WI: 1949 - Israel and Palestine

[Orry]

Ah, the I-word again. Got any spare fire suits, Orry? I could use one while I run screaming for the nearest bunker.

Anyways, wasn't it always the idea that Palestine would be divided between a Jewish state and an Arab state? The Jews weren't meant to get the whole Palestine.

<Sigh> Why can't we ever talk about some other word starting with the letter I, like I"s. I'm sure that wouldn't cause bitter acrimony, flaming, rioting, purges and the like.

I could be wrong but I guess the way some people get this idea is to consider the whole Palestine / Trans-Jordan as one mandate - then to say that the Trans-Jordan is the Arab part and Palestine is the Jewish part. Thus they can even claim that most of the land was given to the Arabs and only a small bit of their 'origional' homeland was reserved for the Jews.

Regardless of weather this would have been 'fair' I do not see that it was ever agreed internationally. The problem is that people read some poorly drafted documents with their own pre-conceptions and see what they want to see.

That said if the Arabs had not rejected the partition and tried to destroy Israel at its birth I would have a lot more sympathy for their cause (as distinct from concern for the suffering of the ordinary men women and children caught up in events they they did not initiate)

Humm

Sorry if that post offends both extremes...

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

@John Farson: Originally, the 23% of the Palestine mandate not allocated to Transjordan was to be divided into two states- one Jewish, the other Arab. The Jews reluctantly agreed to it while the Arabs rejected it. The proposal was introduced, but never went anywhere. Had the Arabs agreed, there would not (hopefully) be this whole issue.

In my mind, after the Arabs rejected the UN proposal, the mandate issued by the League of Nations took precedence. Coupled with the position of the World Zionist Organization- the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, the Zionist position was founded. After the Six-Days War, the Jews liberated the remainder of Palestine from Arab occupation and thus fulfilled the League of Nations proposal.

 

[John Farson]

After the Six-Days War, the Jews liberated the remainder of Palestine from Arab occupation and thus fulfilled the League of Nations proposal.

Total shitstorm commencing in 3, 2, 1....

 

[Citizen Samuel]

@John Farson: Originally, the 23% of the Palestine mandate not allocated to Transjordan was to be divided into two states- one Jewish, the other Arab. The Jews reluctantly agreed to it while the Arabs rejected it. The proposal was introduced, but never went anywhere. Had the Arabs agreed, there would not (hopefully) be this whole issue.

In my mind, after the Arabs rejected the UN proposal, the mandate issued by the League of Nations took precedence. Coupled with the position of the World Zionist Organization- the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, the Zionist position was founded. After the Six-Days War, the Jews liberated the remainder of Palestine from Arab occupation and thus fulfilled the League of Nations proposal.

Wow.

1) The British used the term 'Jewish national home' because it did not mean an independent state. The first time an independent Jewish state was even proposed was in the Peel Commission of 1937, which was quickly shelved.

2) Even if the British had committed themselves to a Jewish state, the text of the Balfour declaration says in Palestine, not of Palestine. Meaning that only part of Palestine would be part of a Jewish national home.

3) Why should the Arabs have agreed to a partition plan which created a Jewish state with a 45% Arab population, completely ludicrious borders and more land when Arabs were in the 2/3rds majority?

4) Even though the Arabs rejected the partition plan, it still went into effect legally speaking. The partition plan still forms the legal basis of Israeli and Palestinian statehood as affirmed by the International Court of Justice. So no, nothing reverted to the League of Nations mandate. If it did, Israel wouldn't have the right to exist and the region would have to be put under British military occupation.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

1) The Peel Commission was rejected because the Arabs didn't want it to happen and the Jews wanted a Jewish state.

2) The Balfour declaration was woefully unclear. Yet the Paris Peace Conference, the League of Nations and the Biltmore Conference stated that Palestine was to be a Jewish commonwealth. Also, the Balfour Declaration originally said "that Palestine should be reconstituted as a National Home for the Jewish people".

3) Actually, statistics I've looked at for population in Mandate Palestine are not the same. Some have an incredibly large Arab population while others have a more, I think more logical amount, Arab population.

4) I don't think it does, but I admit that I don't know a lot about international law. Yet, like I said before, the Biltmore Conference decided that Palestine should be a Jewish commonwealth (read: independent state).

 

[Nassirisimo]

3) Actually, statistics I've looked at for population in Mandate Palestine are not the same. Some have an incredibly large Arab population while others have a more, I think more logical amount, Arab population.

Well, either way, the Arab population in 1948 was the majority in Palestine, yet despite this, the Israelis were given the better land, and more of it. Thinking that the Arabs could possibly accept the UN borders under any circumstances is unfair, and ASB.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I never said anything about the Arabs accepting the UN borders. I agree with you, the Arab population in Palestine accepting those borders is incredibly ASB.

Even IF the Jews didn't have a Mandatory claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, territory taken in a defensive war is only occupied only if there is an established sovereign state. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, while Egypt held an occupation of Gaza. Neither state had legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the areas.

Stephen Schwebel, a former Secretary of State, said that "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Israel was forced into war in 1967 and 1973, forced to defend their territorial sovereignty against the Arab armies.

Even if Israel had to give up territories "occupied" during the war (Six Days War), UN Resolution 242 did not specify which, how much or when. Israel handed back the Sinai peninsula, roughly 90% of the territories under Israeli rule, which fulfilled the UN resolution. Israel was/is under no legal obligation to hand over any more territories and, thus, does not have to hand over Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

 

[Ariosto]

Unfortunately, I do not see any way this could work, as it is the Arabs that need to be made to accept in order for this to work; in order to do that, you must pressure upon the Jewish community a plan in which they themselves would not accept. There was Arab support for the plan, but it was on such a scale that you cannot work them up into accepting.

