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 ‘UN Resolution 181’

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 »

What “Zionism” are we talking about?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 6, 2007


I store several ideas for blogs in My Drafts. Those drafts are very often side-thoughts that pop up when I write on any specific topic – or they are ideas I get from people who used different search criteria to reach my Blog, given the general nature of my Blog, “Zionism” is bound to be one of them.

 

My Blog Entry Zionism, A Security Problem gave birth to some thinking about different kinds of Jewish Nationalism – and what kind exactly the Fundamentalist Anti-Zionists are protesting. The most violent are protesting the very existence of Israel, and in fact all Jews:

When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.”

They are attacking Jewish Nationalism, i.e the Jewish People’s right to a National Home and Self-Determination – that is pure Antisemitism.

 

Like this Canadian Politician they make no distinction between Israel, Jews and Jewish nationalists “Zionists”:

“I never separated the Zionists and the Jews in this thread or anywhere.”

“Get a clue and realise that we are now past the stage of denying the evils of Israel and the Zionists and have reached the stage of a backlash against said groups for the bloody terrorists they are.”

So where to draw the line? When is Jewish Nationalism no longer a matter of just exercising the right to Self-Determination in accordance with the UDHR article 15 and UN Resolution 181?

 

When it encroaches on the rights of others to exactly the same or violates already existing territory that belongs to other Nations in accordance with International Agreements. This includes the 1947 UN Partition Plan, regardless of whether the Arab League and/or the Palestinian Arabs accepted the partition or not – Israel did and is therefore bound by it.

 

This the Anti-Zionists mentioned before cannot dispute, as that would mean they are themselves in violation of International Laws and Agreements.

 

Unhealthy or unacceptable Jewish nationalism would include any Jewish Nationalism that carries with it an idea of a “Greater Israel”, whichever manner this would be achieved. One cannot, however much one wants to, invoke religious texts or religious belief as validation of Ownership in secular matters, as has often been the case with Jewish Religious Movements, based in-side and out-side Israel.

 

Jewish Settlements out-side the borders of 1947-1948 must be dismantled, and any political policy that aims at creating Settlements out-side those borders must be deemed illegal according to International Agreements.

 

Jewish Nationalism must remain at it’s simplest – Jewish/Israeli national Self-Determination within the parameters of UN Resolution 181.

Posted in Zionism | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: