Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

A thought occured to me in the discussion about Palestine regarding the fact that Israel now has 78% of the land and Palestinians are willing to settle for 22%.

Israel and Palestine were created in 1947 by a UN resolution (181) - Jordan was already a separate entity before this, and its borders are as they are today. Israel was given 55% and Palestine 45% of the land mass.

Now, it is true that Israel increased its borders by 40% during the 1948 war with Arabs. In 1967 Israel then occupied the remainder of Palestine (the 22%) as well as parts of Syria and Egypt.

However, what if either in 1948 or 1967 the Arabs had captured and occupied 33% of the land and then the rule was passed to a Palestinian authority, what would the situation look like today?

Well, the Palestinian state would have 78% of the land, and the Israeli state would be 22%. The 33% that was captured in 1948 would technically be 'occupied' and Palestine would be subject to international laws in regards how it treats the inhabitants in this 33% of the land.

Would the Palestinians be right, in this case, to say that they won't give up all of the 33% captured - but say want to keep most of it?

They could ensure that the history books emphasised the massacres of villages such as Deir Yassin, the terrorist attacks etc. Could they argue that Israel was an 'artificial state' and that the occupied Israelis include zionists like Baruch Goldstein who kill innocent people in mosques because of their religious convictions, and therefore the rest of the world should support Palestine in keeping a check on these terrorists.

But what would Israelis be arguing - will they say that 22% is enough and let the Palestinians keep the 33% won in war? Or would they try and negotiate the return of the 33% so that they would go back to the 1948 borders?

??

Cheers,
Shafique