|
|
|
 |
english |
 |
|
Isratine
This, The White Book, presents the problem in a serious, objective and neutral fashion. It aspires to a just and final solution to the persistent ‘Middle East Problem’, as it is often called, and to rid the region of the disastrous effects of violence, war and destruction.
The work incorporates views and concepts previously put forward by Arabs and Jews alike, in addition to international projects that support and vindicate the solution propounded in this work. No other concept is capable of resolving the problem.
Palestine:
This is the name recorded in the history and scriptures of the country. It derives from the name of its original inhabitants, the Philistines, which the Old Testament books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Joshua acknowledge. The Old Testament records the names, inter alios, of the Anakim, the Rephaim, the Canaanites, the Jebusites, the Hittites and the Phoenicians, and the Book of Exodus explicitly states, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines...
The name of Palestine persisted for the duration of the British Mandate, which the various projects and settlements put forward all recognise. It is a fact acknowledged even by the zealots of the Zionist Movement; for example, Shmuel Katz, founder of the Herut Zionist movement and one of the leaders of the Etzel National Military Organisation, who wrote, “All Zionist institutions in the world bore the name of Palestine. His examples include the Zionist ‘Anglo-Palestine’ Bank, the Jewish Foundation Fund, which was known as the Palestinian Foundation Fund, and the Palestine Workers Fund, which was Jewish. He noted that in the Diaspora the songs of Palestine were Zionist anthems, that as emigrants in foreign lands they would celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles as the Palestinian Feast of Tabernacles and that the Palestine Post, which went under the name al-Barid al-Filistini, was a Zionist newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Zionist Federation. “The name of Palestine,” he wrote, “was only replaced after the establishment of what was called the State of Israel.
He admits that the Hebrew language only came into use in Tiberias in the tenth century. Even when President Roosevelt of America responded to Prince Abdallah of Jordan in March 1944 he wrote, “With regard to Palestine, I am pleased to communicate to you the assurances that the United States of America has no view to take any decision to change the situation in Palestine without full consultation of Arabs and Jews.
Generally speaking, notwithstanding the matter of its name, the history of Palestine fits the pattern of other countries in the region: a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing successively between many tribes, nations and ethnic groups, some of whom were immigrants and some of whom were invaders, a country that has seen many wars and stood witness to waves of human immigration from all directions.
From an historical perspective, therefore, no one has the right to assert that it is tarty can claim the right to one part of Palestine, neither can they lay just claim to any otherheir land, for that would amount to no more than an unsubstantiated claim. And if no one p part.
A State for the Jews:
The original idea was for a Jewish state by which to protect the Jews, an idea which was first adopted by Theodor Hertzl, among others, in recent times. The immediate motive lay in the persecution to which the Jews were subject, specifically in Europe, before Hitler’s time.
Cyprus, Argentina, Uganda, Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Palestine and Sinai were proposed as sites for the establishment of a Jewish state as a way of ridding Europe of Jews. Palestine is not therefore necessarily or inevitably the national homeland of the Jews, as this history confirms.
Balfour Declaration:
The motivation underlining the Declaration was to rid Europe of Jews, rather than express sympathy for them.
The Persecution of the Jews:
The Jews are an unfortunate people. They have suffered greatly at the hands of governments, leaders and other peoples since ancient times. Why? Because this is the will of God, just as the Quran makes clear in the accounts of Egypt’s Pharaoh, and as their treatment at the hands of the rulers from Babylon, Roman emperors, from Titus to Hadrian, and the kings of England, such as Edward I, illustrates. The Jews have been banished, held captive, massacred, disadvantaged and persecuted in every possible fashion at the hands of the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, and, more recently, at the hands of Hitler.
The Arabs and the Jews:
There is no enmity between Arabs and Jews. In fact, the Jews are Adnanite cousins to the Arabs on the father’s side, from the stock of Abraham, peace by upon him. When the Jews were persecuted, their brother Arabs invited them as guests to live alongside them in the town of al-Madinah, even giving them the land of Wadi al-Qura, which was named in this way in reference to the Jewish villages [Al. qura]. Following the emergence of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, the Jews found the notion of a prophet from outside their number repugnant and harboured hostility towards him. Some attacks against them took place, just as there were attacks against those from the Quraish, who refused to accept Islam and against Arabs who initially accepted Islam but subsequently rejected it. The Jews, along with the Arabs, were expelled from Andalucia at the end of the 15th century and found refuge in the Arab countries, which is why we find a Jewish quarter in every Arab country. There, they lived in peace and friendship with their brother Arabs.
