Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Bengalzona]

(12-27-2023, 02:59 PM)Dill Wrote: In retrospect I think a lot of Palestinians would agree with the bolded--certainly those who supported Oslo. Though it was a hard sell at the time, since it meant hundreds of thousands, who had no say in the resolution process, would have to turn over their homes and land to newly arrived immigrants from Europe. Israelis aren't even ready to give up the West Bank because of the recent settlements there, so you can imagine how hard it would be for people who had lived on land for generations to give it up to settle someone else's desire for a state. In any case, I think our focus should not be on getting people without military power to accept the terms dictated by aggressor nations. Rather, the goal should be to curb aggression, not validate and reward it.

Well, of course I'm going to agree with the embolden statement. Who isn't? I mean, that would be like saying "People shouldn't murder other people." and then waiting to see if someone argues against the point, eh. (LOL!)

The partition plan also meant thousands of Jewish settlers who had lived there for awhile at that time had to leave their homes and lands and resettle. For those people, there was no question about moving due to anger and recriminatory actions. But the Palestinians who were within the area reserved for the "Jewish state" (and, btw, I loathe that terminology because of events in Israel in recent years, even though that was the wording used by the U.N.) did have another option. When Israel became a nation, citizenship was offered to the Palestinians living within the borders (along with other groups such as Druze, Arabs, Christians, etc. living within the borders). And thousands did accept that citizenship. Today, there approximately 1.6 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Not denying that there are issues with being a Palestinian Israeli citizen (especially under the current repressive regime there). But those who stayed have overall fared far better than those who left in almost all aspects of life.

My only point in mentioning this is that at that time, there was another viable option for the people within the Jewish partition rather than flight. I can understand why many did not trust that option, particularly in light of the terrorist activities by some Jewish organizations prior to that (yes, I do acknowledge those events). There was "bad blood" on both sides during that time period (hence the pressing need felt by the U.N. to get involved). And what I am really focusing on in my posts are the ancestors of the Palestinians who did choose to leave at that time.

Quote:Also, it wasn't really in the national interest of Egypt, Syria or Iraq to attack Israel in '48. They were outnumbered, outgunned, and uncoordinated, but pushed by their populations who were incensed at the dispossession of fellow Arabs, with the aid of European colonial powers, especially Great Britain, which had also occupied Egypt for three generations. So as far as Arab populations were concerned, I don't think the goodwill was feigned. Still isn't. Your final comment could certainly apply to the government of Jordan at the time.

Essentially correct. There certainly was a disconnect between the populations and their governments.

King Abdullah I of Jordan (Transjordan at that time) was the ring leader and definitely coveted the West Bank of the proposed Palestinian territory (BTW, Abdullah actually supported the partition plan seeing it as a means to acquire that area). As far as King Farouk of Egypt, he definitely had other issues going on at that time: internal and external. But he also wanted to annex all of southern Palestine (BTW - It was reported in Intelligence and National Security magazine in 2019 (Vol. 34, Issue 6) that there was also a cabal of British MI6 officer in Cairo were pushing Farouk to participate in the war without London's knowledge or permission). Nuri al-Said of Iraq had very minor ambitions. He merely wanted to conquer all of the Fertile Crescent and saw this as a good starting point. Syria and Lebanon coveted northern areas of Palestine.

Outside of their populations sympathizing with the Palestinians and putting some pressure on their governments, the involvement of each of country had nothing directly to do with the Palestinians despite what they told the Palestinian representatives and the media. And they certainly did not want a Palestinian state to develop. It was all territorial ambitions. And because they each had their own ambitions, they did not trust each other and they did not co-operate despite being in the same alliance (i.e. alliance in name only).

By the way, you know the only country in the region who wanted the Palestinians to develop their own state? Israel.

Quote:I'm familiar with this argument, B, and I do love to discuss international law (or at least its philosophical foundations), so three points in response to the bolded:


1. The Ottoman Empire was a recognized "nation" until 1922; through its 500 year administration of Palestine, it generated and maintained land records and deeds which were as "legitimate" as those of any other country. That is why the first two waves of Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia, beginning in 1882, were able to record the land they purchased in an existing legal apparatus with courts, records, surveyed maps, etc. When the British took over the Mandate in 1920, they also took over and maintained land records and a judicial system through which the next three waves of Jewish settlers could continue to buy and privately own land. No way to grant the legitimacy of Jewish ownership recognized in either the Peel proposal of '37 or the UN Resolution of '47, and simultaneously delegitimate Palestinian ownership recorded in the same system.

