65 years ago today: Guardian misses one key element of 1947 UN partition


Today is the 65th anniversary of the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 on the future status of British ruled Palestine. 

The Guardian’s Picture of the Day, Nov. 29, in recognition of this event in history, includes the following iconic image of Israelis celebrating in the streets of Tel Aviv shortly after the UN vote codifying their right to statehood.

Here’s the Guardian headline and strap line for the pictorial post.

Do you notice any information missing from the strap line?

Well, it seems that they failed to mention one quite significant element of the UN resolution (which passed with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent). Res. 181 not only called for the creation of a Jewish state, but the creation of an Arab one as well.

The Jews accepted partition.  

The Arabs didn’t accept partition, refused to compromise on any outcome other than a single unitary Arab state and launched a war when Israel declared independence in May, 1948.

While the UN debates Palestinian statehood tonight in NYC, it’s important to remember that on this day, 65 years ago, a Palestinian state was offered by the international community, accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs.

Proposed borders per UN Resolution 181 in 1947.

98 comments on “65 years ago today: Guardian misses one key element of 1947 UN partition

    • Alex you are correct to say that the Palestinians succeeded to lose this game too as they have done every other during the last hundred years, but there are other losers on the field too – first among them is the last hope that the UN has any credibility and usefulness. But the most important losers are the millions in Israel losing the last illusions about the possibility of peace with the Palestinians.

    • So nice of you to come here and gloat. But ask yourself, does this really promote peace, or is it just one more step in the PLO’s “stages plan” for the elimination of Israel. Also, this is a risky precedent for countries all around the world. Do you think it is logical that the UN will decide that Scotland is an independent country occupied by the UK, without the UK’s consent, or the same for Catalunia or Basques and Spain?

    • “Yes 138 – No 9 – Abstain 41 Loooooooooooosers!”

      Indeed Alex the 138 (useful idiots) who voted for the resolution have lost the opportunity to take part in the process to bring about a meaningful and sustainable peace settlement in the Middle East.

      By the way Alex you need to clean your key board the letter ‘o’ seems to be stuck.

        • You mean the Us-Israeli attempts at Camp David and Annapolis where all of their efforts were directed to avoid the acceptance of the Palestinian peace proposals?

        • Avrumale Melamed, how many resolutions regarding Syria were passed yesterday?

          Ignoring the elephent in the room are we?

        • Avram,

          Have you no shame in showing up here and blatantly lying? Are you doing it to upset people by purposefully inverting the situation? Are you that depraved? The Palestinians could have been celebrating the 65th anniversary of their own state by now, or at least the 12th. Their real purpose (and that of their Arab and Muslim brethren) has always been to do away with the Jewish state, because it is jewish and not Arab/Muslim. They proclaim it loud and clear. That’s it. There’s really nothing else to talk about.

          • Are you aware that at the time Palestine’s population was approx 66% Arab and the UN in their infinite wisdom ‘offered’ them approx 43% of the land. A set of statistics which may explain why the Arabs declined the ‘bargain’ on the table

          • No, Mathew, that’s the way apologists for unconditional Palestinian/Arab rejectionist policies try to cover their asses. The percentage had absolutely zilch to do with it, and anyone who knows anything about the history knows that, and so do the Palestinians and their Arab brethren (in arabic at least). I’ll let people speculate as to why you don’t.
            P.S. Your quotation marks around the word bargain are laughable.

          • “Are you aware that at the time Palestine’s population was approx 66% Arab and the UN in their infinite wisdom ‘offered’ them approx 43% of the land. A set of statistics which may explain why the Arabs declined the ‘bargain’ on the table”

            Except that the Negev was, especially at the time, functionally worthless scrubland to almost everyone.

            No partition is going to make everyone happy, in fact, no partition is going to make anyone entirely happy. However, the invading forces of the ’48 war had, one might suggest, no interest in the matter whatsoever. It did not affect their borders in the slightest. And yet, the entire region geared up to beat the snot out of the new kid on the block. I could explain that, but it’s not very pleasant.

            You do, however, get points for referencing the size of the Jewish population of the region, and not insisting as a matter of obvious fact that the Arab community was ‘indigenous’, and automatically entitled to all of the land, so you get to stay.

            (I say this in jest and self-mockery, as I have absolutely no control over who stays and goes at CIFWatch.)

      • Absolutely right Gerald! Indeed the signatories to the Oslo Accords pledged to encourage the parties to reach a settlement in negotiations when they signed, can no longer be honest brokers for peace – and that includes GB for abstaining!.

      • ‘Useful Idiots’ is “a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause”.

        You don’t even understand the terminology you are using! In your case let’s drop the ‘useful’.

        • You are correct again. These so called “useful idiots” are not idiots at all. They can be divided to the following groups:
          1. Third world countries whose leaders are corrupt cleptocrats
          2. Third world dictatorships with majority Muslim population brainwashed by Islamofascist and jihadist ideology.
          3. Murderous dictatorial states.
          4. Western democracies with big Muslim population lead by corrupt voter hungry politicians
          5. Democracies on the brink of financial collapse hoping economic support from oil-rich Arab dictators.
          6. Ex communist dictatorial regimes like China and Russia who are hoping to win political influence in the third world.
          7. European states with genuine anti-Semitic agenda like Sweden, Norway, Finland.
          8. Democracies with strong representation in their parliaments of the Green-Brown-Red alliance.
          9. The remaining fossils of the communist workers-paradises.
          10. The wannabe communist workers-paradises.

          Did I left out anybody?

          Anyway all of these voting for the Palestinian state are not interested at all in the fate of the Palestinians and their hope for an independent state exactly because they are not idiots and knew very well that they did just hammered the last nail into the coffin of the peace process and the hope of reconciliation between the two peoples. Wanting to get rid of the Jews these yes-voters just sacrificed the Palestinians on the altar of their selfish interests causing a lot of sufferings for the next generations of Israelis and Palestinians and not to speak about proving again that the UN lost of its reason d’etre.

          • What peace process? The Israeli’s have buried the peace process because they never had any intention of making peace.Might is right is their motto no matter how many innocents are killed.

          • Quite a catalogue! The world is a cynical place. Interestingly,Israel’s best buddy in Europe is the Czech Republic. How would you describe them? A beacon of truth and Democracy? Not if your Roma! Roma have a hard time in that neck of the woods what with all the pogroms and that. Two or three blocks away in Hungary the story is the same. But here the Hungarians are not satisfied with persecuting the Roma, their talking about going after the Jews.

            ________________________________

        • Alex thank you for your amusing attempt at mind reading and telling me what I mean by the term ‘useful idiots’.

          As usual you are wrong.

        • The use of the term ‘useful idiots’ in this context is essentially racist. Not surprising given that the state of Israel is a racist entity. Needless to say,not all Israelis are racist!

          • “The use of the term ‘useful idiots’ in this context is essentially racist.”

            Really Matthew, how is it ‘essentially racist’?
            Are you suggesting that the countries that voted for the resolution are all of the same race?
            Are you suggesting that I regard them as ‘useful idiots’ because they are not the same race as I am? But, as you do not know what race I am that would be a silly suggestion.

            • It represents a blanket dismissal of the majority of countries in Africa,South America,Asia and of course the Arab block. I think you will find that most of these people are non-white.So the perception could be that this is barely-disguised racism. Needless to say your arrogance is breath taking.

              ________________________________

          • ‘Sprattyville’ I note that you did not make any attempt to answer the questions to Matthew.
            I also note that you are another who thinks they can shout out “Racism”, without any substance to the allegation, at those who disagree with you.

            Please continue as it is quite amusing although you are being boring.

            • I think you are hopelessly confused. Which in itself is quite amusing. The term racist/m is not to used lightly. However it is often coupled with feelings of superiority. And there is plenty of that in evidence in many of the posts dealing with this issue.Including yours.

              ________________________________

    • Abba Eban is believed to have said that if Algeria introduced a resolution at the UN declaring that the Earth was flat, and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions!!!

      Alex, there you have it. Palestine is a State and the earth is flat. We’re all wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiners.

    • Alex, thank you for confirming your child like mentaility, but sadly unlike your view of life, this is not an Xbox game where war is “fun”.

      It is time you woke up to what is life like for the people in this region.
      It is time you start asking yourself why children on both side are not alarmed by people walking with machine guns all around them every day for the past 65 years.

    • I wonder who voted to give non-member state status and legitimacy to a non-state with a genocidal, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic party on one end, and on the other a “president” in the ninth year of his four year term. I’ll bet a lot of them are non-democratic countries ruled by serial human rights violators whose own records are light years worse than anything they say about Israel’s, whose own record they lie about all the time.

      http://www.blog.camera.org/archives/2012/11/west_bank_and_gaza_residents_e.html

      http://www.blog.camera.org/archives/2012/11/wheres_the_coverage_palestine.html

      • Please remove the “www.” for the above links. Here’s another:

        daledamos.blogspot.com/2012/11/anne-bayefsky-what-un-recognition-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FdafW+%28Daled+Amos%29

  1. The rubber stamp brigade of 138 countries in full cry in support of their losers. If Israel had managed to slip in a condition that it is agreed that the earth is flat, it would have passed as well.

