Palestine Jews

Source(google.com.pk)
Palestine Jews Biography

The good news is that the genetics of Arabs and Jews have been pretty extensively researched. The classic study dates to 2000, from a team lead by Michael Hammer of University of Arizona. They looked at Y-chromosome haplotypes - this is the genetic material passed from father to son down the generations.
What they revealed was that Arabs and Jews are essentially a single population, and that Palestinians are slap bang in the middle of the different Jewish populations (as shown in this figure).
Another team, lead by Almut Nebel at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, took a closer look in 2001. They found that Jewish lineages essentially bracket Muslim Kurds, but they were also very closely related to Palestinians. In fact, what their analysis suggested was that Palestinians were identical to Jews, but with a small mix of Arab genes - what you would expect if they were originally from the same stock, but that Palestinians had mixed a little with Arab immigrants. They conclude:
We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000). According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula...
So, as far as male lineage goes, the genetic story is very clear. Palestinians and Jews are virtually indistinguishable.
Women are a bit more tricky...
Up until last year, the matrilineal heritage of Jews also seemed pretty clear. Analysis of elements in mitochondrial DNA (which is passed from mother to daughter) seemed to show that Jewish populations around Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East were derived from at least 8 unrelated 'founding mothers'.
Where they came from wasn't clear, but the most likely explanation was that they were from local populations that bred with immigrant Jewish males. Their offspring became absorbed into the Jewish community.
In 2008, a more sophisticated analysis was published that made use of whole mitochondrial DNA sequences. They found no evidence for the genetic bottle necks that indicate founding mothers in the large Jewish populations. Instead, they found a complicated picture with a very diverse gene pool suggesting intermarriage both with local populations and other Jewish groups.
The overall conclusion is that the female Jewish line deviates a lot more from the Palestinian heritage than the male line, but the heritage is still there.
Sothat's the good news. Jews and Palestinian Arabs are blood brothers - although this close genetic relationship probably stems from pre-Judaic times, rather than any more recent conversion of Palestinian Jews to Islam.
And the bad news? Well, this basic story has been known for the best part of a decade now. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, it hasn't lead to the warring sides laying down their weapons and engaging in a group hug. This is a religious conflict, not a genetic one.
A lump of guilt and sadness rises in my throat. I’ve written harshly of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and assault on Gaza in 2009, and on civil rights issues in Israel. But speaking my mind on these topics — a very Jewish thing to do — has never been easy. During my childhood in the New York suburbs, support for Israel was as fundamental a family tradition as voting Democratic or lighting the Shabbos candles on Friday night.
My mom has a master’s degree in Jewish history and is the program director of a large synagogue. Her youthful experiences in Israel, volunteering on a kibbutz and meeting descendants of my great-grandmother’s siblings, are part of my own mythology. Raised within the Conservative movement, I learned at Hebrew school that Israel was the “land of milk and honey,” where Holocaust survivors irrigated the deserts and made flowers bloom.
What I didn’t hear much about was the lives of Palestinians. It was only after I went to college, met Muslim friends and enrolled in a Middle Eastern history and politics course that I was challenged to reconcile my liberal, humanist worldview with the fact that the Jewish state of which I was so proud was occupying the land of 4.4 million stateless Palestinians, many of them refugees displaced by Israel’s creation.
Like many young American Jews, during my senior year of college I took the free trip to Israel offered by the Taglit-Birthright program. The bliss I felt floating in the Dead Sea, sampling succulent fruits grown by Jewish farmers and roaming the medieval city of Safed, the historic center of Kabbalah mysticism, was tempered by other experiences: watching the construction of the imposing “security” fence, which not only tamped down terrorist attacks but also separated Palestinian villagers from their land and water supply. I spent hours in hushed conversation with a young Israeli soldier who was horrified by what he said was the routinely rough and contemptuous treatment of Palestinian civilians at Israeli military checkpoints.
That trip deepened my conviction that as an American Jew, I could no longer in good conscience offer Israel unquestioning support. I’m not alone. Polling of young American Jews shows that with the exception of the Orthodox, many of us feel less attached to Israel than do our baby boomer parents, who came of age during the era of the 1967 and 1973 wars, when Israel was less of an aggressor and more a victim. A 2007 poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis found that although the majority of American Jews of all ages continue to identify as “pro-Israel,” those under 35 are less likely to identify as “Zionist.” Over 40% of American Jews under 35 believe that “Israel occupies land belonging to someone else,” and over 30% report sometimes feeling “ashamed” of Israel’s actions.

