Tags: Trifles Essay ThesisType An Essay Online For FreeHow To Make An Outline For A Research Paper ExamplesGraphic Design Problem SolvingResearch Paper On Artificial IntelligenceStarting A Business Plan For DummiesEssay-Grading Software Offers Professors A Break
It is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.The constant use of the term “right to exist” in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary.
Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well.
For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors.
The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”The fact that this term is used exclusively with regard to Israel is instructive as to its legitimacy, as is the fact that the demand is placed upon Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”, while no similar demand is placed upon Israelis to recognize the “right to exist” of a Palestinian state. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination.
Seen in this, the proper framework, it is an elementary observation that it is not the Arabs which have denied Jews that right, but the Jews which have denied that right to the Arabs.
These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent “right of return”.
Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land.The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact. N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders.In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews.Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population.The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a . recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs.“It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state.It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low.But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”.Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”.