#britain and other western powers - the UN - have failed Palestinians for decades

[a-typical]

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappé (2006)

[christinaur]

So this is a German history book that I own, down below I’ll leave a translation, and it talks about the Gaza strip but mostly about Israel. It kinda touches some topics that makes it seem like there’s an understanding for the Palestinians but all in all it’s just really biased. I wanted to publish this here so other people could form an opinion as well and I wanted to see if it feels wrong to other people as well.

Side note: This book was published in 2016, I think some of it was revised in 2019 and is being used in schools. (Geschichte und Geschehen 9 (Baden-Württemberg für Gymnasien)). I also didn’t translate the side things written on the side since they’re definitions.

English translation:

Divided World and the Cold War (1945-1991)

An unbearable conflict?

Seeking Peace in the Middle East The Middle East has been a hotspot for decades. Pictures of bloody attacks by Palestinians on Israelis, retaliatory strikes by the Israeli army and reports of disputed Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory dominate the news. How did this happen and what are the possible solutions?

A State for the Jews Since antiquity, Jews have lived in the Diaspora. They formed a minority in many countries in Europe and North Africa. They were often persecuted for religious, political or social reasons. Growing anti-Semitism, riots against Jews in Eastern Europe and the search for their own identity at the end of the 19th century reinforced the desire to return to the "land of the fathers", Zion. Under the leadership of the Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, the Zionists united in 1897 the establishment of a Jewish state. By 1914, 85,000 Jews had emigrated to Palestine to establish settlements, with more to follow soon. In 1917, the English Foreign Secretary promised Lord Balfour to give a new home to the Jews of Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, which was at war with Britain.

Immigration and Conflict

Palestine, however, was not an unpopulated country. The immigrants encountered an Arab population that had lived there for centuries. Major Palestinian landowners sold a significant portion of the new settlement areas to Jewish immigrants, which contributed to unrest among the Arab population. Their national sentiment had awakened in the fight against the Osmen. But the desire for an Arab empire was not fulfilled after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Palestine remained under British administration. Mandate power soon faced fierce clashes between the Arab population and the growing number of Jewish immigrants. Between 1931 and 1939 alone, 265,000 Jews immigrated. Thousands who had escaped the Nazi regime’s Shoah in Germany hoped to find a new home in Palestine. Attempts by the British Mandate in Palastina to limit immigration in order to defuse rising tensions have failed.

Israel - a State for the Jews

In the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947, the first step in the process of decolonization was to divide Palestine into a loose economic union and a neutral zone of Jerusalem under UN control. Only the Jewish side accepted this decision. On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel was founded. The next day, five neighbouring Arab states attacked Israel with their armies. Israel won the so-called War of Independence, thereby expanding its territory. Jerusalem, with the most important religious sites for Jews and Muslims, was divided. Between 600 000 and 750 000 Palestinians have fled the conflict or been driven from their homes. To this day Israel refuses to withdraw from the occupied territories or to grant the Palestinian refugees the right to return. To date there are around 3.5 to 4 million refugees in camps in neighbouring countries, mostly in poor conditions. They were not sent to the camps in the respective countries societies are integrated and, as tolerated refugees, are still mostly without citizenship rights.

New Wars

The new state developed along Western lines. To this day, Israel remains the only democratic country in the Middle East. Economically, too, Israel soon ranked among the most modern and efficient countries in the region. In three other wars, Israel had to defend its existence against attacks or threats in 1956, 1967 and 1973. For military reasons, it occupied Palestinian territories in the region Jordan Valley and the Gaza Strip. With the agreement of the government, Israeli settlers followed and wanted to take over more parts of the country. Their refusal to re-establish what they saw as the "holy land" to this day makes any peace solution more difficult.

Victories, but no peace

But victories and land occupations did not mean peace. Only Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979 under American mediation. It was the first Arab country to recognise Israel. Palestinian fighters from neighbouring countries continued to attack Israeli settlements. In 1987, civil disobedience such as refusal to pay taxes and demonstrations occurred in the occupied territories, but also violent resistance to the occupying power - the Intifada. The Palestine Liberation Front (PLO) wanted to destroy Israel. Conversely, the Israelis were unwilling to recognise the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

The end of the Cold War

The end of the Cold War in 1991 seemed to herald a new era of peace for the Middle East as well. Israel and the PLO recognized each other in 1993 and agreed on a gradual autonomy of the occupied territories (Oslo I). However, many questions remained unanswered. These include, above all, the future of Jewish settlements, the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees, and the development of a functioning society and economy in the Palestinian territories. Particularly controversial is the status of Jerusalem, which Israelis and Arabs consider one of their holiest sites.

