Showing posts with label territorial compromise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label territorial compromise. Show all posts

Friday, August 30, 2019

Palestine Arab Rejectionism: The Beginning

The Arabs who resided in the area to become the Mandate of Palestine, intended originally to become, through the historic connection of the Jewish people to that country, the Jewish national home, adopted from the very beginning a diplomatic pose and policy of rejectionism. In essence, the later 1967 Khartoum Resolution adopted by the Arab League, of "no recognition", no peace" and "no negotiations", was the consistent framework of Arabs in their response to Zionism for the past century.

Already in late 1919, April 1920, May 1921 and November 1921, they were agitating, demonstrating, rioting and, of course, employing murderous terrorism, to further their political goals.

In those early years, these were the most prominent examples of that rejectionism.

1922: 

When the League of Nations awarded Great Britain the Mandate to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine, Article 25 separated from the territory the Zionist presumed they would be permitted to settle in in accordance with previous discussions. All the area east of the Jordan River would become an apartheid state for Jews.

Despite a loss of 75% of the land, the Arabs, instead of accepting that first partition, which had excluded much of the area of historic Palestine, denying Jews the right to purchase land there and creating a fake monarchy, instead, they insisted they wanted all the remaining territory west of the Jordan River also to be transformed solely into an Arab state.

The Arabs of Palestine, who preferred to be termed Southern Syrians and demanded that "Palestine" be joined to the French Mandate over Syria, rejected any "territorial compromise" and were unsatisfied with a possible "two-state solution". They wanted the Jews to completely "withdraw".

1923: 

Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner, following the Mandate decision to  foster the "development of self-governing institutions", proposed in August 1922 the establishment of a legislative council. It was to be made up of 23 members: 11 British, all appointed, and twelve elected members — eight Muslims, two Christians and two Jews. Despite the fact that this make-up would have doomed Jews to a permanent minority status in any future government, Arabs declared participation in the council as acceptance of the British mandate and Balfour policy as well as considering they should be granted further limitations on Jewish immigration. 

A boycott campaign of the council elections, scheduled for February 1923, was launched. The Jews, by the way, had accepted the proposal. The very low turnout dashed the proposal.

The Arabs rejected a possible political resolution of the conflict, based on democratic values.

1926: 

A dampening of the religious element of the focus was possible, one that could have avoided the later 1929 riots, when serious attempts were made to purchase or lease the Western Wall courtyard area. In fact, already in 1919, an offer was made.

As sourced here:
In 1919 Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann approached the British Military Governor of Jerusalem, Colonel Sir Ronald Storrs, and offered...approx. £5m in modern terms to purchase the area at the foot of the Wall and rehouse the occupants. Storrs was enthusiastic about the idea because he hoped some of the money would be used to improve Muslim education. Although they appeared promising at first, negotiations broke down after strong Muslim opposition. Storrs wrote two decades later:

"The acceptance of the proposals, had it been practicable, would have obviated years of wretched humiliations, including the befouling of the Wall and pavement and the unmannerly braying of the tragi-comic Arab band during Jewish prayer, and culminating in the horrible outrages of 1929"

In early 1920, the first Jewish-Arab dispute over the Wall occurred when the Muslim authorities were carrying out minor repair works to the Wall's upper courses...In 1926 an effort was made to lease the Maghrebi waqf, which included the wall, with the plan of eventually buying it. Negotiations were begun in secret by the Jewish judge Gad Frumkin, with financial backing from American millionaire Nathan Straus...However, Straus withdrew when the price became excessive and the plan came to nothing. The Va'ad Leumi, against the advice of the Palestine Zionist Executive, demanded that the British expropriate the wall and give it to the Jews, but the British refused
The Arabs leaders and their followers preferred to run a zero-sum game.  All rejection. No compromise.

They lost.

^

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

More Zionist Than The Zionists

Well, sort of.

Hamas: We will not give up an inch of Palestine

Al Qassam website- Gaza- Hamas has asserted that it would not surrender one inch of historical Palestine regardless of the lapse of time.  In a statement on Tuesday on the 45th anniversary of the Israeli war on three Arab countries that ended with the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and other Arab land, Hamas said that the Palestinian people are the sole owners of the entire land of Palestine.
Such dedication to territorial integrity.
^

Monday, January 30, 2012

And There Was a 1943 Partition Plan

This map


is from here and described here (on p. 44):

After 25 years of fruitless negotiation for Jewish-Arab co-operation, a map dated December 1943 proposes a scheme for the partition of Palestine. The attached report reflects a note of dissent that the planned land redistribution heavily favoured Jews and would incite Arab revolt.

The Arabs consistently and always refused to accept any territorial compromises whereas, despite internal disagreements, the Zionist Movement always, in the end, accepted the principle.

But it never worked.

And it will not work today.



