Palestine – “End The Occupation” and “Right the Wrongs”

December 9, 2011 by David Singer
Read on for article

I don’t think there has ever been any Arab propaganda slogan as powerful and successful as “End The Occupation”…writes David Singer.

These three little words have managed to turn Israel’s miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War and its triumphal return to parts of the biblical and ancestral land of its forefathers – as something to be reviled and reversed.

Those mouthing the slogan have not sought to have the “occupation” ended in favour of Jordan – the previous Arab occupant  during the period 1948-1967.

Rather they are insisting it all be given – albeit with mutually agreed land swaps – to another group – the “Palestinians” – who did not exist

  • in 1937 – when the Peel Commission issued its Report
  • in 1947 – when the United Nations recommended the partition of western Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State.
  • Between 1948-1964 – when no claim was made by any such group to territory that any Arab claimant could have gained by the stroke of an Arab League pen – after such territory had been ethnically cleansed of every single Jew who had been living there prior to 1948

The “Palestinians” only first saw the light of day in 1964 when the PLO Charter was promulgated and Article 1 declared:

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 5 went on to declare:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether inside Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.

No recognition was given to the fact that groups other than Arabs had lived in Palestine from time immemorial – long before the Arabs had ever conquered and occupied the area.

Ten years later – on 13 November 1974 the leader of this newly created entity – Yasser Arafat – told the United Nations General Assembly:

The PLO has earned its legitimacy because of the sacrifice inherent in its pioneering role, and also because of its dedicated leadership of the struggle. It has also been granted this legitimacy by the Palestinian masses, which in harmony with it have chosen it to lead the struggle according to its directives. The PLO has also gained its legitimacy by representing every faction, union or group as well as every Palestinian talent, either in the National Council or in people’s institutions. This legitimacy was further strengthened by the support of the entire Arab nation, and it was consecrated during the last Arab Summit Conference, which reiterated the right of the PLO, in its capacity as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, to establish an independent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory.

In 2011 the legitimacy of the PLO leadership role is in tatters. A new boy on the block- Hamas – has emerged to challenge the PLO’s claim and reconciliation between these two competing power bases is still not in prospect after six years of bitter internecine conflict.

The effort to reach a resolution of the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict has been stymied by the refusal of the PLO to sit down in direct face to face negotiations with Israel – but even if this were to occur tomorrow the prospects of any successful outcome would be extremely unlikely to eventuate.

Jordan sits on the sideline having abandoned any claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem in 1988. Jordan shows no interest in attempting to try and restore – as far as is now possible – the status quo existing in these areas at 4 June 1967.

Israel’s attempts to “end the occupation” of these areas in 2000/2001 and 2008 were rebuffed by the PLO.

Perhaps it is time for a new slogan  – “Right the Wrongs” – to enter into the lexicon of international diplomacy in the Middle East.

The wrongs involve the failure of the United Nations to acknowledge the following incontrovertible facts:

  • that the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter reserve to the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in accordance with the provisions laid down in article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine
  • that Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 remain the only internationally accepted basis for resolving the conflict in former Palestine

The failure of the United Nations to insist on these basic tenets of international law being implemented, respected and observed has proved to be the main stumbling block to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Yasser Arafat himself declared before the United Nations on 13 December 1988:

“Our people do not want any right to which they are not entitled and which is not compatible with international legality and laws. They are not seeking any freedom that encroaches upon the freedom of others or any destiny that negates the destiny of another people

Bowing to extreme pressure from the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference – the United Nations has succumbed to a myriad of General Assembly resolutions since then that have virtually buried such “international legality and laws”.

It is time for international law to be resurrected, debated and enforced as the only basis for ending the conflict in former Palestine.

The sooner this process is begun – the sooner some sanity will return to the Middle East.

David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network

Comments

29 Responses to “Palestine – “End The Occupation” and “Right the Wrongs””
  1. Otto Waldmann says:

    As I am 100% behind David Singer’s and Paul Winter’s arguments, I would dare simplifying the issue of palestinian historic legitimacy to the following:

    – Arafat should be up there with Eddison and Marconi as a great inventor.

