UN Resolutions that suggest Israel undergoes Ethnic Cleansing

UN Security Council Resolution 607 (1988)

The Council was informed of the decision of Israel to continue deportations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.
The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and abide by its obligations arising from the Geneva Conventions

UN Security Council Resolution 608 (1988)

The Council expressed regret at Israel's decision to deport Palestinians in the occupied territories in defiance of the previous resolution on the topic.

The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and ensure the safe repatriation of Palestinians back to the Palestinian territories.

UN Security Council Resolution 636 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 8 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 641 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 5 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians, which were usually expelled to Lebanon.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 694 (1991)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 4 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

UN Security Council Resolution 726 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 12 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Israel did not comply with the resolution, and continued to deport Palestinians.

UN Security Council Resolution 799 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 413 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

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 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.

The proposal was based on separating the region based on ethnicity, however the Arabs immediately rejected the draft as it was unbalanced, providing the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The Jews were initially unhappy with the UN Resolution because Britain promised them the entire region, but decided to accept it as their first opportunity to establish a homeland.

The Jewish decision was heavily influenced by the strong Zionist movement within their ranks. Arabs always considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's original account of the colonial plan of the region in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall".

In the essay, Jabotinsky describes the behaviour of a native people 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 throughout history ever want that? The only real solution to achieve colonization as he saw it, would require a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority of the region. 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.

When conflict ensued following the proposal, the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their territories only to concede it, which resulted in redrawing armistice lines and demilitarized zones. While some Arabs even now refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and stubbornly mention a non-negotiable one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders; the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

The one-state solution isn't ideal for Israel since the Arabs outnumber the Jews. It would mean 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 Arab leadership. Israel would face the same fate as the South African democratic process which ended white minority rule.

Ironically 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 divided and do not possess the unifying strength to overpower Israel with its powerful backing of the United States, and therefore cannot force a hand in making such a bold claim for the one-state solution. Arabs have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have revealed, neither the issues surrounding the Right of Return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seem acceptable for Israel to agree to any terms that would make the two-state solution viable, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority (PA) 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 the United States government - Israel's only ally - has admitted that the core issue preventing peace negotiations from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities. These settlements have been deemed illegal by International Law as per the 4th Geneva Convention which was drafted for the protection of civilians, stating that an occupying entity must maintain the identiy and integrity of the occupied people on the land it occupies.

"Might is right" is the unfortunate reality. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities to repeat itself as 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" due to the Israel lobby in the US.

While rest of the world acknowledges the illegal settlements, the US with Israel have been able to stop UN Resolutions being passed in order to avoid halting the settlement activities. The UN Security Council voted to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory", but the US have been able to prevent it using a very powerful weapon given to them by the UN; the veto.

It is the very contradiction of democracy on the international stage. The ability to cancel any vote made by the nations of the world with a single trump card that can be used at the discretion of any of the five permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, the concept of permanent members only exists because the five members were part of an alliance that were the victors of WWII, which is 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 voices on the UN Security Council.

The best way to rectify such a deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict, 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.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat and the building blocks of a viable solution could finally transpire, whether it is to establish one state or two.

How strong is the support for Jewish settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory?

– written by Hany Abed

There are essentially two core components of this apparent unilateral support as shown in the graphical:

1. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
2. There is a divine Right of Return to the Land of Israel (including Judea and Samaria as known by the Zionist movement), as the first step to bring about redemption of the world. 

The first is straight forward to address. Apartheid is in-congruent and incompatible with the concept of democracy.

For the second, let us put forward an argument that shows this Right of Return to be principally flawed.

The Jews (like several other tribes) originated in that area. Origins have nothing to do with title to land. That logic is absurd and nonsensical. Indian Muslims originated from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - they cannot claim land in those countries. Parts of Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand have Hindu origins - Indians cannot claim land in those countries. Large parts of Scotland have Nordic origins - Denmark and Sweden have not claimed any land there. The north of Pakistan is Bactrian Greek in origin - the Greeks have claimed no land there.

Jews have indeed been living continuously in the Holy Land, but between AD 70 and the end of the 19th century in very small numbers. Even as late as 1872, the Jews probably less than 4 percent of the population of the land. There has always been a Sephardic community in Palestine, but until recently it was numerically insignificant – in 1257 Nahman Gerondi found only two Jewish families in Jerusalem – and it is hard to see how its existence can be used to assert that ‘the only continuous claim [to Palestine] that exists’ is the Jewish. What the Arabs do claim, however, is that the land has been inhabited for ‘millennia’ by the ancestors of the Palestinian refugees. The modern Palestinians are a people of various ethnic origins, descended from the conquerors of Palestine since early Biblical times. Their ancestors are the Canaanites and Philistines who, unlike the Jews, were never deported. They remained in Palestine (which took its name from the Philistines) and their descendants formed, and still form, the core of the indigenous population. In the seventh century, the Muhammadan Arabs brought with them their government, their language and their religion, and a majority of the inhabitants accepted all three. Palestine and its people became "Arabised". Yet they remained the same people.

The famous British author (H.G. Wells) wrote:

"If it is proper to “reconstitute” a Jewish state which has not existed for two thousand years,, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there."

Prof. Israel Finkelstein wrote:

"The basis for Zionist land claims are absurd. The same basis can be used to create a Hutsul state in Ukraine, a Cossack state in Russia, a Macedonian state in Greece, a Kashubian state in Poland, an Alsatian state in France, a Gurkha state in Nepal, a Rajput state in India, etc. Political Zionism is ethnic madness, and is based on a racist view of demographic history."

What incentives does Israel offer Jewish settlers to live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories rather than Israel?

Jewish settlers in Occupied Palestinian Territories are quite different to those who live in Israel Proper, or even the Jewish diaspora.

Those who live in Tel Aviv are known to be more involved in their own personal civil challenges on a day to day basis. They love their shopping and are more concerned about the increase in housing prices than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Regarding the conflict, there are common differences which mainly depend on whether they are secular Jews or religious Jews.

American Jews have a definitive split in opinions between leftists and conservative right-wingers that generally revolve around either supporting the BDS movement (leftists) or have the impression that Israel is a tiny state surrounded by hostile Arab countries who want to push Jews to the sea (right-wingers).

Jewish settlers are a very different kind of people. They are known to be the "pioneers" of the future Eretz Israel, and the "front line" of the land expansions. They require little incentives from the Israeli government and, more astonishingly, sometimes break Israeli law when erecting their own makeshift homes which are unapproved by Israeli building authorities.

Many are radical in nature, banding together as thugs who's primary goal is to make Palestinians feel unwelcome in the hopes they leave the land for them. Settlers are equipped with M-16 assault rifles and are allowed to use them at their own discretion.

Here are some examples of the radicalism:

"We killed Jesus and we're proud of it"

Settler woman & children harass Palestinian homes

Settler children encouraged to harass Palestinians:

Report from Aljazeera about the constant harassment

List of Israeli Massacres

A list of massacres caused by the Zionist forces leading up to and during the establishment of the state of Israel:

The King David Massacre 1946

Explosion at the King David Hotel by the Jewish Agency & Irgun resulted in the deaths of 92 civilians including Britons, Arabs and Jews; wounding 58.

