Tags: Sample Research Papers MlaHomework HelpfulGood Personal Essay TopicsData Mining Research PaperAnswers To My HomeworkA2 Chemistry Coursework Aqa
The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact. N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders.In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews.
It is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.
The constant use of the term “right to exist” in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary.
In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land.
At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”.
“The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.”The U. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous.
The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population.The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.In an instant, the Zionists had declared that the majority Arabs of Palestine were now second-class citizens in the new “Jewish State”.The Arabs, needless to say, did not passively accept this development, and neighboring Arab countries declared war on the Zionist regime in order to prevent such a grave injustice against the majority inhabitants of Palestine.In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal.For political commentators today to describe the Arabs’ refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a “missed opportunity” represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent “right of return”.Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land.