Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Juan Cole: As part of my original posting, I mirrored a map of modern Palestinian history that has the virtue of showing graphically what has happened to the Palestinians politically and territorially in the past century. Andrew Sullivan then mirrored the map from my site, which set off a lot of thunder and noise among anti-Palestinian writers like Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, but shed very little light. ... The map is useful and accurate. It begins by showing the British Mandate of Palestine as of the mid-1920s. The British conquered the Ottoman districts that came to be the Mandate during World War I (the Ottoman sultan threw in with Austria and Germany against Britain, France and Russia, mainly out of fear of Russia).

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Shawn

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

There is nothing hard to understand about it.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Look at the 1947 plan, that is the plan that was supposed to happen if Israel wasn't attacked.
Anyone that says a two state option is the way to fix the problem ignores the fact there was a two state option to begin with.

rwd

#1 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Explain how you see the one-state option working when Israel is majority Arab.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain how you see the one-state option working when Israel is majority Arab.

---------

The same way that the 3rd reich did it.

#3 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-14 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain how you see the one-state option working when Israel is majority Arab.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-14 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

A two state option would work but hamas has to change their attitude, which I do not see coming. They had a two state option to begin with but Israel beats them like a red headed step child every time they go to war they have nothing left but attrition, which isn't working out to well for them. Israel gave them gaza which was a start and look at how that worked out. A two state option would only mean a larger area Israel would have to deal with so I do not see that coming unless hamas/palestinians change and want real peace. It can only come from them. Deal with it rogers.

rwd

#4 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 11:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

and as far as I can tell Israel is NOT majority arab at this point.

rwd

#5 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

and as far as I can tell Israel is NOT majority arab at this point.

--------

Filed under: didn't read the article.

Also filed under: doesn't care.

#6 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-14 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-14 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could probably post 50 links that says they are not, yet, anyway genius. And you're correct,I don't care.

rwd

#7 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could probably post 50 links that says they are not, yet, anyway genius. And you're correct,I don't care.

rwd

#7 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your making Shawn look like a scholar with your laziness.

FFS, the article is about a one state solution meaning Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank. Rcade was saying its not going to happen because by doing so they would BECOME a majority arab country.

I know reading is teh hard but try to do better.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-15 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I could probably post 50 links that says they are not, yet, anyway genius. And you're correct,I don't care.

rwd

#7 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-14 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your making Shawn look like a scholar with your laziness.

FFS, the article is about a one state solution meaning Israel absorbs Gaza and the West Bank. Rcade was saying its not going to happen because by doing so they would BECOME a majority arab country.

I know reading is teh hard but try to do better.

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-15 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Goldberg maintained that the Palestinians' ‘original sin' was rejecting the 1947 UN partition plan. But since Ben Gurion and other expansionists went on to grab more territory later in history, it is not clear that the Palestinians could have avoided being occupied even if they had given away willingly so much of their country in 1947. The first original sin was the contradictory and feckless pledge by the British to sponsor Jewish immigration into their Mandate in Palestine, which they wickedly and fantastically promised would never inconvenience the Palestinians in any way."

The last part of this is true. But the first part of this statement reveals the author's bias.

If you want to say that the Palestinians were right to reject the 1947 deal because nobody had the right to partition their land in the first place, that's a legtimate claim.

But if you claim that they were right to choose war in 1947 because the Israelis would have eventually taken their land anyway, that's biased nonsense. Had the Palestinians not rejected the arrangement 1947, you can't even assume that the more militant Israeli leaders would have even gained power.

The other thing is that there is no way the Israelis should have won that 1st war other than the Arabs just being completely incompetent. They talk about being humiliated by Israel but really they just humiliated themselves.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-15 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

and as far as I can tell Israel is NOT majority arab at this point.

"The government of Israel confirms that between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River there is no longer a Jewish majority. In other words, in the territory under Israel's jurisdiction a situation of apartheid exists. A Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. ...

