aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (02/01/86)
Key-words: Palestine, Arabs, Egypt, Israel, UN resolutions Oded Feingold writes about arab occupied territories by Israel: > Which Palestinians should get it? Should Israel merely evacuate and > let anyone walk in? No, anyone will not walk in. Those territories should be handed over to a duly recognized palestinian authority. > What would happen to (Jewish) Israelis living in the lands you'd > like to see turned over to the Palestinians? [About 60% of the Israeli > population.] Note that the PNC declares all Jews arriving > post-beginning-of-zionist-invasion illegitimate residents. Since the > onset date of such "zionist invasion" is unspecified, could you supply > one? Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians will handle this problem. A possible solution: specify the date of the zionist invasion such that all civilian israelis could stay-if they wish to- and become citizens of the new secular palestinian state, where all religions are respected. Compare this with the actual situation in Israel whete only judaism is recognized (I mean , Israel is NOT A SECULAR STATE). > Such a reapportionment would presumably require negotiation with the > Israelis. But the three nos (no peace with Israel, no recognition of > Israel, no negotiation with Israel) of the 1968 Amman conference have > only been repudiated by Egypt. Who on the Palestinian side is prepared > to change that position? Nobody from the palestinian side will change that position, and repudiate the PNC (Palestinian National Covenant) without Israel's recognition of the "legitimity of the palestinians". Indeed, this is the QUI-PRO-CO of the american administration and the israelis. Israel, and the US government, claim that they will not talk -officially- to any palestinian or PLO representative, unless the PNC is repudiated. On the other side, the palestinians and the PLO cannot repudiate their PNC without getting in return something tangible, such as negotiations to establish a palestinian state. Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN resolutions are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions 338 and 242 which unequivocally recognize and mention Israel as a sovereign state. I must say that Israel -and the US- have an easy game here, if they wish to stall on the palestinian problem, which they have been doing so far. Whenever the palestinian representativity question is raised, they fall back to the PNC and require its repudiation, knowing very well that no palestinian in his right mind can dare doing that without anything back in return. After all, the PNC is one of their last cards. > > It may also force me to modify my perception of Mr. Aouriri as a > person who hates Jews and is uninterested in justice for them. I don't > know whether anyone cares. Finally, Oded is ready to change his pre-judiced perception. I hope he is convinced that I do not hate jews per se, and I am not anti- semitic, but I do oppose zionists. (Whether he likes it or not, there is a difference between jews and zionists). > ------------------------------ > The territory occupied and/or annexed after the 1956 war was zero. > Do yo deny that? If not, why did you mention it? No. I mention it because the INTENTION of ISRAEL in 1956 was to occupy and/or annex more arab lands. Otherwise, why did Israel join France and England in their military expedition against Egypt in 1956 ? Since 1956, the die was cast for Israel in arab minds. Israel, proving its association with the colonial powers, has been since identified with "colonialists", and later "imperialists", in the Arab world. In my opinion, this is the main reason why it is so hard -if not impossible- for many arabs to accept Israel as a neighbour. ( Reminder: In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez canal, which was owned by a consortium of french and english companies. To punish Egypt for that nationalization, and "to give a lesson" to Nasser who was the egyptian leader in 1956, France and England decided to mount a military expedition against Egypt. Israel saw in it a golden opportunity to expand and annex more arab land. It eagerly and keenly joined the british and the french in their military operation against Egypt. By the way, that military operation has been a total flop for France, England an Israel due mainly to the american and soviet disapprobation ) > The territory occupied after the 1967 war includes portions of Egypt > and Syria. Do you claim those for a Palestinian national homeland? No. > However, since then Israel has apparently annexed portions of the > Golan Heights. Just as for 1967, do you claim that in the name of the > Palestinians? NO. > > Your first sentence makes implicit claims on Jerusalem, since by the > terms of the November 1947 (NOT 1948) UN partition resolution it was to > be an international city. Care to suggest a new "owner" of that city? Jerusalem is certainly not part of Israel as it is specified in the UN partition resolution. It was part of Jordan. Therefore, Jordan or a palestinian state should be the "owner" of that city which is holy for Muslims, Christians and Jews. > One other note - no UN resolution "created" Israel: The Israelis > created Israel. Wrong! Historically, three main elements created Israel: 1- The Balfour declaration (in 1918, I think!). 2- The UN resolution in 1947-48. 3- The european jewish zionists, after the nazi holocaust in Europe during WW2. Some might even add that Hitler helped them (Because without Hitler's crazy dream and holocaust, the european zionists and jews would never leave Europe for the Middle East!). > The Palestinians had no chance to create anything There you go again!!!!!!!!!!! > territory not occupied by Israel was occupied by Egypt (Gaza Strip) and > Jordan (West Bank) in 1948. In fact, those countries combined occupied > 70% of the territory allotted to Arabs in the UN resolution. Right! But then, the palestinians were living in their homeland, not in shanty-towns or in camps under tents. They were not kicked around from one country to another, and they were certainly not under military occupation. CHEDLEY AOURIRI, ITT-ATC, Shelton, CT. ....ittatc!ittvax!aouriri
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (02/04/86)
Chedley Aouriri writes:
Indeed, this is the QUI-PRO-CO of the american administration and the
israelis. Israel, and the US government, claim that they will not talk
-officially- to any palestinian or PLO representative, unless the PNC
is repudiated. On the other side, the palestinians and the PLO cannot
repudiate their PNC without getting in return something tangible, such
as negotiations to establish a palestinian state.
Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN resolutions
are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions 338 and 242 which
unequivocally recognize and mention Israel as a sovereign state.
I am not convinced this has happened. If the PLO has accepted these
resolutions and it has not been reported in the media, they should try
holding a press conference in which Yassir Arafat says "The PLO
accepts UN resolutions 242 and 338 and calls on Israel to negotiate
with it without preconditions. Everything will be open to discussion
but neither side will be expected to make any concessions whatsoever
before the meeting." I recall that once a PLO spokesperson said that
the PLO recognized UN resolutions on the Middle East. It was thought
that this included 242/338, but it turned out all that was meant was
UN condemnations of Israel.
Chedley, do you think this might work? Could it hurt even if it failed?
Please convince me that I am wrong, that the PLO really wants a
negotiated peace, that there is ever so slight a chance that it would
amend the PNC and stop calling for the total destruction of Israel.
--
The Maxwell R. Mayhem Institute for Quandary Requiem and Maternal Sciamachy
Accept no substitutes.aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (02/06/86)
Warren Burnstein writes: [] > Chedley Aouriri writes: > Indeed, this is the QUI-PRO-CO of the american administration and the > israelis. Israel, and the US government, claim that they will not talk > -officially- to any palestinian or PLO representative, unless the PNC > is repudiated. On the other side, the palestinians and the PLO cannot > repudiate their PNC without getting in return something tangible, such > as negotiations to establish a palestinian state. > > Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN resolutions > are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions 338 and 242 which > unequivocally recognize and mention Israel as a sovereign state. > > I am not convinced this has happened. If the PLO has accepted these > resolutions and it has not been reported in the media, they should try > holding a press conference in which Yassir Arafat says "The PLO > accepts UN resolutions 242 and 338 and calls on Israel to negotiate > with it without preconditions. Everything will be open to discussion > but neither side will be expected to make any concessions whatsoever > before the meeting." I recall that once a PLO spokesperson said that > the PLO recognized UN resolutions on the Middle East. It was thought > that this included 242/338, but it turned out all that was meant was > UN condemnations of Israel. > > Chedley, do you think this might work? Could it hurt even if it failed? > > Please convince me that I am wrong, that the PLO really wants a > negotiated peace, that there is ever so slight a chance that it would > amend the PNC and stop calling for the total destruction of Israel. > ***************************************** First, let me state that I am not a PLO member and that I do not represent in any way any organization. The opinions and writings I post on the net are strictly mine. ***************************************** Concerning UN resolutions 338 and 242, the Arab League has declared more than once, publicly, officially and privately that it accepts them. The latest being the Arab peace plan issued after the Rabat Summit of Arab heads of states and kings. Therefore the PLO who is a full member of the Arab League accepts them as well. Now, it is obvious that for political and public relations reasons, the PLO states publicly that it "accepts ALL UN resolutions pertaining to the Middle East, including those resolutions condemning Israel". However, the term ALL means the inclusion of resoultions 338 and 242. We should remember that the PLO is not a monolithic organization. Actually it is an umbrella organization of several groups covering a wide political spectrum (yes, Abu Nidhal is the head of one of those groups). The PLO has then to modulate its public declarations and statements to play to different audiences, including the radical and extremist audiences. The other side of the coin is the israeli position. It is Israel's official position not to talk to any PLO member or representative unless the PLO amends its covenant (the PNC) and accepts "publicly" Israel's existence. Even on american TV programs, members of the israeli government are not allowed to debate simultaneously with PLO members or representatives. This is also the "official" US administration position. It seems clear to me that Israel does not want to talk to the PLO, or any other palestinian for that matter, unless the pre-condition of public official recognition of Israel is met. It is also clear that Israel does not want to acknowledge or recognize the PLO. How to break the dealock? I think Israel -and the US- can and should take the PLO and the Arab League at their word, ie. agree to start talks without ANY PRE-CONDITIONS ON EITHER SIDE. This means Israel and the US should drop their pre-condition of official and public recognition of Israel by the arab side. Remember the fall of 1977, when the US did just that: ie talking without pre-condition with PLO members. Israel dispatched then one of its government ministers to New-York, and got a position reversal from the US government in the form of a "memo of understanding". Talks have been aborted, and the US vowed not to do it anymore. Also in 1981, the US representative in the UN lost his job because he held private discussions with the PLO observer in the UN. As of this year, a major stalling is observed about the members who will represent the palestinian side (note: not even the PLO) within a jordan delegation in peace talks. Because those palestinian representatives need at least the approval of the PLO, stalling by Israel has not been budged yet. It seems that today in the Middle East, Israel has the key for peace and also the key for future wars. Which key it chooses to use? I still hope that Israel's military superiority does not blind it from seeking peace. Yes, Israel should "give peace a chance" now that it apparently has the upper hand militarily, and the backing of the US. For military balances and political alliances are not static! Helas, yesterday's interception of an arab civilian airplane by israeli military jets shows that Israel is not inclined to use the peace key. (Mr. Feingold, I hope your are happy now that those "jewish warplanes" are roaring again over the Mediterranean blue sky, even if they did not catch any fish!!) CHEDLEY AOURIRI, ITT-ATC, Shelton,CT. ....ittatc!ittvax!aouriri
drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (02/06/86)
In a delightful departure from discussing whether all Israelis eat babies for breakfast, Mr. Aouriri writes: (of Israeli "occupied territories" (I forget just which territiories he includes here)) > > Those territories should be handed over > to a duly recognized palestinian authority. > Name five "duly recognized Palestinian authorities". Name even one. You'd find it easier to do the first, because there are myriad such groups, all of which are duly recognized by someone or other (usually the nation(s) which vest them with "authority" in the form of guns and money), and none of which is Palestinian in the sense of wishing to represent the Palestinians in a democratic way. All of them are opposed to peace except through violent victory against Israel. When a real authority appears, I am 100% confident that the Israelis will negotiate with it. As it stands, however, Palestinians are routinely blown up and shot by the more radical groups for proposing just such a "duly recognized authority" negotiating with Israel (actually, not so routinely anymore--people learn when to keep their mouths shut). > > Compare this with the actual situation in Israel > whete only judaism is recognized (I mean , Israel is NOT A SECULAR > STATE). Israel is not a completely secular state. Nevertheless, lots of religions are fully recognized. They perform marriages, control their own holy sites, and are treated with appropriate respect by the government. Compare this with several Islamic states which refuse to recognize other religions, and/or persecute their adherents. Perhaps they, too, failed to make the above distinction... > > Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN > resolutions are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions > 338 and 242 which unequivocally recognize and mention Israel > as a sovereign state. So the PLO recognizes Israel? News to me. Nice to hear, though. Actually, the PLO has never accepted resolutions 242 and 338, and you know it. > I mention it because the INTENTION of ISRAEL in 1956 was to occupy > and/or annex more arab lands. Otherwise, why did Israel join France > and England in their military expedition against Egypt in 1956 ? > Well, if you must know, the real reason that Israel joined France and England in their military expedition against Egypt in 1956 was roughly identical to Britain's and France's reason for launching it: to topple Nasser. Nasser did not only annex the Suez Canal in 1956; he also militarized the Sinai (which borders Israel) and blockaded the Strait of Tiran, Israel's only sea route to the south. All three involved parties clearly believed that their intervention would lead to Nasser's downfall, and that whoever replaced him would be less belligerent. As for the "annex more Arab lands" business, Israel had a golden opportunity to do just that in 1967, when she recaptured the very same stretch of land--the Sinai peninsula. Instead, Israel returned same to Egypt in exchange for--a peace treaty. Sounds pretty greedy to me. > > > Jerusalem is certainly not part of Israel as it is specified in the > UN partition resolution. It was part of Jordan. Therefore, > Jordan or a palestinian state should be the "owner" of that city > which is holy for Muslims, Christians and Jews. > Yuk, yuk, yuk! Good joke, this. Surely a man as familiar as you with Middle Eastern history (I assume you are well acquainted with the facts; how else could you presume to hold forth so prolifically and so confidently on the net concerning this very subject?) must know that the original UN partition plan called for Jerusalem to be an "international city", NOT a part of Jordan. In fact, Jordan wasn't supposed to be anywhere NEAR Jerusalem according to the partition plan. King Abdullah of Jordan saw things differently, however, and promptly annexed most of the territory of the proposed Palestinian state the moment the plan was supposed to take effect. He also snatched about half of Jerusalem at the same time, including that part (the old city) which contains all the holy sites which were supposed to remain international (in order to maintain the universal access that Jordan prevented during its period of rule over the city). > > Historically, three main elements created Israel: > 1- The Balfour declaration (in 1918, I think!). > 2- The UN resolution in 1947-48. > 3- The european jewish zionists, after the nazi holocaust in > Europe during WW2. Some might even add that Hitler helped > them (Because without Hitler's crazy dream and holocaust, > the european zionists and jews would never leave Europe > for the Middle East!). Interesting list. There are quite a few omissions, of course--no country can be created by such a flimsy collection of quasi-legal documents and hapless refugees--Uh, how WERE you planning to establish a Palestinian state, again? By the way, if you want flimsy excuses for statehood, try any of Israel's neighbours, whose borders were all arbitrarily drawn up by whimsical and/or politically shrewd colonial powers. Jordan, for instance, was a present to the Hashemite royal family. > > CHEDLEY AOURIRI, ITT-ATC, Shelton, CT. > ....ittatc!ittvax!aouriri Daniel R. Simon