MidEasT: An Eye for an EYE, Land for LAND

So. Let's talk about giving up land for peace.


first take a look at my earlier discussions in my blog here, a parable... and (Previously here)


What I say, is this...

We need to STOP arguing with the likes of (you'll know my age now...) Vanessa Redgrave regarding how the poor palestinians this, and that, and start doing what our enemies do... THat is RE-Directing the arguments, in our favor....

So, instead of saying, yes, we need a two state solution to the 1967 borders, we need to re-define the argument to stress that we want the 1948 2 (1/2) state solution of the UN.

Yes, I actually went out to the UN and RESEARCHED the actual verbatim documents from 1948. OnMay 14th 1948, the UN General Assembly debated the issue (at Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, NY) Future government of Palestine - GA debate - Verbatim record where the following fascinating conversation was excerted from.

"It seemed that certain aspects of the problem had been forgotten during the discussion. So far, only one State existed in Palestine: the Jewish State.

For strange and somewhat obscure reasons, the representatives of the Arab States did not support the creation of an Arab State in Palestine.

The Polish Ambassador pointed out that after four weeks of discussion, numerous delegations had tried to show that implementation of resolution 181(II) on the partition of Palestine was impossible. He said, however, that practical and concrete measures were being taken to implement that resolution. The Polish delegation considered that the creation of a Jewish State in the part of Palestine designated for that purpose, was in conformity with the resolution of 29 November.

He was sure that the leaders of the new Jewish State understood the wisdom of close co-operation with the other peoples of the Middle East. He was equally sure that the Arab population of Palestine would follow their example by creating a new State in conformity with the resolution of 29 November. That would strengthen the Arab States in their struggle for complete independence in that part of the world.

...and Markbnj Says... Yeah Right... They were stubborn THEN, and they are JUST as STUBBORN now...

And I find it extremely funny that certain Countries, (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon),,
Managed to PREVENT the appointment of a UN MEDIATOR to the palestine mandate, because they thought it was against their interests.... As quoted by...

Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria) stated that he at last understood why the United States ...had urged that priority should be given to discussion of the report of Sub-Committee 10. The real intention of the United States had been to await the termination of the Mandate before putting that resolution to the vote, so that the United States Government could recognize the Jewish State as a de facto authority.

The Lebanese delegate reviewed the development of the Palestine problem since the first special session of the General Assembly a year previously. He then pointed out that the present special session had been convene at the request of the United States through the Security Council, and that for four weeks the United States delegation had been assuring the parties that the only aim was to bring about peace and reconciliation.

In his closing Remarks at this session, The PRESIDENT observed that, it must be admitted that the Palestine question was an inheritance bequeathed without inventory by the League of Nations, and that the colonizing nation par excellence had been unable to solve it in thirty years.

The General Assembly had been faced not only with the conflicting interests of the two parties, but also with the political prejudices and intransigence of certain Members.

Let's RECAP.

• UN said two States. Jews (Israel) said yes, Palestinians and ARAB states say NO WAY!
• ARAB states INVADE Israel, attempt to throw all Jews into the sea.
• four wars later, arabs say they want peace, after 50 years of violence against us
• They ask for all land back, claim they have decided that Israel can exist even though they haven't modified all claims stating that Israel is a stateless blot on society.
  

So, we need to say the fact that the palestinians want a two state solution is fine, but instead of the 1967 borders, WE want the 1948 borders, and for the ARAB states to accept the two state solution of the 1948 UN proposal.

AND when they ACCEPT the 1948 proposal, AND when JORDAN gives up the LAND it annexed in 1948, THEN and ONLY then will ISRAEL give up the land (East Jerusalem) that IT annexed in 1967.

In other words, Jordan gives up most of its anexxed land, and Israel would give up east Jerusalem...

And the size of the proposed palestinian state would expand fourfold immediately!

So, as the bible says, An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth, and
annexed land for annexed land.

Please comment...