    – There is no need ( actually there is ) to emphasize again the historic evidence of the land of Israel belonging to the Jewish people.I want, however, the palestinians immersed in their glosious millenarian history on our land to name ONE poalesinian king, national hero pe Arafat-Marconi-Edisson, the great inventor. I want them to display some text say two thousand year old where they are mentioned at all, institutions they created of their own, briefly a history of claims.For the fear of hillul Hashem I shall not go into matters sacred, but we happen to have produced a Book replete with evidence acknowledged by followers of OTHER credes.

    Anne Fink
    how about you tell us how you envisage a simply secure Jewish State where all those splendid civil practices can coexist while your beloved palestinians and other arabs are still sticking to the extermination of all Jews in sight and on site. Frothing at the typewriter with incongruities of political activism will not suffice. As far as I have been educated, a Jew MUST consider at all times the very and simple survival of his own fold. That is because, unbeknown to you, Jews have been targeted for extinction since time immemorial, just in case memory has failed you. You are free to support whatever criminal mob you fancy, but DO NOT lecture us on what Jews should do with their lethal enemies !

  2. Paul Winter says:

    David Singer must again be congratulated on an excellent rebuttal of Arab/mohammedan lies. There is no occupation as a “Palestinian” polity never existed. There is not such thing as a Palestinian only Arabs no different to any other of that ethnicity. It is worthwhile pointing out that on 31.5.56 Ahmed Shukairy told the UNSC that “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria”, confirming the 2.7.19 General Syrian Congress resolution stating “We ask that there should be no separation of the Southern part of Syria, known as Palestine…”; on 9.3.74, Pres. Assad stated “Palestine is a basic part of Southern Syria”; on 31.3.77 Zuhair Muhsin of the PLO stated in the Dutch daily Trouw that “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese…We are on people. Only for political resons do we carefull underline out Palestinian identity.” and in1996, Azmi Bishara stated there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Further, apart from Arab migration to a part of the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate made prosperous by Jews, the Turks had used that region to resettle their subjects expelled from the European parts of their empire as those became independent.

    The Arabs never referred to themselves as Palestinian. That term was applied to Jews such as those who smuggled my family from the Russian to the USA zone of occupied Germany.

    The claim that Jews are colonisers inverts the facts. It was the Arabs who invaded and sought to colonise Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Moreover, those who claim that Jews are only a religious group omit history, archeology, language, culture and more recently genetics as shown by DNA testing.

    On one point, though I would disagree with David, although he is a lawyer and I am not. UNSC 242 was rejected by the Arabs and subsequently repeatedly violated by them. To my legally untrained mind, it seems that trying to force a treaty on one party while the other one rejects and violates it is not only unfair, but makes a mockery of law. I would indeed contend that violations of a ruling invalidates it, particularly as those violations are over a period of time.

    As regards what is to become of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria who are not Israeli citizens, I would suggest that they be given limited self-government like Puerto Rico. As for the notion that it is unacceptable that the “Palestians” be required to surrender, I would ask, well what does a group do when it is defeated? Or to put it another way, why should the Jewish state refrain from responding to their war with such severity as to make their leaders sue for peace or to face death?

    • david singer says:

      To Paul Winter

      Security Council Resolution 242 was unanimously approved by the Council and is binding on all UN member States.

      Various interpretations of the meaning of the Resolution have been put forward.

      However it is clear that the use of the terms “secure and recognized boundaries” ensures that the 1949 armistice line prevailing at 4 June 1967 will not become the final border in any resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict.

      The Arab demand for return of 100% of the territory lost by Jordan in the Six Day War is simply not going to happen.

      Israel is entitled to – and will insist on – secure and recognized boundaries that involve the retention of some parts of the conquered territory. This will also accord with the right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as provided by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

      Israel has made offers to cede its claims in more than 90% of the disputed territory in 2000/1 and 2008. On both occasions the Palestinian Authority rejected such offers. This intransigence has got the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.

      Ironical when you think they could have had it all at anytime between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there after Jordan had driven them out of their homes.