Baldat al-Shaikh Massacre 1947

First Battalion of Palmakh and the Carmelie brigade launched a raid against 2 towns, taking the outlying homes by surprise as inhabitants slept. They pelted them with hand grenades and fired machine guns. 60 civilians including women, children and elderly were killed.

Yehida Massacre 1947

Zionists with machine guns sprayed bullets into a crowd gathered in a coffee house, while grenades were thrown into Arab homes. 13 civilians were killed in total throughout the day, and 23 wounded.

Khisas Massacre 1947

Two carloads of Haganah terrorists drove through the village firing machine guns and throwing grenades. 10 civilians were killed.

Qazaza Massacre 1947

Jewish terrorists blew up the house of the village Mukhtar. 5 children were murdered.

The Semiramis Hotel Massacre 1948

Jewish Agency escalated their terror campaign to drive out Palestinian Arabs by bombing the hotel. 18 civilians killed; 16 wounded.

Dair Yasin Massacre 1948

Zionist gangs Tsel, Irgun and Hagana aimed at uprooting Palestinians by destroying homes and burning them down while their inhabitants were asleep inside. 250 civilians were murdered, mostly women, children and elderly.

Naser Al-Din Massacre 1948

Zionist gangs entered the village dressed as Arab fighters and met villagers with fire. All the houses of the village were raised to the ground, killing the entire population except 40 who survived. 632 civilians in total were killed.

Tantura Massacre 1948

Israeli troops entered village to remove inhabitants to make way for a parking lot for a nearby beach. Groups of Palestinians were rounded up, killed, and their bodies thrown, rounding up more groups. 200 civilians were killed.

Beit Daras Massacre 1948

Zionists mobilized a large contingent and surrounded the village, killing the women, children and elderly that were fleeing the conflict. 265 civilians in total were killed.

Dahmash Mosque Massacre 1948

Israelis told Arabs through loudspeakers that if they went into the mosque they would be safe, 80-100 Palestinians were massacred in the mosque and their bodies lay decomposing for 10 days.

Dawayma Massacre 1948

Israeli army entered the village on the western side of the Hebron mountains and brutally killed about 100 women and children.

Houla Massacre 1948

Jewish militants dressed in traditional Arab attire entered the border village. Militants rounded up 85 people and detained them in a number of houses, firing live ammunition at the civilians and killing all but 3.

Salha Massacre 1948

105 civilians killed by occupiers when ordered to face the wall of a mosque, then shot from behind.

Sharafat Massacre 1951

Israeli soldiers crossed armistice line and destroyed residential properties - 10 civilians killed (2 elderly men, 3 women and 5 children), 8 wounded.

Qibya Massacre 1953

600 Israeli soldiers moved in towards village destroying 56 houses, a mosque, a school and water tank. 67 men and women killed.

Kafr Qasem Massacre 1956

Israeli soldiers stepped out of military trucks, positioned themselves at village entrances, and killed 43 farmers.

Khan Yunis Massacre 1956

Israelis occupied the town and an adjacent refugee camp. UNRWA investigation found 275 unarmed civilians murdered by Israelis.

Gaza City Massacre 1956

Zionist Army gangs brought death toll to 60 civilians including (including 27 women, 29 men and 4 children) and 103 injured.

Al-Sammou' Massacre 1966

Israeli forces raided the village destroying 140 houses, a village clinic and school. 18 civilians were killed and 54 wounded.

Aitharoun Massacre 1975

Caused by a booby-trapped bomb. 9 civilians were killed, 23 were wounded.

Kawnin Massacre 1975

An Israeli tank ran over a vehicle carrying 16 civilians. None of them survived.

Hanin Massacre 1976

After a 2-month siege and hours of shelling, occupation forces stormed the village and turned it into a bloodbath. 20 civilians killed.

Bint Jbeil Massacre 1976

A crowded market was the target of a sudden barrage of Israeli bombs, slaughtering 23 civilians and 30 wounded.

Abbasieh Massacre 1978

Israeli warplanes destroyed a mosque while civilians used it as shelter from heavy shelling. 80 civilians killed.

Adloun Massacre 1978

2 cars carrying 8 passengers came under Israeli fire while they were on their way to Beirut. Only 1 passenger survived.

Saida Massacre 1981

Residential areas targeted by Israeli artillery resulting in 20 civilians killed, 30 were wounded.

Fakhani Massacre 1981

Israeli warplanes raided crowded residential areas using highly sophisticated weaponry. 150 civilians killed, 600 were wounded.

Sabra and Shatila 1982

Israeli Army surrounded the camps, providing aid and facilities, in collaboration with right-wing Lebanese Phalangist, were responsible for almost 3500 civilians dead, most of them women, children and elderly.

Jibsheet Massacre 1984

Occupation forces’ tanks and helicopters fired at a crowd of people. 7 civilians were killed, 10 were wounded.

Sohmor Massacre 1984

Occupation forces stormed with tanks and military vehicles, then ordered the inhabitants to congregate at the town's mosque and fired at them. 13 civilians killed, 12 wounded.

Seer Al Garbiah Massacre 1985

At Al-Husseinieh people took shelter from shelling of Israeli soldiers who stormed the town with military vehicles. 7 civilians killed.

Maaraka Massacres 1985

Occupation forces detonated an explosive device during distribution of aid to citizens during siege. 15 civilians were killed.

Zrariah Massacre 1985

Occupation forces stormed the town after heavy shelling with 100 vehicles, killing children, women and elderly. 22 civilians slaughtered.

Horneen Al-Tahta Massacre 1985

Occupation forces ordered the inhabitants to gather at a school of the village then destroyed it.

Jibaa Massacre 1985

Huge Army forces attacked the town and put it under siege. Soldiers fired at people escaping the siege. 5 civilians killed, 5 were wounded.

Yohrnor Massacre 1985

An Israeli armed force entered the town using civilian cars and opened fire at the houses. 10 civilians killed, among them a family of 6.

Tin Massacre 1986

Occupation forces cutting the hands and ears from civilians in the town. 4 persons were killed; 79 were crippled and wounded.

Al-Naher Al-Bared Massacre 1986

Israeli warplanes raided the Palestinian refugee camp killing many of the refugees. 20 person were killed and 22 were wounded.

Ain Al-Hillwee Massacre 1987

Jet fighters launched 2 raids. 31 civilians killed and 41 wounded. Refugees were hit by a raid while evacuating casualties, 34 more were killed, making a total of 65 civilian casualties.

Oyon Qara Massacre 1990

Israeli soldier lined up Palestinian labors and murdered 7 of them with a sub-machine gun. 13 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in subsequent demonstrations.

Siddiqine Massacre 1990

Israeli warplanes bombed a house, among the 3 killed a four years old child.

Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre 1990

Israeli forces placed military barriers around roads and surrounded it with military helicopters. Jewish settlers fired live ammunition with automatic weapons and gas bombs. 23 Palestinians were killed, 850 wounded.