"According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (which is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office), of the 12 million residents living under Israeli rule, the number of Jews is just under 5.9 million (as of April 25 ). Twelve million minus 5.9 million Jews equals 6.1 million non-Jews. In other words, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, there is a pretty Jewish state as far as its laws and customs, but the reality is not so democratic. Foreign sources report that Jews had already become a minority in the area of the greater Land of Israel several years ago. From now on, it is an official statistic."

www.haaretz.com

You can take out the residents of Gaza to make it majority Jewish, but for how long? Palestinians and other non-Jews are making more babies.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-15 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can take out the residents of Gaza to make it majority Jewish, but for how long? Palestinians and other non-Jews are making more babies.

Well that not really a problem at the rate they strap suicide packs on them or park them under rocket launchers.

#13 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-07-15 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-15 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Admittedly I didn't read the article, didn't feel I had to. I've read enough articles so one more wouldn't really make a difference.

I was responding to roger's challenge about the one state option since he has repeatedly stated he is in favor of a two state.

From my posting history about this issue I have always maintained my point, even if you object to it or not.

I m sure you need to bone up your history about the 1947 partition. It wasn't a lark that it was partitioned in 1947 out of nowhere because this whole idea originated in the 1880's with Jews buying up land which was privately held, 14-20% of crap real estate, except the Negev desert which was included in the partition to Israel. Look at the 1947 lines drawn. Israeli conquered lands after they were attacked is just spoils of war to deal back in negotiations.

rwd

#14 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-15 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well that not really a problem at the rate they strap suicide packs on them or park them under rocket launchers.

You're not very good at math if you really think that. What's the total number of number of bombers and Israel airstrike casualties from any year, compared to the growth in Palestinian population?

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-15 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain how you see the one-state option working when Israel is majority Arab.
#2 | Posted by rcade

Demographically this will happen to Israel even in the two state option, it is a concern. But Muslims in Israel are actually pretty happy. They aren't as angry as you might think.

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-15 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Demographically this will happen to Israel even in the two state option, it is a concern.

I've never heard that. It's the Palestinians who pose the demographic risk, and they'll be in the new state.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-15 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Never again."

Unless you're not Jewish, that is.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-15 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

rightwingding,

That's like blaming the Indians for fighting back. From a moral point of view the question of who invaded who is not open to debate in either America or Israel. But, everyone knows you're supposed to lay down an die for invaders.

#19 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-15 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually it was not a two state option to begin with, one was proposed by the UN but never accepted by the Palestinians.
Israel unilaterally declared statehood and was recognized by the US.
No modern nation (since WW2) has been allowed to keep territory obtained in war. Israel shouldn't be the exception.

#20 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-07-15 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

This "war-battle" is none of our business. Just like Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran-Iraq, Russia-Ukraine, Russia-Afghanistan, and many more.

Rand Paul 2016
He is the only guy who gets it

We should repair our crumbling and ageing infrastructure, improve our failed Veterans hospitals, restore our schools to their former # 1 position. find a cure for HIV-AIDS, and cancer and work with our neighbors to make all of the Americas a better place

Sammy

#21 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-15 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually it was not a two state option to begin with, one was proposed by the UN but never accepted by the Palestinians.
Israel unilaterally declared statehood and was recognized by the US.
No modern nation (since WW2) has been allowed to keep territory obtained in war. Israel shouldn't be the exception.

#20 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-07-15 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Palestine was under British rule at the partition so there was no Palestinian authority to accept or decline the mandate.
Before that it was under the Ottoman Empire.
And all you posters that use the occupied land argument can't pick and choose which resolution you want to use because the partition was a UN resolution.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II)

I have to go find larry.

rwd

#22 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-15 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We should repair our crumbling and ageing infrastructure, improve our failed Veterans hospitals, restore our schools to their former # 1 position. find a cure for HIV-AIDS, and cancer and work with our neighbors to make all of the Americas a better place "

Those are good things but those are not the entirety of Rand Pauls ideas, many of which would be very detrimental to the working class of America.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-15 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Palestine was under British rule at the partition so there was no Palestinian authority to accept or decline the mandate.
Before that it was under the Ottoman Empire.
And all you posters that use the occupied land argument can't pick and choose which resolution you want to use because the partition was a UN resolution.

