mepeace.org

Bolivia cuts ties with Israel, seeks genocide charges against Israeli officials

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055502.html


Last update - 19:36 14/01/2009
Bolivia cuts ties with Israel, seeks genocide charges against Israeli officials
By Reuters
Tags: gaza, hamas, bolivia

Bolivian President Evo Morales said on Wednesday that his country is breaking diplomatic ties with Israel over its 19-day-old campaign in Gaza, and said he will ask the International Criminal Court to bring genocide charges against top Israeli officials.




"
Advertisement
Bolivia had diplomatic relations with Israel. [But] considering these grave attacks against...humanity, Bolivia will stop having diplomatic relations with Israel," Morales said in a speech before diplomats in the government palace.

"We haven't received official confirmation from the Bolivian government," the Israeli consul in La Paz, Roberto Nelkenbaum, told Reuters by telephone.

The diplomat said he was "surprised and sad" after hearing Morales' comments in local media and that the two countries have had good diplomatic relations for more than 50 years.

Israel launched the offensive in Gaza on Dec. 27, seeking to force the ruling Hamas militant group to stop rocket attacks on southern Israel.

Morales, a leftist, is a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who on Jan. 6 expelled Israel's ambassador in protest over the operation in Gaza.

Morales told the country's diplomatic corps that the Israeli attack seriously threatened world peace and he called for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet to face criminal charges.

Morales chided the United Nations' "Insecurity Council" for its lukewarm response to the crisis and said the UN General Assembly should condemn the invasion.

He also said President Shimon Peres should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for failing to stop the invasion.

Morales and Chavez have worked to cultivate ties to Iran, which supports
Hamas. Morales met Tuesday with visiting Iranian officials, who gave him a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanking Morales for his previously voicing supporting for the Palestinians.

Views: 70

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Chávez, allies manipulating anti-Israel views

BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
BUENOS AIRES -- Here's what surprised me the most during a weeklong vacation in Argentina and Uruguay: People seem to be following the Middle Eastern conflict in Gaza much more closely -- and passionately -- than in the United States.

Newspapers in this corner of the world are splashing headlines about the conflict across their front pages, much more prominently than the global financial crisis or local stories. On television, the Israeli attack on the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza after the group's constant rocket attacks is the focus of debates, with most voices criticizing Israel.

Hamas, which the United States and the European Union officially consider a sponsor of terrorism , is often not identified as such in the South American media.

In social dinners with politicians, business leaders and diplomats, I got more questions about President-elect Barack Obama's likely Middle Eastern policy than anything else. It's pretty much the same elsewhere in South America.

Earlier this week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez -- who has signed a ''strategic alliance'' with Iran, main state sponsor of Hamas -- expelled the Israeli ambassador, citing Israel's alleged ''genocide'' in Gaza. While there were heated street rallies in Miami and other U.S. cities, in South American cities they have been bigger and more violent.

Argentina's government-backed leftist street protests organizer Luis D'Elia, who this week confirmed to Noticias magazine that he had received $1 million from Cuba to pay for anti-American protests during President George W. Bush's 2005 visit to Argentina, on Tuesday led a rally in front of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. Protesters threw paint and other objects at the mission.

What is going on? I asked myself. Is it because Argentina and Uruguay have large Jewish and Arab communities? Is it because of a somewhat perverse subliminal feeling of comfort that people in other regions have it worse than South Americans?

ALL ABOUT POLITICS

Many people told me that it all boils down to politics, and petro-dollars. Chávez and his allies, including Argentina's President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, are importing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a region where Jews and Muslims used to live in significant harmony.

The region's involvement in Middle Eastern politics has intensified since 2006, when Chávez first hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has since returned to Venezuela, and has also visited Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia, in addition to receiving other Latin American presidents in Tehran.

Ahmadinejad signed several economic and political agreements, including plans to finance new pro-government television and radio stations in Bolivia and other Latin American countries.

Emilio Cardenas, a former Argentine ambassador to the United Nations, says Iran and Venezuela are benefiting from stirring up anti-Israeli sentiment in the region.

When the Venezuelan government-financed regional Telesur television station feeds free footage of Palestinian children hit by Israeli bombs to Argentine and other Latin American television stations, the not-so-subliminal message is that Washington is backing an atrocity, Cardenas said.

