Cap Phantom

False claims that Israel is 78% – not 17% – of historic Palestine whilst the West Bank and Gaza comprise the remaining 22% – not 5% – of historic Palestine have materially derailed efforts to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.

These spurious claims have been repeatedly made on hundreds of Arab oriented web sites asserting that the Jews established the State of Israel on 78% of Palestine in the War of Independence in 1948 and subsequently conquered the remaining 22% – the West Bank and Gaza – in the Six Day War of 1967.

This has created the perception that Israel now occupies 100% of Palestine, the Arab residents of former Palestine have been deprived of a State of their own in Palestine, and that the only just solution to resolve Arab grievances is the creation of an Arab state in at least the 22% of Palestine captured by Israel in 1967.

This propaganda has been given credence on the web by such diverse and influential opinion makers as

(i) Editor at large of the Washington Times and United Press International Arnaud de Borchgrave,

(ii) Professor of Politics at San Francisco University Stephen Zunes,

(iii) South Africa’s Minister for Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils,

(iv) Journalist and filmmaker John Pilger,

(v) The BBC News Service,

(vi) French intellectual and journalist Professsor Jules Regis Debray and

(vii) Trenchant anti- Zionist critics Assistant Professor Norman Finkelstein, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe and Jeff Halper.

John Pilger shows how his thinking has actually been influenced by such propaganda when he writes:

“Shortly after it was founded in 1948, Israel controlled, mostly as a result of a United Nations partition and partly by force, a total of 78 per cent of historic Palestine…During the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis occupied the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. Today, the Palestinians, seeking to form their own independent state, want only that 22 per cent back.”

These are false and deceptive statements based on an incorrect understanding of the size of Palestine and the boundaries that defined Palestine in international law.

The reality is that Israel was founded on 17% of historic Palestine in 1948 – not 78% , and captured 5% of historic Palestine in 1967 – not 22%.

The Committee for Accurate Reporting of the Middle East in America (CAMERA) succinctly summarises this reality as follows:

“In fact, the original land of Palestine, as determined by the League of Nations, included what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the entire state of Jordan. The British transferred nearly 78% of historic Palestine to the Arabs to create a new entity called the Emirate of Transjordan. Jews were forbidden to live, buy land or become citizens there.”

The Emirate remained part of Palestine until 1946 when independence was granted by Great Britain with the consent of the League of Nations and it was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan,

That decision in 1946 created an independent Arab state in 78% of historic Palestine and truncated Palestine to just 22% of its original size.

In 1947 the United Nations recommended partitioning this remaining 22% of historic Palestine into a Jewish State (55%) and another Arab State (45%) . The Jews accepted the proposal but the Arabs refused. When the 1948 War ended, the State of Israel was created on 17% of historic Palestine whilst Egypt and Jordan occupied the remaining 5% – the West Bank and Gaza – until captured by Israel in 1967.

1948 Palestine therefore was only 22% of the size of 1946 Palestine. 78% of Palestine had already come totally under Arab control in 1946.

Arab propagandists deliberately ignore the events of 1946 to justify their claim that Israel now occupies 100% of Palestine. They are only telling 22% of the story – classic misinformation at its Goebbels’ best.

Article 2 of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter 1968 debunks and exposes these purveyors of half truths (or to be more accurate – 22% truths) by unequivocally declaring:

“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit”

For the PLO – the sole spokesman of the Palestinian Arabs – Jordan remains an inseparable part of Palestine notwithstanding the actions of Great Britain and the League of Nations in 1946.

Indeed the PLO’s stated position was reinforced at the 8th Palestinian National Council meeting in February-March 1971 which declared:

” Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. .. In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan…”

Despite these clear and unrevoked declarations by the PLO, whose current Chairman is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the Quartet – Russia, America, the European Union and the United Nations – still remain foolishly fixated on creating an independent Arab State between Israel and Jordan on 5% of historic Palestine – thus separating the East Bank of the Jordan River from the West Bank and dividing the Arabs who live on each side of the Jordan River from one another.

As Israel’s then Defence Minister Yitzchak Rabin declared on 27 May 1985:

“The Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the river Jordan, there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees. One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb”

How right Mr Rabin was and how wrong the Quartet, the above opinion makers and their ilk are in pursuing an outcome based on propaganda and misinformation – not reality.

