TCS Daily


This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land

By J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss - April 20, 2006 12:00 AM

Talks between political parties are ongoing, but a plurality of Israeli voters has apparently signaled its preference for a moderate center-left coalition led by Ehud Olmert, who led Ariel Sharon's newly-formed Kadima Party to its historic victory on a platform advocating a unilateral setting of Israel's borders. As usual, no single party won an outright majority in the Knesset. But a majority of voters -- for the first time since Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") came under Israeli rule in 1967 -- has supported parties willing to give up more than 90 percent of these biblically Hebrew lands.

Recognizing the significance of the Israeli endorsement of what had long been unthinkable, the Bush administration has indicated that -- while a negotiated deal with the Palestinian Authority is preferable -- Washington is open to supporting Israel's unilateral drawing of its borders to include some territory captured in 1967. The flexibility expressed by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in her comments to reporters before she left on her recent tour of Europe and the Middle East, however, is unlikely to get traction among the other members of the "Quartet," i.e. the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia.

For example, one renowned UN advisor, Hans Küng, recently put forward suggestions on "How to prevent a clash of civilizations", which reflect much of the conventional wisdom on the status of the occupied territories. Küng, a Catholic theologian and president of the Global Ethic Foundation, wrote in the March 3rd International Herald Tribune op-ed that neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority is currently in compliance with international law:

"Hamas [must ...] recognize the right of Israel to exist. [But] the Palestinians can likewise demand that first Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories in accordance with UN Resolution 242. ..."

Küng's interpretation of Resolution 242's determination of Israel's rights and obligations vis-à-vis the territories occupied after the 1967 war is fairly typical -- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for example, regularly asserts in interviews that the resolution requires Israeli withdrawal all the territories (more on this below). It is also dangerously wrong.

In the wake of Kadima's election victory -- and one day after a vicious terrorist attack endorsed by the terrorist government of the Palestinian Authority (PA) whose spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri characterized the suicide bombing of a falafel stand as an act of "self-defense" -- it is a good time to reconsider the events that led to the Israeli occupation and to the adoption of the Resolution. Only then can we understand the meaning provided by the text and contemplated by its authors. This is fully in line with the "originalist" project of conservative jurisprudence, which we believe has application to international as well as domestic legal documents.

The Six-Day War

On May 15, 1967, Egyptian troops moved into the Sinai and began massing near the Israeli border. Simultaneously, Syrian troops prepared for battle in the Golan Heights. The next day, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the departure of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) that had been stationed in the Sinai as a buffer between Israeli and Egyptian forces after Israel's voluntary withdrawal following the Sinai Campaign in 1956. Without consulting the General Assembly (as his predecessor, the assassinated Dag Hammarskjöld, had promised to do), UN Secretary-General U Thant complied with Nasser's ultimatum and removed the UNEF troops. (Thant did fly to Cairo in a vain effort to persuade Nasser not to attack.) Then, on May 20, Syrian defense minister and future dictator Hafez al-Assad exultantly broadcast a genocidal threat: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

On May 22 Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and blockaded the port of Eilat, cutting off the Jewish state's only maritime route to the east (the Suez Canal had been closed to Israel's shipping since 1948, in violation of international norms). The blockade halted the flow of oil to Israel from its main supplier, the Shah's Iran. Nasser's actions were in violation both of general principles of international law and of Egypt's specific treaty obligations under the 1956 truce. They constituted a clear casus belli for Israel.

Nasser accompanied his acts of war with genocidal rhetoric that was squarely in violation of the UN Charter -- rhetoric echoed in April 2006 by Iran's President Ahmadinejad. Nasser declared on May 27, 1967 that "our basic objective is the destruction of Israel" and added the next day that "we will not accept any coexistence with Israel." Under pressure from Nasser, Jordan's King Hussein signed a "defense pact" with the Egyptians on May 30. On June 4 Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref joined the anti-Israeli coalition, stating "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified ...Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." By this point, the Arab states had massed nearly half a million troops, 3,000 tanks, and 800 aircraft on the frontiers of a country smaller than New Jersey and with a population slightly larger than Rhode Island's.

