Hallo to every one
I hope that some one have an answer to my question
despite all of the support from the Israeli street for the Palestinian people, Why should the government of Israel listen to them and give the Palestinian stat on the 1967 borders while they can leave the situation as it is by going back to negotiations "The slow death" and continue with the building the settlements as they want and no revolution will go against them from the Arab side ؟
<maybe I'm wrong> but this what i can see from the acts of "Netanyahu" against "Abbas"
Moayad, your question is a good one. No one knows for sure what will happen.
The single biggest difference between Israel of yesterday and Israel of today is that the international community takes an interest in the way Israel deals with Palestine.
Years ago it was impossible to find any books about the problems Palestinians were having. I was part of the book trade for many years (still am), and I never once saw a book on Palestine. Today, every big bookshop has about a dozen different titles on Israel and Palestine, and they all sell well. Libraries can be used to access 100’s of titles on every aspect of Israel and Palestine.
The Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries take their orders from the people, albeit too slow and too infrequent, but eventually they are forced to bend to the will of their citizens. The demonstrations in Israel are not yet big enough to have an impact on Netanyahu.
Hello my friend,
Political system is a complex thing and the title "democracy" does not say that the majority rule, it mean that there is a process where the people influence the Government. The Israeli system is not the best we wish, but it has capacities. Soon I hope the Palestinian people will have the same dilema of how, we as the people, influence the Governance so it will serve our real interests.
Israel society has very long interanl political conflict regarding the relationship with the Palestinians, so we see influence of a long debate and political manouvers that created the situation where there are settelment movment and strong political loby that work to maintain this status. in parallel to that there is visible majority of Israelis who seek two state solution and even the Prime minister and the Defence minister are supporting this, but since the Governance depend on coalition, where the small parties have more power, since they are needed for keeping the coalition we ended up this time with a government that has weakness in its ability to decide about borders.
For the solution, that we are looking for, we must also see what is the "palestinian message" to Israel. when the palestinian message is based on Hamas messages (No to Israel, the peace agreement and palestinian state is just a stage to get back the whole arab territory etc.) and when People with good intentions create a world wide pressure to decide what is Israeli border then the "right wing" get stronger because they show that the Palestinian people are not united, and they have a strong group that call for destruction of Israel and when there is a political dispute the palestinians are killing each other.
So for the change in Israel we need to work from both sides toward a border agreement and finalizing the conflict, accept losses for the future revenue of peace and stability. this work need to be done in Israel, in Palestine, and some anti-israelis as Sussan need to evaluate their messages that are one sided and they actually make both side's radicals more powerfull.
I think many Israeli's dont trust Palestinains . They feel all the times that they have given land away the land has been simply used as a launchpad for terror. When Israel ledt the major west bacl cities they got suicide bombers, when they left Gaza they rock rockets into their city. Especially whne you throw Hamas in the mix, Israeli are worried they will be building a hosile state that will try to attack its people, cities, air planes, water resources and so far history has justified their fears.
As for your "slow death" I think this is simply a myth. Israel has demonstrated a number of times that it can take down settlements when it believes it will bring peace - see the Sinai and Gaza...
Although a majority of Israelis see a two state solution, this is only on the condition that they feel like they will have a secure agreement that will not put their lives in danger. Furthermore, any agreement would not be able to include the flooding of Palestinians into their cities, this idea has not been accepted by Palestinain leadership. Furthermore, fact remaisn taht the PA still refuses to talk ands therefore, Israel has little reason to change any settlement policies or come to a conclustion. The Palestinians are pretty much cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The problem with Fred Schlomka’s suggestion is that settlers are living on land from which Palestinians used to make an annual living. These Palestinians are now reliant on financial assistance from the UN. If they are to be financially independent again, Israel needs to purchase their land, so that they have the cash with which to purchase another farm. They also need access to farming properties – they did, after all, own their farms until the IDF forced them off their land.
All of the original 700,000 Arab refugees who were expelled from Israel also made a living on land or from shops and businesses that are now occupied by Jews: Jews who never paid for these properties. The UN indicated to those refugees that they had done a deal with Israel for them to return to their houses and property.
Do you not realize that all the Palestinians living in the OT would be self-supporting right now, if it was possible? Do you not realize that Israel has control of how the UN aid money is spent: all of it in Israel, before the products are trucked into the OT?
Instead of always expecting Palestine to give, it is your turn to give to Palestine.
Palestine cannot be a viable country unless it has a viable economy.
Is the two state solution: but just a dream of the past?
Fred like Sussan says is it really fair to expect the Palestinians just to roll over again?
What you are asking is just a rehash of what Jewish nationalists (from Europe in the main) have been asking since 1881 - for land.
These European Jewish settlers came first under Ottoman rule and established their colonies (which was the term they were called at the time). Britain's conquest of Palestine then facilitated mass immigration of European Jews. This was despite the protests of the 500,000 plus majority non-Jewish population - that made up 90% of the community. These protests were suppressed with violence.
The following table shows the level of immigration (1851-1948). The green represents the non-Jewish community. The dark blue the Jewish and the light blue the level of Jewish immigration.
Ponder this graph for a while. It is only through understanding the stark demographic change in the region (1851-1948) and the actions of the West in accomplishing this that one can understand Palestinian defiance and resistance to such change.
It is is only through empathising with the other that one can understand what caused members of Irgun and Hamas (or the IDF) to commit acts of terror against another. It does not make it right, but from the Palestinian perspective it is about immediate and historical connections to the land and loss of family. From the Jewish perspective it is about historical connections to the land, memories of the Holocaust and persecution, loss of family and the desire for 'never again'.
Fred - your suggestion - in light of all the developments since Oslo - affirms my belief that the two state solution is but a dim dream of the past. I don't think I am premature in saying this. It has been said by a number of commentators over the years and it is becoming more apparent as each day passes that if Israel was committed to two states then it would be doing everything in it power to ensure settlers were not given the full support of the State in expanding onto Palestinian territory.
Uri Avnery is right when he says the two state solution is a state of Israel and a state of settlements. Although I would go one step further and add we must remember that Israel itself was founded on such similar settlement practices.
Baron Maurice de Hirsch (1831-1896)
"[H]e created the Jewish Colonization Association to facilitate mass emigration of Jews from Russia to agricultural colonies particularly in Argentina and Brazil... His agricultural projects led the Chovevei Zion and later Herzl to request Hirsch's support for the Zionist movement, but Hirsch regarded the creation of a Jewish state as a fantasy and refused any assistance."
JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION (ICA)
["A] philanthropic association to assist Jews in depressed economic circumstances or countries of persecution to emigrate and settle elsewhere in productive employment, founded by Baron Maurice de *Hirsch in 1891. It was incorporated in London as a joint-stock company whose other shareholders were Baron Edmond de *Rothschild... De Hirsch's immediate plan envisaged a mass emigration of the Jews from countries in Europe, where they were persecuted, to *Argentina, though circumstances forced ICA to give priority to the various needs of Jews in Europe."
"From 1896 ICA provided financial aid for independent colonists in Gederah, Ḥaderah, Nes Ẓiyyonah, and Mishmar ha-Yarden. In 1899 Baron Edmond de Rothschild transferred to ICA the colonies under his care, and those he himself had founded, providing 15,000,000 francs to finance their further development. He presided over an administrative body, the Palestine Commission, formed in Paris. In the Rothschild colonies ICA introduced new forms of cultivation and other reforms. ICA also continued its previous independent work and purchased land in Lower Galilee in order to found new settlements, Jabneel (Yemma), Bet Gan, Mesḥa (Kefar Tavor), Sejerah (Ilaniyyah), and others. Despite progress, ICA's work was continuously attacked by Zionist opponents who accused it of inept management, wasted funds, and diverse aims. During World War I Rothschild realized that impending political changes necessitated the formation of a stronger organization and established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (*PICA) in 1923."
I find your graph very interesting - it seems to be missing one thing dont you think, Arab immigrants... strange how the Arab population grew even more (percentage wise) then the Jewish purely from natural growth
"... So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have
crowded into the country and multiplied till their
population has increased more than even all world Jewry
could lift up the Jewish population."
-- Winston Churchill
I am sure this will be interesting reading for you Stewart...
Jewish vs Arab immigration (1920-1945): 367,485 Jews: 33,304 Christians and Muslims
The Peters view has been debunked for decades and does not stand up to minimal scrutiny. In Australia we had the terra nullis doctrine used by colonialists to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the dispossession of another people.
The British Mandatory Government in 1946 published the "A Survey of Palestine". Volume I - Page 185 identifies the immigration to the mandatory territory from 1920-1945 based on ethnicity (race). The raw figures are 367,845 Jews and 33,304 (Christians and Muslims).
The demographic of the reality in the region: a rebuttal to the terra nullius view
The bottom line is once one appreciates the demographic reality in the period (1851-1947) one should see why ethically it seems totally inappropriate to try and forcibly create a Jewish state in a region where the majority of the population was not Jewish. The natural and inevitable response from the majority inhabitants would be to resist (be it nonviolent or violent). The Jewish nationalist colonisation of the region post 1881 was not to "a land with no people for a people with no land" but were to a region that was very much inhabited and very settled with its cultural traditions.
The Arab community naturally rejected partition of the region given the historical demographic circumstances. The UN Security Council in March 1948, through the United States advocated for suspending the partition plan in favour of UN Trusteeship and recalled the General Assembly to discuss this new proposal. The Jewish Agency rejected this change of policy.
The relevance of these facts is not to undermine Israel's place as a legitimate nation state today. The relevance is to understand why Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab countries resisted the creation of Israel and why certain Palestinian groups feel they too share a right to self-defence and for security. Secondly, it is a reminder why the 1949 armistice lines are so important. It is this line which is the starting point for present negotiations. If there is ever to be two states then the Palestinian state must be viable. Israel should not be rewarded for capturing further land and then setting up colonies in disregard of the international community and of agreements with the Palestinian people.
For further reading
Chomsky on Peter's book
Noam Chomsky, 'The Fate of an Honest Intellectual'
Excerpted from Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp. 244-248
So after the Peters book got blown out of the water in England, the New York Review assigned it to a good person actually, in fact Israel's leading specialist on Palestinian nationalism [Yehoshua Porath], someone who knows a lot about the subject. And he wrote a review, which they then didn't publish—it went on for almost a year without the thing being published; nobody knows exactly what was going on, but you can guess that there must have been a lot of pressure not to publish it. Eventually it was even written up in the New York Times that this review wasn't getting published, so finally some version of it did appear. It was critical, it said the book is nonsense and so on, but it cut corners, the guy didn't say what he knew.
Actually, the Israeli reviews in general were extremely critical: the reaction of the Israeli press was that they hoped the book would not be widely read, because ultimately it would be harmful to the Jews—sooner or later it would get exposed, and then it would just look like a fraud and a hoax, and it would reflect badly on Israel. They underestimated the American intellectual community, I should say.
Population of Palestine
The rejection of partition plan and and the 1948 UN Trusteeship proposal
A 1986 response to Peter's work.
The mythologising of history - Joan Peter's
Anthony Lewis, "There Were No Indians", The New York Times, 13 January 1986
BOSTON -- Has the life of the mind been so politicized in this country that intellectuals who welcome a book's political conclusion will shrug off challenges to its truth? That is the troubling question raised by the controversy over ''From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine,'' by Joan Peters. The Peters book, published in 1984, makes dramatic assertions on the basis of what it calls fresh historical evidence. It says that Palestine was essentially ''uninhabited'' by Arabs before the Zionist movement began toward the end of the 19th century. The Arabs came in large numbers after that, from nearby countries, drawn by the economic effects of Jewish settlements.
Miss Peters concludes that those who call themselves ''Palestinian Arabs'' - she puts the words in quotes - are mostly recent arrivals and hence have no real moral or historical claim to the land. She argues this in 600 pages of text, footnotes and appendixes.
The book bore strong endorsements on its jacket from such important writers and intellectuals as Saul Bellow, Barbara W. Tuchman, Elie Wiesel and Lucy Dawidowicz. It drew mostly favorable reviews in this country and has recently come out in paperback.
The praise focused on the political significance of Miss Peters's conclusion and on her industry in uncovering history. Thus Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, wrote that ''many historians and journalists, predisposed in their conclusions, have systematically ignored methodologically basic evidence. . . . This book, if read, will change the mind of our generation.''
But Miss Peters's ''evidence'' is cooked. That is what a growing number of scholarly critics have said. It is what I believe.
For example, Miss Peters asserts that in 1893 the western area of Palestine, where Jewish settlement had begun, had a population of 59,431 Jews and 92,300 non-Jews. That shows, she says, that the Zionist settlers were hardly intruding into a land full of Arabs.
But an 1893-94 census by the Ottoman Empire, which then controlled the area, showed a total of 9,817 Jews in all of Palestine and 371,969 Moslems. How did Miss Peters get her results? She used the census only in part, relying also on an estimate by a French traveler of the time, regarded by experts as worthless.
For her claim that immigration from nearby countries greatly swelled the number of Arabs in Palestine, Miss Peters cites scattered statements -often leaving out key words or misrepresenting them. Thus she cites a 1930 British report's mention of ''pseudo-travelers'' who stayed in Palestine to live as if it were referring to Arabs, when the reference was evidently to Jewish travelers.
In small ways as well as large the book is slippery. Miss Peters says a report by the Institute for Palestine Studies found that 68 percent of the Arabs who became refugees in 1948 ''left without seeing an Israeli soldier.'' The report was actually about refugees in the 1967 war, and the percentage was of just 37 refugees who were studied.
It is impossible to detail the character of ''From Time Immemorial'' in a newspaper column. It has been fully explored in criticisms by, among others, Norman Finkelstein, a Princeton graduate student; Bill Farrell, a Columbia law student; Sir Ian Gilmour, a British M.P., and his son David, and Albert Hourani, an Oxford historian who called the book ''ludicrous and worthless.''
The criticisms are unanswerable, or at least they have not been answered. That is the extraordinary thing. So far as I know, neither Miss Peters nor any of her supporters has answered a single one of the charges of distortion and fraud made against it.
Instead, it is said that the critics are from the political left, as a few are, or have been identified with the Palestinian cause, as some have. In other words, only politics matters, not facts. That from intellectuals.
The latest criticism is going to be hard to dismiss even on such grounds: a piece by Prof. Yehoshua Porath of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in the current New York Review of Books. It is devastating on Miss Peters's methods. And it is moving on the courage and loneliness of the early Zionist settlers, surrounded as they were - and as they wrote - by Arabs.
Israelis have not gushed over the book as some Americans have. Perhaps that is because they know the reality of the Palestinians' existence, as great Zionists of the past knew. Perhaps it is because most understand the danger of trying to deny a people identity. As Professor Porath says, ''Neither historiography nor the Zionist cause itself gains anything from mythologizing history.''
And a critic of Peter's work by Porath:
Yehoshua Porath, 'Mrs. Peters’s Palestine', New York Review of Books, January 16, 1986
The unfortunate thing about Joan Peters’s From Time Immemorial (1984) is that from a position of apparently great learning and research, she attempts to refute the Arab myths merely by substituting the Jewish myths for them. Although she claims to have uncovered facts that show the historical accuracy of the Jewish myths, there have appeared during the last year and a half, in addition to many favorable reviews, a number of articles that dispute her collection and interpretation of this data.1 I do not propose here to go over the ground that these criticisms have already covered. Rather, I shall discuss both sets of myths in the light of the political and social history of Palestine as it is currently understood...
Of course there was no separate state called Palestine before the British Mandate and there is no need to demonstrate this at length, as Mrs. Peters tries to do. Nonetheless a large majority of Muslim Arabs inhabited the land; and the desire to keep it that way was the goal of the Arab struggle in Palestine against the Jews and the British. Of what possible significance, therefore, is Mrs. Peters’s claim that Arab domination of Palestine after its conquest by the Muslims in 635 AD lasted only twenty-two years? Was the land empty of any population? Such a vague claim is typical of many others made in the book. What is more surprising is the authority on which it is based. We are told that a statement to this effect was made in February 1919 to the Paris Peace Conference by “the Muslim chairman of the Syrian delegation.” An innocent reader would take it that this delegation was representing the Arab population of Syria, who were then struggling for independence. In fact the delegation was organized by the French as a device to oppose the nationalist struggle, and its chairman would have said anything required by his masters. Whether the Palestinian Arabs saw their identity as having local roots or whether they saw themselves more as part of the larger Arab world, they undoubtedly wanted Palestine to remain Arab. That the name of the country in Arabic, as in most other languages, is derived from the name of the Philistines does not matter to them any more than the fact that the name of Jerusalem, even in Hebrew, is derived from the Jebusees. All such terminological claims, and there are plenty of them in Mrs. Peters’s book, are worthless....
I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters’s highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters’s book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.
Its true that many people did not agree with her writing most notabley viement anti-israel personalites like Lewis, Finklestein and Chomsky. On the other as you mentioned it recieved much praise from other journalistic personalities such as Martin Kramer, Theodore H. White, Saul Bellow, Arthur J. Goldberg, Martin Peretz and Elie Wiesel.
Saul Below' s endorsement on the cover of the book stated: