Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Create Israelestine or Restore Palestine? (english)
by Jon Chance
Email: jpchance (nospam) egroups.com
Address: 72 Peterborough Street, Boston MA 02215 USA
07 Jan 2003
Palestinians have been trying to "secede" from Israel's UN-mandated occupation for more than 50 years, as well as to regain their confiscated property....
Palestinians have been trying to "secede" from Israel's UN-mandated occupation for more than 50 years, as well as to regain their confiscated property....
Will Zionism destroy the Middle East? See Operation Shekhinah:
Or will Ashkenazi "Jews" learn to live with others as equals? - JPC
Creating a worldwide Secession Network based on principles of: Right
to Secede - Individual and Community Liberty - Libertarian /
Decentralist Political Processes - Nonviolent Secession and
VOICES FOR ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFEDERATION
The only just way to look at the Israel-Palestine conflict is from
the perspective of the rights of individuals to their freedom and
their justly acquired property and the right to self-determinaton of
the communities they have created.
Palestinians have been trying to "secede" from Israel's UN-mandated
occupation for more than 50 years, as well as to regain their
confiscated property. Yet Israelis also have a right to live in the
"Promised Land" on their justly acquired (or justly compensated)
Trying to resolve these issues in terms of collective rights of
ethnic and religious groups is driving us now to the verge of a
regional war where thousands of conventional, biological, chemical
and even nuclear weapons may be used, killing possibly millions of
people, Jewish, Muslim and Christian.
The voices below which describe various confederal options are voices
of reason and calm in comparison. Workable solutions might have to
be more radical decentralist, like those advanced at Secession.Net.
They certainly would not look like the defacto "bantustans" that the
Israeli government has tried to force upon Palestinians in the latest
The Palestinian position, as recently reiterated by Yassir Arafat, is
that Palestinians are willing to accept Israel if it retreats to its
June 4, 1967 borders--a demand long made even by the United Nations
(Resolution 242) which supported Israel's original mandate. Israel
refuses to give up the territory and continues to threaten nuclear
retaliation in "self-defense" of these confiscated lands.
Perhaps only a transcendant political solution like confederation,
arrived at through nonviolent negotation, can resolve this conflict.
(See a nonviolent plan for resolution from Nonviolence
International's Mubarak Awad Eight Steps to Israeli Palestinian
Israel-Palestine-Jordan Confederation | Trilateral Confederation
Israeli Voice for Israel-palestine Confederation | Palestinian Voice
for Israel-Palestine Confederation
Libertarian Voice for Israel-Palestine Confederation
Maps of Land Ownership Over 50 years and of Current Israeli Military
Checkpoints and Settlements
Seek Peace and Pursue It (Psalms 34:15)
"The way to bring peace to the Middle East is to establish a
Confederation which will include a Palestinian State in the West-Bank
and the Gaza Strip, the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan.
"Today, each of the Israeli party leaders proclaims a 'peace and
security' motto, however, nobody explicitly suggests how to implement
this. It is the obligation of these leaders to deliberate how to
reach the desired 'peace and security'. For the sake of all the peace
and security, justice and prosperity supporters we suggest a draft of
Confederation Agreement between Israel, Palestine and Jordan, which
is the first step in a larger scale project of the Middle East Common
"We address all politicians, all academic and public bodies who
support the 'peace and confederation' agreement in the Middle East
region and worldwide, to suggest concrete improvements to this
document. We will do our best to examine your suggestions, and if
found appropriate by publishers of this draft, they will be included
in future revisions."
Links include: confederation agreement | common market | map of the
middle east | historical agreements | survey | questions and answers
Trilateral Confederation: A New Political Vision for Peace by Arieh
Hess, January 1999
A 115 page PDF paper at the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and
Information page. http://www.ipcri.org/files/downloads.html
ISRAELI VOICE FOR ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFEDERATION
THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: AN INTERVIEW WITH JOSEPH ABILEAH
by Dr. Jeffrey Elliot (circa mid-1980s, publisher uncertain)
Joseph Abileah, the world-renowned Israeli pacifist*, is presently
the Secretary of the Society for Middle East Confederation, an
international organi zation which has advanced a series of bold
proposals for peace in that troubled region. The Society, which was
founded in 1972, believes that the present impasse can best be
resolved by a tripartite confederation involving Jordan, Arab
Palestine (West-Bank), and Israel, with Jerusalem as the Federal
capitol. Here, in this exclusive interview with Dr. Jeffrey Elliot,
he outlines his controversial plan for the reconciliation of Arabs
and Jews in the Middle East.
ELLIOT: What is the Society for Middle East Confederation?
ABILEAH: The Society was conceived as a forum for the discussion of
constructive ideas which aim at solving the Middle East conflict by
cooperation of Arabs and Jews on the economic and political level.
These range from a BENELUX pattern (economic cooperation) to a full
confederation of states, providing equal status and representation to
each of the member-components.
ELLIOT: Who comprises the membership of the Society?
ABILEAH: The Society consists of both registered members as well as
sympathizers. The total of registered members exceeds 150, including
Israelis, Jews, Arabs, and nationals of other countries. The
sympathizers, mostly abroad, number between 400-500. All professions
and walks of life are repre- sented. The international sponsors
include: Dr. Landrum Bolling (United States), Yehudi Menuhin
(England), Dr. Martin Niemoller (West Germany), Dr. Hugh Schonfield
(England), and Adv. Hein van Wijk (Netherlands.)
ELLIOT: What is the thrust of the Society's peace initiative?
ABILEAH: Having lived in the region for almost 50 years, I have
become very concerned about its future. As a convinced pacifist, I
have always advocated peaceful solutions based upon a common homeland
for Jews, Arabs, and other people who would like to share our fate.
The Society has not adopted a definite plan. My own program includes
six points: (I) A confederation composed of three states, viz.
Jordan, Arab Palestine (West-Bank), and Israel, with a federal
capitol in Jerusalem. (2) The federal government should deal, at
least in the beginning, with foreign policy and economic integration.
(3) Economic integration would enable the confederation to solve the
refugee problem without massive foreign aid. (4) The help of the
United Nations is required for an enlargement of the irrigation
scheme in the Syrian desert with the waters of the Tigris and
Euphrates. This would provide the Iraqis and the Syrians with
irrigated land. (5) A religious council, which would form a second
house in the federal parliament, should be composed of
representatives of all faiths and religious communities in the area.
This council would be entrusted with the creation of a federal
constitution based on ethical principles. (6) The confederation would
be open to any country in the Middle East to join. It should be
formed with the idea of creating a United States of the Middle East
in the future.
ELLIOT: Why should Israel, under your proposal, give up its status as
a sovereign nation?
ABILEAH: Like the other member-states, Israel must be willing to
limit its absolute sovereignty if we are to become a tripartite
confederation or even a binational constellation. We cannot expect
our neighbor to do something which we are not prepared to do
ourselves. Besides, this fact only reflects the realities of the
situation, as Israel has become entirely dependent on the United
States. In this regard, it lost its independence and sovereignty some
time ago. It is important to challenge the notion of national
sovereignty as such. In our century, with the advancement of
technology, im- proved living standards, and mass communications,
this political term has lost its meaning in a practical sense. It has
become an anachronism, one which has encouraged the outbreak of war
owing to the semantic weight of the word as myth. Similarly, as
Israel has lost her sovereignty, so will a sovereign Palestinian
state lose her independence to one of the super-powers or an Arab
state in the area. It cannot hope to survive with limited natural
resources and lack of access to the major seaports. The establishment
of an Arab-Palestinian state without close ties to Israel or Jordan
or both is pre- carious at best. Add to this the law of return for
refugees, and you further increase the risk of war. It is clear that
Israel will do her utmost to remain in a position of readiness and
will escalate an endless arms race with the result of economic
decline for herself and the whole region.
ELLIOT: At the heart of your proposal is the concept of
confederation. What kind of confederation do you envision?
ABILEAH: The answer is to create a confederation, very loose in the
beginning, of perhaps two or three states which would depend on each
other in a geo-political way. This would encompass the areas on both
banks of the Jordan, the present state of Israel, the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan, the creation of a new member-state on the
West-Bank and the Gaza area reserved for the Palestinians. Each state
would establish a local government as well as send representatives to
the confederative government on a parity basis. The central
government would deal with common concerns, chief of which should be
the rehabilitation of refugees. This task must be viewed as a shared
burden and responsibility.
ELLIOT: What do you see as the geographic boundaries of a Middle East
ABILEAH: The smallest Middle East Confederation which could meet the
present needs would comprise the territory on both banks of the River
Jordan. This would provide the Hashemite Kingdom and the new
Palestinian state with access to the seaports of the eastern
Mediterranean, vital to their respective economies. The state
boundaries would be roughly those of June, 1967, it being understood
that these would constitute ethnic-cultural divisions and not
strategic frontiers to be defended. There exists the possibility of a
division into smaller states according to the majority of inhabitants
of one ethnic group or another. This approach resembles a plan
proposed by Yitzhak Hayutman in 1975, which would establish three
types of sub-states based on ethnicity: Arab, Jewish, and mixed.