Size does matter when Palestine is discussed and the sooner the significance of this is recognized the sooner the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza can occur.

President Bush prepares to leave the Oval Office no doubt wondering why his “two state solution” has failed to get to first base after six years of fruitless negotiations.

The answer can be found in the following statement made by Palestinian Authority President – Mahmoud Abbas – appearing in the Wall Street Journal on 19 September:

“What is often overlooked is the enormous historic compromise we already made in accepting the two-state solution and the creation of our state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on only 22% of our historic homeland.”

President Abbas’ claim that the West Bank and Gaza comprise 22% – instead of 5% – of the historic homeland of the Palestinian Arabs continues to materially derail efforts to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza – the only area of former Palestine remaining unallocated between Israel and Jordan.

President Abbas was parroting similar claims made on hundreds of Arab oriented web sites asserting that the Jews established the State of Israel on 78% of the historic homeland of the Palestinian Arabs in the War of Independence in 1948 and subsequently conquered the remaining 22% – the West Bank and Gaza – in the Six Day War of 1967.

This has created the perception that Israel currently occupies 100% of “the historic homeland“ depriving the Palestinian Arabs of a State of their own within that territory, and that the only just solution to resolve their grievances is the creation of such a state in the 22% captured by Israel in 1967.

This propaganda has been given credence by such diverse and influential opinion makers as Editor at large of the Washington Times and United Press International Arnaud de Borchgrave, Professor of Politics at San Francisco University Stephen Zunes, South Africa’s Minister for Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils, Journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, The BBC News Service , French intellectual and journalist Professsor Jules Regis Debray and trenchant anti- Zionist critics Assistant Professor Norman Finkelstein, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe and Jeff Halper.

John Pilger shows how his thinking has actually been influenced by such propaganda when he writes:

“Shortly after it was founded in 1948, Israel controlled, mostly as a result of a United Nations partition and partly by force, a total of 78 per cent of historic Palestine…During the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis occupied the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. Today, the Palestinians, seeking to form their own independent state, want only that 22 per cent back.”

These are false and deceptive statements based on an incorrect understanding of the size of Palestine and the boundaries that defined Palestine in international law.

The reality is that Israel was founded on 17% of historic Palestine in 1948 – not 78% , and captured 5% of historic Palestine in 1967 – not 22%.

The Committee for Accurate Reporting of the Middle East in America (CAMERA) succinctly summarises this reality as follows:

“In fact, the original land of Palestine, as determined by the League of Nations, included what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the entire state of Jordan. The British transferred nearly 78% of historic Palestine to the Arabs to create a new entity called the Emirate of Transjordan. Jews were forbidden to live, buy land or become citizens there.”

The Emirate remained part of Palestine until 1946 when independence was granted by Great Britain with the consent of the League of Nations and it was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan,

That decision in 1946 irrevocably created an exclusively independent Arab state in 78% of historic Palestine – truncating Palestine to just 22% of the size within which the Jewish people had initially been given the opportunity in 1922 to reconstitute the Jewish National Home.

1948 Palestine therefore was only 22% of the size of 1922 – 1946 Palestine. 78% of Palestine – today called Jordan – together with its Palestinian Arab inhabitants had already achieved statehood in 1946.

Arab propagandists deliberately ignore the events of 1922 and 1946 to justify their claim that Israel now occupies 100% of Palestine. They are only telling 22% of the story – classic misinformation at its Goebbels’ best.

That Mahmoud Abbas can apparently repeat this fiction unchallenged is even more striking when one considers he is also the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) whose Constitution claims that Jordan remains an inseparable part of Palestine notwithstanding the actions of Great Britain and the League of Nations in 1922 and 1946.

Indeed the PLO’s stated position was reinforced at the 8th Palestinian National Council meeting in February-March 1971 which declared:

” Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. .. In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan…”

Despite these clear and unrevoked declarations by the PLO, the Quartet – Russia , America, the European Union and the United Nations – still remain foolishly fixated on creating an independent Arab State between Israel and Jordan on 5% of historic Palestine – thus separating the East Bank of the Jordan River from the West Bank and dividing the Arabs who live on each side of the Jordan River from one another.

