A Plan for Peace in Three Parts - Part I

95 percent of muslim antipathy towards the US would be solved if the Arab-Israeli conflict would go away.

In this thread I'm going to recount a single infamous event from history that laid the foundation for the conflict.

In Part II I'm going to recount a second infamous event which lead directly to the conflict.

In Part III I will propose a solution.

-------


After the Ottoman Turks were driven out by their loss in the First World War [1918] the British ruled Palestine. The population there was 95% Arabs. Then in the 1920s small numbers of Jews started appearing there. Most were communist hippies from Russia who came there to start communes [Kibbutz]. These hippie Jews were fun-loving rich kids who raised chickens, farmed the land, and engaged in free love! By the 1930s the Arabs became pissed at the British for not granting them independence. The Arabs rose up in a revolt against the British, who suppressed it with various military measures, including the construction of several massive fortresses which still exist today.

After the Second World War hoards of traumatized Jews from Europe streamed into Palestine. These were not the free-loving mellow Jews like before. These Jews had a chip on their shoulder, and made it very clear that they intended to take all of Palestine for themselves and that the Arabs would have to find somewhere else to live. The Arabs complained to their British masters, who imposed a blockade on further Jewish immigration, but they found their ways in anyhow. Jewish terrorists began murdering British soldiers and Arabs in a campaign to drive them both out. Sometimes Arabs would retaliate. Whenever an Arab family would be frightened enough to leave, Jews would squat on their property and refuse to leave.

The British had enough, and announced their intention to leave. It would be up to the UN to determine what would happen. With the US having so much influence over the newly-formed UN it was therefore up to President Truman [a venal and ignorant machine politician from St. Louis] to determine what would be done.

President Truman relied on a young buddy of his from St. Louis, a crooked lawyer named Clarke Clifford, to formulate his answer [Truman himself wasn't intelligent enough to form an opinion for himself on any topic].

Truman called the Secretary of State, George Marshall, to the White House to inform him of his decision. At that time Marshall was the most admired man in the entire US government, because of his tremendous integrity.

When Marshall arrived he was shocked to find that Truman said nothing - instead Truman sat mute while Clarke Clifford explained what the decision would be. As Clifford spoke, Marshall's face grew redder and redder with dismay and rage. Clifford said that the US would support the UN granting a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Palestine, and that the US would be the first to recognize it.

"This will lead to war," the outraged Marshall exclaimed. "The Jews living there have stolen most of the land they're occupying. They have no grounds for a state. They don't deserve a state, and if we hand one over to them the Arabs will never accept it. There will be continual war until the Arabs get their land back."

Truman just grinned at Marshall and was unmoved.

Marshall became angrier, and told Truman he was only doing this for the support of American Jews in the upcoming elections. Then Marshall threatened him, saying, "If you actually go ahead with this I will not be able to support you in this election or any other. I would rather support anyone else other than someone like you."

Cool story, bro.

Not really true, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_Palestine has actual figures on land ownership from 1922-1945.

Brief sypnosis is that there was ethnic cleansing on both sides, not evil Jews stealing innocent Arab land. The Palestinian leader at the time was not particularly helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

Also, the Soviet Union was quicker to recognize Israel than the US. The Soviets actually expected Israel would be a Soviet satellite briefly.

Wikipedia is correct, however these are marginal differences.

Nor did I portray the Jews as "evil," and I don't think they were. Rather they were "traumatized," and had every reason to be. They were desperate and determined, not more evil then their Arab antagonists.

The account I provide is admittedly very simplistic, but it formed the basis of Marshall's views, and those of the existing intelligence services. It was the entire US government on one side and Truman and Clifford on the other.

"These were not the free-loving mellow Jews like before. These Jews had a chip on their shoulder,".......Funny how that works. Six million of your people are exterminated and suddenly you have a chip on your shoulder. How incredibly rude of them. How dare them want to find a piece of land where they could have strength in numbers so as to never again have to worry about their entire race being exterminated. Funny too how every pro-Palestinian always starts their history lesson with the fall of the Ottoman empire and British rule. As if no history existed in the Middle East prior to that time. As if Jews had never lived in that land prior to that time. As if Mohammed's Muslim conquests and ethnic/religious cleansing had never occurred. Then again, that seems to be the norm these days. Don't like the way history is recorded? Simply rewrite it to your own liking. There's a lot of that going on these days.

There were of course villains on both sides in Palestine in 1945-1948, and as I said in the narrative the Arabs sometimes retaliated for the atrocities of the Jewish terror groups who were murdering British and Arabs to drive them out. These Jewish groups were Irgun, Stern, and Lehte, and their terror campaign is well known. As for the Arab leadership being belligerent, what were they to do? Were they to agree to having half of their country taken from them...or maybe a third....or maybe all of it? I doubt anyone in Texas would give up half of Texas to the native Americans if they started showing up here and said after hundreds of years they've returned to re-claim their land. The worst fears of the Arabs were of course true. The Jewish leadership wanted all of Palestine..and they got it. Even today they are colonizing the West Bank so as to make any proposed Arab state there impossible.

The tragedy of the situation was that from the Jewish point of view they knew what they were doing was unjust but they did it anyway because what they'd been through in Europe made them ruthless - they believed they were in a kill-or-be-killed struggle for survival and it was necessary to be unfair to the Arabs. Any more benign view of Jewish behavior is fanciful. I've been to Israel 17 times, know many Israelis, and I know what their motives are. It is not what they portray in America.

In my opinion there was a true villain in this story, and that is Truman. He was warned by responsible people not to make the grave error that he did, and when he did it he didn't give a shit about what the consequences would be. That was his pattern over and over again as President. He was utterly despised as a result, and it was a miracle that he was re-elected. For that matter he was informed that dropping the Atom bomb against Japan would be unnecessary but he did it anyway for political reasons. Even when he was an officer in WWI on the last day before the armistice he was one of several officers who continued to fire on Germans up until the last moment...without any purpose at all. Truman is one of the true villains of history.

"There were of course villains on both sides in Palestine in 1945-1948, and as I said in the narrative the Arabs sometimes retaliated for the atrocities of the Jewish terror groups who were murdering British and Arabs to drive them out."

Once again, you're not being completely honest in your account TAE. You clearly state that the Arabs "sometimes retaliated" in response to Jewish terror groups which is NOT historically accurate or correct either to the dates nor to the fact that the Jewish groups were formed BECAUSE of Arab attacks.
"In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organisation, was formed on 15 June 1920 to defend Jewish residents. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921 (see Jaffa riots), 1929 (primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews—see 1929 Hebron massacre) and 1936–1939. Beginning in 1936, Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted campaigns of violence against British military and Arab targets."
This makes it clear that Arabs were attacking Jews with regularity as far back as the 1920's, when there were less than 400,000 Jewish settlers in the territory.

Since you only want to address the 1900's then you should at least do so factually and with accuracy. Even using your very limited time period, the history books clearly don't agree with your account. That's not mentioning what took place before the 1900's, a time period you apparently try hard to avoid since it would paint the Arabs as the aggressors who cared little for who was living on what land during their hundreds of years of conquest and killing.

All the Arab on Jew violence you cite is correct, but those were isolated attacks by fanatics on the tiny Jewish immigrant population. The Haganah and Pallmach had their origins there but were radicalized into an entirely different agenda after 1945.

If the Arab purpose was to drive the Jews out in the 1920s or 1930s they did a pretty miserable job.

On the other hand the Jews succeeded completely in driving most of the Arabs out in 1948, largely because of a single event which I intend to recount later.

I've been to nine countries in the middle east, and Israel is the only one I would wish to return to. I made 17 trips there when I couriered diamonds, and it's a wonderful place.
It's the only democracy in the region, has a press that's better than what we have here, and a court system with integrity. The people are industrious, intelligent, etc. The beaches are awesome, the entertainment great, the women beautiful.

There is just one problem...like the US it was all built on someone else's land, and everyone there knows that. It's something that needs to be addressed, and I think it can be.

When I was there about five years ago there were over 20 Israeli Air Force pilots that declared that they refused to fly any more missions on the West Bank because the occupation there was wrong.

What happened to these renegade pilots? Were they punished or Court Marshalled?
No they were not. Everyone there knows that the occupation is wrong. No one there would seek to punish anyone else who chose not to participate for reasons of conscience.

The Israelis know what they've done is wrong, they just disagree about what to do about it.

Seems like every time you're proven wrong with facts you simply try a different angle of attack. Now all of sudden you like Israel and the Jewish people? Please, you've made it clear in many of your previous posts where your true feelings lie. And making statements like this?
" I've been to Israel 17 times, know many Israelis, and I know what their motives are. It is not what they portray in America.
That's like saying I know what every American's motives are, what every German's motives are and how they think. Please! Israeli's are as divided about their motives, politics and views toward the Palestinian problem as Republicans and Democrats are divided here in the U.S.
Visiting a Country and actually living there are two completely different things. So because I've been to dozens of countries I should presume to understand the many different groups of people and their politics?
The issue is really simple. The Palestinians can have Gaza and the West Bank. Period. Any other land should come from their Arab neighbors who "care" about their plight so much! Israel then seals it's borders and any attacks are met with overwhelming military response.

You are misinterpreting my feelings because you are jumping to conclusions and are operating in a superficial manner.

If you knew anything about Israel you would know that it has a huge peace movement which would endorse entirely every statement here I've made. That peace movement to some extent includes the twenty-odd Air Force pilots I cited. That peace movement is appalled by the actions of their government - the wholesale colonization of the West Bank, the attack of the Turkish relief ships in international waters, the attack on the US navy ship "Liberty" in 1967 in which US sailors were killed, the continual spying by their government on the US - including the Pollard case in which he gave our intel to the Russians, and etc. etc. etc.

Everyone in Israel knows the truth that they stole the land they are on every bit as much as everyone here knows that this land was taken from the natives Americans. Only misguided people in the US have misconceptions about the truth in Israel. I'm not suggesting that we should give America back to the Indians, or that the Jews should leave Palestine. But there needs to be a resolution to this vexing problem, and that cannot happen if Americans continue with their fanciful notions about the nobility of the Zionists and the pure evil of the Palestinian Arabs. A true account needs to be provided so we can move forward and arrive at an agreement.

Furthermore nothing you've said "proves me wrong."

On the contrary in rebuttal to the accurate historic account which I've provided you have done little more than druge out meaningless items which you misinterpret and then claim refute what I've provided.

Please let's be more civil here.

I suggest you tone down the emotion-laden aspect of your argumentation. I respect your opinions very much but I would rather debate you in a civil way and not one filled with accusations and bile.

Same response as on the other thread. I'm entering my stress free, get ready for vacation zone. You're right, I've become entirely too passionate on this subject.
I now simply look forward to my first cold beer, my first glance at a hot woman that's not dressed in a Burkha and some really good food. Have a good weekend.

This is last year's dicussion in the journal Foreign Policy

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...things_to_come


Personally I was opposed to the boycott on South Africa because I believe democracy cannot work there.

I do think there is a strong case to be made for a boycott of Israel however.

I do think there is a strong case to be made for a boycott of Israel however. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

How about all us jews just boycott your agency.

my own humble opinion:

After birthing the Christian and Muslim religions, Judaism has fought 2000 years of these religions trying to exterminate them. Between the Christian crusades, Muslim Jihad's, Nazi Holocaust, and current day terrorism, it is a true testament to the spirit of humanity for the Jewish people to have survived.

But I do not believe for one minute that until organizations fighting Israel today state that first and foremost that all people and countries have a right to exist, can there be peace, no matter what any peace movement desires.

I think you're exaggerating. Jewish communities have lived in the Arab middle east, in Iran, in north Africa, etc. for a long, long time. They have not been the subject of extermination there. They were invited into some western European countries by their monarchs, and spread to others where they were not so invited. In Europe at different times they were subject to persecution for various reasons. At no time until very recently however have the Jews in their diaspora sought to ever establish their own state. On the contrary, they appeared until recently to consider that they were better off residing among the various far-flung countries of the world in which they chose to migrate. They moved from place to place by choice, often because of mercantile opportunities. They were traders and that's what traders do...they move. In only a few places did they ever seek to own land, for agricultural purposes, which until the industrial revolution was the basis for all non-trade economy. In some places they were barred from owning land.

Anyone asserting that the state of Israel has a right to exist must confront the circumstances in which it came into being.

For those of us who grew up after it was already there, and who can't remember how it came to be, it seems natural that must belong as much as any other country on the map.

It is also a staple of US policy that everyone should recognize Israel's right to exist, but this is because of the US role in having created it in 1948, which was done for purely domestic political reasons by President Truman. Truman's acts were so cravenly cynical that after he caused it's creation he immediately acted to destroy it by barring any US arms to be sent there in it's war of independence. It was only by means of a shipment of arms from the USSR [via Czechoslovakia] that the Israeli's were not defeated in their war of independence. When this happened Truman was shocked and realized his plan had failed.

However, it is a state whose charter makes all non-Jews second-class citizens, and any Jew living anywhere in the world an automatic first-class citizen. It is a place founded on the idea that there should be a priviledged class, those who are automatically first among others based soley on creed. There are many Arab citizens of Israel however, and the Jewish population is in a race to increase Jewish immigration to offset the Arab's higher population growth. In a few decades Arabs will outnumber Jews even as citizens.

This seemed like a necessary solution at the time, when pluralism was strange and the unity of similar peoples' as necessary was almost a given.

Since that time however pluralism and diversity has become somewhat of a standard, and the idea that each group must necessarily have it's own nation has proved unworkable - in the Balkens for example and in many other places.

You spin very nicely, but your nicely worded antisemitism is rather repugnant to me. Might I suggest researching both sides of the story instead of only the antisemitism articles? Try these:

Wikipedia: The First Crusade

At a local level, the preaching of the First Crusade ignited violence against Jews, which some historians have deemed "the first Holocaust".[54] At the end of 1095 and beginning of 1096, months before the departure of the official crusade in August, there were attacks on Jewish communities in France and Germany. In May 1096, Emicho of Flonheim (sometimes incorrectly known as Emicho of Leiningen) attacked the Jews at Speyer and Worms. Other unofficial crusaders from Swabia, led by Hartmann of Dillingen, along with French, English, Lotharingian and Flemish volunteers, led by Drogo of Nesle and William the Carpenter, as well as many locals, joined Emicho in the destruction of the Jewish community of Mainz at the end of May.[55] In Mainz, one Jewish woman killed her children rather than see them killed; the chief rabbi, Kalonymus Ben Meshullam, committed suicide in anticipation of being killed.[56]

or maybe this wiki entry:

Taking it all together, the Qur'an differentiates between "good and bad" Jews, Poliakov states.[109] Laqueur argues that the conflicting statements about Jews in the Muslim holy text has defined Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially during periods of rising Islamic fundamentalism.[111]

or:

Traditionally Jews living in Muslim lands, known (along with Christians) as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religion and to administer their internal affairs but subject to certain conditions.[123] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to Muslims.[123] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[124] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The most degrading one was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[125] Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[126]
The notable examples of massacre of Jews include the 1066 Granada massacre, when a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."[127] This was the first persecution of Jews on the Peninsula under Islamic rule. There was also the killing or forcibly conversion of them by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century.[128] Notable examples of the cases where the choice of residence was taken away from them includes confining Jews to walled quarters (mellahs) in Morocco beginning from the 15th century and especially since the early 19th century.[129] Most conversions were voluntary and happened for various reasons. However, there were some forced conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia.[130]

The issue and problem today that must first be answered by the states in opposition to Israel is that they do not recognize the right to exist at all for the jewish nation. I'm 1/16 Cherokee (so my mom tells me), but I find it hard to tell 220 million Americans that they have no right to exist. Until the right to exist is agreed upon, there will be no peace in the mideast.