The Balfour agreement of November 1917, almost one hundred years ago, when Britain still had an empire, stated....

“His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice 'the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine', or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

One can be certain that in making the mistake of identifying another state’s land as a home for displaced Jews, even the imperialistic and naive British had no idea that almost a century on they would see the development of extreme hatred, Israel’s inhumanity to the Palestinian landowners, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, in a country that was not Britain’s to allocate and which had been occupied by Palestinians since time began.

The most disgraceful example of the arrogance of Britain’s empire.

All the world now sees this as a bumbling example to help people who at that time were most appreciative of Britain's interest in their well-being. However, all Israeli governments repaid that generosity with crimes that have exceeded anything seen before in history.

All for ‘Eretz Israel’.

To partly justify the ill-conceived British decision, the people that they assisted by making this decision, Jews with no homeland, were worthy of such assistance,.....then. The people in Israel today should never be confused with the original beneficiaries of this British mistake, having now generated into a hateful and arrogant Zionist culture. Any world support for such evil principles has long since been eroded based on the actions of an oppressive regime, the occcupiers of stolen land who are still expanding this land-grab, daily.

So Mr. Singer in yet another jaundiced historical rant, shows us his version of a “kiss of death”. However, he is part of a culture that has given a whole nation a “kiss of death” for nearly one hundred years, now finally coming to an end.

"Jordan comprises 78 per cent of former Palestine, while Israel comprises 17 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent comprises the West Bank and Gaza."

Hardly. The jewish population was given more than half of mandate Palestine despite Jews only owning 6% of the land within those boundries and that still wasn't enough for them they had to grab more and have ended up with effective control over 100% of mandate Palestine.

"Its population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs (or their descendants) who fled the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies (including Jordan) in 1948."

More lies. They fled because of ethnic cleansing at the hands of jewish paramilitary groups which the arab armies moved in to try and stop. Jewish terrorists were roaming around outside the proposed boundries for Israel before statehood was even declared, that is to say they had invaded the area allotted to the Palestinian Arabs.

"In 1950 a joint parliament comprised equally of members from the West Bank and Transjordan voted to unify the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Transjordan into one state which was renamed Jordan - and it remained so unified until the loss of the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognised such union but it flourished unchallenged for 17 years."

It's obvious Mr Singer hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Jordan was an independent state in 1946. There was no Transjordan in 1950. The Jordanians annexed the West Bank at the request of the Palestinians and became a trustee ONLY. It was never incorporated into Jordan proper. The annexation was completely legal, unlike Israel's.

Shoddy, shoddy article.

To rexw

You correctly quote part of the Mandate.

You are incorrect in saying Palestine was not Britain's to allocate.

It was part of the vast Ottoman Empire for the previous 400 years and was lost by the Ottomans in World War 1. 99.999% of the conquered territory was set aside for Arab self determination. Only 0.001% - Palestine - was set aside for Jewish self determination.

Your suggestion that Palestine had been occupied by "Palestinians since time began" is a furphy as Arabs only conquered and occupied Palestine in the 7th century AD. The Jews recorded history prior to that time was in fact what persuaded the League of Nations to declare in the Mandate (which you conveniently don't quote):

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country "

This very equitable division of the conquered Ottoman territories was unanimously endorsed by every member of the League of Nations.

The Palestinian Arabs have never accepted this decision of the League of Nations nor anything that has followed as a result - including the Peel Commission recommendations in 1937 and the UN Partition Plan in 1947. Their response was to engage in riots and murder Jews.

For them 99.999% was not enough. They demanded - and still demand - 100%.

The Palestinian Arabs - backed by the Arab League - have preferred confrontation to reconciliation - seeking to reverse the Mandate from the very day it was promulgated. The extreme hatred to which you refer has been - and still is - generated by the Arabs who refuse to accept one Jewish State among 21 Arab Islamic States and another 36 Islamic States.

The Arabs are entitled to take this view but they have paid a high price for their rejectionist and intransigent stance which is still evident in 2011. Regrettably this conduct is set to continue in the future with no apparent end to the attempt to wipe out the Jewish State.

I suppose I should have read Mr Singer's other articles before bothering to response. It's clear that he's little more than a propaganda merchant who deals in fiction- made up maps, made up records, made up agreements. The guy is living in a fantasy land.

"The guy is living in a fantasy land."

Yes, but how sweet this dream is!

If only we could bribe His Majesty King Abdullah into reasserting his sovereignty over the West Bank, then a huge thorn will be removed from the face of the world, but alas, the king is wise, as was his father Hussein, so he would never make such a fatal mistake, he doesn't need that thorn.

Anyone holding onto that cursed piece of land (the West Bank), can only expect trouble!

Arthur S:

"propaganda merchant who deals in fiction- made up maps, made up records, made up agreements"

Which maps, records or agreements were made up by Mr Singer? His facts seem to correspond to history.

"The jewish population was given more than half of mandate Palestine"

Transjordan was part of the British Mandate (around 80% in area). You cannot ignore this historical fact just because it does not fit with your opinions. Once you include Transjordan then the area allotted to the Jewish State was less than one fifth of the original Mandate.

"They fled because of ethnic cleansing at the hands of jewish paramilitary groups which the arab armies moved in to try and stop"

The main drive of the invading Arab armies in 1948 was to incorporate chunks of Palestine into their territory. They were not moved by any noble notions of protecting their Palestinian brothers. If they were so concerned with the plight of the Palestinians, why did they not grant them a state in the West Bank (held by Jordan between 1948-1967) and Gaza (held by Egypt until 1967)? They had nearly 20 years to do so.

"There was no Transjordan in 1950"

Exactly what is said in the article:

"...Jordan (known as Transjordan until 1950)"

So what are you objecting to? The kingdom was renamed to Jordan in 1949. Until then, although independent since 1946, it was known as Transjordan.

Are there any facts (rather than opinion) you can present to contradict the statements made in this article?

To ArthurS and Avw

Thank you Avw for pointing out ArthurS' complete ignorance on the history,geography and demography of Palestine. Every point you made correcting him is 100% correct.

There are more factual errors in his posting:

1. Jordan was part of Mandate Palestine from 1920-1946 when it was granted independence by Great Britain in very dubious circumstances. The Palestinian Arabs had achieved independence in 78% of Palestine before the Jews achieved independence in 17% in 1948.

2. True the Jews owed only 6% of the remainder of Palestine after creation of Jordan in 1946. But what Arthur S fails to mention is that the Arabs only owned 8%. Arthur S also conveniently fails to mention that more than 80% of the territory awarded to the Jews under the Partition Plan comprised what was then thought to be the arid Negev Desert - but which the Jews have since greened after thousands of years of neglect.

3. The Jews do not have effective control over 100% of mandate Palestine. Jordan has sovereignty over 78% of mandate Palestine, Israel 17% whilst sovereignty remains unallocated in the remaining 5%.

4. The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan became independent in 1946. Its name was not changed to Jordan until the West Bank was unified with it in 1950. This was done by a joint Parliament comprised of 50% Arabs from the West Bank and 50% Arabs from Transjordan. There was never any suggestion of trusteeship. It was an act of unification and residents of the West Bank accepted and became Jordanian citizens with Jordanian passports.

The kind of propagandist PLO rubbish spouted by ArthurS is indicative of how the history of Palestine has been turned on its head. Sadly people are brainwashed when they read this kind of nonsense day in and day out. I guess even ArthurS must have been similarly brainwashed.

I hope he may take the time to check out the many factual errors pointed out by Avw and myself.

To Yuyutsu

Hussein gave up his claim to the West Bank in 1988 because of pressure from the Arab League and the PLO. His right to reclaim it in the future was included in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty in 1994.

Jordan has allowed the Palestinian Authority 17 years to negotiate a settlement with Israel but to no avail.

The time is fast approaching when negotiations between Jordan and Israel will be the only way to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.

Dear David,

"The time is fast approaching when negotiations between Jordan and Israel will be the only way to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza."

But obviously Jordan is not interested. That would be suicidal for them - the king knows it and is not a fool.

In that case, it's a dead end and it seems that the sovereignty issue in the West Bank and Gaza will not be resolved any time soon, perhaps never.

The question is, SO WHAT?
What's the big deal?
Why should this legal formality be so important that you write about it time and again in this forum (as if King Abdullah reads OLO...)?
Why this obsession with legality?
What could possibly happen if the sovereignty in those areas remains undefined?
Would it perhaps, for example, upset God or Allah?
Are we liable to some plague as a result?

Israel already left Gaza with nobody's permission and needs nobody's permission to leave the West Bank as well. I can't imagine that anyone would ever accuse Israel of leaving the West Bank without resolving all its sovereignty issues first.

It has been a while since I have taken the trouble to dissect one of David Singer's articles and as we are rained off a job today I thought I would give it a go.

First the reader must appreciate where the author is coming from. He is a determined purveyor of the myth that Palestine as the rest of the world knows it doesn't exist literally or historically, in fact his website is shamelessly www.jordanispalestine.blogspot.com .

There is little to be gained arguing this with him because even when he is shown to be clearly in error he has in the past completely ignored the facts as presented.

Just to be clear, maps the British Mandate for Palestine, while including the Transjordan area, identify the area west of the Jordan River as Palestine. This is similar to the French Mandate for Syria which included Lebanon and even for a time had its own flag.

The earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement had Palestine (the 'Brown area') completely separate from the rest of the British Zone of interest.
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Sykes_Picot_agreement_1916.htm

From the Jewish Virtual Library.

“William R. Hall, head of the Intelligence Department of the British Admiralty. He pointed out that the Jews have "a strong material, and a very strong political interest in the future of the country and that in the Brown area the question of Zionism… [ought] to be considered." “

That 'country' was and is Palestine.

TransJordan on the other hand was recognised as a state by the League of Nations in 1922, a quarter of a century before Israel.

So why does the author fight the facts so vociferously? Well if you want to lessen the condemnation of Israel for its abuses of the Palestinian people and its land grabbing it is far easier if one is able to say that the area involved is a small percentage whose sovereignty is still in doubt.

“Jordan and Israel have the credentials and the clout to peacefully resolve sovereignty of the remaining 5 per cent of Palestine that still remains unallocated between them”

Cont

Cont

The facts tell a different story, Over 55% of the land of Palestine was given to 30% of the population for a Jewish state. Of the main area left to the Palestinians, the West Bank, over half is now controlled by settlements and the IDF.

It may appal the more fair minded among us but to the author these propaganda missives represent very real battles and as the saying goes all is fair...

That is not to say that Jordan can not be a hugely positive force in assisting the future of the Palestinian state.

It spends far greater a percentage of its GDP on the health and education of its citizens than Israel, it also has a higher achievement ranking for its science and maths students, a greater proportion of scientific researchers, and a FTA with the States.

It is heartening to think of a sovereign Palestinian State free from savage boycotts, free from restrictive travel and commerce within its borders, free from house demolitions, free from water theft, free to collect duties.
With those freedoms and the assistance of a country like Jordan the future may be brighter than it has been in a very long time.

Dear David,

I noted the last time we corresponded that the frequency of your contributions had increased from an average of every 18 days to just 9. This one however comes 6 days after the previous. I'm still excited.

Just for the record the rest of the world thinks stopping settlement construction is a reasonable precondition for the Palestinians.

Steele, the world also thinks that now that the PLA has decided to ally with Hamas, that the cessation of the bombardment of Sderot is a reasonable precondition. The Palestinians have overplayed their hand, now with the EU/NATO deeply involved in combating extremist violence (and being threatened with more of the same from Q-Daffy duck), with continuing political violence in Syria and with Hezbollah denying the veracity of the UN's Special Tribunal's warrants (heading for a trial in absentia) world opinion is really starting not to care.

The non-Bedouin & non-Jewish inhabitants of the British Mandated Territory were deemed by the Balfour declaration to be entitled to effectively nothing. That is because the Balfour declaration(s) was/were written during WWI in order to garner support from the local populations and to reward those who assisted the British Empire during that conflict.

The Bedouin assisted somewhat, thus Abdullah was given Trans-Jordan the Jews actually sent troops to Gallipoli (Famously the Zion Mule Corps under Joseph Trumpeldor) and assisted, amongst others, the Desert Mounted Corps (Commanded by Lt.Gen. Henry Chauvel) when they captured the region.

The division of the mandate was anything but equitable, but it was successfully defended. Something I believe the so-called "Palestinian's" are yet to accomplish?

As to the West Bank, I honestly believe that if the PLA declares independence that Jordan will roll it up. They have no desire to have a whole new Lebanon on their doorstep, let alone allowing Syria to increase their influence. They don't like Palestinians, but accepting an independent, Syrian led Country on their western border is not something they could accept.

Csteele:

The Sykes–Picot agreement was a secret agreement between France and Britain dividing spheres of influence in areas of the former Ottoman Empire. It had no international recognition, and indeed caused great embarrassment to the British once it was exposed. It is different to the eventual mandate system that was decided on by the League of Nations - under the Sykes–Picot agreement a large part of the area west of the Jordan river was supposed to be under international, rather than British, control.

Following World War I, no distinction was made in the San-Remo conference of 1920 or the Treaty of Sèvres between the areas east or west of the Jordan river. In the 1922 confirmation of the Mandate by the League of Nations again nothing was said about separating the areas east and west of the Jordan river. The British were given the Mandate, free to create state boundaries as they saw fit. It was not until several months after the Commission of the Mandate to Britain by the League of Nations that the British decided to divided their Mandate into a separate area east of the Jordan river, handing it over to the Hashemites.

So you see, the British Mandate of Palestine originally included the area of modern Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. I urge you to look this up before stating the contrary

"Its (Jordan) population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs (or their descendants) who fled the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies (including Jordan) in 1948."

The myth that Palestinians fled the invasion of Palestine by Arab armies has been well and truly exploded by the renowned Jewish historian Prof Ilan Pappe using archival evidence. His book "The ethnic cleansing of Palestine" details how around a million people were expelled from their homes at gunpoint, civilians massacred, and hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed. This was one of the largest forced migrations in modern history, and a clear example of ethnic cleansing.

Read the book if you havent already David and stop perpetuating this discredited myth.

Oh dear Avw,

It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff.

If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time, if not then how have you come by this viewpoint?

I have been through much of this with Mr Singer before, it is revisionist clap trap.

Earlier in the thread you asked for maps but then dismiss the Sykes–Picot agreement map without answering why Palestine was sectioned off at all.

Here is another from the Treaty of Serves. Sure it did include a little of the land East of the Jordan River but nothing like the eventual British Mandate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Ottoman_Empire_by_Treaty_of_Sevres.png

It just goes to show how arbitrary these lines were and subject to change based on the Mandating groups negotiations with each other and what served the victor's interests.

They bear little relation to what has happened on the ground but should not be used to excuse Israel's violent and continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people in the West Bank.

Csteele:

“If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time”

Ethnic origin has nothing to do with holding an opinion as to how the partition of the British Mandate came about. It is disappointing to see that race-based prejudice such as yours is still so rife in on-line discussions, so often shaping one’s view instead of reason. It might surprise you to find that there are plenty of Jews who support your viewpoint, as there are plenty of non-Jews who support the exact opposite.

I fail to see the reason for the map you included or how it proves or disproves any of the issues either of us raised. I agree with you that the lines drawn were arbitrary, there is no argument about that, and this is exactly my point: the original British Mandate, as set up by the League of Nations, did not distinguish between areas east and west of the Jordan River – the entire area was defined as the British Mandate of Palestine. The distinction, ie the decision to create a new independent area to the east, was made later by the British, according to their interests at the time.

Dear Avw,

I would request you don't try and turn what is a cultural and political issue into one of race. It is a tactic and often a refuge of modern Zionists that is distasteful and whose inappropriate use has debased it's currency.

It is a fair enough assumption if a person has, in the words of William Hall whom I quoted earlier "strong material, and a very strong political interest in the future of the country" that they are, on the balance of probabilities either Jewish or a fundamentalist Christian. You appeared to be too sensible to be the latter whom I would also cut some slack.

To your second paragraph, you had objected to Arthur.S' challenge to David Singer's line "Jordan comprises 78 per cent of former Palestine, while Israel comprises 17 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent comprises the West Bank and Gaza." 

You at least on this thread have made the distinction that we are talking about the 'Mandate of Palestine'. David's sentence does not do so. You have also acknowledged the lines were arbitrary, or 'made up' by the mandating powers.

Those lines do not make Jordan Palestine no matter how much Mr Singer would wish it. He is trying to impose a 'reality' that is different to the one held by the rest of the world. 

He has that privilege of course, even more so because of his heritage, but it doesn't mean he is right nor that his arguments should go unchallenged. If you want to support them you should expect the same.

Csteele:

I am not the one who brought race into the argument – your earlier comment was a clear indication that you do not like Jews, or at the very least think it’s a waste of time talking to them.
Contrary to your assumption, I am not a Zionist. I do not have much patience for religion of any kind. I do not make the assumption that you hold your view just because you belong to one ethnic group or another. To the best of my knowledge I have never read any articles from Mr Singer. I have no idea whether he is Jewish, Buddhist or atheist, and I find it completely irrelevant to this discussion.

As for the partition of the Mandate: there have been so many different variations to the borders of Palestine throughout history that picking any particular map from history and pointing to it as the true borders is just silly. The most significant recent development in the area was the fall of the Ottoman Empire and granting the Mandate of Palestine to Britain. The Mandate included the areas east and west of the river. From here it’s quite simple: the British promised land within the Mandate to both Arabs (McMahon letters) and Jews (Balfour declaration). They fulfilled their promise to the Arabs within months of getting the Mandate, giving them roughly 80% of the Mandate area. Within the remaining 20%, the Jews were eventually allocated slightly over half of the territory. So overall, the Jews were granted somewhere around 15% of the total area of the original Mandate of Palestine.

To Yuyutsu:

Jordan may not be interested in returning to the West Bank (although certain indications are that it is ready to step in as I pointed out in my article). If you are right then a little bit of pressure - like that placed on Israel from time to time by the international community can - and will - achieve wonders in getting a change of heart. Jordan is the key to resolving sovereignty with Israel in the West Bank.

Why allocate sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza? Because the lack of certainty as to who is the sovereign ruler is causing grave security and humanitarian concerns for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and the people who live there - both Jews and Arabs. It is also in the national interest of both Jordan and Egypt that sovereignty is established in the West Bank and Gaza and those who exercise sovereign control are fully accountable for everything that happens in their boundaries.

Yes - Israel left Gaza without anyone's permission and look what has happened since - a total shambles. Do you think a similar outcome in the West Bank would not happen?

Are you really that naive?

Dear Avw,

I have a Christian fundamentalist for a father-in-law. He has the good grace to acknowledge his unwavering support for the actions of Israel is a weakness conferred by his faith.

As a consequence I do not take him to task as I would a person whom I felt had little reason to accept uncritically the propaganda that comes from the Israeli government. Less as a desire not to waste my time but rather as a concession to his faith. I am prepared to make the same concessions to the Jewish people I know who are supportive of the current regime and are feeling defensive about its actions..

Your claim I do not like Jews has us heading toward evoking Godwin's rule. It is unjustified, baseless, incorrect and offensive.

I no longer cut David Singer any slack as he is determined to disappear a people. His articles have offended many and border on being hateful.

Further I did not assume you were a Zionist only asked if you were Jewish and if you were not then how did you reach the view that you now hold.

As to your second paragraph it is now as qualified as it should be and acceptable as a position to argue from. If David Singer was as circumspect then we might accept his articles worthy of serious discussion. In my opinion he isn't and they generally aren't.

And I agree “there have been so many different variations to the borders of Palestine throughout history that picking any particular map from history and pointing to it as the true borders is just silly”. The most we can do is look at a map of what the British regarded as constituting Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917), The closest we have is the map of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) which I posted earlier not what was arbitrarily staked out as the spoils of war at San Remo (1920).

Note there were no Arab countries in the League of Nations when the vote was taken on the mandates.

To csteele

Like ArthurS you parrot the well trodden PLO propaganda line.

Here are a few choice examples from your post:

1. "First the reader must appreciate where the author is coming from. He is a determined purveyor of the myth that Palestine as the rest of the world knows it doesn't exist literally or historically,"

Rubbish. Palestine was the territory assigned to Great Britain by the League of Nations under the Mandate for Palestine. It comprised what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan.

2. Raising the Sykes-Picot Agreement is a classic piece of disinformation as Avw has pointed out in his earlier posts.

3. "TransJordan on the other hand was recognised as a state by the League of Nations in 1922, a quarter of a century before Israel."

Nonsense. Transjordan only became independent in 1946 two years before Israel.

4."Over 55% of the land of Palestine was given to 30% of the population for a Jewish state. Of the main area left to the Palestinians, the West Bank, over half is now controlled by settlements and the IDF."

Pity you forgot to tell OLO readers that:
(i) Of the 55% offered to the Jews - about 80% comprised the arid Negev desert whilst the mainly fertile areas were offered for an Arab state.
(ii) The Arabs rejected the proposal and sought in 1948 and 1967 to grab the lot and so far have ended up with nothing.
(iii) The Arabs could have had between 1948-1967 what they now say they will accept in 2011 and did nothing about it during that period.
(iv) The Arabs in 2001 and 2008 were offered more than 90% of what they now say they will accept but rejected both offers.

5. "Just for the record the rest of the world thinks stopping settlement construction is a reasonable precondition for the Palestinians."

Neither Oslo nor the Roadmap impose any such precondition. These currently are the only diplomatic and negotiating games in town. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not going to happen.

To Avw

Thank you for correcting csteele and pointing out his factual errors.

Permit me however to comment on this following sentence in your post:

"The British were given the Mandate, free to create state boundaries as they saw fit. It was not until several months after the Commission of the Mandate to Britain by the League of Nations that the British decided to divided their Mandate into a separate area east of the Jordan river, handing it over to the Hashemites."

This is not strictly accurate.

Article 5 of the Mandate stipulated:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

Britain did not - and could not - divide the Mandate into a separate area east of the Jordan River because of Article 5.

However pursuant to article 25 of the Mandate Britain got the League of Nations to assent to the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine not being applicable in Transjordan. Jews lost the right to establish their home in 78% of Palestine which became a Jew free and Arabs only zone.

Britain did all it could thereafter to create a separate Hashemite administration in Jew-free Transjordan but did not grant it independence until 1946 - after the demise of the League of Nations but before the creation of the United Nations. This amounted to smart British fancy footwork of dubious legal validity that no one has challenged - except the PLO which does not accept the validity of the Mandate or anything that happened after it.

For the PLO and its current Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - Jordan still remains the major part of Palestine to be liberated.

Csteele:

Your earlier comment stated unequivocally

“if you are Jewish then of course … I’m possibly wasting my time”.

You did not make any distinction between a fundamentalist Jew, left-wing, or any other type. Based on this comment you did not appear to like any Jews, whatever their political persuasion is. I’m glad that you have now qualified your comment.

You also stated that I was using a distasteful tactic often used by modern Zionists, so I felt it was prudent to inform you that I was not one.

Regarding the Mandate area:

“The most we can do is look at a map of what the British regarded as constituting Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration”

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe the British (or the French) acted out of any sense of justice or morality, or anything other than self-interests? Do you really consider their secret partition of the Ottoman Empire as more significant than the League of Nations Mandate? I’m sorry, but this does not make any sense to me.

“As to your second paragraph it is now as qualified as it should be and acceptable as a position to argue from “

My very first post to you included the statement

“… the British Mandate of Palestine originally included the area of modern Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan”

All my posts since then, including the second paragraph you are referring to, were just re-iterating the same 'qualified' statement. It now appears you agree with me. I’m not really sure what was the basis for your earlier objection, but it’s good to see that we are now in agreement on this issue.

“Note there were no Arab countries in the League of Nations when the vote was taken on the mandates”

There were no Jewish countries in the League of Nations either.

Steele,

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_jordan0814_07_03.asp

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4088927,00.html

Several others, all to the effect that Jordan's King Abdullah II will not vote for Palestinian Statehood. After all, why on earth would he? His Kingdom has had nothing but grief from "Palestinian's" since the time of the Mufti, which has included several attempted coups and assassinations. Living with a State that is a failure from the day of its inception (note the "Palestinian's" still state that they cannot control their own population) and will remain so. The sooner Jordan regains control of the West Bank and imposes its will upon these loons the better.

Also, if you wish to discuss the Balfour declaration, deal with why it was written. It offered a reward for the support by the Jews of the British armies in WWI. The Arabs (and the Hashemites ain't Arabs) were offered nothing because they did not assist anyone except themselves. They had no national identity, Palestine was simply the name given to that part of the Empire, they were simply unlucky enough to live there. If they declare statehood, they'll be ignored by one neighbour, the other doesn't appear inclined to do so.

However, the very next time that they as a State, decide to attack Israel (or Jordan), the outcome is likely to be harsh indeed.

Dear Awv,

You said:

“Your earlier comment stated unequivocally “if you are Jewish then of course … I’m possibly wasting my time”. “

That is at best disingenuous.

My statement was in fact; “It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff. If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time, if not then how have you come by this viewpoint?”

Contrary to your claim “You did not make any distinction between a fundamentalist Jew, left-wing, or any other type.” I did, in the very first sentence. To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO would generally have you regarded as a person with a narrow, right-wing, nationalistic viewpoint, certainly not a Joe Halper, a Noam Chomsky or an Anthony Lowenstien.

My comment was qualified from the start and for you to be leaping on to your high horse was unwarranted.

My only concession is to admit I, in my own mind, erroneously attributed to you the comment “so-called "Palestinian's"” and it influenced my response. It was Custard and not yourself.

Cont...

Cont...

You also asked “ Do you really consider their secret partition of the Ottoman Empire as more significant than the League of Nations Mandate? I’m sorry, but this does not make any sense to me. “

If you do not think the concept of what was Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration was significant then you will need to attribute to the British powers of reading the future that are supernatural.

Again I will concede that Balfour thought “Palestine should be extended into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway”, about 50kms in.

The eastern border of the British Mandate for Palestinian was years later established more than six times that distance from the river, or nearly tripling the size of the former Palestine.

As to Britain ceding any part of the Mandate to a foreign power, in the case of Jordan it didn't. Indeed “The object aimed at by France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.” Anglo-French Declaration of 1918.

European Jewry were not indigenous to Palestine and what ever we may think about the deserving nature of the Jewish people to freedom from the persecutions of Christian Europe that “complete and definite emancipation” is also deserved by the Palestinian people, something that hopefully they will achieve soon.

Dear David,

"Jordan may not be interested in returning to the West Bank... then a little bit of pressure - like that placed on Israel from time to time by the international community can - and will - achieve wonders in getting a change of heart."

In other words, bullying a peaceful nation is a valid way of achieving one's goals. Same in one's personal life?

"...lack of certainty as to who is the sovereign ruler is causing grave security and humanitarian concerns for Israel..."

I fail to see Israel's humanitarian concern once it is out of there, but I do understand about Israel's security concerns. Fortunately there's a simple solution: return the army back inside Israel, build a big wall around Israel's border with the West Bank, then any shot, missile, bomb, etc. from the other side will be answered with one kilometer east of the wall bulldozed away, erased and turned into a wasteland. Another shot - another kilometer, etc. until whoever is on the other side learns not to disturb Israel.

"It is also in the national interest of both Jordan and Egypt that sovereignty is established in the West Bank and Gaza..."

Then let them do the worrying. I believe your concern is about Israel.

"Yes - Israel left Gaza without anyone's permission and look what has happened since - a total shambles. Do you think a similar outcome in the West Bank would not happen?"

It's a great achievement that Israelis are no longer in Gaza (except one). Apart from internal benefits, it saved Israel from being considered even worse of a pariah state, and embargoed by the rest of the world (even the USA). Arabs can be annoying at times (though the level of their attacks have by now subsided), but cannot cause too much military damage to Israel. Israel, however, has two far more dangerous enemies: Iran... and Israel. It's crucial to have the world side with Israel and help it stop Iran, and it's crucial to prevent a civil war within Israel. Only a withdrawal from the West Bank will achieve both.

To Yuyutsu

Jordan and Israel are sovereign in 95% of former Palestine. Carving up the remaining 5% between them should be a piece of cake. If pressure is needed to get both of them to the negotiating table then it will have been well applied to help save the region plunging into another war.

Israel offered to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank and Gaza in 2001 and 2008 - both of which offers were rejected by the Palestinian Authority.

The Israeli army will not be leaving the remaining 10% of the West Bank - nor will the overwhelming majority of the 500000 Jews who live in the West Bank. The racist demand that they all be transferred should be universally denounced. Jews have the legal right to live there under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Your bizarre idea to build a big wall around the West Bank would not last three months.

Rockets are still being fired from Gaza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

You are very naive to believe a rocket fired into Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion airport from the West Bank would be responded to with a rocket fired from Israel to turn an area within one kilometer of the Yuyutsu fence into a wasteland.

Israel's security interest is to ensure not one rocket is fired into Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion airport. That is why there will never be a complete disengagement from the West Bank. Israel has learned from its disastrous Gaza disengagement.

My concern is for peace in the region - isn't that yours?

Israel's disengagement from Gaza been a disaster - not only for Israel's civilian population but also ending any hope that the Palestinian Authority might have had to establish itself as the legitimate governing body. Hamas control has caused havoc and split the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza into two warring groups. That is a current ongoing civil war that you seem to overlook.

Csteele:

The phrase “It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff” does nothing at all to qualify a racist comment such as the one you made in the following sentence. In fact it makes it worse. Let’s leave it at that - the more you try to defend it the less credible your arguments becomes.

You seem to imply that I must be narrow minded, right-wing and nationalistic, simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article and disagree with left-wing champions such as Chomsky. But… isn’t this the usual line parroted by the left? ‘if you don’t agree with us, then you are narrow minded and a right-wing nationalist’?

None of your elaborate attempts to explain why the secret British map of Sykes–Picot should have more relevance to this discussion than the subsequent League of Nations Mandate are convincing. The concept of Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration was indeed significant in British policy. However the British concept of Palestine was quite different from what the Zionists imagined, which was again very different to what was imagined by the Arabs, and different from the League of Nations Mandate. I’m afraid no supernatural powers were at work here: once the British obtained their mandate they proceeded to implement their own policies which, not surprisingly, resembled what was outlined in their earlier secret plans.

As for the declaration by the French and British for a “complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks” – you need to remember the difference between public statements and actual policy. The Brits did not leave Palestine voluntarily, just as they did not leave India or their US colonies voluntarily. The French, similarly, would still be present in Syria, Algeria and Vietnam if they were not forced to leave. Keep this in mind before taking such political statements at face value.

Dear David,

Now it's my turn to ask whether you are really that naive:
The existing tensions have nothing to do with sovereignty, but with the fact that Hamas (mainly, and similar Islamic factions) is bent on an Islamic state and is fanned by Iran. Hamas insists that the whole of "Palestine" must be a Muslim Waqf. Gaza is probably the most densely populated area in the world and every child there is armed. Do you really believe that any combination of Israeli-Jordanian-Egyptian sovereignty could stop them? Nothing short of genocide of all Gazans will, and no-one will dare that.

However, the number of rockets shot at Israel has fallen sharply in the last 2-3 years, and that's because Hamas are pragmatic and understand [only] the language of armed-power. They care not for sovereignty and international law, but they understand the bitter consequences to themselves if they attack at this time. Meanwhile, Israel is constantly improving its missile-defense systems. Armed conflict will remain a permanent feature of the middle-east, but active wars can be prevented [only] by Israel remaining armed to its teeth.

It is also of utmost naivety to believe that the world cares for the small print of the law, that EVEN IF Jews have a legal right to live in the West Bank (I have no presumptions of understanding such detailed legal matters, which are purely academic anyway. I also admit that I have no patience to read more about it), then the world would suddenly embrace the Jewish settlers (themselves nearly a carbon-copy of their Islamic Hamas brothers, just Jewish instead of Muslim, for whoever cares for the difference). If you're inclined to think of it as racist, then fine, then the world is racist, and that's not going to change any time soon (more plausibly though, the world simply operates on interests).

(continued...)

(...continued)

As Israel withdraws within its own borders, it will make it absolutely clear that a rocket on Tel Aviv or the airport will result in terrible destruction on the other side. Not by a rocket, but by bulldozers (supported of course by air and ground forces), crossing over and wiping everything in their path, then returning home, till the next time if necessary.

"My concern is for peace in the region - isn't that yours?"

No, I have no delusions of the impossible, though I do believe that the stronger Israel is, the longer a cease-fire can hold. My only concern is that my family in Israel are safe and well. For that, Israel must be able to defend itself both externally (against the Islamic surge, as mentioned) and internally (against the moral and social corruption caused by the 1967 war, which can only be healed by letting go of those cursed territories to the last centimeter).

As for the Arabs, I see no hope for those in Gaza - not so long as Iran is there, but I see good prospects for peace (whether formally declared or otherwise, it doesn't really matter) for those in the West Bank - so long as they are kept in isolation from the Hamas (of both Muslim and Jewish persuasions), because apart from those fanatic extremists, ordinary Israelis and ordinary West-Bankers have no conflict between them.

Dear Awv,

If you think I would leave such a comment as that alone then you are an idiot.

And the fact you have made it only leaves the conclusion I was correct in my original assessment of you, one determined "try and turn what is a cultural and political issue into one of race." and reiterate it is a "distasteful and whose inappropriate use has debased it's currency."