As Israel’s then Defence Minister Yitzchak Rabin declared on 27 May 1985:

“The Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the river Jordan, there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees. One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb”

How right Mr Rabin was and how wrong Presidents Bush and Abbas are in pursuing an outcome based on propaganda and misinformation – not reality. These historical truths cannot be ignored.

Size really does matter and George Bush and Mahmoud Abbas need to face up to this reality.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International — an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

Previous articles written by him can be found at

www.jordanispalestine.blogspot.com

A TOP Israeli official has ruled out immediate final accord with the Palestinians any time soon, casting a pall over the United States (U.S.) Middle East envoy’s latest effort to get peace talks moving again.

Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, the Associated Press (AP) reported yesterday, suggested that the two sides come up with a long-term interim arrangement that would ensure prosperity, security and stability.

He recommended leaving the toughest issues – such as the status of disputed Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinian refugees who lost homes amid war – “to a much later stage.”

He did not elaborate or give a timeline.

“Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict … simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions, ultimately leading to disappointments and an all-out confrontation here,” Lieberman told Israel Radio.

Other conflicts have been defused with the sides making a “dramatic decision” to renounce violence and enter into a period of calm that would allow an accord, Lieberman said.

“People have learned to live with it,” he said.

Lieberman’s suggestion will not necessarily translate into peace policy, which is set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s office wouldn’t comment when asked if Lieberman’s comments reflected his opinion or government policy. But other senior Netanyahu confidants share similar skeptical views on peace-making.

Lieberman’s approach runs counter to U.S. efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal quickly. The Palestinians have said they will not agree to an interim peace deal that would put off a resolution of the conflict indefinitely.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will tell visiting U.S. envoy George Mitchell that he will not resume peace talks until Israel freezes settlement expansion and the two sides set out a clear agenda for resumed peace-making, according to Jibril Rajoub, a key member of Abbas’ Fatah Party.

Abbas could be hard-pressed to back down because of the furor he has unleashed at home by suspending efforts to bring Israel before a war crimes tribunal in connection with its winter war in the Gaza Strip.

Nearly 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the war, including hundreds of civilians. Israel, which lost 13 civilians and soldiers in the war, launched the campaign to end years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli border towns.

U.S. President Barack Obama brought Abbas and Netanyahu together in New York last month in an effort to jump-start talks that broke down months ago. So far, no breakthroughs have been announced.

Since the New York summit, Mitchell met with representatives of Netanyahu and Abbas in the United States, before returning to the region this week. He had meetings with Lieberman and Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, lined up yesterday and with Netanyahu and Abbas today.

While Lieberman was speaking pessimistically about efforts to reach a deal, Mitchell was doggedly pressing ahead.

“We’re going to continue with our efforts to achieve an early re-launch of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, because we believe that’s an essential step toward achieving the comprehensive (Middle East) peace to which I earlier referred,” he told reporters as he entered a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres.

In an interview with the Israeli Haaretz daily, Jordan’s King Abdullah II also warned of further stagnation in peace talks, saying that because of the impasse, “we are sliding back into the darkness.”

Mitchell has been labouring for months to pressure Israel to curb settlement construction. Israel has agreed to limited and temporary restrictions on building in the West Bank, but has resisted a total freeze. It has rejected any limitations on construction in east Jerusalem.

The Palestinians want the West Bank and east Jerusalem for part of their future state, along with the Gaza Strip, now ruled by Islamic Hamas militants.

Meanwhile, Romania has unveiled a monument in memory of some 300,000 Jews and Gypsies killed during the Holocaust in the country. The country had denied in the past that the extermination happened.

President Traian Basescu said it was Romania’s duty to “recognise the genocide during World War II” and to honour the victims.

Basescu was joined by Holocaust survivors, both Jewish and Gypsies, and other leaders during the unveiling of the _5 million (US$7.35 million) marble and concrete tomblike monument.

Romania today has only 6,000 Jews. The country’s role in the Holocaust and the deportation of Jews were ignored by the Communists and minimised by subsequent governments after communism collapsed in 1989.

Incoming search terms for the article:

As a prelude to the following entry I would like to make clear that, even though I was born and raised in a Jewish environment, I’ve lived most of my life in a predominantly Christian country and I’ve shared the last ten years with a wonderful buddhist girl. I don’t practice any religion, but I’m extremely interested in mysticism and spirituality. Throughout my journey I’ve been blessed to have made friends from all possible ideologies.

