The US just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Dill]

(12-08-2017, 11:56 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Consider, though, containing Gaza was not solely an Israeli venture. Egypt also deemed this necessary and assisted from the south. This was due to the level of violence and militarism coming from Hamas in the strip. The noose that has been tightening around Gaza didn't just develop overnight. It was something that started in response to attacks and has become progressively stricter due to continued attacks.

You know the history of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They were originally areas set aside by the U.N. Charter for the establishment of a Palestinian state in 1948. The Palestinians rejected the charter and opted for warfare, as we know. What is less commonly known is what happened to the territories after the 1948 war. The Palestinians 'buddies', Jordan and Egypt, claimed the territories after the war.

Once again, this is not a situation that started over-night. And it was in response to continued attacks.

It is interesting that you mention power. The Palestinians only legitimate empowerment comes from two sources: the 1948 U.N. charter and (believe it or not) the Israelis. By offering the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians as a homeland, the Israelis have empowered the Palestinians. All that they have asked for in return is peace. The Palestinians have, at points, rejected both sources. Unfortunately, some factions within the Palestinians feel that they gain legitimacy through violence. Who int the world supports violence as a legitimate means of empowerment?

YOW B-Zona!  Leave it to you to make me work.  You present excellent and probing questions here. I doubt I can produce adequate answers before the weekend curtain falls on PnR. But I am going to outline a few general points so you can see where I am going.

1.  We are framing the problem very differently. In your posts, the people who have taken--and continue to take--Palestinian land are always "responding" to attacks.  But if the Israelis bulldoze homes and olive groves (a Palestinian livelihood) to make room for new settlements, which then catch a couple of rockets, I do not think much will change by focusing on "Palestinian violence" and demanding THEIR attacks stop before political issues can be addressed.  While we generally agree on the facts on the ground, we do view them from different standpoints, which creates our contrasting evaluations of behavior and assignments of responsibility.

2.  I don't think Jordan's annexation is the simple land grab you represent here. I understand it as a semi-coordinated attempt between Jordan and Syria (and the Arab League)--as well as correlative Palestinian factions supporting them--to protect Palestinians and Palestinian land from the cleansing occurring in the areas of Jewish Partition. E.g., Deir Yassin had a tremendous effect on Arab populations in the region, fragmenting Palestinians in flight and uniting surrounding states into the Arab League. Some Palestinians, especially those in the Arab Partition, welcomed Abdullah as protector. Not all did, though. . . .

3. . . . which leads to the next problem--namely Palestinian representation and leadership during '47-48.  Since the area of Palestine had simply been a collection of variously organized provinces (Sanjaks) under the Ottomans, without its own central administration, and then under control of the British, who did not allow anything like an effective civil administration/government to form (for fear of Palestinian Nationalism),  there was no means of voting in a unified leadership. On the one hand you had a reconstituted Arab Higher Committee, which had some claim to be broadly representative before 1946, but was replaced by designates of the Arab league in that year. This new Arab Committee  then "represented" Palestine in the UN, and no Palestinians on the ground in the Mandate ever got to vote on the Partition. It was imposed upon them from without.  That is why we hear that Palestinians "rejected" a plan to give their homes and land away to a new government formed mainly of people just arrived from Europe. When the civil war began, the Arab League recognized an All Palestine government in Gaza (kind of directly under Egypt's thumb, and dissolved by them in the 50s). On the other hand, the closest we get in '48 to something like a unified, representative voice of Palestinians is at the Jericho Conference, when thousands of actual Palestinians and mayors of Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho and other cities met to call for King Abdullah's annexation of the West Bank.  But no leader or organization came out of the expression of popular will, since the point was to recognize Abdullah.

4. Israeli "empowerment" has come basically from force--especially on the West Bank. If we appeal to international law and UN Resolution 181 to establish Israel's legitimacy we cannot then ignore Resolution 242 which denies the right of any nation to acquire land by force and affirms the right of Palestinians to self-determination and nationhood. So yes, what "power" the Palestinians have comes from an apparently symbolic UN resolution and whatever Israel permits them to do.

5. I think your most important question is this -- Why have the Israelis not just occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza and declared it as their own, if that is what they intend to do anyway? What are they waiting for? Why is this going in such a slow, deliberate, painstaking way? If they face world criticism for doing it, why not just get that over with in one fell swoop? Why even pretend to go through any process? That makes no sense -- I will tackle that one over the weekend. I believe I can answer that, but let me get my ducks in a row first. 

So well done, ol' buddy.  Quite a challenge you put up here.