I Got My First Comment!

So that's cool. It's good to see that at least someone has looked at this page.

Anyways, right now I'm thinking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Did you know? The Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that was part of the negotiations to settle World War I AGREED to the cession of Palestine to Britain FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of settlement by Zionist Jews? The concession was repayment for British assistance in throwing off the rule of the Ottoman Empire (the affair that made "Lawrence of Arabia" famous) during the war.

It's called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and it seems to me that it ought to be the basis for lasting peace agreements in the Middle East. Instead it is the first of a ridiculously long line of agreements made between Arab leaders which they later break with seeming impunity.

Now, I'm not saying that the United States doesn't have a history of broken treaties in its own history. But pointing fingers at each other solves nothing. American leaders should abide by both past and future agreements themselves, I don't argue with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that Arab leaders should abide by past agreements.

So basically what happened is this. In signing the agreement, Faisal, who was the son of the King of Hejaz, the region that contains the holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, wrote a signing statement. Notice that I don't say two of the holiest cities, or any absurdities like that. THE holy cities of Islam are Mecca and Medina, just as THE holy cities of Christianity are Jerusalem, Rome and Istanbul and THE holy city of Judaism is Jerusalem. Just as THE holy city of Buddhism is Lhasa. Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with Muslim-ism just as Tyre and Sidon have NOTHING to do with Christianity even though Jesus fed people there and it is the place where Peter proclaims Jesus the son of God. The fact that Mohammed dreams of a trip to Jerusalem is no more consequential to the chronology of Mohammed's life than the fact that Jesus walked on water at Bethsaida. You don't see monumental wars being fought over Bethsaida, do you? Fuck, no! They're fought over Jerusalem, and not because it's a holy city. They're fought over Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the strategic military strongpoint of the most important regional hub of transportation and commerce in the entire world. In plain English, Jerusalem is home to the most important Army/Airforce base ON THE PLANET.

So, having ceded rights to this crucial position because he was the representative of the resident dominant powers to a summit of the Global Dominant Powers, i.e. Democratic England, France and the U.S.A., Faisal sought to make sure that he would get what he had been assured he would be given. His signing statement reads; "Provided the Arabs obtain their independence..."

Now, granted the rest of the statement says things like "If the slightest modification or departure should be made...not be then bound...void and of no account or validity...I shall not be answerable...", which is the basis for his abdicating the agreement eventually, since the independence of 'the Arabs' as Faisal saw them, was not effectively done until Syrian independence in 1936, not completely done until 1946 when Britain and France relinquished their claims to Jordan and Syria respectively (and even so, Aden in Yemen remained under British rule until 1967). This is why I say it should be the BASIS of Middle East peace. It can't be returned to, although all of the conditions have now been met. But the basic principle, that Britain get control of what is now Israel in order to give it to Zionist Jews, and that France have similar influence over Lebanon, should be respected. Each of Israel's neighbors should sack up and give citizenship to the Palestinian refugees they've been isolating and exploiting for sixty years, the borders should be established on the banks of the Jordan (perhaps with federated autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza, that seems fair to me, though it would probably have to be in two states, not one combined), and Arab, Persian and Pashtun countries should stop fomenting revolt in Israeli territory. The west will have it's guaranteed access to the Indian Ocean, the Arab World will have it's autonomy and complete self-determinism, and peace can happen. Of course, that's only going to happen over decades, because despotic rulers always seek to expand their borders and spheres of influence, and Syria, Iran and to a lesser extent Egypt will be slow to acknowledge the rationality of this settlement, but I personally think it's what's going to happen.

A lot of people think that Israel is being uncompromising and unreasonable. I think that's not on. It would be like two partners agreeing that a four acre plot they own together should be split into two acre plots until all of a sudden once the agreement is made, one of them says, "wait no, I think I should get three acres and you should have one." Who's being unreasonable? The partner who won't compromise on a 1.5, 2.5 acre split, or the partner who won't accept the original 2/2 agreement? In short, I'm in favor of Israel settling every inch of land West Bank residents can't defend. It sounds brutal, and people will probably think I'm a monster, but in my opinion, it's the leaders of the Muslim world who are being monsters and the Palestinians are the victims of their territorial grasping. Obviously they're innocent, the Palestinians, but Israel, although I don't have to LIKE their methods, is well within their rights to do exactly what they're doing.  It's the Muslim leaders who have put the Arab Palestinians in the line of fire, just the way its Muslim terrorists who put civilians in the line of fire by shooting at troops from someone else's house.