^

Friday, January 27, 2012

Aish HaTorah Compromises, Does Not Go All The Way

I spotted this correction in the NYTimes:-

Corrections: January 27

FRONT PAGE

An article on Tuesday about the film “The Third Jihad,” which was financed by the Clarion Fund and shown to officers as part of New York Police Department training, misstated a position of officials with the Israel-based organization Aish HaTorah, which shares officials with the Clarion Fund. Aish HaTorah officials have opposed a full return of the West Bank to Palestinians; it is not the case that the group “opposes any territorial concessions on the West Bank.”

The Arabs don't get 100% - and neither does Israel, I guess, is one way of summarizing that.

^

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Your Mistake, Mahmoud, and A Continuing Error

As Haaretz reports:-

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Friday in an interview with Channel 2 that the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state.

..."It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview to the Israeli media. "But do they (the Israelis) punish us for this mistake for 64 years?"

Wait, Mahmoud.

It is the Arabs who have been punishing us, Israel and Zionists, for 64 years for being smarter than you to have accepted that decision. 

And you still harbor feelings of animus.

But more importantly, why has it taken you 64 years to admit that mistake?

And most important, why do you continue to refuse any compromise?  You surely know that you cannot receive even from the most vacillating of Israel's politicians all that you want.

And why should you?

You engaged in terror for 64 years.  Before the "occupation".  Before any "settlements".

You initiated the 1967 war by pushing the Arab states.

Doesn't "territorial compromise" mean that you, too, need compromise on territory?

Aren't you continuing to make a mistake?  Live in error?

^

^

Monday, May 23, 2011

"Contiguity"? No, "Integrity" - From Oslo to Obama

A good many good people are disturbed about President Obama's use of "contiguity".
Here on Thursday:

The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

And again at AIPAC:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps -- (applause) -- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state...

There was this:

"The president didn't say that Israel has to go back to the '67 lines. He said with agreed swaps," Mitchell told Amanpour in the interview.  "Swaps means an exchange of land intended to accommodate major Israeli population centers to be incorporated into Israel and Israel's security needs. Agreed means through negotiations. Both parties must agree...That's not going to be a border unless Israel agrees to it and we know they won't agree unless their security needs are satisfied, as it should be," Mitchell said of the 1967 borders.

And someone thought out loud:

242 says the parties will negotiate borders (P's have replaced Jordan as a party). This was always US position. '1967 lines plus swaps' implies a presumption that anything east of the lines is 'Palestinian' by default, because Israel has to compensate them for anything that it keeps. That's a significant shift.

'Contiguity' of Palestine is new. Bush called for 'contiguity' only of the W. Bank.

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post explained:

The basic question is this: By saying that a division of territory between Israel and Palestine should be “based on” the “1967 lines” between Israel and the West Bank, with agreed “swaps” of land, did Obama move beyond the previous U.S. position on the subject?

The short, technical answer to this question is: no. The longer, political response is that by stating the principle, Obama gave a boost to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has tried to make Israeli acceptance of it a condition for peace talks, and a slap to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has resisted it.

That Obama would do this on the eve of Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington for a White House meeting — and apparently without warning the Israeli leader — is a gaffe that has understandably angered Netanyahu and many of his U.S. supporters... Apparently at the last minute, Obama chose to include the 1967-lines idea in his speech. The result has been the draining of attention from the speech’s central discussion of Arab democracy, a cheap talking point for GOP opponents — and yet another pointless quarrel with Bibi Netanyahu
.


But they have forgotten that we all knew, or should know, - the language of the Oslo Accords on "integrity":-


ARTICLE IV
JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period.

That's one reason that agreement was so deadly - it let the Pals. presume they had all the ground they wanted from the beginning. Thank you Rabin, Perers, Beilin, et al.

^

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Which Way Does the NYT Want Israel to Go?

From the NYT: -

Mr. Obama, who is set to address Americans — and, more significantly, Muslims around the world — from the State Department on Thursday morning, may yet have something surprising up his sleeve. One administration official said that there remained debate about whether Mr. Obama would formally endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state, a move that would send an oratorical signal that the United States expected Israel to make concessions.

Wait. What do they mean by starting point? From 1967 to earlier, 1947 borders or to the current borders? Is what is implicit is that Israel will include post-1967 areas?  That the Clinton parameters are off? 

And what concessions do the Arabs make? After all, isn't "territorial compromise" something for both sides to engage in?

But there's this there:

it remained unclear if he would even endorse a Palestinian state on pre-1967 lines

Stay tuned.

^

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Territory Gets Returned

Yes.

It happened in Suffolk, Virginia.

Suffolk has returned 100 acres in Lone Star Lakes Park to the Nansemond tribe, which plans to convert the prime riverfront property into an $8 million replica of a 17th century village [to] include a cultural center, hiking trails, gift shop and burial ground. The Virginian-Pilot reports that the tribe hopes the village, to be called Mattanock Town, will draw up to 50,000 paying visitors annually.

"We wanted this land back because it means so much to us," Nansemond chief Barry Bass told the newspaper. "But we want to give back to the city, too, and to share our history and culture with the public and with our own people. If that means being a tourist attraction, then that's what it will be."

He added that the tribe wants Mattanock Town to be a working village.

And I bet you there's a lot more land to be returned.

"Occupied" territory?


^