Your addressing individual ownership of land in the area. And nuder that caveat, your comments are correct. And, personally, I am glad the people in the regions have carried those individual ownership rights and legal traditions over despite the ongoing turmoil of the times.

But I am discussing sovereign national ownership, as in national area boundaries. The area where the government can officially exert its influence and conduct its business. This is also what the U.N. Resolution concerns. When the Israeli state was formed, as I understand, individual land rights within the "Jewish state" were recognized, so long as the owners elected citizenship. Some Palestinians did. Most Palestinians did not. Still, is that a worse offer than the Palestinians received from the Egyptians and Jordanians when they ceded southern Palestine and the West Bank areas? In those cases, Egypt and Jordan did recognize individual land ownership rights. The same with the Palestinians who left the "Jewish state" area between 1947 to 1949 (the people who Israeli citizenship was offered, but they chose to leave). They were not offered citizenship in the most of the countries they went to. This i why those people are known are as the Palestinian refugees and 5.6 million of them currently live in 68 camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and have been receiving aid from the United Nations for 74 years.

(Correction: Jordan did begin allowing the 2 million refugees within their border to seek citizenship during the past 20 years or so, after about 55 years of limbo status.)

Quote:2. The conception of universal human rights, upon which both the League of Nations (the authority handing Mandatory Palestine to GB) and the UN were founded, was understood to require state recognition for enforcement, but did not require national citizenship before universal rights could apply to people living anywhere.


So when the armed forces of the Jewish settlers in the Mandate (Hagenah, Irgun, Stern Gang) began seizing the property of Palestinians living there and driving them out of cities and villages, there was no sanction for that in international law, and especially not for the additional massacres intended to speed the flight. The Declaration of Universal Human Rights was not yet validated by the UN, but it would establish the protection of property, lives and dignity of humans everywhere, stateless or not, under which the UN was already presumably operating when it proposed partition in '47.

Certainly, I do not endorse such actions. Even recognizing that there were equally egregious violations of human rights by Palestinians against Jewish settlers at the time (Jaffa riots, Hebron massacre, Black Hand riots, Higher Arab Committee revolt, Kfar Sirkin bus attack, Jaffa bus attacks, Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, etc.). But the escalating violence on both sides and the human rights violations are exactly why the U.N. felt action and resolutions were needed in the first place.

Quote:3. The Jewish settlers in Palestine did not have a "nation" either in '47. They took land by force to create one, in the process dispensing with international law and the universal human rights upon which it was supposedly based. Once founded though, and recognized by the US, they have since invoked international law in the form of a "right" to self defense and territorial sovereignty--a right they denied Syria when they annexed the Golan. "Recognized ownership" in the modern world still, apparently, recognizes force over right as a legitimating principle in some cases. 

By November 1947, the U.N. approved the partition plan. The British police force began withdrawing from the area in December 1947, and by April 1948 no longer had any effective control anywhere in the country. During that time, there were a back-and-forth series of murders and reprisals between the two groups, with violence escalating to terrorist attacks (by both sides... apparently, that needs to be said here). There was also maneuvers by groups from each side to seize what they thought might be key terrain or locations prior to one side or the other or both declaring independence and nationhood (in the event, there would be only one side declaring themselves a nation). As examples of Jewish violence, Jewish settlers attacked the villages of Balad ash-Sheikh and Hawassa and Irgun and Lehi bombed busy bus stops. As examples of Palestinian violence, they enacted a massacre at the Haifa Oil Refinery and blockaded the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

So groups on both sides were basically "dispensing withr international law" (btw- Does international law apply to a people who have no nation yet?) and universal human rights. So, what is the difference between the two sides? Just one. One May 14, 1948, the day before the British Mandate expired, Israel declared itself a nation. The Palestinians did not. The Israelis began the process that would lead to recognition as a sovereign nation by most of the community of nations. This was recognized by the U.N. when they voted to admit Israel in 1949. With that comes certain responsibilities and benefits. One benefit is citizenship for the people of that nation. Most Palestinians do not have this now. One of the responsibilities is following and enforcing international laws.


I'm going to finish with some things I believe:
1) I support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation because it has been accepted by the U.N.
2) I am highly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people who, in my opinion, made only one error (not declaring statehood when it was available) and have been made to pay dearly over the years (often by neighboring Arab governments pretending to be their friends).
3) I do not agree with many of the actions of Netanyahu's administration/regime. They have instigated many of the current events. I hope the Israeli people vote them out.
4) I abhor the violence of Hamas and the purpose they exist.
5) I abhor the Israeli violence in the Gaza Strip. For a nation which has made many shrewd decisions over the years, doing exactly what a terrorist organization wants and expects them to do is just plain dumb (see #3 above).