 

[Perkeo]

Well, either way, the Arab population in 1948 was the majority in Palestine, yet despite this, the Israelis were given the better land, and more of it. Thinking that the Arabs could possibly accept the UN borders under any circumstances is unfair, and ASB.

What was the Palestinian suggestion about the size and the location of the Jewish state?

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

The Arabs didn't want a Jewish state in the region. They wanted either a Pan-Arab state covering the entire Middle East (including Israel). Hell, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, conspired with Hitler and the Nazi High Command to (once the Nazis had conquered British Palestine) to unleash Einsatzgruppe into the area to exterminate the Jewish population. He recruited European Muslims to fight in the SS.

So, to answer your question, the size the Arabs wanted Israel to be was 0 miles. The location: anywhere but the Middle East. Antisemitism was incredibly widespread in the Arab world.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The Arabs didn't want a Jewish state in the region. They wanted either a Pan-Arab state covering the entire Middle East (including Israel). Hell, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, conspired with Hitler and the Nazi High Command to (once the Nazis had conquered British Palestine) to unleash Einsatzgruppe into the area to exterminate the Jewish population. He recruited European Muslims to fight in the SS.

This old chestnut? The Arab world tended to favor the Axis because they were anti-British, not because of some shared anti-Semitism. It was a basic example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And while monstrous, you can hardly have trouble seeing why the Mufti would want the Germans to win; they kick out the evil Brits and they take care of these pesky Jews who keep taking our land and fucking us over politically.

Those Muslims who did fight with the SS probably would have on their own; I doubt many were swayed by the words of prelate in faraway Jerusalem who spent most of his time railing against the British. The Mufti was pretty much an Arab Lord Haw-Haw.

So, to answer your question, the size the Arabs wanted Israel to be was 0 miles. The location: anywhere but the Middle East. Antisemitism was incredibly widespread in the Arab world.

This is ridiculous. Conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is one of the most disgusting and dishonest things people can do. Zionism is a bigoted, imperialistic ideology that dictates ethnic cleansing in order to fulfill either the romanticist nation-state wet-dreams of the 1800s and/or to fulfill an apocalyptic religious prophecy.

Implying that the Arabs were opposed to the establishment of Israel due to anti-Semitism is a grotesque lie. Arabs (and many other groups beside) were opposed to the establishment of Israel because it was a bunch of European refugees coming in and stealing land. The Arabs weren't anti-Semites, they were natives resisting a colonial invasion.

 

[SlideAway]

I never said anything about the Arabs accepting the UN borders. I agree with you, the Arab population in Palestine accepting those borders is incredibly ASB.

Even IF the Jews didn't have a Mandatory claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, territory taken in a defensive war is only occupied only if there is an established sovereign state. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, while Egypt held an occupation of Gaza. Neither state had legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the areas.

Stephen Schwebel, a former Secretary of State, said that "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Israel was forced into war in 1967 and 1973, forced to defend their territorial sovereignty against the Arab armies.

Even if Israel had to give up territories "occupied" during the war (Six Days War), UN Resolution 242 did not specify which, how much or when. Israel handed back the Sinai peninsula, roughly 90% of the territories under Israeli rule, which fulfilled the UN resolution. Israel was/is under no legal obligation to hand over any more territories and, thus, does not have to hand over Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

There's an awful lot to quibble with here, but leave aside all that. You continue to ignore the basic issue, which is what are the rights of the people who live on that territory?

You can claim that "Jordan" is their true homeland, but if their homes and livelihoods exist (and have existed) in the Occupied Territories, they need rights, either by giving the territory back to Jordan and Egypt, giving them Israeli citizenship, or giving them their own state. Option 1 has been ruled out by all parties, Option 2 is ruled out by Israelis who don't want a binational state, which leaves Option 3.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

@ Wolfpaw: Oh, really? Zionism is not your fantasized "bigoted, imperialistic ideology". It is a national revival ideology, which says that Jews have the right of self-determination and to establish a Jewish state in their legitimate (historical, religious, spiritual, legal, etc) homeland. So, you're saying that Jews don't deserve a state? Why should the Jews be singled out for exclusion from state-building? Do we not deserve the right to be a people in our own land?

Martin Luther King, Jr once said "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews... Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."

@SlideAway: I never understood why people call them the "Occupied" Territories. Israel gained control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza during a war of self-defense. Occupation, under international law, can only occur when a state takes territory from a recognized sovereign. The last recognized sovereign of the territories was the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed after the First World War. The Jordanian and Egyptian illegal occupations of the territories was during a war of aggression against the Jewish state, and in opposition to the UN Partition Plan.

The territories had no previously recognized sovereign ruling them, and the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations were deemed illegal. The last legal ruling on the territory (including Israel) was in 1922 with the League of Nations Mandate, which "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". Article 80 of the UN Charter also said that nothing should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."

I don't think that there are only three options for a solution to the crisis in the territories. I agree, the first two options you listed are ruled out. But I think there's a fourth option- Israel can encourage voluntary Palestinian immigration from the area to a willing Arab with monetary compensation (especially for those who had been proven to have been driven out during the War of Independence).

The UN resolution 242 does not say which territories Israel has to withdraw from, when and how much of the territories. Israel has already fulfilled 242, it handed back the Sinai to Egypt. It doesn't say anywhere in that resolution that Israel has to hand back all of the territories.