The Joke of a Settlement Freeze

As you might know or have heard, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has put in effect a ten month settlement freeze in the West Bank, as an act of restarting peace talks. This settlement freeze will stop all new settlements and housing, however, any houses that are being built are not to be halted. Also, public buildings such as synagogues, schools, and the such will also not be included in this "freeze". And the whole settlement freeze is aimed at restarting the peace talks like I mentioned above, and is so full of "honesty" and "integrity" and the Prime Minister and the Government of Israel only have peace in their minds as they put this into effect.

The Israeli Government now says that it has come the time for the Palestinians to contribute to the peace process and start negotiations. But as I had stated in a past article, Israel seems to offer all of the "generous" peace treaties, yet the Palestinians seem to be rejecting the whole of them every time, and for no apparent reason, or so they say, but since we've uncovered the truth of that all, let us look specifically at this move. This whole ten month settlement freeze only concerns the West Bank, and not East Jerusalem, since, as they say, "cannot stop building in our sovereign capital." This is yet another flaw in this so called "move for peace" that seems insignificant but is probably one of the biggest roadblocks to peace. Anyway let us examine the true motive of the Israeli Government's decision.

I'm positive this is just another scheme by the Israelis to cover up and better their profile in the International Community. Israel's corruption is now slowly being uncovered to the world, and the first step to this vast uncovering was seen during the Gaza offensive and after with all the protests and the global outcry. And Israel has full knowledge of this, and now wants to do anything to redeem its image. Of course, in terms of financial and militaristic support, the United States would never relent, but the image is what matters here. This was only proposed and put into effect because Israel wanted to show the world that it was not in opposition to peace, it was the side that started the peace. And now, I don't expect the Palestinians to respond at all to this so called "proposition of peace" because it is false and corrupt. Just yesterday, the Israeli government approved of 28 new settlements to be built in their beloved "Judea and Samaria" (West Bank), despite the freeze that was publicized to extremes. And not only that, but the Minister of Tourism vowed to build more settlements and to "unfreeze" this freeze on settlements soon.

Hypocrisy, foul, and corrupt are some of the words that come to mind when thinking of this whole issue and the Israeli government. With numbers like 28 new settlements, being offered on a regular basis, the West Bank will have no more Palestinians, and no more Palestinian land. Palestinian land is dwindling at a frightening pace, because the land that the settlements are built on is confiscated Palestinian land. And on top of all of this, Israel expects the Palestinians to come forth and bow down to this "generous" offer.

My Response To A False Claim

As you all know, my articles could be a bit controversial, and spark up a lot of discussion as well as comments of differing perspectives.

On my article entitled "The 'Generous" Peace Treaties Israel Offered", I wrote about the claims of the Israeli governments' strive for peace with the Palestinians, and to reach a final solution of a Palestinian State. Of course, if you look back in recent history and examine each peace process that ever came into existence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you would see that it was full of biased, and had a typical pro-Israeli point of view, and degraded the Palestinians right of statehood.

However this is the following comment I receive from "Anonymous" and I hope that this person would re-visit my blog as so he could see the response that I'm about to write. He/she said:

"Sorry but Israel is 17% of historic palestine whilst West bank and Gaza are about 5% and Jordan is 78% of historic palestine. No one has yet justified why a second arab state in palestine - in addition to Jordan - is really necessary.

Can't the two arab populations living on either side of the Jordan River be consolidated into one single state? This would give the Arabs about 80% of historic Palestine as their own exclusive Arab state with not one Jew living amongst them or controlling their lives.What more could the Arab population ask for?"

There is a lot of confusion by many foreigners on this topic, and pro-Israelis would always like to confuse them and use this as propaganda. Yet we have to understand the very essence of this claim. In the Ottoman Empire, before World War I, borders of modern day Arab states were not drawn. Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Jordan were all part of "Greater Syria" yet each region of Great Syria had their own culture, customs, dialect, and lifestyles. When the Ottoman Empire fell, the Allied Forces of Britain and France chose to divide Greater Syria amongst themselves and drew out the borders of modern day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. Britain retained Palestine and Jordan, and France controlled Syria and Lebanon. So Palestine and Jordan (which was called the Kingdom of Transjordan) were separate, even though the cultures were very similar, were seperate regions, but were under the name of British Mandate, and Transjordan, along with the British, was controlled by the Hashemites. Many borders are drawn and redrawn in the entire world, for example the Soviet Union and Russia, Czechoslovakia, etc. But the natives remain the same, they are the only constant variable, as well as culture.