I have to go find larry.

rwd

Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-15 09:38 PM | Reply

The British gave up the land when the UN was making a two state solution when they created the country of Israel. UN resolution coddified it with UN res 181

unispal.un.org

I'm not going to copy it because it is quite lengthy.

#24 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-15 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've never heard that. It's the Palestinians who pose the demographic risk, and they'll be in the new state.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-15 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

We hear it every day in the USA media that the Mexicans/Hispanics are demographically going to take over our country and culture by 2050, and we are told the Anglos must accept it and like it. What makes the Jews in Israel different than our growing homogenized culture in the USA. The Jews in Israel had better learn to get along with their Arab neighbors because it is inevitable they will not keep them out. The homogenized world will not accept that Israel or any country is to be permitted to be kept as an ethnically "pure" single culture state.

The only solution is a single state solution governed politically, because both Jews and Arabs once occupied that land. It would be the same turmoil in Arizona if the UN said that Mexicans were permitted to have their own state and take land and homes from Americans. It would be perpetual war, and each side would call the other terrorists.

#25 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-15 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.historylearningsite.co.uk

#26 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-15 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

**** No One will Shed Any Tears for the Death of Israel!!!

#27 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-07-16 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only solution is a single state solution governed politically, because both Jews and Arabs once occupied that land.

What in the last 67 years in Israel makes you think the Jews and Arabs in Israel could co-exist democratically in a secular, democratic state? Israel's identity as a Jewish state is a flashpoint for both sides.

#28 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 07:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

This original post is a very important piece of information that you will never see published by the NYT or PBS or NBC. Instead the media will obfuscate the I/P situation by always referring to the Palestinians as "militants" and Israelis as perpetual "victims".

The Zionist movement has its roots in propaganda and worse and that is why laws and organizations were put in place and political correctness created to deter objective investigation.. They want us to believe that the only reason one would have to investigate their history is bigotry, when the factual reason is because of the bigotry of Zionism.

#29 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-16 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Carl Marx and Mark Twain both toured the area in the 1860s and 1890s, respectively. The land was of no value to the Muslims until the Jews wanted it. TH Lawrence was there during the early 1920s, nothing had changed much. In reality there is not nor has there ever been a Palestinian state. The term was never uttered as an identification of a people until 1967. Before then they were Jordanians and Egyptian.
Their existence is for one reason,the annihilation of the Jews in the middle east. If the Arabs have a right of return to a land where most moved there to to work for the Jews, Perhaps the Muslim countries that expelled Jews into Israel but the hundreds of thousands should have to give restitution for the land and property stolen by those countries' governments.

#30 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-16 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

The land was of no value to the Muslims until the Jews wanted it.

You gotta be kidding. In 1920 there were 700,000 people living there and 80% were Muslim. There were 76,000 Jews and most had emigrated there during the preceding 40 years. By 1948, the population was 1,900,000 -- 68% were Arabs and 32% were Jews.

en.wikipedia.org

The term was never uttered as an identification of a people until 1967.