Attempts to defuse the situation in the UN Security Council were blocked by Arab rulers who felt certain of their impending victory, and by the Soviet Union, which was airlifting massive quantities of weapons and other materiel to Arab forces. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia also contributed troops and arms. In contrast, Israel's two largest suppliers, France and the United States, observed a self-imposed arms embargo.

Finding itself surrounded, threatened and blockaded, with the very survival of the state in jeopardy, Israel defended itself with a remarkable air force strike during the early hours of June 5, 1967. The Egyptian and Syrian air forces were virtually destroyed while their pilots slept or ate breakfast. Israeli armor and other units engaged Egyptians in the Sinai. A small IDF unit heroically held off Syrians entrenched in the Golan Heights and, at great human cost, broke through Syrian lines.

At the start of the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol informed King Hussein that Israel would not attack Jordan if the Jordanians stayed out of the fight. But Jordanian radar had picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, which the Egyptians convinced Hussein were their own fighters. (In reality they were Israeli planes returning from the successful destruction of the Egyptian air force.) King Hussein, then as later when Saddam invaded Kuwait, wanted to be on the winning side. The Jordanians began shelling West Jerusalem, provoking the opening of that front and, barely two days later, the defeat of the Jordanian Legion and the reunification of Jerusalem.

After six days of fighting Israel was in a position to march on Cairo, Damascus, and Amman, the capitals of the three principal aggressor states -- and under the laws of war, Israel would have been perfectly justified in doing so. However, perhaps unwisely in retrospect, Israel accepted a US-urged unilateral ceasefire on June 10, 1967. It was hoped that, in the face of the "facts on the ground", Israel's neighbors would accept the reality of a Jewish state. Israel's national unity government even adopted a secret resolution at a cabinet meeting on June 19, authorizing a withdrawal to the former international borders with Egypt and Syria in exchange for peace treaties. As General Moshe Dayan, then defense minister, put it, "We are waiting for a telephone call from the Arabs." That call never came.

Resolution 242 and the Claim to "Arab" Lands

Kadima triumphed in the recent Israeli elections on a platform that envisions evacuating dozens of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. The security barrier erected between Israeli and Palestinian population centers would be the starting point for the definitive border that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to draw over the next four years as part of the Jewish state's process of hitkansut ("going-into-oneself"). The yet-to-be determined frontier will almost certainly contain territory that Israel captured from Jordan in 1967. The PA demands the "return" of all of this land under UN Resolution 242. But the Arab claim has no basis in either history or law.

After the ceasefire in 1967, the Soviet Union, humiliated along with its Arab clients, introduced in the Security Council an Orwellian resolution that branded Israel the aggressor in the war and called for a withdrawal to pre-conflict lines. This resolution received only six votes (nine votes and no veto from a permanent member are required for passage). The majority of the members of the Security Council were simply unwilling to demand a withdrawal to lines held before the conflict erupted.

The Soviets then called a special session of the General Assembly, which opened on June 17, to adopt a motion, officially sponsored by Yugoslavia, which likewise called for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-conflict lines. This resolution also failed to pass, though we note that the General Assembly had, in any case, no jurisdiction in this area.

When the Security Council reconvened in the fall, the Soviet Union tried to offer another resolution condemning Israel as the aggressor and calling for a withdrawal to the June 5 lines. The Soviets withdrew this resolution when it became clear that it would not garner majority support.

In this context the British ambassador, Lord Caradon, introduced Resolution 242, which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on November 22. The resolution endorsed the principle of the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forced from territories occupied in the recent conflict" within the context of the right of "every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Since Israel had never denied the legitimacy of its sovereign neighbors, the onus under this Resolution was clearly on its Arab enemies to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty and its right to exist. Of course, such acknowledgment was not forthcoming.