What it makes you sir is a troll, certainly a persistent one but a troll none the less.

To take my line "To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO" and turn it into "simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article" has troll written all over it.

However I suppose mutual distaste shouldn't preclude a continuing discussion of the facts.

You state;

"The concept of Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration was indeed significant in British policy. However the British concept of Palestine was quite different from what the Zionists imagined, which was again very different to what was imagined by the Arabs,"

No it most certainly was not. One only needs to look at the Faisal - Weizmann agreement of 1919 to see how close the Jewish and Arab concepts of Palestine were. Both signed the map which closely resembled the earlier Sykes-Picot map. It was somewhere within these boundaries the national homeland of the Jews was to be established without prejudicing the rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

Weizmann was the head of the Zionist movement and later Israel's first president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement

So ultimately the question is which is geographically closer to the truth, David Singer's line that Jordan is Palestine or what the world regards as self-evident, that Israel is Palestine. If you accept the former then enough said.

Csteele:

Resorting to rage and name calling does nothing to advance your argument, it only serves to weaken it. Any comments I made regarding your controversial remark are short and to the point, unlike the prominence it occupies in your posts. Persistency, it seems, is very much your strong suit, not mine. I will not comment any further on your remark, even though I’m confident you will. I’ll let the facts (your posts) speak for themselves.

“To take my line "To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO" and turn it into "simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article" has troll written all over it”

I was not trying to turn your line into anything. I was assuming (naively perhaps) that you read and understood my posts before depicting me as a narrow minded right-wing nationalist. It appears I was wrong. Can you point to any comment I made “believing the line David Singer touts on OLO”? My initial response to your post was based on fact, specifically your initial claim that Transjordan was not included in the British Mandate of Palestine. I never claimed to support (or oppose) the opinions stated by Mr Singer in the article, only the facts. Once again, you choose rage and name calling to support your viewpoint, rather than facts and logic, or even bothering to properly read my posts.

continued...

continued...

As for the agreement between the Arabs and Jews about the boundaries of Palestine – you cite the Faisal-Weizmann agreement as an example to support your argument. There are several problems with this example: The agreement was between Faisal, striving to establish his kingdom in the east, and the Zionists, who hoped to establish their own state to the west. The Palestinian Arab population, despised by both sides, was ignored and had no input into the agreement. It did not last more than a few months. It can hardly be considered as a worthy example of any serious consensus between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs about what constituted the boundaries of Palestine. The most important authority, the League of Nations, included the whole area as the ‘Mandate of Palestine’, not the ‘Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine’.

Dear Avw,

You are basically calling me a racist yet you're sooking up about being called a troll? Wow. Stop being so bloody precious and hypocritical my friend, it does you no favours, in fact it invites the impression of insipid petulance.

You are immediately dismissive of any evidence I produce about the perceived boundaries of the former Palestine, yet provide none of your own. If you have nothing just admit it.

And your posts have become quite confusing. For instance you say that the concept of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration was significant, then dismiss it when it is illustrated to you. Rather than asking me to review your posts perhaps it might be more fruitful if you were to engage in the exercise yourself.

Furthermore you have avoided the question; do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine? If you do then I am more than happy seeing you as rightwing and nationalistic.

You might think you are on a high horse but from here it is giving a very good impression of being an ass.

To csteele and Avw

I have been following your correspondence with interest.

csteele is muddying the waters by referring to the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Faisal - Weizmann agreements for the following reasons:

1. Neither had the binding force of international law.
2. Only the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations had such legally binding effect. Its terms were preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter and are as alive today as they were in 1922.
3. The Mandate did include today's Jordan which comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate and it remained part of the Mandate until granted independence by Great Britain in 1946.
4. The PLO Charter makes it very clear that Palestine during the Mandate is one separate and indivisible territory.
5. The Mandate is the starting point - and still the relevant reference point for settling the conflict between Arabs and Jews.
6. The Palestinian Arabs - and the Arab states generally - have never accepted the decision of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and everything flowing from it - including article 80 of the UN Charter - and continue to deny the Mandate's binding effect in international law. Disregard for the law has put them in the sorry position they are in today. They have no one but themselves to blame.

csteele

By the way I am still waiting for you to acknowledge the incorrectness of many of your earlier factual statements to which I drew your attention - and to which you have not had the decency to respond. Never mind - your silence is worth a thousand words.

Avw

You have not been duped by csteele's efforts to downplay the importance of the Mandate. He continues his habit of shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. Thanks for your support in presenting the facts.

Csteele:

“You are immediately dismissive of any evidence I produce about the perceived boundaries of the former Palestine, yet provide none of your own”

On the contrary, I have provided it many times on this thread. I’ll do so again, for your benefit:
The most significant document outlining the boundaries of Palestine was the League of Nations decision setting up the British Mandate. Rings a bell? I mentioned it quite a few times.

I am sorry you find my posts confusing, I will try to simplify:

I dismissed your examples of ‘the concept of Palestine’ not because the concept is not significant, but because you provided bad examples (as I previously explained). Earlier I stated that the concept of Palestine was significant IN BRITISH POLICY. I then proceeded to say that every party involved had a different concept of the boundaries, therefore the best model we have for Palestine would be the League of Nations Mandate. I really don’t know what I can say to make it any clearer. I certainly hope I don’t have to repeat it too many more times.

Confusion, in fact, reigns supreme in your posts. You initially objected to the facts I presented, only to accept the same facts later as ‘correctly qualified’ even though I made no further qualifications. You attribute other posts to me, only to retract it later realising the comment was made by someone else.

Continued…

Dear Avw,

It would appear the cat has your tongue but more likely you are a victim of losing count of your posts in the 24 hour period. Perhaps both maths and logic aren't you strong suits.

Now you again persist in taking liberties with my words. You claim I  "initially objected to the facts I presented, only to accept the same facts later as ‘correctly qualified’". I never accepted any facts from you only that your qualifications rendered you position as one that was acceptable to argue from.

It would seem you are intent on saying the Sykes-Pinot Agreement, the Anglo-French Declaration and the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement are all to be dismissed since only when documents such as the British Palestinian Mandate are officially enacted do they carry the required weight or import, or am I yet again confusing your position?

Continued…

“Furthermore you have avoided the question; do you agree with the view of David Singer”

I have not avoided the question as you claim. This is the first time you put this question to me, so I don’t know how I could have avoided it before.
Many of the opinions raised by David make sense, and are based on solid facts. The British Mandate indeed encompassed Jordan and Israel. There is no love lost between the Hashemites and the Palestinians, and the Jordanian regime is definitely in danger of a takeover by the Palestinians. If it was up to King Abdullah I’m sure he would have preferred having Israel on his border rather than the Palestinians, just as Israel would have preferred Jordan. However, I disagree with David when it comes to his opinion that Jordan will step in to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, I cannot see it happening. I also think it is extremely unlikely that the West Bank and Gaza will be divided between Israel, Jordan and possibly Egypt, as David seems to be suggesting. The last thing that any of these states want is to absorb a million Palestinians to subvert their own regimes. No, for better or for worse, the only solution I can see is the formation of an Independent Palestinian state.

Dear Awv,

You continue to truncate my sentences to give them different meanings as you did to imply I am a racist and here you are at it yet again. I had asked you specifically "do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?". It is a technique that gives you no credit and I would recommend you refrain from it.

I do however welcome your view that "No, for better or for worse, the only solution I can see is the formation of an Independent Palestinian state." albeit you do so in a rather begrudging fashion.

I probably see it more as a right of a blighted and persecuted people to self determination in their traditional homelands, the same thing we saw fit to extend to the Jews of Europe.

To the Mandate. It did not encompass Jordan and Israel but rather Palestine, Transjordan, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Another confusion you appear to have was the role of the League of Nations.

You have claimed "The most significant document outlining the boundaries of Palestine was the League of Nations decision setting up the British Mandate."

Yet Balfour himself acknowledged that "'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'"

As with the other documents I have raised the Mandate did not have the force of international law until it was enacted and this was well after the delineation of Palestine and Transjordan. Indeed during continued negotiations between the aforementioned Allied and Associated Powers bits were added and other bits given away right up until enactment. I have had occasion to correct David Singer on this point before.

Csteele:

“It would appear the cat has your tongue…”

I’m delighted to see how eagerly you await my next post, to the extent that a slight delay is so difficult for you to bear.

“I never accepted any facts from you only that your qualifications rendered you position as one that was acceptable”

Let me ask you again: what qualifications are you talking about?

“…only when documents such as the British Palestinian Mandate are officially enacted do they carry the required weight…”

Well… Yes. I have already explained why the Sykes-Picot and the Faisal-Weizmann examples don’t carry much weight and I won’t repeat it again here. It is all there in my previous comments.

As for my alleged truncation of your sentences:
By your question “do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?", I assume you mean the views David presents in his other articles, or the jordanispalestine website. As I mentioned to you earlier, I have never read any articles from Mr Singer other than this one. Why do I have to repeat everything several times?
I provided you with my view on THIS article, which is the only one I can comment on at this time. I promise to share my views with you if and when I read David’s other articles.

“I do however welcome your view… albeit you do so in a rather begrudging fashion”

Yes, I certainly do. I do not for a moment share your fantasy that this is a good solution. It’s just not quite as bad as other solutions.

“Yet Balfour himself acknowledged that "'Mandates were not the creation of the League…”

The international legality was given by the League of Nations. The Mandate instrument was drafted by the League, not in secrecy between two soon-to-be occupying powers. True – the League only supervised - not controlled the Mandate – control was handed over to Britain (which is why it was called the British Mandate). But without the League of Nations there would have been no Mandate.

csteele,

"I probably see it more as a right of a blighted and persecuted people to self determination in their traditional homelands ..."

The Palestinians have had over 60 yrs to form an independent state, but have not done so. Why?

They have not been prepared to recognise Israel’s (as you state, "the same thing we saw fit to extend to the Jews of Europe"), right to exist. The irony is not lost.

The problems the Palestinians have had with Israel have been brought on by themselves ...

I would like to see an independent, prosperous Palestinian state alongside Israel, a Palestinian state guaranteeing Israel's security and recognising Israel's right to exist.

But, really, do the Palestinians themslves want this?

The following poll (Charts, Frequency Questionnaire) of 1,010 Palestinians (353 in Gaza and 656 in the West Bank) conducted this month by Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research with Palestinian research partner, Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_CHARTS.PDF?tr=y&auid=8688172

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_FQ.PDF?tr=y&auid=8688173

There appears to be a lot of unfounded tears wept for these “stateless” people.

The only reason Palestinians would not want a state is that being stateless affords them greater benefits ...

... perhaps not the least, the 1.7 billion plus annual funding disappearing into the Palesstinian black hole, a black hole which does not admit of accountability.

csteele, you state "people to self determination in their traditional homelands". This can no longer go unchallenged.

I have no problems with calling the people Palestinians, however, let us be accurate. Only a tiny minority can claim the area concerned as a traditional homeland; furthermore the area was commonly part of Syria.

I would refer you to documents written by both Sherif Hussein, Guardian of the Islamic Holy Places of Arabia, a leading Arab nationalist, and by his son Emir Faisal, in 1918-1919. Read the latter's letter to Felix Frankfurther, Harvard law professor and subsequent Supreme Court Justice. In addition, an editorial by Dawood Barakat, editor of Egyptian paper "Al-Abram" spelt it out quite clearly. This particular area was desolate, bleak and depopulated.

cont ...

The demographic "poverty', lack of cultivation of the land; abandoned villages and malaria ridden terrain is further well documented in The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission (1913). Also read the Hope Simpson Report (1930) and The Peel Report (1937). The area was a god-forsaken wasteland.

In "Al-Qibla" (March 23, 1918) Sherif Hussein stated that the Palestinian's ancestors had only been in the area 1,000 years, post-dating Jewish habitation. In testimony before the Anglo-American Committee (1946) Palestinians further confirmed this, dating their connection to the area to the conquest by Muhammed's followers. (British Government, Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, 1946, Part VI, (April 20, 1946)... ... due to invasions, migration, plague etc... entire populations had been replaced more than once.

So few people were on the ground that that during the Mandate period the British brought in more than 100,000 Arabs from neighbouring countries. These are now considered the "traditional people".

Palestinian nationalism, only emerging after WWI, was not in a strong political movement until after Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967.

So let's not be twee.

Dear Avw,

There is a saying in New Zealand where I grew up for a bit, it is 'slippery as a butcher's prick'.

Again you have avoided the question “do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?" this time by claiming you hadn't read his other articles. Mate! What could be any more in your face than 'Jordan is Palestine'! It doesn't leave much room for ambiguities does it? It is black and white, direct as it could be, but you keep running from it. Put us both out of misery and answer the damn thing for God's sake.

You claimed “The most important authority, the League of Nations, included the whole area as the ‘Mandate of Palestine’, not the ‘Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine’.

No it didn't. This was not its job nor did it have any say in the boundaries.

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law: (1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power; (2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory; and (3) the council of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after ascertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant."

Wikipedia quote from Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations,

As I have stated the Mandate and its boundaries did not become binding until it was enacted but right up until that time they were fluid and Palestine and Transjordan had been delineated well before then.

Cont...

Cont...

Further; “In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a former US State Department official who had been a member of the American Commission at Paris, testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. He pointed out that the League of Nations could do nothing to alter their arrangements, since the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members - including the UK and France.”

“United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the color of international law. If the former German and Ottoman territories had been ceded to the victorious powers directly, their economic value would have been credited to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations."

So you tell me which should have more weight on what constituted the former Palestine, the machinations of the victorious 'Four' and totally compliant League or the Faisal-Weizmann agreement?

So when you contend "control was then handed over to Britain' it reveals a patent lack of undersatnding of historical fact. Britain already had control, the League just rubberstamped it.

Dear David Singer and Danielle,

I am unable to chew gum and pat my head at the same time so you must excuse my lack of engagement at this stage, besides which we have thrashed this out before. Perhaps the time could be better spent looking for Danielle's lost irony because you both seem to suffer from it.

To csteele

I don't find chewing gum and patting my head at the same time a problem.

Perhaps you can respond now to my comments to your following statements.

1. "TransJordan on the other hand was recognised as a state by the League of Nations in 1922, a quarter of a century before Israel."

Nonsense. Transjordan only became independent in 1946 two years before Israel.

2."Over 55% of the land of Palestine was given to 30% of the population for a Jewish state. Of the main area left to the Palestinians, the West Bank, over half is now controlled by settlements and the IDF."

Pity you forgot to tell OLO readers that:
(i) Of the 55% offered to the Jews - about 80% comprised the arid Negev desert whilst the mainly fertile areas were offered for an Arab state.
(ii) The Arabs rejected the proposal and sought in 1948 and 1967 to grab the lot and so far have ended up with nothing.
(iii) The Arabs could have had between 1948-1967 what they now say they will accept in 2011 and did nothing about it during that period.
(iv) The Arabs in 2001 and 2008 were offered more than 90% of what they now say they will accept but rejected both offers.

3. "Just for the record the rest of the world thinks stopping settlement construction is a reasonable precondition for the Palestinians."

Neither Oslo nor the Roadmap impose any such precondition. These currently are the only diplomatic and negotiating games in town. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not going to happen.

There is new furphy you have now added.

You write:

"As I have stated the Mandate and its boundaries did not become binding until it was enacted but right up until that time they were fluid and Palestine and Transjordan had been delineated well before then."

How do you justify this statement with Article 25 of the Mandate which declared:

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined....."

Hope you don't choke on your gum.

Dear David Singer,

You kindly said "Hope you don't choke on your gum." and for some reason I feel like patting YOU on the head and saying 'there, there'.

I had kind of imagined that as a lawyer you might have been a little more appreciative of terms and their definitions.

For instance 'recognized as a state' is not the same as 'became independent' not withstanding your attempt to act as though they are the same.

From Wikipedia;
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

The Emirate of Transjordan was deemed a state in 1922 or if you want to be picky on the 15th of May 1923 when Britain recognized it as an independent government. It became an 'independent sovereign' state in 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Now you have a list as long as my arm you wish me to address. Let me have your next priority one and I will attend to it if you wish although I remind you we have been through all this before.

I am off this thread: I cannot see how events of the first half of the last century could be relevant to the current situation.

The people of the middle-east never care about legalities, never did, never will. The only language they understand is that of the sword.

Csteele:

You seem to have a habit of commenting on articles (or posts) without reading what the author has to say. You consider the headline of an article sufficient for you to form an opinion, there is no need for you to waste your time and read the actual text. This is also evident by the number of times I had to repeat my statements before you finally acknowledge or understand them. There are other sayings, much more internationally recognised, about people like this, but I have no wish to antagonise you any further as you seem to have a very short fuse. Unlike you, I would like to read David’s articles before agreeing or disagreeing with him, rather than judging them strictly by their title.

About the Mandate system and its purpose to conceal the division of the spoils of war by the Great Powers: while this is probably true, putting the motion through the League diluted the ambitions of individual members. As you said, “the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members”, not just Britain and France (as in Sykes-Picot). All members had a vote on this issue. In addition, ”Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed (British) mandate (of Palestine)” (Wiki), once again, not just secret agreements between Britain and France. These discussions were in the open, not in secrecy, which appears to be your preferred way of handling international agreements. I suppose you would have been a great supporter of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact as well: it contained all your cherished principles: two powers dividing the area of a third country between them, in complete secrecy, with no debate and no scrutiny whatsoever. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to your view of such a wonderfully dark utopia.

(continued)

(continued)

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law…”

Yes, but

“draft mandates adopted by the Allied and Associated Powers would not be definitive until they had been considered and approved by the League ... the legal title held by the mandatory Power must be a double one: one conferred by the Principal Powers and the other conferred by the League of Nations” (Wikipedia, same page as your quote)

And as I said before, the Mandate was “Mandate of Palestine”, not separate Mandates for the areas east and west of the river.

“So when you contend "control was then handed over to Britain' it reveals a patent lack of understanding of historical fact”

The paragraph you took that quote out of was dealing with the Mandate. By “control” I was referring to control of the Mandate, not the territory. One cannot have control of the Mandate before that Mandate exists. Once again, by skimming through and selecting random sentences to object to you lost the context.

In all the posts we have written regarding this issue it’s obvious we are simply rehashing the same positions. It is clear we are not going to agree. I must say I tend to agree with the point raised by Yuyutsu: While it is interesting to analyse historical events that took place 100 years ago, they have diminishing relevance to the current situation.

Dear Awv,

Yet another convoluted non answer. Okay, if even evoking God has little effect then I will desist.

All I hope is that unlike Mr Singer, in your more reflective moments, you might consider the historical extent of Palestine is far closer to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement than what existed for a few years on the temporary maps of the victors.

As to a short fuse while agreeing that any thread on an article by Mr Singer brings out a certain belligerence in me I think most people would bar up at being inferred a racist. But hell, in the end you are just a disembodied, anonymous, word producing entity on the web so it's rather hard to get too fired up. Call me that to my face and I'm sure you might get a more definitive answer about the length of my fuse.

I have read the vast majority of the articles posted by Mr Singer on OLO and commented on a fair share of those. I have also read other pieces by him on some fairly rightwing sites overseas. I think I have a reasonable take on the man.

I am of the opinion that he attempts a revisionist approach to the history of the region in order to firstly delegitimize any attempt for self-determination by the Palestinian people and secondly to advance and legitimize the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

This is why I disagree with Yuyutsu, if these abhorrent views are being propagated with little resistance they may well be a barrier to achieving peace now.

Finally I have a choice of agreeing with you and Mr Singer about the League of Nation's control or that of Robert Lansing who "testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves.". He gets my vote.

csteele,

In defending its territory and ensuring its security, Israel has adhered to international law and relevant Resolutions. Israel has operated no differently to other Western-style democracies given the same parlous situation. In fact, I can provide a reference, a guide "The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations ... " which is far more aggressive and decisive than Israel has demonstrated in defending itself.

Those who choose to criticise Israel's actions, never provide alternative solutions ... alternative solutions to the many attacks on Israel, nor Palestinian baying for its destruction.

Whilst many may not like the idea of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, there was never the expectation nor condition that this area should be Judenfrei.

I suggest you visit the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

csteele,

"Robert Lansing who "testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. ..."

Indeed. And none of these states have rushed to dismantle themselves after the departure of the UK and France.

csteele

You state:

"The Emirate of Transjordan was deemed a state in 1922 or if you want to be picky on the 15th of May 1923 when Britain recognized it as an independent government."

"Deemed" a state when Britain recognized it as an independent government?

Do you have any authorities to support your contention?

There is certainly evidence to the contrary that does not support this view.

Article 5 of the Mandate stipulated:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power"

Because of this provision Britain notified the League that it accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan and advised that the Administration of Transjordan was under the general supervision of Britain.

Nothing could be done in Transjordan without Britain's consent until 1946.

So much for an "independent government".

I am still awaiting your responses to three other matters I raised.

Dear Danielle,

I have watched your link and I must thank David Singer for without having my eyes opened the perniciousness of it would not have been evident.

Here is one for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS0_kiAh8Y&feature=related

Dear David Singer,

The three other matters you raised were not questions they were statements. That you still want me to address the first after Awv and I have so thoroughly thrashed it out is a testament to your unwillingness to accept any answer but your own and gives me little hope for progression on the other two. If you have a specific question you would like me to address I will.

Csteele:

If such belligerence is brought up in you by arguing with an anonymous entity on line, I’d hate to have a debate with you in person. This is the main problem in the Middle East today, where people get fired up so easily and prefer throwing bombs rather than discuss their differences.

“… the historical extent of Palestine is far closer to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement than what existed for a few years on the temporary maps of the victors”

The Faisal-Weizmann agreement did not last more than a few months, let alone years.

As for the significance of the Mandate decision to the situation in the Middle East today:
It is not mentioned in agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas and Hezbollah do not give a damn about the League of Nations Mandate. They do not care if the state of Israel includes Jordan or not, whether its borders are along the 1967 or 1948 lines. They do not want to see Israel occupying a square millimetre, full stop. On the other side of the coin you have the Jewish settlers who see it as their historical and God-given right to the land up to the Jordan River, regardless of any Mandate decision that happened almost 100 years ago. Hardly anyone seems to care anymore – it has become a purely academic discussion. If we were to settle our disagreement today about the borders of the British Mandate of Palestine one way or the other it will have absolutely no impact on any of the parties to this conflict, and will not bring a resolution any closer.

Dear Avw,

Calling most people a racist in person will get you a degree of belligerence. That shouldn't be a surprise.

Yet again you distort and evade the point which is the historical extent of Palestine that was recognized by all parties, up until the carving up of the area by the victors, was pretty darn close to the boundaries set by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Ancient history plus the administration boundaries set by the Ottomans also support this.

Can you to show me just one other map that came within a bulls roar of the boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine.

For David Singer and the Israeli Foreign ministry to keep banging on about Israel only being 17% of the 'former Palestine' is just straight out objectionable and needs to be challenged, as do you if you support this.

Stripped of everything this was a forced European colonization of a middle-eastern country. As part of the West the treatment of our Jewish populations scaled from despicable to unimaginable horror and as such our support of a Jewish homeland has gone a small way in addressing those wrongs. 

But indigenous Jewish communities lived and thrived throughout the middle east before the proclamation of a Jewish state. Their lives and histories have been turned completely upside down. What we in the West have done is ask the Palestinian people who had struggled severely under the Ottoman rule to shoulder the burden of our past misdeeds. 

That we have done so with such little sympathy or grace condemns us further. We rightly criticize the huge Han Chinese migrations into Tibet or the Javanese into West Papua but so little is said about the massive European migrations into Palestine and the subsequent displacement of the indigenous population.

Surely a stronger stance against the deprivations caused by the actions of the government of Israel is one small measure open to us and I am taking it.

News that the Picasso painting Buste De Femme has been on show in the West Bank begs the question. Where is the artist who will paint a 'Guernica' of Operation Cast Lead? 

csteele

I'm still waiting for your response to these two matters:

1. You wrote:

"As I have stated the Mandate and its boundaries did not become binding until it was enacted but right up until that time they were fluid and Palestine and Transjordan had been delineated well before then."

I replied:

"How do you justify this statement with Article 25 of the Mandate which declared:

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined....."

Do you still stand by your original statement?

2. You wrote

"The Emirate of Transjordan was deemed a state in 1922 or if you want to be picky on the 15th of May 1923 when Britain recognized it as an independent government."

I replied

""Deemed" a state when Britain recognized it as an independent government?

Do you have any authorities to support your contention?

There is certainly evidence to the contrary that does not support this view.

Article 5 of the Mandate stipulated:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power"

Because of this provision Britain notified the League that it accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan and advised that the Administration of Transjordan was under the general supervision of Britain.

Nothing could be done in Transjordan without Britain's consent until 1946.

So much for an "independent government"".

Do you still stand by your original statement?

csteele,

As I am unable to access the youtube site you provided, would you please provide the gist of the content.

Also, I think you accused Israel of stealing Palestinian water ... would you please provide facts/evidence.

To csteele

I watched the video you suggested.

Like so much Arab propaganda it leaves out more than it says.

1. It does not mention

(i) the rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan by the Palestinian Arabs nor

(ii) their failure to do anything about creating their own viable and contiguous State between 1948-1967 nor

(iii) their decision to unify the West Bank with Jordan in 1950.

2.It fails to mention that offers by Israel to cede more than 90% of the West Bank and Gaza in 2001 and 2008 were rejected by the Palestinian Arabs.

3.The White House quote used in the video was taken from a letter that Bush wrote to Sharon on 17 April 2004. It does not set out these relevant paragraphs from that letter:

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. I know that, as you state in your letter, you are aware that certain responsibilities face the State of Israel. Among these, your government has stated that the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."

3. The video infers no viable and contiguous state can emerge because of Israel's actions when this is clearly the objective negotiations are intended to achieve.

A quite insidious, deceptive and misleading video.

csteele,

You appear to give willing and uncritical acceptance - to the point of gullibility - of any misinformation emerging from the Palestinian territories.

Dear Danielle,

In a grungy pizza joint at the moment waiting for a vegetarian with salami, don't ask, strange tastes, however I'm still a day away from being in a position to give you a considered answer.

Therefore this is very much on the fly but here is an Amnesty report from just last week.

http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=7854

You will have to tell me why this is disinformation.

Csteele:

“Yet again you distort and evade the point which is the historical extent of Palestine that was recognized by all parties, up until the carving up of the area by the victors, was pretty darn close to the boundaries set by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement”

Which point did I distort or evade? Who exactly are those mysterious “all parties” that you are referring to, allegedly recognising the extent of Palestine prior to the carving up of the area by France and Britain?

The evidence you offer to support your claim is:

1. Sykes-Picot - a secret agreement between Britain and France dividing the spoils of the Ottoman Empire.
2. The short lived Faisal-Weizmann agreement between Weizmann and a representative of the King of Hejaz. The Palestinian Arabs were not a party to this agreement. Even the King of Hejaz himself did not recognise it. The agreement was later ruled invalid by the UN.

You state that “Ancient history plus the administration boundaries set by the Ottomans also support“ your claim about the boundaries of Palestine being consistent with the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. Let’s examine this claim:

During the Roman times the province included the area of modern Israel, southern Syria, parts of western and southern Jordan, and the Sinai. From Wikipedia:
“Syria Palæstina was a Roman province between 135CE and 390CE”
“Syria Palaestina was reorganised into three administrative units: Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia (First, Second, and Third Palestine), part of the Diocese of the East. Palaestina Prima consisted of Judea, Samaria, the coast, and Peraea with the governor residing in Caesarea. Palaestina Secunda consisted of the Galilee, the lower Jezreel Valley, the regions east of Galilee, and the western part of the former Decapolis with the seat of government at Scythopolis. Palaestina Tertia included the Negev, southern Jordan—once part of Arabia—and most of Sinai with Petra as the usual residence of the governor.”

continued...

continued...

The Byzantines included Syria in their version of Palestine:
“During the Byzantine period, the entire region (Syria Palestine, Samaria, and the Galilee) was named Palaestina, subdivided into provinces Palaestina I and II. The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutaris, sometimes called Palaestina III” (Wikipedia)

The Ottomans had the district of Greater Syria:
“Territory of the Greater Syria under the Ottoman rule in its final historical period included modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, and parts of Turkey and Iraq” (Wikipedia).

So perhaps David is indeed wrong after all. Maybe we should say “Jordan and Syria and Lebanon are Palestine”.

Not a lot of historical support for the old Faisal-Weizmann boundaries, is there?

“For David Singer and the Israeli Foreign ministry to keep banging on about Israel only being 17% of the 'former Palestine' is just straight out objectionable and needs to be challenged”

You are well within your right to challenge any opinion. You cannot, however, change history. David and the Israeli Foreign Ministry claim that Israel forms about 17% of the area of the original Palestine Mandate. This claim is correct.

As per my earlier ‘qualified’ statement the British Mandate of Palestine originally included Jordan as well as Israel. From Wikipedia:
“From the early 1920s to 1946, the British Mandate of Palestine had also encompassed Transjordan, ruled under different arrangements from the area west of the Jordan river. Israel inside the (1949) armistice lines composed about 18% of this larger area including Transjordan.”

continued...

continued...

“…indigenous Jewish communities lived and thrived throughout the middle east before the proclamation of a Jewish state”

Not really. Throughout the centuries Jews (and Christians or any other non-Muslims) in the Middle East were always treated as second class citizens. While I can understand your concern and compassion for the Palestinian Arabs and your support for them to have their own state, it is unfortunate that your compassion does not extend to Jews and the establishment of their own state.

Jews have been indigenous to Palestine for thousands of years. Many of them were scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East by successive invaders, such as the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Romans to name just a few. They are native to Palestine, and have been for well over 2000 years (or closer to 3000 if you believe the bible). Saying that they were part of a European colonisation plot is ignorant at best.

“Where is the artist who will paint a 'Guernica' of Operation Cast Lead?”

Cast Lead was a military operation to stop an enemy from firing thousands of rockets into Israel. 'Guernica' is no more applicable to Cast Lead than to any other defensive military action taken by any other free country against an enemy hell-bent on its destruction through violent means.
What we should instead be asking is “Where are the artists who can paint thousands of ‘Guernica’s for the thousands of acts of war and terror perpetrated by Gaza against Israel?”

csteele,

I accessed the site you provided. I don't know what you are claiming.

Apart from the fact that no permit was applied for, although PECDAR would have been aware of this need, there is no evidence of investigating the matter further and in consultation with the relevant parties.

Also, applying your own criterion, the writer was Palestinian ...

I would suggest that you read: the Declaration on Principles for Cooperation on Water-Related Matters and New and Additional Water Resources, reports from the Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources (April 17-19, 1994), the Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources, (November 9, 1994) when Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians agreed on the discussion of principles and guidelines for cooperation on water issues. Also reports from the Working Group of June 22, 1995, May 16, 1996; especially the Second World Water Forum (The Hague, March 17-22, 2000)

csteele,

Whilst waiting for your evidence that Israel steals water from the Palestinians ...

Annually over 40 MCM (million cubic meters) of water from sources within Israel is piped over the Green Line for Palestinian use in the West Bank

In addition, Israel still sends Gaza another 4 MCM of Israeli water annually through the Kissufim Line of the National Water Carrier, serving the Palestinian localities of El-Bureij, Moazi, Abasan, Bani Suheila and Khan Yunis (Statistical Data on Gaza Area and Jericho, Israel Foreign Ministry, June 1994).

From 1967 to 1995 West Bank Palestinians increased their domestic water use by 640%, from 5.4 MCM to 40 MCM (Judea-Samaria and the Gaza District – A 16 Year Survey 1967 - 1983, Israel, Ministry of Defense, 1983; Arnon Soffer, The Israeli Palestinian Conflict over Water Resources, Palestine-Israel Journal, Volume 5, No. 1)

Palestinian agriculture flourished after 1967 because Israelis introduced drip irrigation and other modern agricultural techniques.

Prior to 1967, of the 430 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, 50 had access to running water. By 1992, an influx of capital and infrastructure from Israel had increased the number to 260.

The huge jump in Palestinian consumption was possible only because Israel drilled or permitted the drilling of over 50 new wells for the Palestinian population, laid hundreds of kilometers of new water mains and connected hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns to the newly built water system (Water, Israel and the Middle East, Israel Foreign Ministry 1991; Marcia Drezon-Tepler, Contested Waters and the Prospects for Arab-Israeli Peace, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol 30, No. 2, April 1994)

Taher Nassereddin, Director General of the West Bank Water Department, stated:

[Palestinian] consumption for domestic purposes has increased as a result of population growth and that there were no severe restrictions on drilling new wells for these purposes. (Taher Nassereddin, Legal and Administrative Responsibility of Domestic Water Supply to the Palestinians, in Joint Management of Shared Aquifers, 1997)

cont ...

However:

... like many West Bank villages and towns, had refused to hook up with the Israeli water system in the early 1980’s, when Israeli officials offered them the chance. Doing so, the politicians felt, would legitimize the Israeli occupation. (Bruce Stutz, Water and Peace, Audubon, September 1994)

Year after year, the Israeli Water Authority has delivered more water per year to the Palestinians than the amounts agreed upon in the Oslo Accords. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has threatened the water security of both themselves and the Israelis by digging 250 illegal wells and refusing to purify sewage water in violation of the Oslo Accords, instead dumping sewage into West Bank streams, causing massive pollution and threatening the lives of everyone..
Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).