That would be news to the Syrian-Palestinian Congress, an organization formed in 1921 to influence the League of Nations:

en.wikipedia.org

Calling the region Palestine goes all the way back to 5th century BC, so it logically follows that people from Palestine have been called Palestineans for centuries.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Palestine was under British rule at the partition so there was no Palestinian authority to accept or decline the mandate.
Before that it was under the Ottoman Empire.
And all you posters that use the occupied land argument can't pick and choose which resolution you want to use because the partition was a UN resolution.
Posted by rightwingdon

Prior to the partition of the Ottoman Empire no "countries" existed in the Middle East.
Saying that Palestinians were really Jordanians or any other "modern" country's citizens simple ignores the historical fact that Jordan didn't exist as a country.
The area was populated, albeit by a tribal nomadic population.
The British simply picked and chose who represented whom and negotiated based on their interest rather than that of the native population.
One must remember despite the Biblicaly based rhetoric that Israel also didn't exist at the time of the partition.
Resolution 181 was accepted by the Jewish public and the Jewish Agency but rejected by Arab leaders and governments with few exceptions.
While Resolution 181 was approved by the UN it was never implemented and precipitated the civil war which is still active today.

#32 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-07-16 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

....But if you claim that they were right to choose war in 1947 because the Israelis would have eventually taken their land anyway, that's biased nonsense. Had the Palestinians not rejected the arrangement 1947, you can't even assume that the more militant Israeli leaders would have even gained power....
#11 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-07-15 12:34 PM | FLAG:

They are taking the land now. That seems like good evidence that the assumption was correct at the time.

#33 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-16 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. The Palestinians have NEVER given peace a chance. The only land I actually believe Israel was intent on grabbing no matter what was historic Jerusalem.

#34 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-16 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Palestinians have NEVER given peace a chance.

#34 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2014-07-16 12:26 PM | FLAG:

Bias is strong with this one.

#35 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-16 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

What Israel got control of, which everyone in the Middle East needs desperately, is WATER.

#36 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-16 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

What Israel got control of, which everyone in the Middle East needs desperately, is WATER.
#36 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

More conspiracy lunacy...

How many Arab nations use gray water for much of its agriculture?

How many Arab nations use desalination? As opposed to making their citizens install reverse osmosis appliances. With all that oil money.....

Israel is a socialist wetdream, yet all the liberals can do is tear it down.

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-16 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are taking the land now. That seems like good evidence that the assumption was correct at the time.

#33 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-16 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes but you can't assume that had they never been attacked they would be doing so. Past events have an effect on the present situation.

The only meaningful discussion requires that we participate in reality. And that means no making retroactive excuses based speculation. That the author engages in doing so brings the objectivity of the article into question.

Its not like I don't see the Arab side of it. I said in #11 that a much better reason for the Arabs to reject the deal is that nobody had the right to give away that land in the first place. Certainly makes alot more sense than creating an alternate history that the Arabs apparently had access to when making their decisions back in the 40's.

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-16 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

....Yes but you can't assume that had they never been attacked they would be doing so. ...

#38 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-07-16 01:35 PM | FLAG:

The appropriate response to terror is to capture/kill the terrorists. Taking farmer's olive trees is so nonsensical that I have to conclude they are using the terror as an excuse for their White Collar Terror response.

#40 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-16 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

What in the last 67 years in Israel makes you think the Jews and Arabs in Israel could co-exist democratically in a secular, democratic state?

#28 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 07:39 AM | Reply

For the past 67 years, Jews and Arabs have been co-existing in the most secular, democratic state in the region. Israel.

#41 | Posted by Yodar013 at 2014-07-16 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. The Palestinians have NEVER given peace a chance. The only land I actually believe Israel was intent on grabbing no matter what was historic Jerusalem.

#34 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-16 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Their encroaching on lands not accorded to them by the UN belies that notion. Oh and why would you want to be at peace with your hostage takers??

#42 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-16 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the past 67 years, Jews and Arabs have been co-existing in the most secular, democratic state in the region. Israel.

Calling Israel democratic for Palestinians is a joke. Over two million of them are denied the right to vote!

"7,659,000 people living in Israeli territory have voting rights, while 2,128,115 people have no voting rights. Altogether, one in every 4.5 people is denied political representation; this one person is almost always Palestinian."

