<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/images/king-head.GIF" alt="King's Corner" width="336" height="143"></p>
Dang, I sure hate it when I discover that I have been wrong about something and have to eat a big old mouthful of crow. But being the human I am it seems I’ve done it again and thanks to the help of FromTexas, whose debate resulted in my digging deeper into the matter then I had previously done, I will be modifying my position as to the plight of the Palestinians. As most of you know I had for a very long time been of the mindset that Israel was illegally occupying Palestinian territory. But after much research and evaluation of the factual information freely available on the wonderful World Wide Web I must now have a shift in my approach and thinking as it relates to this continued conflict in the Middle East.

The key point of this transition is focused on the pre-existing agreements and arrangements prior to the 1947 Partition Plan. I must step further back in time seeking the legal control for that region because in every essence UN Resolution 181 is null and void because there was never any acceptance by the Arab world as to the creation of two states within the defined portion of the areas as was identified in Resolution 181. Because of the Arab nations vehement rejection to accept that plan they basically left themselves under the authority of the British Mandate which was the last, and more importantly, the rightful and legal controlling accord dealing with this matter. Compounding my previous mistaken beliefs were the acts taken as control was transferred from the British via the League of Nations to the newly founded United Nations and UN Resolution 181. Had the Arabs accepted the proposal they would be in the right, but that isn’t how it happened..

It was the UN themselves that made my decision to switch such an easy choice. Under the UN charter it states in Article 80, “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

Here is a little background to help clarify my shift of position. The area falling under the Mandate was initially proposed in November 1917 (confirmed by the League of Nations in July 1922, but didn’t actually come into operation until September 1923) and included all of current day Israel, Lebanon, Palestine and what we now call Jordan (at the time of the Mandate the area was known as Trans-Jordan). The sole purpose for the area was to establish a homeland for the Jews. This was made very clear by the League of Nations and by a separate Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States (we weren’t a member of the League of Nation). Shortly after the concept of the Mandate (1921) it was modified as the British authority parceled off roughly three-fourths of the area to Arabs for the creation of a new Arab protectorate (now Jordan) and Jews were barred from owning or occupying any territory east of the Jordan River. In 1923 the area of the Golan Heights was ceded to French Syria and again Jews were barred from that area. The southern part of the Mandate was eventually declared as an open area because of the fact that there were no Jewish or Arab settlements in the desert and the area was sparsely inhabited by bands of roaming Bedouins.

Upon the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel they were immediately recognized by the United States (something shy of 15 minutes after Truman was advised he formally recognized them as a sovereign nation) and thus the last established international instrument was the British Mandate of the 1920s. When Israel entered as a member of the UN in 1949 it did so not as a nation established by the Partition Plan but as the fruition of the British Mandate (because the Partition Plan was never agreed to by the contracting parties).

Once Israel declared independence they were immediately attacked by surrounding Arab nations. With the war of 1948 concluded the remaining portion of the Mandate was divided along the lines of the cease fire, which was now just under 7 percent of the original area encompassed by the proposed Mandate with the West Bank falling under Jordanian control and the Gaza strip coming under Egyptian control and the tiny morsel of remaining territory became Israel. In 1967 Israel regained these areas that under the only legitimate controlling agreement had been occupied by Egypt and Jordan since 1948. Thus the West Bank and the Gaza strips are legally and rightfully Israeli territory as defined by that only legitimate agreement, the British Mandate. As such it is now my belief and more complete understanding that Israel is justified in controlling that entire region including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Those claiming to be Palestinian are actually non-Jewish-Israelis or Arab-Israelis and should be subject to Israeli authority.

I think that the UN needs to reassess their view on who is the legitimate territorial authority and only use those agreements that have been accepted and confirmed and not rely upon those that they would like to see as controlling the issue. By doing this it would seem more appropriate to include the Arab-Israelis into the established nation of Israel and bring resolution to this nearly 100 year-long nightmare.

I wonder if I have got it right this time or if there is anything else that I have missed?

:shocked: I have witnessed history

Ken, would you call yourself a flip-flopper now? :biggrin:

Originally posted by rraley
Ken, would you call yourself a flip-flopper now? :biggrin: I believe Mr. King has made an informed well researched opinion modification brought on my rational intellectual discourse. He did not consult a poll to change his mind.

Originally posted by Pete
I believe Mr. King has made an informed well researched opinion modification brought on my rational intellectual discourse. He did not consult a poll to change his mind.
Yes, he did, and John Kerry would argue that he did the same when he changed his opinions.

Originally posted by rraley
Yes, he did, and John Kerry would argue that he did the same when he changed his opinions. Don't stop believing.

Originally posted by Pete
Don't stop believing.

I got that Journey song stuck in my head now...thanks. LOL

Ken, I don't see an end to the violence as long as Palestinians continue to live under Israeli rule. Is the issue of who legally owns the land even relevant? That issue doesn't recognize the fact that two different nationalities and cultures live in that area, and each wants security and self-government. In the interest of their own self-preservation, they have to figure out how to stop killing one another.

Sure, power-hungry extremists like Arafat claim to want to destory Israel, but he doesn't speak for most Palestianians. He thinks he does, but he's full of BS. In fact, I suspect he really likes the status quo because it makes him look like a hero to his people.

Originally posted by rraley
Ken, would you call yourself a flip-flopper now? :biggrin:
Nope, at best this would only be a flip. If I change my mind again, like your hero, then it would be a flip-flop.

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, I don't see an end to the violence as long as Palestinians continue to live under Israeli rule. Is the issue of who legally owns the land even relevant? That issue doesn't recognize the fact that two different nationalities and cultures live in that area, and each wants security and self-government. In the interest of their own self-preservation, they have to figure out how to stop killing one another.

Sure, power-hungry extremists like Arafat claim to want to destory Israel, but he doesn't speak for most Palestianians. He thinks he does, but he's full of BS. In fact, I suspect he really likes the status quo because it makes him look like a hero to his people.
Of course it (the determining of who actually is the controlling authority) is relevant. And there aren’t two different nationalities living there (Palestine does not legally exist, the area is rightfully Israel) it is only one nationality with people of differing cultures. Inclusion of the Arab-Israelis into the governing of the region would do more to quell the unrest then leaving it as it is. Not to mention that Israel would then be in a better position to control the influence of persons from other nations that keep the supply of material and funding coming into their nation that are used for many of the murderous acts.

And whether or not you care to believe it Arafat does speak for the "Arab-Israelis" of Gaza and the West Bank; after all he is the head of the "Palestinian Authority". Granted he has done little for his people other then keeping them living in a state of instability and danger; but he has been their accepted leader since the 70s.

Thoughtful post, Ken. I'm suggesting that the Israeli Arabs as well as the Palestinians don't want to be Israeli citizens at all. In fact, as the conflict has continued the Israeli Arabs have become more radicalized.

If Israeli rule of the West Bank and Gaza was formalized, the non-Jews would probably be de jure second-class citizens. Not because the Israelis are evil or anything like that, but because many Israelis would think that's the only way to guarantee their own safety. The non-Jews already see themselves as living under an Israeli version of Jim Crow ("Jamal Crow"?). That's why many liberals worldwide identify with the Palestinian cause, because they are fond of little-guy-being-pushed-around-by-big-guy stories.

I would like to see Israel say, "The hell with it" and just vacate the West Bank and Gaza, leaving the Palestinians to fend for themselves. Right now, Israel has a fast-growing population of non-Jews who don't see conversion or assimilation as options. In a generation, they could be numerous enough to overthrow the Israeli government and exile or kill all Jewish Israelis out of sheer vengeance. Is that what Israel wants?

Originally posted by Tonio
Thoughtful post, Ken. I'm suggesting that the Israeli Arabs as well as the Palestinians don't want to be Israeli citizens at all. In fact, as the conflict has continued the Israeli Arabs have become more radicalized.

If Israeli rule of the West Bank and Gaza was formalized, the non-Jews would probably be de jure second-class citizens. Not because the Israelis are evil or anything like that, but because many Israelis would think that's the only way to guarantee their own safety. The non-Jews already see themselves as living under an Israeli version of Jim Crow ("Jamal Crow"?). That's why many liberals worldwide identify with the Palestinian cause, because they are fond of little-guy-being-pushed-around-by-big-guy stories.

I would like to see Israel say, "The hell with it" and just vacate the West Bank and Gaza, leaving the Palestinians to fend for themselves. Right now, Israel has a fast-growing population of non-Jews who don't see conversion or assimilation as options. In a generation, they could be numerous enough to overthrow the Israeli government and exile or kill all Jewish Israelis out of sheer vengeance. Is that what Israel wants?
I too think the radicalization of the populace is more related to the continuance of the struggle. But the problem is that those defining themselves as Palestinians are doing so under the auspices of an agreement that was never accepted.

We, in America, have a history of treating select classes of people as second class citizens too, but we have been able to slowly work towards a truer equality of treatment for our citizens just as Israel should be able to do, given time. For us it is still an ongoing evolution.

Israel has said “The hell with it”, they have been willing to give land for peace but again the concept is typically rejected. And that rejection is based on the agreement not fully embracing the reparation and right of return concepts of UN Resolution 181. I say can they have it both ways where they reject the resolution but expect Israel to abide by it?

Originally posted by Ken King
Israel has said “The hell with it”, they have been willing to give land for peace but again the concept is typically rejected. And that rejection is based on the agreement not fully embracing the reparation and right of return concepts of UN Resolution 181. I say can they have it both ways where they reject the resolution but expect Israel to abide by it?

The "right of return" is completely unrealistic, I believe. It's been almost 60 years since Israel's founding and amost 40 years since the Six Day War. No one can undo the uprooting of peoples that took place back then. That's like the Red Sox lifting the Curse of the Bambino by demanding that the Yankees give Ruth back.

Okay, I'm sufficiently revived now - I fell over dead for a second or two. :biggrin:

Larry and I (not to mention a zillion other forumites) have been arguing with you about this for YEARS and suddenly FromTexas comes along and makes you rethink your position? Please direct me to the post or at least tell me how he did it.

:faint:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, I'm sufficiently revived now - I fell over dead for a second or two. :biggrin:

Larry and I (not to mention a zillion other forumites) have been arguing with you about this for YEARS and suddenly FromTexas comes along and makes you rethink your position? Please direct me to the post or at least tell me how he did it.

:faint:
I knew it would have an impact on you. :moon: It was the thread that migrated to a discussion on the Geneva Convention. Not exactly sure which one. But while digging into those documents and searching for other background information for a response I ran across an article were the author made a statement, "How can the Arab world demand that Israel comply with Resolution 181 when they rejected it?" (or words very similar). That turned the light-bulb on for me.

...I think 'eating crow' is a bit much.

You've made reasoned, consistent argument in support of the Palestinian cause for years. That's what I always respected about it; consistent and reasoned.

I've always felt that there is something intuitively wrong in NOT supporting Israel given their neighbors actions over the last 60 years.

You've been of the 'show me the facts' school.

In any event, it's a hell of a positive example for everybody for you to come out about this, and stating why, given how heated and concrete everyones positions have been. It would have been easy, and un-like you, to just let it go under the radar, so to speak.

Kudos!

...I think 'eating crow' is a bit much.

You've made reasoned, consistent argument in support of the Palestinian cause for years. That's what I always respected about it; consistent and reasoned.

I've always felt that there is something intuitively wrong in NOT supporting Israel given their neighbors actions over the last 60 years.

You've been of the 'show me the facts' school.

In any event, it's a hell of a positive example for everybody for you to come out about this, and stating why, given how heated and concrete everyones positions have been. It would have been easy, and un-like you, to just let it go under the radar, so to speak.

Kudos!
Thanks Larry. Once I had the revelation of my oversight I could do no other then to admit my error in the same venue that I had so loudly espoused my beliefs. And if you saw where I worked you would know that nothing flying gets beneath my radar.

Thank you, all. Thank you. Thank you... :banana:

Actually, I just found this thread. The debate with me dealt along the lines of other national treaties and I believe it just sent him in the direction to look deeper at the meanings. He was just a little off, but not a whole lot.

Actually, Ken, to add some specifics to your come around so everyone has more they can follow to this link. (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html) While there is an obvious bias there, their history is mostly correct. It begins with the Ottoman Empire and how it all changed. The maps help the understanding a lot.

I've heard is said that if the Devil didn't exist, the Catholic Church would have to invent him to stay in business. There won't be peace in the Middle East because too many powerful people in the Arab world and Israel make too good a living my furthering the hate and discontent. That's why guys like Arafat are always shifting the basis for peace. Once peace comes, guys like Arafat and his cronies will either be killed or living in exile with the funding pipes turned off.

The only way that I see peace coming to the Middle East is for the US to sit on these countries until the generations that were raised on murder and mayhem are gone and are replaced by a generation raised on peace. That's the only thing that brought peace to Europe and Japan, and if left to their own devices, the Middle Eastern people will never find peace on their own.

...unfortunately, I think you're right. As it is, after each successive was was won by Israel, from 1948 on, they were not allowed to dictate terms to their beaten enemies without modification and consideration of opinions from the UN.

This stuff is so school yard. The small, unassuming quiet nerd kid gets picked on by the big bully and every time the bully is in the process of getting his hat handed to him the principal stops the fight and makes them shake. The bully won't shake and just goes back to his supportive pals and says for all to hear 'he's lucky the principal came along when he did...just wait until next time...".

So there sits Israel with what amounts to an unfinished fight that they aren't allowed to finish while the other guy promises it will be continued.

They live in a state of siege.