Peace in sight?

Despite all the problems, the 1993 agreement represented significant progress: Israeli troops withdrew, a Palestinian parliament and its own president - the leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat - were elected. Jordan also made peace with Israel in 1994. Other Arab states remain hostile to Israel. The murder of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a radical Jewish settler showed how much extremists were trying to derail the peace process. These include members of the Islamic resistance movement Hamas, which sees itself as the true representative of the Palestinian people and rejects any agreement with Israel. In the summer of 2000, negotiations on an independent Palestinian state failed. In September 2000, a second intifada began. Since then, Palestinians have been trying to fight Israeli rule through assassinations, attacks on Israeli settlements and violent demonstrations. The Israeli government responded by occupying parts of the autonomous territories and massive military action, as well as building an eight-meter-high concrete wall to prevent attackers from entering Israel. Hundreds of people have lost their lives on both sides.

Why is there no peace?

One of the answers to this question lies in the changed framework conditions since the peace of 1993. Instead of peace, there have been wars and civil wars in the region for many years. States such as Syria and Iraq are on the verge of disintegration, while others such as Iran openly threaten Israel. This is accompanied by a strengthening of radical Islamist forces in Israel's neighboring states. They support those groups among the Palestinians who continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and attack Israelis with rockets from the Gaza Strip. This results in the fear of many Israelis of compromises that could endanger their own existence, even if many do not approve of the behavior of the settlers in the occupied territories. The most important prerequisites for resolving the conflict are the creation of mutual trust and the stabilisation of the entire region.

[alexsmitposts]

Betrayal of the Kurds, Trump Joins His Predecessors, but Why? America has done little but betray the Kurdish people, over and over. You see, you can only betray someone that trusts you and the Kurds, to a fault, are trusting people who love Americans. Problem is, the Americans the Kurds love don’t run America and, quite frankly, maybe just don’t exist anymore. We begin with this quote from the Daily Beast, a media outlet once controlled by powerful Israeli/American Congresswoman Jane Harman, whose career plummeted when she was caught aiding superspy Jonathan Pollard. That’s another story, the public story is that Pollard was aiding Israel with intelligence on Palestinians. The truth? Pollard destroyed the CIA by accessing lists of deep cover operatives which were sold to the highest bidder, and that would be the Soviet Union. Over 1000 were “liquidated.” I only bring this up as we will, as we go on here, enter a differentiated reality. I served in the KRG with the UN mission at the height of the American occupation. As a diplomat and American who was critical of US policy, I built strong relationships, strong friendships and angered more than a few when I failed to buckle under to US pressure from Baghdad. As with any issue, the first thing we address is or should we why a reader should care, why does it matter now, even if one lives 3000 or 7000 miles away? Always an answer are issues of right and wrong, good and bad, there is a place for morality and justice, even today. Here is our Daily Beast quote, as promised: “It’s clear that Donald Trump feels no remorse over his decision to abandon the U.S. military’s Kurdish allies in Syria to make way for an attack from Turkey. The White House announced late Sunday that U.S. troops will withdraw from northern Syria and leave the Kurds, who have carried out the majority of the fighting against ISIS and led the fight to take down the terror group’s “caliphate,” to face an invasion from Turkey. Writing Monday morning, Trump more or less said “tough luck” to the allies he’s abandoned, saying the Kurds “will now have to figure the situation out.” He wrote: “The Kurds fought with us but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. I held off this fight for almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN.” The president added: ‘We are 7000 miles away and will crush ISIS again if they come anywhere near us!’” The Kurds exist in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran in significant numbers. The land the occupy changes as they have both been ethnically cleansed and acted as “ethnic cleansers” when backed by the US. Thus, Syrians have always had a Kurdish population north of Aleppo and in some Eastern regions but generally deny a historical Kurdish region in Hasakah or particularly in Deir Ezzor, where Kurds removed Arab populations and have acted as a hostile occupying force as demonstrated by widespread uprisings in some areas against Kurdish rule. Inside Iraq, Kurds had held regions north of Bagdad until removed by Saddam Hussein in the 1970s, moved north as their presence threatened control of the massive Kirkuk oil reserves. We are also going to supply some background material now as well, as context is everything and as Trump so often rightfully acknowledges, what the public is told is 100% fake. Run the clock up to 2014 and the lightning ISIS takeover of much of Iraq. I was there at the time, representing a defense group out of the UAE, Britain, France and the US, trying to reorganize Iraq’s military. I won’t go there but saying it was a “fools’ mission” is understatement. You see, the CIA had preceded me with bushels of Saudi cash and a story. They were going to put the minority Sunni population of Iraq back into preeminence but in order to do that, a fake terror group had to be created, one tightly controlled, which would start a civil war that would destroy the powerful Shiite militias backed by Iran and foster an American return. The CIAs goal was to rebuild infrastructure and a political climate that would allow the US to manipulate a divided Iraq into hosting an American invasion of Iran from its soil and ISIS was going to make that possible. Thus, Americans in Iraq during the war on ISIS primarily bombed Iraqi militias fighting ISIS while supplying ISIS and using American resources to keep the war going as long as possible. General Soleimani of Iran had other ideas and had not been considered. In early October, the US again tried to assassinate Soleimani, the 4th or was it the 5th time? We have other stories, Syria is clear, al Qaeda and ISIS allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia with the US both fighting them and aiding them. What the public never understands is that it is the war that matters, not who is fighting or even who is winning or losing, the long game is always built on conflict. Only during conflict can oil and gas prices be openly manipulated making billions, can huge arms contracts be given away and more billions stolen and governments openly corrupted while the public is lulled into permanent hopelessness under newly empowered police state apparatus in the former Western democracies. Do we talk “Turkey,” the plot to overthrow Erdogan? He says it was the CIA, yet he still sits at the table with NATO and regularly visits the US. Thus, we have a Turkish army poised to enter Syria to slaughter the Kurds who soft of fought ISIS, but mostly stole Arab land and channeled Syrian and Iraqi oil, several billion barrels, through Turkey and into world markets enriching whom? We are then reminded of the Kurdish war on ISIS that allowed ISIS oil convoys to drive right through the Kurdish capital of Erbil for years, right though “battle lines” in a war that was 99% “sitzkrieg” and 1% “blitzkrieg.” Yet like the Palestinians, the Kurds wish their own state. Instead, they were pushed to take someone else’s land, empowered by the CIA’s plots against Turkey, Iraq and Syria, a tool to be used and discarded. They fell into a trap any idiot should have seen, one they had been in before, over and over. Where can they turn? Will Damascus and Moscow save them? Some Kurdish units fought alongside Syrian forces to liberate Aleppo. I have spoken with Syrian leaders and Syria is willing to support a Kurdish autonomous zone predicated on US withdrawal and a reestablishment of Arab communities that were crushed by an American/Kurdish incursion that had little or nothing to do with fighting ISIS. Time and time again, ISIS forces were evacuated from areas where claims were made that ISIS forces were “defeated.” Time and time again, ISIS forces were moved to training camps for redeployment in Syria or Afghanistan when it was claimed they were defeated in battle. Reestablishing trust is a problem for the Kurds and, to an extent, why they face obliteration now. Yet there is an inherent decency to the Kurdish people and if they may be faulted it is for trusting the wrong people or for grasping and opportunities “too good to be true” which of course did turn out to be exactly that, “too good to be true.” We then look at Turkey and ask ourselves, is a potential Syrian sovereignty predicated on real security issues? That answer would generally be “no,” a quite emphatic “no.” Turkey hardly has “clean hands” when it comes to Syria. In Idlib, Turkey has worked hand in hand with ISIS and al Qaeda for years, has violated every agreement and only complies when forced with economic sanctions and military defeat. Turkey continues to consider Hatay Turkish land though that region is ethnically Syrian and has been since time immemorial. Across the border into Idlib, the Turkish occupation, hand in hand with Saudi paid al Qaeda, yes, the same al Qaeda at one time accused of staging 9/11, is an undeniable reality. Yet, with the decline of American power, having lost a “playground fight” threat-match with Iran while Saudi Arabia begins to crumble from both within and without, it is clear that Russia holds all the cards. The question isn’t whether the Kurds will be punished but how much punishment will be allowed as the Turkish incursion spits in the face of Russian guarantees of Syrian sovereignty. Behind this all is the survival of Syria. Idlib province, occupied by Turkey, sits on large oil and gas reserves coveted by Turkey and their Israeli partners. A further threat to Turkey is the proposed oil pipeline from Iran to the Mediterranean, which would cut Turkey’s revenue from Iraq’s Kirkuk oil fields. One might also add that Turkey allowed the theft of Iraqi oil, sold through Turkey, largely to Exxon and BP, for many years, under both US and ISIS occupation. A further reminder is Turkey’s role in the looting of Northern Syria. Entire factories were removed, banks looted, everything that could be moved from the most industrialized regions of Syria were trucked into Turkey and divided up by key families loyal to Erdogan. The Ministry of Justice in Damascus has a list, a long list, endless evidence and is unlikely to “forgive and forget” the theft of $100 billion in assets by Turkey. I have reviewed these records personally. Iraq has a similar list and the Baghdad government cites Kurdish complicity in the looting of Iraq by ISIS. All roads to Turkey and the world’s markets go through 100% Kurdish controlled regions, those thousands of oil trucks for instance, escorted out of Iraq by Kurds, not ISIS. Not everyone in the world is ignorant of geography. Yet, when the Kurds face wrath, particularly under the hand least offended, that of Turkey, should they not be defended, particularly by America? Behind this is a longer game, one of preventing the inevitability of an Islamic “super-state” capable of stabilizing the region and setting up a broad trade zone between Europe and China. This, of course, is not just the southern route of the “Silk Road” but something more. Playing the “great game” of divide and conquer, pitting Sunni and Shiite against one another, supporting the terrorist MEK or toying with the Kurds are only ways of putting off what is an inevitability. It isn’t an Islamic nuclear superpower that is feared but rather the most dangerous threat the “elites” and “oligarchs” face of all, of peace “breaking out.”