972mag.com

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't call Palestine democratic. I called Israel democratic.

#44 | Posted by Yodar013 at 2014-07-16 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Palestine holds their own independent elections (albeit incompetently). Israelis are not allowed to vote in the Palestinian elections, and vise versa. Big surprise.

For the past 67 years, Jews and Arabs have been co-existing in the most secular, democratic state in the region. Israel.

Oh and lets not forget most successful, most educated, most stable and safest.

#45 | Posted by Yodar013 at 2014-07-16 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't call Palestine democratic. I called Israel democratic.

You said that Jews and Arabs have been co-existing in a democratic state. You can't really call Israel democratic for everybody unless Jews and Arabs can both vote in it, no?

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's amazing (and very belated) how people are now able to talk about the apartheid going on in Palestine w/o being branded anti-semitic. Jimmy Carter wrote a great book, and a very easy read, laying out the history of this land grab back in 2006 (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) when NOBODY was talking about that area other than to condemn Palestinians (who were fighting against abuse, occupation, and collective punishment, and murder) as "terrorists" and lament how much the poor Israelis suffer to terorrists. After his book hit the streets, the usual suspects tried lamely to call Carter anti-semitic, but that couldn't stick on a former POTUS and Nobel Laureate, who contributed so much to peace in the ME. I credit Obama greatly for this recent climate allowing the truth to finally be able to come out. He has shown some real spine to these Israeli bullies (e.g. Netanyahu), unlike any president in my lifetime. That allowed others to slowly approach the issue without being singled out as anti-semites.

#47 | Posted by babyhuey at 2014-07-16 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the outsiders to the USA were ever given our land and property by the UN or League of Nations or the treasonous little President Wilson (that the Fed Reserve owes its coercive creation) without our total agreement and consent, the Pals would look like neutered little dwarfs, compared to what most Americans would do in response.

#48 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-16 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and lets not forget most successful, most educated, most stable and safest.

#45 | Posted by Yodar013

Who we talking about, the Israeli Jews or the Pals or the propaganda the USA media feeds us?

#49 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-16 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Many Arabs vote in Israel.

We are talking about Israel, comprised of Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and so on. Educational stats, economic stats, military stats, democratic stats, nobel prize stats etc. are not driven by propaganda, but by statistics.

#50 | Posted by Yodar013 at 2014-07-16 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Calling Israel democratic for Palestinians is a joke.

#43 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-16 04:18 PM | FLAG:

He did not. He said Arabs have representation in Israel, which is true. 30% of them vote Zionist. However, Israeli Arabs and Israeli Hasidic Jews are can choose to be exempted from military conscription.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-17 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

By changing the subject through Israel's (renewed) attack on Gaza the Obama administration is temporarily spared the ‘embarrassment' of explaining the devolving U.S. circumstance in Iraq in an election year. For better or worse Iraq was a developed secular state before the (latest) U.S. war and occupation. While the chaos and destruction unleashed by the war undoubtedly help fuel arms sales in the region the faux partisan bickering in the U.S. over who is ‘to blame' for the broadening regional chaos can't mask that America's war on Iraq was a bi-partisan affair. With neo-con hack Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings for her turn to destroy some portion of the world in 2016, understanding the U.S. role in causing death and destruction across the Middle East is as important now as it was before the catastrophic war on Iraq was launched.

Israel's attack on Gaza is a war crime among an ongoing series of war crimes. Even though not currently plausible, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be regularly reminded that he faces prison or worse if he is ever convicted of his crimes. Whatever the broad American – Israeli propaganda machine is able to accomplish, most Americans have interests more closely aligned with the Palestinian people than with the American and Israeli political establishments. Finally, with the apparent goal of Israel being the total dispossession of the Palestinian people permanent peace will never be possible. But that is the fault of Israel and the U.S., not the Palestinians. The side of justice is with the Palestinian people. (Rob Urie)

#52 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-17 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort