COMMENTARY FROM jeffmoskin

[jeffmoskin]

Every person who is killed has (had) a mother, father, siblings, aunts, uncles, children, etc etc.'

All of whom will likely seek VENGEANCE.

Netanyahu has always opposed a 2 state solution.

Now he has his wish.

How can these two peoples EVER exist as neighbors?

Clinton came the closest in 2000. But Arafat walked away. He did not even have a counteroffer. He did not come to negotiate or to make peace. He came to walk away.

And he did.

[thelivyjr]

As to the "two-state" solution:

From World Wars And Revolutions copyrighted 1943, by Walter Phelps Hall, PhD, of Princeton:

The history of Palestine during the twenty years armistice between two European wars was confused, hectic, contradictory.

In 1917 it was the happy thought of the British government that this ancient foyer of Jewry might become again a Jewish national home, and to make it such, the British government publicly pledged itself.

In doing so, it forgot two important facts: first, that the Arabs in Palestine outnumbered the Jews eight or nine to one; and second, that those Arabs who had enlisted to help the British drive the Turks and Germans back through Palestine and Syria into Asia Minor during the last half of the war considered, rightly or wrongly, that Britain had promised an independent Arab state which would include Palestine.

Britain, however, stuck by her word to the Jews.

There had been no such formal pledge (not exactly true, as Lawrence of Arabia had made such a pledge to the Arabs during the war to entice them to fight the Turks, but was blown off by the Brit government when the war concluded, thus selling out the Arabs, who have long memories) to the Arabs as there had been to the Jews; and furthermore, such assurances as had been given the former were not to be interpreted, so said the British, as including Palestine.

**********

And still the Jews flocked into Palestine.

The advent of Hitler in Germany stimulated their advent greatly, so much so that in 1935 no less than sixty thousand reached the land of promise, and the Jews by that date had increased to almost one-third of the entire population.

Thereupon, the next year the Arabs declared a general strike in which a thousand lives were lost.

This resulted in the British sending a Royal Commission to Palestine in 1937 to investigate and recommend.

It produced a voluminous report which angered both Jew and Arab.

The Commission proposed that Palestine be divided into two separate countries, one Jewish, one Arab.

The mandate of the League of Nations, which Britain held, was to be ended, but the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, sacred to both Jew and Arab as well as to Christian, were to continue under British protection and were to belong to neither of the two new countries.

The Report was a counsel of despair.

The two new states would be too small to be self-sufficient units, for the total area of even the undivided Palestine was only approximately that of Wales or Vermont.

The "two-state" solution?

That's a load of BULL**** and has been since 1937 ...

[jeffmoskin]

No. Actually it was put forth by the UN in1947 in resolution 181. You could look it up. Israel accepted it, the arabs did not. War broke out and ended with the 1949 armistice line. Then in 1967, the arab states lined up to attack again but Israel which had been preparing for such an attack won the west bank, gaza, and the sinai in 6 days. They traded the sinai with Egypt for a peace treaty.

SInce then Israel has allowed "Settlers" into the west bank - 700,000 of them - and they are settled in a checkerboard layout, essentially blocking any sense of statehood for Palestinians. Sharon pulled Israeli settlers out of Gaza in 2006. Gazans promptly voted for Hamas who in turn cancelled future elections.

Like I mentioned, Clinton came closest to a deal, but Arafat was not prepared to sign it or any other one.

[thelivyjr]

The Report was a counsel of despair.

The two new states would be too small to be self-sufficient units, for the total area of even the undivided Palestine was only approximately that of Wales or Vermont.

Regardless of how the baloney is sliced, you can only get ten pounds into a ten pound bag.

If there wasn't enough land for two states in 1937, and no new land was ever added, then it would logically follow that since then, each and every year thereafter, regardless of what the worthless and shallow-thinking UN might have done ten years later in 1947 with its worthless resolution, there still isn't enough land for two viable states, and why would the Arabs be stupid enough to think there was, when ten years earlier in 1937, they already know there wasn't enough land to make two viable states, and they would be the losers if they were stupid enough to sign on to that deal ...

[jeffmoskin]

But there IS enough land. Israel is about the size of New Jersey, Gaza is 4 time the size of Manhattan, the West Bank is quite large if you remove most of the settlements. Ehud Barak proposed building a (fenced in) highway to connect the two, but Arafat showed no interest. And farming is a losing prospect because the entire area lacks water. Israel gets most of its water from desal (very expensive) and recycling grey water (not cheap either). They stopped exporting oranges long long ago because they were really just exporting water.

The real problem with the 2 state solution is that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want it. They want the one state solution - theirs.

And they are now paying the price of those wishes.

And of course I am referring to the leadership of those two peoples, not the people themselves.

Amos Oz, the writer, once wrote that it was like a divorced couple having to share their apartment - having to figure out who gets which bed, which space in the closet and the fridge, when each can cook dinner, etc etc.

In other words, they needed to accept each other's right to live there, and figure out a way to do it. "A peace with clenched teeth" was what Oz called it. Now that is impossible. Those teeth have been knocked out.

[thelivyjr]

Nice analysis, jeffmoskin!

In the meantime, Palestinian women and children are being slaughtered ...

Slaughter enough of them and they won't need a state ....

[thelivyjr]

Prior to WWI, the Middle East was the exclusive property of the Ottoman Empire, which was the Turks.

On May 19, 1916, after WWI had started, representatives of Great Britain and France secretly reached an accord, known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, by which most of the Arab lands under the rule of the Ottoman Empire were to be divided into British and French spheres of influence with the conclusion of World War I.

After the war broke out in the summer of 1914, the Allies—Britain, France and Russia—held many discussions regarding the future of the Ottoman Empire, now fighting on the side of Germany and the Central Powers, and its vast expanse of territory in the Middle East, Arabia and southern-central Europe.

In March 1915, Britain signed a secret agreement with Russia, whose designs on the empire’s territory had led the Turks to join forces with Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914.

By its terms, Russia would annex the Ottoman capital of Constantinople and retain control of the Dardanelles (the crucially important strait connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean) and the Gallipoli peninsula, the target of a major Allied military invasion begun in April 1915.

In return, Russia would agree to British claims on other areas of the former Ottoman Empire and central Persia, including the oil-rich region of Mesopotamia.

More than a year after the agreement with Russia, British and French representatives, Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot, authored another secret agreement regarding the future spoils of the Great War.

Picot represented a small group determined to secure control of Syria for France; for his part, Sykes raised British demands to balance out influence in the region.

The agreement largely neglected to allow for the future growth of Arab nationalism, which at that same moment the British government and military were working to use to their advantage against the Turks.

In the Sykes-Picot agreement, concluded on May 19, 1916, France and Britain divided up the Arab territories of the former Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence.

In its designated sphere, it was agreed, each country shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.

Under Sykes-Picot, the Syrian coast and much of modern-day Lebanon went to France; Britain would take direct control over central and southern Mesopotamia, around the Baghdad and Basra provinces.

Palestine would have an international administration, as other Christian powers, namely Russia, held an interest in this region.

The rest of the territory in question — a huge area including modern-day Syria, Mosul in northern Iraq, and Jordan — would have local Arab chiefs under French supervision in the north and British in the south.

Also, Britain and France would retain free passage and trade in the other’s zone of influence.

There is the beginning of the mess in the Middle East that continues to this day, thanks to the meddling and greed of France and Great Britain, both of whom should have to wear Dunce's caps and sit facing into the corner during UN meetings ...

[thelivyjr]

But there IS enough land.

Gaza is 4 time the size of Manhattan,

And where, pray tell, does Manhattan get ALL of its drinking from and its food supply?

Is Manhattan self-supporting?

[jeffmoskin]

Chaim Weitzman, a chemist by profession, invented a way to synthesize acetone which is used in making cordite which is the propellant of mortar shells. Germany could not have been defeated without it.

After the tide had turned for the Allies, Lord Balfour thanked Weitzman and asked him what he wanted in return. "A home for the Jewish People" was his answer. Hence the "Balfour Declaration"

In 1945, the Brits, bankrupt and bleeding, had to quickly end her Imperial ways of the past two centuries. First, the Partition of India, a complete disaster all its own, followed by its abandonment of the Palestinian mandate to the newly formed UN.

The UN proposed a 2 state solution, rapidly adopted by the Israelis and just as quickly rejected by the Arabs. Israel proclaimed itself a State the day that resolution 181 came into effect. The result was war.

There was an armistice in 1949, but not in the least resembling the UN map. Oh, well, that's war.

As an aside, the UN charter forbids the acquisition of land through warfare. However, at that time, Israel was not a member of the UN. It now is, and was during and after the 6 day war when it occupied the west bank. So technically speaking, it has (had) no right to build settlements there. Nor does Russia, also a UN member, have the right to Crimea (or the 4 counties of Ukraine it invaded).

The UN has no real army - only "peace keepers - what ever that means.

So in a sense, the UN is truly a debating society as its detractors call it.

I am not a detractor, but truth is truth.

[thelivyjr]

Good morning, jeffmoskin, and once again, thanks for the background history lesson ...

As to the UN, like NATO it is a joke!

I met some "UN peace keepers" once ...

They were members of our military wearing the UN blue helmets and had been stationed in Lebanon, with NO ammunition ...

And the debacle in Korea was a UN operation ...