[palestinianstateofmind]

(#2) Background

     During the nineteenth century, Palestine was under the dominion of the Ottoman Empire, and there was initially little dispute as to its status. Jews within Palestine mainly lived in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias, all significant within Judaism. Meanwhile, an increasingly large Zionist movement was forming, but it was still in the process of deciding what region to settle in.

     During World War I, Britain gave several conflicting promises with regards to Palestine. Publicly, the Balfour Declaration gave it the appearance of supporting a Zionist state. However, a secret agreement with Husayn ibn ‘Ali indicated support for a large Arab state including Palestine in exchange for a revolt against the Ottoman Empire, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement indicated that Ottoman territories, including Palestine, would be divided between Britain and France. While ibn ‘Ali’s revolt was successful, the situation came to resemble the terms agreed upon in the Sykes-Picot agreement; the League of Nations gave Ottoman territory to Britain and France, with Britain receiving Palestine. Arabs were outraged by Britain’s abandonment of its promise to ibn ‘Ali, while Zionists felt betrayed by its refusal to honor the Balfour Declaration. As a result, the conflict would only accelerate after the establishment of what is usually referred to as Mandatory Palestine

     Beginning in the 1920s, violence between Arab nationalists and Zionists became the norm in Mandatory Palestine. In particular, a number of violent incidents occurred between Muslims and Jews over rights to worship at the Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall. Meanwhile, as a result of the Holocaust, Jewish immigration to Palestine skyrocketed, and with it Jewish settlements. In both response to these settlements and protest against Britain, Arabs began a revolt between 1936 and 1939, which would ultimately fail. After the revolt, Britain drafted the White Paper, a document that restricted Jewish settlement and immigration and promised the formation of an Arab state within a decade. However, Zionists protested and Jews continued to purchase land.

     As the situation became increasingly desperate, Britain asked the UN to construct a viable solution to the conflict. The UN complied and released its plan on November 29, 1947. Palestine would be divided into two roughly equal areas, one Palestinian and one Israeli, with Palestine being majority Arab and Israel being majority Israeli. However, the plan was not accepted by either group, and shortly after its adoption, the region erupted into warfare. Fighting continued for around six months. On May 15, 1948, British forces withdrew and Zionists declared that the State of Israel had been established.

     In 1956, the nascent Israel decided to attack Egypt, in an event known as the Suez Crisis. Israel acquired Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, but as a result of international pressure was forced to retreat to a position which resulted in a significantly smaller territorial expansion. After the war, Palestinians and their Arab allies were at a greater disadvantage than before. Thus, Palestinians formed the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964; it was meant to serve as a representative of both the Palestinian people and their proposed state.