''For Chávez, knocking on Israel is knocking on the United States,'' Cardenas said. ``Stirring up anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment is functional to both Venezuelan and Iran's political propaganda purposes.''
Venezuela's Chavez urges tear gas against protests

Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:19am GMT

CARACAS, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered police on Saturday to use tear gas on anti-government protests that block roads, heating up a campaign for a referendum that could allow him to run for re-election.

Venezuelans will vote next month on a proposed change to the constitution that would allow Chavez, a foe of the United States, to seek re-election when his term ends in four years.

In 2007, voters rejected a package of political reforms that would have allowed him to run again for the top office.

Small groups of students in gas masks and wielding plastic shields protested the proposal this week. They threw stones at police, blocked a highway and were accused of setting fire to a national park. Chavez said police on his orders used tear gas to disperse the protest.

Chavez said the protest was part of a U.S.-backed plan to destabilize the oil-exporting nation ahead of the referendum.

On Saturday, he told security forces to use gas and water cannons at the first sign of trouble.

"Interior Ministry, spray them with gas and dissolve any disturbance. We cannot begin showing weakness as a government," Chavez said during a campaign meeting at a historic Venezuelan battleground.

Popular for raising the living standards of poor Venezuelans, Chavez has governed for a decade but says he needs 10 more years to extend social reforms in one of the United States' main oil suppliers.

Polls last month showed the new proposal had about 40 percent support, although pollsters expect that to rise.

Chavez frequently lashes out at opponents and the United States during election campaigns. He tries to motivate supporters with the idea enemies are planning his overthrow.

On Saturday, the leftist leader said U.S. President-elect Barack Obama encouraged Venezuela's opposition to remove him, saying Obama called him an obstacle to progress in Latin America.

Last week, Chavez threatened to expel a U.S. diplomat he accused of meeting with Venezuelan opposition leaders in Puerto Rico. The U.S. Embassy denies the meeting.

Relations with the United States have worsened since a brief 2002 coup against Chavez that was initially welcomed by Washington. In September, Chavez expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela. (Editing by Peter Cooney)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
JOURNALISTS' VIEWS

My opinion: I'm not surprised by what Chávez is doing. He is in trouble because of falling oil prices, and needs a conflict with Washington to try to justify his increasingly authoritarian rule. And I'm not surprised that Argentina's official media are buying Chávez's line: Venezuela has become the Argentine government's main -- perhaps only -- financial backer recently.

But it's sad that many respected Latin American journalists, while rightly demanding an end to hostilities, are failing to remind their audiences that Hamas is waging a religious war that officially calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel, constantly launches rockets into Israeli territory and triggered the latest conflict by breaking a cease-fire.

If Argentina, Uruguay or any other country were suffering from daily rocket attacks by a group that is openly bent on destroying it, I seriously doubt that it would act any differently than Israel did.

Not to recognize that -- and the fact that, unlike Israel, Hamas terrorists intentionally target civilians with rockets and suicide attacks and then use the civilian population as human shields -- is intellectually dishonest, and flirts with racism against an ethnic group that not too long ago suffered the biggest holocaust in memory.
Hi Basil

Stewart's figures, as stated, are rather naive and misleading. And yes:. close to close to 60 million died and possibly many more as result of the NAZIs quests to rule the world.

Yes. The NAZIs tried to genocidally exterminate all Jews and the Roma.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948, was a fan of this endeavor. He was the key Arab leader of the attempt to drive the Jews of Palestine into the sea in 1947/8.

The word Holocaust was used initially, unlike Stewart's claim, to describe the NAZIs industrialized and systematic genocide of The Jews and The Roma.

Technically the NAZIs quest to KILL all other categories of people Stewart chooses to list (and that list is not exhaustive) is NOT genocide. For Stewart though, accuracy of terminology seems important. Go figure!

Yes though. All people targeted by the NAZIs must be remembered, and their memory honored.

NEVER AGAIN!

Yet we Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, and so on. Millions and millions really germicidally slaughtered in the name of greed and ???isms.

NEVER AGAIN?

The man plays with words to try to score subtle(?) and trivial political points!

