Given the
strong tradition of Jewish cohesion and unity for maintaining customs
and Jewish uniqueness, a single undivided Democratic Israel-Palestine
eventually might have morphed peacefully and carefully negotiated into
two such federated states within one united republic. This would have
been extremely logical and entirely possible.
'Have your cake and eat it 'two.' ' One state solution and two state solution at the same time. Neither of them phony, like the present Swiss cheese mapped, unsustainable Arab state proposed that no one really wants, nor the now unrealistic, for being 63 years late, single democratic state proposal that Arabs, Ahmadinejad and moral Orthodox sects like Neutrai Karta call for - unacceptable for most all Israelis and unthinkable for its politicians.
On the other hand, with all the intellectual prowess that immigrating Jews were bringing as engineers, doctors, scientists and workers knowledgeable in advanced technology, and the international financial connections available to their leaders, both sides might have opted to stay mixed, legislating a great degree of regard for cultural, religious and distinctions that would see Jews sharing results with Arabs in a Israel-Palestine smack in a sea of Arab nations accepting a Jewish lead in the affairs of this one unique mixed Jewish-Arab state.
Instead of deepening animosity and hatred born in fear and violence, there could have been lots of trade offs - a huge market for a Jewish managed small powerhouse state in a greater Arabian community of nations enjoying the benefits of economic development spreading from a modern ethnically blended state within it, quickly sprung up their Middle East so long held down by colonialism and neocolonialism.
Arabs stopped the Christian persecution of Jews
twice, now Jews would have been helping liberate Arabs from Christian
exploitation while building a Jewish home in Israel-Palestine.
What is the point of bringing up all this largely blacked out history now? Well, if all the early support for Hitler and shutting the door on Jewish escape was just appropriate to business profit margins, then might we not assume the subsequent assuaging of conscience for feeling responsibility for the plight of Holocaust survivors, and arranging a war for the founding of Israel and defending Israel's every policy ever since, must have been just appropriate to business profit margins as well. In both cases, that of fomenting war in Europe and that of fomenting war in Palestine, the arms manufacturing industry reaped and is reaping an unsurpassed level of profits.
reconstruction flourished.
If 'good for business' always means persecution and war, maybe this thieving and chaotic rule by the wealthy we allow to be explained away as a rational economic 'system' (Capitalism) - now a globalized 'system' - needs to be thoroughly investigated and substituted by something more rational, sane, humane, peaceful, appropriate to life on earth, and less violent, destructive and murderous.
With the world evolving and changing, how long will Israel remain merely a U.S. outpost in the Middle East and servant of America's business run foreign policy of world hegemony in disregard of its own safety and that of everyone else?
FOOTNOTES:
[11]
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION, REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE
[12]
The 1917 letter from Britain's Foreign Secretary Balfour to Baron Rothschild for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. in 1917 read, "His Majesty's government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION, REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE had noted that the term "National Home" was employed, not "State" or "Commonwealth."
There were also suggestions that the Mandate should have been placed under the UN trusteeship program in accordance with the guiding principles contained in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the UN Charter. All members were required to recognize the 'fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion' when dealing with non-self governing peoples. The Colombian resolution requesting an advisory opinion was defeated. Four days later, the plan of partition was approved with the provision that it be imposed by force [ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 November 29, 1947]
Yet the Palestine Mandate contained dispositive clauses that required the establishment of a perpetual system of safeguards for the religious rights and immunities which had been under international guarantee during the mandate period. Those provisions would become operative in the event that a decision was taken to terminate the mandate.[ Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate ]
The notion that a letter expression a view of His Majesty's government of Britain in 1917 should have been binding upon the UN in 1947 was disparaged. [UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A/364, 3 September 1947, II. THE ELEMENTS OF THE CONFLICT , para. 141]
[13]
Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, before any plan for a smooth transition of power had been formed, the British government unilaterally announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end on May 14, 1948.. [Brooks, Stefan (2008). "Palestine, British Mandate for". In Tucker, Spencer C.. The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. ]
'Have your cake and eat it 'two.' ' One state solution and two state solution at the same time. Neither of them phony, like the present Swiss cheese mapped, unsustainable Arab state proposed that no one really wants, nor the now unrealistic, for being 63 years late, single democratic state proposal that Arabs, Ahmadinejad and moral Orthodox sects like Neutrai Karta call for - unacceptable for most all Israelis and unthinkable for its politicians.
On the other hand, with all the intellectual prowess that immigrating Jews were bringing as engineers, doctors, scientists and workers knowledgeable in advanced technology, and the international financial connections available to their leaders, both sides might have opted to stay mixed, legislating a great degree of regard for cultural, religious and distinctions that would see Jews sharing results with Arabs in a Israel-Palestine smack in a sea of Arab nations accepting a Jewish lead in the affairs of this one unique mixed Jewish-Arab state.
Instead of deepening animosity and hatred born in fear and violence, there could have been lots of trade offs - a huge market for a Jewish managed small powerhouse state in a greater Arabian community of nations enjoying the benefits of economic development spreading from a modern ethnically blended state within it, quickly sprung up their Middle East so long held down by colonialism and neocolonialism.
What is the point of bringing up all this largely blacked out history now? Well, if all the early support for Hitler and shutting the door on Jewish escape was just appropriate to business profit margins, then might we not assume the subsequent assuaging of conscience for feeling responsibility for the plight of Holocaust survivors, and arranging a war for the founding of Israel and defending Israel's every policy ever since, must have been just appropriate to business profit margins as well. In both cases, that of fomenting war in Europe and that of fomenting war in Palestine, the arms manufacturing industry reaped and is reaping an unsurpassed level of profits.
reconstruction flourished.
If 'good for business' always means persecution and war, maybe this thieving and chaotic rule by the wealthy we allow to be explained away as a rational economic 'system' (Capitalism) - now a globalized 'system' - needs to be thoroughly investigated and substituted by something more rational, sane, humane, peaceful, appropriate to life on earth, and less violent, destructive and murderous.
With the world evolving and changing, how long will Israel remain merely a U.S. outpost in the Middle East and servant of America's business run foreign policy of world hegemony in disregard of its own safety and that of everyone else?
FOOTNOTES:
[11]
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION, REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE
[12]
The 1917 letter from Britain's Foreign Secretary Balfour to Baron Rothschild for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. in 1917 read, "His Majesty's government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION, REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE had noted that the term "National Home" was employed, not "State" or "Commonwealth."
There were also suggestions that the Mandate should have been placed under the UN trusteeship program in accordance with the guiding principles contained in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the UN Charter. All members were required to recognize the 'fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion' when dealing with non-self governing peoples. The Colombian resolution requesting an advisory opinion was defeated. Four days later, the plan of partition was approved with the provision that it be imposed by force [ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 November 29, 1947]
Yet the Palestine Mandate contained dispositive clauses that required the establishment of a perpetual system of safeguards for the religious rights and immunities which had been under international guarantee during the mandate period. Those provisions would become operative in the event that a decision was taken to terminate the mandate.[ Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate ]
The notion that a letter expression a view of His Majesty's government of Britain in 1917 should have been binding upon the UN in 1947 was disparaged. [UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A/364, 3 September 1947, II. THE ELEMENTS OF THE CONFLICT , para. 141]
[13]
Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, before any plan for a smooth transition of power had been formed, the British government unilaterally announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end on May 14, 1948.. [Brooks, Stefan (2008). "Palestine, British Mandate for". In Tucker, Spencer C.. The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. ]
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
