It's your democratic right to believe as you wish, as its also mine. I know things to be true, you can believe what ever you wish, facts and truth speak for themselves. Regards Highlander
Medinah was originally Jewish, before Mohammed stole it. Maybe the Israelis should make a deal with the Muslims, "You renounce all claims to any part of Jerusalem and we'll do the same with Medinah."
and speaking of human shields. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1230801/thumbs/a-EGYPT-404x304.jpg Here are two women (the shield) facing the Egyptian soldiers, apparently this is ingrained in their psyche since the time of Mohammad.
Ahh I get it you're not really that concerned with UK affairs at this time. No worries there's a time and a place for everything. I think we can close this part of the discussion for the time being.
With the greatest respect, I have never been concerned with affairs south of the border, you elect your government, we suffer of it, we have up until now no control over our destiny, things change, better for you better for me. I do follow foreign policy as we still have no control over these issues but its our soldiers as well as your own that are being used as fodder for illegal wars. Regards Highlander
You can actually vote in the general election. How is that the rest of the UK has made things worse for you since the establishment of the Scottish parliament? UNFORTUNATELY none of the wars that we have been engaged in are Illegal. The UN allowed for Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the Libyan intervention. Of course I don't back the decision to go into these wars. Soldiers from Scotland are ours too you know.
In addition one has to understand the 1949 border vs the Armistice line of 1967. What you call a 1949 border was in reality an "ARMISTICE LINE".... if you do not know that much it would be just futile to entertain a debate with a "pretender" whilst knowledgeable people are eager to learn and absorb historical knowledge. The WB did not originally belong to the so called "Palestinian" (which is a modern appellation) it was in reality under the powers of the Hashemites for 19 years and under the British for 30 years before that and the Ottoman Turk for 400 years before the British... Israelis and no other dislodged and vacated the Hashemites from the so called WB and the British before that... As for Gaza it was under the aegis of the Egyptians in 1967 and it was once again the Israelis who made the Egyptian scatter behind the Suez Canal. Victor Davis Hanson wrote, quote: - The so called Palestinians publicly allege that once given back 100 percent of the West Bank they will recognize Israel and thus the dispute will at last end with recognition by the entire Arab world of the Jewish State. Fair enough. Palestine will thereupon be democratic and prosperous, and so for the first time in its history live in peace side-by-side with Israel. Most Americans welcome just such a vision. Of course, few in the Islamic world really believe that. Indeed, a number of its more impolitic spokesmen have already written that such a withdrawal would merely be the first step in a renewed struggle to end Israel altogether as the Arab world was energized at a sign of "weakness," and the citizens of Israel demoralized by concessions made under duress. If one peruses translated newspapers and magazine articles from the Middle East, the rhetoric of destroying Israel is far more ubiquitous than the gospel of mutual coexistence. The Arab League will soon meet to promise acceptance of Israel's right to exist with the return of the West Bank of course with the caveat that we can hardly expect the crazies like Syria, Iraq, and Libya to sign on publicly to such a "surrender." Mr. Arafat himself to domestic audiences screams "jihad," and "infidels," as he praises suicide bombers as "martyrs" and "heroes," and promises the capture of Jerusalem. Unquote
Jordan is Palestine BUT Gaza is a part of Egypt. Egyptians hate the Bedouin Gazans, But they should open their border and unite.
Go to Craig Murray site, former ambassador, he,s far more eloquent in explaining the differences. Please, this isn't an them and us argument, it's solely a different option from the status quo. Our democratic right. Regards Highlander
I did. There was nothing that related to our discussion. I never said that it was a "them and us argument". I oppose Scottish independence and that is the option that I'm against.