Regardless of all of these facts, let us look more personally at the situation. Why should it be alright for countless human rights to be violated. Why is it perfectly acceptable that natives of the land, of their towns and villages, should be expelled from their homes and suffer under the status of refugee, in which neighboring countries pack these people into horrid camps? Why should they not live free in the land and home of their ancestors? Why is it alright for a child never to see the home in which he was born in and in the city or town that he grew up in? The natives had established their lives on the land that they lived in which was Palestine, and all of their hard work and money were in this land. So for an outside force to come and cleanse the land of all the natives to establish an exclusively Jewish state, is going to receive massive retaliation, and that is the expected response.

So "Anonymous" and anyone of the same mind-set can look at this situation in two perspectives, the well known facts and politics of the claim, or the humanly and personal point of view. I suggest you look at both, and then on these proven facts and human rights, come up with a perspective.

Beirut: The Split

In the 1970's, conflicts escalated between the different groups in Lebanon, Shia, Sunni, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, over power. The government, if you could call it a government, still operated, yet it resembled a play, a cheap play that had no audience. The Parliament and President had no power whatsoever and could only watch as their country transformed into a chaotic set of brutality and savagery. One of the countless consequences that Beirutis have witnessed because of the escalating conflicts was the split of their beloved city, Beirut, and the shifting of Beirut's commercial and economic center, or what was left of it anyway.

The civil war had destroyed any connection the different groups of Lebanon had towards each other, and it ravaged the entire country. The borders that I had talked about in the previous post were invisible, yet respected and lived by, but now actual borders had been drawn, specifically the Green Line, in which the commercial capital and center of Lebanon, and maybe the entire Middle East was split. Beirut's Golden Age died an agonizing death and any remains of it remained in Hades. There were no more Western tourists, no more swarming elegant hotels, no more businessmen from the Arabian Peninsula looking to invest their millions in Beirut's economy, no more wealth, no more labels, and no more boasting about the Paris of the East that bewitched anyone that laid eyes on it. Gone were the times of the dazzling city that lay at the edge of the Levant. Gone was the gateway to the West.

Beirut was split across a border called the Green Line, which was the Beirut-Damascus road and some of downtown Beirut, that cut through the city, bisecting it. (It is called the Green Line because of the many weeds and shrubs that protrude out of the tarmac and asphalt). This would automatically take you back to the times of the Berlin Wall and the division of East and West Germany. This was so similar yet so different. First, there was no obscure or visible obstacle, such as a wall. It was just that road that symbolized so much. People knew of the consequences of this border, and its crossing. Anyone who dared to step across this road would meet a sudden, yet expected death. Because this line was not just an ordinary border. It represented Lebanon's tribalism. Before the war, it was just a thought, yet now it is illustrated in reality and on the ground for everyone to see.

Though this may have been the only visible and prominent border separating the city, there were so many subdivisions. They began in individual neighborhoods. All members would keep to their self, and most could not imagine a society operating outside of their own narrow borders, it was an inconceivable idea, and a faraway one at that. As the time passed in this civil wars, the divisions were not only in neighborhoods but in individuals. The trust between neighbors disappeared. A person would think everyone had the worst possible motives towards him/her, and looks of suspicion were always on everyones faces. With that, the remains of Lebanese society and mutualism had shattered.

Tribal Lebanon

Lebanon, since the beginning of time, has suffered so many conflicts and so many disagreements, but the all leads down to the essence of its society. Lebanese of course, will always boast about how modern and diverse their country is, but that is also a large problem hanging like a shadow over Lebanon's future, if it was back in the civil war, or till the present day.

