SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • November 2021
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Palestinian Territory’

Very Interresting Discussion

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 8, 2007


Police: Settlers’ Papers on Hebron Building Were Forged | Jerusalem Post

Saturday July 7, 2007, 4:34 pm
Now, this should generate a lemmings-trail of “note-its” from the Far Left Anti-Zionists in this site, and yet it hasn’t – I wonder why? I think I am going to let one of my Alter-Egos post my Israel-critical news, because people seem to assume that if it’s me posting news it must be “contaminated” somehow. Come on People, get this on the front page!

Saturday July 7, 2007, 4:56 pm
Silly,
I don’t think you’re “contaminated”, I don’t always agree with you, but you make some good points.

The whole Israel issue is very complex with one reaction after the next fueling constant chaos. The military exchange is only part of the issue, settlements, road blocks and sanctions add to the tension.

What is your impression of the settlement problem in the conflict?

Saturday July 7, 2007, 5:16 pm
XX,

I think it plays a big role – it would be so much more easy to put forward good, just and viable solutions for all parties involved, if there were no settlements in the Territories. Above all, it would give Israel a bargaining chip: “Look, we are keeping our part of the International Agreement of 1947”. Dale Commented on this in HRN saying that Israel has lost the moral High ground it had back in 1948. That is true. Very true. With the Settlements in the Territories dismantled, some of that high ground would be re-gained, which I think would eventually swing the pendulum from polarization to middle-ground Internationally. Any Palestinian and/or Arab hatred/armed violence against Israel would turn against them in that context.

Or that is my hope – because then pressure could be put on the PA to make peace and start building a Palestinian Sovereign State.

Saturday July 7, 2007, 5:56 pm
The other side of the Story:

Hevron Decries State Prosecution’s Forgery Allegations

Sunday July 8, 2007, 10:42 am
Silly, thanks for providing the other link, I figured there was more to this and that it hadn’t been resolved or confirmed yet.

I agree on most of what your saying, but with only 1/3 of the population in 1948 attempting to claim control over the remaining 2/3, I don’t think Israel had much moral high ground then either.

One problems both sides are faced with is, the people expected to resolve the conflict, don’t have total control over all the people involved. Each government is full of individuals, with individual goals and idea about what is fair and reasonable, passed on to them is the task of controlling their people. So, simply having the right idea and intent to solve the problem isn’t enough, the people need to cooperate.

Without the ‘right of return’, I don’t think the Palestinians will ever fully accept a less than fair partition of land, but I do think they would accept Israel if the borders were fair, even Hamas. With the current balance of leverage, mainly in world opinion, Israel does not have the motivation or political power at home to make such concessions.

The ultimate goal is a truly peaceful relationship between Palestine Israel and all their neighbors. This requires both sides to feel the issue was resolved in a fair and just manner. The problem is, even withdrawing to 1967 borders isn’t going to satisfy the Palestinians who feel they were forced from their land by 1/3 of the population and are now told they can never return. Israel justifies their right to the land from many angles, but what they need the power to do is justify the Palestinians right to a fair partition.

Palestine has the motivation and the power available, all they need is the right plan. This has been my main message to them.

Shifting the balance of power is probably the only way this situation will be resolved. To do this, the Palestinians could to take control of their future and declare peace without negotiating terms. Israel relies on Palestinian violence to justify ‘security zones’ of occupation, all raids inflicting casualties, road blocks, check point searches, sanctions and more. By unconditionally ending violence, all of these justifications are lost, and world opinion would sway on Israels response to this. World opinion would also sway on Israel’s ability to control certain armed settlers, and out of bounds settlements. This would appeal to them as a semi immediate gain in conditions and a long term gain in leverage. It’s a simple political strategy with good motivation that can be passed straight to the people, providing that elusive control governments lack in ending the violence.

Think about it Silly, and let me know what you’re thinking.

Sunday July 8, 2007, 3:27 pm

“I agree on most of what your saying, but with only 1/3 of the population in 1948 attempting to claim control over the remaining 2/3, I don’t think Israel had much moral high ground then either.”