Ibrahimi Mosque "Cave of the Patriarchs" Massacre 1994

Almost 500 worshipers attended Friday dawn prayer when Zionist settlers and soldiers stormed the mosque and fired on the people praying. 24 civilians died and hundreds injured.

Jabalia Massacre 1994

Jewish undercover police opened fire on Palestinian activists killing 6 and injuring 49. Some of the wounded activists were taken out of their cars and shot in the head.

Eretz Checkpoint Massacre 1994

Occupation forces fired on Palestinian workers at Eretz checkpoint while 4 Israeli tanks and helicopters were brought in. 11 civilians were shot dead and 200 injured.

Deir Al-Zahrani Massacre 1994

Israeli warplanes fired a "vacuum" missile at a 2-story building which was destroyed. 8 people were killed, 17 were injured.

Nabatyaih School Bus Massacre 1994

Israeli warplanes targeted a school bus full of students. 4 children were killed and 10 injured.

Sohmor Second Massacre 1996

Israeli artillery targeted a civilian vehicle carrying 8 passengers, killing them all.

Mansuriah Massacre 1996

Israeli helicopter fired rockets at a vehicle carrying 13 civilians fleeing the village of al-Mansuri, killing 2 women and 4 young girls.

Nabatyaih Massacre 1996

Israeli Air attack with helicopters fired rockets at 3 buildings in the village on a house in Nabatiyya al-Faqwah causing 11 civilians casualties (including a mother and her 7 children) and 10 injured.

Qana Massacre 1996

Zionist forces bombed a shelter providing refuge to 500 Lebanese, mostly women, children and elderly forced out of their villages by Israeli raids. 109 civilians killed and 116 injured in a UN compound.

Janta Massacre 1998

Israeli warplanes attacked a mother and her 6 children when they had returned from the field. All had been killed.

The 29 June Massacre 1999

Israeli force targeted a building in Beirut. 8 civilians killed and 84 injured.

Western Bekaa villages Massacre 1999

Israeli warplanes fired on children who were celebrating the Eid festival. 8 children were killed and 11 others wounded.

Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre 2000

Ariel Sharon entered Al-Aqsa Mosque with 3000 Israeli soldiers. Soldiers opened fire on Muslims worshipers before completing their prayers. 80 Palestinian civilians were killed and 1000's injured.

Lebanon Massacre 2006

There were more than 94 cases of Israeli air and artillery attacks on civilian homes and vehicles . Of the 1,109 casualties, approximately 900 were civilians, and most of the targets were roads, residential buildings and civil buildings that had no evidence of combatants.

Operation "Cast Lead" Gaza Massacre 2009

Israeli government lay siege to the city with the use of white-phosphorous chemical weapons in densely populated areas such as schools and hospitals. 1,300 women, children & elderly were killed and thousands injured.

Gaza Siege 2012

162 men, women and children killed by air strikes, and 1269 injured during the 8 day assault on the Gaza Strip just before elections in Israel.

Operation "Protective Edge" Gaza Massacre 2014

7 weeks of Israeli bombardment resulted in a total of 2,150 men, women and children killed in the Gaza strip, including 578 children. Human rights groups reported that around 69–75% of the victims were civilians.

Population of Jews and Arabs in Israel, West Bank and Gaza

Nationality	Location	Population
Jews	Israel	6.20 million
Jews	West Bank Settlements	0.53 million
Arabs	Israel	1.57 million
Arabs	West Bank	2.50 million
Arabs	Gaza	1.20 million
Arabs	Refugees	4.50 million

Total Population
Jews	6.73 million
Arabs	9.77 million

Why is Israel not a forebearer of human rights given Jewish history with the Nazis?

After the holocaust the Jews adopted a quote that is now found on some of their structures: "Never again"...

Never Again means first and foremost that Jews will never again go quietly and submissively to their deaths. Never Again means that Jews will not bend to the will of oppressors. Never Again is a motto shouted with the recognition that Jews are not commanded by God to be downtrodden and victimized - quite the opposite. Never Again is the motto of the post-Holocaust Jew, who knows that the world can be a dangerous place and that it often gets much more dangerous for Jews when they fail to assert their rights as human beings.

[JDL http://www.jdl.org/index.php/ideology-advocacy/core-ideology/never-again/]

The problem with this quote is that it should have been more specific:
"Never again to anyone" not "Never again" to the Jews.

The "chosen people" as it were, believe that it is their God-given right to return to the land of Palestine to establish a state for the Jews. This is not a generic state, it is a state solely for the Jews. This is in contrast to countries described by their dominant nationality such as Turkey which is considered a Turkish state simply because of its majority. This Jewish state exists regardless of the demographics.

Technically speaking, those who believe in the concept of a God-given Jewish state have nothing against Arabs at all (in fact their zeal is focused more on Christians for the movements in Europe during the late 1800s / early 1900s); Arabs just so happen to inhabit the land they want.

As the Iron Wall teaches us (and as many in this movement today believe), the land must return to their own kind and be maintained by the Jews alone, at all costs, even if that cost is just as severe as the history that was inflicted upon them.

So there is no direct relationship between Nazi treatment and the belief that their race should have a Jewish state of their own, although it is a good means to gain simpathy for their cause.

Why did Palestinians elect Hamas if most view them as a militant organisation?

This is a common trait in a state of conflict where people naturally choose the hard-lined leader in order to protect their people with strength and courage against an external threat, rather than with their PhDs in diplomacy.

We saw the same scenario with the rise of a General who became Prime Minister in Ariel Sharon, or Binyamin Netanyahu who was part of the General forces unit and a captain, and even Menachim Begin who was part of the Irgun terrorist group that bombed several British buildings and traded with illegal weaponry.

This is even evident between two military leaders who took separate paths in their methods of leadership regarding the zealous persona of Gamal Abdel-Nasser who was popular in Egypt because he promoted protection against the Zionist invasion, rather than the more diplomatic approach to peace in Anwar Sadat, who subsequently was assassinated for his attempts at peace. This similarity can also be seen in Israel when Yitzhak Rabin was also assassinated for his attempts at peace in a heightened time of conflict.

This stems from the propaganda created for warfare. The classic situation where newspapers and radios promote the perception of "near-annihilation" as troops battle to defend their country's existence. While a people face the depressing realities of daily bombardment, they need a hero to turn to in order to give them hope of victory.
In the first world countries today, we witness people naturally inclined to seek justice in internal affairs rather than in warfare against an external entity. This is especially common amongst the youth who have lived all their lives in a world without any direct imminent threat from external entities, as was the case before their forefathers fought to win their own independence.

Gaza is no different. Rather than the people seeking a government that can provide them financial stability, economic opportunities, and social justice, they believe that none of this can be achieved with the constant humiliation of occupation and a disruption of normality with ongoing checkpoints and land confiscations in areas that were replaced with settlements, as was the case before the seige began in Gaza in 2006. With absence of peace in their everyday lives and the uncertainty of their future, those who become popular were the highest bidders for security.

Hamas' militant approach is the strongest and most secure option for the people of Gaza because no one else can provide them with the protection they need. It is unfortunate that since they have taken office their militant approach has been like punching the apartheid wall with their bare fists; achieving nothing but reactions from those who imposed the blockade around the Strip, rather than a stable solution for the people's livelihoods. These reactions by the occupying powers continually result in civilian casualties even after democracy was implemented in the region with Hamas. That particular democracy was shunned, and was still frowned upon even after Hamas were willing to accept a truce with Israel based on the pre-67 borders in the same year they were elected into office.

What resulted from the elections that birthed Hamas' political careers was evidence that violence ultimately spawns violence, just as the Gaza siege in 2008/2009 will undoubtedly bring up another child who witnessed brutality with the horrific scenes of burned bodies and the pools of blood. Those scenes could only traumatize a collective group of youth that will grow up in a violent environment and a vengeful disposition.

Israel's mistake in dealing with the situation of trying to remove Hamas has not yet been realised. Rather than a collective punishment imposed on Gaza because the people elected the "wrong leaders", the withdrawal of violence will actually have a positive effect, and it will naturally dissolve support in such reactionary groups amongst popular Palestinian opinion.

Diplomacy or Militancy? That is the Question

A UN bid for the state of Palestine has been greatly debated with a significant split in opinions amongst Arabs regarding whether or not there is an advantage to Palestinian statehood.

Amongst many critics is the claim that a statehood based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement or "pre-67 borders" removes any legitimate claims for the Right of Return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees currently residing on the outskirts of historic Palestine, and in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

Naturally this would be a great advantage for Israel. So why is Israel afraid of a UN application if the Palestinians believe it removes legitimate claims for a large percentage of Palestinians who were invaded and violently displaced from their homes? Wouldn't removing responsibility for the refugee problem be exactly what the Zionist movement wants?

Currently Israel claims that Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) is in fact "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory. By this definition, it would allow them to justify land annexation which from Israel's perspective, is by de facto "uncharted". This ultimately denies them seeing the reality, that it is in fact inhabited by the indigenous population of Arabs who have lived there for centuries.

The implication is extended further by proclaiming that there isn't any official recognition of West Bank borders because the Armistice Agreement was only just a truce, and in effect is not recognised by International Law. However there is one problem with this argument. Such a claim effectively defines Israel as a state without official border lines either, and only just an official state body.

Abbas himself has acknowledged that the final agreements for border negotiations cannot be done in the UN, so a simple bid for "official recognition" would suffice for the PA's cause with noteworthy mention that it should be based on the pre-67 borders and not defined by the borders. This creates a dilemma for Israel whereby having two recognised states as UN members with undetermined borders would result in a level playing field, and negotiations could resume between two official state bodies for any border lines.

That is completely outside Israel's comfort zone, especially when the dynamics of the region would significantly shift further away from the status quo that is sitting in their favour. That, along with the mounting pressures of international isolation could only mean political disaster for the state that already declared independence unilaterally in 1948.

On the flip side, there are those amongst the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, who refuse to believe in the legitimacy of the UN altogether because of the irony it demonstrates towards democracy from an organisation that fundamentally provides five permanent members with the ultimate power to overrule and destroy a resolution with a veto if they wish to do so.

However this argument is also flawed. Denouncing such an organisation plays a dangerous game which removes any argument proclaiming that Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank are indeed illegal, especially since they are defined as illegal by International Law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is in fact endorsed by the United Nations.

There are those who also refuse to believe Israel exists altogether, and that denies the reality of confronting a very real opponent on any level. This forces the situation into a more militant scenario and as we have seen in previous attempts by Fatah's rivals Hamas, its almost like punching the Apartheid Wall with their own bare hands. Hamas have been popularly condemned for causing more harm than good to their people without any viable solution to end their plight.

While Fatah have also been condemned for the atrocities against the people of Gaza after the first and only democratic elections in the Strip, they have also been accused of rubbing shoulders with the West. This opinion has slightly changed amongst some as they heard first-hand Abbas' firm stance in front of the entire world against the diplomatic pressures made by the nations who have supported Fatah as a puppet regime. It might not have won their hearts completely, especially with memories of the betrayal exposed in the Palestinian Papers, however the evident defiance seems to have struck a chord.

With Fatah's approach through diplomacy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, and Hamas' approach through militancy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, there doesn't seem to be any other suggestions made by the critics except to play the waiting game for emerging powers in the region, which incidentally does not guarantee an honest alliance of any kind. The support of BDS movements can only provide a means to promote a general disapproval, however there are still no positive steps towards other forms of reform, regardless of whether it is to achieve a one-state or two-state solution.

A UN bid proves to be a rare political victory for Palestinians regardless of a result. A successful bid hastens the demise of legitimacy of Fatah and Hamas, who both lack the resolve to unify their establishments and their people, which in turn forces a hand for elections to take place for the official state body of Palestine; while a veto hastens the political isolation of the United States and Israel throughout the world, and especially in the EU where they have had stark negative responses for the earlier veto on halting illegal settlement activities in February. Saudi Arabia have also threatened to sanction the United States following the expected veto.

Regardless of the pros and cons of a UN bid and its effectiveness, the people must choose from a limited number of options to help achieve any kind of outcome: militancy, diplomacy or the waiting game in the hopes that some other external force tilts the balance of power in their favour before Israel annexes the entire region. This could create a limbo for the entire Palestinian population if we wait too long.

The similitude of the Two-State Solution and the Treaty of Hudaibiya

Many Palestinians are too anxious with regards to their right of return that they believe jumping into a bid for the state of Palestine would be a political disaster. Longer term advantages, however, would significantly benefit the Palestinian cause, just as patience was shown during the early years of the Muslim refugees that were displaced from their homes in Mecca and hunted down. There is a striking similarity between the UN bid and the truce that was agreed upon by the Muslims and the Pagan Arabs who tried to eradicate them.

According to the Treaty of Hudaibiya, a truce was declared between the Muslims and the tribe of Quraish for ten years. If any other tribe wished to enter into a treaty with the Muslims it could do so, and whoever wished to enter into a treaty with the Quraish was likewise free to do so. If any one from the Quraish came to the Muslims and was converted to Islam he was to be returned to the Quraish. On the other hand, if a Muslim sought refuge with the Quraish, he was not to be delivered to the Muslims. It was further stipulated that the Muslims would withdraw that year without performing the Hajj in Mecca, but they would be free to perform the Hajj the following year when they could stay in Mecca for only three days before being removed again.

The truce was obviously very one sided and the pact was significantly in favor of the Quraish, so most of the Muslims were extremely critical of these terms. Umar gave expression of his dissatisfaction with the terms of the treaty, but Muhammad (SAW) assured him to put faith in the truce.

Seventeen years prior to this truce, Quraish had been waging a war against the Muslims with their aim to crush Islam. Therefore the treaty of Hudaibiya, when Quraish agreed to the truce for a period of ten years, amounted to a confession of their failure.

By this treaty both the Muslims and Quraish could have allies from amongst the tribes surrounding them. This was a subtle point fraught with grave consequences. The fact that the Muslims were able to travel freely to forge alliances without fear of being attacked by their enemies, meant that they were more advantageous over the Pagan tribe. And that is exactly what they did. As things took shape, it was such alliances that paved the way for the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims without a single drop of blood spilled.