Single State Draft Proposals
British Proposals
A- Walkhope
Proposed by the British High Commissioner in Palestine at the beginning of the 1930s, requiring the establishment of a Palestinian Legislative Council comprising 11 Muslim, 4 Christian and 7 Jewish members, in proportion to the demography of Palestine at that time.
b- Newcomb
i) Establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state.
ii) Broad sectarian freedom.
iii) Broad municipal freedom.
iv) Decentralisation.
c) British White Paper of 1939
i) Independent federal Palestinian state.
ii) Consultative Council comprising Arabs and Jews.
iii) Executive Council comprising Arabs and Jews.
d) Lord Morson
i) Central government.
ii) Four administrative areas: Arab area, Jewish area, Jerusalem and the Negev.
iii) Local government and Legislative Council for each area.
All these proposals were rejected for non-substantive reasons; for example, dissatisfaction with the size of the areas or towns awarded to one side, differences over the duration of the British mandate, or matters relating to the number of immigrants.
Zionist Proposals
1) The first proposal was made by the so-called ‘Peace Federation’, led by Rabbi Benyamin, who called for a dual-nation state. They warned the Jews that the failure to accept a single dual-nation state would not bring about peace for the Jews. As they predicted, this is exactly what has happened.
2) The confederate or federal solution proposed by Mieer Imit, a prominent leader in the Zionist movement and the Hagana organisation, holder of various important and prominent military positions, Knesset member and minister, and holder of various other positions.
He believes that the strategic concession of occupied land, by which he naturally meant territory such as Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and Gaza, would be tantamount to walking away from tangible gains for which, according to him, there could be no compensation, and although Egypt had offered such gains, they were subject to sudden change. He discussed the feasibility of establishing a federal state giving the examples of the European Union; the United States of America, which, according to him, experienced 13 years of turmoil up to 1789; and Nigeria, a multi-denominational and multi-nation state in his view. He wrote that the economic, military, geographical and historical considerations that underpin such a solution exist in Palestine.
He further noted that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state constituted a grave danger and that, in order to avoid these dangers, a single federal state must be established. “The problem of Jerusalem,” he wrote, “can be simply resolved by making it the capital of a federal union.
3) Proposal of the German Zionists. The 12th Conference of the German Zionists (the Structuralist School), convened on 11 September 1921, adopted the concept of establishing a single state for both parties, and thereby “establishing a place in an alliance with the Arab Palestinian people for our joint security in a developing state, the structure of which guarantees the national development of each person of our two peoples without interference”.
Arab Proposals
1) First Proposal of King Abdallah
i) One Kingdom.
ii) Administration selected by the Jews in areas inhabited by them.
iii) One Parliament, in which Jews were to be represented in proportion to their demographic share.
iv) Mixed Cabinet.
2) Second Proposal of King Abdallah
Partition of Palestine between Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, with the remainder left to the Jews.
3) Nuri Al-Said Proposal of 1942
i) One state.
ii) Jewish autonomy within this state.
All pre-1948 proposals called for a single state and some approached the Jews as the Palestinians are now treated, namely in terms of offering them autonomy and partition of land, etc.
The failure to accept the notion of a single state is thus the historical mistake which lies behind today’s tragedy. A declaration establishing one state by one party for its own benefit is also a mistake, and the concept of partition has failed and will do so again.
Before 1948 the Jews were regarded in just the same manner as the Palestinians are regarded today. There were a minority in Palestine, fed allusions to self-rule at one moment and Jewish areas another. Palestinians were in the majority, which is why they rejected the well-known partition resolution of 1947. Following 1948 this situation was reversed: the Palestinians became the minority as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars, the Jews the majority within the area termed Israel, and intimations of self-rule, Arab areas and partition were made to the Arabs, just as they had previously been made to the Jews.
The final historic solution is that proposed in this, The White Book.
The reason for this overview of the various proposals was to demonstrate that the notion of a single Palestinian state was on the negotiating table and that the rejection of this solution is the cause of the tragedy experienced by the region today. The alternative to the one state solution is what we see before us today.
