re: "The Poor Palestinians"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") considers the plight of the Palestinians without irony or insult.

Money quote(s):

""Palestinian" is a name given to Arabs after the '67 War, who lived or did live in the area known as Palestine during the Palestine Mandate and afterwards right up to the present, and includes their descendants, even if such descendants never set foot in the area known as Palestine."

Oddly, the name "Palestinian" as used after the '67 War, excludes all non-Arab inhabitants of the same geographic area, most notably (but not solely) the Israelis to whom it previously had applied to exclusively.

"United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a relief and human development agency, providing education, health care, social services and emergency aid to 5 million Palestine refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UNRWA was specifically created to maintain the refugee status, not to end it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland." "

Fortunately, implementation of this instruction has not been universal.

"In Jordan, less than 20% of the refugees live in camps. This is because when Jordan purported to annex the West Bank after the '48 War, it granted all the Palestinians living there and in Jordan proper, citizenship. After the '67 War in which Israel regained Judea and Samaria, many more Palestinians fled to Jordan and over the years since, many Palestinians from the West Bank emigrated there. It is estimated today that the number of Palestinians in Jordan total in excess of 5,000,000 of which only about 2 million are registered refugees. They constitute about ¾ of the total population of Jordan. Given this fact and the fact that the West Bank has approximately 1.5 million Palestinians, one might rightfully argue that Jordan is the Palestinian homeland." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Perhaps the Hashemite dynasty might ought consider re-branding itself as protectors of the Palestinian people.

(Or not.)

"The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the right to form a government and govern themselves within the confines of the Oslo Accords. Their government known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has full autonomy in all matters save for a limitation on matters of security affecting Israel. How they govern themselves is up to them. In effect the Palestinians elect Palestinians to govern them. Whereas in Jordan, the Palestinians are severely underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies where the minority Bedouin hold sway. If that weren't bad enough, all executive power is vested in the King.

It can safely be said that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are the authors of their own misfortune. In their past elections, they choose parties, whether Fatah or Hamas, that are wedded to the "resistance" which is a euphemism for terrorism. The result of this "resistance," whether in the form of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel or the deployment of suicide bombers by Fatah in Jerusalem and Israel generally, Israel has placed restrictions on them such as a legal blockade of Gaza and travel restrictions in the West Bank. These restrictions are for security purposes only and not intended as punishment. Nevertheless, in the last three years, Israel has been easing these restrictions, and as a result, the Palestinian economy in the West Bank is experiencing an astounding 7% growth rate."

"(T)he Palestinians living in Jordan who have citizenship have no say in their present condition or in their destiny. Their fate is dependent on what the PA chooses to do yet they have no vote in PA elections. Nor do they have a say equivalent to their numbers in Jordan due to the gerrymandering above noted."

2/12

re: "There Was Never a Country Called Palestine"

Jerrold L. Sobel at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the historical question of Palestine in a quantitative fashion.

Money quote(s):

"There is no Palestinian land, plain and simple. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom? What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital? What would its major cities have been? What would have constituted the basis of its economy? What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine's religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise?"

I got nothin'.

"Pose these same questions regarding Israel and Jewish connection to this land, and except for the willfully blind and delusional -- of which, admittedly, there are many, each can be factually answered.

At no time in history has there ever been a nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1299-1922 CE, the land dubbed by the Romans as Palestine was controlled by the Turks; there was never an outcry for a Palestinian State then. During the illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan subsequent to the 1949 Armistice and prior to 1967, there was never talk of "occupied territory" or a Palestinian State."

Still, the list of "nations" which have never had their own states is not a particularly short one. A further question would be under what conditions may (or should) such groups acquire their own nation-state?

2/12

re: "Palestine, Back to the Future"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") sidestepped the issue of mythological nationhood and lunges for a solution.

