Israel is not on the map in 1916. Can I say there was no Israeli State, just as some say there was no Palestinian State?
When was "Israel" introduced on the map of the Middle East? Was Israel introduced on the map in 1947? 1948? Did Israel actually come into existence by war?
BTW, the term "Middle East" has many meanings and changes geography based on the phase of history one is referring to. The story of the "Middle East" is very complex, and a mix of secular and religious narratives.
I am trying to understand how one defends Israeli Settlements in Palestine by saying there was no Palestinian State, so it is OK to occupy what is today called "Palestine." Israel was created in 1948 by Western Allies and the United Nations, and became a "State" essentially by a way of a war with several surrounding Arab states.
Is this a play on words, like using "State" because history shows the British rules Palestine?
I have asked experts for an answer of why they use this notion of no Palestinian State in a narrative to defend Israeli actions against Palestine.
I have studied the Middle East, and take no one side, and I am not a scholar on a VERY complex set of circumstances that leave us in 2019 with Palestine and Israel far from agreeing on a two state solution.
What I am certain of notwithstanding all my failings in this realm, is the secular and religious arguments combined do not support denying Palestinians a state; Palestinians deserve help achieving statehood.
Two pieces of secular history are important:
Sykes-Picot Agreement
1916
Written By:The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
See Article History
https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement
"Sykes-Picot Agreement, also called Asia Minor Agreement, (May 1916), secret convention made during World War I between Great Britain and France, with the assent of imperial Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French- and British-administered areas. Negotiations were begun in November 1915, and the final agreement took its name from the chief negotiators from Britain and France, Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot. Sergey Dimitriyevich Sazonov was also present to represent Russia, the third member of the Triple Entente."
Later, the next year in fact . . .
"Balfour Declaration"
United Kingdom [1917]
Written By:The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Last Updated: Oct 26, 2019
https://www.britannica.com/event/Balfour-Declaration
"Balfour Declaration, (November 2, 1917), statement of British support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild (of Tring), a leader of British Jewry. Though the precise meaning of the correspondence has been disputed, its statements were generally contradictory to both the Sykes-Picot Agreement (a secret convention between Britain and France) and the Ḥusayn-McMahon correspondence (an exchange of letters between the British high commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, and Ḥusayn ibn Ê¿AlÄ«, then emir of Mecca), which in turn contradicted one another (see Palestine, World War I and after)."
THERE IS NO "ISRAEL" ON THE 1917 MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST, BUT THERE IS "PALESTINE."
So, after the war, talks didn't work and eventually some people think Palestine should never have a state for reasons they state, and, obviously, strongly believe in.
"There Should Be No Palestinian State"
Caroline B. Glick is the author of "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East" and the senior contributing editor of The Jerusalem Post. 5 Dec 2015
"Lofven [Swedish Prime Minister], Straw [British - former Foreign Minister] and their colleagues throughout Europe aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing. They know that Gaza, which Israel vacated nine years ago, is a terror state run by the jihadists of Hamas. They know that if Israel succumbs to their political and economic warfare and cedes its capital city and historic heartland to its enemies, it will be unable to defend its remaining territory. And they know that like Gaza, those areas will quickly be taken over by Hamas, which will use them to launch a war of annihilation against Israel in conjunction with its jihadist brethren in surrounding states.
In other words, they know that in recognizing “Palestine” they are not helping the cause of peace. They are advancing Israel’s ruin. If they were even remotely interested in freedom and peace, the Europeans would be doing the opposite. They would be working to strengthen and expand Israel, the only stable zone of freedom and peace in the region. They would abandon the phony two-state solution, which as Straw and Lofven revealed, is merely doublespeak for seeking Israel’s destruction and its replacement with a terror state.
With strategic blindness and moral depravity now serving as the twin guideposts for European policy toward Israel, Israel and its supporters must tell the truth about the push to recognize “Palestine.” It isn’t about peace or justice. It’s about hating Israel and assisting those who most actively seek its obliteration."
This is one cynical, sad lady, using the victim card to make her case. I am pretty sure Sweden and Britain have no desire to see Israel destroyed, but Caroline B. Glick has obviously lived a life of terror dreams about the end of Israel one way or another. Some of her colleagues likely see things differently. Here is a different, perhaps less "passionate" view. This apparent rational view, however, sets "tap" conditions for Statehood which Israel has directly limited.
"Only Negotiations Can Lead to Palestinian Statehood"
Avital Leibovich, a former spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces, is director of the Jerusalem office of the Jewish advocacy group AJC.
Updated October 17, 2014, 10:16 AM
"Such recognition is premature. A two-state solution can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Pressure to recognize a Palestinian state cannot overcome the reality that Palestinians haven't fulfilled the elements for statehood.
But let's start with the basics. Any nation wishing to declare independence should meet three essential elements: a strong central government, control of defined territory and security. The Palestinian Authority does not yet meet any of them."
The three conditions are dictated by whom? Perhaps the UN.
But it is interesting that Israel controls ALL three: the territory the Palestinians live on thru various means, Israel uses their military to ensure its own security at the expense of Palestinian security every day, and while the Palestinians have a central government of their choice, Israel will not recognize the central government because they call it and all Palestinians terrorists,
"One-state solution"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
"
The one-state solution, sometimes also called a bi-national state, is a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[1]
Proponents of a unified Israel advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,[1][2] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1] Some Israelis advocate another version of the one-state solution in which Israel will annex the West Bank but not the Gaza Strip and remain a Jewish state with a larger Arab minority.[3] While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation.[4][5] Many who argue for a one state solution excluding Gaza argue that there is no need to include it due to its self-governing status.
Alternatively, supporters of a united Palestine wish for a single state without regard to ethnicity or religion. Such a state would be similar to pre-World War II Mandatory Palestine, which is sought out from a wish to forgo Israeli occupation, as well as 19th and 20th-century Zionist settlement, widely viewed among supporters as a form of colonialism.[6][7][8]