      Wanting it all back now – some 44 years after 500000 Jews have returned to what is their biblical and ancient homeland – is not in my opinion going to eventuate in any negotiations.

    • Ann Fink says:

      Paul you are very consistent in you response. So what to do with the subject population once they have accepted the terms of surrender? Clearly limited self government doesn’t work. it was tried in the 70’s and now with so many more Jews settled in these same “autonomous” areas, it would be even more difficult. The Palestinians have seen how the Arab Spring has spread and witnessed the benefits of democracy enjoyed by Israelis. is it really likely that they will want to continue to live under such a degree of suppression? Or do you argue that that unfortunately should be their fate?

      • Paul Winter says:

        To Anne Fink:

        Terms of surrender would need to be no more than: cessation of aggression and incitement; accepting Israeli control of borders; accepting Isreali control of foreign relations; setting up a democratic (not sharia or tribally based), corruption free, self supporting administration .

        During the 70s the lives of the Arabs was better, according to Arab journalist Khaled abu Toameh. The local Arabs failed to sieze the initiative to become autonomous. The “settlements” are a furphy; they occupy a mere 1.7% of Judea and Samaria. Moreover, with Arab control of Area A, with 95% of the their population, joint control Area B and Israeli control of Area C, much of those areas being uninhabited, there is no reason for not establishing an autonomous enclave next to Israel.

        The “suppression” of Palestinian Arabs is minor, certainly when compared to the “freedom” of Copts and Kurds, or of Iranians and Sudanese under islamist rule, and was brought upon themselves. They had better lives until the PA was imposed on them or before they took courage by abusing Jewish humanity and respect for life. The moral of the story is that you cannot have all the freedoms of democracies if you blow up your neighbours, make heros of self-exploders and teach your children to live to die, provided that they take a few Jews with them.

        The Arabs could prosper and live in dignity if they abandoned the supremicism of their religion and learned that the respect they demand for themselves comes at the cost of respecting the rights of others. They also need to learn that if you lose a war you started, you cannot dictate terms of surrender to your conqueror, even if in your eyes they are merely dhimmis.

  3. Norman Trubik says:

    Newt Gingrich is spot on

  4. Ann Fink says:

    David,
    You and the others advocate against a Palestinian state, for all the reasons, historical, national, security etc. presented above. However none of you actually spells out what should happen to the present population in the areas which you object to being called “occupied”. If these areas, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are to be part of Israel, proper, what will be the status of the Arabs presently living in those areas. Will they be equal citizens with equal rights to voting, social security etc. Why are you all so reluctant to answering this question? We can’t change what went before. We have to deal with the present. If we do annex, what then? I await your answers with great curiosity.

    • ben says:

      Two possibilities or a convergence of both. “redemption” of the land favoured by the rightwing or “aparthied” favoured by Labour. What is happening is a convergence of both plans – slow expulsion of Palestinians – the bedouin inside Israel – and creeping annexation of the land by forcing the Palestinins into smaller bantustans. Making the pressure so high that the relatively wealthy will emigrate to the west and the vast majority of the poor will be pushed into Jordan and a small group will remain as semi-slave labour without citizenship rights in the West Bank.

  5. ben says:

    Hello david personal abuse only betrays bankruptcy and mental insecurity.

  6. ben says:

    The mandatory power was an act of hypocricy imposed on the Arabs. The Arabs including the Palstinins opposed and fought against the mandate, the Zionists collaborated with the British in suppressing the Palestinin struggle for freedom. Orde charles Windage was the chief architech of the military collaboration.

    Palestine was a Class A mandate.
    Here is what the covenant says. Art.22. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existance as independent NATIONS can be provisionally recognised subject to rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory power until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be the principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory.

    Colnial paternalism and hypocricy, but at least the ackonwledgment of incipient nationality. The british used the mandate to colonise Palestine and used thee xcuse of the mandate to deny independence to Palestine. The consent of the community was totally absent in making the Balfour declaration.