I left Vancouver just as the news about Israel’s incursion into Gaza were breaking. Since my arrival to Mexico City, the subject of the conflict’s latest incarnation has been part of the conversation and, as usual, opinions are highly polarized. Some of my friends and family who respect my opinion have asked me about who I think is right.

Considering the nature of this website and the work I present in it, I’ve decided to explain my position by describing what physicists call dynamic systems. In the universe there are linear and non-linear dynamic systems, the second kind being the most prevalent. A basic difference between the two is their degree of predictability. The results of a linear system, i.e. the acceleration of an apple falling on Isaac Newton’s head or the trajectory of a short range missile, are fairly easy to predict. The results of a non-linear system, i.e. the exact position where an apple will grow on a tree or the personal and social repercussions caused by an exploding missile, are extremely difficult to predict.

What makes non-linear systems so hard to predict is that, besides being affected by an immense number of variables, the resulting magnitude of a variable is not always proportionate to its initial state. This characteristic of non-linear systems is commonly known as “the butterfly effect”.

Each one of us is a non-linear system. If we were linear systems, most little boys would grow up to be astronauts and firefighters, but life is highly unpredictable and it ends up taking us in unforeseen directions. For years you say you want to be an engineer, but one day you sit down and contemplate the sun dancing over the ocean’s surface, and when you stand up you’ve decided to study graphic design. What spell did the gleaming waves cast over the hypnotized system?; if I knew I would be a wiser man, but I don’t, so here I am a graphic designer. Sometimes it’s very hard to comprehend the non-linearity of our own life, and it’s this uncertainty that makes it stimulating, exciting and dramatic.

A society is a complex non-linear system constituted by the many non-linear systems that we are. A country is composed by countless and diverse social groups, making it an infinitely complex non-linear system. For this reason, anyone claiming to understand the actions, purpose and intentions of a whole country is merely fooling himself (and, unfortunately, sometimes others too).

When trying to understand a non-linear system in a lab, it is important to know with as much accuracy as possible the past, present and future states of all its variables. I’ve already forgotten some of my past and surely have reinvented parts of it, my present is constantly changing and my future is uncertain. Knowing how ignorant I am about the system that is my own self, I would not dare to claim understanding over whole countries, specially those currently experiencing a most chaotic and entropic state.

What I’ve mentioned are just some of the factors that make it impossible for me to take sides. Also, to take a side, I would have to assume that one group could or should win the war, but you cannot win a war more than you can win an earthquake, a tsunami or a tornado. A war is a disaster where we all loose. Adopting a radical position for or against one side or the other does not show knowledge of the system, it only exposes the ignorance and prejudice of the person expressing such opinion. Far from helping solve the problem, radical statements are actually part of it. In a way, many of the innocents suffering today in Gaza and Israel are the victims of radicalized groups within both societies.

So who is right? the Israeli boy who will not see his father return from the border or the Palestinian mother whose son dies in her arms? I refuse to reach any verdicts. All I can say is that my love and compassion is with both of them, and that I feel ashamed to be part of a species that still harms itself in such brutal ways.

It’s been said that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Every time the bullets fly, the world takes sides and the conflict is not resolved, it only gets worse. Each side believes their position to be the right one, so they speak and act accordingly, but as Gandhi said: “There is no way to peace, peace is the way.” You are your world, if there is rage, hatred and prejudice in you, they will also manifest in your world. This time I invite you to practice peace and to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

I suggest for us to stop listening to the so-called “experts on the conflict”, these shady figures that inhabit the media and whose position and income depends on the continuation of conflicts. They are incendiary beings that throw more wood on an already huge fire because of their created interests. Instead, lets turn our minds to those who have spoken about how to avoid conflicts in the first place. I’m referring to those giants that defy labels and definitions, those who instead of demanding consensus reach for the truth, those who don’t segregate others or themselves and who look at a stranger and don’t find “the other” but a brother. I am referring to the enlightened beings that have lived in all times and have emerged from all cultures, a congregation that today I’m calling “The League of Un-affiliated Ladies and Gentlemen”. The only way to be included in this select group is by not being eager to belong to any group, so all of the included appear here without their previous consent. I would love to belong in their company, so I’ve been automatically disqualified, but I’m happy just to expose some of its members. I hope that their words and lives resonate with more of us and that through their wisdom we can get closer to the dream of a peaceful World.

