(Part 2) Top products from r/Palestine

In 1936 a Royal Commission was sent to Palestine to rubber-stamp the Zionist demand for partition (on the basis that, with a foothold, they could then seize the rest of Palestine). The Peel Report of 1937 gave them their partition despite it being totally unacceptable to the British Government.

However, Abdullah supported partition - and went much further, plotting with David Ben Gurion to allow the Zionists to seize up to a line almost the same as the Green Line of 1948. Israel could not have East Jerusalem (since Abdullah's father was buried there) but they could have West Jerusalem. (The Zionists ethnically cleansed much of West Jerusalem even before they started on the villages in 1948).

>Avi Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, The Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine" 1988

>Publishers Weekly - This controversial piece of investigative scholarship is a blockbuster. Shlaim, an Oxford instructor in international relations, documents that Jordan's ambitious, absolutist King Abdullah, who was assassinated in 1951, had clandestine ties with the Zionist movement in Israelan accusation that many of the ruler's cohorts have made in the past.

>To further his own aims of creating a greater Jordanian empire, Abdullah conducted secret diplomacy with David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and other Israeli leaders. Drawing on Israeli government archives as well as interviews with politicians, soldiers and intelligence agents, Shlaim argues that the king's self-serving maneuvers hastened the partition of Palestine, which left more than a million Palestinian Arabs without a homeland.

>His absorbing 686-page narrative, a major reevaluation of the Arab-Israeli conflict, unfolds an Arab world torn by internal rivalry not the monolithic, hostile bloc that some Israelis claim it to be. http://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Across-Jordan-Partition-Palestine/dp/0231068387

Shlaim seems to have been battered into sort-of apologising and the 2nd edition of the book (1998) is even re-named. However, I don't think there's a big difference - he explains why he decided to re-title the book "The Politics of Partition" and update the story (Preface, p. xiii):

>But in all honesty I have to admit that my perspective on the collusion changed after the publication of "Collusion across the Jordan". My first take reflected the novelty of the archival sources and the shock of the discovery that what had been a popular conspiracy theory could actually be documented. ... My attitude towards King Abdullah underwent a significant change. ... In my approach to the Zionist leadership there was a similar shift from an emphasis on morality to an emphasis on realpolitik. ... For my part, I feel as much sympathy for the Palestinians today as I did when my book was first published in 1988. But I also feel that some modesty is called for when sitting in judgment on the other two principal protagonists in the struggle for Palestine."

Which, of course, sounds exactly the same as Goldstone "re-canting" over the Gaza Report, while not actually changing anything!

(In 1948 the agreement was made again, Golda Meir going to see Abdullah in March or so).

Hey! I found another good resource for you, by the way! I just picked up a book called "Intifada". It's a bit outdated and I haven't had a chance to start reading it yet, but it looks like it covers the first intifada pretty well, and most importantly, it looks like it has a lot of anecdotes (along with poetry) that might make it more appropriate for audiences trying to learn English.

It is offensive because it is a lie. Although easily disputed by anyone
who has actually studied the history of the area, this idea has been
repeated enough in the media that many people accept it as truth.
please see some reasons of why this is deliberately misleading

Most people have never truly studied the history of this region,
at most reading some modern hack looking to further his or her flawed
political ideology via "revisionist historical" accounts, or simply sell
books because they are controversial.

There is, however, plenty of historical accounts from the late 1800's and
on, an excellent primer on the subject is From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters.
From there one can branch to many of the sources cited, and eventually
gain an unbiased, more comprehensive view of the complex history,
of an even more complex region.

The problem of Israel/Palestine is land, and encroachment of property rights. Jewish land ownership in 1947 amounted to, at most, 7% (6.03% in 1945). This is backed up by the JNF and PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association). This is also backed up by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (you can buy the full report here or you can view it page by page here. )

Palestinian Arab land ownership is stated as being 85% from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (the people who made the Partition Plan), which states:

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."

So, on what basis do Jews have claim to land which is already possessed by Palestinians? Remember, it's the Jews demanding the land in 1945-1948. If they demand it, they need to come up with the proof. That’s what ‘possession is 9/10ths’ means.

A claim of ethnicity? By that logic, Germans were right in expelling Jews because if you're ethnic to a place, you're somehow more entitled to land? No. It doesn't work that way - that's ethno-nationalism. I'm sure fellow Jews would be staunchly against a concept like that.

A claim of previous ownership - 2000 years ago? Fair enough, but each Jew must have one deed or document, with the name of the ancestors who owned the land, as well as prove how much the ancestors actually owned (land has borders, surely - even by biblical standards, property rights amongst people was a thing ), and proof that that the particular Jewish person is actually directly related to that ancestor. Would you accept anything less in a court of law if some random person came and claimed your house? No? So why should Palestinians?

That's why Zionists from 1880 and onwards were buying land - their claim isn't strong enough - and that is why they used the method of buying land as a means of colonisation. The problem arises when they see that Palestinians will not sell more/when they couldn’t appropriate more land based on Ottoman laws - and ask people who were not the owners of the country to give the country away (UN / Britain / Ottomans / etc.).

Israel was born out of colonialism, which is still going on today - in Area A.

The author of the review of 1948 is Avi Shlaim, who is an Iraq-born Israeli who has spent his academic career in the UK.

You might also find his 1999 book The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine 1921-1951 interesting. It looks at the role Jordan played in the birth of Israel and the isolation of the Palestinians.

I would read Karen Armstrong's Holy War to get a sense of the rich history of Jewish-Arab coexistence and the wide context of Western aggression against the Arab world.

A book I recommend is Army of Shadows by Hillel Cohen. He researched the Haganah archive in the 1930s and 1940s. It will shock you how the current situation in the Palestinian national movement resembles that of that period, especially the 1940s.

Eventually the offered deal will be something between Haifa/Nazareth (total surrender) or Jaffa: Live like dogs or GTFO. In between, the major part of the Palestinian hinterland will be just swept away without even having done anything or taken any side.


https://www.amazon.com/Army-Shadows-Hillel-Cohen/dp/0520259890

This one is ok if you already know some Arabic.

If you want you could try to find the Anthology of Modern Palestinian Literature. It is almost 800 pages of poetry and short stories by Palestinian authors. It is all translated into English.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0850458005

Book Recommendation

Read Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank for the full history. The abbreviated version is that the professional, managerial class sympathetic to corporate interests took over the party about 50 years ago and decided to ignore and even antagonize the party's traditional labor base, assuming (rightly) they would have nowhere else to go and could be placated by being threatened to keep voting Democrat or things would be worse under Republicans. Bill and Hillary are the culmination of this transformation of the party

I suggest you try to find a source that isn't pro-Zionism. That is probably the closest thing to balance you will get but that is pretty difficult. :/

My recommendation is this A Question of Palestine by Edward Said

>The deeply flawed and biased Wikipedia article on Shlomo Sand's book "The invention of the Jewish People" (best-seller in Hebrew, widely translated) lists the historians and what they think about the Khazar Theory.
The reputable historians all seem to accept Khazar Hypothesis (unless they say something very different behind Sand's back?!?). Only crackpot historians (I think it's fair to call them that!) dispute it and still cling to the Rhineland Hypothesis. (ie a handful of German Jews come from Rome round about CE 1000 and populate Eastern Europe).

You gave one source. The source has been debunked several times.

>You're going to tell me what books you have on your desk.

The Jews of Khazaria, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and it's heritage.

These are not religious. One book declines the Khazar theory, one accepts it. The mere fact that there are 2 books on each side mean it is not a widely accepted theory but debated.

> But hey, it's alright to demonize them and classify them as subhuman.

Where am I doing this? I didn't even name him as Palestinian in the original post, I said "someone."

>Speaking of which, your fya facts about Gush Etzion , are excellent, what was the source for this the old testament?

No, Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion

The sources they use are:

Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem,(1972) Granada Books 1982 p.217

Gorenberg (2007), p. 19

Since that second source is a bit scant, I went ahead and looked up the book on Amazon for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empire-Israel-Settlements-1967-1977/dp/0805082417/ref=la_B001IQZN8Y_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419355558&sr=1-2

Maybe you should try arguing the point instead of calling me a moron when you're wrong.

Because it should be ONE state since these are virtual simaese twins that are intertwined and to seperate one from the ohter would kill them both....Read 'One Country' by Ali Abunimah





http://www.amazon.com/One-Country-Proposal-Israeli-Palestinian-Impasse/dp/0805086668

Ask your Arab friends if they think everything is hunky dory in Israel. Tell me how moving the US embassy goes on the first day of Ramadan. Stability is a luxury enjoyed by only some.

When Arabs are given the right to return - an unavoidable reality under international pressure - do you think Israeli Jews are just going to leave their racism at home? Racism will be the demise of the nation state:



> Empires were not democratic, but were built to be inclusive of all those who came under their rule. It is not the same with nations, which are founded on the fundamental distinction between who is in and who is out – and therefore harbour a tendency toward ethnic purification. This makes them much more unstable than empires, for that tendency can always be stoked by nativist demagogues

...and technology is its harbinger

Hamas are in a very desperate position, hence the unity government with Fatah a few months back (which Netanyahu violently opposed). The membership bid is being put forward principally by Abbas, with Hamas in tow. As the article notes: "In Palestine, the court would need to confront not just specific or sporadic acts of violence such as the attacks against civilians and civilian objects reported in the UN-commissioned Goldstone report into Israel’s 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, but would also have to address the very nature and structure of Israel’s occupation."

I believe this is the main reason. Israel's brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has long been seen by legal scholars and human rights lawyers as a system of colonialism and apartheid. An ICC investigation into Israeli policy in the OPT would undoubtedly concur. This would force Israel to confront it's overtly racist and two tiered system that it currently enforces in the OPT. Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank (which are recognised as a war crime) would also be brought painfully to light. It would further isolate Israel on the international stage, damaging its image globally (more than its actions in Gaza have already done).

As for Hamas, the article states: "Investigations would also focus on the actions of the armed Palestinian resistance. While Hamas spokespersons have stated their confidence in being able to defend any charges laid against them, two issues may be of particular significance during a criminal investigation.

The standard line being taken in the West, and elsewhere, has been that Hamas specifically, but armed Palestinian factions in general, have the aim of targeting civilians.

As The Guardian’s editorial of 13 July states, “Hamas would kill scores of Israeli civilians if it could. It’s just that its missiles don’t get through, while Israel’s do.”

This claim is contradicted by the Israeli military, which states that the Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted only 21 percent of the rockets fired into Israel during July/August 2014. (Even these claims are contested as highly exaggerated by various experts, but that does not alter the argument here.)

Further, in the latest round of fighting/criminality, Israel claimed to have suffered 67 fatalities from Palestinian fire, three of whom were civilians. Given these two sets of data, it would not appear that a strong criminal case against Palestinians for targeting civilians is a foregone conclusion." (My emphasis).