     By 1967, the PLO was still a relatively new organization. Thus, they were not able to fight in what became known as the Six-Day War for its short length of six days. The roots of this conflict lie within the Soviet Union’s deliberately misleading information given to Syria: it claimed that Israel was ready to attack Syria. Thus, Egypt, an ally of Syria, sent troops to the Sinai Peninsula that Israel had conquered roughly a decade prior. In response, Israel attacked both Egypt and Syria, whose air forces it virtually annihilated. Israel also captured East Jerusalem. Shortly afterward, the PLO began to ready militant force against Israel. Special attention was given to guerilla campaigns, as the PLO was hesitant to begin a large-scale war. In fact, by the early 1970s, elements within the PLO had shifted to terroristic methods, a strategy that the PLO as a whole said was not representative of the organization and in fact condemned in 1974.

     As PLO attacks on the Israeli government and military increased, renewed hostility emerged in the larger Middle East. In 1973, initiating a war known as the Yom Kippur war to Israelis and as the Ramadan War to Palestinians, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Initially, Israel was faring poorly with little international aid, but after the US and the USSR assisted it, it gained the upper hand. At the end of the conflict, the two sides signed a treaty that largely restored the state of the Israeli-Palestinian region to the status quo ante bellum: Israel would withdraw into the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt would reduce its forces in the Suez Canal.

     In 1982, the conflict flared up again. Some Palestinians had resumed attacks on civilians in northern Israel; Israel retaliated by invading Lebanon with the specific goal of destroying PLO strongholds. While Israel was quite successful in its invasion, the international community became outraged after the Israeli army stood by while Christian fighters attacked refugee camps for Palestinians, killing many of those residing within the camps. To avoid losing the support of its allies, Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon; however, it continued to station troops within an area known as the South Lebanon Security Zone.

     In 1987, Palestinians began to revolt against the Israeli government in an uprising known as the Intifada (following the Second Intifada it would become known as the First Intifada). The initial act that started the war was an Israeli being stabbed; when an Israeli vehicle crashed into two vans, many Palestinians thought it was an act of revenge. For the first few years of the Intifada, Palestinians engaged in civil disobedience and non-deadly violence such as launching stones and Molotov cocktails at targets; however, towards the end, the Intifada became more violent. The Israeli response, already severe with Israeli police using “force, power, and beatings” and practicing mass arrests, correspondingly increased in intensity, causing a vicious cycle that caused the Intifada to shift toward using rifles, hand grenades, and explosives. Meanwhile, the nature of the PLO was changing. In 1988, it changed many of its key policy planks. Most notably, it changed its ultimate goal from a single state – Palestine – covering the entire Israeli-Palestinian area to a two-state solution with Palestine controlling Gaza and the West Bank. However, Israeli policy towards the PLO was unchanged, with the Israeli government unwilling to negotiate, declaring it a terrorist organization.

     After five years, though, said policy would change; in 1993, a series of confidential meetings known as the Oslo Accords with the objective of initiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace process were held between Israeli and PLO representatives. It was agreed that Israel and the PLO would recognize each other, that Israel would move troops out of Gaza and Jericho, and that it would gradually withdraw from parts of the West Bank. Over the next few years, the peace process initiated. The next major step of the peace process was Oslo II, which gave three percent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority (comprising a third of the Palestinians within) and divided the West Bank into three areas; one Palestinian sector, one Israeli sector, and one sector with Israeli control of the military only and Palestinian control of the other parts of government. Other agreements over the years included the Hebron Accords, which gave Palestinians most of Hebron (with Israel controlling its central region), the Wye River Memorandum, which created a Gaza airport, removed Israeli forces from thirteen percent of the West Bank, and required the Palestinian Authority to engage in counterterrorism opportunities, and the Sharm-El-Sheik Memorandum, which transferred more of the West Bank to Israel.

     In July 2000, a summit occurred at Camp David, intended to be the final step in the peace process. Israeli proposals included settlements in the West Bank, not taking blame for refugees, and West Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. The Palestinians offered no formal proposals, but suggested that Israeli troops be removed from most of the West Bank and Gaza and that Palestine be composed of the aforementioned territories. The two sides were unable to reach an agreement. In 2002, Palestinians and every Arab state save Libya drafted an agreement that required Israel to return to its territory prior to 1967 and for Palestine to compose of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, Israel rejected the deal.

     Since the failed peace plan in 2002, there have been some minor developments. Troops have moved in and out of Gaza, a barrier has been erected along the West Bank border, settlements have occurred within alleged Palestinian territory, and internal Palestinian divisions have emerged between two parties – Hamas (which controls Gaza) and Fatah (which controls the West Bank). However, the conflict has otherwise been stalled since 2005. With the proposal outlined in this blog, I hope to change this unsteady state of affairs.