  7. ben says:

    Hello Sabra Israel homeland! SO the Berbers of Moroco, the Falasmura of ethiopia, the baghdadis or Iraq, the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Shanivar Teli and Cochinites of India, the Poles and Russians have a common homeland ! Does that mean the Catholics of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, France and Phillipines have a common homeland!

  8. Rita says:

    Daphne Anson writes on her blog: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/

    “David Singer, the Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst, has written a characteristically crackerjack article entitled ‘Palestine – “End The Occupation” and “Right the Wrongs”’…..I think that, like all of his articles, it deserves as wide an audience as possible. (my bolds)

    I fully agree with her.

  9. david singer says:

    To Ben

    Another brain dead contribution – as usual.

    You are confusing the territory called “Palestine” and the Moslem, Christian and Jewish populations who lived there.

    Your revelation of the “Anglo Palestine Bank” is hardly breathtaking. You could have also mentioned the “Palestine Post” and the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra” – both of which were Jewish institutions.

    In the 1922 Mandate as confirmed by the League of Nations – the then Moslem and Christian populations living in Palestine were described as “the existing non-Jewish communities”.

    Why did the 1947 UN Partition Resolution call for the partition of Western Palestine into “Jewish” and “Arab” States? The answer is pretty simple. There was still no defined group called “Palestinians” in 1947 as far as the UN was concerned.

    It was only in 1964 that the Arab residents of former Palestine claimed “Palestine” (including what is today called Jordan) as their sole and exclusive property and arbitrarily assumed the title “Palestinians” – seeking to snuff out any rights of the non-Arab residents of former Palestine as well as the two existing UN member states – Israel and Jordan.

    Turning international law on its head has indeed been one of the Arab world’s greatest successes – yet one of its greatest failures. It has kept a conflict raging for 130 years that should have been settled in 1947 and perhaps even earlier in 1937.

    This giant propaganda con has obviously claimed you as one of its victims. You have swallowed it hook line and sinker as your factually incorrect and misleading posts continue to indicate.
    .

    • ben says:

      The NIda Filistani existed before the partition paln. The realisation of nationhood is a historial process that in the Third World happened during the struggle against colonisation. The “German nation” did not exist before unification, only Prussians, bavarians, Saxons as was the case with the “French people’ or the “Italian Nation”. The Palestinian national consciousness was a process arising out of their struggle against British colonisation and Zionist collaboration with the colnial rule.
      The people existed there in a dfined geographic territory for centuries as indigenous inhabitants. The PLo charter makes no distinction on religious grounds, Jews living in Jerusalem before Zionist colonisation were recognised as Palestinian.

      The same ounditry that denies historical process in identity formation. There was no “Australia” before the 18th century. Presto there are no “Australians”.

    • ben says:

      Jabotinsky writing in 1923 mentions Palestinian Arabs, he carried out the Zionist project and represents the dominant political stream in Israel today, so the Palestinian Arabs are not Palestinins!

  10. Liat Nagar says:

    David Singer outlines the basic facts that actually exist now within the historical framework of 1937 through to the present day. It’s this that’s being ignored in the current debates, protests, et al. History is being rewritten and replaced with a mythology that the Arabs are very successfully dramatising. Have you heard that in their eyes the Jewish people don’t even have historical connections to the land of Israel, that there is a Jewish religion, but not an ethnic Jewish people, and that all Jews who live in the diaspora are simply citizens of the land in which they live,and nothing more, with no entitlement to anything else? This no doubt will be the next stage of Arab propaganda and if it were to succeed … well, there might not be such a thing as a Jew any more. That’s probably the motivation behind it and if it were to succeed ultimately no doubt the world at large will be pleased and we can become the ‘invisible people’.The current Arab mythology, so cogently and cleverly espoused, is politically based and so emotionally charged that it has grown to the point of becoming ‘fact’ in the minds of many, overriding to the point of oblivion the documented past of the land spoken of as ‘Palestine’. The area designated by the name Palestine has never been a country, the Arabs did not name this land to which they are claiming rights and adhering a historical consciousness. Most of us reading J-Wire do know its chequered history, and in attempting to be fair-minded, we should never lose sight of those facts. As long ago as March 1977, the Dutch daily, Trouw, reported that Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, said, ‘Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel …’ . And, in 1969 Abdel Razak Kader said, ‘The Palestinians who are today’s refugees in the neighboring countries … know this … that their present nationalist exploiters are the worthy sons of their feudal exploiters of yesterday, and that the thorns of their life are of Arab, not Jewish origin.’ It’s quite possible that your average Palestinian person believes for him/herself quite genuinely that the current claims are just and come from a true place; and this is what can happen if you say something loud enough and long enough, a mythology can come true.

