Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 ggr 02/21/84; site bentley.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!dxa From: dxa@bentley.UUCP (DR Anolick) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: More of the Saga Message-ID: <568@bentley.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 17:31:32 EDT Article-I.D.: bentley.568 Posted: Fri Sep 6 17:31:32 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 07:32:41 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway Lines: 108 I apologize for the length of this article, and for the delay in following up a two week old posting. In a previous article entitled "More of the saga", Mr. Black states: > As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious. > The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since > it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of > occupation on Palestinian land. If it were to be turned over to anybody, it > should have been released to those who had a more legitimate claim, to wit, > the Palestinians. > > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on > territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. The > Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years. They owned it rightfully. > Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and > had made no claim to it. (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?) > > Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area > over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the > local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors. But > they didn't. They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and > drove the Palestinian people into the desert. > > Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli > State. > [Don Black] I have already written an article to address many of the above points; below is a summary of that article. [Please do not flame based on this summary, but read the entire original text. I will gladly send you a copy if you don't have one.] - It is true that Arabs had been in the area for 2000 years. However, Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. - There was never an Arab state in Palestine, and never a separate Palestinian Arab nation. - Jews never totally abandoned Palestine, Jewish life there continued uninterrupted, and often flourished. - Jews did not steal Palestinian lands or property, they _purchased_ worthless Arab lands at inflated prices, and transformed them into being productive. I am writing this additional follow-up because in my original article, I did not address one of the points which I feel is important. That has to do with Mr Black's statements that: > The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since > it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of > occupation on Palestinian land. > > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on > territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. First of all, the British did not "turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees." When the British troops left Palestine on the eve of Israel's independence, they turned over strategic positions and military material to the Arabs. Outside of that, the British were content to leave the Jews and the Arabs to fight it out by themselves. In addition, the UN did not "order that a new nation be formed." What they did do was to recommend partitioning of the land into a Jewish State, Arab State, and an International Zone (Jerusalem and its suburbs) The Jews of Palestine were ready to accept this compromise, however the Arabs were not. The UN did have the right to recommend partition. Under the Lausanne agreement of 1923, Turkey surrendered all claims to Palestine to the Mandatory power, Britain. The UN, as successor to the League of Nations and as the recognized power responsible for mandates, had a legal right to recommend partition when Britain asked for a recommendation in 1947. When Israel declared independence, her government had clearly stated that they would remain at peace if the Arabs accepted the partition compromise. The Arabs attacked, and were defeated. If the Arabs accepted partition, what we today call the West Bank would have been part of the Arab Palestinian State. As an aside: many people today believe that Israel should give up the West Bank so that the Palestinians may have a home land. I do not wish to comment on this issue per se, but on a related topic. Those that argue that the West Bank should become a Palestinian State claim that the reason this has not happened is completely due to Israel. This is not true. In my opinion, the Palestinian Arabs are being used as political pawns. The West Bank was controlled by Jordan from 1948 until 1967. Why wasn't a separate Palestinian state formed during those nineteen years? Because it was not an issue, the Palestinian's were content to be Jordanians. After all, many people forget that Jordan _is_ Palestine. Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine, as defined by the League of Nations, was allocated to what became Jordan. The Palestinians are treated with contempt by boths sides, and that is the tragedy of the situation. These issues are not at all black and white, and certainly no single country or group deserves the blame. However, from what I have learned of the history of the area, I tend to support Israel. I am more than willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but only by facts, and not by unsubstantiated statements which have been presented by Mr. Black. Once again, on the basis of what is right and just, I support the Israeli State. -- Droyan David Roy Anolick ihnp4!bentley!{droyan|dxa} ^ ^^^ ^^ "Why are you here?" "To fight for truth, and justice, and the American Way."