mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Eternal Return
The Pretense of the Peace Process
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Disappeared4x

    “On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,”
    confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:…”

    “HOUSE RESOLUTION 360 (Rept. NO. 1172)

    The U.S. Congress in 1922

    On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,”
    confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

    “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

    “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

    On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine –
    Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

    1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    NATIONAL HOME

    FOR

    THE JEWISH PEOPLE

    JUNE 30, 1922

    HOUSE RESOLUTION 360

    (Rept. NO. 1172)

    Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:

    (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.

    (2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.

    (3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

    “Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration
    of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:

    His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment
    in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best
    endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
    understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
    religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights
    and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.

    “If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete
    bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to
    remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or
    seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of
    the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as
    an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks
    who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is
    probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for
    themselves.

    “I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be
    and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if
    it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land
    stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true
    character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against
    the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented
    in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized
    their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given
    official standing to the Moslem religion.

    “In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in
    Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room
    outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made
    overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect
    their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the
    World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in
    ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed
    from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the
    head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that
    country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.

    “Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000
    people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great
    English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized
    and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several
    flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the
    Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and
    occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the
    territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map
    of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia,
    Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres
    per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over
    entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of
    the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they
    will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell
    their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi],
    Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship
    Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is
    said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the
    Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration,
    without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of
    self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore
    mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and
    Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and
    of justice.

    “I shall probably be told that, regardless of the
    question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy
    places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just,
    there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that
    Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the
    pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if
    the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a
    final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am
    willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs
    out altogether.” ”

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/6691#.WGKjmWciw2w

  • Fat_Man

    “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, said Abba Eban 40 years ago. And he was right. Beyond that, I think there are more concrete reasons why the Palestinians have not taken and will not take a peace offer. I continue to believe that all material incentives favor continued Palestinian intransigence. The UN, the EU, and the US continue to pump billions of dollars into Paletinian organizations and their general economy, money that would dry up if there were a peace settlement.

    That money must be cut off before the Palestinians will negotiate anything. Trump could do it. He could easily cut off funds from the US (over the howls of the Arabists at State, but #$%&@ ’em). The UN should be pressured by cutting its US funding $2 for ever dollar the send to the Palis. And the EU should be beaten about the head and neck until they comply.

    If that happens, the peace agreement would be negotiated within a couple of months.

  • Fat_Man

    Drum is wrong about one thing:

    “Even people who are sympathetic toward Obama often say that he handled the Middle East badly—and the Israel relationship particularly badly—but I simply don’t see how he could have done any better. Netanyahu treated him with unconcealed contempt; was unapologetic about publicly undermining him; decided to ditch bipartisanship and openly team up with the Republican Party; and very plainly was never open to any kind of settlement at all.”

    This is just wrong. It was Obama who began the relationship by treating Netanyahu with open contmpt. Obama invited Netanyahu to the White House, spent their meeting time lecturing Bibi on what Israel’s best interests are, and snubbed him socially at dinner time. It went downhill from there.

    Drum is like Democrats who also complain of Republican hostility, but refuse to remember that it was Obama’s arrogance and contempt that drove the Republicans into full scale hostility. It was Obama who began the relationship by blowing off Republican requests on the 2009 stimulus bill, with the famous comment: “I won”.

    • FriendlyGoat

      No point in reading Drum when your mind is already made up that Obama caused problems which are well over 1,000 years old.
      That like I put on your comment was accidental, of course.

      • Fat_Man

        Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Why not? Everyone else here does. I was just struck that you accumulated a bunch of likes from the regular crowd for knocking Obama when getting Muslims to welcome Zionism is a problem going back a little before Barack. Herd mentality reigns here.

          • Fat_Man

            Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not
            argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue
            with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat. Must not argue with goat.

  • In the lions’ den

    Time started and will end with God. His clockwork is the nation of Israel. The birth of Israel and its survival to this day with unbridled prosperity is a clock that will continue to tick towards the end of time as we know it. Every nation on earth will turn its back to Israel as it is happening now and America will too in the future. It will continue to compound and to bewilder the nations despite their hostility. Their hostility and belligerence towards Israel will only continue to increase in intensity that armies will march against Israel to their utter destruction.Should you be surprised that no peace has been established and expect that no peace will be established? There is no political will strong or economic benefits big enough to hammer out peace. But the clock will continue to tick towards the end of time when Christ will come back as a King and a Judge. Christ came as lowly as a child to be a sacrificial lamp on the Cross to atone for Sin. But when he comes back “every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings whether wittingly or unwittingly.

  • LarryD

    “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive
    them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with
    the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” – Golda Meir

  • Arkeygeezer

    Imagine if Great Britain had tried to negotiate a peace between the Union and Confederacy in the 1860’s by imposing a two state solution on its former American colonies. It wouldn’t happen, and we would still be fighting a civil war today.

    This is what has happened in Israel for the past 60 to 80 years. The solution will inevitably be a one-state solution with a Jewish government protecting the resident Palestinians. Those people that cannot live in a Jewish democracy, can leave and live in an Islamic caliphate.

    The two-state solution is a political fantasy. Hopefully, President Trump recognizes this and will work to resolve it.

  • sacip

    There is still time for Kerry or Obama to lecture the Palestinians on how firing rockets into Israel, refusing to recognize their right to exist, support for terrorists and incessant whining are counterproductive toward their dream of a homeland.

    I check out Drum a lot, but lose patience with all the anti-Israel sentiment his occasional Middle East blogs generate in the Comments.

  • ericr2

    The Palestinians had their chance to prove themselves when Gaza was turned over to them. They f**ked that up spectacularly. Hamas took control (voted in overwhelmingly by the populace, so the civilians of Gaza are not really “innocent”) and took control by promising to take the war to Israel and destroying it.

    There is no reason to think the Palis in the West Bank are any less drowning is psychotic, insatiable, delusional, genocidal hatred.

    It is the Palis, not the Israelis, who have declared this a battle to the death, where only one side can remain standing. And the Israelis have no intention of losing that battle.

  • Andrew Allison

    There’s also the small matter of the fact that if a two-state solution were found, the PLO would be out of business, hence the demands which are known to be unacceptable to Israel.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service