  11. Adam Subtractem says:

    Thank you Mr David Singer for another thoughtful and factual account of history and your comments to enlighen us all on the new tactics employed by the PLO to weaken Israel and pressure the UN.

    However, its sad to ready comments after your well written article by some calling himself Ben.

    It’s a shame people like Ben exist, and so we all really should try an ignore his ignorant comments made by him and people like him.

    But unfornately its people like him who spread this insanity and bleed their hearts over a people who have never helped themselves and never tried to make peace by peaceful means.

    This person Ben, who comments after your article is a significant part of the problem and its people like Ben who will always be in the way of there ever being peace in the Wonderful nation State of Israel. Please do NOT let his comments ever affect your good work and solid commentry.

    Keep up the Fantastic work Mr Singer!! You are a strong voice amoungst a quiet minority of peoples spread thoughout the world.
    AG

    • david singer says:

      To Adam Subtractem

      Thanks for your kind comments.

      Maybe Newt Gingrich’s comments that the Palestinians are an invented people – which remarkably were made at the same time as I pointed this out in my article – indicate that the truth may be starting to emerge to counter the decades of propaganda that has no truth or substance whatsoever – and which the Bens of this world have swallowed and parroted ad nauseum.

      • ben says:

        Hello David Singer You forgot to read Jabotinsky’s article in full. Gingrich was speaking before a Zionist TV. Rep. Ron Paul, Gen. James Petreus and Meirschemer are the true indicators of the way the sinking US empire is going on its support for Israel. Even American Jews realise this and J street is trying to moderate the Zionist line in the US.

        • david singer says:

          ben

          I think Newt Gingrich’s views as a potential Presidential candidate cannot be so easily dismissed

          Gingrich was saying what is fact – that the “Palestinians” never existed until they were invented as an Arabs only exclusive club in 1964 with the sole proprietary rights to Palestine.

          Palestinian Arabs before 1964, Palestinian Jews before 1964, Palestinian Christians before 1964 – yes. “Palestinians” before 1964 – No

          Another set of facts conveniently ignored by you.

  12. Ann Fink says:

    David Singer is reiterating that which Ilan Pappe and many Palestinians have long suggested. All that remains of the “peace process” is for the “Palestinians” to sign on to the “terms of surrender.”

    If and when they do, and it now seems most likely, when, what exactly does David Singer suggest happens to the population, whatever it may be called, now living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem?

    Will they become equal citizens with the rest of the inhabitants of today’s Israel? Is David Singer advocating a one state solution, democratic and secular?. If he isn’t will he please spell out exactly what he does think should be the status of the present inhabitants of “Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem”?

    • david singer says:

      To Ann Fink

      It really does not matter what I think. What is important is what the parties agree on.

      My article pointed out that any negotiations must take into account that Jews have the legal right in international law to close settlement in the West Bank on the land including State land and waste land not required for public purposes.

      This right must be recognised in any negotiations that take place to determine the sovereignty of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

      Calling the West Bank and East Jerusalem “occupied Palestinian territory” or calling for a Palestinian State “within the 1967 lines” is attempting to prejudge the final determination of the issue of sovereignty ahead of those negotiations.

      Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 provide that Israel is entitled to secure and recognised boundaries.

      Israel and the Palestinian Authority now need to determine those boundaries in direct negotiations.

      Whilst no one is negotiating the current status quo will continue.

      If the “Palestinians sign on to the terms of surrender” (your words not mine) those living on the Israel side of the border would become Israelis and those living beyond that border would become Palestinians.

