Conference taveng::bagels

Re: .0

> Can any
>    of you help?  I'm looking for books that explain (from a Jewish
>    perspective) why the land belongs to the Jews.

An excellent scholarly article titled, "Land Ownership in Palestine
1880-1948," by Moshe Aumann is found in a paperback called, "The
Palestinians: People, History, Politics," published by Transaction
Books, New Brunswick, NJ in 1975. The ISBN is 0-87855-597-8. Every 
fact is well documented, and the article presents a picture very
different from the propaganda with which we are all bombarded daily.
See also note 944.62.

>    I'd also be interested in a quick outline of the ownership of the land,
>    going back to before Abraham. 

That's pretty easy. See Gen. 12:7, 15:18, Deut. 34:4, Josh 1:3,4 and
all of chapter 13. Also, see the comments of _Rashi_ on the first 
verse in Genesis (discussed at length in note 989.1).

>    I intend to write my paper from a pro-Israel point of view, and have
>    been surprised and disappointed at the lack of support I've found in
>    the books at our local libraries, including my college library.

Why am I not surprised to hear this?

Jem

    You might want to start your paper with a short discussion of what
    constitutes land ownership, and what could create ownership of
    un-owned land.  As far as I know, there are only a few 
    principles which have been used to ground land tenure, and
    all of them are debatable.
    
    1.	By right of legal conveyance (i.e. a legal transfer of
    	ownership).  Note that ownership by legal conveyance is
    	generally considered only as good as the ownership of the
    	seller.
    
    2.	By right of discovery (there are problems with how much
    	one gets rights to--can you claim all of an island if you
    	land on one side?).  If there are natives, this is really
    	case 3.  One assumes discovery where there is no history
    	of other inhabitants.
    
    3.	By right of conquest (e.g. just about every place in the world
    	today.  Current owners may have bought land; the ultimate
    	origin is military in almost every location).
    
    4.	By right of divine gift (Israel the usual example, but
    	some other groups feel the same way).  Usually requires
    	some other backing before anyone else will listen, and
    	is unprovable.
    
    5.	By right of use (e.g. you farm it, you own it).
    
    Note that my ownership of the land my house is on is based
    on legal conveyance initially, but ultimately on conquest
    (the American Revolution) and discovery (European explorers,
    who ignored natives because they were not Christians) and
    divine gift (the explorers claimed in the names of monarchs
    by divine right). Quite a hodge-podge.
    
    You could then show which principles are used by which sides,
    and what the counter-arguments are.  I think that'd be far more
    useful and interesting than re-hashing the superficial arguments
    about treaties and the legality of sales of land to Jews under
    the Ottoman Empire without some understanding of why people are
    talking about such things.
    
    				-John Bishop

    
    
    A good book on the this subject is "From Time Immemorial" by Joan
    Peters.
    
    She makes the case that it was the arabs that actually displaced the
    jews specifically during the time of the British "white paper." The 
    arabs seeking better economic conditions illegally immigrated into
    Palestine at the same time the British under arab pressure kept jews
    out.
    
    She points out with historical data that the so called Palestinian arabs
    were never an indigenous people, but rather for the most part a
    collection of arabs who migrated from surrounding arab lands.
    
    Jerusalem has also been known to have a majority jewish population
    from time immemorial.
    
    The book was condemned by arab groups, apparently it didn't fit to 
    well with their rhetoric.
    
    The argument for a so called Palestinian homeland for the "Palestinian
    people" is so full of holes. How does that saying go about if you tell
    a lie enough times...
                                                                 

    Thanks, folks!  Our library did have the Peters book mentioned in .2,
    and I've started to thumb through it.  I appreciate your help and
    advice!
    
    Sue

    RE: 999.3

   > She points out with historical data that the so called Palestinian arabs
   > were never an indigenous people, but rather for the most part a
   > collection of arabs who migrated from surrounding arab lands.

    Careful.  That may be an overstatement of Peters' position. Many *were*
    immigrants, especially those who settled in the coastal plain where
    Jewish settlement had created economic opportunities, but much of the
    Arab population in Judea and Samaria has a long history of settlement
    in the land.  A fellow by the name of Joel Migdal did his Ph.D. thesis
    on this (I'm not sure if it was at Harvard or Brandeis) a few years
    ago, and examined much of the population data in detail.

    >Jerusalem has also been known to have a majority jewish population
    >from time immemorial.

