The Ignored Reason There is no Palestinian State Already

Ask any European leader or politician and the odds are you will hear that the reason there is no Palestinian State is due to Israeli refusals to make peace and the Israeli settlements. They will speak of how the Palestinians are thirsting for peace and crave their own State and have made generous offers if only Israel would compromise. They will never mention the refusals over the decades by the Arab League, Yasser Arafat, and Mahmoud Abbas to every offer beginning with the initial offer from the United Nations to found the Palestinian State on the more select and prime farming lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea leaving only a thin strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea, another along the northwest at the bottom of the Golan Heights and over half of the land being the southern lands of the Negev Dessert. The Zionists accepted this hardly equal or fair division while the Arab League refused to allow this partition as it still allowed the Jews to rule themselves and demanded that all the land be relegated to Arab rule and they would allow the Jews to remain as long as they behaved like good Dhimmis. The United Nations and the world simply left the offer to stand in hopes that the Arab League would accept the plan, but come the middle of May, 1948, Israel declared their nationhood and seven Arab nations’ armies declared a war of annihilation against the Nascent Jewish State of Israel. Miraculously, the small newly found State of Israel managed to survive and even gain lands by pushing the combined Arab armies back taking the western half of Jerusalem within hours of the declared ceasefire taking hold. At this point there was no Israeli presence in the lands of Gaza, Judea, or Samaria with Egypt retaining control of Gaza and Jordan retaining control over Judea and Samaria which they refused to call by their historic names substituting the less descriptive and un-Jewish name of West Bank. Jordan even attempted to annex the lands they called the West Bank and made the Arabs living within Jordanian citizens. This seemed natural as the Arabs living in the area mostly had relatives either in Jordan or in either Syria or Iraq as most had arrived over the past two generations as the economy offered better employment. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was not recognized not even by the other Arab nations or the Arab League and was recognized solely by Great Britain and Pakistan in the entire world. Jordan also forced the Jewish residents within their areas of control to leave their property behind and expelled them into Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion offered for the Arabs living within Israel to remain and join in building a future. Despite this invitation many Arabs fled into neighboring Jordan, Egypt or Syria where they eventually ended up placed in camps, denied citizenship largely due to their not joining in the war against Israel; causing them to be seen as less loyal.

During the next decade over three-quarters of a million Jews were stripped of their wealth, lands, businesses and were deported from the majority of the countries of the Arab League with the majority finding a new home and a place to restart their lives in Israel while some went to Europe, the United States and other destinations. The Jews who were ejected from their homes often with only the clothes on their backs or a suitcase or two were welcomed in Israel and were granted citizenship and full rights and today they and their descendants make up approximately half of the Israeli population. This makes the claim by many Palestinian and Arab spokespersons that Israelis should be returned to the lands from whence they came in Europe and the United States ignores that half of the Israelis lived originally in the Arab world. One must wonder if these countries would open their arms and accept the descendants of the Jews they ejected. Somehow I just cannot see that ever happening.

Since 1948 Israel has been attacked by her Arab neighbors a number of times. Resulting from the first conflict where France, Great Britain and Israel declared war of Egypt after Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal and refused to allow European shipping to pass through the canal, Israel took possession of the entire Sinai Peninsula during this conflict but returned every inch of the lands to Egypt as part of the peace treaty that also saw the reopening of the Suez Canal to international shipping. United Nations peacekeepers were also stationed in the Sinai Peninsula to prevent another conflict from erupting. In late May, 1967, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the peacekeepers removed from the Sinai Peninsula, massed troops on the Israeli southern border, closed the Straights of Tiran and massed Syrian troops on the Israeli northern border threatening to annihilate the Jewish State. The closing of the Straights of Tiran was an internationally recognized casus belli of war. Israel responded to this declaration and defeated both armies driving almost to the outskirts of Damascus and taking the entire Sinai Peninsula once again. Close to the beginning of the war upon hearing of great Arab victories that Egyptian and Syrian radio and television broadcast they were executing against the Israelis, Jordan declared war in the hopes on taking their part in the glorious victory. The Israelis pleaded for Jordan not to enter the conflict warning them that the broadcasts were untrue and were simply propaganda. Jordan did not trust the Israelis believing they were simply frightened of another Arab army entering the war which would definitely contribute to the end of the Jewish state. The results of the Six Day War are well known and by the end of the conflict, in response to the United Nations and World pressures, Israel halted their advances also now having driven the Jordanians back east of the Jordan River liberating occupied Judea and Samaria (one must recall that Jordan illegally occupied the so-called West Bank which was originally believed to be part of Israel). During Yom Kippur of October, 1973 Egypt and Syria once again attacked Israel hoping to reclaim the lands lost in 1967 and destroy the Jewish State. After initial gains the war ended with Israel retaining all of the Sinai Peninsula and having crossed the Suez Canal and approaching Cairo as well as approaching Damascus in Syria. When hostilities ended, Israel agreed to return to the borders which had existed since the 1967 conflict returning lands to both Egypt and Syria lands gained during the closing days of the conflict. Eventually Israel and Egypt made peace (for those who claim Israel must return some of the lands they gained in the 1967 war remember the following) with Israel returning all of the Sinai Peninsula once again, an expanse of land greatly larger than all of Israel. Egypt refused any claim to Gaza which was relented to Israeli sovereignty. Further on in time Jordan and Israel also reached a peace accord in which Jordan surrendered the previously Jordanian occupied lands to Israel liberating the lands and allowing many Jewish families to reclaim their lands and homes they had left when Jordan forcibly removed them in 1948.

Somewhere the world acquiesced to the invention of peoples whom had never existed in all of history and was admitted by even Yasser Arafat they were necessarily invented in order to have a political wedge with which to remove the Jews from Arab sovereign lands, namely Israel. This twist of history beyond recognition of any historic accounts dated previous to 1920 has gained great recognition and a life all its own in Europe as well as throughout the Arab and Muslim lands. Historically, before 1948 the use of the title Palestinian had several different forms, Palestinian Arab was used to define Arabs living within the British Mandate, Palestinian Jews or simple using Palestinian alone was used to refer to the Jews living within the British Mandate. In 1922 the nation of Transjordan, later renamed simply Jordan, was founded with the issue of the Churchill White Paper where Transjordan was granted for rule by the Hashemite family repaying them for their assistance against the Ottomans in World War I and they were to rule over a Palestinian State. This was the British reaction in response to Arab insistence for a country of their own within the British Mandate. The Arab demands implied they should have their country formed over all of the British Mandate but the British still had their obligation stemming from the Balfour Declaration, the Peel Commission, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter and numerous other treaties and agreements to found a Jewish homeland. The White Paper which established the Palestinian Arab State of Transjordan also guaranteed that the lands west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would remain never to be divided and remain as whole and in its entirety as the Jewish Homeland. This accord was also ratified by motions and legislations in the League of Nations, the United States and several European nations. That is the history; the future is far less resolute and will likely be a thorn as intended by Yasser Arafat and those who initiated the demand for another Arab nation in place of the only Jewish nation on Earth. This desire to replace Israel with one or two new Palestinian Arab states, whichever becomes necessary by events to come, is understood as the inevitable aim of the Arab world but is never spoken of as to admit to knowing this would reveal all the duplicities, animosities, hatreds, and lies which are the realities of the negotiations the world calls the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, originally the Arab-Israeli Peace Process but renamed in order to mask the ultimate aim of the destruction of Israel.

Beyond the Cusp

Have the Talks Failed?

Sometimes, when allowed to, talks between two sides reach a point where no further compromise is possible. Both sides feel they have given enough or one side has done the far greater amount of giving while the other side has refused to make even the slightest of concessions. The talks have been ongoing with an on again off again drumbeat which marked the passage of time, not agreements. Even pressure put upon the talks with expressions of the grave and vital importance made clear. Grand schemes have been proposed and failed to force a change in either side. President Obama has made demands that were designed to facilitate progress, yet there was still no progress. Everybody around the world has had their two cents worth of advice and the talks have stalled again and again. Grand bargains have been offered and have caused a crack of light to appear signaling perhaps a miracle only to return to moribund silence between the two sides. The United Nations has pleaded and shown deep concern even to the point of offering to assist in any way they might be invited, but that too fell on deaf ears. What is a world to do when one side of a situation that screams out for justice and compromise refuses compromises and chooses to scream about the injustices that have been done to them. And all that has befell the intransigent side the other claims they have brought upon themselves by taking the path of refusal and obstinacy.

But with the New Year there are signs that President Obama will bring changes and by his will alone force movement in the talks towards a mutually beneficial resolution. His promises sound vaguely familiar; perhaps we have heard these promises before. Vice President Biden makes a plea restating an old offer expressing the hope that this is the time that perchance this offer should be accepted. Then, with only a moment’s wait, a mere few days, and the obstinate side remains obstinate, refusing the offer with a steely cold denial. There is a deep exhalation as many had held their breathe anticipating a change, but alas there will be no movement. There is still hope that there can be a new round of talks made possible if only there is the perseverance to bring it to fruition. We wait often believing we caught sight of the glimmer of the light of hope but then again it may have just been flashes in our own eyes and nothing of the tangible sort. Can there be progress? Should we still hold out hope? What if the worst of the worst should come and the talks prove to be futile and have been merely a long exercise in futility? Will we be able to face the consequences and do what we know must be done? If we refuse to admit the failure, then what will become of us? Will the impasse lead to war as had been predicted by some who told us long ago that our faith in talks was fruitless? Will there be no other way out of the predicament which we now find ourselves having to admit? It is too harsh a reality. The talks must be reopened and another chance be given for progress, compromise, a last hope. We have to allow the time for talks to work, and they will work, they must work. But what if they don’t?

President Obama has told us that the talks would lead to peace and security and put an end to any difficulties, any threats, any dangers. The President assured us in dulcet tones that he could make the talks work if only they would listen to his generous offers and reasonable requests. Kindness, after all, always calms and defeats harsh rhetoric, heals wounds and works wonders, after all, did not his promises and words win him election? All we had to do is allow his words to work their spell. But now his words have the hint of panic and defeat and have lost some of their melodic and hypnotic overtones. His sweet overtures have slowly changed taking on a rasp of harshness and now have the sharp retort-filled tones of rapid gunfire.

There is to be yet another round of talks, or so we have been led to believe. Can they really make any difference at this late date? Why should we continue to hold out hope as all has certainly proven hopeless? The last refusal of a generous offer of direct talks had the dead tones of finality. The discussions with the arm of the United Nations on their dual track was refused and abruptly cut off just a short while ago. Their track seems to have come to their end. They have reached the gorge and there does not appear to be a bridge. Are our tracks equally coming to that gorge that has no bridge? It will be a harsh pill to swallow if the warnings from Israel prove true. What do we do now that there is no path forward through discourse and all the talking has been revealed to be a ruse used to stall for time? What are we to do? Yes, sure we will go ahead with the talks we have managed to agree we will hold, but if they fail once again, then what?

And for the really big question, what is it that President Obama will be discussing on his trip to Israel next month? We have been told that President Obama will not be making any plans to force a reopening of the equally moribund talks between Israel and the Palestinians and they plan other discussion. Could it be that President Obama will be talking with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to advise him of what will come should the last gasp talks with Iran continue to fail? With the growing reluctance and intransigence by Iran and the obvious failure of the P5+1 talks to produce even the smallest concession which could be verified, what can we expect other than a waste of breathe and time with another round of talks. It really does seem obvious that we have been talking just to hear ourselves talk. Perhaps we must admit to ourselves that we have been talking because the alternative is too frightening to even think about. We have been so determined to avoid what has been the inevitability of the rising menace named Iran that we have talked ourselves almost to death. While we aimed to avoid war Iran has aimed for the ultimate weapon of war and our determination of avoidance has brought them dangerously close to their goal, maybe even they have attained what they desired. What will we tell our children if we find that Iran has truly reached the goal and now already possesses a small cache of nuclear devices? How will we excuse our timidity which enabled the rising bully to so equip itself? Have we talked ourselves to the brink of doom or beyond, that is the question that needs an immediate answer. And what are we going to do even if the answer is affirmative? Will we then continue to talk only this time the talk will be about how much we surrender before it becomes too much. What if we talked ourselves into that oblivion? As Shakespeare wrote, “Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.” Have we so protested too much and now are left with too little leverage to gain advantage? Did we whittle away any advantage we originally had? That would indeed be a sad state of affairs. Very sad.

Beyond the Cusp

The More Things Change the More They Remain the Same

Near the start of what was called the Arab Spring the people of Egypt witnessed the removal of their President and Evil Dictator Mubarak and awaited what were to be real free elections for a new President and for Egyptian Hope and Change. The election did not exactly prove to produce the liberating governance the Egyptians had so hoped for. The result in Egypt and throughout the countries which were initiating or striving to initiate change now faced what had been renamed the Arab Winter. The results did not quite measure up and fulfill the Hopes for Change that had driven the initial uprisings. Now Egypt is experiencing buyers’ remorse or is it reMorsi. They have come to the realization that the new boss is not all that different than the old boss; he simply has a slightly different dogma which results in the exact same practices. The protesters are still being shot and murdered. Those arrested still face torture and people still simply disappear. But the people of Egypt are going to find that their new oppressors are far more difficult to remove than was Mubarak as the new oppressions have the backing and support of Allah.

Having the professed support and direction of Allah and the religious class of Imams means you are facing forces who can define all who oppose them to be apostates.  Once any group has been labeled as apostates they become enemies of Allah. Once they become enemies of Allah they can also become the target of Jihad. Once you have become a target of Jihad you then can face a Fatwa used as a death sentence that frees the hands of the believers to bring you to justice, the justice of final judgment of the grave. This provides President Morsi with his backing of the Muslim Brotherhood legitimacy far greater and more dangerous than Mubarak could ever have claimed. Mubarak could only claim the legitimacy of the State, the same claim that could be made by the people who were calling for the overthrow of the tyrant Mubarak. Morsi can claim the legitimacy of Allah with the literal blessings of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Imams and thus has legitimacy beyond that the demonstrators can ever hope to claim. Morsi can claim that he is performing the will of Allah which makes any opposition to his will an act of blasphemy which can often result in death. This will make Morsi that much more difficult to replace, and even should such be accomplished, would the next leader chosen by either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists be any improvement? Very likely they would be as bad if not worse.

The pro-democracy supporters, tempted to call them dreamers as they have little tangible power, might have had an opportunity to pull Morsi from taking power very early after he assumed the Presidency. That is no longer the case as Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood made some shrewd maneuvers rather quickly after assuming power. They revamped the top brass in the Egyptian Military retiring many of the Generals and other senior officers replacing them with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They also promoted replacements who were also members of the Muslim Brotherhood who had managed to infiltrate the military while Mubarak was in power. Now Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood hold all the levers of power as they have replaced the necessary people in the state police and other enforcement arms of the government cementing their rule. Egypt will continue to appear to be a democratic country but in reality the winning candidates will be chosen by the Muslim Brotherhood. In many ways it is a real shame that the Egyptian people who were the original protesters were not the ones who had the organization and the funds to run and win the national elections they deserved after they had given the initial impetus for change. Now they have received change, received change but not hope.

The really sad part of the story of the Arab Spring turned Winter is that the current forces throughout the Middle East and the Arab and Muslim Worlds will lead every country which is able to forge change and will be more likely than not to end up going from their nationalist rule to theocratic Islamic rule. Even Turkey which had been organized by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to be a guarded sectarian democracy where the military was charged by the Constitution of Turkey to enforce the country’s secular nature and to remove and call for new election should Islamists ever try to compromise the modern secular nature of the country. Unfortunately, the blindness and ignorance of the European Union and its individual nations along with the United States under President Bush with advice given by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded the Turkish military stand down at the crucial point at which Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan crossed over the point of no return in his implementation of plans to alter Turkey from a secular state to one based on Sharia. The main reasons behind this reality is that the majority of the population of these countries were raised completely on Islam and either in isolation from the Western World or with an animosity for the Western World as they had a resentment of being colonized after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Western influences have had an effect on the youth in many of these countries but there are also a significant sector among the youth who are strict Islamic adherents which serves as a further reason for the overwhelming influence and power held by the Muslim Brotherhood. If Western culture and secular science based civilization manages to survive for another century, then the Islamic world may experience a reformation which will allow for a separation between Mosque and Government. If such is not the case, I do not even pretend to be able to predict what would follow. My hope is that should Islam become the dominant force on Earth they would progress forward with a rebirth of the early writings from the Mecca Koran coming into prominence. That could allow for a pluralistic society with freedom if not quite complete equality for all peoples, even non-Muslims. The coming years are going to be a crucial period where much will be held in judgment and the progress of all mankind will be in the balance. The next century will either usher in an age of unlimited brightness and discoveries or darkness where war, pestilence, and hatreds rule the earth, the seas, the skies, and the hearts of mankind.

Beyond the Cusp