Two States: Risks and Misconceptions
An Israeli scholar and Brigadier who served as a military commander in the West Bank from 1974 to 1976 once said that it was not possible to accept the partition of Palestine or agree to foreign rule over Israel’s territory. He justified his refusal with the following facts, which, because they are critical, cannot be ignored:
The West Bank is a mountainous area 50 km wide as the crow flies and up to 1000 metres high. It overlooks Israel’s vital heartland — a coastal plain just 14-20 km in width. 67% of Israel’s population live in this area, which also holds 80% of Israel’s industries. The presence of another party in the West Bank, posing a direct threat to the Israeli heartland, cannot therefore be accepted.
Brigadier Mieer Bael is a tolerant adherent of the Zionist left and member of the Peace Council, and yet he both affirms and emphasises, “Our right is historical in the West Bank and many believe it to be ‘the heart of the Jewish nation’. Our right to retain it is sacredly established in religious and historical duties and traditions, in which the people of Israel believe.
The same argument is put forward for not conceding the West Bank on grounds of critical reasons by Arie Shalev, a scholar and Brigadier, “Were we to lose the West Bank,” he wrote, “Israel’s depth between Tulkarem and Natanya would be just 15 km and between Qalqiliyah and the Hertzalia coast just 14 km. Israel would thus be exposed due to a lack of strategic depth in the face of any threat. In the event of war breaking out in the West Bank, Israel would be divided into two or three parts were an Arab army to reach the coast.”
“Even without a war, Israel would remain under constant threat from the West Bank and Israeli airspace would be at the control of the West Bank.
He went further, saying, “To guarantee Israel’s security, the West Bank must be divided into three defensive positions, namely Ghur and the river Jordan, the foot of the mountains of Samaria and the Judean desert, and the high peaks that link Jenin, Tobas, Nablus, the Lafuna heights, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Tikwa’. This is in addition to fixed lines of defence in the south of the Gaza Strip.”
“Any area dividing the Palestinians and the Israelis would not be source of security for Israeli. In fact, it would constitute a security irritation.”
However, he noted, “Israel’s policies have poisoned the Zionist idea of transforming the country into a two-nation state.”
Professor Shlomo Evneri said, “The Israeli-Palestinian dispute differs from all other disputes in the 19th and 20th century, which have been essentially border disputes, albeit some have persisted for over 100 years. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute differs from these, however. It is a struggle between two movements, each of which believes that the same territory is its possession or part of its nation. Thus, the Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation. even were they to secure the West Bank and Gaza. In the same way the Jews believe that the West Bank is Samaria and Judea, part of their homeland, even if a Palestinian state were established there.” Continuing, he wrote of the West Bank, “For the Jews, it is their historical homeland, home of a glorious heritage and the land of salvation.
For the Arabs, Professor Evneri continues, it is their land, which they have ruled as Arabs and Muslims since the 7th century, the majority of its inhabitants are Arab Muslims, it forms part of the greater Arab homeland, stretching from the Gulf to the Atlantic ocean, and is thus no different from Yemen or Iraq. He also notes that the Arabs call it Palestine or southern Syria. The Zionist Movement, by contrast, calls it the land of Israel. In such a situation, he writes, “Either one of the movements must destroy the other, or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is the establishment of one state for all, allowing each party to feel that they live in all the disputed land and that they are not deprived of any one part of it. “Recognition of Palestinian self-determination means nothing more than the definition of the area of activity permitted them by Israel, which is contrary to this solution because [he believes] it is not a solution at all.
Professor Evneri also writes, “I do not support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, because it is not possible to separate one million Palestinians living east of the Jordan from their Palestinian identity. A Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip cannot resolve the problem of refugees, even those in Lebanon and Syria…any situation which maintains the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer an honourable solution within the historical land borders of Israel/Palestine is no solution at all. Even if a Palestinian state was established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and was prepared to live in peace with Israel, even under a conciliatory leadership other than that of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), it would not be a solution, because it would not confront the problem of refugees and repatriation, even if just to accommodate refugees from Lebanon in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, because this area cannot absorb such numbers.
Yahu Shifat Herkabi, a Zionist strategist and scholar, university lecturer, specialist in the Arab-Israeli dispute and author of several books, writes, “Acceptance by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank is no more than a tactical posture to settle its account with Israel. It will demand more. It will mount a struggle in order to achieve its objectives. Acceptance of a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip merely postpones the continuation of the struggle to a later phase.
“Demilitarised Zones are a bitter and failed experiment because they make control over such areas weak, which is a factor in creating struggle, not stability.
“The establishment of an independent Palestinian state also puts an end to the Israeli dream of Greater Israel and forces the Palestinians to concede the rest of Palestine. This statelet would be exposed to increasing interference from Jordan and the Israelis in its domestic affairs, which would inevitably lead to violent struggle.
Mati Steinburg, lecturer at the Hebrew University, writes, “Agreement to the phased objective providing for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza Strip should not in any circumstance be interpreted as a concession in place of the final objective…settlement is nothing more than a brief stage in the framework of the conventional theory, which has not changed.
This Zionist lecturer fears that agreement to self-determination will also apply to the so-called Israeli Arabs and Jordanian Palestinians.
THE FUNDAMENTAL HISTORICAL SOLUTION Isratine:
A Single State for Jews and Palestinians
Prerequisites
The return of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons wherever they are located should they so wish, for it cannot be permitted that Jews who were not originally inhabitants of Palestine, and whose ancestors were not originally inhabitants of the country, can be brought in from abroad whilst Palestinians who fled Palestine as refugees and displaced persons only a short time ago, following the 1948 war, should not be so permitted. This rationale is more persuasive given that the Jews emphasise that they did not expel the Palestinians but that the Palestinians believed the propaganda claims and fled their homes. It is sufficient to note that one of the most famous zealots, Shmuel Katz, a member of the first Knesset, and leader of the Herut movement and the Etzel National Military Organisation, cited the words of Glubb Pasha: “The Arab citizens have been seized with terror and have fled their villages without being exposed to any threat during the war.
Shmuel suggests that this is how the lie arose that the Jews forcibly expelled the Arabs from their villages. He writes, “Correspondents who covered the 1948 war, most of whom were hostile to the Jews, spoke of the Arabs fleeing. But they did not say that their flight was forced. They did not even intimate it.” Shmuel thus acknowledges the unusual phenomenon, that of flight. He also acknowledges that it took place on a significant scale. He further acknowledges that it was a mass flight of farmers, who should have remained rooted on their land. Shmuel continues, “The men fled without defending their homes and this phenomenon of collective mass flight of these Palestinians requires a logical explanation. He also cites the words of the Times correspondent in Amman, who wrote that Syria, Lebanon, East Jordan and Iraq were ‘filled’ by those fleeing Israel and expressed surprise at how they fled, and why they did not remain or resist.
Shmuel also quotes Emil al-Ghuri, Secretary to the Supreme Arab Authority, who addressed the political committee of the United Nations on 17 November 1960 in the following words: “It is the Zionist acts of terror, accompanied by mass killings, which caused the mass exodus of the Arabs from Palestine. The propagation of these lies could have been nipped in the bud.
The purpose of our citing these remarks is to emphasise two things: first, to acknowledge that a mass exodus did take place; secondly, to make clear that the reasons for the exodus lay in the propagation of frightening and false rumours about massacres that never in fact took place, in particular the events reported to have occurred in the infamous village of Dir Yasin.
These remarks and the evidence they contain — and there is much else that could be included — is presented here in this, The White Book, to enable us to benefit from it and thereby come closer to the final solution, for the testimony of Zionist leaders, academics and neutral observers serves to establish the following:
First, that Palestinians inhabited this land and that they owned farms and homes there until 1948 and 1967.
Secondly, that they left this land in 1948, leaving their farms and homes, in fear of massacres, irrespective of whether these massacres actually happened or not.
Thirdly, that prominent leaders and academics in the Zionist movement, including individuals who participated in the 1948 conflict, testify that the Jews did not expel the Palestinians from Palestine, not from their farms, nor from their homes; in fact, the Palestinians believed the terrible rumours circulating and left Palestine.
Fourthly, that those who left formed a large group, that the exodus was on a significant scale.
This is positive — it will assist us in solving the problem.
The Jews, therefore, do not hate the Palestinians. They do not want to expel the Palestinians from their land, Palestine. They did not decide to massacre them, as the rumours suggest. And even the massacre at Dir Yasin did not take place. In fact, it was non-Palestinian Arabs who attacked Palestine and declared war on the Jews.
To find a solution to the problem, let us permit ourselves to believe all of the above and go back to the starting point, the point of origin, namely the return of Palestinians who left Palestine between 1948 and 1967. The Jews stress that they did not expel the Palestinians, who fled for the reasons outlined above, which means that not even the Jews, who have occupied their land, can object to Palestinians remaining there. This is the key to solving the problem, namely the return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine, a measure which would have the effect of putting everything back in its proper place and implements United Nations Resolution, issued on 11 December 1948, which calls in Article 11 for the return of refugees, to which there can be no legitimate basis or right for any objection.