Money quote(s):

"There was a time when the lands now known as Israel (including Judea and Samaria and Gaza) and Jordan were called "Palestine." In fact, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 declared that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

There followed considerable cooperation between the Jews, represented by Chaim Weizmann, and the Arabs living in Mespotamia, now Iraq and Jordan, represented by Emir Feisal. As a result, the Feisal-Weizman Agreement was signed in January 1919, in which it was agreed that the Jews would get the lands lying west of the Jordan River watershed to the Mediterranean."

Fast forward to the end of World War I and Allied disposition of the Ottoman Empire's non-Turkish possessions.

"What remained was for the League of Nations to draw up the Palestine Mandate. Originally, the boundaries of Palestine included what is now Jordan, but a few months prior to the Palestine Mandate being passed by the League of Nations in September 1922, the Jews were told that they must consent to the removal of Jordan from the Jewish homeland if they wished the Mandate to be passed. And so they did, under duress."

Consider this slice one of a salami-slice strategy.

"Britain severed all lands lying east of the Jordan River from the Palestine Mandate and gave the lands to the Hashemites. It was first renamed Transjordan and then just Jordan."

So an Arab homeland was salami-sliced off of overall-Palestine, leaving a Jewish homeland.

(From which additional future Arab homelands may be sliced.)

"There followed many resolutions, wars, and peace processes, all designed to erode Jewish rights to the land described in the Palestine Mandate, and all to no avail. For all intents and purposes, the peace process is dead, and Abu Mazen, otherwise known as Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PA, has refused to negotiate for the last three years.

This futile effort has resulted in a search for alternate solutions. Newt Gingrich went public with his newsworthy statement that "[w]e've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community." Gov Romney did him one better and said, "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel." Didn't they know that in our PC world, one is not supposed to declare that the emperor has no clothes? The fiction underlying the failed peace process is more important than the truth."

It's truly remarkable to see such prominent politicians depart from the popular narrative in this manner.

"The "Jordan is Palestine" solution has been mooted for decades. It is now gaining traction due in part to the Arab Spring, which began a year ago. Jordan now is feeling the tremors. The majority of Palestinian leaders in Jordan favor Jordan becoming a democratic/secular state. They have watched in dismay as similar forces in Egypt were overwhelmed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists. They are determined not to share Egypt's fate. They are led by Mudar Zahran, the author of "Jordan's King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage." "

Consider that the majority of people in Jordan are indistinguishable from "Palestinian" Arabs in any appreciable fashion. And that's not counting the ones who are descended from those who left the Jewish homeland or the "Occupied Territories" of the West Bank and Gaza.

"The rationality and achievability of this solution need no elucidation. The solution itself needs only for the U.S. to get behind it. While such an initiative by the U.S. would be a departure from the position it has held since the founding of the State of Israel, it would not be a departure from her original position."

1/29

re: "Palestinians are an Invented People"

Michael Curtis* at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") applies an historian's skills to the Palestinian question.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hatever one's views of the sagacity or judgment of Mr. Gingrich on other issues, or one's opinions on the more general issue of the desirability and character of a Palestinian state existing alongside the state of Israel, the accuracy of his statement cannot be denied.

The conclusion stems from two factors. One is that Arabs living in the area now known as Palestine were regarded, both historically and in contemporary times, not as a separate entity but as part of the general Arab people. This has been recognized by Arab spokesmen, by scholars, and by objective international official reports. The second is that no independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a "Palestinian identity." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Until now, that is; the PA: for values of "independent" and "state."

"That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were subjects, not of an Arab nation, but of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the area and lasted from 1516 until the end of World War 1. This was the last generally recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East area. . Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than that of the Ottoman Empire.

The first official naming of "Palestine" as a distinct, defined territorial area came with the decision of the League of Nations , dealing with areas of the former Ottoman Empire, to create a Mandate for Palestine. This was accorded to Great Britain which ruled the area, from the Mediterranean Sea to west of the Jordan River, from 1922 until May 1948.

All people living in that area were regarded as "Palestinians" without any ethnic connotations. Ironically, the name was used not by Arabs but only by Jews in the area, as in The Palestinian (now the Jerusalem) Post, and the Palestine Symphony (now Israel Philharmonic) Orchestra. Only after the state of Israel was established in May 1948 did the term "Palestinian" become exclusively used in referring to Arabs in the area.

It is now clear that a concept of Palestinian identity and nationalism has emerged and become a political factor."

It's curious how the very word Palestine (and Palestinian) itself was co-opted from the Israelis as soon as they had finished with it.

"The essential problem is not simply a terminological one, a refusal to acknowledge that the category of Palestinian identity is a recent invention. Rather, the insistence on a presumed time honored right of a Palestinian people to the disputed land is being used as a weapon against the right of Israel to exist. Such an insistence is a handicap to a peaceful negotiated agreement between Palestinians and Israel."

12/13

* Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Rutgers University

re: "Busy. Oh, But I'm Thinking A Lot About Blogging. State-Blogging, To Be Specific."

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("After three years in Beijing, we're headed to Amman, Jordan. For family and friends who want to follow our adventures, this is it...") posts some commonsensical rules for diplobloggers.

Money quote(s):

"(V)arious factions in State seems to have worked themselves into a swivet over a few of my blogging pals. What gives, State? It might be time to put some specifics in the FAM, so people know what the rules are, sort of the way we know about cost constructing travel to CONUS and applying for special needs allowances. We could use some rules! As Diplopundit pointed out today, the letter writer in this month's FSJ suggested that we all go back to writing in diaries and stuffing them under our pillows (ummm... not recommended in China, I hope!), or apply for jobs with the Huffington Post (wouldn't THAT get people's attention, if all of us State bloggers suddenly picked up that sized audience!). I get it: the writer doesn't like blogs. But to try to pretend he doesn't want to ban them outright, and then offer those flippant suggestions as replacements, is a bit disingenuous."

The aforementioned letter writer in the FSJ is a senior-ish, and well-respected, consular officer. Not yours truly, you understand: more respectable than ichmo.

"We've built this community, and we turn to each other for advice and support and laughter. (Also, pictures of nasty gigantic spiders lurking in bathtubs - you know who you are....). Many of us, myself included, started our blogs as a way to keep far-flung family members in the loop. So not only do these blogs tie us into our communities, but they help us keep our ties to our families back home. We're not going away, even if the Huffington Post does come calling."

There are several broad categories within the U.S. diploblogging "community." One of them encompasses Donna's web log; it's about family and FS life and helps keep our far-flung community a little bit more close-knit than distance used to allow. Yay technology!

Here are Donna's suggested rules:

"First: Don't Bite The Hand That Pays You. We are all of us, employees, spouses and children alike, representing the United States government every time we walk out our doors. I might be "just" a spouse with a spouse job and not much say-so in the Embassy, but when I'm here, to many of my neighbors out in the wide world, I AM the US government. So as a blogger, I am not allowed to criticize the work that the Department of State is doing, in Jordan, in the region, in the world, even. That's not my place. I won't do it at a dinner party, and I certainly won't do it on my blog. Doesn't matter what I think of our position on Palestine: if it differs from the USG-position, I can't put it on my blog. Even if it's the same as the USG-position, I'm likely going to avoid discussing it, anyway. This is a personal blog, after all, not a government-sanctioned one, so those types of discussions really don't belong here."

Some of us don't quite color within the lines on this one; I brush up against them myself quite often. But most often, I'm only reporting on what others have said and commenting thereupon.

"Second: Use the Past Tense. If you're going somewhere tonight, don't tell me about it until tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to advertise your whereabouts to complete strangers, through your blog or any other means. It's like cancelling your newspaper before you go on vacation, so no one realizes you're gone. It's just safer that way."

This is a very good and common sense suggestion that promotes operational security. Don't publish your future movements or schedule. That makes it too easy for those who may chose to do you, or your colleagues and/or loved ones, harm.

"Third: Limit the Details. I might tell you my street is narrow and crowded and full of Land Rovers, but I won't tell you if it is three streets up from the Embassy, right side, next to the Mexican restaurant. That's too much detail. I'll show you pictures of my house (assuming it's presentable), but only from the inside. You won't see the front of my house. You won't see pictures of my alarm system. You won't see any of the measures that keep me safe here at post. And speaking of pictures:"

Again, just helping make it a little more difficult for dangerous amateurs to do you harm.

"Fourth: No Pictures Without Permission. Don't post pictures of non-family members without their permission! If your colleagues don't permit you to post their pictures, don't do it. And don't post their names, either. First names, I think, are generally okay, but again, with permission! If you're not sure if they'd like it, don't put it out there."

This is also good advice for FS Facebook users.

"Fifth: No Gossip. About those colleagues: watch what you say about them. I, for one, have had the privilege of working with some smart, talented, funny people over the years. There are some seriously smart people working on your behalf at most Embassies around the world. (Also some odd ones, but hey: you'll find those strange birds in any profession. Just don't call them out on your blog!) But, really, even if what you want to say about someone is a compliment, you really ought not talk them up without permission. There are loads of people who agree with our FSJ letter writer that blogs are scary things, and you don't want to draw attention to those types of people, or to your blog, by posting details about such colleagues."

There's an "Old Army" rule about all the men being brave and all the ladies virtuous. The internet is tailor-made for spreading gossip, some of it even having a little bit of truth at the core of it. Just don't. Even if you're mad at something, or someone, that seems senseless, that's vexing you at your post, because as often as not you don't have all the facts about it anyways.

It does no one any good to post about who's incompetent or lazy, drinks too much or has an eye for the ladies (or lads). If it rises to the level of a problem, then it's the post's RSO or DCM who needs to be put into the loop, not the entire internet.

"(I)f no one will make the rules for us, maybe we need to make them ourselves. It should be basic common sense, in most cases. But your ability to blog should not and cannot depend upon the kindness of your boss. If you are following the rules, you shouldn't get slammed simply because your new boss doesn't approve of blogging. They cannot tell you that posting a picture of your baby at a doctor's appointment is a violation of your child's medical privacy rights, because that's simply not true (trust me: I asked a lawyer). But they can restrict things you want to say if those things contradict the work of the Department. Of course they can. They do it in the private sector, too."

This new media stuff is still something of a frontier, at least it is for not-new organizations like State. So diplobloggers are a sort of pioneer, which can be a good thing if handled right.

"Don't discuss policy; don't endanger yourself or others by posting details of upcoming events; don't post pictures that show the front of your house, or the school, or the car; don't talk about colleagues; don't post photos of colleagues without permission."

Nice summary and it probably belongs on the sidebar of every diploblog.

re: "Six Days in June"

Dave in Texas at Ace of Spades HQ remembers a long-ago fight.

Money quote(s):


"(W)hen Israel fought for its survival in the 6-Day War, they faced Arab armies in M-48 Patton tanks. When they say "never again", they really mean it.

In June of 1967, almost a quarter-million Israeli troops, of which only 50,000 were regulars, the rest reservists faced off against a half-million Arab soldiers from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Israel prepared by collecting vital intelligence regarding enemy positions, and battle plans, and by launching a devasting air attack against the air forces of the combatants, which resulted in Israel owning the airspace over the battlefield, a force multiplier for their smaller forces against the Arabs."

Israel, lacking oceans by which it could be separated from its enemies, depends upon a much faster mobilization process than we ever have (at least not since the Minute Men).

"Does Israel have the right to exist?

Regardless of our answers, they think they do."

That kind of settles the question. They are a nation in being, which suffices to constitute any sort of "right" salient to the subject.

"Israel knew they ultimately stood alone against their enemies. And it was up to them to fight back and win, or be annihilated. And by "annihilated", I mean completely Holocausted off the face of the planet.

Surrounded by their enemies, they taught their enemies "don't fuck with us"

I admire this sentiment."

Once upon a time we had a similar sentiment on one of our flags.