    It would be more correct to say that Jews have made up a large fraction
    of the population when they were allowed to live there.  The first
    modern census, taken by the Turks in the mid-nineteenth century, showed
    the Jews to be the largest single population group in Jerusalem, but
    not a majority.  (By the twentieth century, Jews were the majority in
    the city.)  There were several occasions (e.g. Post-70 Roman period,
    the Crusader kingdom) when Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem.
    (I wouldn't be surprised if someone turned up evidence that some
    managed to evade the ban, but for now that evidence does exist as far
    as I know.)

    While it is nice to know that people are pro-Israel, it is not
    necessary to "to write my paper from a pro-Israel point of view." I
    think anyone willing to deal honestly with the data will find strong
    evidence for continuous Jewish settlement in the land for three
    millenia.  The other side of the coin, however, is that there are areas
    in which non-Jewish people have been working the land for a long time. 
    We need not dismiss the claims of these people in order to make the
    case for Jewish rights.
    
    In short, the emphasis should be on accuracy, because when the facts
    support the case (and I think the data clearly demonstrate the
    continuing Jewish linkage to the Land of Israel) accuracy increases
    credibility, while overstatement weakens it.

                                    Aaron

    In connection with Peter's book, also take a look at the book
    "Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Question of
    Palestine" which goes back to the source material Peters
    uses as references and shows a number of instances in which she
    deliberately misquoted her sources to make her points.
    

Re: .6

>    In connection with Peter's book, also take a look at the book
>    "Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Question of
>    Palestine"

Perhaps you could provide some more infromation about this book,
such as author and publisher? BTW, how carefully have you studied
the book cited in .1, and *its* sources?

I know that you spend a great deal of your time looking for anti-
Israel and anti-Zionist material, and disseminating this knowledge
to various networks. Exactly what is your goal? Would you by any chance
be a little bit happier if Israel were to disappear?

Jem

.7>	I know that you spend a great deal of your time looking for anti-
.7>	Israel and anti-Zionist material, and disseminating this knowledge
.7>	to various networks. Exactly what is your goal? Would you by any chance
.7>	be a little bit happier if Israel were to disappear?

I don't think that there are any "hidden agendas" here.  Anyone who reads Ms.
Kolling's notes in this conference is quite familiar with her attitude toward
us, and can figure out the answers to those questions.  But there is nothing in
.6 that justifies the above comments.  Her pseudo-scholarly sources are no less
respectable than others that have been cited.

    Re: I know that you spend a great deal of your time looking for anti-
    Israel and anti-Zionist material, and disseminating this knowledge
    to various networks. Exactly what is your goal? Would you by any chance
    be a little bit happier if Israel were to disappear?
    
    Distinguish between "looking for anti-Israel and anti-Zionist material"
    and "reading a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".  I would
    "be a little bit happier" if Israel would accept the offer for
    a two state solution that the Palestinians made two years ago
    instead of trying to keep another nation under the boot of a military
    occupation with its people devoid of the most basic human and civil
    rights forever.                         
    

	I, for one, don't believe this "I am just an impartial observer" stance.
Not for a second. Karen has disseminated her propaganda widely enough on Decnet,
Usenet, and wherever else... "Chairman Arafat is always right" type of stuff.

DG

    I have a small collection of Ms. Kolling's trash over a couple of years
    on usenet.  I will post here just a short one as a demo of Ms.
    Kolling's "objectivity".  
    
    As a precaution:
    
    Just a few weeks ago I used a specific term on this conference related
    to Ms. Kolling.  The moderator removed that reply for the reason that
    it is against the company policy to call another employee names. (He
    did not return me my message so I was not able to edit and post it
    again).  I am NOT repeating this name now, Mr. Moderator, please take 
    notice!  
    
    You are all free to make your own judgement.
    
    ****************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.indian,
    talk.politics.mideast
Path: decwrl!jumbo!kolling
Subject: Re: Rushdie and Islamic Hypocrisy (really shoe on other foot)
Posted: 28 Feb 89 02:58:15 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto
Xref: decwrl talk.politics.misc:36155 soc.culture.arabic:1156 
    soc.culture.indian:13466 talk.politics.mideast:9994
 
  
Let's see, whatever happened in the case of the Israeli rabbi who murdered
an innocent Arab shopkeeper in cold blood, and the other Israeli rabbi who
beat up a 5 year old Arab girl?  Are they in jail?  Fat chance.  What do
you deduce  about the "glorious nature of Judaism" from the behavior of
these men who have "studied the scriptures"?
    
    *******************************************************

.9>    ... "reading a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".  I would
.9>    "be a little bit happier" if Israel would accept the offer for
.9>    a two state solution that the Palestinians made two years ago ...

Does your reading include news articles about the general strike in the
territories this past Thursday?  This strike is called every November 29, in
protest against the 1947 United Nations resolution that called for the
paritition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

It's funny how those Palestinians protest against something that they're in
favor of.

>It's funny how those Palestinians protest against something that they're in
>favor of.

	... to say nothing of the current

	- widespread calls among the Palestinian population both within
	  and outside of Israel for Saddam Hussein to invade and destroy 
	  Israel *now*.

	- great increase of terror attacks against Israel/Israelis in precisely
	  the places which Chariman Arafat "recognized" the sovereignty
	  of at the UN: *within* the "green line".  

	Funny, what, for a "nation" which recognizes us and wants to live
	in peace with us?!

	Remember, Karen?  The Intifada leaflets don't say "salaam".  They
	speak of "salaam Salah-el-din".  

don feinberg

    How interesting that you omitted the message to which I was replying,
    which went on about the glorious peace loving nature of Judaism in
    contrast to Islam.  Talk about context.
    
    Actually, since that message was posted nearly two years ago, the rabbi
    (turns out he was the same person) has served approximately three
    months for shooting the shopkeeper and his trial for beating up the 
    little girl is still wending its way thru the courts.  Meanwhile I see
    that a Palestinian accused of killing three Israelis within the past
    few weeks has already received three consecutive life sentences.
    
    The Palestinian recognition of Israel is part of a two state solution
    -- as long as Israel denies the Palestinians the right to their own
    state, it can hardly expect its similar rights to be respected, nor can
    it be particularly surprised if war looks like the only alternative
    when it ignores peace offerings.
    

The following is typed directly from a handout received in a class on
World Religions at Harvard Divinity School (where I am currently a 
student - temping at DEC part-time).  Good scholarship would demand a 
bibliographic footnote to this, but there is none on the handout.  It 
is a photocopy of four pages (including four maps captioned "The 
Kingdom of David and Solomon", "Palestine in 1880", "The UN Partition 
Plan, 1947", and "The State of Israel, 1949".  The text is from the 
Introduction to this book, and the title at the top of one page is 
"Whose Promised Land?" (I believe this is the book title, not a 
chapter title.)  I will try to find more complete information to post 
here, but I thought this text would be of interest to both the author
of the base note and other readers of this file.

It is retyped, without permission, as it appears on the Xerox.  I 
have, however, taken the liberty to change date references of "BC" and 
"AD" to "BCE" ("Before the Common Era") and "CE" ("Common Era").



Conflicting Claims to the Land 

Both Jews and Arabs today claim that the land of Palestine is
theirs... 

...The Jews say that their ancestors first settled in Palestine some 
   time around the twentieth century BCE. 

   The Palestinian Arabs say they have been living in Palestine since
   at least the seventh century CE. 


...Many Jews base their claim to the land on God's promise that he
   would give the land to Abraham and his descendants as 'an
   everlasting possession.' 

   The Arabs argue that this promise gives them just as strong a claim
   on the land as the Jews, since Abraham had two sons: Isaac, who is
   the father of Jacob (i.e. Israel), and Ishmael, the ancestor of the
   Arabs. 


...The Jews say that the kingdom which lasted from the tenth century
   BCE (under David) to the sixth century BCE was the only independent
   nation state which has ever existed in the land (i.e. before 1948). 

   The Arabs say that if we accept claims which are based on
   possession of the land centuries ago, then Mexico would have a
   right to parts of the USA, the Spaniards could claim Mexico, and
   the Arabs could claim Spain. 


...The Jews say that although many of their ancestors were driven out
   of Palestine by the Romans in 135 CE, groups of Jews remained in
   several centuries in the land, and have continued to live there
   right up to the present time. 

   The Arabs do not deny this - and they add that for 1,300 years
   there was hardly any friction between these small Jewish
   communities and their Arab neighbors. 


...The Jews say that since 1882 they have constituted a majority in
   the city of Jerusalem. 

   The Arabs point out that the number of Jews living in the whole of
   Palestine in 1882 was 24,000 - which amounted to approximately 5
   per cent of the total population. 


...Jews all over the world have always though of Palestine as their 
   ancestral homeland, and have continually expressed the hope that
   they will meet "next year in Jerusalem". 

   The Arabs insist that Palestine has a special significance for all
   of the three monotheistic  religions - Judaism Christianity, and
   Islam, and that none of them can lay exclusive claim to the land on
   purely religious grounds. 


...The Jews argue that when they started returning to Palestine from
   the 1880s onwards, they came in peacefully and acquired land by
   legal purchase. 

   The Arabs bitterly regret that land was often sold to Jews out of
   purely selfish motives.  They also point out that much of the land
   was sold by absentee landlords living outside the land, many of
   whom were not Arabs, and that much of the land now owned by Jews
   was not acquired by legal purchase, but by expropriation or by war. 


...The Jews say that in settling in Palestine they had the approval of
   the Turkish government up to 1918, then the League of Nations, and
   finally of the British government, which was responsible for
   Palestine under the Mandate from 1920 to 1948. 

   The Arabs can point to historical documents which prove beyond
   doubt that during World War I the British government was making
   contradictory promises to the Jews and the Arabs.  While assuring
   the Jews that they approved of the idea of a Jewish homeland in
   Palestine (the Balfour Declaration), they were at the same time
   secretly promising to help the Arabs to establish their own
   independent states after the collapse of the Turkish Empire (The
   McMahon-Hussein Agreement).  Moreover, although the Balfour
   Declaration and the League of Nations' Mandate included safeguards
   to protect the civil and political rights of the non-Jewish
   population, all the promises made to the Arabs were subsequently
   broken. 


...After centuries of persecution which lead eventually to the killing
   of 6 million Jews under the Nazis in Germany, European Jews had to
   find a refuge - and Palestine was the obvious place to choose,
   because of all that the land had meant to them in the past. 

   The Arabs insist that at first they welcomed the Jewish immigrants,
   and lived peacefully alongside them for many years.  They only
   began to be more hostile when they realized that many of the
   immigrants were seeking greater political power.  Hostility
   inevitably led to violence, because the Arabs saw that the Jews
   would eventually become a majority and take control of the land. 
   The Arabs point out that they were not in any way responsible for
   the persecution of the Jews in Europe, and wonder why they should
   have had to suffer for the crimes of Europe. 


...The Jews say they have a right to the land because of all that they
   have invested in it; they have drained the swamps and made the
   desert 'blossom like a rose'. 

   To which the Arabs reply: since when has an argument like this been
   accepted in a court of law as a valid claim to ownership? 
            

reply to 999.14 

>>    How interesting that you omitted the message to which I was replying,
>>    which went on about the glorious peace loving nature of Judaism in
>>    contrast to Islam.  Talk about context.
    
" ...Israel shall not live if the Arabs stand fast in their hatred. She
shall wither and decline.  Even if all the human race, and the devil in
Hell, conspire to aid her, she shall not exist." 
			- Abbad Muhmud Al-Akkad
	
" ...I order you to use all means of violence against the new immigrants,
whether they be from Russia or Falashas.  Anyone who goes against this
order, I will put into prison". 
			- Yasir Arafat, Bagdad, April 1990

	I couldn't have said it better.

    
    I posed my questions civilly, but received only defensiveness in
    place of direct answers. Ms. Kolling, what do you fear? I asked
    you only if you had researched the material I had presented (with
    no less than the ISBN!!), as well as more information about your
    sources, and you ignored both questions.
    
    I ask again, would you be a happier person if Israel were to 
    disappear as a political entity?
    
    Jem

    ... it seems to me that the Palestinians rejected the two state
    solution in 1948 -- the Palestinian state is called Jordan.
    
    /Ed

Re: .15

>   The Palestinian Arabs say they have been living in Palestine since
>   at least the seventh century CE. 

Read Mark Twain's account of his visit to the Land of Israel in 1867.
(See "The Innocents Abroad or the New Pilgrim's Progress" Volume II, 
Harper and Brothers [1922]):

	We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich 
	enough but whose soil is given wholly to weeds - a silent, 
	mournful expanse... We reached Tabor safely... We never saw a 
	human being on the whole route. We pressed on to the goal of 
	our crusade, renowned Jerusalem... There was hardly a tree or 
	shrub anywhere. 

	Jerusalem is mournful, dreary and lifeless...Palestine sits in 
	sackcloth and ashes...Palestine is desolate and unlovely. And
	why should it be otherwise? Can the curse of the Diety beautify
	a land? Palestine is no more of this work-day world.

See Alfons de Lamartine, "Recollections of the East" Vol. I (1845):

	Outside the walls of Jerusalem, however, we saw no living 
	being, heard no living voice. We encountered that desolation,
	that deadly silence which we would have expected to find at
	the ruined gates of Pompey... a total eternal dread spell
	envelopes the city, the highways and villages... the burial
	grounds of an entire people.

Regarding this myth of Arab habitation, see also "Modern Science in
Bible Lands" (1888), by Prof. Sir John William Dosson (quoted in part
in note 945.17). 

>   The Arabs argue that this promise gives them just as strong a claim
>   on the land as the Jews, since Abraham had two sons: Isaac, who is
>   the father of Jacob (i.e. Israel), and Ishmael, the ancestor of the
>   Arabs. 

"The Arabs," then should glance at Genesis 21:12, "For in *Isaac* shall
thy seed be called."

>   The Arabs say that if we accept claims which are based on
>   possession of the land centuries ago, then Mexico would have a
>   right to parts of the USA, the Spaniards could claim Mexico, and
>   the Arabs could claim Spain. 

Whoever wishes to lay claims around the world may do so. As you aptly
point out, however, they would do well to check for skeletons in their 
own closets before raising the banner of "human rights" on another side
of the globe that might as well be another galaxy.

>   The Arabs do not deny this - and they add that for 1,300 years
>   there was hardly any friction between these small Jewish
>   communities and their Arab neighbors. 

Shall we start with the Islamization process begun by Caliph Umar II
(717 - 720), who instituted the usual discriminatory practices against
the _dhimmi_ (non-Muslims), i.e. poll-taxes, and land-taxes? If Muslims
*governments* were arguably less murderous vis-a-vis their Jewish 
populations than their Christian contemporaries in Europe, there are
innumerable *unofficial* (i.e., where the powers-that-be turned their
heads) incidents of pillage, rape and murder by the Bedouin and Arab
populations (this may surprise those who are familiar with today's
"tame" Bedouin residents of Israel - that's another story).

>   The Arabs point out that the number of Jews living in the whole of
>   Palestine in 1882 was 24,000 - which amounted to approximately 5
>   per cent of the total population. 

According to the Turkish census of 1875, Jews were indeed a majority
of the Jerusalem population by that time. The Encyclopedia Britannica 
of 1910 gives the population of Jerusalem as 60,000, of whom 40,000 were 
Jews. What, praytell, are your sources?

>    The Arabs insist that Palestine has a special significance for all
>   of the three monotheistic  religions - Judaism Christianity, and
>   Islam, and that none of them can lay exclusive claim to the land on
>   purely religious grounds. 

The Muslim attitude towards Jerusalem was best expressed by the great
Muslim geographer Yaqut (died 1229):

	Talking about the city of Multan in India, Yaqut remarked that
	Multan was holy for the people in the East in the same manner that
	Jerusalem was holy for *Jews and Christians*. 
		(Quoted in Palestine in the Islamic and Ottoman Period, 1973)

>   The Arabs bitterly regret that land was often sold to Jews out of
>   purely selfish motives.  They also point out that much of the land
>   was sold by absentee landlords living outside the land, many of
>   whom were not Arabs, and that much of the land now owned by Jews
>   was not acquired by legal purchase, but by expropriation or by war. 

See "The Land System in Palestine" (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1952,
p. 278):

	The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947
	amounted to 1,850,000 dunams; of this 181,000 had been obtained 
	through concessions from the Palestine Government; 120,000 had
	been acquired from Churches, foreign companies, from the Government
	otherwise than by concessions, and so forth... 1,000,000 dunams, or
	57% had been purchased from large Arab landowners. From the fellahin 
	there had been purchased about 500,000 dunams, or 27%. 

Regret? In New York State, one has three days to reverse a contract
of sale. I'm not aware of any legal system allowing a similar change
of mind a half-century later. But I could be wrong...

> Moreover, although the Balfour
>   Declaration and the League of Nations' Mandate included safeguards
>   to protect the civil and political rights of the non-Jewish
>   population, all the promises made to the Arabs were subsequently
>   broken. 

See "Land Ownership in Palestine":

	...the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine expressly
	stipulated that, "The Administration of Palestine shall 
	encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State
	lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes" (Article 6).

	British policy, however, followed a different course, deferring 
	to the Arab opposition to this provision of the mandate. Of some 
	750,000 dunams of cultivable State lands, 350,000, nearly half,
	had been allotted to Arabs and only 17,000 to Jews.

Promises were broken, alright.

>   The Arabs insist that at first they welcomed the Jewish immigrants,
>   and lived peacefully alongside them for many years.  They only
>   began to be more hostile when they realized that many of the
>   immigrants were seeking greater political power.

Numerous accounts dating from before the first half of the 19th centuries
belie and shatter this fantasy. Arabs treated Jews as chattel, worthy
only to be pillaged and humiliated, if not murdered. This situation was
mitigated only by the establishment of foreign consulates in Jerusalem in 
the latter half of the century, as well as armed Jewish defense groups.

>...The Jews say they have a right to the land because of all that they
>   have invested in it; they have drained the swamps and made the
>   desert 'blossom like a rose'. 
>
>   To which the Arabs reply: since when has an argument like this been
>   accepted in a court of law as a valid claim to ownership? 

Ah, but the hordes of Arabs immigrating to Palestine between the two
World Wars seem to have thought this fact relevant. These are the
words of the Palestine Royal Commission Report (p.242):

	We are of the opinion that the Arab cultivator has benefited...
	from the presence of Jews in the country. Wages have gone up;
	the standard of living has improved; work on roads and buildings 
	has been plentiful. 

Whereas the population increase in predominantly Arab towns rose only
slightly, Arab populations in Jewish towns rose between 97 and 216%.

>no coin is to thin not to have two sides

Perhaps, instead of flipping coins, those who wrote your handout
could have turned over a few more stones.

Jem

>>   The Arabs argue that this promise gives them just as strong a claim
>>   on the land as the Jews, since Abraham had two sons: Isaac, who is
>>   the father of Jacob (i.e. Israel), and Ishmael, the ancestor of the
>>   Arabs. 
>
>"The Arabs," then should glance at Genesis 21:12, "For in *Isaac* shall
>thy seed be called."

Moslems believe that Abraham prepared to sacrifice Ishmael rather than Isaac.
They don't seem to have a problem with Genesis in this matter, so I doubt
if they have a problem with it in any other.  I'm not sure how Christian
Arabs reconcile the Bible with Arab land claims.

    Gee, Jem, I sure hope you get more of a answer to your simple 
    question in .17 than I did to my equally simple question in
    my notes in 944.*!
    
    As for the land tenure stuff--see my previous note in this topic,
    and the 944.* stuff.
    
    				-John Bishop
    
    (I'd attempted to reply in .18, but the line went down or something,
    leaving an empty reply, so I've deleted .18.  What's above is what
    I was saying in it.)
    
    (in 944.* I asked Jem, "Do you truely believe my argument is a threat
    to Israel's existence?" more than once, but never got an answer.)

Re: .22

>    Gee, Jem, I sure hope you get more of a answer to your simple 
>    question in .17 than I did to my equally simple question in
>    my notes in 944.*!

I answered every question that was put to me. The question to which
you're referring was answered in 944.56.

Jem

    Yes, on re-reading that note, you did indeed answer it--albeit
    not directly with a "Yes".
        
    			-John Bishop

	What follows here is a fascinating, eye-popping open letter to
    King Hussein that has much relevance on the political discussions of
    today's Middle East. I typed it in because I find in extraordinary in
    the everyday flow of news and propaganda. Anyone is welcome to repost
    it anyplace they wish, as far as I am concerned it's worth reading.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
		APPEAL TO KING HUSSEIN: ABDICATE SO PEACE CAN RULE

			by Marek Halter

		copied without permission from the
		"International Herlad Tribune", Jan 6th or so.

	Your Majesty: We saw each other in March 1973 in Tel Aviv
shortly before the Yom Kippur War. You had come in secret, invited by
the Prime Minister Golda Meir. You discreetly walked up the city's
Fifth Avenue, Dizengoff Street. And you promised to sign a peace
treaty with Israel.
	Later, you made this same promise to Shimon Peres, then to
Yizhak Rabin, then to Moshe Dayan, then to President Chaim Herzog,
then to Moshe Arens and finally to Yizhak Shamir. Obviously, you never
kept your word. You couldn't, because since May 2, 1953, you have
reigned over a country that doesn't belong to you. According to
international experts, 72 percent of Jordan's population of more than
3 million is Palestinian; you put it at 56 percent.
	Since your crowning you have attempted, corageously, to
resolve an insoluble problem: The population you are supposed to
represent has not wanted the peace Israel has increasingly demanded.
	Your genius, sir, lay in devising a strategy that has enabled
you to survive and rule for decades, contrary to all expectations. You
have held out to Israel the illusion of a peace agreement. In exchange
you have counted on Israel and its secret services to protect you
against Palestinian plots, revolts and attacks. In April 1957, July
1958, March 1959, August 1960, July 1966 and April 1967 - each time,
Mossad warned you.
	In the Black September uprising against you in 1970, Israel
made a mistake in not joining the Palestinians to overthrow you. Many
Israelis and Palestinians have paid for this with their lives.
	After provoking the 1967 war, Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel
Nasser, dragged you in although you knew your interest lay in staying
out. This participation did not even gain you the sympathy of the
Palestinians. Abu Iyad, the Fatah official, whom I met in Cairo in May
1970, told me he was organizing a Palestinian-Jordanian movement to
take over in Amman. The revolt broke out on Sept 6, 1970.
	On the Israeli radio I appealed for support for the
Palestinians against you. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Ariel
Sharon, then commanding officer of the southern front, believed the
Palestinians deserved help. General Sharon conveyed this to General
Aaron Yariv, head of military intelligence, who did not respond. 
	You immediately called Henry A. Kissinger at the State
Department. He warned Mrs. Meir who was in New York. She ordered Yigal
Allon, her deputy, to place the army on alert.
	The Syrian tanks assisting the Palestinians were already
entering Jordan when Israel threatened to intervene, against Syria,
and they turned back. Israel opened its airspace to US supplies for
your army. Again you were saved.
	You launched your tanks against the Palestinian camps, killing
50,000. Because of the cruelty of your Bedouin army many Palestinians
took refuge in Israel; others fled to Lebanon.
	Even though you escaoed the insurrection by a miracle, on
Sept. 27th, 1970, in the presence of Nasser in Cairo, you signed a
reconciliation pact with Yasser Arafat.
	You may ask yourself, why this letter and why today? It is
because, the world faces a problem, Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, whose
proper solution is essential to preserving order in the Middle East.
	Today, as in 1970, most Palestinian leaders are in Amman. To
face the oressures of the Palestinian street you have had to emulate
Mr. Arafat, who has adopted a pro-Iraq position.
	You too, have sided with Saddam Hussein, hoping to preserve
your power. But that power is slipping from your hands. And for the
first time you have seriously indisposed your protectors, the United
States and Israel.
	Saddam Hussein has linked withdrawal to a Palestinian problem,
If the West ultimately accepts such linkage, proponents of a viable
Palestinian state will force you off your throne.
	Your Majesty, face the inevitable. You are the major obstacle
to an Israeli-Palestinian peace, because as long as Israelis think
they are able to settle the Palestinian problem with you, htey won't
negotiate with the Palestinians - but you do not have the power to
sign a peace treaty with Israel.
	Didn't you, in an interview in June 1967, propose the right of
self-determiantion of the Palestinian people in Jordan - a proposal
you again uttered, this time in parliament, on March 15, 1972? In June
1977, didn't your Prime Minister recommend a referendum on the
relationship of the Palestinians to Jordan? (No such referendum was
ever held.)
	Wouldn't abdication be a democratic means to give power to the
majority of you population? Yasser Arafat agrees. He has often said
the future lies in a Palestinian-Jordanian state federated with the
West Bank, "with or without King Hussein."
	Ariel Sharon told me a month ago: "It is easier to negotiate
common borders with a state that exists than with a people that has no
state."
	A Palestinian or Jordanian-Palestinian state in Jordan and in
a part of the West Bank, at peace with Israel, within a framework of a
regional economic and political agreement could be achieved if you
abdicated. Isn't this worth considering?
	The Palestinians would agree. So would many Israelis, I
believe. Americans, I hope, would quickly understand the advantages of
such a solution. The world would rejoice at a Middle East peace
obtained at such a good price. The decision is yours.

>>>			by Marek Halter


Isn't he the author of The Book of Abraham?  Seems pretty well connected -
anyone know much about him?

Waky

    	The footnote to the article does say he is a novelist, author of
    the book "Children of Abraham".
    
    DG