There could be as many as twelve or more of these states, each of
which would be represented in the confederative government. A similar
approach was advanced by Professor Johan Galtung, Oslo, and would
address the problem of the large minorities in preponderantly Jewish
or Arab states.
ELLIOT: In what ways will a confederation turn enmity into friendship
in the Middle East?
ABILEAH: Enmity and hate are created by fear. At present, the Arabs
are as much afraid of being pushed into the desert as the Jews are
afraid of being thrown into the sea. The Jewish immigration is
opposed by the Arabs for fear of being outnumbered. The return of the
refugees is opposed by the Israel is for fear of the Arab majority.
If we couId agree on the principle of parity-representation in the
constitution, this mutual fear would be eliminated and a new bond of
trust created in its place. This is the difference between a
confederation which is merely a military alliance and one which has a
common constructive purpose. ~
ELLIOT: How will the confederation be governed?
ABILEAH: The responsibility for administration and decision-making in
the various member-states must be left to the local governments. The
confederative government should deal, at least in the beginning, with
common regional concerns. These might include a coordinated foreign
policy and the rehabilitation of refugees. Once we have made progress
in these areas, we will find ourselves cooperating in such areas as
health service:" road building, meteorological services, port
authorities, and many others. A president should be elected on a
rotating basis, similar to the system in Switzerland, where seven
members of the cabinet hold office as chairman for a period of one-
year in rotation. The concept of parity-representation in the
confederative government is essential, especially since every sector
is afraid of being outnumbered.
ELLIOT: What do you see as the basic foreign policy of a Middle East
ABILEAH. The cornerstone of a confederative foreign policy should
reflect the common welfare of the region. This is idealistically
expressed. However, in practical terms, it should include trade
agreements with Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
ELLIOT: What role would the super-powers play in a Middle East
ABILEAH: The super-powers are not interested at the present time in
the outbreak of peace in the Middle East because they are afraid of
losing their foothold in their respective spheres of influence in the
region. Oil interests and weapons markets are also involved. As far
back as 1969, I argued that we should ask for help from the nations
of the world in irrigating the Syrian desert, but at the same time
guarantee the oil interests for these nations. This induced Mr.
Maynard Shelly, the former editor of The Mennonite, to write an
article entitled, "Take Your Oil, Give Us Water". The super-powers
are not interested in a big fire which would mean a direct
confrontation, but they do not mind if a few thousand Arabs and Jews
are killed from time to time. The situation demands that we no longer
kill or be killed to protect foreign interests. Our conscientious
objectors have made an important start in this direction. This is a
first step, but a passive one. We must become more active in
peace-making by awakening our citizens to the true facts of the
situation. Even for the super-powers, the present policies are
short-sighted. The arms supplied to the Middle East are paid for in
cash only by rich countries. Those supplied to Israel are mostly in
the form of loans, few of which will .ever be paid back. This fact
does not worry the United States as long as we remain their serfs.
Arms do not produce anything; they can only be used for destructive
purposes. On the other hand, if credit was granted in the form of
tractors and other agricultural machinery, new skills could be
developed, and in time, all loans repaid with interest. In a
confederation comprising all coun- tries of the Middle East or even a
common market constellation, regular com- mercial relations on equal
standing could be established with western as well as eastern
nations, including the super-powers.
ELLIOT: Are you optimistic over the prospects of Arab-Israeli
ABILEAH: I am optimistic in terms of peaceful co-existence provided
that we can work out a suitable political framework. This cannot be
the same pattern which was invented in the nineteenth century and
which precipitated two world wars. We cannot turn the wheels back. We
must look ahead to a new world order. We must be prepared to adapt
our policies to the realities of the twenty-first century. If,
however, we continue to accept the idea of the nation-state, then I
see a bleak future ahead.
Society for Mid-East Confederation ---P.O. Box 9478, 31094 --- Haifa.
Israel (Note: since nothing was found about this Society on the
Internet, it is not known if it still exists or is at this mid-1980s
* Joseph Abileah is (or was) a Conscientious Objector who refused to
serve in the Israeli army. Abileah, who had lived most of his life
in what had been called Palestine, said at his trial in 1949: "I have
been educated with Arab children on the same school bench. Do you
expect me to kill my schoolmates?" For more information on
Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Israel go to
Anthony G. Bing wrote a biography of Abilah called "Israeli Pacifist:
the Life of Joseph Abileah".
PALESTINIAN VOICE FOR ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFEDERATION
POINT OF VIEW OF A NATIVE PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN
By Sami Aldeeb al-Imwasi* from
The absence of the Palestinian voice Newspapers, radio and television
in Western Countries have access to Israeli journalists and
correspondents who report daily on the situation in the Middle East
from an Israeli perspective. The Palestinian perspective, on the
contrary, is rarely heard from Palestinian sources. Such a situation
is contrary to democracy. In an attempt to fill the gap, I have
written this short piece.
Peace is the fruit of Justice: There are two opposing concepts of
peace found in the world today: First is the concept based on the
pagan Roman adage: "If you wish peace, prepare for war" (Si vis
pacem, para bellum). Then there is the saying of the prophet Isaiah,
who lived in Palestine 2700 years ago: "Peace will be the fruit of
justice; justice assures calm and tranquility forever" (Isaia, 32:
17). As a Palestinian Christian, I am convinced that only the concept
of Isaiah can bring peace to the Middle East.
From a moral point of view, the war between Jews and Arabs, two
brother peoples, is contrary to the commandment: "Thou shall not
kill". From a practical point of view, war has failed to establish
peace and has done nothing but perpetuate the cycle of violence. It
is pointless to persist in swelling the military arsenals which serve
no one except arms manufacturers. To achieve the peace which Isaiah
writes of, it is necessary to put an end to the injustice which is
the basis of the war in the Middle East.
A basic injustice: By virtue of Israeli law, all Jews, even recent
converts, have the right to immigrate to Palestine, regardless of
where they were born, in Moscow or in New York. The majority of
native Palestinians, on the contrary, do not have the right to return
to their land and their homes, simply because they are not Jews.
Today, Palestinians, as non-Jews, find themselves within miles of
their land, inside the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 and the
Arab countries, forbidden to return home. Meanwhile, Israel recruits
Jews from Moscow, New York and elsewhere. Palestinian villages were,
for the most part, demolished. Professor Israel Shahak from the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem gives the names of several hundred
destroyed villages. This equals approximately 80% of the Palestinian
villages within the borders of Israel prior to 1967 (see p. 14).**
Israeli oppression continues today. Palestinian intellectuals are
arrested and tortured. As a condition for their release from prisons,
Israel demands their departure from Palestine. Thus begins a nomadic
life of exile for these intellectuals, in countries which mayor may
not welcome them, according to the whims of the moment. It is
estimated that 70% of Palestinian academics have been in prison at
least once. According to the Newspaper "Le Monde" of June II, 1987,
2000 people have been deported since 1967, and 4,500 prisoners are
incarcerated in Israeli prisons.
It is impossible to review all the harassment aimed at the civilian
Palestinian population by Israeli authorities. There have been the
poisoning of school children; armed robberies, in the middle of the
day, carried out by unidentified persons under the watch of Israeli
military patrols; the confiscation of farmers' lands, depriving them
of their way of life without financial compensation; the control over
the access to water resources by Israeli authorities.
Solution of the ignorant against the terrorism of the hopeless:
Chased from all sides, declared undesirable both in their homeland
and in other countries, the Palestinians have been hopelessly drawn
to acts of terrorism reflecting their hopelessness. Attempting to
stop this terrorism, heads of state convene meeting after meeting,
talking only of police measures or military intervention against
those countries that harbor terrorists.
In so doing, these leaders behave like an idiot who fights a headache
with insults rather than trying to heal it. They believe that waging
war against terrorism can bring peace. Not only do they forget their
complicity in creating the desperation which leads some toacts of
terrorism, but they have forgotten their Bible as well, preferring
pagan ideals to those of Isaiah. The latter however, would cost
considerably less, and would bring a much more effective response. It
is not through the signing of treaties, through police measures or
military interventions that a people who have lost hope can be
prevented from resorting to terrorism. You can prod a donkey with a
stick to change directions; but a people without hope need justice to
Justice: allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes;
permitting the reconstruction of the villages razed by Israel; giving
repayment to war victims.
Israel also forgets her Bible: When Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1977,
I was among those few Palestinians supporting this trip, on condition
that reparations for the injustices committed against the
Palestinians be made. I felt convinced that "Without a solution to
the Palestinian problem, all attempts at peace are nothing but a time
bomb." (Newspaper "La Suisse", Dec. 31, 1977).
The Camp David agreement which followed Sadat's visit turned out to
be a means of neutralizing the Egyptian border in preparation for an
Israeli war against the Palestinians in Lebanon. Instead of making
reparations for the injustices committed against the Palestinian
people, Israel preferred to launch a murderous war called "Peace for
Galilee". Israels forgets the Bible by applying the pagan principle
"If you want peace prepare for war" instead of looking to that of
Isaiah, "If you want peace establish justice." With losses and
suffering on both sides, this war is far from having established the
deathly peace desired by Israel.
Pretexts for denying justice: On April 22, 1983, President Reagan,
repeating the words of Israel, denied that the PLO was the legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people. These two "democratic"
countries refused however to give proof of their allegations against
the PLO by allowing elections amongst the Palestinians -at least
those of the West Bank. The refusal to negotiate with the PLO or to
organize elections proves that these two states are refusing to grant
justice to the Palestinians.
Israel and the United States refuse to dialogue with the PLO,
asserting that it is a terrorist organization. They forget that most
of the present Israeli leaders were involved in terrorist movements
and are implicated in some civilian assassinations. Suffice it to
cite the case of Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli Prime Minister, who was
responsible for the assassination of Count Bernadotte, special Envoy
of the United Nations in charge of finding a solution to the
Palestinian problem (Sune 0. Persson, Mediation and Assassination,
Ithaca Press, London 1979, p. 208). The United States and Israel
further contend that the PLO refuses to recognize the State of
Israel does not, however, say which borders it would like to have
recognized, or what destiny is in store for Palestinian refugees and
destroyed Palestinian villages. Personally, I do not oppose
recognition of Israel, if it accepts: the borders prior to 1967; the
return of those refugees who wish to, who fled in 1948 and 1967, with
rights; equal to those of Jews immigrating from Moscow or New York;
reconstruction of a significant portion of those villages destroyed,
and reparations; made to war victims; dismantling of the Israeli
settlements on the Occupied territories.
With the exception of the Golan Heights, which would have to be
returned to Syria, I would favor putting control of the territories
emptied by Israel under the United Nations for five years, without
the presence of an army. After five years, a free election would be
held. Whatever the results, these territories would have to be
maintained without an army so that the energies of the population of
the area could be directed toward the good of the people, and not
toward the purchase of weaponry.
Over the long term I envision the establishment of a confederation
between Israel and the new Palestinian State, with local autonomy for
the two entities, as is the case in Switzerland. This confederation
would be open to other states with rights equal to those of the base
Such an idea for a confederation is not purely an invention of my
spirit. Sane Israelis support it, and find that it is the only
solution possible in a land claimed by two peoples. Amongst these
Israelis are Nahum Goldmann (former President of the World Jewish
Congress), Uri Avnery (Israeli politician and Chief-Redactor of
Haolam Hazeh), Andre Chouraqui (former vice-mayor of Jerusalem), as
well as Israeli pacifist Joseph Abileah. Abileah is the Secretary of
the Israeli Association for a Confederation in the Middle East, of
which the famous musician Yehudi Menuhin is a supporting member. It
is composed of Jews, Moslems and Christians and its President is an
Justice or extermination: The Confederation idea is undoubtedly
utopic in its vision, so long it has not been realized. Whatever
alternative is chosen must however respect the principle of justice
and assure that the Palestinian refugees are permitted to return to
their lands and their homes. Such an assurance by Israel was a
condition for its recognition by the United Nations. Failure to
establish a just solution to the Palestinian problem will result in
the continuation of the battle between the Arabs and Jews, until both
parties are exterminated. Either justice or extermination.
LIBERTARIAN VOICE FOR ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFEDERATION
(Note: for a libertarian view on the history of the conflict, see
Murray Rothbards historical overview.)
WHO SHALL OWN JERUSALEM
By Fred Foldvary
Press Release #13 - Foldvary for Congress - October 15, 2000
Jerusalem, ancient capital of the Israelites, and would-be capital
city of both the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs, is at the center
of the conflict, once again become violent, between the two peoples
in Israel and Palestine. Both sides have maximal demands to
exclusively own East Jerusalem and the Old City. As Isaiah 59:8
tells us, "The way of peace, they know not."
The Palestinians want jurisdiction over eastern Jerusalem and also
want control over the Muslim religious sites. The Israelis want to
keep Jerusalem unified within Israel. The Palestinians have been
offered a few sections at the edge of eastern Jerusalem, but they
remain adamant in wanting all of eastern Jerusalem, which had been
under Jordanian control prior to 1967.
There is no way to reconcile these maximal demands within the
confines of only two governments, Israel and Palestine. We need to
expand the whole paradigm to include a third entity which would have
jurisdiction. Israel and Palestine must be equal nations in a
Confederation of the Levant. The "Levant" is the French term for the
eastern Mediterranean area, derived from the Latin word for rising,
as in the rising of the sun in the East.
There can arise a new peace and a new era for the Middle East once
the two peoples accept the other as equal human beings with equal
rights to self-determination and equal rights to the land. The
Confederation would have direct jurisdiction over all Jerusalem and
over all the holy religious sites, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. The
confederation would also have courts to resolve disputes between
Israelis and Palestinians, as well as authority over common resources
such as water.
The concept of confederation for Israel is an old idea. Martin Buber
proposed a binational state, and Noam Chomsky in his book Peace in
the Middle East? (1974) advocated principles for a settlement which
include: no domination of one group by another, self-government for
each nation, the ability of each individual to live where he chooses,
and a state which is neither Jewish nor Arab but multinational.
Chomsky suggested, as an alternative to the usual proposals,
"parallel national institutions throughout the whole territory with a
free option for each individual; and also the option of dissociation
from national institutions with retention of full rights of
citizenship for those who prefer."
A Confederation of the Levant, however it is named, would satisfy all
these criteria. Israel and Palestine would have full and equal
self-governance for their internal affairs, including their own
schools, currencies, languages, criminal law, and economic policy.
The confederation would have jurisdiction on common and disputed
interests, such as Jerusalem. Both sides would thereby own the
disputed areas, but neither would do so exclusively.
The philosopher Martin Buber proposed a just alliance with the Arab
peoples with unhampered independent development for each in a
binational state. He also favored (in a 1939 letter to Gandhi) "the
independence of each individual." With "joint sovereignty," neither
people need fear "domination by the other through numerical
superiority," hence, he said, immigration need not be restricted. In
a 1947 radio lecture in the Netherlands, Buber said, "The demands for
an Arab state or a Jewish state in the entire Land of Israel fall
into the category of political 'surplus,' of the desire to achieve
more than what is truly needed." The two essential prerequisites for
an agreement, said Buber, were "the precedence of economics over
politics" and the "intra-national principle." (Martin Buber, A Land
of Two Peoples, 1983).
The vision of Martin Buber and Noam Chomsky of bi-nationalism in a
common land would be realized in a Confederation that ties the two
peoples in one union with two states, just as the United States is a
country with parallel sovereignty by the States and the federal
union. With the violence in Israel and Palestine now threatening the
progress made by the peace process, it's time for the idea of a
binational confederation to be widely discussed and made a key
ingredient in the negations.
The Middle East will continue to be a key policy issue that Congress
will be dealing with during the next decade, affecting many residents
of the East Bay who have ties to the Middle East and who are active
in movements for peace and social justice. Candidates for Congress
should state their positions on this issue, and the press should let
their readers know of their positions. Foldvary for Congress is
thereby informing the public and the press of his position to empower
voters to make an informed choice.
Fred Foldvary foldvary@p...
MAPS: 1945 Palestine land ownership by categroy; Lands confiscated by
Israel 1948-49; Lands confiscated in 1967 war. From the Applied
Research Institute in Jerusalem and An Atlas of Palestine
Jews owned only 7% of the land in 1945 and gained the rest through
United Nations intervention and through confiscation.
More maps at:
The Jewish National Fund Study itself admitted how little lands Jews
legally owned at the birth of Israel:
Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000-400,00
dunams--apart fromn the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at
present quite unfit for cultivation -- are State Domain which the
Israeli government took over frmo the mandatory regime. The
J.N.F.and private Jewish owners possess unde two million dumans.
Almost all the rest belonga at law to Arab owners, many of whom left
the country. (Jewish Villages in Israel, Jewish National Fund (Keren
Kayemeth Leisrael) Head Office, Jerusalem, 1949, pp. xxi-xxii.)
1999 Map shows how Israelis control the land the seized in 1967 war.
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance - United States President.
http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting - TEA.
http://bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm - R. Buckminster Fuller.
http://homepower.com - Guerrilla Solar Rogues.
http://public-action.com - True or Not? Decide For Yourself.
http://themoneymasters.com - A History of Banksters.
http://treasurynet.org - Time + Energy = Wealth.