      When those expanded boundaries have been determined ( since the 1967 line does not give Israel the security it requires) all the residents residing within those newly defined boundaries will be Israeli citizens. All those living outside

      • Ann Fink says:

        Thank you David for your response. You indicate that you envisage that large areas of Samaria, Judea and East Jerusalem should (would ) be annexed under a negotiated settlement. I am still anxious to know what, in light of the situation of the Palestinian population of already annexed East Jerusalem, would be the fate of Palestinians in those areas annexed after a negotiated settlement. You are being a little coy in saying “It really does not matter what I think”. You are not so shy when it comes to speaking your mind on the direction you think the negotiations should take. The civil rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem are still very precarious, (e.g. they can vote in municipal elections but not in State elections; they have no rights of residency; can be expelled for a variety of reasons, (not related to security issues). So how can anyone have any faith in further negotiated settlements. Hence the use of the phrase “terms of surrender” with which many of your admirers have no issue. As this is a blog on which we all feel free to speak our thoughts, even if they do not affect israeli govt. policy, I am bemused by your reticence when it comes to such a practical matter.

        • david singer says:

          Ann

          I have personally held the view for the last 35 years that the sovereignty of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem should be determined in direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – and possibly Egypt as well.

          This view was subsequently reinforced by the signing of a Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994 which set out how many of the contentious issues such as water, refugees and Jerusalem were to be dealt with.

          However since the prevailing political viewpoint calls for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine (in addition to Jordan) then this can only happen if the current stalled negotiations are resumed to achieve the two state solution as predicated under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

          My own personal view is that any further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority will end up going nowhere – and I have written to this effect for many years. At this point of time my analysis has proved correct.

          However the political reality is that Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Quartet are all singing the same tune – but with different lyrics – on the necessity to resume those negotiations.

          We have to wait and see whether those negotiations are ever resumed and if so – where they lead to.

          Restoring the status quo as existed at 4 June 1967 – as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances since then – still seems to me the most sensible way forward – even though Jordan appears unwilling to become involved at this stage.

          It won’t mean a comprehensive peace but it will determine how sovereignty of the last 5% of Palestine still remaining unallocated between the two successor states to the Mandate is resolved.

          The Arabs presently have the opportunity to get their second state in former Palestine in the major part of what they rejected in 1937, in 1947 and could have had at any time between 1948 and 1967, and what was offered to them in 2001 and 2008.

          Will they blow it once again?

          That is where we are at the moment.

      • ben says:

        Right under international law! IS that reflected in the decisions of the ICJ ?

  13. ben says:

    Here is a little paragraph from Vladimir Jabotinsky, the inspiration behind Lehi, Etzel, Betair and Likud.

    “Compromisers in our midst will attempt to convinve us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is good for them……Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine’ into the “land of Israel.” (The Iron Wall 1923)

  14. ben says:

    A piece of racists historical re-writing. The first Zionist bank was called the, wait, Anglo-palestine Bank. And Palestinins do not exists. At least read Jabotinsky who is far more honest in stating the intentions of Zionism and acknowledging the Palestinins.

    • Norman Trubik says:

      The fact that the first Jewish bank in Palestine was called the Anglo-Palestine bank simply referred to the geographic area. It does not prove that a Palestinian nation existed. Jabotinsky, who expoused a minority right wing view of Zionism also did not recognize a Palestinian nation. He recognized that there were Arabs in Palestine. A large number of these Arabs came into Palestine due to the work opportunities which the Jews made possible with their agricultural activities. The Peel Commission acknowledged that as much as 350,000 Arabs flocked into Palestine between 1850 and 1940 specifically to obtain work with Jewish employers. Read the Commission’s report.

    • Sabra says:

      who are you Ben? You have a Jewish name yet your comment is obviously anti-Israel. Does it matter to you whether Israel exists or not? Your homeland? I wonder that you don’t think about a future without Israel. Which is what Hamas’ stated intention is and the Palestinian people do not want a 2 state solution – they want one state: Israel!!

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments