Israel v. Palestine: Was Partition a Mistake?

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favor of a Partition Plan that created the State of Israel. Now, after more than sixty years, the Israel-Palestine problem continues to plague the entire world with no end in sight. Current wisdom says the parties must work out a solution among themselves. But history and common sense tells us this is not going to happen. National defense concerns on the part of Israel are of course, clearly valid. However, another issue is at the top of the list for both parties, i.e., who owns Jerusalem? The United Nations made a mistake in the form of Partition when history was calling for Tripartition. We have in the United States a political subdivision called the "Washington District of Columbia". It may be time for the world to consider the creation of a "United Nations District of Jerusalem". With Jerusalem no longer up for grabs, it might be possible for the parties to come to some agreement based on the various armistice lines presently in place (see map below). If not, the United Nations should consider drawing the lines for the parties. The parties may not like the outcome; but the rest of the world has a right to demand an end to this continuing threat to world peace and personal security. Enough is enough!

 

Are you saying that history and common sense tells us that Europe and US should deal with this and then tell them to sit still?

I remember the last time that happened there. Well, I don't, but I have read about it.

 

Swensson asks: Are you saying that history and common sense tells us that Europe and US should deal with this and then tell them to sit still? I remember the last time that happened there. Well, I don't, but I have read about it.

Good point; but my suggestion is to take Jerusalem out of the contest with the hope the parties would then be able to come to terms. But if not, I would then ask: If the UN can tell North Korea to sit still, could the UN not also tell Israel and Palestine to sit still?

 

Israel should have been created in Bavaria.

 

Considering how much trouble that area is in, there has been very little talk of Jerusalem. Palestine rarely and weakly claim that they should have Jerusalem, they are more concerned with the actual land they live on.

I doubt that UN could tell them off, North Korea is centred around Kim Jong Il, and he is concerned with the security of his entire nation (not his citizens, but that is another topic), a dictator benefits from not being invaded. The Israel/Palestine conflict is mainly governed by small groups that are hard to target with UN actions.

Besides, the UN are having problems with the situation as it is, most of them want to give Palestine membership in the UN, but the US will veto. That is not the determination that would be needed to settle what needs to be done, let alone manage to do it.

The Middle East is a very complicated area. Traditionally, it is said that there are six layers of complexity in the area, religion, tribes, peoples, Colonies, Cold war/Communism and oil. Whenever a single one of those is solved temporarily, the rest usually blossom up. I seriously doubt that there is a solution that will have everyone go "Oh, two state solution, why didn't we think of that?". My prediction is that it will be long and bloody and that interaction isn't really helping. Long term, one will defeat the other, it will become a civil war rather than international. But I have been known to be wrong before.

 

The United Nations does, if it's the body that decides where the lines go.

Interesting idea in general, though. Maybe the U.N. should put its headquarters there.

 

At the time of Partition, The UN did declare Jerusalem and its immediate environs an International Zone, apart from the partition decision made for each entity.

And the Zionists have taken just how much notice of that?

So do you really think saying it again and maybe louder is going to have any effect when Israel knows full well that whatever they do, America will be in there cheering them along and vetoing every effort made to get them to take some notice of the International Laws they signed up to obey in 1949?

Yes, Partition was a mistake, which is why Britain was one of the countries which abstained at the vote..and which is why they should be doing a lot more to be trying to sort out the British stupidities and not following the US.and the EU like servile poodles.

 

It might have been. No telling how things would have worked out by putting everyone together in one land. Might have worked out better; but who could know?

 

QUESTERR SAID: Israel should have been created in Bavaria.

Bavaria sounds harsh; but at some point in geological history, Cyprus was available. I'm not sure that would work either; but it would be easier to defend! (see photo below). The point is: There is no perfect solution to this religious, cultural and political quagmire. In fact, there may be no solution at all. But I suggest the best hope is for a 3rd party solution. The first step is to abandon any expectation whatsoever that the two sides will come to a settlement based on mutual interests and good faith negotiation. Anyone who subscribes to that position is actually a contributor to the problem.

 

It was the Germans that attempted genocide against the Jews. They should have been forced to give up half of their country to make a Jewish state.

 

As was said, the origional plan did have an independent Jerusalem. The problem is that the whole world was war weary and just kind of threw up their hands and let the two sides have at each other.

I think they were also overly optimistic when they figured having two spidery intertwined but hostile countries would work well. I'd have been very tempted to make Israel one solid blob. I can appreciate there were various populations in various places. But I'm betting the Israeli's would have moved if faced with the prospect of more and probably worse Islamic oppression verses a Jewish state only a few dozen miles away.

 

SUNNYSIDE SAID: "I'd have been very tempted (in 1947) to make Israel one solid blob."

Me too; but I would have called it, "Palisraelstine". I had a friend in college who was a Palestinian but he was also an Israeli citizen. I assume his citizenship was determined on the basis of where he was born. I don't know how his citizenship was determined; but I recall him saying he was not allowed to serve in the Israeli military. I also assume he was allowed to vote but I'm not sure of that either. At any rate, "Palisraelstine" would have been a short-lived Country. The majority would have long since out voted (or killed) the minority and changed the name to "Palestine", along with extensive other changes! The "one solid blob" approach would have failed. It's best we didn't go in that direction.

 

No no. I didn't mean to indicate just having one thing.

What I meant was to shift around some populations so that the Shape of Israel was more blobbish. You'd still have a seperate Palestine, and a Jerusalem indpendent of both.

Though that's in hindsight. At that point in time I think the world didn't want to hear about ethnic groups not getting along peacefully.

 

SUNNYSIDE SAID: I didn't mean to indicate just having one thing. What I meant was to shift around some populations so that the Shape of Israel was more blobbish. You'd still have a seperate Palestine, and a Jerusalem indpendent of both. Though that's in hindsight. At that point in time I think the world didn't want to hear about ethnic groups not getting along peacefully.

Okay, I see what you mean. But it's still possible to encourage people to relocate themselves. Relocation financial assistance comes to mind. But it appears any future arrangement will have to accommodate mixed demographics. Some Israelis will end up in Palestine and some Palestinians will end up in Israel. The important thing is to make sure everyone has a choice (and the means) to move or stay put. Of course, some people will demand lines that are drawn around their personal circumstances. We should expect at the outset that not everyone is going to be happy with the final arrangement no matter where (or by whom) the lines are drawn. Such is the nature of the demographics problem. Present-day Israeli settlers on the West Bank may already be self-appointed candidates for major disappointment.

 

You know, looking at your OP again, I think you, me, and the United Nations (from the UN partition plan for Palestine) are actually all in argreement, with minor variations.

The fundamental issue is that whatever we think about borders, both the Jews and Muslims wanted more land and were fanatical about getting Jerusalem in particular.

The post WWII UN was simply unwilling to roll in and start shooting people to see their tripartitian plan put into effect.

And it still isn't. Hence the mess.

So much bloodshed and suffering could have been preveted in the long run if they'd just been willing to bring out a small international force to lock down Jerusalem and go after any forces crossing partition lines.

The trick with such things is that, if the region were peaceful and everybody got along today, you'd never convince people that things would have turned out the way they did, so it would look like the peacekeeping operation was a needless waste of UN lives and money, as well as any Palestinian and Israeli lives lost in the fighting.

 

I agree with a lot of that, sunnyside...and I'd have been delighted if the UN had stepped up to the plate.....but after 1949, the Palestinians reduced their Jerusalem ambitions to East Jerusalem....while the Zionists have always insisted to this day that Jerusalem undivided "belongs" to the Jews....so it is Israel which is the problem re Jerusalem not the Palestinians.

Seems to me options are share or have Jerusalem removed from the control of both..so I guess it depends on which side wants peace...given the Palestinians have already accepted that they will not have the whole of Jerusalem.

 

I'd disagree with that. The Palestinians demand east Jerusalem right now.

But they'd still take the whole enchilada if some twist of fate and fortune ever put it within their grasp.

 

Of course they would, just as Israel would take the whole of Greater Israel if that was within their grasp.......but the difference is that Palestine knows that they will not get the whole of Jerusalem.....while Israel is still not convinced that if they stick it out long enough, they cannot have all of Greater Israel....and there is the rub when it comes to any peace process..

 

I think they're pretty balanced as far as intentions go, it's just that Israel is currently in the dominant position. Both sides are competing to improve their position. However for the Palestinians even stopping Israeli settlements would be an improvement, so their international demands at the moment are indeed more modest, and the Israelis do indeed seem quite unreasonable.

However I think both sides are entirely unreasonable by American standards. In the short term this is indicated by the Palestinians not being willing to require Hamas to rewrite their charter nor to put meaningful camp david like security guarantees on the table. Those sorts of sticking points are why many Americans are unwilling to come down harder on Israel, because when Israel whines about needing a defensible country it is obvious that the Palestinians represent a valid threat in the long term.

Personally I still wish the UN would step in with some strength. Perhaps a resolution that establishes Palestine in the '67 borders but with a clause authorizing UN nations to arrange a deploy a peacekeeping mission step should hostilities break out against settlers, Israel, or if the Palestinian government is unable to stop terrorist attacks from within its borders.

 

Have you ever been to the arabic side of jerusalem?
Because i know i have, i live 40 minutes of drive away from their, and i can tell you, from speaking to the arabic people, they are happy.

their shops are flourishing, and the IDF forces secure the area,
but lets say that area was under Hamas control, which is what your suggesting.

What would happen?
would they still have their shops and security?
No, because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

-----------------

If we, the israeli people, leave the West Bank, Hamas would immediatly take over and will start launching rockets into central israel, which contains its only international airport, Tel-Aviv and many other major cities.

Thats just not a logical thing to do.

 

Does America have standards? Care to list them?

 

Israel is the dominant one?
I dont think so.

It is not just Hamas which we are looking at, it is the whole vast region,
if we would allow them to have a country, then we will have to give them back the West Bank.

If we would give them the west bank, which is essential for the IDF to defend israel, because it forms a natural barrier between israel and jordan, then immediately the west bank would fill with rockets, mortars,anti-aircraft rockets and terrorist.
The west bank is only 7 kilometers from israel ONLY international air field, and it would be vulnerable for simple anti-aircraft missiles.

We dont 'whine' about our security, because we like to whine, we care about our security because we have a very small country, surrounded by huge enemy countries and terrorist.
So if we dont really want another "Gaza" inside israel, i think, in my opinion at least, that it is pretty comprehensible.

 

Nope.....that is just more Zionist paranoia!

The West Bank wouldn't fill with rockets, mortars,anti-aircraft rockets..the West Bank would fill with Palestinians able to till and water their own land again without Israeli interference...and able to replant all the olive trees torn up by Israeli terrorist settlers and rebuild the homes demolished by Israeli bulldozers.

The terrorism part is something which would be directly related to the way those Palestinians were being treated by the Israelis..or do you still think 60 odd years on, that the only actions which justify consequences are Palestinian actions against Israelis and, as Golda Meir said more or less, Israel gets an eternal free pass from all they bring upon themselves and inflict on others because of the Shoah?

Your best security buffer is a State of Palestine with nothing to fight with Israel about..so no need to fight!

 

Don't you understand that the mere existence of Israel is "something to fight" about?

What you call "Zionist paranoia" is pretty much ACCEPTED MAINSTREAM WISDOM in much of the world.

 

Paranoia you say?
Lets take a look into history, in 2004, our prime minister, started a new plan called "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan".

the plan stated:

So we did leave Gaza, but what happened after we left it? endless mortar and rocket fire into our cities.
And now, you want us to repeat the same mistake by leaving the west bank? when we know, that a couple of years ago, a democratic election was held in Gaza and the West Bank, an election of leadership to the palestinian people.

What leaders did they chose? Hamas leaders.

So please, dont say we are just being paranoid, the palestinian people have spoken for themselves, and clearly stated to us " We Support Hamas".

--------------

Even if they did want peace, it wouldnt matter because they wouldnt be able to stop Hamas from firing rockets into israel.
Do they stop them in Gaza? no, why would they stop them at the West Bank?