The US just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Bengalzona]

(12-08-2017, 07:07 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

We could get into "who hit who first", but I'm not sure if it is productive. The Israelis claim that their attacks are counter attacks and that settlement incursions into Israeli-held Palestinian-claimed areas are always in response to Palestinian activities. I tend to agree with that. You don't. I get that and respect your position. And it doesn't really matter how we feel about it because, ultimately, these two have to sit down and work it out.

The Jordan-Palestinian relationship is a bit more complicated than I let on, I cede that. The truth is, there are many Palestinians who wanted Jordan to incorporate the West Bank into their own territory and incorporate the Palestinians into their population, thus creating a new "Transjordan" state back in the early 50's. My comments inferring 'land grab' are better directed further south, where Nasser was in charge of Egypt. Nasser took the Sinai and Gaza Strip after the '48 War. When some Palestinians wanted to organize a Palestinian state referendum back in the 50's, Nasser quashed their efforts. Nasser had bigger ideals. He championed a 'pan-Arabism' ideology which put Arab identity over national identity. Palestinians organizing their own state didn't quite fit into that ideology. And this has been a common theme throughout the efforts of the Palestinians trying to organize anything. It is not the U.S. or England or the Israelis telling that they are forbidden from taking advantage of the U,N, mandate to create their own state. It is these Arab and Muslim identity movements which cross borders in the Middle East and spring up that split the Palestinian people on courses of action. It is also existing arab countries in the region who have their own agendas. The ideal time for the Palestinians to have done something would have been between 1948 and 1967.

Personally, I think the whole 'Pan-Arabism' and 'Neo-Islamist' movements are the Middle East versions "Make Arabia great again!" or "Make Islam great again!" rhetoric: idealism which is manipulated by various political entities in the region and in the world.

Yes, Israeli empowerment has come through force. Israel is now the power in the region, like it or not. In fact, they are now a world power. The Palestinians aren't dealing with a country as weak as Swaziland, they are dealing with a country more like France. That's not gonna change. That said, when has Israel acquired land by force? In 1967? That was land they occupied, not acquired and added to their borders. Much of it has been turned over to other entities at this point. Yes, it is true that they have settled in these areas on the West Bank. But have they claimed those areas as part of the sovereign area of their country? I don't think they have (namely because Israel is pretty shrewd and never announces to the world that they are officially doing anything... like making nuclear weapons).