BUNKUM!
Paul,

1. Seek for a way to keep the posts focused on the issues and not insulting a person's dignity by name calling eg use of derogatory words like naive

I am saddened you have responded in the way you have about me personally. This is has been a bit of a pattern in your responses which is disappointing. Personal name calling or put-downs neither aids in a dialogue nor follows the spirit of mepeace guidelines. If you re-read the previous posts on this topic I would hope you can see that the reason I posted my comment on the Irish Holocaust was because you had asked Basil if it was the same as the Great Irish Famine. I too was curious so I researched your question and posted my findings to save Basil time. During my search I also found a link that mentioned other groups killed in the Nazi concentration camps. I thought it was important to remeber the Roma people in particular who were also subjected to genocide.

http://www.mepeace.org/forum/topics/bolivia-cuts-ties-with-israel?p...

I posted this supplementary section under the title European Shoah. This was a term which you found offensive. Let me be clear there was no malice in my choice of the term European Shoah. I merely preceded the term Shoah with the word European so as to remind us where the Shoah took place - in Europe. This is critical as later Western nations were quite sympathetic to the creation of a Jewish state in this region given immense remorse from the Shoah. The problem is it meant Palestinian Arabs were meant to bear the burden of the sins of Europe by creating a Jewish State in the Arab world which had not had a Jewish state for over two thousand years. How was such an act fair to Palestinian Arabs? Yes it is important to acknowledge the indigenous Jewish population of the region. But this does not give one people a right to undermine the sovereignty of another people.

2. Avoid demonsing a people based on the acts of an individual

You later talk about Haj Amin al-Husseini and try and use him as a way to connect Palestinian Arabs to the European Shoah. I will not defend Haj Amin al-Husseni and I am well aware of the critique of Husseini from those who wish to demonise a people based on one individual. Still the fact remains the Shoah of European Jews took place in Europe as a consequence of Europeans not Arabs.

3. Distinguishing the total number of deaths in WWII and the number killed in Nazi concentration camps

Paul, later Basil talks about the total number of people lost in the whole of World War II and gives a figure of 60 million. This is to be distinguished from what I had been talking about. Please reread the post I was focused on the deaths due to the Nazi concentration system. I do not know why you would then make the leap to conflate the figures I listed as being anything greater than what they were. If you knew me or have read my work you will know quite well I am fully aware that the total number of deaths due to World War II is well over 50 million.

4. The expulsions and emigration of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews

The expulsions and emigration of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews that occurred post 1948-1950s needs to be seen in light of the war of 1948, and the collapse of the idea of a unitary Palestinian state and the prevention of Palestinian Arabs from returning to their homes following Israel's efforts to block the right of return. It was this event (in conjunction with false flag operations) that triggered Arab Jews to be expelled or forced to migrate because a rise in Anti-Semitism as a consequence of Israel's actions.

5. Treating each other as peers rather than as naive, thoughtless individuals

My hope is that on mepeace we can look at each others as peers. Focus on the issues and avoid resorting to name calling or put-downs if we do not understand or do not agree with another member's views.
A GENERAL RESPONSE

Dear Stewart,

What you write above provides important additional and relevant facts for all here. I will respond separately to them, using your structure. What you write above IS NOT related to the original issue. That is
"I now consider that your use and justification of The European Shoah. is clearly intended to malign and to offend The Jewish People and that it is a deliberately calculated and malicious affront to The Jewish People."

Now I will just respond about the INITIAL ISSUES deaths in concentration camps and the use of "The Shoah".

(1) Concentration camps

Most concentration camps housed people who were gathered for forced labor to work in Germany's industries. My understanding is that only The Jews and The Gypsies and the homosexuals and physically imperfect who were gathered together for extermination.

Exterminating homosexuals and physically imperfect is NOT genocide.

For the above reasons, your genocide-related statistics are just plain inaccurate. Sure, all those people died. But that was mass murder and NOT genocide and certainly not any SHOAH!

(2) The European Shoah

I stand by all that wrote in http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:195225 ,and consider that I've proved the case in that post.

"I now consider that your use and justification of The European Shoah. is clearly intended to malign and to offend The Jewish People and that it is a deliberately calculated and malicious affront to The Jewish People."

If the above is an accurate assessment, and I think that it is, then my (possibly unfairly) suggesting that you may be naive, is just a mild slap on the wrist in comparison.

You have ignored responding to the above point, Stewart. You have ignored the substance of my issue. The extra points you add are just window dressing.

Summary: Stewart knowingly offends others. Doing that is NOT naive. Then Stewart claims to be offended by a response! ==> BUNKUM!

Note: I AM FOCUSING ON THE ISSUES: THE SUBSTANCE!
This is my DETAILED response to Stewart's http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:195822. Stewart's whole original is embedded as
quotes that look like this.

Here we go....

Paul,
1. Seek for a way to keep the posts focused on the issues and not insulting a person's dignity by name calling eg use of derogatory words like naive.

That sounds wonderful and fair!

I am saddened you have responded in the way you have about me personally.

I am also saddened that things are the way they are.

This is has been a bit of a pattern in your responses which is disappointing.

I feel the same way about you Stewart. I too notice a pattern in your responses that I find very disappointing.

Personal name calling or put-downs neither aids in a dialogue nor follows the spirit of mepeace guidelines.

I agree. And so is the need for REAL cultural sensitivity about other groups people. Here are Eyal's guidelines:

Guidelines:

2. Do not trivialize or dismiss other people's experiences or their views. Engage with them respectfully.

3. Do not belittle or post generalizations about groups. Seriously respect them.


It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3

If you re-read the previous posts on this topic I would hope you can see that the reason I posted my comment on the Irish Holocaust was because you had asked Basil if it was the same as the Great Irish Famine. I too was curious so I researched your question and posted my findings to save Basil time. During my search I also found a link that mentioned other groups killed in the Nazi concentration camps. I thought it was important to remember the Roma people in particular who were also subjected to genocide.

May be nice but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

I posted this supplementary section under the title European Shoah. This was a term which you found offensive. Let me be clear there was no malice in my choice of the term European Shoah. I merely preceded the term Shoah with the word European so as to remind us where the Shoah took place - in Europe.

May be nice but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

This is critical as later Western nations were quite sympathetic to the creation of a Jewish state in this region given immense remorse from the Shoah.

Possibly true but really irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

The problem is it meant Palestinian Arabs were meant to bear the burden of the sins of Europe by creating a Jewish State in the Arab world which had not had a Jewish state for over two thousand years.

Possibly true but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

How was such an act fair to Palestinian Arabs? Yes it is important to acknowledge the indigenous Jewish population of the region. But this does not give one people a right to undermine the sovereignty of another people.

Possibly true but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

2. Avoid demonsing a people based on the acts of an individual

Agreed.

You later talk about Haj Amin al-Husseini and try and use him as a way to connect Palestinian Arabs to the European Shoah.

That claim of yours is demonstrably false! It is true however that the Palestinian Arab leadership and their armed forces attempted to drive the Jews into the sea in 1947/8. The resulting ethnically cleansed West bank and East Jerusalem and Gaza are CLEAR PROOF of that!

I will not defend Haj Amin al-Husseni and I am well aware of the critique of Husseini

Good to know.

from those who wish to demonise a people based on one individual.
.
He was not just any one individual and was not alone. The Palestinian Arab leadership and their armed forces attempted to drive the Jews into the sea in 1947/8. The resulting ethnically cleansed West bank and East Jerusalem and Gaza are CLEAR PROOF of that!

Still the fact remains the Shoah of European Jews took place in Europe as a consequence of Europeans not Arabs.

Yes. That is true. And no Palestinian person is responsible for any of "The Shoah". But blind Freddy sees that. So?

3. Distinguishing the total number of deaths in WWII and the number killed in Nazi concentration camps
Paul, later Basil talks about the total number of people lost in the whole of World War II and gives a figure of 60 million. This is to be distinguished from what I had been talking about. Please reread the post I was focused on the deaths due to the Nazi concentration system. I do not know why you would then make the leap to conflate the figures I listed as being anything greater than what they were. If you knew me or have read my work you will know quite well I am fully aware that the total number of deaths due to World War II is well over 50 million.

May be nice to know but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

4. The expulsions and emigration of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews The expulsions and emigration of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews that occurred post 1948-1950s needs to be seen in light of the war of 1948, and the collapse of the idea of a unitary Palestinian state and the prevention of Palestinian Arabs from returning to their homes following Israel's efforts to block the right of return. It was this event (in conjunction with false flag operations) that triggered Arab Jews to be expelled or forced to migrate because a rise in Anti-Semitism as a consequence of Israel's actions.

May be nice to know but irrelevant. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3.

5. Treating each other as peers rather than as naive, thoughtless individuals
My hope is that on mepeace we can look at each others as peers. Focus on the issues and avoid resorting to name calling or put-downs if we do not understand or do not agree with another member's views.

I agree. That is why I was polite in the beginning.

You then acknowledged and tried to justify your deliberate hijacking of "The Shoah" to score points. That is what I find UNACCEPTABLE. It seems to me Stewart that you knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3. If you do not understand that, Stewart, then the kindest thing I can say is that you are naive.

Had you not used Shoah, Stewart, then your "nice to knows" would have been accepted as just that.

I believe Stewart knowingly and deliberately and offensively misused "The Shoah" and thus seriously breached Guidelines 2 and 3. That, in my view, is a far more severe breach of the Guidelines then simply suggesting that someone is naive. I also believe that, with Stewart's help, I have proved the case for that before.
What do I really want?

I want Stewart to formally apologize for misusing "The Shoah"!

The case is put in full at http://www.mepeace.org/xn/detail/661876:Comment:195225

Then next! (Meaning let's move on)...
Hi Stewart,

you wrote: "where the Shoah took place - in Europe. This is critical as later Western nations were quite sympathetic to the creation of a Jewish state in this region given immense remorse from the Shoah. The problem is it meant Palestinian Arabs were meant to bear the burden of the sins of Europe by creating a Jewish State in the Arab world which had not had a Jewish state for over two thousand years"

It surprises me, as this is little more than repeating the Arab narrative which has no basis in historical reality. The Jewish homeland in the region was decided in 1920 (long long before the Holocaust), which couldn't be clearer from the League of Nations "Mandate for Palestine" of 12 August 1922. In 1924 the mandated area of Palestine was fairly divided amongst its residents, with 80% east of the Jordan river going to the Palestinians. The only problem lay in the refusal by some groups of Arabs to accept any partition that would see the Jews on any of the land, even that which they had purchased. The ensuing violence remains a festering sore to this day. This contrasts starkly with the partition of India about the same time that led to the creation of Pakistan. Just so there is no misunderstanding, the only reason the UN dealt with partition in 1947 was because Britain officially ended its mandate, reporting the failure to instigate the Jewish homeland that was demanded by the League of Nations in the Mandate decision, not because of the Holocaust. Had partition been rejected, the legalities would have meant that the entire area would have reverted to its 1924 status of "Jewish homeland", but with another mandate to replace the British, Jews would have been robbed of the ability to declare a state, which is why they favoured partition.

They say every coin has two sides. You say the area known as Palestine "had not had a Jewish state for over two thousand years". I say it has had no other lasting independent state in all that time, but has been part of one Empire or another starting with the Roman and ending with the Ottoman. You say the Arabs lost out after the Holocaust, I say the Jews did, because all the land west of the Jordan river was earmarked to be a Jewish homeland, and the violent refusal to accept the 1924 partition led to the decision to further partition that Jewish homelend. Britain's change of allegience to Jordan, and subsequent limiting of Jewish immigration in direct contravention of its mandate set the stage for the ensuing conflict.

This isn't about ping-ponging who's right and who's wrong, but the least we can can do in making judgements is to get the facts right. The reality is, whatever the history, we now have a certain make-up of demogaphy to deal with. Israel has been a thriving state for 60 years and many generations and requires no "solution". We all need to resolve the Palestinian problem for there to be peace. A good starting point would be if the terrorist groups could accept the truth of what I just said ... Israel isn't going anywhere, and trying to destroy it is only bringing more and more grief to the Palestinians.
Mick I agree with the sentiments of your last point that the sooner people accept this region needs to provide security for both Jewish and Palestinian people the better. Hamas needs to be realise just as Fatah and the PLO did that recognition of Israel's right to exist is an integral part of the peace process. When I say this I emphasise that there is a spectrum of views within Hamas leadership on this issue.

On your historical points I believe we have had this conversation before. The League of Nations mandate was based on the Balfour Declaration which means that in order to understand what it meant it is necessary to understand the British negotiations on this issue. The British White Paper of 1922 clarified this stating a home is not a state. So when the League of Nations mandate talks of a home it does not mean a state.

If as you say Transjordan was created as a home for Palestinians then why was it not called Palestine? Why was there not revolt from the people of Haifa, Akko, Jaffa and Jerusalem for the majority of the population who was not Jewish?

Mick as Australians we need to consider the indigenous community given what our ancestors did. Yes there was a Jewish indigenous community in the historic region of the ancient Hebrew people and the Palestinians, however, the Jewish community was just 4% of the region in the 1850s and just 13% in 1919. How is it fair to consider such a community could be given the region at the expense of another people?

Mick if you were born in Haifa in 1880 of Arabic background with generations of ancestry in the region how would you have reacted to the goings on of Britain and the European Jewish nationalist community of the early 20th century?
You're right Stewart, we have covered some of it, but you seem fixated on the term "home". If you check the preamble to the League of Nations "Mandate for Palestine" (12 August 1922) it states clearly "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". I see absolutely no ambiguity in "reconstituting their national home" given that what was there previously that is now being "reconstitued" was a nation state (the term "national home" is even used), but probably more importantly, the fact that the only purpose of the mandates was to establish nations ... Moslem Syria and Christian Lebanon out of the Syrian Mandate, Iraq out of the Mesopatamian Mandate, and Transjordan and Israel out of the Palestinian Mandate. No other party is mentioned anywhere in the document ... so what do you think was meant for this land by the League of Nations in reconstituting the Jewish national home, and enjoining Britain to encourage immigration and set up Jewish governing bodies, if not an independent state?

As to your second question, the name Palestine referred to a geographic area (so named by the Roman Emperor Hadrian), and, as a mandate, encompassed it all. The name "Palestinian" as relating to an Arab person, only came on the scene in the late 1960s, whereas the name for the area goes back to the Romans. During the mandate period, the only people to carry I that defined them as "Palestinian" were the non-Arabs, mostly Jews, whilst the Arabs refused the name, and their ID (and mandate references to them) simply called them "Arabs". Because the original San Remo document only spoke of a "Jewish homeland", the term "Transjordan", as in "across the Jordan" from this Jewish homeland was coined. When Transjordan tried to annex the West Bank in 1950, the named was changed to "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan". It couldn't be called Palestine, because this was the name used for the piece that was left, the piece that was to be the Jewish state (or "national home" if you will).

I'm not sure I underestand your question about revolt. There were certainly major massacres of Jews in 1920, 1921, the 1929 masscre ethnically cleansed Jews out of Hebron, the 1937 massacre. Haj Amin Al Husseini formalised the movement to get Jews out of the area, even making a deal with Hitler to have them all slaughtered in return for aiding the nazis. The torch was then carried by his nephew Yasser Arafat. I'm not sure if that's what you mena by "revolt". Or do you mena a revolt against the British mandate? Because you had that too, but to a far lesser degree.

As to your last question, that you mention Haifa is rather ironic. You see the Jewish community in Haifa dated back to similar times, they lived in friendship, and the Arab population of Haifa remained relatively untouched. There are the original Arab villages still there,and when I lived in Haifa, I visited there and broke bread there. I think you mae the mstake of believing that being a Palestinian Arab is to be a nationalist who seeks a Palestinian state. Clearly that isn't so. When the West Bank was part of Jordan till 1967, there were no intefadas, no demands for independence at all. If you're asking whether Haifa Arabs would have preferred to be part of an Arab state if they could have had all their current benefits, my guess would be yes. But if you're asking whether they would want an independent Palestinian state with the lifestyle of the Arabs around, I know it would be no. Most Arabs in Israel are loyal Israelis who wouldn't change their lifestyle one jot. Many are unhappy about what is happening to the Palestinians, as am I, but that's a world away from wanting to be Palestinian.

But all of this is rather moot. On an individual level people don't get what they want, you can only do what you see as right in the broader sense, the patition of India and creation of Pakistan left many dead, and millions of refugees who left their homes to be part of a new home. But the alternative would have been horrific and unfair in a world that saw self-determination as a right.
I agree Basil.

RSS

Translate mepeace.org

Latest Activity

Amir Salameh updated their profile
Jun 25
Fredda Goldfarb updated their profile
Apr 15
Dr. David Leffler posted a blog post
Apr 9
Yousef Aburaiya posted a status
"im looking for friends at usa"
Feb 19
Yousef Aburaiya posted a status
"im looking for friends at usa"
Feb 19
Yousef Aburaiya posted a status
"im looking for friends at usa"
Feb 19
Yousef Aburaiya posted a status
"im looking for friends at usa"
Feb 19
Robert Roberts posted a blog post

All the core elements of an essay

Essays are very important in the life of students. Writing essays may be daunting in one way or the…See More
Feb 12

Search mepeace.org

"Like" us on Facebook

Promote MEPEACE online

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Eyal Raviv. Supported by One Region, One Future.   ..

Feedback | Report an Issue  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service