JBlog Carnival Updates, HH, KCC & JPIX

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

"Two State" Bluff, Not Going To Work

A history lesson...

Even though the slogan is "two states," international pressure is actually for three, but that won't work either.

There never was an independent country called "Palestine." It doesn't exist in the history books.  This is one sick fairy tale. Various countries ruled in this part of the world as imperialists, invaders, most recently the Turks and then the British.  They named the "mandate" "Palestine."  Then after the Balfour Declaration which pledged that the land would be a Jewish State, the British imported the Hashemites to take over the eastern bank of the Jordan.  The Hashemites weren't native to this area at all, but they enjoyed their perks of kingship and all sorts of other freebies the British offered in exchange for limiting Jewish settlement.  The remaining part of the mandate, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean plus the Negev desert was then promised to the Jews, but the British decided to renege again.

According to their grand plan there was to be another Arab state between Hashemite Jordan and the sliver of land left for the Jews.  That new Arab state would be "Palestine."  The  British were hoping to get them ready to take over before the Jews declared a state. 

The British plan didn't work, because of Hitler.  There was too much anger and too many Jewish refugees, survivors of Nazi's incomplete extermination.  The Zionists were too impatient and declared its State of Israel before the Arabs were ready.

Now, sixty-two years later, the world is still trying to invent that country.

They've created a monster they can't control.  Those Arabs don't want to share the land, even though the pro-British Leftist Israelis have been waiting to fulfill the British plan.

Unfortunately, the con is so old, people think it's real.  And frequently I wonder if I'm the only sane one in the insane asylem.


Bryan said...

In the interest of accuracy, I would point out that the Balfour Declaration did not specifically put aside Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state, but rather said that the UK looked with favor on the creation "in Palestine" of a "Jewish national home." That could be interpreted as merely setting aside some part of Palestine for some kind of autonomy for Jews, not necessarily a sovereign state.

That said, I do think that morally and historically, Israel is from the river to the sea, and includes the Golan. The Arabs can have the East Bank as well as Gaza (which even King Solomon didn't control, to my understanding), but Israel should under no circumstances cede any other land. But we should try to be as accurate as possible when stating Israel's case. Just because the enemies of Israel play fast and loose with truth and logic doesn't mean we have to likewise demean ourselves. (Not to say that your post was doing so, but merely that accuracy is important and we should try to keep as close to the facts of the matter as possible.)

Steven said...

You are right that it is a con, but there is a question that needs to be addressed.

The Arabs live there now in large numbers. What would you like to do about that? What is the solution? What if the proposed solution is opposed by the Arabs?

Shy Guy said...

To Bryan, as early as 1922, the Mandate authority cut back the line of the Jewish state of Palestine to the Jordan River. Before that, Transjordan was included.

The Peel Commission in the late 1930 conceded that the initial intent was to include Transjordan in the Jewish run state. To quote:

"The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan."

But we Jews are not here dependent on what Balfour said or meant.

Bryan said...

Shy Guy: I know that Israel, historically and religiously, has a claim to the East Bank, but a) the East Bank is not strategically necessary, and b) the Arabs who lived in Palestine need a state of their own. b) is fulfilled by the existence of Jordan on the East Bank, and once the world accepts Jordan as the state of the Palestinian Arabs, Israel will not be beholden to any Palestinian entity. The East Bank (Gilead?) would be a "necessary sacrifice" from Israel's historical claims in order to placate the Arabs.

Shy Guy said...

Bryan, I wasn't disagreeing on those points. I'm all for "Jordan is Palestine" at this point in world history.

I was responding to your claims regarding what was understood and claimed by the Balfour declaration from its onset.

Bryan said...

This may be overly pedantic, but I still think that even the Peel Commission's statement does not necessarily mean that all of Palestine (both Cis- and Transjordan) was to be the Jewish National Home, just that the Jewish National Home could be in any part of that Palestine. Political texts are constantly scrutinized for loopholes, and I'm operating under the assumption that unless a loophole was closed, it was to be left open for interpretation.

j.s.kern said...

I pray that Israelis consider appeasing no-one but their Landlord. What was the rental agreement you had with Him?

No other nation in the world would consider for two seconds how to factor in their enemies' approval of their borders. And anyone who can't live with a Jewish, Biblical-sized Israel is quite clearly an enemy of HaShem.

Shy Guy said...

j.s.kern said...

I pray that Israelis consider appeasing no-one but their Landlord. What was the rental agreement you had with Him?


One of the non-negotiable contractual clauses states:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;"
- Exodus 20

This in contrast to your own christian pagan beliefs. Just a reminder. :)

Anonymous said...

The only solution is two state solution with shared Jerusalem. Let's face it.

Batya said...

a, obviously you're referring to Jerusalem, Alabama

Because it would be fatal in the Holy Jerusalem, Israel

j.s.kern said...

Shy Guy,

Thanks for that, but you misunderstand Moshiach; I didn’t make Him, the LORD did. And if it wasn’t for Yeshua and his Talmudim, I wouldn’t even know there was a LORD and my people would still be stuck in a Caledonian peat bog offering human sacrifices to Celtic ghosts.

And, just for fun, have you ever heard of the expression, “You become what you hate?” I’ve seen it happen many times (I’m an old, old man). Interesting phenomenon, eh?

...I think Someone's calling you.

Shy Guy said...

JS, upgrading from Celtic ghosts to a supposed Jewish one, was good for the goyim. No argument there.

But from that to believing in one fairy tale versus another, you're still fooling yourself.

Just keep on ignoring the pointers I've passed your way. Pretend that facts don't matter. Pick and choose your reality.

Jews loyal to Hashem never suggested that. Enjoy our black sheep. He's all yours!

In case you haven't heard the expression, you are what you eat. I try to cut back on junk food.

j.s.kern said...

Reb S’Guy, I assure you that not a single pointer of yours has been ignored. In fact, I’m honored to be so wisely schooled; and all I have to pay is a few drops of self-respect—everyone should be so lucky….

As to the question of a divided Jerusalem, my Supposed Jewish Ghost® tells me that any person or nation seeking to divide her is toast. So, by a happy coincidence, I arrived at the same answer as my new Rabbi. I just hope he doesn’t ask me to “show my work”.

Like they told me in the army, “Rule #1 applies: Do what you want, just don’t get caught.”