THE LEAGUE OF UN-AFFILIATED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN(Very, very partial list. In a strange and random order)

Lao Tse
Bob Dylan
Lawrence Lessig
Mawl?n? Jal?l ad-D?n Mu?ammad Balkh? (Rumi)
Thich Nhat Hanh
Joni Mitchell
Buddha
Galileo Galilei
Don Miguel Ruiz
Gibr?n Khal?l Gibr?n
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ginetta Sagan
Jesus
Jorge Luis Borges
Muhammad Yunus
Leonard Cohen
Socrates
Chris Anderson
Chögyam Trungpa
Farid ad-Din Attar
Pema Chödrön
Neil Young
Warren Buffett
Tenzin Gyatso (XIV Dalai Lama)
Sharon Salzberg
Woody Guthrie
Albert Einstein
Jane Addams
Miguel de Cervantes
Shunryu Suzuki
John Lennon
Sergey Brin and Larry Page
Aung San Suu Kyi
Eckhart Tolle
Isabel Allende
Sogyal Rinpoche
Rosa Parks
Jimmy Wales
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Bill Strickland

Incoming search terms for the article:

(adeel.peace@gmail.com)

It’s shocking! I am writing this article on the 2nd Jan 2009, which is the seventh day since Israel launched a massive attack on the people of Gaza. This is the biggest Israeli assault on Gaza since 1967 and the humanitarian crisis is at its worse since 40 years. It’s been about 90 years since the Balfour declaration was made, which was one of the major steps marking the beginning of this nightmare for the Palestinian people. There seems to be no solution to this conflict, but who is to be blamed. Of course there were many mistakes made in history. But, for the present there are some things which are making this conflict worse and I think the ones to be blamed are

1) The media is on the top list of the ones to be blamed for its intensely biased approach towards this conflict. Firstly, the biggest problem with the media nowadays is its blindness towards the history of this conflict. People nowadays are very aware of the present affairs due to the media, but profoundly illiterate of the past. People like me who are young and do not study history as a subject have to place in some effort to learn about this conflict. The problem with situations of conflict is that you always have multiple versions of history and if you start searching for slightly less biased accounts, it’s almost impossible. Its been quite a while since I have been trying to educate myself of the history of this problem and it was a difficult task. After some research I have come to realize that media is just a way to misinform fools who are already ill-informed. 
Take this conflict; you seldom hear the media discussing the Balfour declaration and the scenarios in which this whole conflict evolved. The media never addresses the question “who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?” in a historical context. People around the world are confused whether it’s Hamas which is to be blamed for firing rockets in Israel or is it Israel who is blameworthy for its disproportionate response. No one agrees that killing innocent civilians is justified but the media being controlled by the west has always this longing to portray Israel as being the victim of these rocket attacks. They never portray it as the aggressor occupying foreign land. I agree with the Israeli rhetoric that no sovereign country can allow rockets being fired on its citizens. But, then how can one allow people to occupy land which belongs to them. The justification that we are getting for the present incursion is that Hamas broke the cease fire. It was this same media that reported a month back that Israel has broken the truce by killing six members of the Hamas movement on November 4. Now the media is simply turning a blind eye to history as it does. 
2) Secondly, the United Nations has failed to prevent war. It was created after the Second World War to stop conflicts. It failed to stop the Iraq war and now the killing of innocent people in Gaza. It should be dissolved or degraded to only a humanitarian crises organization. No one seems to listen to the shouting UN secretary general that this should be stopped.
3) The Arabs leaders have failed miserably to help their Arab brothers in this crisis situation. It’s utterly shocking to see Egypt close its border for innocent people trying to escape death. Arab leaders have failed to represent their people. One can easily feel the hopelessness in the Palestinian people of being abandoned by the international community and their neighboring Arab countries.

People like me dream of a peaceful world, but I don’t think that is something near in time. Oppression always breeds resistance and the way this conflict is going there is a fear of an intense response from the Palestinian people. I just heard in the news about the killing of a whole family by an Israeli F-16. Only one young member of that family survived and he is not going to grow up as some one who offers peace to the region.