Palestinians have no state and want one for their people. They should both be vested in the other achieving their objective because it is the only way they will reach their own."
And he went on:
..."Third, the U.S. is committed to Israel historically." In 1947, Jewish refugees from the Holocaust were being held in refugee camps across Europe and in Cyprus. Many could not return to their homes, either because they no longer existed or because pogroms against Jews continued. Immigration to the U.S. and elsewhere was limited or closed. It was under these circumstances that President Harry Truman supported the 1948 United Nations Partition Plan to carve Palestine into two parts to create an Arab
state and a Jewish state. The U.N. partition plan called for an independent Palestine, with 45 percent of the territory of Jerusalem, the most disputed territory, going to the Arabs. Israel accepted. The Arabs did not...Three generations later, the Palestinian refugees are in no better position and their options are increasingly limited as Palestinian territory dwindles. In all the land wars, Israel has prevailed. "Every Arab leader today would accept the 1948 lines, but that choice will never come again," said Mitchell...
Besides disputing that portrayal of Israel as stemming from the Holocaust, I think the point Mitchell's words should be taken as is that the Pals. could do well even to accept 45% of land.
Right?
^
Posts
1 comment:
Settle for less? These guys want the kit & kaboodle, and then some.
Post a Comment