In order to solve the problem, let us learn the lessons taught to us by history. As we have seen, the Old Testament and the history of the area record that Palestine saw successive transfer of numerous tribes and peoples. It was the object of a struggle for the whole of the land, not any one part. The Palestinians were the original inhabitants — the name Palestine derives from the Philistines — and the Jews and the Zionist Movement called the land Palestine up to 1948. And, as we identified earlier in this work, every Zionist movement, bank or Jewish institution bore the name ‘Palestine’, a practice which, by their own testimony, continued until 1948.
And as we have stated before, and as the history of the region makes clear, no one, therefore, has the right to grant himself all of Palestine or indeed the right to grant part of Palestine to someone else.
The Inevitable Failure of Partition
Two Neighbouring States
1) First and foremost, these are not neighbouring states: they are intertwined and cut across one another in terms of both demography and geography.
2) The depth of the so-called state of Israel on establishment of another state in the West Bank would be just 14 km. The Israelis would not allow this to happen.
3) All the coastal cities would be at the mercy of field and medium range artillery from any point in the West Bank.
4) See the remarks made in the section entitled Two States: Risks and Misconceptions.
5) Any buffer zone would become a source of security irritation, not a source of security, and the object of a battle for control or advantage. In international history buffer zones have been the cause of many wars and conflicts.
6) The Palestinians would not accept a statelet. They want a state, one that is armed to defend itself. It would have the right to arm itself to the same level as neighbouring states. This is a natural and legitimate right, to which no one can object.
7) The area in its entirety, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean, is in no way large enough for two states.
8) The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not large enough to accommodate refugees, even those in Lebanon and Syria, not to mention those spread across other areas of the world.
9) There is the problem of those displaced recently. Where would they go? The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not the land of those displaced from other areas.
10) The so-called state of Israel is not large enough to admit new immigrants.
11) Assimilation exists already and could become a model for the two parties to assimilate in a single state. At present, such assimilation as there is constitutes the foundations on which a single state could be built.
There are one million Palestinians in the so-called state of Israel. They possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. Their number will increase from one million to several millions with the passage of time. The same applies to the so-called Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If the Jews living therein currently total some hundreds of thousands, they will grow to become a million and more with the passage of time. The creation of the so-called state of Israel in 1948 is not just a state for the Jews. There are also Christians and Catholic Jews, Muslims and Druze Muslims, Arabs and Israelis, the Falasha and others.
12) The existence of each party depends on the other. Israeli factories rely on Palestinians operations, and goods and services are exchanged between the parties.
13) The well-known Zionist Mieer Bael, whose views were cited earlier, reiterates the point: “Each year the two groups [i.e. the Palestinians and the Jews] assimilate more and more.On one side, this assimilation is realised by means of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the other, according to Bael, assimilation is driven further by the massive expansion in Arab labour in all areas of Israel.
In every building that is put up, in every field that is sown, in every factory requiring workers, in every hotel, restaurant and municipal cleaning service, and in every public utility tens of thousand of Palestinians from all areas of the country work on a daily basis — young Palestinian men from Nablus, Gaza, Tiba, Galilee and Heron.
Given this state of affairs, it would simply be unfeasible and impractical to partition Palestine into two states. Under partition there would not be a state called Israel, nor would there be a state called Palestine. Those who call for the partition of Palestine into two states are thus either ignorant of the nature of the region and of its demography, or they want to rid themselves of the problem and put it in the hands of the Jews and Palestinians. It may appear that we had thus solved the problem but in this instance we would be insincere: we would have done little else than to establish the foundations for a new conflict.
Land of their Forefathers/The Promised Land
The Palestinians view the coastal towns of Acre, Haifa or Jaffa and others as their towns, as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation. It was only a short time ago that they actually lived there, and the evidence for this is that they are presently living in refugee camps. Where did the inhabitants of the camps of the West Bank and Gaza Strip come from? They are not from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, but fled there following the 1948 war.
These people will never accept anything less than the land of the forefathers, which they left in 1948. And what about the refugees who live in the camps of Lebanon and Syria? Where is their land, the land of their forefathers? And what about the Palestinians of the Diaspora? In the case of the Jews, they believe that the West Bank is their sacred territory, if not the heart of the Jewish nation. They do not call it the West Bank, but Judea and Samaria. How can we possibly deprive a people of the land of their forefathers? How can we possibly deprive a people from land that is sacred to them?
