Post Date: 12th Dec, 2008 - 4:12pm / Post ID:
#
Membership Israels Revoking
QUOTE |
In the article The end of Zionism, published in the Guardian on September the 15th 2003 the Jewish dissident and former speaker of Knesset, Avraham Burg wrote:
"Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out "¦ We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew ... The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy." |
You know, this is the most truthful part of the entire article and it figures that it is a quote from another author. However, it is odd if you think about it. If you study the origins of the idea of a Israeli State, they weren't sure about it then either. Einstein didn't even want a Jewish State and he was offered its 2nd Presidency. All the way up until the Partition Plan was run through the UN there was a debate on the true nature of Israel. The failure of agreement from both sides on the Partition Plan ensured that it would end up to be a Zionist State. Had both sides agreed to the Plan, then that would not have been the case for a significant portion of Israel as they were not the majority of the area that made up the Mandate of Palestine.
QUOTE |
No support can be found in The UN recommendation concerning a Jewish and a Palestinian state for unequal rights for the citizens of each country. Neither is there any indication as to how a "Jewish" state could become Jewish. There is support, however, for the intention that demographic conditions should be held intact at partition. Interpreting into the text an intention concerning characteristics of a "Jewish state" tailored to the ideology of Zionism is wholly in contradiction with the text of the resolution. |
Yes, absolutely correct, but the problem is that Palestine didn't agree to it. Oh, and there is that little thing about declaring war after they declared independence. That kind of thing pretty much wipes out goodwill. It wasn't a little war either. Had Palestine and Co prevailed, the general thinking is that there wouldn't even be any "concentration camps" from which we could complain about poor Israeli treatment because they would all be dead. That is a bit hard to get past in only 60 years.
QUOTE |
Even the Balfour Declaration, which entirely lacks human rights status, notes that the Jewish national home in Palestine should in no way encroach upon the rights of the Palestinians. Neither did US President Truman recognise Israel as a Jewish state. On the contrary, he ruled out precisely that formulation before making his decision to recognise Israel. |
We mention Balfour, but seem to forget about the White Paper. Read them both and you can see why there is a difference of opinion...because there WAS a difference of opinion all the way...well actually it still continues!
Source 7Source 3Source 4That is right folks! The Balfour Declaration needed Churchill to write a paper to better define it and subsequently was tossed aside by the White Paper of '39. Balfour wanted a co-working jewish state within Palestine. It wasn't really clear on how it to be done, so Churchill decided to clear it up with further ambiguous wordings in his paper. It was all changed with the '39 version and then in the end the UN Partition Plan was even more different. Of course, the author of this article makes it sound so clear and cut as to what the problem is and who is to blame!
QUOTE |
Thus, the legitimacy of a "Jewish state" so urgently sought by Israel lacks support in international documents that concern the building of the state. Israel's government is, of course, fully aware of this. Why else would it keep on searching for this recognition? |
Gosh...since they have been trying to define if or if it shouldn't be for so long as you can see above (oh and there are letters going back as far as 1800's as to the thought of a Jewish homeland), think they might be a bit insecure. And how often can the "little general" from Iran continue to tell them that they shouldnt exist? But this is a nice display of circular logic that is. The fact is that the plans that were laid out were not agreed to by both sides. The resolutions that are spewed out require that both sides agree. It detent happen. The UN was stupid for acknowledging Israel without taking control of Jerusalem in the beginning. The UN didn't enforce the resolution. By acknowledging Israel without control of Jerusalem, they in a sense ok'd its takeover. NICE GOING UN!
QUOTE |
The UN should now embark on a boycott of the apartheid state of Israel and, with the threat of expulsion from the UN, demand that Israel allows the evicted Palestinian refugees to return in accordance with the UN resolutions 194 and 3236.
With this done, meaningful peace talks can proceed and various solutions be reached for co-habitation with equal rights for all people between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan. No such solution can be compatible with the preservation of a Jewish apartheid state. |
I just cant get away from the fact that Palestine has waged war multiple times on Israel, but according the the author, Israel should just give Palestine everything back to what the Partition Plan laid out and they should live by the Partition Plan prior to Palestine even agreeing to the Partition Plan. The author even suggest reparations. I guess I missed that part on war about when if you start a war and you lose you get paid if they take your house. WOW!
I said study the real history about how Israel came to be before you make your decision on who is right and who is wrong. There is a reason for it. Because if you can find the angel in all of this mess...good luck. St Arafat? I don't think so. St. Sharon? Nope
The whole situation has been screwed up from the beginning. Was there really ever a Jewish Country to lay claim to in the past? Interesting question. An even more interesting question might be was there really ever a country called Palestine? Would the Partition Plan ever have really worked? The author flogs it about as the guideline for what the Israelis should do...was it workable for the Palestinians? Apparently not at the time, since they wouldn't sign it?
QUOTE |
The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan.[73]. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000). Arab leaders also argued a large number of Arabs would be trapped in the Jewish State. Every major Arab leader objected in principle to the right of the Jews to an independent state in Palestine, reflecting the policies of the Arab League. |
But if you read the Plan, there really is no Jewish State. It is Israel, but those "trapped" were to be represented and in certain areas of Israel, they would be a majority, just not Israel overall. But the truth is...this idea was never going to work because they all had their agendas and weren't going to let go. Gurion actually told people in confidence (apparently broken) that even if he did sign the Plan that he intended on pushing out the remaining Palestinians and create a Zionist state. Palestine and its neighbors apparently saw no reason to accept a slicing of the "country" and showed their displeasure. Palestine was already under great pressure since very shortly with the immigration flooding into the country...Palestinians were going to be a minority quickly.
Folks, it is a mess and if you have someone that thinks they know the answer to it I would love to hear it, because the more I have looked into it the more convinced I am that nothing was going to work and there was going to be a blow up at some point.
Einstein was right...
QUOTE |
Einstein publicly stated reservations about the proposal to partition the British-supervised British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish countries. In a 1938 speech, "Our Debt to Zionism", he said: "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain-especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience."[74] In a 1947 letter to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Einstein stated that the Balfour Declaration's proposal to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine "redresses the balance" of justice and history. |
The boarders drawn following WWII in the spirit of trying to do exactly what Einstein said...redressing the balance...have cause more problems than they have solved! The Japanese Island disputes with China, Korea and Russia. The problem of Israel. Iraq is an insane creation. Yugoslavia...that was genius. The list just goes on and on...
Edited: Vincenzo on 12th Dec, 2008 - 4:20pm