Saturday, May 2, 2015

One-State or Two-State, that is the Question.

The initial proposal of the Partition Plan drafted by the UN in the form of Resolution 181 in 1947 was the first notion of a two-state solution, following the mass migration of Jews that caused severe clashes between those seeking refuge from the antisemitic movement in Europe and the native Arabs that were being displaced by the thousands because of this migration.

This proposal was only a realization to separate the two people based on their ethnicity because there was no end in sight for the conflict between Arabs and Jews. Neither side seemed to be able to live together for years following the mass influx of European Jews, though ironically native Arabs and native Jews were living together in harmony prior to this for 1000's of years.

The difference was the Zionist movement behind the migration which incidentally was founded well before antisemitism grew in Europe. Arabs considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's shockingly honest account of the colonial plan in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall":  The Iron Wall 191207_49117.pdf
Jabotinsky accurately explained the expected reaction of a native population towards the prospect of being colonized, which lead to the blunt realization that it would be impossible to expect a "voluntary agreement" with the Arabs. He realized the only way to achieve a state where the Jews were the masters of the land rather than a people absorbed within the population as a minority, was to use force.

Jabotinsky questioned it himself, why would the Arabs want to concede an area they inhabit for a colonial entity that wants to enforce a majority of its own? Why would any native want that? It would mean a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority. Even under British Occupation and before that under the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were ruled by the respective authority's security forces, but the demographics were never threatened.

And that is precisely the backbone of the conflict.

As the decades went by the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their lands and territories, only to concede more and more of it to the Zionist movement. While some Arabs refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and continue to talk about a one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise: the two-state solution, based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders - the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

Theoretically, the one-state solution is the best solution.

For Israel however, the one-state solution obviously doesn't work since the Arabs outnumber the Jews, which would mean that a pure democratic process where all people who have a claim on the land (displaced or otherwise) have equal rights to vote and that would result in an Arab leadership. That means that Israel would face the same fate as the South African democracy which ended white minority rule. It is ironic that Israel claim it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East, yet a pure democratic process inclusive of all its people would deny Israel's entire existence. Democracy and Zionism therefore are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately for the Zionist movement, the Arabs are not strong enough to force a hand at making such a bold claim for the one-state solution, and therefore have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

Practically, the two-state solution is the only compromise.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have shown, neither the issues surrounding the right of return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seems acceptable to Israel, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority even on key issues surrounding Jerusalem.

That's because the two-state solution doesn't really work for Israel either, even if the PA agree to all of Israel's preconditions. Zionism, as Jabotinsky puts it, is the colonization of the region, and any final agreement for a two-state solution would put an abrupt halt on the ongoing growth of the "Jewishness" of the land.

The real answer for Zionism is to maintain the status-quo. As long as they are in a state of conflict and the Palestinians don't have an official state, the Israeli government believe that the occupied territory can be annexed by Jewish-only settlements since there is no "official claim" to the land, regardless of what could potentially be part of a future Palestinian state.

The key question that arise from this dilemma is how Israel can get away with building settlements that encroach on a potential future state of Palestine. Even Israel's only ally the US has admitted that the core issue preventing peace talks from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities that have been deemed illegal by international law as per the 4th Geneva Convention.

"Might is right" some may say, and in this case, unfortunately it is quite accurate. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities as were witnessed during WWII, it is ironically the very mechanism Israel is using to maintain this current state of conflict. 
That is because the US have in fact been guilty of being Israel's "lawyer", rather than their "honest broker".

The rest of the world has overwhelmingly voted for a state of Palestine, while the US with Israel have been able to prevent it. The security council voted for an immediate halt of the illegal settlement activities, but the US with Israel have been able to prevent it.

All they needed was the power of the veto. It is the hypocrisy of "democracy".
If we cannot implement it on the international stage, then it is a farce that is used by the 5 permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, they are only permanent because they were the victors of WWII - clearly a sign that the very foundation of the UN is already outdated.

Ultimately, the veto is the true power behind world decisions, not the world's voices themselves.

The best way to rectify such deadlocked conflicts as the Israel-Palestinian issue, is to have a "majority" vote in the UN rather than a concept of a veto, where the definition of "majority" could be determined based on the weighting of a nation's contribution to the UN security council, or even based on an overwhelming vote of 95% or higher to any resolution.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat... 
And a true solution would finally transpire... whether it is one state or two states.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Is the solution for the West against ISIS to be passive?

The solution to the Middle East has never been one that needed bombing.The real problem lies with foreign funding.

Too many times in the history of the Middle East have we seen attempts to fight fire with fire only to see the flames increase. Terrorist groups like ISIS are looking for a fight. Don't give them one. They are isolated on the international stage and even the majority of Sunnis don't recognize them with any form of legitimacy.

There are too many political games being played via the UN where Russia and its bloc prevent the West from getting too involved and vice versa. The area is too critical for anyone to allow the other to have full control. When Assad was protected with a veto to protect his regime against the people's uprising, that's when the Syrian Spring went from civil disobedience, to protests, to violence, to radicalization.

Recent history has also shown that attempts to overcome political stalemate was by engaging in a proxy war i.e funding radicals to counter the radicals.

We saw it with Afghanistan where the Soviets funded one group and the Americans funded the other, creating a civil war which ultimately created the Taliban.

The first gulf war left Saddam Hussain in power and that only festered.

Israel's attempts to create discourse amongst the Palestinians by creating and funding Hamas to defy the PLO backfired on them.

Egypt's military regime receives the second largest foreign aid from the U.S. which makes it virtually impossible to have a democracy, even when the people tried, then failed.

Israel receives the largest foreign aid from the U.S. and we've seen what decades of war have done to the region with that funding.

The best solution is to stop pretending the West knows how to "solve the Middle East problem" and let them deal with it on their own.

The renaissance age that grew during the Fatimid era when the Arab world grew naturally, provided the world with science and philosophy, while Europe was busy burying "witches".

If we leave them to fight their own battles without puppet dictators or funded terrorists running the show, they might engage on a level playing field and eventually stability will come from the power of the people. It might not come overnight, but it needs to start sometime.

ISIS is only a result of a chain reaction that came from the Arab Spring where Assad was unchallenged. His regime was part of the alliance that formed with Nasser and called themselves the Arab League. That league was formed to break from the yolk of the monarchies that ruled the Middle East. Those monarchies were a product of WWI's dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire where the victors Britain and France played with the "spoils of war" by dissecting Arabia into the countries we see today and planting the seeds of subservient monarchs.

Terrorist groups like ISIS have never been the real problem, because when they are defeated another group like them will arise from the ashes unless the root cause is dealt with.

That root cause is "interference".

Water restrictions in the Palestinian Territories

Since the erection of the "separation wall" or more commonly known as the apartheid wall, 35,000 meters of irrigation network were ceased, 11,400 Dunams of agricultural land were confiscated, 100,000 ancient olive trees were destroyed. This impacted life, agriculture, freedom of movement, water usage, and income. It has also aloud for Jewish-only settlement expansions in the more fertile areas of the West Bank.

After the occupation of the West Bank, Israel took control of all water resources and prohibited Palestinians from water development and drilling the required infrastructure. To date not a single permit issued for agriculture or domestic use in Palestinian areas has been granted.

The "separation wall" aims at isolating more natural water wells owned by Palestinians.

More than 31 natural water wells producing 3.8 million cubic meters that serve 1000's of Palestinians for agriculture and domestic use has been confiscated. 

While the annual rainfall accumulation in the region is 47.8% in Palestinian Territories, 29.7% in Israel, 22.5% in Jordan, Israel's domestic water use per capita reaches more than 52%, leaving 30% for Jordan and 18% for the Palestinian Territories.

This is a very good documentary about the "wall of  hate".

Friday, April 10, 2015

Why is Israel Considered a "Rogue" State?

There are a number of issues concerning Israel's commitment to adhere to international law. The jurisdiction of these concerns fall beyond Israel's own foreign policy and what it interprets as justified. Since the surrounding Palestinian Territories are not actually part of Israel's sovereignty, the international community has the authority to determine whether or not Israel is defying international law, regardless of what Israel defines for its own rules of engagement.

There are a number of concerns that the international community have raised, which Israel has ignored or refuses to take part in, which is why many deem Israel a "rogue" state.