    Now let’s see if they can behave like a responsible state or yet another terror state like Iran or Gaddafi’s Libya.

      • Jeff, this is all a plan by Abbas to remove Hamas and Israel and maintain the status quo.

        You see, the next step is Hague.
        By asking to be a member of the ICJ in the Hague every Palestinian is also under the court’s ruling which will mean Hamasnics will have to be brought down to the court as well as Israelis – provided there is a case against them.

        Abbas has nothing to lose by doing this move as this sorts his problems with the ever popular Hamas and he would love to keep the status quo getting the freebeez through UNRWA or the EU + US.

        Once again he is using this move to remove Israel altogether rather than to try and come to the middle ground.
        Arafat’s successor.

      • Without Moshe Sharett holding the pass in the fifties We might now see a ‘greater Israel stretching from the Litani in the North to the Canal in the south and the Jordan in the east.The Jabotinsky persuasion conceived of an even greater ‘Eretz Israel’.
        Israel has never considered ‘Peace’ an option.Just as the white supremists of South Africa sought to maintain their racial superiority by the use of overwhelming force. So have the Zionist pioneers used an ‘Iron Fist’ in their relations with the indigenous population.There is only one way out of this predicament :- A bi-national secular state.However this requires a sea-change in attitudes in the ‘metropolitan’ hinterland ( U.S and Europe) with respect to the very large ‘elephant in the room’ Racism.

        • “Without Moshe Sharett holding the pass…”

          Yeah. Right. Very good then…goodbye Matthew. Don’t let the “racist” door hit you in the ass on your way out.

        • The comparison is as stupid as ideologically limited people are.
          There are no bantustans in Israel.
          Indigenous people were Muslims, Druzes, Jews, …
          Greater Israel – you really think that this tiny country is Greater Israel? Then you have no sense of proportions which is characteristic for extremists.
          Normally defeated sit down to negotiate peace, but with the support of oil countries, Arab dictatorships and left extremist terror buddies, masquerading as peace activists, in the west the diverse organisations decline peace and work for the end of Israel, like you.

    • It does look a bit like the last random map scribble of the British Empire–“aw hell, we’re just about out of the game, just do it by populations, OK? Yeah, it looks goofy. Who cares?”

  2. It appears that the diplomats of the approving countries get their news & views from television & the media.

    • Judging by the state of corruption in Africa, South east Asia, Central Asia, South and Central America and the Balkans, it is hardly surprising that votes go to the highest bidder.

      Now what would they do when reliance on fossil fuel will be removed?

      I think Alex just messed his pants…

  3. Reading some of the triumphant tweets and the vicious comments on cif I remembered Abbas’s last visit to the UN and his humiliation there. It struck me that the vote today was really in the nature of a consolation prize and a pat on the head for someone who gets everything wrong but who has rich and influential relatives.

    • But if – if – it all leads to a permanent peace and a two-state solution, it’s a good thing – right?

      • But if – if – it all leads to a permanent peace and a two-state solution, it’s a good thing – right?
        Yes it would, but without any ifs and woulds it leads to push the possibility of the two-state solution away.

        • But there’s nothing in the recognition that calls for the dreaded “one-state solution”.

          For a permanent peace, perhaps the borders would have to redrawn, right?
          I mean: I understand Israeli concerns over the West Bank’s western border being just 20 miles from the Med.

  4. Utterly bizarre nonsense.

    The “offer” put to “The Arabs” as you quaintly put it, was to have 55% of their homeland and 85% of their agricultural land turned over to European immigrants. Of course they opposed it. The Arab counter proposal for a bi-national state and a freeze on further influx of European refugees was accepted by “The Arabs” and rejected by “the Jews”.

    All academic, as 181 was only ever a recommendation to the British, and a recommendation the British chose to discard. The Partition plan was abandoned as unworkable and plans were drawn up to place Palestine into the UN Trusteeship system.

    Of course, the Zionist conquerors unilaterally declared a Jewish state to exist on what was, at that time, predominantly Arab land. And the rest, as they say, is history.

    It will be comical in the coming days to watch the hasbara merchants scramble to incorporate this new reality into their disinformation.

    • Where was the struggle for a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967? At that time, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan (hence its name), and the Gaza strip by Egypt. No one considered making these territories a Palestinian state then. That demand is always about whatever territory that Israel currently holds. That’s right – “Palestine” is where the Jews are.
      Besides, what are you saying here – that Palestinians deserve a nation state and Jews don’t? Might generous and also egalitarian of you.

      • All people have a right to self determination. A Palestinian state is just one of the ways in which the indigenous Arabs of Palestine can achieve this self determination.

        As a people, they have never been keen to acquiesce and accept their dispossession, always longing to undo the injustice imposed by their conquerors. The post 67 drive for a state is just a sad reflection of the statist monopoly over self determination.

        Personally, I don’t view Palestine as a state, and I think ultimately a bi-national state is the only lasting solution. But your comments about Palestine being wherever the Jews are is just silly. Palestine wasn’t in Europe. Palestine is Palestine. And the Zionists decided they needed to set up a Jewish state in an area of the world that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish – dispossessing the indigenous majority in the process.

        Please don’t bleat for sympathy. Sympathy is what we should feel for the victims of the Zionist conquest, not the perpetrators.

        • Spare your sympathies – I asked you for none. But at least learn your history:

          First of all, Arabs of Palestine / Land of Israel are not “indigenous”. Arabs come from Arabia, which means Arabs first settled in the region in the 7th century, during the Muslim conquest waves of empire building. I guess that would make them, I don’t know, Imperialists?
          Next, in the following centuries, during the crusades, Mongol invasions, and Ottoman occupation, the population of Palestine dwindled quickly. By the late 18th century and during the 19th century local rulers such as Daher-el-Omar from Lebanon and Muhammad Ali from Egypt raised up colonies of settlers from Egypt, Lebanon and Syria in Palestine, which were a significant part of the population. I guess that would make them settlers and colonialists.
          Finally, during the late 19th and early 20th century, when Zionists Jews and the British brought economic prosperity to the country, additional waves of Arab immigration from surrounding countries were drawn for the economic opportunities.
          So to sum up your points: Arab immigration to Palestine – good; Jewish immigration – bad. Arab nation states – good ; Jewish nation state – bad. Arab expulsion of Jews from Arab countries – good ; Arab displacement by Jews during a defensive war – bad.
          Call it what you will, but I call it a double standard.

          • Your mythistory is based largely on discredited works like the Joan Peters hoax. Outside hardcore Zionist circles, your views simple don’t stand up. For example, I have population figures for Palestine going back to 16th century Ottoman times, and I can tell you you’re talking nonsense.

            Calling a population that had lived and worked in a land for centuries before British imperialism non-indigenous is a pretty amusing piece of mental gymnastics, but I’ve seen it all before, my friend.

          • @AvramMeitner: If you have figures, please share them and we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise, resorting to epithets such as “hoax”, “hardcore Zionist”, and “mythistory” (did you actually mean to write it that way?) just prove you’re losing the argument.
            Oh, and by the way, I’m not your friend yet.

        • Avram/Tim/Dubitante @ 4.32 AM you wrote,
          “Yes, because the US-Israeli attempts to block the two state solution at all costs have done such a fine job up until now.”

          Then @ 4.48AM,
          “Personally, I don’t view Palestine as a state, and I think ultimately a bi-national state is the only lasting solution.”

          So you support the actions of the US and Israel?

          • Gerald you should ignore Avram. His forte is using falsified quotes and/or quoting anything without giving any reference. He’s a fighter for people’s right of self-determination – with one exception – the very same right of the Jews.

        • AVramMeitner “For example, I have population figures for Palestine going back to 16th century Ottoman times, and I can tell you you’re talking nonsense”.

          The pseudo-Jew has still produced no figures.

          • No, Jobless Meitner, he means wannabees.
            Of whom you think are some poor lost sons and daughters who think they had been poorly treated, lost complete orientation and now serve the worst enemies of Jews to attain attention and revenge.
            They never mature.

        • “Personally, I don’t view Palestine as a state, and I think ultimately a bi-national state is the only lasting solution.”

          Your respect for the wishes of the Palestinian people is duly noted. Call them back when you get to be king of the world.

          • “Indigenous” is just a bad word to use in this situation. It’s favored by some because it’s a shorthand that immediately brings up a whole context of poor, noble brown people and arrogant, well-armed white people, indigenes and colonizers. I went to college in the 90s. I know the drill.

            The problem is that there have been both Arab and Jewish populations in the region for an extremely long time, and many people from both communities were immigrants to Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Neither group controlled any part of the ‘country’ politically for quite a long time before the mid-twentieth century. The history of the region is complex. This is not the answer anyone is looking for, (especially not Alice Walker), but it’s true.

            • Its not an answer. Its a statement of fact. So what! The Zionist project ( post Hertzl) was to take over what was then Mandatory Palestine and settle it exclusively with Jewish immigrants.By force if necessary.This pre-dated the Holocaust in Europe. This is what came to pass. The original safeguards outlined in the Balfour document were completely disregarded. And once again this was a process which was well-established before the outbreak of WW2. The pattern of land purchase followed by disposession and eviction was repeated again and again. The fact that there were indigenous Zionist groups since Ottoman times does not affect the argument.Their version of Zionism was an altogether more tolerant variant. 

              ________________________________

    • Additionally, Palestinian-Arab rejectionism of a Jewish state on *any* part on the Land of Israel began long before 1947. Here’s another, much more favourable offer they rejected in 1936: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission, where they refused even a tiny Jewish state, comprising only the Galilee and the northern coastal plain. How many Jews of Europe could have been saved from the Holocaust had the Arabs agreed, and a Jewish state would have been in place to receive millions fleeing from Europe?

        • Nonsense first: Roma have no connection to the Land of Israel, while Jews do. Maybe Roma should ask Egypt to grant them a state, seeing as the word “gypsy” derives from “Egyptian”.
          The blame for European crimes, lies with the Europeans. What Palestinians are paying for is their own leadership’s stupidity and intransigence, refusing offers for a country, just because they have to share it with another people to whose land their ancestors (the Palestinians’) have invaded.
          Jews, on the other hand, have shown their willingness to share the land in 1936, 1947, 2001 and 2008.
          That said, Palestinian leadership of the time does bear some measure of indirect blame or complicity in the Holocaust: First, by refusing the Peel’s commission offer, which denied Jews a safe haven (and later also the British by their policy of preventing Jewish immigration to Palestine); And secondly, let’s not forget Hajj Amin-el-Husseini, leader of the Palestinian national movement during WWII and an active Nazi collaborator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini#The_Holocaust

      • “How many Jews of Europe could have been saved from the Holocaust had the Arabs agreed”

        That’s an unfair suggestion.

          • Because it was the Nazis and their collaborators who murdered the millions. And it was only after WWII broke out that their genocidal intent became 100% clear.

          • @pretzelberg: I’m willing to concede your point for the Palestinian leadership of ’36-’37, but not for the British mandate of the war years, nor for the Palestinian leadership of WWII and 1947 (which should be more or less the same people).

      • Perhaps the behaviour of the inter-war Zionists gave them some inkling as to what was to come. Do you seriously believe that the likes of Jabotinsky et al would have been satisfied with the Peel proposals?
        As for this idea that millions of victims of the Holocaust could have been saved by the British opening the flood-gates! Preposterous!Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1939 the Americans,Canadians,Australians and British could have absorbed much more Jewish immigration than they did. But, they refused and sat on their hands to their eternal shame.

        • The fate of the Jews are not your business, so spare us your tirades against the West who stopped the holocaust. Your terror buddy Hajj Amin-el-Husseini supported the murder.

          • The fate of the Jews is everybody’s business.The West failed miserably to stop the holocaust just as they have failed miserably to stop Israel in it’s treatment of the Palestinians.To take but one example,consider the role ( approach) of the BBC and the allies in relation to the German occupation of Hungary and the subsequent deportation 450000 victims.This episode gives a new meaning to the word ‘cynical’. As for the Grand Mufti,a nigh comical sideshow with no real bearing on the holocaust.

            ________________________________

          • There is always somebody to defend the deeds of the Nazis and their allies like Amin-el-Hussaini and his Arab followship, and who think the West is responsible for everything.
            You are completely nuts.

            • It seems you are now commenting on your own comments.Given that your initial comment was abusive.Does this mean that you are now abusing yourself? When you have finished perhaps you will calm down>

              ________________________________

          • Oh, yeah, snottyville, so the holocaust is just the same as the Israel-Pals conflict. Fortunately you don’t want people to take you seriously.

    • Avram, You are incredibly confused. It’s hard to know what to say to such a display of ignorance.The Partition plan was accepted by the Jewish People and was rejected by the Arabs who chose to wage a war of total anihilation. They did not want the Jews there. Full stop. The Jews, let it be remembered wanted a place to live. With over 100,000 refugees to allocate for them a place to live and under desperate conditions,, accepting the Partition was having a half a loaf that was better than none to resolve a desperate problem. That is why Jews wanted to accept it, but on condition that they were to have peace. If accepted, it would have meant that the Jews would have relinquished most of what they were entitled to have. The Arabs of Palestine relied on their brethren – 400,000,000 to come to their aid. They did not, of course, but 6 armies attacked.

      Read the introduction to King Abdullah’s memoirs, by his grandson the late King Hussain of Jordan in which he praised his Grandfather’s vision of agreeing to the Partition Plan and you will get the drift of the Arab mindset and compare it to your own warped perverse version of events. The land did not all belong to the Arabs either as you assert. 22% was Arab, 8% was jewish owned and the rest was uncultivated land that belonged to the Ottomans before they had lost it all after WW1.

    • Nonesense.
      Jordan and Syria were handed to the Arabs exactly as the 1919 agreement stated.
      The Jews had to then make a further concession byt losing further land and receiving the fertile land in the Western galilee and the central district of Semaria.

      They were given the swamp in the upper Galilee, the sea of Galilee and the coastal region as well as the Negev which at the time had nothing in it.

      Israel won the Western Galilee after being attacked since November 1947.
      I know this cause my Kibbutz was the first to get the Syrian treatment.

      Why don’t you come to our “Archion” Avrumale and be a “Melamed”.
      Tembel.

      • Sorry – correction: “The Jews had to then make a further concession byt losing further land and receiving the fertile land in the Western galilee and the central district of Semaria.”
        Should have said by losing the ferile land…

    • “The Arab counter proposal for a bi-national state and a freeze on further influx of European refugees was accepted by “The Arabs” and rejected by “the Jews”.”
      Yes, Avram, “give us a state with not one more Jew.” Magnanimous proposal. I just can’t understand why the Jews would reject such a “goodwill” gesture.

      “Of course, the Zionist conquerors unilaterally declared a Jewish state to exist on what was, at that time, predominantly Arab land. And the rest, as they say, is history.”
      Sure, just as long as you forget about the League of Nations, international treaties and the UN, and that the land in question (a territory whose borders were drawn up by Britain for the convenience of Britain) was not “predominantly” owned by Arabs. Add in the would-be Arab conquerors of jewish areas of this territory and voila, that, as they say, are things you left out of history.

  5. Depressing but in no way surprising to see both Abbas and Lieberman blaming the other perspective side 100% for the lack of progress in the peace process.

    How about Abbas instead saying: “We welcome the recognition, and hope that we can work with Israel on a permanent solution.”?
    Or Lieberman instead saying: “We consider this move premature, but will not give up hope of a permanent solution.”?

    • “Or Lieberman instead saying: “We consider this move premature, but will not give up hope of a permanent solution.”?”

      Don’t know about Lieberman, but I think this was the gist of the speech by Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the UN.

  6. I guess people respond by saying that it was unfair for the minority group (Jews) to get a majority of the land. Over 50% of Israel is the Negev, though. How much of the Negev was/is/will actually be useful land?

    • The Partition Plan was a good idea in itself. But those originally proposed borders look pretty crazy from today’s perspective.

      • But to the point about it beign unfair that the Jews got allocated more land even though they were the minority – was that so bad if a lot of the land they got is not very good?

        • Israel got the really poor coastal, swamp and waste land.
          The Hulla Swamp was drained and the Maleria removed in the early 50’s.

          I know that cause my Kibbutrz is in the tip of it.

          We created farming land that was under water for hundreds of years.
          The talks is to reflood it now cause it is not the best of land.
          But that’s besides the point.

        • Minority eh? Let’s also not forget that a sizeable Arab minority would have been absorbed within the Jewish state , if both sides had accepted the Partition Plan. The rest of Palestine, including Trans- Jordan and Gaza would have been Arab with 21 other Arab Lands. Let’s put this all in perspective: The Jews are to have 10,000 square miles of land and the Arabs, 7 million square miles and the Arabs still are not content!? Because one is a minority one is denied a country?Is this the logic to be applied? If Israel was offered the parts the Arabs were offered, by this logic, would the Arabs have agreed or would they have gone on with their pretexts??

          You bet they would’ve!

        • Drawing borders was not the strongest side of the French and British. See the divide of Yugoslavia, Hungary – Transylvania, Slovakia etc. They successfully planted the seeds of WWII with their artful maps.

Comments are closed.