Bernie Sanders: We Need to End the 50-year-long Israeli Occupation

I appreciate the passion that many Israelis show for their country but they often misrepresent the views of others and of history itself in trying to rationalize their position.

The British and the League of Nations embraced the concept of the European Jews being able to return to Palestine and making it their homeland once again. What the British and the League of Nations did not support was the Zionist agenda of the European Jews taking Palestine away from the resident population to create a Jewish nation. The European Jews were invited to share Palestine with the resident predominately Arab population as a homeland for both.

That didn't happen because of the Zionist goal of taking away Palestine from the resident Palestinian Arab population resulting in the civil war that the General Assembly was called upon to propose a solution to - resulting in UNGA 181.

The resident Jews of Palestine following WW II, a large percentage of which were of European origin, were establishing a Right of Sovereignty in Palestine which is why UNGA 181 proposed a partition plan to resolve the civil war. The right of sovereignty being established by residency in Palestine had to be balanced with the long standing right of sovereignty of the existing Palestinian Arab population.

The right of sovereignty established by the natural right of citizenship for those born in Palestine as well as that same right that develops over time with the immigrant that adopts a new land as their homeland applied to both the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian (Israeli) Jews.

The above opinion summarizes the problem that has existed since 1947 when the General Assembly issued Resolution 181. Pragmatically both the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian (Israeli) Jews would be required to accept the two-state solution based upon the right of sovereignty of both the Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian (Israeli) Jews.

The only issue following UNGA 181 was the eventual establishment of the borders for the two nations. This was acknowledged by Israel in 1949 with the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement where it was established that the borders between the Jewish nation and the Arab nation could only be established based upon a mutual voluntary agreement between the parties involved (i.e. the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews).

This same fact was re-iterated in 2011 when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made the same statement before the US Congress that the borders could only be established by a mutual agreement between the Palestinian Arabs and the government of Israel.

The problem is when some seem to think that anything changed between 1949. 2011, and today. The issue in 1949 and today is identical. It is the division of the entire territory of Palestine into a Jewish Nation and an Arab Nation. Neither the Palestinian Arabs or the Palestinian Jews can acquire a "Right of Territory" without the voluntary consent of the other side.

There are no other issues of dispute between the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian (Israeli) Jews today but there is on condition that must be met before a voluntary agreement without any coercion can be reached.

The Palestinian Arabs cannot be under Israeli occupation where their future freedom is used as coercion for securing territorial acquisition by the Israeli government. The occupation itself invalidates any agreement that is made between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs because the "contract" would be based upon coercion. It would make no sense for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians while the "Palestinian territory" is under Israeli occupation because the Palestinians would never be under any obligation to accept the conditions. Israel wants an agreement with the Palestinians that the Palestinians want to comply with voluntarily.

 

UNSCOP 1946 also addressed this topic in their report and from there to vote 181 :
"74. In its own statement of policy62/ issued simultaneously with the report of the Royal Commission, the mandatory Power had found itself "driven to the conclusion that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the aspirations of the Arabs and those of the Jews in Palestine" and "that these aspirations cannot be satisfied under the terms of the present Mandate . . . ." It is in the light of this background of-deepening conflict intensified by the events of the succeeding ten years, that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine feels it proper to view the working of the Mandate in Palestine.
The "Jewish National Home" and Arab rights

75. Few phrases in history have provoked such lasting contention as "Jewish National Home." Twenty years after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the Royal Commission devoted a chapter63/ of its report to a careful appraisal of the relevant texts and historical antecedents in order to clarify the meaning of the phrase.

76. Regarding the political implications of the term "National Home," the finding of the Commission is unequivocal:

"We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words "the establishment in Palestine of the National Home' were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State. It could only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews, whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State."64/

77. As far as the mandatory Power is concerned, the statement65/ of British policy in Palestine which was issued in June 1922 by Mr. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, has remained the authoritative interpretation.66/ The following excerpts express the substance of the statement:

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. In this connexion, it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims 'the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development. ". . . When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connexion."

78. Commenting on the above passage and its context, the Royal Commission concluded as follows:

"This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended. "

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

Now you can argue that the Arab national goals were just as rightful as a Jewish goal for indipendance, but that was sorted out by war, to declare war, lose and blame the Jews for it is not something I would spend any time on arguing.

 

There was.

 

"Tel Aviv" is merely the suburban expansion of the ancient port city of Jaffa. I am sure if the camera turned the other direction in the first photo the existing old city would be in sight.
I'm, sure Cairo would probably have similar photos hanging around of urban expansion over the past century.

 

So are you saying the Palestinians degraded you grandfather? That's why you thought you could take their land from them? Or was it the Germans who degraded them , and your family took the land from the Palestinians just because your grandfather was also a racist?

 

Indeed. And if Palestinians were in charge, what'd we see?

That's right.

 

Not until 1948.

 

Why not the same as Dubai, Cairo or any other city? Do you think the Palestinians especially inept compared to other Arabs?

 

Probably not inept, but there's no oil and no Pyramids. And Palestinians are no Jews to build something in the middle of nothing with no resources.

 

Drivel. Somebody else's country- somebody else's money. Parasites.
The Palestinians built their own country- the Zionists pollute it.

 

There are few people whom I would trust to use as a benchmark of rationality and give their ideas automatic endorsement- or dismissal. With Bernie Sanders, any idea he comes up with gets automatic dismissal. Man just can't think straight and hasn't had an honest thought yet.

 

Bernie needs to retire. He has lost a few more screws since he tried to run for President. Maybe the DNC stole those too.

 

Do you mean to say, Israel was in part built by Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel?

Indeed

 

Try being honest for a change- instead of trying to be clever.
It's an embarrassment.

 

Honest always I'm trying to be, but clever I don't have to try. It's a natural gift.

It's not hard to be honest when the truth is on one's side. As it stands, I always answer each and every post and question, if I see it and have the time. You? Must be embarrassing not being able to answer half of my questions. Right?

 

Oh? Must be a very nice country Palestinians' built for themselves... incidentally, what's it's currency called?

 

Are you saying my Grandfather took vengence on Arabs ? (they were all Palestinians back then, Jews and Arabs, FYI) took their land ? I forgive you on account of european ignorance.
Nothing was taken, my family on both sides live in Israel and their land was never disputed.

 

More ignorance....Tel Aviv was not even connected to Jaffa when it was built but it did expand toward all sides including Jaffa.

Jaffa was an Arab port and Tel Aviv port opened as an answer to the Arab boycott of 1936.

 

Oh come on, the construction supply chains were operated out of Jaffa, which is precisely why the Arab dock workers striked at Jaffa. The town was already established when the Tel Aviv port was opened. It is a complete myth is that Tel Aviv was built from virgin desert as the photographs imply

 

There was the Land of Israel before 1948.

 

LOL ofc it was built from "virgin desert", what does Jaffa proximity got to do with it ? "construction supply chain" ? lol woe to the poor Arabs that had to suffer the evil construction noise

Man you are killing me with your Arab appolegy, I dont know what your family did to the Arabs that made you sooo mushy and regretful toward them but mine didnt do anything other than fighting the wars they started, none took land from them.

 

Actually, I'm glad to hear that.
Also glad to hear you confirm that "they were all Palestinians back then, Jews and Arabs". Sometimes I get confused about who I am conversing with, and maybe I had you confused with someone else that denied Palestinian Muslims existed.

 

You misunderstand. I was born in an isolated settlement 50 kms from the main city. Now its just suburbs and secondary CBD of the main city. I don't pretend that our villagers built the city. The village could not and would not have been either settled or urbanised without the main city.

 

Really

 

Really. Tel Aviv's location was selected in order to use the Jaffa port and amenities,
Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 as a Jewish garden suburb of the ancient Mediterranean port of Jaffa (now Yafo), with which it was joined in 1950.
...
Tel Aviv’s rapid growth and emergence as a prominent centre was largely due to its advantageous location. Proximity to the old city of Jaffa (whose port served as the gateway to Jerusalem, farther inland)...
https://www.britannica.com/place/Tel-Aviv-Yafo