If you want to quickly get up to speed on what the Israel-Palestine conflict is about and why it persists, head on over to ObstacleToPeace.com and sign up to get a free excerpt from my book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. You’ll not only receive the entire first chapter (along with Richard Falk’s Foreword and Gene Epstein’s Introduction), but I’ll also send you an email primer course on the conflict.
One of the lessons in the course is on the 1978 Camp David Accords. In it, I explain how the US-led so-called “peace process” began and how its purpose has been to block implementation of the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sign up for the course for the full lesson, but briefly, the necessary context for the purpose of this post is that the US and Israel sought to determine the fate of the Palestinians at Camp David without allowing the Palestinians to have any say in the matter. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognized by the international community as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”, was not invited to Camp David, and Israel’s condition for allowing any Palestinians to participate at all was that it would decide which individuals could attend.
Well, in response to that course lesson, I received an email from a Zionist named George, who accused my account of being biased. I’ll let you be the judge of whose view is truly prejudiced. Here’s our full debate (with key parts bolded):
I have read your recent input titled “What were the Camp David Accords”.
Frankly speaking I am not sure your description is fully accurate.
My first remarks touches your comment in bold letters claiming that …” the PLO was neither invited to Camp David nor party to the agreement.”
This fact is true, however you ignore the common knowledge that the at that period of time the PLO was not consider as a partner to negotiations with Israel rather a terrorist organization.
The principle of possible inclusion of Palestinian representatives as a part of Arab delegations was agreed by Egypt as well as Jordan.
There was no sense to invite the PLO as a full member to the Camp David Conference.
It should be emphasized that the Camp David Conference was summoned in the purpose of negotiating a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.
The reason the Conference dealt also with the Palestinian topic was the Egyptian will to down play the impression it is preaching for a separate peace with Israel.
Your interpretation on this respect claiming …” that Israel itself would determine which “representatives of the Palestinian People” could participate in future negotiations, during which Israel would further seek to determine “modalities for establishing the elected self-governing authority”, needs a deeper consideration. How could you expect a country been under terror attacks initiated by the PLO, accept the idea of inviting a terrorist organization to attend an International conference as an equal party?
Just analyze the circumstances leading to the Oslo Accords in1993, and the obligations taken by the PLO as a part of the process leading to the establishment of the PA and the formal recognition of the state of Israel.
The main concessions in this framework should be related to the Israeli side who is a fully independent state and in control of the territories to be subject for a future peace agreement with the PA.
The US role was therefore crucial for cultivating the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement as well as the following peace agreement with Jordan. It was a constructive intervention mainly realizing that Egypt as the most important Arab country, could pave the way for a peaceful atmosphere in the Middle East.
President Jimmy Carter can’t be considered as a foe to the Palestinians what so ever.
I find myself obliged to convey my remarks since I believe that history is an essential part of international relations, therefore accuracy and objectivity should be the leading elements.
First, I just want to note for the record that you’ve acknowledged that what I wrote is true, and your difference with me is not with respect to the facts, but concerning a matter of opinion.
Second, to be clear about what your opinion is: So you think it was reasonable for the US, Israel, and Egypt, to decide the fate of the Palestinians without including “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”, as the PLO had already been recognized by the General Assembly, in the negotiations? You think it was reasonable for them to decide the fate of the Palestinians—with the aim of perpetuating the occupation—without the Palestinians having a voice in the negotiations?
This was certainly not reasonable. No more reasonable than Israel refusing to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, on the grounds Hamas is a terrorist organization, when the Occupier’s own terrorism occurs on an incomparably greater scale. Camp David grossly prejudiced the rights of the voiceless and oppressed Palestinians.
When you say, “Just analyze the circumstances leading to the Oslo Accords…”, I don’t know what you are trying to suggest. Of course, I have analyzed the circumstances, and detail them in my book (as well as, far less in depth, in the email course).
Then you say, “The main concessions in this framework should be related to the Israeli side…” No. Israel has made precisely zero concessions throughout the entire so-called “peace process”. Every single concession from the very beginning has always been demanded of the Palestinian side.
As for the legacy of Camp David, I is not so benevolent as you seem to think. The next email in the course will discuss that further.
I’ll also include your criticism in a future Q&A, so stay tuned for it.
Indeed, [your] facts are well based and documented, however the interpretation you adopt could be arguable.
My opinion is that the PLO couldn’t be considered as a full partner for the “Autonomy” solution related to the Palestinian Arabs, though it was already declared by the UN as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. As you surely know, even among the Palestinians themselves PLO has faced fierce opposition by radical Palestinian terrorist organizations.
The fact that a majority within the UNGA is supporting a terrorist organization such as the PLO should be considered as another indication of the automatic support given to that organization by Third World countries as well as the non-aligned movement.
At that period of time the PLO didn’t adhere to the US call to renounce terror, therefore Egypt nor Israel and the USA couldn’t even consider the participation of that organization in the Camp David Summit.
Besides, it is too exaggerated to reflect to the “autonomy” framework as a crucial process to affect the fate of the Palestinians. The idea of an interim arrangement (for 5 years only) proved that it was considered as a prelude for further negotiations.
It is also important to point out the importance of UN resolutions 242 and 338 as the guidelines for future settlements in the Middle East. On this respect it is clear that the Israelis considered these resolutions as a solid framework , since the agreed version as adopted (in English) by the UNSC called for withdrawal “from territories” not from “the territories”. The idea of territorial modifications was clear and justified. Nothing to do with your “sarcastic” remark on this regard (UN resolution 242): “that Israel interpreted as it pleased”.
I can’t share your judgment comparing “HAMAS” with Israel related to terror aspect. The Israeli occupation is not a terrorist act by definition. It was a result of a war and the West Bank should legally be considered as a territory under dispute. Naturally it is a temporary status till an agreement is been achieved.
My opinion is that whenever a settlement will be on the table, the concessions would be logically the ones of the Israeli side, namely, an Israeli gesture due to the changing circumstances in the region.
International relations tend to adopt practical arrangements rather than fighting for so called “justice” (which is doubtful on the Palestinian case).
So, to be clear, your answer to my questions is: “Yes, I think it was reasonable for the US, Israel, and Egypt, to decide the fate of the Palestinians without including ‘the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’, as the PLO had already been recognized by the General Assembly, in the negotiations, and I think it was reasonable for them to decide the fate of the Palestinians—with the aim of perpetuating the occupation—without the Palestinians having a voice in the negotiations.”
This was patently prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians, regardless of the PLO’s designation by Occupying Power and its principal benefactor as a terrorist organization. Hence not reasonable.
Furthermore, Israel rejects Resolution 242. It “accepts” it only in the sense that it interprets it how it pleases. There is nothing sarcastic about this remark. It’s a simple fact.
And, again, it is also a simple observable fact that Israel’s terrorism against Palestinians is incomparably greater than Palestinians’ terrorism against Israel, e.g., its military assaults in Gaza designed to punish the civilian population under the “Dahiya doctrine”.
You write, “My opinion is that whenever a settlement will be on the table, the concessions would be logically the ones of the Israeli side, namely, an Israeli gesture due to the changing circumstances in the region.” I don’t know what you mean. Again, the number of concessions made by Israel under the “peace process” is zero.
It’s instructive that you acknowledge your view is premised upon the acceptance of the injustice done by Israel toward the Palestinians, in the name of being “practical”. This says everything there is to say about the validity of your viewpoint. There is nothing impractical about respecting the Palestinians’ equal rights, and it’s regretful you can’t bring yourself to do so, but resign yourself to prejudice.
Arguing with you is an intellectual challenge.
However, your arguments are quite prejudiced no matter the facts and the historical background.
It’s truly amazing, not to say ridiculous to claim that Israel made “zero” concessions under the peace process. How about the retreat from Sinai, the territorial modifications along the Jordanian border as well as the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip?
The principle of “land for peace” was the leading philosophy of the Israelis following the tremendous victory in June 1967 war. You should bear in mind that the Arab response was declared in Khartoum, the well-known 3 “NOs”. Under this framework the Israelis have adhered to the operative chapters of UNSC resolution 242, approving the Jewish state’s right for territorial modifications to be agreed with its neighbors.
Claiming that the Israelis deliberately executed the “Dahiya Doctrine” in Gaza is truly an absurd. The Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut was the HQs of Hezbollah terrorist organization, empty of civilians. In Gaza, buildings which were hit by the Israelis were considered as collateral damage deriving of the fact that rocket launchers were deployed very close to civilian neighborhoods and in many cases log range rockets were fired from populated areas in Gaza to include nearby hospitals, schools and mosques.
Exposing civilians to risks of war is a well known terrorist tactic adopted by Hamas terrorists, since they were keen to see as many Palestinian casualties as possible, so that they can take advantage of the bloody footage in order to blame the Israelis as deliberately children killers. Therefore, Hamas is to be blamed for the poor innocent civilians been killed during the hostilities. Your claim that the Israeli intention was to punish the civilian population is simply an reckless propaganda.
No need to get back to the historical facts related to the routes of the Jews and their strong linkage to the territory of Palestine (which has nothing to do with the so-called Palestinian Arabs). You can refer to the British Mandate Charter for instance etc.
The Oslo agreements were clearly indicating the readiness of the Israelis to accept an uneasy compromise, exposing itself to the risks of terror due to the agreed influx of thousands of Palestinian armed forces into Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This worst case scenario happened to become a reality as you surely recall.
As far as I know, the Israelis have shown readiness to offer extensive and generous territorial compromises to the Palestinians. Just get back to Kemp David Summit Conference in the year 2000, as well as the offers during the turn of duty of P.M. Olmert. Sadly, the Palestinian side has bluntly rejected the offers.
I do believe my comments will have some effect on your approach.
Your charge that my own arguments are prejudiced fall flat. Yet again, with respect, you are simply further demonstrating your prejudice and revealing yourself to be extremely misinformed.
Here is the simple reason your hypocritical charge falls flat: When you speak of Israeli “compromise”, you are simply accepting the Israel and the US’s framework for negotiations (including at Oslo) that elevates Israel’s wants over Palestinians’ rights.
According to your logic, if I mugged you in the street and stole your wallet, and you called out to a nearby law enforcement officer who then, instead of reclaiming your wallet from me to return it to you, forced you to “negotiate” with me over how much of the money inside you could get back, whatever amount I returned to you would be a “compromise” on my part.
This logic of yours, of course, is what is truly amazing and ridiculous.
Not one inch of Gaza, the West Bank, or East Jerusalem is Israel’s to give. Likewise, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai, this was not a “compromise”, but a requirement of international law, just the same as Israel is required to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories.
Thus we see that the very foundational premise of your argument reveals just how extremely prejudiced your position is.
Like I said, the number of concessions Israel has made throughout the entire peace process—within the proper framework of what the parties have a right to—is zero.
Likewise, your assertion that Israel has adhered to the operative clauses of Resolution 242 is absurd. Again, Israel rejects 242 outright.
Also absurd of you is to deny Israel’s implementation of the “Dahiya Doctrine” in Gaza, such as during “Operation Cast Lead”. I won’t bother going into the details because this is extensively documented in Obstacle to Peace, so I simply urge you to pick up a copy and properly inform yourself. Likewise your claim that Israel’s attacks during this operation was justified because Hamas was using human shields is equally misinformed. In fact, Israel engaged in wantonly indiscriminate warfare, and while there is no evidence that any civilians killed during that operation were being used at the time as human shields, the IDF’s own use of Palestinian civilians as human shields is well documented.
I repeat: It’s instructive that you acknowledge your view is premised upon the acceptance of the injustice done by Israel toward the Palestinians, in the name of being “practical”. This says everything there is to say about the validity of your viewpoint. There is nothing impractical about respecting the Palestinians’ equal rights, and it’s regretful you can’t bring yourself to do so, but resign yourself to prejudice.
I’m afraid you’ve fallen victim to lying Zionist hasbara. Please properly inform yourself and reevaluate your view under a proper frame of reference—one premised on respect for equal rights and justice, rather than on perpetuation of injustice and trampling of the rights of the oppressed. I urge you to get a copy of Obstacle to Peace, and we can continue the discussion once you are properly informed and operating within a proper framework.
It appears that we don’t share the same appreciations…
No matter; I do believe that your new book contains convincing arguments to consolidate your assessments. Frankly speaking, I doubt that.
It’s not a matter of been influenced by the Zionist “Hasbara” or the BDS philosophy. The key to understanding the routes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to stick to historical facts and international circumstances.
On this matter, one must reflect to the origins of the name “Palestine” which has nothing to do with a people named Palestinian. I am confident you know that, however prefer to ignore. Besides, just by looking over 2 fundamental documents, the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. The term national home for the Jewish people in Palestine speaks for itself. The Mandate Charter was approved by the League of Nations, by all means.
Please don’t underestimate the terrible mistakes of the Arabs/Palestinian-Arabs during the Mandate term, such as –
- On March 1, 1944, in the midst of the Holocaust and well before Israel declared independence, Haj Amin al-Husseini, then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, provoked on Radio Berlin, “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”
- The worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947. UN resolution 181 provided the legal basis for a Jewish state and an Arab state sharing what used to be British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.
- Regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League was quoted (in 1948) stating that, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
- The Arab states, instead of welcoming Arab refugees from the 1947/48 war, they curbed them to camps with severe restrictions on their daily lives.
I won’t go deeper, however, it’s unjustified to blame the Israelis as aggressors, oppressors and “terrorists”.
The Gaza Strip is now an Arab territory, not a single Israeli soldier or settler are there. The so-called “siege” is definitely directed by security considerations, though the Gazans are still depending on Israel as a food supplier as well as energy and water resources. It is therefore a real anomaly in international relations in which a country is the supplier of its enemy… As for the West Bank, it should be important to recall the fact that it was a Jordanian territory, not a Palestinian territory! Due to the circumstances’ changes, and the Jordanian “disengagement”, Israel found itself facing the PLO and afterwards the PA as partner for negotiations.
The Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was definitely a result of a compromise which included Israeli concessions (such as not insisting upon territorial modifications) in the framework of the UNSC resolution 242. By doing that the Israelis have proven that they stick to the principles deriving from the UN said resolution.
I truly don’t want to argue with you concerning the “Dahiya Doctrine” related to Operation “Cast Lead”. This is a total misunderstanding of yours, since the Israelis didn’t deliberately targeted civilians against innocents, as you surely know. Adopting the biased point of view of Richard Falk is not the right way to analyzing the realities…Needless to say that Hamas regime has propagated this fake story in order to demonize the Israelis.
Practically speaking, the “Dahiya Doctrine” could be applicable to the Lebanese arena in which a legitimate Gov could be deterred, this isn’t the case in Gaza, and you know why.
You speak of grounding our assessment in historical fact, yet you continue to parrot Zionist hasbara, and yet again demonstrate the prejudice of your view.
The origin of the name “Palestine” is irrelevant to our discussion. Regarding the Balfour Declaration, what is your point? I explain its meaning and significance – which isn’t at all what you seem to think – in The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination:
Yes, certainly many of the Mufta’s actions, as well as those of numerous other Arab leaders, were “mistakes”, as you called them (and morally repugnant). Yet this has no bearing on anything I’ve said and doesn’t affect any of my conclusions.
It was not, however, a “mistake” on the part of the Arabs not to accept the racist and inequitable partition plan, which was explicitly premised on the rejection of the right of the majority Arab population to self-determination. I won’t go into the details here since you can them in Obstacle to Peace. Suffice to say your view is misinformed and prejudicial.
Israel’s blockade targets the civilian population and constitutes collective punishment in violation of international law. It is indefensible, yet here you are trying to defend it. Like the actions of the Mufta you refer to, that is morally repugnant.
The West Bank was never Jordanian territory. Jordan was an occupying power that administrated the West Bank. But never minding your misinformed belief, what is your point?
You speak of Israeli concessions at Camp David? I challenge you to name even one.
You claim Israel abides by Resolution 242. Once again, this is simply a lie. It patently does not. Israel rejects Resolution 242 just as it rejects the two-state solution.
And as for Israel’s implementation of the Dahiya Doctrine in Gaza, once again, it is you who is grievously misinformed and biased and I invite you yet again to properly inform yourself by reading Obstacle to Peace. The details are there, extensively documented. For you to cling to your position despite my having pointed out your error and before having taken advantage of the opportunity to educate yourself is simply willful ignorance.
I urge you to read Obstacle to Peace so as to become properly informed and able to see through the Zionist hasbara you unfortunately are so deeply indoctrinated into.
George dropped it for a while, but then I shared my article “The No-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict” with subscribers to the email course, which prompted George to revive the discussion…
Well, this time you really surpassed yourself…
Your article “The No-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict” sounds like a masterpiece of hatred to the USA, Israel and the PA.
Every chapter includes exaggerations and/or one-sided information, in a way that raises question marks about the quality of your research.
To my impression, the media coverage of the Jewish state is not so supportive as you describe. On the contrary Israel faces a tough criticism, not necessarily justified.
In fact, Obama’s approach towards the Israeli is frigid not to say hostile. Thanks to the Congress Israel still enjoys the traditional financial aid.
Claiming that Israel is constantly violating the international law is in fact the reflection of the automatic majority of the third world countries as well as the Muslim states.
It appears that you blindly adopt the Palestinian narrative related to the Dahiya Doctrine so called used by the Israeli in Gaza. This is regrettable since as I already said, it is totally false.
The claim that the Israelis punished the population is Gaza is a blunt distortion, or a total ignorance.
Claiming that Israel deliberately targeted schools and hospitals in Gaza is even evil. I am sure you know the truth, thus prefer to spread a defamation.
Sorry to say that all other “stories” about the creation of the Jewish state and the 1967 war are more fairy tales than facts.
As for the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legality of the separation wall shouldn’t be considered as a solid legal verdict. In fact several experts in the USA and Israel were in the opinion that ICJ didn’t have the authority to deal with a topic of political nature. The US House of Commons mocked the ICJ’s opinion as non realistic.
In fact, the wall was built by Israel for justified security reasons aimed to block the infiltration of suicide bombers into the main Israeli cities. The wall happened to be a very effective tool on this matter, and the volume of terrorist suicide bombing attempts dropped almost to zero.
Building the wall was therefore definitely an act of self defense rather than a violation of international law.
The Palestinian terrorists are to be blamed for the killing of more than 1000 Israeli civilians.
Finally, you call for a “Global Intifadfa” categorizes you as a leading BDS activist, by all means, how could you appear as an objective researcher?
Why do you persist in willful ignorance? The facts are as I’ve stated them. Briefly, to reiterate:
* Your suggestion that Obama has been hostile to Israel is a common propaganda narrative that I completely debunk my book. It’s complete nonsense. The US’s support for Israel’s criminal policies has never been greater than under the Obama administration.
* That Israel perpetually violates international law is completely uncontroversial, it’s illegal settlements being just one example of its violations, many others of which are documented in my book.
* That Israel implemented the Dahiya Doctrine in Gaza is also completely incontrovertibly and indeed uncontroversial. This, too, is documented extensively in the book.
* Israel’s blockade of Gaza targets the civilian population and constitutes collective punishment under international law. This, too, is uncontroversial. The UN, ICRC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Gisha, etc., have all concerned the illegal blockade, as you can learn more about in the book.
* Israel deliberately targeted schools and hospitals in Gaza. This, too, is completely uncontroversial. Indeed, Israel has openly admitted this fact, as you can read in the book.
* The “Jewish state” of Israel was established by ethnically cleansing Palestine of most of its Arab population. This, too, notwithstanding the willful ignorance of prejudiced hypocrites like yourself, is uncontroversial, as you can learn on my book.
* That Israel’s settlements and annexation wall violate the car Fourth Geneva Convention is a completely uncontroversial point of fact under international law, as affirmed by the ICJ. There isn’t a country on the planet that rejects this other than Israel itself.
* Israel’s violence and murder of Palestinian civilians occurs on an incomparably great scale than vice versa.
Spare me your willful ignorance. I urge you again to read Obstacle to Peace to get properly informed.
If I were you I would have raised several doubts rather than presenting firm and clear-cut “facts”.
No matter what is profoundly analyzed and described in your book, the moment it’s totally and absolutely adopting the Palestinian-Arabs narrative, it might indicate that a problem of “objectivity” is around.
Avoiding any “balancing” elements or even bypassing the basic norm of confronting opposite ideas not to say “facts” must be considered as a big lacuna.
Somehow you find yourself admiring the HAMAS radical terrorists, instead of deploring this organization’s oppressive behavior against the Palestinian population in Gaza. You blame the Israelis for using collective punishment against the population rather to realize that without the Israeli massive daily food supply to Gaza, the population would have starved to death. No matter the inherent anti-Zionist attitude of NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Gisha, etc.
What is known as NAKBA is definitely not the catastrophe of the Palestinian people. This is a historical distortion. The origin of this term is in fact the failure of the 5 Arab armies to destroy the newly born Jewish state. The Arab couldn’t live with this “shame” and transferred the term “NAKBA” to reflect to the Arabs who fled from the territory of Palestine (which was in fact the Jewish Homeland). Now, what is the justification for the Palestinian Arabs to claim the Right of Return? This is baseless and unfortunately, the fact the Arabs are perpetuating the “Refugees Issue” as an ongoing “bombshell” against Israel is having a boomerang effect on the refugees themselves.
Besides, Israel is not murdering Palestinians. Victims and casualties are the result of terrorist acts against Israeli targets, military and/or civilian.
The automatic anti-Israeli majority in the UN agencies shouldn’t take you by surprise. You can just recall the recent resolution of UNESCO denying any linkage between the Jewish and the Temple Mount…
I hope you can reconsider some of your conclusions.