Alov Harabin, a Zionist scholar, writes that the problem is that of a conflict between two peoples over their ownership of one piece of land. Chaim Weizmann said in his famous expression of the 1930s: “The problem is that both sides are in the right.
How can we substitute one for the other? It simply is not possible. Nor would it be permissible to attempt to do so. The Jews, especially the religious among them, would not accept any substitute for land that is, in their beliefs, sacred, and the Palestinians, notably the hard-liners among them, will not accept any substitute for the land of their forefathers.
If two statelets are established, each party will continue the struggle against the other, in order to live in the land of their forefathers in the case of the Palestinians, and in the Promised Land in the case of the Jews.
The solution is to benefit from both the present set of circumstances and the historical reality of the situation, and to establish the state of Isratine to comprise both Palestinians and Israelis, thereby allowing both to move wherever they will. He who believes that the West Bank is his land can live there or travel there as he wishes. He could even call it Judea and Samaria should he so want. Likewise, if a Palestinian should want to live or travel within the coastal cities of Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Jadwal and the others, he could do so. This would put everything back the way it was, and thereby end the injustice and deprivation, for there is no history of enmity between Jews and Arabs. The only hostility is that that occurred between the Jews and Romans in earlier times and between Jews and Europeans more recently.
It was the Arabs who played host to the Jews and protected them from persecution following maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and the Kings of England, and following their expulsion from Andalucia.
Alov Herabin, the Zionist scholar cited above, writes, “The Palestinians say, ‘Why should we, in particular, pay the price for the persecution of the Jews in Europe?’ Thus the Palestinians have not persecuted the Jews and the Jews say, ‘We did not expel the Palestinians’ and ‘It was the non-Palestinian Arabs who declared war against us in 1948’.
This constitutes positive evidence, which can certainly be employed in the interests of the solution by establishment of a state assimilating both parties.
Alov adds, “The meeting of Israelis and Palestinians is the meeting of two peoples who have lived cruel and painful tragedies whilst others pretended not to notice. He adds further, after laying the blame with the Palestinians for rejecting the Jews after they were despised in Europe, “Undoubtedly the Palestinians have their reasons for this phenomenon. When have we ever heard of a people opening their doors to welcome another people, and giving up, of its own volition, some of its land to enable another people to establish their own entity?” Alov is referring to the response of the Palestinian people in the face of Jewish immigration to Palestine, Jews who did not know Palestine, when other territories, such as Uganda and Argentina, were potential candidates.
SUMMARY
1) The land area is too narrow for two states.
2) Two states would come into conflict, because the land of each, they believe, forms part of the land of the other, and each statelet would feel threatened by the other party.
3) Neither could absorb Jewish immigrants and Palestinian refugees.
4) Each party has settlements on the land of the other. At least one million Palestinians live in the so-called state of Israel and about half a million Israelis, at least, currently live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Other sects include the Druze, Catholics, Christians and Muslims. The area provides a model for assimilation.
5) The workers in Israeli factories are Palestinians.
6) Mutual reliance, if not integration, in respect of goods and services.
FINAL NOTES
1) Return of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons to their homes.
2) A single state — Lebanon is an example.
3) Free elections under UN supervision on the first and second occasion.
4) Removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction from the new state and, if any, from the Middle East.
5) Conflict in the Middle East would then end. The new state would be like Lebanon. It would receive recognition and could even accede to the Arab League.
There may some objections to the name, but they would be unhelpful, harmful and superficial. Proponents of such objections would be relying on their hearts more than their minds. We have to make a judgement between two alternatives: Jewish security, with Jews living in peace with Palestinians, assimilated with them in a single state; or retention of the name, thereby sacrificing Jewish security and peace in the Middle East and the world generally.
We should not listen to the voices of the old guard, with their World War II mentality; we should listen to the voice of the young, the generation of globalisation, the generation of the future.
It is the old mentality that stands behind the present tragedy.
A Jewish state alone is exposed to the Arab and Islamic threat, but a mixed state comprising Muslims, Jews, Arabs and Israelis would never come under the threat of Arab or Muslim attack.
Since 1967 the situation has been that of a single Israeli-Palestinian state. Even the attacks by fedayeen were mounted from outside the borders of that state.
The present fedayeen attacks are not mounted by the Arabs of 1948, as they are called, but by Palestinians not included within the boundaries of the so-called Israeli Arabs. This is a clear example of the success of a single assimilated state — Isratine.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