Currently, Israel undergoes what is considered illegal settlement expansion in the territories it has occupied since 1967. These areas are found in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Occupation itself is not illegal, however the means in which Israel conducts its occupation of these territories has been deemed illegal based on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There are currently about 500,000 Jewish colonists living in approximately 200 colonies in the West Bank. During the seven years of the Oslo peace process, the number of Israeli colonizers in the Occupied Territories increased by more than 50 percent. (AL Sep. 8. 2003. MDE 15/085/2003)

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘. . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies.’

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1998 reiterated its view that "Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not only illegal under contemporary international law but are an obstacle to peace and to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population in the region."

According to Amnesty International. "the Israeli Army has destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as vast area of cultivated land, hundreds of factories and other commercial properties. roads and public buildings.” (MDE 15/091/2003)

Article 53, Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons... is prohibited.

Employees and mobile units of the PRCS and ICRC are regularly detained and harassed. Noteworthy violations include: A PRCS ambulance used as an assault shield by the IDF (Jan. 8, 2004): A tank assault on a PRCS ambulance, shattering the front windshield and injuring the driver (Jan. 28, 2004): During the destruction of the Jenin Refugee Camp in April, 2002. the ICRC was prevented from offering services to the injured and dying for six days.

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'...Mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked. . .'

Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick... shall be respected and protected in all circumstances…'

More notably, Israel is one of only four states in the world who refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The reason Israel refuse to be part in this treaty is because it has an undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that the US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Similarities in Zionism and the National Party of South Africa

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most covered and discussed topic in the world.
The South African Apartheid was arguably just as internationally covered. Ironically the National Party of South Africa gained power in the same year that the Zionist nationalist movement created their own state, and that year was 1948.

Both imposed laws based on an ethnic disposition, which in turn received world-wide condemnation from the international community. The establishment of these ruling parties came only three years after another ethnically-motivated nationalist movement was dismantled in Europe, which is probably why both these movements were put on the international radar.

The stark negative reactions against these movements were displayed with similar UN resolutions against both groups:

  • UN GA Resolution 1761 was passed in 1962 in response to the racist policies of apartheid established by the South African Government. The resolution deemed apartheid and the policies enforcing it to be a violation of South Africa's obligations under the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security.
  • UN GA Resolution 3379 in 1975 "determined that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". This was due to the concept of a state based on a specific ethnicity rather than the demographics of the region. 
The international community also undertook similar boycott movements against both regimes. 

  • Trade embargoes against South Africa were gaining traction, as well as the famous UN arms embargo which became mandatory with the passing of Resolution 418. Boycotting of sports games by international teams had a profound effect on the white population, perhaps more so than the trade embargoes did.
  • Similarly, the BDS movement against the Zionist regime has been in full force world wide, as well as a mirroring on the sporting stage where the Israeli football team was boycotted by most of the Asian Football Confederation in the 1970s and so Israel had no choice but to join the European Federation (UEFA).

There is also a frightening similarity in the respective propaganda and the "state of emergency" laws that were implemented in both regions.

  • Serious political violence in South Africa was a prominent feature from 1985 to 1989, as black townships became the focus of the struggle between anti-apartheid organisations and the government. Numerous township councils were overthrown or collapsed, to be replaced by unofficial popular organisations, often led by militant youth. The government also raised concerns about South Africa's isolation amongst surrounding "hostile Black-ruling" nations that unified under the same cause.
  • Zionism had to face numerous intifadas and resistance against its settlement activities and occupation, particularly in Gaza, which was also replaced by an unofficial popular militant organisation. Israel also raised concerns about its international isolation especially amongst its neighboring "hostile Arab nations".

The world was not fooled however because these propaganda techniques were seen before by the Nazi regime who tried to use the "victimization card" in order to gain support internationally for their cause, usually using false-flag operations.

Significant international awareness campaigns against these racially motivated groups had always been growing. These reactions were most likely due to the remnant memories of what had become of Europe because of the Nazi party and its regime.

Since both the South African Apartheid and Nazism have been dismantled, the Zionist regime is all that remains from an era of racial nationalistic radicalism, and so naturally international coverage over the last few decades have concentrated on the Israeli Apartheid more so than many other conflict... until of course one day it too becomes dismantled and justice is returned to the inhabitants of the region.

All the Arabs need is another Nelson Mandela.