Since its borders were drawn out of Greater Lebanon by the French in the 1943 National Pact, Lebanon and its citizens have never behaved as a nation or as one people, like any other country behaved. Although Lebanon was not an anarchy and there was a government present, there seemed to be no unity in how the Lebanese act. Lebanon is probably the most diverse state in the Middle East containing many people of different religion and sects.

The largest dividing factor in the Lebanese society would of course have to be religion. The country is made of Muslims and Christians, split almost evenly, at a 1 to 1 ratio. But these two groups are further divided. For Muslims, it is Sunnis, Shia, and Druze, and for Christians it is Maronites, Greek Orthodox, and some other sects. This of course is a situation very vulnerable to conflict because no trust is evident between any of these groups, even between people of the same religions. Each village, or district in a city behaves like its personal country and has a hierarchy present that makes the decisions and acts as a government. Each group is suspicious of the other and their motives, and will always tend to think of them in the worst. They are, in every meaning of the word, tribes. Sometimes they form alliances, other times their bitter enemies, and the latter is the most likely one. And this is the essence of the civil war of the 70's and 80's.

One point is evident of course. Each group works and behaves out of utter fear: fear that any other tribe will take control of the country. Not only that, but Lebanon operates on a system of "Zuama", or big bosses, similar to that in the Italian mafia movies like the godfather. Each tribe would have its own operating in the government and fulfilling the needs of their followers and their townspeople. For example, a man wants to buy a house and has a problem obtaining a loan from the bank, because of his low income. He does not go to a lawyer or any other professional to help him solve this problem legally, if there was any solution, but goes to the Ziam in charge of his town, village, or district. The Ziam would of course have the loan in his pocket in a couple of hours, by "pulling a few strings." Nothing is asked for in return, other than full loyalty and support to the Ziam. Corruption was everywhere in Lebanese society, and that being one part.

Lebanon seems to be a diverse country, but when you look closely, there are dividers and prominent borders in the entire state. People of different religious groups would not prefer to interact with anyone else but their own, and if one looked at a map of Lebanon, there is no diversity in areas. There would be sections, large or small, in parts of Lebanon wholly exclusive to one group or the other, such as South Beirut for the Shia, Western Beirut for Sunni, and Eastern Beirut for the Maronites, as well as Mount Lebanon for the Christians, and Southern Lebanon for the Shia. This is a complex equation that would soon lead to catastrophe.

Agreeable Two State Solution

So I was looking through headlines on Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper source (just to get all of the perspectives) and I came across an extremely interesting one, titled "A Palestinian Peace Israelis Can Live With." In this peace plan, the writer talks about Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American that does stand up comedy and is married to a Jewish woman. Ray Hanania is the one that presents the following Two State Solution, that I'm sure can work great for both sides, and is so simple, that it may just work. These are the following outlines:

Hamas should be disarmed, and not be allowed in Palestinian governments, as well as the Jewish settlers should be disarmed.

Settlements can remain, in exchange for the same area of land that was used by Israel to build these settlements returned to the Palestinians in another part of the state.

Jerusalem is a shared city that has joint police, should contain an Arab presence.

Right of return to lands before 1948 is abolished and funding to Palestinian families that lost their home shall be made through the United Nations, Israel and surrounding countries.

Israelis should offer compassion and apology for the Palestinians

Funding for Jews that fled from Arab countries as well.

The West Bank wall shall be torn down or moved to the correct borders of the state until trust could be established between the two neighbors
All political parties should eliminate language that denies each other's existence, and that an Israeli map finally has Palestine present on their, as well as a Palestinian map having Israel present.

A subway system shall be built between the West Bank and Gaza.

For every Jew that wants to live in the West Bank, a Palestinian may live in Israel.

Jews living in Palestine can only vote Israeli elections and vice versa.

Israel and Palestine should create joint governments and police to monitor the peace on the border, working alongside the United States and United Nations.

So in my opinion, this is a great solution to this large and bloody conflict between the two peoples. Of course trust won't be gained in a couple of years, given the large casualties the Palestinians suffered, and some casualties Israel has suffered, but hopefully things will change. All of the points outlined seem to be fair to the extreme, and as this is a Palestinian talking, I think most Palestinians can trust a solution like this. The conflict has to end, and this is the best way to end it, because if no solution is found soon, Israel will continue its brutal occupation and isolation of the occupied territories, and will force Palestinians to lead a stateless and unidentified life.

Beirut: The Golden Age

Going back to the 1950's, it was a bleak time period for the Middle East. Just two years before, Israel had declared it's independence, and gained control of 78% of Historic Palestine. Countless numbers of Palestinians became refugees and fled to neighboring countries, and the Arab countries of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq had lost a war of dignity against the terrorist state of Israel.

But north of Israel's border, in Lebanon, there sat a sparkling city jutting out of the Mediterranean Sea, waiting to enchant anyone who laid eyes on it. Beirut, in its beginnings was a quiet, but attractive small town. Starting from the 1950's however, all of that would change. Beirut had entered a Golden Age, much like Athens and Rome, and was under the International spotlight. This city, as beautiful as it was, was a controversial one. It was torn between its Arab identity and its Western character. That was probably the biggest reason of why it was extremely unique and why it had attracted to much attention. Going back about 55 years , this is probably the scene you would have come across:

Bikini clad women sunbathing on the white sand beaches of the Mediterranean, laughing and joking as if it had come straight out of a movie. On the beachfront rose prestigious hotels for the wealthy of Europe and the United States as well as Beirut and the rest of the Arab world. The Hotel St. Georges had the best to offer. It was built on its own private peninsula, overlooking the White Sea and the boardwalk. The huge swimming pool was the biggest tourist attraction in the hotel, and it as the sensational meeting place during the day. Businessmen in casual clothing would sit under the umbrellas discussing their projects and work, while tourists would be enjoying a nice swim under the Lebanese sun. One side of the pool was glass, and descending the stairs from the pool, you come across a bar that looks into the swimming pool. Here you could find the American journalists of Time Magazine discussing their new articles on the "Paris of the East" and enjoying a cocktail.

Not only was the Hotel St. Georges the only popular one in town, but other five star hotels had sprung up around it including the Phoenicia, and the Palm Beach Hotel. The Casino Du Liban, however, proved to be the most famous site in Beirut, which is perched in the port town of Jounieh a couple of kilometers due north. The Casino mesmerized its audience when beautiful women in feathers descended from the ceiling on large flowers; its been famous for this production ever since.

On top of being glamorous and wealthy, the city was greatly affected by the oil boom in the Arabian Peninsula. Men in traditional white Abayas exclusive to the Persian Gulf traveled to Beirut to invest fortunes in its banking system, hotels, theaters, and commercial districts. Beirut had wealth flooding into it from all sides, but of course this came to an end.

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy in Syria

The Israel Lobby in the United States is extremely powerful and has no borders or limits in its support for Israel and its degrading of the surrounding countries in the Middle East. The Israel lobby has so much power that it shapes the foreign policy toward the entire Middle East, and persuades Congress in unimaginable ways that most laws or bills passed for Israel's support is voted by about 95% of the Senate and House of Representatives. So before we can discuss the tactics of this lobby, let us look more in detail at the United States Foreign Policy in the Middle East and how applies to Syria.

Syria is classified as one of the several countries on the US Axis of Evil which is absolutely ridiculous because Syria can in no way threaten or be threatening to the United States. The United States sided and will always side with Israel in all of its policies, including that toward Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and the entire Arab World. So if Israel is in conflict with Syria, then the United States is in conflict with Syria. But what is the reasoning for classifying Syria on the Axis of Evil.

The answer is nothing, nothing at all. Just because Syria and Israel are in conflict and don't have a formal peace treaty between them, does not mean that the United States should always take Israel's side, because doing so will fuel Anti-Americanism in the Middle East (but I'll discuss that in a whole detailed article). Syria never threatened the United States, and the US government would reason their decision because Syria supports "terrorist groups" such as Hamas and Hezbollah. But Hamas and Hezbollah are seen by many as resistance groups that sprung up because of the Israel occupations, and to many they are freedom fighters. We could say that the US supports terrorist governments such as the Israeli one, yet the US does not listen to reason.

Syria has sided and assisted the United States many times, including after the attacks of September 11, when the Syrian President would personally be in contact with the American President and pass on information about Al-Qaeda that the Syrians have acquired. This cooperation is extremely significant, yet it doesn't seem so in the eyes of the US Government, who still classify Syria as a rogue state, as does Israel, but let us not forget that Syria wanted peace with Israel in exchange for the Golan Heights, and would offer Israel many peace treaties, and wanted to pursue the peace, yet the Israeli government would not want to cooperate.

So there is no excuse left for the United States to be in conflict with Syria and the US sanctions on Syria because Syria does not have a problem with the US, and tried several times to pursue peace with Israel, yet the US would like to overpass that detail and look towards Israel's argument.

The "Generous" Peace Treaties Israel Offered

When the question of, "Why don't the Palestinians have their own state?" is asked, the general response from many pro-Israelis is that the Palestinians are terrorists and that they did not accept the numerous and "generous" peace treaties that the Israeli government had proposed. But these peace treaties are anything but generous. So let us examine in detail what I mean.

First, I'll give you the most widely accepted version of a two state solution. A two state solution that entails a separate state for Israelis, and a separate state for Palestinians. Each state has full control of its land, its borders, airspace, water, and harbors. Each state shall have the freedom to create a military, and each state shall be accepted and fully recognized by the other, and that each state has the right to live in peace.

Yet the numerous, and failed peace treaties called for no such thing. First of all, the Palestinian state would be established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet hold on a second, not all the West Bank. Thanks to the Israeli Government, and its settlement building and colonizing of the West Bank, this serves as a roadblock to peace. And in every peace treaty generated by the US, Israel's closest and most powerful ally, both nations, Israel and the US agree on one thing, that the settlers shall not leave the occupied territories, and a Palestinian state shall have to be built around that.

Not only that, but Palestine shall not have any control of the borders, airspace, and water, and it does not have a right to build a military. So how in the world can anyone call this a state, if it has not control over itself. How can a state be formed around Jewish settlements, making an archipelago of Palestine in a sea of Israel. No one in their right mind would accept to such conditions. And at Camp David, Arafat was offered 90 % if the West Bank to build a Palestinian state on, yet he refused because he doesn't want peace, or so they said.

But Israel Proper is 78% of Historic Palestine, the occupied territories: West Bank and Gaza making up only 22%. So they are allowing Arafat to build a Palestinian state on 90% of the 22% if Historic Palestine and on top of that, barely have control of it. This is absurd, and people in our international society should wake up to these lies and acknowledge the fact that no person should accept this upon his people.

Denying the Arab Identity: An Introduction

The title of this article sums this whole piece up, yet who is this title pertaining to? The people who are denying their Arab identity, are mostly the Lebanese Christians, the Maronites. We all know that Lebanon is almost perfectly split in half between Muslim and Christian, about a 1 to 1 ratio. Here the problems arise, yet let us examine the history of this area.

The word Arab and the Arab people unite several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the Persian gulf, as Arabic-speaking, and under the religion of Islam, yet the latter doesn't always have to be the case. However the Christian Maronites have convinced themselves that to be Arab, one has to be Muslim, and not only that, yet they do not want to be generalized with the Arabs, because they have a whole different agenda in their hands for Lebanon, their tiny tortured country.

Christian Maronites, or at least the majority of them, will in no way associate themselves with Arabs, because there is a conflict of interests. During the colonial times, when the French and the British had divided up the Middle East among themselves after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was a general response of opposition from the Arabs. Yet the Maronites, at a time, welcomed this colonial power, and they found the French as their liberators in a very dangerous and untolerant Ottoman Empire ruled under Islam.

The main goal of the Maronites of Lebanon is to Westernize the country, and the colonizing of Lebanon, in their perspective, was the first step in doing this. They spoke French, understood French culture during that time, and intergrated themselves into French society which let them gain power, a large amount of power in government, military, economy, and the Lebanese society. The maronites wanted to split from the Arab world and establish a western state on the shores of the White Sea, and open Beirut, as the gates to the Western and "civilized" world.

I will go in more detail about the Arab Identity in the next articles in this series, follow up!