Given your own demonstrable prejudice and complete inability to point to even a single error in fact or reason on my part, your charges of bias fall completely flat and serve only to illustrate the enormity of your hypocrisy.
I have given you the facts. It’s highly instructive that, rather than addressing the facts I’ve given you, you find it necessary to resort to asinine strawman argumentation with your statement, “you find yourself admiring the HAMAS radical terrorists, instead of deploring this organization’s oppressive behavior against the Palestinian population in Gaza.” You ought to try addressing my actual arguments and view, rather inventing a strawman and falsely attributing it to me.
As for the 1948 war, the distortion is your own. For starters, again, the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the “Jewish state” had no legitimacy. The Jewish community at the time owned less than 7 percent of the land in Palestine, and they had no right to proclaim sovereignty over the Arab majority or their lands. Furthermore, by the time the neighboring Arab states managed to muster a military response and their armies finally entered Palestine, 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed in what Israeli historian Benny Morris has described as the Zionists’ “war of conquest”.
If you ever have a change of heart and choose to be honest, rather than resigning yourself to willful ignorance, you are always welcome to educate yourself on the facts:
Though you claim you are objective, it is clear you fully adhere to the Palestinian-Arab’s narrative.
Referring to the Israelis as criminals and sticking to the propaganda messages “made in Gaza and Ramallah” categorize you as an anti-Israeli.
The assumption that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the “Jewish state” had no legitimacy, is really ridiculous. I didn’t find any criticism of yours to the fact that the Arabs have rejected the “partition plan”, nor a word about the PLO charter abolishing the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. This Arab approach proves that their ultimate goal was and still is to get rid of the Jewish state.
You referred to the “partition plan” as “racist and inequitable”, this is truly amazing. Instead of criticizing the Arab’s side of rejecting the plan which could enable them to enjoy an additional state, which was not an obviously justified, you blame the UN for a formula to suggest a “politically correct” partition, thought the British Mandate was intended to establish the Jewish homeland on both banks of the Jordan River. Needless to remind you that the Jewish Agency had approved the plan, paving the way for an independent state within the territorial frame originated for the Jewish inhabitants. The Jewish side followed the UNGA resolution 181 and has never proclaimed sovereignty over the Arab majority or their lands.
As for the claim that 300,000 Palestinian Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed prior to the 1948 war, you may know that the majority of the Palestinian Arabs were of wealthy families and have preferred to leave in order to secure their financial assets abroad. Nothing to do with ethnical cleansing since Palestine was still effectively controlled by the British. If you refer to Prof. Benny Morris you better realize that he has changed his mind with respect to his initial research and finds justifications for the Zionist’s strategy aiming to consolidate the Jewish nature of the new state to be.
Personally, I would have suggested to you to put an emphasis on the civil was in Syria in which over 300,000 innocent people found their death and over 10 millions became refugees or displaced. Instead of dedicating yourself to fighting for the Palestinian Arab’s cause, no matter the historical background and facts on the ground, you should better focus on more realistic and urgent international topics.
The so called Palestinian refugees are mostly living in cities and urban neighborhoods and don’t face starvation nor misery.
I do believe that a sincere round of negotiations could bring about an affordable compromise, provided security arrangements to prevent infiltration of ISIS militants into the West Bank and Gaza, as well as torpedoing any attempt by Hamas to gain control also over the West Bank.
Ignorance is not an argument. You keep repeating the same falsehoods I’ve already addressed. I’ve already given you the facts, yet you choose willful ignorance. No need for me to repeat myself yet another time. Again, if you ever have a change of heart and choose to be honest with yourself, the truth is available to you. The facts are as I’ve stated them. To briefly reiterate the facts I stated that you vainly ignore here:
- The Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the state of Israel had no legitimacy.
- The partition plan was racist and inequitable, premised upon the explicit rejection of the rights of the majority Arab population.
- The “Jewish state” of Israel was established by ethnically cleansing Palestine of most of its Arab population.
All this and much more is extensively documented in Obstacle to Peace. Please educate yourself:
George had nothing more to say after that. What could he? He was essentially insisting that I haven’t documented in Obstacle to Peace everything I said in our exchange despite refusing to actually read the book.
This level of willful ignorance is certainly extraordinary.
Do you want to be able to take on willfully ignorant Zionists? My book Obstacle to Peace will empower you with the knowledge to become an effective voice for peace.