"The 'Jordan-is-Palestine' plan is thus a right-wing fantasy which mirrors the left-wing fantasy of the 'two-state solution.' Both are based on the assumption that if the Palestinians had a state of their own, the conflict would cease, Israel would capture the moral high ground and the fundamental perception of the conflict would shift, that it would become a run-of-the mill territorial dispute between states, etc." If the land between the River and the sea is currently home to approximately equal numbers of Jews and Arabs both living under legal codes written by a Jewish-dominated legislative body and enforced by the IDF, would the conflict lessen if every Arab and Jew had a vote determining who writes the laws? http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Should-Jordan-be-Palestine-310849
Your Naivete is quite apparent... perhaps the age and life experience are missing... An interesting article by Aaron David Miller about what he thinks are misconceptions about what needs to be done to achieve a Middle East peace. Five Myths About Middle East Peace 1. Direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are the key to reaching an accord. History argues strongly to the contrary. With the exception of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994, every negotiation that has resulted in an enduring Mideast agreement was brokered by the United States. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s -- the poster child for direct negotiations -- ended in disaster, as broken commitments, terror and violence, and unmet expectations overwhelmed Palestinians and Israelis. Still, the power of direct negotiations is compelling. I'll never forget chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat telling me in a moment of great frustration in 1995 that he could get more from the Israelis directly than he ever could from us. In the current phase of the peace process, direct talks that build trust between Israelis and Palestinians are vital, of course, but they are not sufficient to reach an agreement. Sooner rather than later, the United States will need to invest itself more heavily in the negotiations in order to bridge gaps on core issues such as borders and the status of Jerusalem; will need to marshal the billions of dollars required to support an agreement; and probably will need to deploy U.S. forces to the Jordan Valley to monitor security arrangements. Without active U.S. involvement, it is unlikely that an agreement can be reached and implemented. 2. The United States is an honest broker in the peace process. It has been before and can be again. But in the past 16 years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, we have failed to be as tough, fair and reassuring as we need to be to broker a solution. Our relationship with the Israelis is special -- and it has to be because of Israel's unique security position and the values that bind us -- but if we intend to be a credible mediator, it cannot become exclusive. We cannot advocate for one side over another or clear our positions with one party in advance; our client must be the agreement itself. And we need to adopt negotiating positions that reflect the balance of interests between the two sides, not use Israel's position as the point of departure for U.S. policy. The challenge for the Obama administration is to find this balance, one that neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush achieved. 3. Settlements are the main obstacle to peacemaking. On the Israeli side, there is indeed no greater obstacle. For more than four decades, the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank has reshaped Israeli politics for the worse, humiliated Palestinians and made an already complex process even more complicated. And Israel's recent refusal to extend a moratorium on settlement construction has threatened to undermine the negotiations before they have a chance to get serious. Successive American administrations have not taken the settlement issue as seriously as needed. The U.S. line has always been the same: Getting to the negotiations is the only way Palestinians can address the settlement issue. Even then-Secretary of State James Baker -- who took a tough line with the Israelis on settlements and occupation -- believed that negotiation was the only way to resolve this issue, saying to the Palestinians in 1991: "If you're asking that we send in the 82nd Airborne, forget it." But even if the settlement issue were resolved today, negotiations would still confront another galactic challenge: a crisis within the Palestinian national movement, with two authorities governing two discreet areas with two different security services, two different patrons and two different visions of the Palestinian future. The upshot of the battle between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is that without a monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society -- without one authority to silence the guns and rockets -- no agreement can be implemented. 