Dear forum reader,

Of course Muskie was speaking in support his country abstaining from the vote, (unconvincingly I thought), that is the reason I prefaced my sentence with “completely out of context of course”!

Without the preface it would have been disingenuous, kind of like dishing up three articles of the PLO Charter then when challenged with the Charter of the Likud party saying;

“Comparing the PLO Constitution - binding on all Palestinian Arabs - to the political platform of one of many political parties in Israel is a furphy. If you compared the PLO Constitution to the Basic Laws of Israel you might be on firmer ground. But I guess you would want to avoid any such discussion.”

Notice dear reader how we have somehow gone from Charter to Constitution, two separate documents. Why? Because it better fits his argument that we should ignore the Likud Charter and focus on the Basic Laws of Israel thinking he was on safer ground. Slippery in my book.

Still on the PLO Charter. David raised three Articles from it in defence of his use of the terms Jew and Arab. He omitted Article 6 which reads “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” Disingenuous in my book but then I am not a lawyer.

Now to the British Mandate that David asserted came into effect in 1920. Perhaps he would like to go and correct the Wikipedia reference then.

“The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and The British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.” Wikipedia

Have I been a little harsh on him? Possibly, but slapping me with being one of the “greatest successes of Arab brainwashing' will get him slapped back, something bullies hate often resulting in them not wanting to play any more.

Examination of Security Council's Resolution 242 shows that it did not require that Israel withdraw from "all the territories" occupied after the Six-Day War. This wording was deliberate. The push by Arab states and Russia to have the word "all" included was rejected.

Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador, who drafted the approved resolution, stated:

"It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."
(Prosper Weil, "Territorial Settlement in the Resolution of November 22, 1967" in John Moore, ed. The Arab-Israeli Conflict (Princeton UP, 1967) p. 321)

Any ambiguity was further removed when in October 1969 the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that Israel’s withdrawl was not required from "all the territories".
(Abba Eban, Abba Eban (Random House, 1982) p. 452)

Again, as reported in the “Beirut Daily Star” (June 12, 1974) Lord Caradon clarified Resolution 242:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because these positions were undesirable and artificial."

In his speech to AIPAC Policy Conference (May 8, 1975) regarding Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg unequivocally confirmed:

"The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawl are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' ...the resolution speaks of withdrawl from the occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawl"

Whatever one’s position about settlers on the West Bank, embedded within Resolution 242 is latitude for Israel.

The terms “Palestine/Palestinian” whilst convenient has little legitimacy as to a traditional people

In February 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations adopted the following resolution: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time.”

In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi reported to the Peel Commission: There is no such country (as Palestine).”

In 1946 Arab-American historian, Prof. Philip Hitti stated: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not”.

This same committment was echoed by the Arab Highter Committe to the UN General Assembly in May 1947; and again by Ahmed Shuqueiri (later chairman of the PLO) when addressing the the Security Council a few years later.

Indeed, the Arab population in the British mandate of Palestine was very thin on the ground.

In 1867 Mark Twain had visited the area and described a bleak and desolate country ... “We never saw a human being on the whole route.”

Based on the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission of 1913, nothing had improved.

In 1918, the leading Arab nationalist, Sherif Hussein, Guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, bewailed that Palestinians had deserted the area, “His native soil could not retain a a hold on him ... ” Hussein also saw that Jewish immigration in large numbers would be the solution to this problem. Jewish immigrants bringing with them agriculture, factories and trades - Palestinian Arabs would be enticed home. (Al-Qibla, March 23, 1918)

Many other Arabs subscribed to this. Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Abram, wrote: “The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country.” (“Middle Eastern Studies”, April 1965) p. 243

In WWII, the British found so few Arabs in Palestine and needing workers, they shipped in tens of thousand of Arabs from elsewhere.

Jewish Israelis are still alive who have Palestinian passports issued during the British mandate.

David,

"Why don't you also join with me in urging Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?"

I already gave you the two reasons why, and may I hopefully be proven wrong, both sides would not agree - one for being too foolish, the other for being too wise. Perhaps we need to wait a few decades till the first grows up and the second grows senile.

Also, I'm concerned that once a settlement is achieved and hostilities cease (so far so good), Israel might maintain a portion of the toxic lands it took in 1967 and would have little incentive to rid itself of those (but then, it could give them to "The Jews", so everyone wins!).

"1.What in your view is the difference between "Israelis"-whose population is 80% comprised of Jews - and "Jews"?"

Israelis are the citizens of the state of Israel.
80% of these are of Jewish descent, but this does not turn them automatically into "Jews" (isn't that just what Hitler did, condemning people to the gas-chambers solely on the grounds of their Jewish ancestry?). By calling Israelis "Jews" you are wrongly attempting to categorise and lay a trip on 6-million people without their consent.

Each Israeli has the right to decide, and occasionally revise, whether or not Judaism is for him/her, whether or not they wish to identify with it and which aspects of Judaism (if any) they wish to implement in their life.

"2. Is "Israel" the Jewish State or not?"

Israel is a sovereign state that has at the moment certain Jewish characteristics because its citizens so decided. Other than that, it is under no obligation to remain affiliated with Judaism. As in the individual case, the state of Israel may revise from time to time which aspects (if any) of Judaism it wishes to incorporate in its public life.

"3. What land do you think I am asking be taken away willy-nilly from the Israelis and handed to "the Jews"?"

That land marked on standard maps as "ISRAEL".

Dear Danielle,

I am hoping that a wall will not be necessary, but I am trying to be realistic. If a wall is erected, I do not expect any gates or checkpoints. I also hope it will be constructed in such a way that wandering goats are not injured. The wall should not cause any outrage because it will be built directly over Israel's accepted border.

About the cookware, it is indeed outrageous. Even if you want to poison yourself with lead and other toxins, it is none of the government's business, besides perhaps you may want to use this cookware other than for cooking - pottery perhaps, or sculpture, or storage, or to make musical instruments. It is your right!

Regarding the Palestinians, all your quotes up to 1946 are correct and even later there was no Palestinian nation. However, such a nation has started taking shape in the late 1970's as a response to settler provocations and as a propaganda tool against Israel. It is a very young nation, but by now we cannot deny its existence (this of course does not mean that Israel owes them anything).

Regarding resolution 242, you are right, the Russians failed to add the word "all" and Israel suffers from that omission ever since. Had the word "all" been included in the first place, no such frustrating, endless and futile negotiations would have been needed, along with the numerous Israeli victims who died of terror attacks in the meanwhile.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I understand it, Israel was prepared to exchange land for the settlements.

Obviously the Palestinians must be afforded quite some benefit by not agreeing to the two-state solution, defined borders. Perhaps if those funding the Palestinian territory brought pressure to bear by threatening to withhold moneys, the Palestinians would see that it was in their own best interests, and those of the region, to come to an agreement.
One must also remember that many Palestinians also do well from Israeli coffers and benefits.

I realise that your concern is for the integrity of Israel. But Israel must be assured that it is safe. As you know, the complete withdrawl of Jewish settlements and the military from Gaza, did not result in peace from that side. In fact, Gaza's attacks on Israel greatly increased. There is no rationale for such behaviour.

If the Palestinians won't agree to a defined state, then perhaps the UN (such as it is) should impose it. Sixty years is far too long ... another sixty years? With every year any agreement becomes more remote. The British and other colonial powers certainly had no problems in defining borders, albeit artificial ones, indeed in creating entire new states in the Middle East ... and these have "stuck".

As the Palestinians won't/can't decide, then it should be decided for them.

No ... a legitimate Palestinian state won't guarantee Israel's security, but with Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist, it would go a long way ..