The text of Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw to the pre-June 5 boundaries. The contrast with the text of earlier failed Soviet resolutions is striking. 242 did not require withdrawal from "all" occupied territories (Dr. Küng notwithstanding), or even from "the" occupied territories. While Arab states naturally called for such a retreat -- and the Soviet Union tried to get the Security Council to impose it -- all their efforts failed. The testimony of then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, is critical. Writing in the influential journal, American Foreign Policy Interests, Ambassador Goldberg observed:

"The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and [Russian] texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories."

While they purported to accept Resolution 242 at the time, today Arab diplomats (and their allies and fellow travelers) deny that it countenances incomplete withdrawal. But their interpretation is not only linguistically fallacious, it is also utterly contrary to the intent of the authors of the Resolution and to the historical context of its adoption. Just as sound Constitutional interpretation requires an originalist contextual perspective, so does sound understanding of 242. To attribute to the Resolution a requirement that Israel retreat to insecure, indefensible 1948 boundaries as if the unlawful Arab war of 1967 had never happened is to make a shambles of UN history and of the Resolution itself. It appears that today's Arab diplomats and their friends are relying on an interpretive strategy not unfamiliar to American advocates of a "living constitution": accept the best deal you can get at the moment and count on the passage of time to cloud memories and give you the freedom to remake a document against its original meaning.

Spoils of War or Legal Possession

Much is made -- and, no doubt, will be made -- about "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" under 242 However, it is clear that this principle, properly understood, does not apply to the Israeli occupation of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in 1967 as well as its continuing control of parts of the West Bank today. The juridical principle, after all, applies strictu sensu to the conquest of territory of a sovereign member of the international community by an aggressive attack. Not only was Israel defending itself, but in addition no sovereign state had title to these territories. Jordan's original occupation and annexation of the West Bank during the Israeli War of Independence was itself such a blatant violation of the UN partition resolution that between 1948 and 1967 Jordanian sovereignty over Judea and Samaria was recognized by only two UN member states. In fact, under the jurisprudential principle of prescription, Israel having maintained a presence there much longer than Jordan ever did, the Jewish state actually has the best legal claim to the entirety of the West Bank. Of course, as Ariel Sharon came to realize, demographically an Israeli withdrawal may be prudent despite Israel's strong legal claim. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that, in the light of legal principles as well as the history of its diplomatic negotiation, Resolution 242 neither requires nor prohibits territorial adjustments.

We note several other features of the text of 242. The Resolution says nothing about Palestinians or about any Palestinian state in territories occupied during the war -- much less such a state run by an international terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel. The resolution's affirmation of the need to achieve "a just settlement of the refugee problem" points toward an accord that deals with both Arab and Jewish refugees; many of the latter had been forced out of communities occupied since Biblical times. Resolution 242 also omitted any reference to the status of Jerusalem, and notably declined to reaffirm previous resolutions calling for the internationalization of the city. Given Jordan's use of the old city as a base for shelling civilian targets in West Jerusalem, Ambassador Goldberg confirmed that this omission was "purposeful" -- a recognition of the futility of internationalization schemes, and an acknowledgment of the possibility of a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.

We tried to exterminate you, we failed, so please pull back and give us another chance. That, in essence, is the Arab (and, today, European) interpretation of Resolution 242. This interpretation is historically mistaken, jurisprudentially unreasonable, and strategically perverse. It directly underlies the murderous actions of terrorists who invoke Israeli "occupation" as a justification for their misdeeds. Only a credulous, and juridically ignorant, West is vulnerable to this type of justification.

The election of the Kadima-led coalition in Israel represents a triumph of prudential reason in one country in the Middle East. A clear understanding of the history of the region in general, and of Resolution 242 in particular, is needed if we are to persuade Israel's neighbors to be equally prudent and reasonable. The virtues of statecraft, coupled with a knowledge of history and law -- rather than the deadly mix of hatred and radicalism married to juridical myth and wishful thinking -- will alone serve as foundations of the hope for comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are academic fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


27 Comments

That land is rightfully whose?
I guess one question occurs to me. What principle do you invoke when you want to uproot native populations?