4. Pressuring the Israelis is the only way to reach an agreement. The idea that the United States can pummel a close ally into accepting a deal that undermines its security or political interests is flat-out wrong. The Middle East is littered with the failed schemes of great powers that tried to impose their will on small tribes. Pressuring Israel (and the Arabs, too) has been an inevitable part of every successful negotiation in which the United States has been involved. But that fight must occur within a relationship of trust and confidence, and with U.S. willingness to offer not just the prospect of pain but the prospect for gain. The Obama administration -- which spent the better part of the past year not sure whether it wanted to punish the Israelis or pander to them -- decided to make a comprehensive freeze on settlements the make-or-break issue. President Obama believed (wrongly) that he could push the Israelis into agreeing to such a freeze, something not even the most dovish Israeli prime minister would ever do. As recently as last month at the U.N. General Assembly, Obama stated that Israel should extend the settlement moratorium -- when it was already clear that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would not. Such declarations make the United States look weak and feckless. U.S. envoy fails to break impasse over Israeli settlements 5 Myths about Middle East peace Defining 'Jewish state': For many, term has different meanings View All Items in This Story The administration may be learning. To keep the current talks afloat, it seems to be offering both sides assurances on the substance of the negotiations: for the Israelis, security guarantees that might constrain Palestinian sovereignty; for the Palestinians, a commitment on the June 1967 borders, with land swaps from Israel proper for any West Bank territory the Israelis plan to annex. This is risky if the assurances go too far, but it shows that Obama now understands that fighting Israel over settlements is a dead end. 5. Arab-Israeli peace is critical to securing U.S. interests in the Middle East. It would help, but it wouldn't come close to overcoming our challenges in a region so troubled and turbulent. National security adviser James Jones got caught up in this belief, asserting in 2009 that "if there was one problem that I would recommend to the president [to solve], this would be it." Arab-Israeli peace will not stabilize Afghanistan or facilitate an extrication of U.S. forces from there. It will not create a viable political contract among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. It will not stop Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon. It will not force Arab states to respect human rights. Nor will it end anti-American sentiment fueled by our support for authoritarian Arab regimes, our deployment of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, our war against terror and our close relationship with Israel. In fact, an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that does not prove viable and is not seen as fair will make our position in this region even more difficult. The president shouldn't minimize the importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace, but he shouldn't oversell it, either.
What do your"life experiences' tell you about the Prawer Plan? Per Jonathon Cook: "The Prawer plan, which passed its first reading in parliament last month, will force 40,000 Bedouin off their land the largest expulsions inside Israel for decades. Unlike Jewish citizens, they will have no say over where they live; they will be forcibly assigned to a township. "For the first time, Israeli citizens the Bedouin are to be deprived of any recourse to the courts as they are harried from their homes. Instead Israel will resort to administrative procedures more familiar from the occupied territories. "The policy is clear: Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line are to be treated like sheep, penned into ever-smaller areas, while Jews will have unrestrained access to a Greater Israel envisioned by Netanyahu.."
Palestinians realize national independence for them means living in an Arab country. Palestinians who illegally live in Israel have experienced life in a country which is not Arabic so they understand the difference, say, between being arrested by an Israeli police officer and arrested by an Arab policeman . They halved. Their fear of living in an Arab country is real !!! - - - Updated - - - California is Usa as much as Mexico is California ? BS.
How many illegal Palestinians are currently living in Israel, and what eastern border are you assuming for the Jewish state?
There are approximately 800,000 Jordanians holding IDs and Passports of Jordan!!! They came at the wake of the Jordanian Army led by British officers and conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948. In 1967 Israel beat the Jordanians and forced them to retreat behind the Jordan river... Israel signed a Peace Agreement with Jordan, but Jordan did not withdraw their people... They are there with new families and they are illegal... They do not have Israeli citizenship and would not swear allegiance to the Israeli flag. I am for their transfer back to Jordan. Now to answer the question about the 'Bedouins'... What is a Bedouin? Bedouin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Bedouin (/ˈbɛdʉ.ɪn/; from the Arabic badawiyyīn, plural of badawī بَدَوِي, .... by the nomads in the regions of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, and ... What is a Nomad? member of a people who have no permanent abode and travel from place to place to find fresh pasture for their livestock. Prawer Plan Around 63 percent of aggregate Bedouin land claims will be granted. The bill ensures that upon its full implementation, all the Negev’s Bedouin will live in towns connected to the country’s infrastructure (electricity grid, water, schools, roads, etc.). Hassan Ka’biyya, a well-known member of Israel’s Bedouin community who is currently working in the Foreign Ministry, has expressed support for the Prawer plan
Back to the point of the thread. Jordan (formally Transjordan) is not Palestine as the British, as Mandatory, divided the territory under the authority at the end of WW I into two separate political entities. One was Transjordan and the other was Palestine. Next is the fact that the territory occupied by Israel at during the 1967 War is not Israeli territory as established by UNSC Resolution 242. The acquisition of territory by war in unacceptable as was expressly established by UNSC Resolution 242.
Assuming there are 800,000 inhabitants of the West Bank "holding IDs and Passports of Jordan" among a total Arab population of 2.3 million and 350,000 Jews, does that mean any transfer of Semites would have to occur in both directions? Maybe Uri Avnery had a better solution decades ago: "SOME MONTHS before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, I met a high-ranking member of the Egyptian regime. The meeting took place in Paris through the auspices of a mutual friend. Throughout the years, I have met many leaders of the different Arab states, exchanging opinions and trading ideas for a settlement. But this meeting was different. "At the outset, I said to my new-found friend: 'Let's make a list of all possible solutions to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Let's analyze every solution in turn and see where we get.' "'Taking a pen, we wrote the following list on the paper cloth on our table in the Paris restaurant: (A) Annihilation by war (B) The destruction of Israel by political and economic isolation (C) Status quo (D) A Semitic federation.'" http://members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/pax-semitica.html
Semitic Federation is an Arab win-win solution... unless one decides to castrate all their males. Their birthrate and their rape ratio (see Europe) is tremendous. I prefer Transfer and separation... after all these are two different peoples, two different religions, two different languages and two different aspirations.
You like to repeat and rehash your version of 242 that cannot be implemented because your interpretation is flawed. Resolution 242 will not be consumated unless mutual agreement is accepted. Frankly I think 242 will die on the vine exactly like Resolution 181. Here is once more the official document... to counter your repeated interpretation. ===================================================================== Israel Information Service Gopher Information Division Israel Foreign Ministry - Jerusalem Mail all Queries to ask@israel-info.gov.il =============================================== U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 NOVEMBER 22, 1967 +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Following the June '67, 6-Day War, the situation in the Middle | | East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred | | the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a | | final draft for a Security Council resolution was | | presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November | | 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day. | | | | This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and | | principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of | | the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of | | Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades. | | | | Following the text of the Resolution, we have included a | | number of authoritative interpretations of the wording. | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 NOVEMBER 22, 1967 The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2. Affirms further the necessity (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. Statements Clarifying the Meaning of Resolution 242 ====================================== Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special ³ Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab ³ States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called ³ for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories ³ occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal ³ phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total ³ withdrawal. Following are statements including the ³ interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242: ³ A. United Kingdom - Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242: " . . . the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. TO add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67) - Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973: Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?" Answer: "the purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . " - Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969: Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honorable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?" Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal." - Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate." - Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970: "I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70) B. United States of America - Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242: "To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description ... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is . . . " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 1 1.67) - President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968: "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved." - Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"): "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties." - Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs: a) " . . . paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69) b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbors 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 6 C. USSR - Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242: " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67) D. Brazil - Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242: "We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)
Do you believe a recent Jewish immigrant from Poland has greater claim to the land of Area C than an Arab whose ancestors have lived there for generations? Hebrew nationalists and Arab nationalists speak two different languages of the same (Semitic) family, both emphasizing the common cultural and spiritual background of all peoples of their Region. It's difficult to imagine how either people will achieve their national aspirations as long as they continue threatening each other with transfer. http://members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/pax-semitica.html
