 1920-23 and recognized by the League of Nations

    So there was NO nation there. Like all arab countries in the ME, they were artificially defined by colonial powers. A “political division” does not a nation make, certainly not in any historic sense. While there is a historic sense in which there was a jewish nation in that area.

    Only in your moronic head does that mean that a nation pre-existed those definition. There were arabs living there.

    The same powers defined a jewish nation. Why is that less of a nation than the arab ones? Was that accepted by the arab states, or attacked?

    And you have not addressed the main issue: the so-called occupied territories belonged initially to Jordan and Egypt. If there was a palestinian nation, why didn’t they create one while they had those territories?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>