In this comparison, we can also conclude that the same technique can be implemented with regards to the current volatile situation for the Palestinians where at any given time their lives can be taken by a flyover or a home demolition. The more time they can spend "regrouping" by forging strong alliances amongst the free people of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Jordan whilst a truce is in play, the stronger the Arabs will be united in demanding their right of return regardless of how many settlements are built today, and especially when considering that much larger empires were dismantled in the history of mankind.

Remembering that Jerusalem was brutally occupied by the crusaders for almost 100 years until Salahudeen was successful in giving the land back to the people it was stolen from, we can be reassured that Zionism's brutal occupation of the region for only 63 years will not be an exception. Forcing a situation in the region against its natural demographic has never proven to be a sustainable solution for any ruling power.

Considering a "set-back" by declaring the state of Palestine at the UN assembly and accepting a two-state solution doesn't necessarily mean defeat. It can only provide, at the very least, a legitimacy for the Arab world to take a stronger stance in supporting Palestinians in years to come.

Sources: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/19_ali_bin_talib.htm

History of Jews in the Arab world

Currently there are numerous misconceptions surrounding Jewish refugees who were allegedly caused by Arab nations during the years that the state of Israel was established. The notion of collective punishment and discrimination under Arab rule has widely been accepted as a fact based on interpretations from verbal accounts on the historic events surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. History paints a different picture of those accusations when the complete story is put into perspective.

Since the beginning of the British frontier in the Middle East, not only was Palestine a British colony following the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, but the Empire had also controlled Egypt since conquering the French in 1882, as well as Sudan in 1899 and Yemen as early as 1839. The land that was once borderless under Islamic rule was slowly being sliced up and became provinces under the British Commonwealth.

At the outbreak of World War I, an emerging Zionist movement became prominant throughout Europe and was thriving economically. Many of the Jews of Europe excelled in trade, usury and public relations.

Two of its significant leaders, Dr Weizmann and Baron Rothschild, helped fund Britain’s victory in their European campaign during the Great War. They had only one request in return for the favour they bestowed on the Commonwealth for its victory, and that transpired in the form of the historic Balfour Declaration which was written to Rothschild in order to hand over one of the regions in the Middle East to establish a Jewish-only state.

This declaration was in direct contradiction to the promise given to Arabs to play a significant part in Britain's establishment of monarch-lead nations following their help in dismantling the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

Since the Kingdom of Egypt was part of the British Commonwealth prior to this, it was already an open gateway to the Middle East for the Jewish community before they could claim a land of their own. Egypt subsequently made exemptions to rulings over compulsory visas in favour of Jewish immigrants. Naturally, many Jews flocked to this hub of multiculturalism across the Mediterranean from their origins in Europe. Many Egyptians today tell the tale of Jewish neighbours who had become friends over the years with many cultural exchanges including family recipes and traditions. Egypt provided a safe haven for many Jews who comprised of Sephardi Jews (migrating from Morocco and other Arab countries), Ashkenazim Jews (predominantly from Eastern Europe and those from pre-WWII), Jews from southern Europe, and the native Jews who had already existed in Egypt for centuries (namely the Karaites and Rabbanites) and who were previously living under the laws of the Islamic province of Egypt.

Regarding the lifestyle of these indigenous Jews before British rule, the Islamic governor of Egypt had ordered that others could not interfere with their way of life nor in their celebrated holidays. They were considered Dhimmis or "protected subjects". Their protection came with the precondition that a jizya or "poll tax" must be paid to provide security, build roads, help fund places of worship and other benefits that ultimately influenced fundamental practices of modern governance today with modern tax. While Muslims did not pay jizya, they were obligated to pay zakat, which is part of the tenants of their religious obligations. Obviously since Dhimmis were not required to perform one of the obligatory pillars of Islam, another method of taxation was required of them in society.

In the Muslim world, Jews also obtained high social positions such as doctors, clerks, tax collectors, and even received special positions in the Egyptian courts as early as the 9th century. There are historians today that prefer to consider these minority groups "second-class citizens" simply because they were excused from Muslim duties and the Shari'a Law, yet they were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Incidentally this provided more flexibility and allowances than what is currently provided in Western society today for those who wish to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities.

Further to this, under British occupation treatment towards Jews was no different. The Jewish community which had otherwise been persecuted abroad was embraced by Egyptians citizens. Some Jews during British rule even had their entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. They had just as much opportunity to fulfil a successful life as any other Egyptian citizen at the time.

Following the popular uprising against British rule in 1919, Britain ended the protectorate in 1922 and the Kingdom of Egypt became nominally independent, although still dependent on Britain financially. This did not phase Jewish migrants.

In 1932 and 1933 the Egyptian government conducted a campaign offering Egyptian citizenship to any resident of Egyptian territory who wanted it. Some Egyptian Jews were among those who took advantage of the offer and became Egyptian citizens, while others chose to remain stateless, though it became more difficult for stateless residents to become citizens later on.

Due to the end of capitulations between Egypt and European countries in 1937, which shielded foreign nationals from the law of the land, and due to high unemployment in Egypt which increased dramatically when many businesses closed after WWII, these foreign nationals, including many Jews, found it difficult to maintain jobs especially because they did not have Egyptian citizenship.

Jewish migration from Europe was growing during WWII and it didn't take long before the Nazis followed them. Amongst many other things, one of the main reasons why Hitler attempted to conquer Egypt was an attempt to eliminate the Jews from Egypt.

These two critical issues created the first wave of Jewish emigration. As a result, they fled based on their own fear and insecurity. But while an attempted eradication of Jews in Egypt was unsuccessful, many Jews still remained in Egypt; especially the higher class citizens that had much of their wealth invested in the country.

After the Nazis failed, the Kingdom continued to maintain its own laws. Some of the Ottoman systems that still existed were sustained by the Egyptian monarchy. At the time, Ottoman systems maintained legal protection for non-Muslim minorities which obviously included the autonomous Jewish communities. Any crimes committed against these Jews were not represented by the Kingdom of Egypt, and were rather considered criminal acts of racism. Although demonstrations and riots broke out following the commemoration of the Balfour declaration with some Egyptians lashing out violently against all who supported the letter to Rothschild, these protests consequently subsided with increased security by the Egyptian government to provide guards to protect the Jewish Quarter.

The Egyptian Kingdom's protection was maintained even after the independence of the state of Israel regardless of the fact that war was declared against the Zionists who took Palestinian territory unilaterally.

Egyptian rulers implemented martial law and stamped down their authority on any Zionist supporters living in Egypt as they were officially declared enemies of the state following the invasion of Palestine. Particular emphasis on "Zionist supporters" rather than Jews themselves was made because it was the growing secular movement with it's intention to take Arab land that was a threat to the nation. This law was not exclusive to Zionists however, as many Egyptians were arrested for violence within a nation that suddenly became volatile. The Muslim Brotherhood became outlawed and so were many other opposition organisations. Egypt was completely alienated due to being in a state of war.