Yours is a LIBERAL oversimplification... Let us dissect what is relevant to you according to your M.E. evaluation. FIRST, There is no so called 'PALESTINIAN PEOPLE', this terminology was opted by Arafat in 1964. Now if we all follow your line of thought... as you consider that a 'PALESTINIAN PEOPLE' do exist, then your emphasis should be direct at the Arabs equally... Now since 79% of the Jordanian population is so called 'Palestinians' then, the solution should be made in Jordan! Jordan was 77% of the Mandate, its population is 79% so called 'Palestinians'... Soooooo... Palestine do exist in the Eastern Part of Mandatory Palestine! SECOND, The primary reason for Israel's RECONSTITUTION was/is the ingathering of ALL Jewish EXILES, your attempt to drive a wedge between Jews reflects your selective way to be even handed. The Arabs are not indigenous to the 'Land of Israel', they are opportunists, they were sent during the 'Ottoman Empire' to work the Lands of the 'Effendis' and BTW most of them were not Arabs then, they also came from Muslim Europe Albania, Bosnia and other parts of the Ottoman Empire... The British through the Mandate years imported Syrians, Egyptian Fellahin, North Africans to build their Airports and camps and they never returned back... Even during the time of Mohamed Ali many Egyptian villages popped on the Land of the Jews, these were AWOL Egyptian Soldiers and others that would not return to their countries. THIRD, during the whole period of recorded history Palestine was never ruled by the Arabs of Palestine. The rules of the various Arab Caliphates, which was a FOREIGN MOSLEM RULE extended for a period 435 years, the Ottoman Turk Rule extended for a period of 400 years. Jews were masters of their own fate and realm for more than 2000 years. The inhabitants of the region consisted of the conquering soldiers and their slaves, and only during the Arab Conquest of the area in the seventh Century were these diverse ethnic inhabitants compelled to accept Islam and the Arab tongue or be put to the sword. The Jews in fact are the sole survivors of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine who have maintained an uninterrupted link with the land since the dawn of recorded history. Palestine Arab Nationalism to whatever degree it is a conscious ideal today, is a product of recent political currents. Until the 1920’s no such National Community had even existed in Palestine. This is why both the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate charged the Jews of the National Home with guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants… No mention was made of other National Rights of other inhabitants…! No mention was made of other National rights…>> BECAUSE it was recognized that the only National Claim to the area was that made by the Jews.<< But the fiction of Palestine Arab nationality is still being exploited. If the Palestinians were in fact a separate nationality, then their anger over the past 65 years should have been directed as much against Jordan, since this Artificial State is sitting on 77% of Mandatory Palestine.
Jordan was part of Mandate Palestine for less than two years. The vast majority of Jordan is NOT part of historical Palestine. The League of Nations and the British allowed the Jews to settle in Palestine to make a national home, ONLY if they promise to not discriminate against the rights and freedom of non-Jews. The UN accepted Israel as a member based on the principles of UN resolutiomn 181, making Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, with an Arab state in the West Bank.
What is flawed is the Zionist argument. First of all UNSC Resolution 242 is a mandatory resolution while UNSG Resolution 181 was a advisory resolution. The UN General Assembly has no authority to mandate anything. All UN Member states have a treaty obligation to comply with ALL UN Security Council resolutions under Article 25 of the UN Charter. Israel has repeatedly refused to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions that address it in violation of Israel's treaty agreement as a member of the United Nations. What is also ignored by the Zionists is the principles established by UNSC 242: The Zionist regime in Israel has refused to accept and acknowledge that "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" which is expressly established by UNSC Resolution 242. Israel has completely ignore that it is "inadmissible" for Israel to occupy any territory that it gained military control of by it's offensive war of occupation in 1967. We should also address Article II of the UN Charter as this is expressly mentioned in UNSC Resolution 242. Israel, since it's founding and voluntarily joining the United Nation has consistently ignore Article II Section 4 (in bold). We can also note that Article II refers to Article I and Israel has historically ignored Article I Section 2 related to the Palestinians. In short the Zionist Jews of Israel are in violation of the treaty agreements they've voluntarily agreed to abide by, in violation of International law that is established by treaty, in violation of the Rights of the Palestinians by denying Self-Determination over the territory that belongs to them, and are a fundamentally rogue nation in the world today that should be subjected to the most extreme of economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council to force compliance with all UNSC resolutions. If Israel refuses to comply with UNSC Resolutions the UNSC needs to enforce those resolutions with the imposition of economic sanctions, period. Israel should be treated no differently than Iran, N Korea, or any other nation that is in violation of UNSC Resolutions.