True, the place was inhabited by the Judeans 2,000 years ago-- not to mention the Canaanites and the Philistines. Who, of course, were the Palestinians. But what has this to do with anything? 500 years ago the United States was occupied by the Red Man. Is his claim still valid?

A few years ago I visited my uncle, up home. And he drove me past the house where I used to live when I was two years old. Suppose I had come to the door, kicked it in and told the surprised occupants they had to move out, because I had finally "come home"? Would that be a valid action?

This all amounts to a grand case of adverse possession by eminent domain, on the part of a lot of European immigrants.

Adverse Possession
“This all amounts to a grand case of adverse possession by eminent domain, on the part of a lot of European immigrants.”

From the dawn of human existence, all possession and/or control over land (and all other resources) was a result of “adverse possession”. The history of human population of planet Earth is driven by the resolution of possession disputes. The options are negotiation, surrender, hostilities or a combination thereof. Israel has used both negotiation and hostile action to establish and secure their state. Hamas, Iran and friends have apparently committed to the hostile option in order to destroy the Israeli state. In the absence of surrender or negotiation, either Israel or Hamas (and friends) will be destroyed. From a historical perspective, this is more of the same.

Delusional as always
By you own comparison it would be Israels. By historic precident - israel's; by international law - Israel's; By U.N. resolution - at least partially Israel's.

And you point is??

This Land is Your Land,
The UN case now being made based on Resolution 242 is totally fallicious. And it is good to have a very clear article setting out the facts rather than the anti-Israeli screed the UN and the Arab States are forever trying to justify by misusing the clear intent and statement of this Resolution. The UN has lost all value as a good-faith arbitrator is this dispute, and the Israelis are totally justified in keeping a very small percentage of the lands they rightly took as a defensive pre-emptive strike in 1967. When the Arab States ALL finally agree to Israel's right to exist, backed by a UN resolution that spells out the same in unequivicol terms, then, and only then should Israel ever concede any point in so-called peace negotiations. The right of return of displaced Palestianians ( a result of the '67 war which is one of the consequences Arab states will now have to live with in perpetuity) is a non-starter. No State is going to organize it's own dissolution. On these straightforeward facts the rest of the world must proceed, and the UN can carry on it's gum flapping debates forever, so long as no one pays any attention to their nonsense

Excellent Article
Tremendous thumbnail snapshot of middle-eastern history, circa late-60's forward. It should be required reading in every high school and college in this country.

As for good ol Roy .. *sigh*

So, assuming that your family had SOLD that home, only a raving lunatic would think it in any way legitimate to kick in the door and claim ownership.

Now let's say you tried to steal possessions from your neighbor's home. You are caught, apprehended, and punished. As terms of your punishment, you are forced to forfeit your home to your intended victim. YOU are the aggressor, you are the guilty criminal in such a case. Any rights you may think you still have, any claims you may think you still have to what was once your property are all forfeit. Frankly you should consider yourself lucky to retain your ability to breathe, as many cultures would simply put you to death. In any case, your punishment for your illegal ciminal intrusion is forfeiture of your rights and claims. Subsequently any and all claims you have think you have are, in perpetuity, not legitimate.

Clearly you disagree. You seem to think that not only should Israel have merely fended off its attackers and promptly returned to wherever it was prior to being attacked, but that also they, and everyone else in the world, should also have to pretend that the attacks never happened.

Such thinking is, in a word, stupid.

No thinking person who is not a Jew-hater thinks like that.

And the fact that your sympathies obviously lie with the 'innocent victims, the 'palestinians'', is appalling. You are a fan of people who do this:

" [Dr. Michael] Messing said one of the victims he saw while in Jerusalem had around 300 individual metallic fragments within his body. The metal fragments, measuring from millimeters to centimeters, were imbedded in the young man literally from head to toe, he said.

"Several of the fragments penetrated into his vital organs. He sustained a punctured colon, a collapsed lung, and a lacerated liver and kidney. I could actually feel the nails under his skin where they had burrowed and lodged," Messing recalls.

Shrapnel is what killed Phillip Balhasan, who stayed alive long enough to realize his children had survived, and to hug them tightly before he collapsed.

But even this is not enough for the terrorists. They also soak the shrapnel in rat poison, because it causes hemorrhaging -- victims may bleed to death before they can get to the hospital."

My only question to you, and people who think like you, is this: What exactly did Israel ever do to you that you can soundly sleep at night whilst supporting things like that?

I don't mean to be overly harsh, but that IS the reality over there. The arab terrorists do things like that, the jews don't. What exactly happened to you that you would actually side WITH the terrorists, in the face of all evidence and logic?

Clumsily put, but okay
The comparison with the United States would be more apt if the Red Man had never lost. In legal terms, adverse possession has been contested on a continuous basis.

Anyone can see there will be war until there's justice. How else could it go?

That is probably agreeable to all…
But the reason there is war is the defination of justice here. What is just? Was it just for Israel to be attacked, by several of it's neighbors, on four different occaisions? (BTW, those are just the overt military actions, we won't discuss the several acts of war still being carried out.) Was it just for the Israelis to take possession of the areas through which all of those attacks occurred? Is it just for them to maintain possession until the parties who claim ownership relent and recognize Israel's right to exist? (as Egypt did)

it seems to me, again and again, that the injured party and the most reasonable one, is Israel. The arab states continue to be the aggressors here and the Palestinians continue to create problems.

Roy, the only way there will ever be peace is for all the Arab countries to recognize Isreal and begin normal diplomatic relations. When that happens the Palestinians are going to have to decide whether they want to settle and become productive or face total destruction. The biggest reason they remain a problem is the constant threat of the Arab countries (especially Syria, Lebanon and Iran). Without their support the Palestinians could be dealt with as an internal problem and they would be forced to either give up the terror or be exterminated.

I realize that isn't a pleasant choice for the Pals, but it is the only road to any lasting peace.

I predict that the present land-for-peace deal will result in more violence, especially if they split Israel in any way to acheive a continious nation for the Palestinians that includes any part of the West Bank. This whole thing is a lose-lose. The only way to make this work is with the cooperation of either the Egyptians or Jordanians, Israelis and Palestinians to create a viable country in either Gaza or the West Bank .

Trust me on this, the Israelis will never give up the entire West Bank territory; not ever. They will also never given up control of Jerusalem.

That means that, for a viable country in the West Bank region, Jordan will have to give up some territory on the other side of the river; for Gaza to become the new Palestinian country, Egypt and Israel are both going to have to give ups several hundred square miles of territory (most of it in the Egyptian Sinai. The Palestinians are going to have to make up their minds; one or the other, not both.

Pretty disagreeable
You show a total inability to put the shoe on the other foot. First, Palestine was a land with no Israelis. Then, while still a minority, they changed it into a land owned and operated by Israelis. Now you say something like "the present land-for-peace deal will result in more violence, especially if they split Israel in any way to acheive a continious nation for the Palestinians that includes any part of the West Bank", meaning that they are not even entitled to any more than isolated reservations. Really white of you.

If you were Palestinian it would appear a little differently to you. Obviously they are not worthy of an even break.

Common sense says that they have shown they plan to be there for the long haul. If they were about to buckle it would have happened by now. So there will be no peace until they are offered a deal a reasonable person, in their place, could accept.

Magnanimously, you would consider offering them Gaza, so they could have a country of their own. Gaza is not a country, it's barely even a suburb. I would support the Pals if they held out for the only real solution, a single state allowing all parties equal citizenship.

It may take another hundred years, but it has to happen.

Mr. Bean AGAIN has nothing to say.....
again we see he is spouting off liberal non-sense and constantly attempting to throw mud into the eyes and face of America and everything we attempt to do. Can you tell me 1 nation that you love and fully support? Mr. Bean I am curious, what country are you from...and dont tell me you are American cuz that would be an obvious lie. You talk left and talk right and never say anything solid. You spin your words and simply leave everyone aggravated. Apparently, the saying is true, misery loves company.

I have to educate Mr. Bean AGAIN so let me say 1 more thing...
Unfortunately, again your GED has failed you in your history lessons. You said "Palestine was a land with no Israeli's" WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING BUDDY? Israel was around BEFORE THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT. Israel was around since the time of Genesis and it was Israel until 70 AD. Do you know what AD stands for? Israel was created and its borders SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT BY JEHOVAH IF YOU WOULD READ THE OLD TESTAMENT. Israel was in existance from Genesis until the harsh occupation by Rome. The Jews revolted against Rome-and promptly crushed-and all survivors were deported and replaced with foreigners of all stripes (probably included your type) to forestall any future Israeli attempts to rebuild the nation. Than in 1948 with the help of the British, Israel was reborn and rebuilt which exists now-no thanks to haters like you. Israel is at least a minimum of 4,000 years old and where were the muslims and your buddies the arabs at that time? Was not islam invented around 740 AD? Your beliefs and the history timelines do not add up Mr. Bean my favorite liberal. You need to stop lying and boohooing the politically erect non-sense of left-wing societies and actually read your history. Consulting local cabdrivers is NOT A GOOD HISTORICAL REFERENCE when studying middle-eastern history. Just ask me about anything else sir, and I will be honored to continue your education. Best regards. Dr. Vinter

History reinterpreted
Thank you for your tutorial, DOCTOR. Judging from your content I very much doubt you hold that degree.

The Jews left Palestine back in 135 AD, after the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion. That's a very long time now that they have lived elsewhere. A more valid claim would be that they are by now long since native to Europe. Since this must be news to you, here's a reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

And in fact they initially hail from Mesopotamia. Surely you remember that business about the sons of Abraham? So really they need to move back to Iraq. They only lived in Israel a few short centuries.

But of course Jehovah told them they could stay there. At least that's what somebody wrote down in an old book. Now all they have to do is to convince everyone to read the book.

Don't you get it my royster?
This is why you p' me off so bad. Did you ever hear of the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD? Israel left ACTUALLY THROWN OUT BY ROME when the revolt failed. You mention A SECONDARY REVOLT AFTER THE MAIN REBELLION. I try to educate you and you just bicker and bicker. 70 AD was before 135 AD. No, God told them to take that land-the land of milk and honey-SO YOU MIGHT TRY TO ARGUE WITH HIM!! If you find that shocking that is your problem NOT THE CREATORS. Roy you just have to deal with the situation. A tiny nation called Israel is home and occupying its land promised to them by God-whom you dont respect or believe-and they are not going anywhere. Nobody will throw you out of your home so try to relate. The muslims in Israel should be thankful Israel does not just push them over the borders to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, all the other rifraff nations. All I can assume is that you are muslim, bitter and resentful that you are muslim-so if that is the case just convert-and vehemently anti-western. Give up your rage and anger and believe that Christ is the Savior of all. OUR BIBLE says love thy neighbor, not kill them if they are not muslims. Is not that a big difference> Tell me Roy, how many people did Christ heal and help and how many did mohammed help. OUCH!!! I forgot you dont believe anyway so why do I tell you.

P.S. Dont be deceived by my "content" I must write in a hurry so PLEASE forgive me. I have clients calling and must answer the phone.

No offense roy…
but how you twist and ignore the big points. I said either/or an expanded Gaza territory or some of the West Bank expanded also. It would be a logistical and stratigic nightmare to split Israel to give a continious country to the Palestinians that included both.

My Indian blood really boils at the thought of isolated reservations you little *****. I never suggested such a thing.

The biggest BS statement is that Palestine was a "land with no Israelis". Better check your history son; there have always been Jews living in the area (at least for the last 3,000-5,000 years). They were the dominant people there for a long time, then they were a minority, then a small minority, then a growing minority, now they own the place again.

What about the other Arab countries? There is no peace without their inclusion. Also, the Palestinians will never quit terrorizing the Jews until they lose all support in the region.

which red man?
The indian tribes were real good at killing other for land, long before the white man showed up.

palestinians
your rewritting of history is quite interesting.

The reason why there were no Jews in Israel, was because the Arabs kicked them out, and killed the ones who wouldn't go in the middle 1800's.

When Britain created the Palestinian mandate, the Palestinians had never had control over their own destiny. Up till that time, they were a part of the Ottoman empire. And if you think the Ottoman's were kind and gentle masters over the Palestinians, you are delusional.

So the Palestinians went from one set of masters, the Ottoman's, to a new set. The Jews. The big difference is the Jews offered to make the Palestinians full partners in the new state of Israel. The Jews begged them to stay and work with them. But the Palestinians choose to listen to the call of Israel's neighbors and flee in the face of the coming war on Israel. After the war, they choose to stay in the refugee camps, rather than return home.

The Palestinians lot in life is tough, but it is one of their own making and choosing.

roy's revisionism
A lot of the jews left, but they did not all leave.

in another thread
the good bean told us that he takes great pride in knowing next to nothing about almost everything.

Home of the Jews
Have it your way, my helpful friend. The Jews were then evicted from Palestine 1,936 years ago, and not 1,871 years ago as I had offered. This gives them valid title to the property in what wise?

Where were your own ancestors nineteen centuries back? Do you own the property now?

Nobody lives where they used to live. Get used to it. The issue in Palestine is that the people who were there when the Jews came from Europe have continuously contested their presence. That means they have a problem. They should go home to Russia, where they would be better received.

No offense taken
...even though you've just called me a little *****. Oh well, it's just a small stab.

Gaza, as we know, cannot expand. It is a penal colony. In the classic definition it is a concentration camp-- a containment area for the concentration of unwanted populations. You know that.

The full West Bank might have made a decent rump Palestine, if the historically Muslim areas were ceded to it, to form the capital. That could have worked. The Israelis, of course, would never have permitted this. So we are back to one continguous land, with two separate people living in it. The single state solution is best.

As it is, you know that the Israeli plan entails cutting the OT's up into such tiny settlements that the only word for them besides reservations is Bantustans. Right? That has been the legacy of Sharon's lifelong policy.

However I do apologize for injuring your feelings with unpleasant truths to be acknowledged.

As a point of historical fact, Islam being a relatively tolerant religion, all the Arab lands are fly specked with relict Christian and Jewish populations, not to mention even older religions like Yazd. But the Oriental Jews were not the ones who created an Israel. Those were Eastern Europeans.

It would be very unkind to say these people wear out their welcome wherever they go... but they've certainly done it again. If they learn from this experience, the next time they'll try to make friends with the natives. Over the long run this approach pays dividends.

Wild Indians
Wild Indians killed and got killed by one another with reckless abandon. But it was more a sport, not like the white man. Often it was lacrosse, with real weapons.

We killed them on a genocidal basis, to clear the land so it could be converted into real estate. This is not the red man's way. They killed someone they had a beef with, or to prove themselves men. Not women, children, buffalo and dogs in some spirit of racial and cultural superiority. That mindset was our gift to the world.

Rewriting history
This comment is without merit: "The reason why there were no Jews in Israel, was because the Arabs kicked them out, and killed the ones who wouldn't go in the middle 1800's."

Completely imaginary. Give us your citation.

You are correct to observe that the fellahin in Palestine had landlords for whom they worked. It was much like a sharecropper system, with mostly Turks, many Levantines and some Arabs as the landlords. But it is calumny to say they wanted the Pals to stay and work for them. In fact it rises above that status, to Big Lie.

From the earliest days, 1907-08, Zionists were telling one another the P's needed to be removed, and that there would be problems until Israel was a majority Jewish state. That was the concerted focus of the entire Zionist movement, as agreed to by all the standard historians. You may have read one person (I forget her name) who made quite a splash with her finding that Palestine was uninhabited before the Jews got there.

Once Jews purchased land they were encouraged to employ only other Jews, so the P's would get the idea and move away. It didn't happen. By 1936 there began full scale fighting ver this very issue, the disenfranchisement of the P's.

That said, at every turn the P's have played their hand very badly. Anyone else would have won the place back by now. But as for who has the moral high ground, it's not the people who threw the indigenous population out back in 1948.

Mr. Roy if you need to know..........
my ancestors were the Magyars-modern day wild Hungarians-just ask the Russians of 1914, 1941, and especially 1956. My family came to America as a result of a brave and futile uprisig. Our family came to the USA, worked, LEARNED ENGLISH, NEVER HAD OR WOULD CONSIDER WELFARE, voted, never broke laws, never tried to convert or impose religion on anyone different from themselves, and tried for many years to comprehend why so many new "ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS" have the nerve to tell real Americans what to do in their own country. This is the exact opposite of Mexicans and muslims are doing these days to western nations. These are the reasons I am so passionate about my beliefs.

Economic immigrants
Thanks for the info. That does indeed help. I was in high school in 1956, and the following year had a friend whose family had come over following the Uprising.

You'll be pleased to know you're in good company. Your family was like the overwhelming majority of economic immigrants to this country-- proud and hard working. They came here, learned the language and went to work.

But that's not the opposite of "Mexicans and Muslims". In fact overwhelming numbers of those people also have come here to work and not rely on welfare. Muslims run many small businesses in my neighborhood, and are very good at picking up the language.

Mexicans are like Americans in that they grow up in a monolingual culture. Foreign tongues do not come as easily to them as they might to a Magyar, for whom everyone's language is foeign. So it usually takes them a number of years to master English. But they are hard and dedicated workers, as a rule. Like all those coming to our shores.

BTW your English is excellent. I have no second language, as languages have always been a stumbling block for me. After forty years of knowing Mexicans I still struggle with what is actually a very simple language.

Roy I WAS born here...
sorry for the mixup and my parents came here from Hungary.

Let's make a fresh start
You and I are both native Americans, and we both believe in the virtues of personal effort in the service of getting ahead.

We do have points where we differ. My experience has been that most illegal immigrants also believe in personal effort, and do not come here just to get a free ride. indeed how could they? They're ineligible for most free services except possible medical care. Minimum wage earners can't afford US medical costs and are not typically covered by workmen's comp. If they get hurt on the job and they're lucky, they go to a hospital whose policy is not to turn away injured people for reasons of ability to pay. If they're not lucky, they just can't work any more.

The illegals I know pay in to Social Security, because they can't get paid without withholding being taken from their earnings. But they can't qualify for SS because their numbers are bogus. So they typically contribute in to the system without being able to take back out.

Your experience is undoubtedly different. I expect we have to agree to disagree. I have read that in southern California there are apparently a lot of people abuse the system. That may be true but I wouldn't know, it's just something I've read.

So I will agree to respect your point of view when you make statements of personal conviction. All the better if you back them up with some evidence.

information
roy, if you weren't so determined to make sure your information was never more than 2 inches deep, you would know this stuff already.

roy thinks hollywood equals reality
No roy, the red man killed each other for the same reason the white man did. For land. They exterminated each other, often with abandon.

The red man had no respect for the land, the only reason he didn't despoil it more than he did, was his efficiency with killing each other.

The red man was as convinced of the superiority of his own way, as we were of ours. He just didn't have the weaponry to kill us first.

TCS Daily Archives