I disagree with this for the simple reason that in 1948 Israel was content to accept the Partition Plan under UN resolution 181 and can hardly be blamed for the all out Arab attack on her before the ink on the Declaration of independence had even dried. – Nor can she be blamed for the lies spread and exaggerated by Arab Leaders. One also have to keep in mind that we are talking about here (per the agreement between Britain and France on the division of the Ottoman Empire) are the Jews in all of what once was the Ottoman Empire from Iraq to Algeria and Morroco, and they can hardly be called 1/3 of the population in comparison to the Palestinians living in Palestine.

“Without the ‘right of return’, I don’t think the Palestinians will ever fully accept a less than fair partition of land, but I do think they would accept Israel if the borders were fair, even Hamas. With the current balance of leverage, mainly in world opinion, Israel does not have the motivation or political power at home to make such concessions.”

I agree with the “right of return” to some degree and the partition of land – but I doubt you will agree with what I am to say next:

The problem with this reasoning, XX is that in 1947-1948, the land partition WAS fair – or let’s say it was satisfactory Let’s not forget the fact that (trans)Jordan annexed 50% of what was supposed to be for the Palestinians of the British Mandate, and Egypt 60% of what was supposed to be the Gaza Strip in the partition plan, leaving the Palestinians with the West Bank and a minute part of the Gaza Strip – (all one needs to do to see this is take a look at the original Partition Plan Map and a map of the British mandate of Palestine). No, that’s not fair – but you cannot blame Israel for what the Arabs did. You need to ask/demand (whichever you prefer) that Jordan and Egypt return to the Palestinians what they stole back then.

The problem with right to return is that who is and who is not a Palestinian refugee is highly disputable. No other people claims to be refugees in 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation – the Palestinians do – they have even managed to, in my mind, manipulate the International Community into creating a specific “refugee” category for them, so that they can perpetuate the idea of being victims. Yes, to right of return of those who are actually refugees without special provisions who have valid papers that show they lived inside Israel in 1947-1948 or 1967 or is an under age child of someone living inside Israel in 1947-1948 or 1967, that is acceptable – That would also mean the right of return for ALL refugees (without special provisions) to their countries of origin from (as put forward by the UN definition of who is entitled to right of return), i.e Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq etc, from where the Palestinians have been expelled or deported to camps because the Arab League “forbids” the host nations to assimilate or naturalize them. If we implement “the right to return” in all fairness, we have to do so with regard only to refugees directly affected by the 1948 and 1967 wars – this means a load of Palestinians really don’t belong either in Palestine nor inside israel, and if they want to live there, they’ll have immigrate like everybody else – if they get invitations to immigrate, like Jews from all over the World are invited to immigrate to Israel – great let them come, I say.

“The problem is, even withdrawing to 1967 borders isn’t going to satisfy the Palestinians who feel they were forced from their land by 1/3 of the population and are now told they can never return. Israel justifies their right to the land from many angles, but what they need the power to do is justify the Palestinians right to a fair partition.”

Israel have already done that – Israel fully expected the Palestinian Arabs to take possession of their half of the Land, which was rightfully theirs according to all International Laws.

What the Palestinians need to UNDERSTAND is that the partition WAS fair, and that they have been lied to by the Arab League and it’s members and are unfortunately continued to be lied to by people who say things like “you are 2/3 being controlled by 1/3”. IF the Arabs and subsequently the Palestinians back in 1948 had accepted the Partition under UN Resolution 181 unconditionally like the Jews did, they would have had their Sovereign State right there and then – don’t blame Israel for the mistakes made by the Arabs back then.

Israel doesn’t need justification for the Palestinians right to their half. They gave that when they accepted the Partition in 1947-48 – they need justification for withdrawing from Occupied Territories and return to the borders of 1947-48 – which as far as I am concerned must be priority #1. Believe it or not, work and ideas are being done and discussed to that end – my Blog Entry from yesterday: Talking Torah in Lieu of Politics – Daniel Sieradski We need to re-draw the map, so that the Partition, instead of being patches here and there becomes two continuous “land-masses” with a corridor for each to have access to Jerusalem.

“Shifting the balance of power is probably the only way this situation will be resolved. To do this, the Palestinians could to take control of their future and declare peace without negotiating terms. Israel relies on Palestinian violence to justify ‘security zones’ of occupation, all raids inflicting casualties, road blocks, check point searches, sanctions and more. By unconditionally ending violence, all of these justifications are lost, and world opinion would sway on Israels response to this. World opinion would also sway on Israel’s ability to control certain armed settlers, and out of bounds settlements. This would appeal to them as a semi immediate gain in conditions and a long term gain in leverage. It’s a simple political strategy with good motivation that can be passed straight to the people, providing that elusive control governments lack in ending the violence.”

I agree.


Posted in Palestine, UN | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Zionism, A Security Problem

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 5, 2007


I just read an article/interview with Gilad Atzmon – I disagree with basically all he has to say – except when he quotes Avrum Burg allegedly quoting David Ben-Gurion:”I think it was Ben-Gurion who said that “the Zionist movement was the scaffolding to build the home, and that after the State’s establishment, it should be dismantled”. It is pretty easy to see why David Ben-Gurion would say such a thing – there would no longer be a need for when its goal, a Jewish Homeland, had been achieved – just as there was no longer a need for Lehi after the Brits had left. Any land acquisition out-side the 1947-48 borders goes beyond what has been agreed upon.

Yes, I have friends in i Settlements in Palestinian Territory, and I think they should move, I think they are wrong to be there – even more I think the Israeli Government is wrong to “give” them living space there.

Nothing says that Israel cannot accommodate all Jewish Immigrants inside the 1947-1948 borders. Except a hoard of variations of the term “Zionism”. I also suspect another thing is playing into Israel’s reason to expand on Palestinian Territory – most of the Jews making Aliyah are from the US, well to-do middle-class people, who can’t or won’t move into something that is not pristine, well-supplied Suburbia-like neighborhoods. If such neighborhoods does not exist inside Israel, then the Israeli Government creates another security zone on Palestinian soil and builds a Settlement there. Why? Because Israel needs the money those Americans bring.

I just took a look a map of Israel and the West Bank – and honestly, I cannot see how those small dark-green patches from a point of view of strategy are not huge security problems.

Jewish Settlements on the West bank 2002

Map is from here

It does very clearly raise the question – Why? There is a Jewish Homeland, so why want more? There is room for 13 million Jews in Israel. Why put civilians at risk for the sake of an Idea? Normal thinking Nations move their civilians out of harms way, out of war zones – it makes no sense to move civilians into a war zone, it’s bad politics at best and insane at worst. That wasn’t what the early Zionists wanted or even thought of when they immigrated.

The first Zionists didn’t move to ready-made neighborhoods after making Aliyah – they worked them up from the ground on land they had bought with honest money.

Zionism was never meant to be a political tool against anything – it was meant to be a political tool for something. There is a Jewish Homeland – the goal has been achieved – now, let’s dismantle the instrument that achieved it.

“Zionism” is obsolete and it more than anything functions in its antonymic meaning as a cover for Antisemitism, and in today’s society a more proper word would be Jewish Nationalism, which would also uncover the Antisemitism expressed by those opposed to Jewish Nationalism in it’s simplest form:

Nationalism, in its broadest sense, is a devotion to one’s nation and its interests over those of all other nations.[1] The term can also refer to a doctrine[2] or political movement[3] that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.”

In its simplest form, Nationalism is the same a National Self-Determination:

“The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state, but it equally grants the right to reject sovereignty and join a larger multi-ethnic state.”

Now that this has been clarified it is possible to look at Israel of today and determine if the nationalism practiced by the Israeli Government is a simple exercise in Self-Determination or not.

Looking at the map above – knowing that the borders of 1947-48 are not being honored, it is quite easy to see that we are not looking at National Self-Determination, but at National Expansion. Israel is expanding at the expense of the Palestinians.

In my mind this is immoral, and I am amazed that honest religious Jewish Immigrants will actually accept homes that are an intrusion on someone else land against International agreements.

Posted in Israel, Zionism | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: