I AM A JEW (PART XVIII - Colonialization at its worst!)

As the title shows this is the 18th part (actually the 19^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV, Part XVI and Part XVII.

I have written at length about Israeli unending expansionist policies and its treatment of its indigenous Arab population.

In particular, my post "I AM A JEW (PART XV - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal)" shows the unending encroachment by Israel of the Western Bank, until less and less land is left to the indigenous Arab population

The deception in this campaign and the contempt that Israel has shown for the International community and even the United States can best be illustrated by its policies in Jerusalem.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has declared "We will continue to build in Jerusalem, our eternal capital."

But how many are aware that a Capital needs to have foreign embassies to function as a Capital and that means, at least a tacit recognition by the International community of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. But there is not a single country in the world, including the US, that recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. According to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews:

Countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel—including the United States—have their embassies located outside of Jerusalem, mainly in Tel Aviv, and citizens born in Jerusalem are not officially listed in American documents as having been born in Israel.

But the issue between Israel and the Palestinians has never been about the Jerusalem, as the city has long been constituted. The Palestinians have long been willing to let Israel have Jerusalem as its capital and the P.L.O.’s acceptance would quickly bring International recognition. But Israel has not and has never been content with having the Jerusalem that has its holy sites and that has a majority Jewish population. It knows the Arabs want a piece of Jerusalem that is primarily populated by Palestinians as its own Capital, and that this is a sin qua non for the P.L.O. in peace negotiations.

So instead of trying to find a sensible demarcation line between the two ethnic groups, it has chosen to invent a new Jerusalem, which not only encompasses the historic Jerusalem, but a new invented Jerusalem that encompasses territory that has never been part of the city of Jerusalem.

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories informs us, and I quote:

Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. (Emphasis added)

And so Israel, without regard to any Palestinian rights, seizes, expropriates, steals, (or whatever you want to call its land seizures) Palestinian land and declares all these former 28 Palestinian villages part of Jerusalem. This one could hope, is a way for Palestinians to be given an area for their capital that is called Jerusalem. But even here, Israel is determined to thwart this aspiration, and is incorporating these new settlements into the new Jerusalem, in order to make sure that Palestinians cannot claim even a pseudo Jerusalem for their own Capital.

For more on Jerusalem, I refer the reader to therealnews.com where a video discussion is available.

Again I find myself quoting from Jeff Halper, the Director of Icahd the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for nothing I can say can put the situation in better perspective.

Well, I think--look, I think the basic problem is that there's an entire disconnect between, on the Palestinian side, resistance and, on the Israeli side, occupation and military force, and any political process. In other words, there is no more political process. The two-state solution is gone. The Kerry initiative failed.

 And Israel is in the process of finalizing its Judaization of Jerusalem. There is no more Palestinian East Jerusalem. It's buried under the weight of settlements and Israeli highways. Israelis are moving in just freely into Palestinian neighborhoods and taking them over. And in a sense, then, what was resistance to try to get a Palestinian state or try to resolve the problem is simply there is no resistance because there's no political process. And so it's all declined into just lashing out, you know, the driving of cars and killing people by trains… there's nothing else to do if you're a Palestinian but just to lash out or be solemn and stay at home and watch your home being taken or being demolished.

 And on the Israeli side as well, the attack on Gaza this summer, the everyday killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, everywhere, is also indicative of the fact that the violence on the Israeli side is disconnected from anything political. In other words, we're in a stage where Israel says, no more [two-state] solution, it's over, and you either live with us and submit or you get out or you die. That's really the Israeli message, so that I think on both sides the violence is increasing, but it's increasing with no political context whatsoever.

But it has now become obvious that in all these years of negotiations with the P.L.O., Israel’s negotiations have never been in good faith, with the possible exception of those conducted by the martyred, Yitzhak Rabin. He paid with his life for conducting serious negotiations.

Now the pretense of decades of insincere “negotiations”, which always had, intentionally,  one or more conditions that Israel knew would not, could not, be accepted by the Palestinians, stands exposed.

Israel will not accept anything less than the complete annexation of the West Bank, - it intends to seize and occupy all of Palestine.

The entire pretense has come to an end!!!

Naftali Bennett, a member of the Netanyahu government, as minister of the economy, and leader of the Jewish Home Party in Israel’s coalition government ends the pretense.  In an op-ed article in the New York Times entitled: “For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution” he writes:

The time has come to rethink the two-state solution.

I give Mr. Bennett credit for one thing. An honest announcement for what has long been Israeli policy hidden behind insincere pronouncements and insincere negotiations, while all the while gobbling up Palestinian lands and forcing Palestinians into ever-smaller Bantustans.

What does Mr. Bennett propose in specifics? No more negotiations.

Instead he would give the Palestinians these portions of the West Bank and I quote:

known as Areas A and B, according to the Oslo Accords.

According to the The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD):  

Area A comprises 18% of the West Bank, B another 22%, leaving a full 60%, Area C, including most of Palestinian farmland and water, under exclusive Israeli control. - These areas, comprising 64 islands, shape the contours of the “cantons” Sharon proposed as the basis of the future Palestinian state. The emerging Bantustan will thus consist of five truncated cantons: a northern one around Nablus and Jenin; a central one around Ramallah; a southern one around Bethlehem and Hebron; enclaves in East Jerusalem; and Gaza. In this scheme Israel will expand from its present 78% to 85-90%, with the Palestinian state confined to just 10-15% of the country. 

ICAHD goes on to explain:

Israel defines its policy of ensuring permanent control over the Occupied Territories as “creating facts on the ground.” In this conception, Israeli control must be made immune from any external or internal pressures to remove Israel from the Occupied Territories (which Israel vehemently denies is an occupation at all), as well as to foreclose forever the possibility of a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state. Nevertheless, …(they) recognize that Israel needs a Palestinian state, since it can neither extend citizenship to the Territories’ three and a half million Palestinians nor deny it to them. It also needs a Palestinian state to relieve itself of the necessity of accepting the refugees. A Bantustan, a cantonized Palestinian mini-state controlled by Israel yet possessing a limited independence, thus solves Israel’s fundamental dilemma of how to keep control over the entire country yet “get rid of” its Palestinian population (short of actual “transfer”).

In quoting the above I deleted a reference to Sharon’s plan, because what we are talking about is Bennett’s. But it isn’t new. It had been the late Sharon’s long ago. It just wasn’t publicized.

Under Bennet’s plan the Palestinians would be crowded into small non-contingent areas, scattered around Palestine, with no connection between them, subject to Israeli entry and exit controls and completely dependent for their survival on the beneficence of the Israeli government. Were the South-Africans any different?

This is how infoplease.com described them:

In 1962 the South African government established the first of the bantustans, the Transkei, as the homeland of the Xhosa people, and granted it limited self-government in 1963, later becoming "independent." Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, and Venda were also granted "independence," but no nation other than South Africa recognized them. Lebowa, Kangwane, Gazankulu, Qwaqwa, KwaZulu, and KwaNdebele were declared "self-governing" in the 1970s.

None of the reserves were viable nations; they were made up of broken tracts of poor-quality land, riddled with erosion and incapable of supporting their large designated populations. With no industry, opportunities for employment were few.

Can anyone find significant differences between South Africa’s policy under Apartheid and the Bennett proposal?

Allow me to show the reader a map of the proposed plan:

The little brown spots would be what the Palestinians would be crowded into. Carter may have been pre-mature in talking about apartheid, but he sure was prophetic.

As I have said in previous posts the governing party in Israel is Likud. It’s Original Party Platform, according to the Jewish Virtual Library states:

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Given this platform, how could anyone ever have been deceived into believing that a two state solution was possible under such a government? It is not Hamas and certainly not the P.L.O. that stands in the way of an end to the conflict. It is the messianic aim of Israel's ruling party, to do that which Bennett proposes. His talk about building the Palestinian economy is necessary window-dressing to an Apartheid plan that keeps Palestinians outside of Palestine forever as refugees, not ever to be allowed to return to ancestral homes, and to keep such Palestinians as remain in Palestine as a discriminated against, poverty stricken, minority, with few civil rights, and in so far as some remaining in Israel may keep their vote, it will always intend to be, and will remain, a vote that has no influence, and even less power.

An American liberal community cannot, or at least should not, be a party to such human rights abuses. It cannot, it must not, turn its back on its long commitment to civil and human rights. To make an exception for Israel is worse than to have sanctioned the abuses that the Jewish community so long opposed, fought against, and in some cases died for, in the United States.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary,"Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking and three relating to expansionism abroad. I am posting them in four separate posts.

This is the second.

Robert Malchman Esq. of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

"The reason there was an outcry over Obama' s 1967 borders comment is that he phrased it really badly. He's now had to go to AIPAC to clarify what he meant.

I agree that what he meant is not and should not be controversial, but the way he initially said it made it sound like the pre-'67 borders were the "starting point," i.e., should be taken as the status quo from which Israel would have to negotiate concessions to keep certain parts of the occupied territories. I assume you don't believe Israel should hand back the Golan Heights, which would put a knife to northern Israel's throat in the hands of the mad dictator Assad? Or that East Jerusalem, which is now open to people of all faiths, should be returned to its pre-'67 status as closed off to Jews by an Arab government? The "starting point" is the current borders, from which the Arabs can negotiate concessions from Israel, such as by recognizing its right to exist and ceasing their support for terror attacks. That's what Obama should have said."

I responded:

I don't think the facts support your conclusion. In his first speech the President said: "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Nothing could have been clearer. The problem arose, not from any lack of clarity on the part of the President, but from the deliberate mis-representations which followed. This prompted unnecessary further clarification before AIPAC.

Of course the '67 borders must be the starting point. Otherwise what is the starting point. The end-point envisioned is the swaps that would alter that border to allow the facts on the ground to be taken into account. Thus the '67 borders are the starting point and the negotiated deviations therefrom are the end point. That has always been envisioned, and the only reason that it caused an outcry is that Netanyahu is no longer satisfied with this, now wanting to annex the whole West Bank, or at least most of it. It is the dream of the settlers and the religious fanatic to make all of "Samaria' and "Judea' part of Greater Israel. That is outrageous, and Republican support for that position shows their total lack of respect for human rights. Such a position cannot bring peace and if successful would crowd Palestinians into even worse conditions than they live in now, and/or would disenfranchise them within a greater Israel or would create an apartheid state, or would result in ethnic cleansing. Certainly letting a Palestinians majority vote in Israel is not, nor should it be envisioned.

The Golan Heights were clearly not part of the paradigm, since we are talking about negotiations with the Palestinians and not the Syrians so that does not enter into the equation and no one other than you has suggested that this is relevant here. As for "East Jerusalem" that is again part of the negotiations. But a distinction must be drawn between that part of Jerusalem which has always been part of Jerusalem and the Arab outskirts which Netanyahu is trying to annex to Jerusalem by what is already ethnic cleansing and which in previous negotiations by Ehud Barak were in fact to be ceded to the new Arab state, to be used as its capital.

If the starting point is the current borders than what is being negotiated is how much more than what has already been occupied should be ceded by the Arabs, rather than what has always been envisioned, i.e. that for Israel to keep most of its current settlement blocks, it must cede an equal amount of territory, to be agreed upon. Even the "clarification rejected this when Obama repeated, "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" and added, "By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

As for Jerusalem, I was amused when Israel was asked to stop expanding its settlements around Jerusalem, Netanyahu declared "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Of course Jerusalem is not a settlement and that that was not the point. The issue was the growing settlements in Arab territory adjoining Jerusalem, and the Arab eviction from such territory. But it should be noted that even the question of Jerusalem being Israel's capital has not been recognized by a single country in the world. Not a single country including the US has its embassy in Jerusalem.

If you feel that Israel should take even more territory form the Palestinians than it already has, than we simply disagree!!!

Allow me to add that there has a great deal of misunderstanding regarding East Jerusalem because of very poor press reporting.

The term East Jerusalem is misleading and may be used to refer to either of the following:

-From 1948 to 1967 it referred to the 6.4 km (2.5 sq. mi) Jordanian part of the city, just as “West Jerusalem” referred to the Israeli part of the city.

-In June 1967, after the war, Israel de facto annexed some 70 km (27 sq. mi) including not only Jordanian Jerusalem but also 64 km (25 sq. mi) from the West Bank, including territory which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala and included them in the expanded municipal boundary of West Jerusalem, making it the largest city in the Israel.

The term “East Jerusalem” may be applied to the area of the expanded Jerusalem that was captured by Israel in 1967, which lies north, east and south of the former East Jerusalem.

I am against Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem proper including that part of "East Jerusalem" which had been occupied by Jordan before the '67 war.
But the 25 sq. miles which were never part of Jerusalem and were taken from the West Bank and which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala were never part of historic Jerusalem, are occupied mostly by Arabs except for those who have been expelled, and should be ceded to a Palestinian state to form its capital under the pseudo name of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem. I haver  never understood the determination to expand the holy city of Jerusalem beyond its traditional boundaries where no Jewish holy places are located, and which have never been occupied by Jews.