| March 29 |  |
Editor says, in this post we continue to explore the theory of historical processes to wit that things could be very different yet the outcomes much the same. So we ask the question, what if the founding fathers of Israel had accepted the principle of Land for Peace at the creation of a two-state solution in 1947? And how would the Israeli and Palestinians be getting along in this alternative timeline.? We suggest contemporary Israelis would regret giving land for peace.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 2009, on this day the embattled Prime Minister of Israel, Tzipora Livni1 (pictured) requested that the Canadian Government withdraw support for the Annapolis Process which had been launched at a Middle East peace conference held on November 27, 2007. The conference at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, United States established a framework for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which had been building up for forty years since the inception of a two-state solution.
Peace for LandA joint statement was issued by all parties. Subsequently, nine Canadians provided assistance for the Palestinian State to take greater responsibility for security matters, including the training of six thousand members of the national security force and the two-thousand strong presidential guard.
Trouble was roadblocks and security walls had made normal civilian and economic life extremely difficult for Israelis. An overwhelming majority considered it was an historic mistake for the founding fathers to accept the logic of the UN decision in 1947. And contrary to the Zionist doctrine propounded by radicals such as David Ben-Gurion, the partition signed by the Chairman of the Jewish National Council Golda Meir created not just one but two states in the old Ottoman and British Mandate. Meir argued persuasively that a forced exodus of Palestinians would have been "dreadful" likening a Zionist occupation to what had befallen the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe2. Yet the reality was that the threat of Arab invasion forced the Jewish National Council to accept partition. And truth be told, the threat of Arab invasion had never really gone away.
Even today Iran espouses a similiar view but from a radically different perspective. When its leaders talk of Israel's "occupation," they are not talking about what happened in 1947 and after, but of Israel's very existence and presence in the region. When they talk of "resisting the Zionist entity" and of their support for Hamas and Hezbollah, they are referring to a long-term vision of never-ending struggle.
Israel's challenge is that Hamas and Hezbollah do not feel bound by the same rules of war and engagement as Israel. Rocket launchers are placed on the rooftops of schools and apartment buildings; military headquarters are buried beneath hospitals. Hardliners in the Knesset assert that Stephen Harper's Government in Ottawa can no longer be "pro-Israel" and "pro-Arab".
And the extremist Likud Party led by the ultra-right wing maverick Binjamin Netanyahu have gone further, proposing military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza City. No stranger to controversy, Neyanyahu was recently interviewed by journalist Bob Rae of the Toronto Star in which he recounted a story about two Israelis meeting in the street.
"How are things?"
"In a word, 'good.'
In two words, 'not good.' "
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Pro-Israel, pro-Arab and pro-peace ? Canada's friendship with Israel doesn't mean we can't support a viable state for Palestinians by Bob Rae
Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: Toronto Star Labels: Gold Meir, David Ben-Gurion, Israel, Palestine, Tzipi Livni. Editor says, Bob Rae's clever article argues that Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East has been bedevilled by the notion that we must be either "pro-Israel" or "pro-Arab."; an idea we turn on its head in this alt.
1) By dropping Ms Livni's nickname we suggest her personality is somewhat different as suggested by this uncharacteristically embattled photo of this forthright individual.
2) The New York Times states " Transfer - or expulsion or ethnic cleansing - was never an explicit part of the Zionist program, even among its more extreme elements, Morris observes. The first Arabs who left their homes did so on their own, expecting to return once the Jews lost or the fighting stopped. The Jewish mayor of Haifa begged Arab residents to stay; Golda Meir, then head of the Jewish Agency Political Department, called the exodus 'dreadful' and even likened it to what had befallen the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. While Jewish atrocities - notably, the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin - were very real, apocalyptic Arab broadcasts induced further flight and depicted as traitors those who chose to stay behind.
~ Nice article, but how do you butterfly away the Arab-Isreali war wich, Im sad to say, will probably happen anyway? Consequentially, if they do take place in favour of Isreal, we can probably say goodbye to the independent Palistinian state...
~ The only real way a two-state solution could have been implemented that far back wuld have been for some outside force (the UN, or NATO, perhaps) to station an essentially permanent peacekeeping force in Palestine, which would have created problems of its own as neither Israelis nor Arab Palestinians would have welcomed such an outside force.
~ FWIW, the BBC, which monitors radio broadcasts everywhere, has no record of the "apocalyptic Arab broadcasts" mentioned above by my learned friend. No doubt, it's yet another sinister conspiracy against the Jewish Homeland...
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