Some Jews (primarily Ashkenazim Jews) were extremely fearful of the animosity of the war between Israel and the Arab world that they decided to migrate to the newly formed state especially because Zionist campaigns encouraged them to run to the hills and take land while it was "there for the taking". This is in contrast to what many people describe as an "exodus" in 1948, especially when the Jews themselves describe this ritual as the spiritual "aliyah" or ascension as was the Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile.

Egypt's status changed over the next few years when a military coup overthrew the monarchy in 1952 for failure to protect their neighbours from the humiliating defeat against the Zionist movement's invasion. Other reasons for the coup also included political corruption due to remnants of British influence which had helped form the Zionist state.

The state of Egypt was then transformed into a military ruling nation where emergency laws were enforced. One of the most significant changes due to this law was the deportation of those who lived in Egypt without visas or any other kind of evidence to prove Egyptian citizenship. This wasn't a direct attack on Jews, especially since British and French supporters were primarily considered enemies of the state for their support in the attempted invasion of 1956 by France, Britain and Israel, and so were subsequently expelled from Egypt.

Despite these expulsions, there were still Jews who claimed they were still making a good living from their growing businesses even up until the late 1960's and were reluctant to leave the country empty-handed. They were able to stay because they had citizenship and were not supporters of the enemies of state.

Egypt was drastically changed from having open borders to being in a state of security. This behaviour is common throughout the world today and is mirrored in Western countries such as the US with the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001.

This harsh environment regarding the changes in Egyptian policies were mainly due to the undeniable and overwhelming fear that resulted from the establishment of Israel because the Zionist state posed a very imminent threat for a potential expansion beyond Egypt's borders, as it ultimately did in 1967.

Thus military rule created instability and political uncertainty in Egypt, even when considering the significant shifts in alliances from the Soviet Union to the US and up until the days of Mubarak's downfall. Many Jews actually decided to leave Egypt voluntarily, pre-empting repercussions from the political instability. This is no different than the Egyptian citizens who also fled from their own homeland and became migrants in countries across the world including the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, particularly after the 1967 invasion. These Egyptian migrants were not considered refugees, just as the Jews were not. They fled for much the same reasons, and were considered migrants because applications were never made for refugee status with the UN. Jews either migrated to the United States, France and Australia or had answered to the Israeli call to establish settlements on Palestinian soil.

Currently, some Jews claim that racial discrimination against the few remaining Jews in Egypt still exist today especially because of an isolated incident recently regarding the prevention of a marriage between an Egyptian and a Jew. The reality is that even amongst Jewish sects there are significant cultural differences. The Karaite Jews (followers of the Torah) and the Rabbanite Jews (followers of the Talmud) have their own separate synagogues and their own separate schools, and although they both recognise each other as the indigenous Jews of Egypt who lived there for centuries, mixed marriages were an issue for their cultural traditions, let alone cultural differences between Sephardi Jews from Spain, or the Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe.

Some also claim that discrimination against Jews existed because they were denied the right to vote in elections, however this claim does not take into consideration the fact that all of Egypt including its citizens were denied the right to vote in any national election that existed ever since military rule took control of the country, with the staged formalities of elections to try and show Egypt's "democracy".

There has been a common trend amongst the Jewish Diaspora to isolate the sufferings of Jewish people during the time of war so that their own stories would be vindicated by excluding stories of suffering from the general population in the region as a result of the cruelties of war.

Incidentally this victimisation is also used with the constant reminders of genocide that occurred as a result of the holocaust during WWII while failing to describe the many tens of thousands of men, women and children who also suffered collectively from the war. Somehow the words "holocaust" and "exodus" have only been attributed to the Jewish people and astonishingly these words are not accepted nor tolerated to be used in conjunction with any other suffering people as a result of collective punishment in warfare.

Its time that we started sympathizing for humanity collectively when a population suffers at the hands of invasions and political and economic instabilities throughout the world. This ongoing story of suffering is not exclusively kept for the Jews.

The Israeli deception

In light of a recent campaign by Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, to try and justify the settlement expansions in the West Bank by considering the region "disputed" rather than "illegally occupied", there is one important point to note on his failure to mention the Oslo Accords of 1993 and the official agreement to recognize a Palestinian state around the 1967 borders.

This deception runs deep in Netanyahu's government.

Previously, Netanyahu himself has arrogantly described how his own lies were successful in removing relevance to this peace treaty, and how easily swayed the United States are into falling for his trickery.



The point here is that the current Israeli establishment works to find loop-holes in peace agreements made with the Palestinians to deny the rights of Arab legitimacy in the region. Being technically correct based on flaws or not, the fact that peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are not in good faith, in effect denies the state of Israel from being considered a "beacon of peace and hope" in the Middle East. Rather it is one of the causes of violence and oppression because of this deception.

How then can one question the Palestinians for working on establishing a sovereign state of Palestine unilaterally in front of the United Nations when there is evidence to suggest that they would have less of a chance with Israel's lack of cooperation?

Why is the two-state solution the best option for Arabs?

In the eyes of the Arab world, the obvious choice regarding a solution to the endless debate concerning the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a clear undivided bi-national state consisting of Jews and Arabs living side by side as one. Pure in its concept of multiculturalism and democracy, this unity of the two nationalities is a concept they have been familiar with for more than 1000 years. This sober thought plays the perfect tune in the name of humanity and it is probably the simplest choice when considering that Arabs in the region outnumber the Jews, so there isn't anything too complex about this solution.

However it still remains an Arab utopia and continues to be a distant reality.

So why shouldn’t this be the card they play regarding their policies towards Israel? Realistically, the Arabs are in no position to demand democracy or demand any kind of recognition.

It is obvious that the significant demographic imbalance in the region comes at a disadvantage for the Israelis. They have clearly shown they would rather not opt for a solution best suited for pure democracy; otherwise, as Netanyahu put it, it would "end Israel as we know it". Regardless of how politically incorrect this statement is and how it implies that the state of Israel and pure democracy cannot coincide, the reality is, Israel is here and will remain here for a while no matter how forceful it was created in the first place.

While generally humanity cries out for democracy in its purest form, human history shows that the strongest ultimately survives. Some may argue this case even from an evolutionary perspective. Even when we go back to the time when Hitler was defeated for trying to conquer Europe; simultaneously, Britain and France were conquering the Middle East and their dominance prevailed in deciding the future of the region. It was never a conscious choice of morals to defeat the aggressive nature of the Nazi regime, because these dominant forces sliced the Arab lands and created the borders we see today in much the same way Nazi Germany began with Austria and Poland.

Britain and France, being the victors of the Great Wars, established monarchies in the Middle East that would benefit their respective Empires for strategic and economic gains regardless of what the inhabitants of the land preferred.

The sooner the Arabs submit to the idea that democracy isn't what will decide the fate of the existence of one race over another in the region and realise that the two-state solution is realistically the only solution they can push for regarding the region that was once called Palestine, the sooner they can prevent their own leaders from making ill decisions that result in the loss of more Palestinian lives when trying to fight against this phenomenon.

They simply need to come to terms with the fact that they lost the war against Israel and land was conceded. This was the case in 1949 when the Arabs had no choice but to sign a truce. This truce must be honoured just as their prophetic leader did with the Meccans 1400 years ago because it is as much a viable solution for long term success.

Many decades from now the tides may turn and the balance of power may shift just as it did when Salahudin emerged to end the violent occupation of the Crusaders in Jerusalem that lasted for almost 100 years, but the Arabs are far from providing any kind of shift similar to that today despite what is right or wrong. Israel has only existed for 60 years, and Arabs are already impatient in trying to force their own will against the situation.

Power ultimately determines what is put on the negotiation table, and as is the case today, there isn't much that Palestinians can negotiate with. The more they try to ignore this reality, the more innocent lives will be taken by an overwhelmingly powerful and violent regime.

The only thing the Arabs are currently in a position to do is prevent Israeli war crimes from continuing against their own people because it may threaten the very existence of their legitimacy in the region. This is the reason why the bid for a sovereign state of Palestine within the borders that were agreed upon during the 1949 truce had only developed in recent history, especially when previously Palestinians were more inclined to inhabit a borderless land unsoiled by man-made lines drawn on a map.

Despite Israel’s inability to adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure that the demographic situation sways in their favour at all costs, and despite being condemned by the International Community, Israel still stands unchallenged.

Yet international support against the heinous crimes against humanity is the only thing that the Arabs have. The stronger their policies are in gaining traction with international support for the Palestinian cause, the better equipped they would be in defeating the occupation and succeeding in having their own sovereignty for the millions of displaced refugees. Fighting violence with violence hasn't seemed to work out well for the Arabs who currently lack strength in unity.

Regarding long term outcomes, Arabs should learn from their own history because Mecca was given back to the displaced Arabs without a single drop of blood spilled from the truce they had with their Pagan enemies.
Salahudin also returned Jerusalem without having to push the Christian occupiers "out to sea"; in fact he provided a safe passage for them back to their places of origin and indeed offered a place of sanctuary for those who chose to stay in the Holy Land.
South Africa was also liberated with the power of the people prevailing over an oppressive force that could not maintain power against the natural demographic balance. That force also fell without violence with the use of pure democracy.

It is in the best interest of both civil Arabs and civil Jews to have a truce today simply because too many innocent lives are being taken in this conflict. This truce is the pre-67' two-state solution.

Israel's Nuclear Armament

This article has been taken from Iran vs Israel: What the media wants you to forget

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.
Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget:

1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
11. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
12. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries

Was Israel Purchased or Palestine Stolen?

Too frequently in discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict are arguments brought to the table when justifying the colonization of Palestine as a "lesser of two evils" when comparisons are presented that describe land attained by violent conquests throughout the ages during the Imperial era.

Too often we hear the same cry against the barbaric rule of the Roman Empire; or the conquering Crusaders marching into Jerusalem with horses "knee-deep in blood".

The frequency of these historic events which illustrate examples of brutal occupation doesn't necessarily make them the standards by which we consider "historical norm" to be the accepted methods of occupation. Moreover, simply by using these examples to fuel the argument for justifying Israeli occupation puts the Zionist methodology within the same category as these archaic forms of conquests.

When focussing on the matter of colonialism however, there is a grave difference between the British colonization verses the current Zionist occupation. Even though Britain colonized most of the surrounding regions, just as the Ottoman Empire did before them, the colonies were still identified as Arab land with the presence of British military rule. Occupation itself is not illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, however the Jewish state has not adhered to the rules of the Occupying Power's responsibility under these laws, engaging in ongoing land confiscations, home demolitions, expanding settlement construction, systematic deportations, civilian displacements, residency revocation, water resource reallocation, economic strangulation, child imprisonment, violent checkpoint misconduct, border blockades, airspace "no-fly" restrictions, and maritime seaport blockades. All these impositions have been deemed violations of international law with regards to the rules of occupation.

In order to justify these actions, some traditionalists like to claim that the Jews were the original inhabitants of the region so it is their "right" to do as they please with "their" land. However they weren't the original people. They lived there 3000 years ago when David conquered Goliath, then his son Solomon created a kingdom, then a subsequent civil war ensued two generations later between Judea and Samara, and Nebuchadnezzar conquered and exiled the Jews to Babylon shortly after that. Four generations: A moment in the history of Jerusalem. People lived before the Jewish rule and people lived after the Jewish rule. One cannot compare four generations with one thousand years of Arab habitation.

Starting with the original rallying cry of Zionism - thought up by Israel Zangwill and adopted by Theodor Herzl - the following statement was used from the original Christian quote: "a people without land for a land without people" and that was the first Zionist lie. They knew full well that the region was not a land without people. In fact, they had sent a delegation of Rabbis to inspect the territory. The message that the Rabbis sent back was "the bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man". From the very beginning, the Zionists knew that their entire project was based on fabrication.

During the time when Palestine was under British authority, land ownership within each sub-district (as shown in the figure) shows a significant percentage of Palestinian Arab ownership compared to the Jewish people and the British forces.

The cause and effects of the British Mandate when permission was given for a mass Jewish immigration in the 1930's as a gesture of appreciation for Rothschild's funding of WWI, caused great unrest throughout the entire region. While early explanations of the Palestinian refugee crisis alleged that Arab leaders urged them to flee in radio broadcasts so that they wouldn't get in the way of attacks from Jewish forces, there was no evidence to support this. At the time British and US intelligence, as well as the BBC, were monitoring Arabic language radio broadcasts in the region and none of them recorded exhortations to flee.

Palestinians today still consist of the largest population of refugees in the world totalling 4.3 million as confirmed by the UNHCR, and are displaced in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. To claim that they sold their land to become refugees is a complete misrepresentation of historical events.

There are claims that suggest the Jews purchased 10% of the land prior to the mass migration in the late 1930s / early 1940s, and there is in fact evidence to suggest that 10% of the population in the region that was called Palestine were of Jewish heritage; however that still does not include the rest of the land that was either unilaterally declared the state of Israel, annexed, or occupied. Israel's PR campaigns do not clarify the specific details of the amount of the land that was actually purchased compared to the remainder that was taken by force.

Is the theory of the Nile to the Euphrates a realistic possibility?

Regarding a recent article called In defense of reason, not Israel by Amr Yossef, an Adjunct Professor of Political Science, there are a few points that can be made about his comments.

Most of his article is very well written and provides a realistic perspective of the situation between Israel and Egypt especially when considering that there are many conspiracy theories regarding the two nations that provide an inaccurate outlook on their relationship. That is because they are exactly what the name suggests: "theories" without tangible evidence or without factual analysis to support any of the accusations mentioned.

However, there is one vital note that Amy Yossef makes that needs to be examined carefully.

"Israel is not interested in a territorial expansion that would go far beyond its capabilities."

This statement is absolutely correct, and as the world witnessed in the events after the six day invasion of 1967, Israel clearly could not defend and maintain the newly occupied territories. The reality is that it wasn't ready to occupy Egypt's Sinai, Lebanon's south, Syria's Golan Heights, and the entire Palestinian territories comprising of the West Bank, Gaza strip, and East Jerusalem because it provided an economic strain on the state especially at such an early stage of its establishment. .

The problem with this statement though is that it does not rule out the fact that the region is actually witnessing territorial expansion and annexation within East Jerusalem and the West Bank today that has not ceased since those six critical days.

One can safely say that almost 45 years on, East Jerusalem and the West Bank are definitely within Israel's capability to annex, otherwise current settlement constructions would not be occurring.

While the quick adolescent approach to occupation proved to be a failure, the more mature and steady approach to increasing the Israeli Empire has proven to be extremely successful, especially when, as Amr Yossef put it, "Israel is satisfied with the current status-quo", and no peace with the Palestinians will help Israel continuously expand.

What no one has asked is whether or not Israel has actually defined a limit to the ever-growing expanding territory. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel will stop at the West Bank and East Jerusalem especially when the state has been internationally condemned for annexing regions within these territories in the first place.

If the Israeli government simply cannot abide by International Law to halt the current illegal activity of expanding its territory, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any limit at all. This raises issues on whether or not a reason to prove the theory of the Greater Israel being from the Nile to the Euphrates is relevant, but rather that a counter to this theory is necessary when considering Israel's current behaviour.

As Israel's economy grows and their military strength increases, there is nothing to suggest they wouldn't try to continue to expand on more Arab land within their "capabilities" so long as they have the ability to do so.


The only thing that has in fact changed since 1967 is that Israel has learnt that conquering its surrounding land in only six days is simply not a sustainably reality.

Are the Palestinians willing to have peace?

Since the beginning of the Oslo Accords in 1993 the PLO had agreed to a cease fire in order to recognize a two-state solution surrounding the original Armistice Agreement's Green Line which is widely known today as the pre-1967 borders.

While they eventually only achieved a self-governing entity, the Palestinian Authority, they did agree that the issues of settlement activity in West Bank and Gaza would be finalised leading on from the Oslo Accords. Considering that there weren't too many advantages to this agreement they were content with the decision, although no concessions were actually made by Israel to retreat from the existing settlements which were part of the negotiations. Instead, during the protracted interim period of the Oslo process, they began new settlements in the occupied territories, expanded existing settlements and constructed a network of bypass roads to enable Israeli settlers to travel from their settlements to Israel proper without passing through Palestinian-inhabited areas. These projects were understood by most Palestinians as marking out territory that Israel sought to annex in the final agreements. [The Oslo Accords]

Radicals had emerged - namely Hamas and Jihad - in reaction to these settlement expansions, and since these groups saw no serious commitment toward an Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state, they decided it was a declaration of war and subsequently based their own charters on a similar concept.

Despite these issues the negotiations were at large still being pursued. However once Netanyahu took office, the Oslo Accords completely failed because he fundamentally opposed it.

In the following years, the Arabs had also accepted the 2000 Clinton Parameters, the Arab Peace Initiative endorsed by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then the Geneva Accords of 2003, and again re-established the Arab Peace Initiative in 2007 all of which described the two-state solution, and yet the settlement expansions still continued. [Why two states]

Following Hamas’ victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Ismail Haniyeh, the newly elected prime minister, sent a dispatch to U.S. President George W. Bush, asking to be recognized and offering a long-term truce with Israel and the establishment of a border on the lines of 1967. His message, as a similar one sent to the Israeli authorities, remained unanswered.
Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders

The Hamas charter was also debunked. It no longer became the same militant resistant group that was responsible for the intifada that began with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel

“The differences between the party’s platform and the Islamic Charter [of Hamas] do not represent an attempt at deception or the empty and unconsidered use of words. They are a product of a change and modification of lines of thought as a part of the process by which Hamas has become a political movement.”

[Menachem Klein - Middle East journalist]

Regardless of their militant past, Hamas clearly showed they were willing to be committed towards opening dialogues for negotiation which in effect would implement a cease fire in order to have peaceful negotiations regarding the two-state process. Incidentally, subsequent cease fires were in fact honored by Hamas, then consequently broken by Israel as is thoroughly described in the following article: Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

During this time, the US Bush Administration and Israel branded Hamas a terrorist organisation placing them on their "hit list" regardless of their commitment and actions towards peaceful negotiations. This significantly affected peace talks because neither government wanted to negotiate with the elected party of Gaza even when considering that history had shown in Arafat's PLO that negotiations were a very real possibility.

Arafat's letter to Yitzhak Rabin following the Oslo Accords:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The PLO commits itself... to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations... the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators... the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.
Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

Instead, Israel continued to expand with more and more settlements and broken cease fires.

Ultimately they chose war instead of peace, and Hamas replied in kind with their new Al-Qassam rockets. Whenever an F16 fighter jet made a flyover and shelled Gaza's infrastructure, Hamas responded.

In 2011, however, Hamas managed to state that they would still be willing to accept a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders and within the Green Lines, even though they were less optimistic about this recognition as described in the following article: Hamas will accept the 1967 Borders and a Truce with Israel

PR campaigns work well to avert attention away from these "trivial" details.

Despite all this evidence however, the above notes only describe the political situation between governing bodies. More notably, the voice of the Palestinian people and their fundamental stance on the situation still outweighs any political commitment made by Hamas or the PA. A more accurate judgement to decide whether or not Arabs genuinely want peace would be needed to illustrate their legitimacy against Israeli claims that Palestinians "do not want to recognize the state of Israel" or worse, that they "want to drive all Jews into the sea".

When looking at this from a practical perspective, populations cannot sustain their livelihood in an ongoing conflict. That is why the Palestinians marched against Hamas and Fatah during the Arab Spring before the two factions decided to create the Unity party as an interim to allow the people to vote once again for a unifying organisation.

There have been numerous polls made to understand the Palestinian perspective, and the general consensus is very different to what the Israeli propaganda like to portray in order to justify their own need for self-determination above all other matters:

• 70% of Palestinians opposed to the launching of rockets into Israel from Gaza
• 75% believing that military escalation would not serve them, only Israel
• 54.8% prefer the two-state solution: an Israeli state and a Palestinian state while most others either don't know, refuse to answer, or are for a bi-nation.
• 67.5% are in favor of concluding a peace agreement with Israel while 24.8% are in favor of a truce with Israel

[http://www.pcpo.org/]

The above information provides ample evidence to support the notion that Palestinians in general do prefer peace over war whether it is part of the common people's perspective or of their own leaders and representatives.

With this, what more would be needed to convince the Israeli government and its people that Arabs are willing to begin dialogues on the two-state solution? All that is required is an equal commitment by Israel to show they are genuinely willing to begin talks, and this can be proven by agreeing to a complete halt on its pursuit to de-legitimize the concept of a Palestinian state.

Ultimately, that means permanent settlement freezes; not the temporary 10-month plans that only apply for "new" construction sites in the West Bank alone while ignoring both the new constructions in East Jerusalem and the general expansions of existing settlements throughout the entire Palestinian Territories.

Putting this into context, Israel has never once put a complete halt on their land-grab, and that in effect implies they have never once shown a willingness to recognize the self-determination and sovereignty of a Palestinian state.