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Palestine Jews

Jews Palestine

Source(google.com.pk)
Jews Palestine Biography

THE Zionist movement dates from A.D. 70, the year of the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish State. The Zionist Organization dates from 1897, the year of the first Zionist Congress. The Zionist movement is a longing and striving to restore to the Jewish people normal national life. The Zionist Organization is a particular instrumentality for achieving that end. The Zionist movement will continue until the Jewish people are once more living a normal national life, when it will be transformed into the active expression of that normal national life. The Zionist Organization, when the particular phase of Jewish national life which called into being this special instrumentality has passed, will merge into some other instrumentality.
There are some who deny that there is such a thing as the Jewish people, but the denial is a modern innovation. Very rare is the non-Jew who thinks of Jews as merely a sect without national quality; and it is doubtful whether among the Jews themselves there could be found a single instance of such a denial much earlier than the second decade of the nineteenth century. The negation of Jewish nationality was first presented by German Jews as part of what is called the 'reform ' movement in German Jewry, which itself was hardly separable from the movement for Jewish political emancipation in that country. From Germany it spread to other lands, but it has never had much respect among any save a small minority of Jews, and it has never had any respect at all from non-Jews, except when political expediency made it convenient for a Gentile statesman or diplomat to invoke this strange dogma.
Let us try to clear the ground by attempting, not so much a definition as a characterization of Judaism. Judaism is not a religion in the Western sense of the word. Judaism is the precipitated spiritual experience of the Jewish people. The idea of Judaism is inseparable from the idea of the Jewish people, and the idea of the Jewish people is inseparable from the idea of the Jewish land. You may see this in every form and expression of Jewish religious life. Individual prayer, prayer for the individual Jew alone, is exceedingly rare. When the Jew prays, he prays not simply for himself, but for all Israel; and this national conception permeates prayer even in what might be considered to be the most personal and individual incidents of life: birth, marriage, death.
The welding of the idea of the Jewish people with the idea of the Jewish land is manifest in every page of the Jewish Liturgy. When the lad is confirmed and assumes the full burden of the law, he prays that 'God may have mercy upon Zion, for it is the hope of our life,' and that 'He may save her who is broken in spirit speedily even in our days.' He thanks God for having planted eternal life in the Jewish people. 'Gladden us, O Lord our God, with Elijah thy servant, and with the Kingdom of the House of David thy anointed. Soon may he come and rejoice our hearts. Suffer not a stranger to sit upon his throne nor let others inherit his glory.'
Let it not be supposed that this passionate identification of the Jewish people with the Jewish land is an aspiration for some allegorical spiritual Zion that never was on sea or land. The Jewish people preserve to this day the calendar of a land from which they have been exiled for two thousand years. The seasons which they mark with observance, the times of sowing and of planting, of harvest and of vintage, are the seasons and the times, not of the lands in which they dwell, but of the land in which their fathers lived and from which they have been exiled. The name in the everyday speech of the Jew for the lands of the Diaspora is Galuth, exile. The Jewish sages celebrated the bitterness of exile in many a poignant phrase: 'The Galuth atones for all the sins of the Jews.' 'With him who dwells outside Palestine it is as though God were not with him.' 'Those Jews who dwell outside Palestine do not enjoy eternal life.' Such sayings of the rabbis bring out their conception of the meaning of exile.
Rabbinical literature is full of apophthegms that express the positive passion of the teachers of Israel for the soil, the air, the water, the physical being of the national land. 'Whosoever walks four cubits in Palestine is assured of the world to come.' 'It is better to dwell in a Palestine desert than to live in a land of plenty abroad.' 'To live in the land of Israel outweighs all the commands of the Torah.' 'The air of Palestine makes men wise.' 'Even the chatter of Palestine is worthy of study.' 'Palestine is the microcosm of the world.' 'Rabbi Abah used to kiss the rocks of Palestine. Rabbi Chazah used to roll in the dust of Palestine.' The whole doctrine of the rabbis in regard to the national home is summed up in the sentence: 'God said to Moses, "the Land is me and Israel is dear to me. I will bring Israel who is dear to me to Land that is dear to me.' Here is the triple thread which is Judaism -- God, the Jewish people, the Jewish land. What the rabbis taught and felt, the Jewish people believed and felt.
THE determination of the Jewish people to recover a normal national life never limited itself to faith in a miraculous restoration independent of the effort of the Jews themselves, although the conviction that the restoration was certain to come one day was part of the faith of every Jew. A continuous series of efforts to restore the Jewish national life in Palestine marks the centuries of exile. The rising of Bar Kochba against Hadrian threatened for a time the fabric of Roman dominion. The great outburst in the early years of the seventh century, in conjunction with the Parthians, expelled the Romans for a few years. The coming of Moslem rule diverted Jewish effort for a long time from the political to the quasi-miraculous. From the thirteenth to the eighteenth century was the period of the pseudo-Messiahs, of whom the two best known are that David Alroy around whom Disraeli wove a novel, and Sabatai-Zevi, of whom Zangwill has given marvelously penetrating study.
With the nineteenth century we come to efforts which are neither strictly political nor yet miraculous. The Jew begins to return to Palestine, but to return as an individual. It is probable that there never was a period when there was no Jewish settlement of any kind in Palestine. Mediaeval Jewish travelers have left records of Jewish communities, and there is evidence of the existence of Jewish agricultural communities, perhaps from the days of the Temple. In the seventeenth century, the illustrious Don Joseph Nasi and his mother conceived the idea of planting Jews on the soil of Palestine. Early in the nineteenth century, Jews from Eastern Europe began to drift in, brought thither mainly by the profound emotion of the bliss of dying and being buried in the dust of the Holy Land. Every Jew who settled in Palestine was a link between the Diaspora and the land of Israel, for it was the duty and the pleasure of his brethren to maintain in Palestine men given up to meditation and study and dedicated to the spiritual life.
With Sir Moses Montefiore, whose journeys to Palestine began in the eighteen-thirties, Western Jewry began to occupy itself constructively with the Jewish restoration. There was established a fund for the cultivation of land in Palestine by the Jews. Sir Moses had the idea of obtaining extensive concessions, and so bringing about 'the return of thousands of our brethren to the lands of Israel.' Many years afterward he summed up the goal of his striving in the following words: 'I do not expect that all Israelites will quit their abodes in those territories in which they feel happy, even as there are Englishmen in Hungary, Germany, America, and Japan; but Palestine must belong to the Jews, and Jerusalem is destined to become the city of a Jewish commonwealth.'
Many public men in Great Britain were deeply interested in these efforts to restore the Jewish people to the Jewish land. Lord Shaftesbury was the foremost of them. 'The inherent vitality,' he wrote, 'of the Hebrew race reasserts itself with amazing persistence. Its genius, to tell the truth, adapts itself more or less to all the currents of civilization all over the world, nevertheless always emerging with distinctive features and a gallant recovery of vigor. There is unbroken identity of Jewish race and Jewish mind down to our times; but the great revival can take place only in the Holy Land.' He believed that the hour had struck for the Jewish restoration, and he labored to persuade English statesmen to take up the holy task. Another distinguished Englishman of those days who was penetrated with the same conviction was Colonel Churchill, the British Resident at Damascus, who urged upon the Jews the return to Palestine as the solution of the Eastern question.
The interest of Englishmen in the Jewish people and a Jewish Palestine dates back to the Commonwealth. The same school of thought which permitted the Jews to return to England speculated further upon the Jewish restoration to Palestine; and this religious interest, fed upon the Bible and upon Protestantism, has survived in great strength down to our own day, as is evidenced by a whole literature, including a book conceived in this spirit recently published by Sir Andrew Wingate, a distinguished ex-Indian civil servant. The religious element of English interest in Jewish nationalism was fortified by political considerations. The genius of Napoleon revived the statesmanship of Caesar and Alexander, and conceived, as they did, of the Jewish people in Palestine as a pillar of empire in the East. When Napoleon started upon his expedition to Syria, he issued a proclamation announcing his wish to restore the scattered hosts of Jewry to their ancient land. There can be little doubt that this seed planted by Napoleon found lodgment in English minds. From Colonel Churchill to Laurence Oliphant can be seen sprouting the idea of serving both God and Great Britain, as well as the Jewish people, by re-creating a Jewish Palestine. It was an alternative solution of the Eastern question, to the maintenance of the decrepit Ottoman Empire. This latter solution may be said to have been the orthodox one in the nineteenth century, and to have held the field in official England until the middle of the Great War; but the conflict of the two political conceptions persisted, although in a dormant condition, throughout the century, and in the end it was the larger and nobler which triumphed.

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Jews Palestine

Palestines And Israel

Source(google.com.pk)
Palestines And Israel Biography

The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews is a modern phenomenon, which began around the turn of the twentieth century. Although these two groups have different religions (Palestinians include Muslims, Christians and Druze), religious differences are not the cause of the conflict. It is essentially a struggle over land. Until 1948, the area that both groups claimed was known internationally as Palestine. But following the war of 1948-1949, this land was divided into three parts: the state of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River) and the Gaza Strip.
This is a small area: approximately 10,000 square miles, or about the size of the state of Maryland. The competing claims are not reconcilable if one group exercises exclusive political control over the total territory. Jewish claims to this land are based on the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants, on the fact that this was the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel (which was destroyed by the Roman Empire), and on Jews’ need for a haven from European anti-Semitism. Palestinian Arabs’ claims to the land are based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years and the fact that they represented the demographic majority. They reject the notion that a biblical-era kingdom constitutes the basis for a valid modern claim. If Arabs engage the biblical argument at all, they maintain that since Abraham’s son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God’s promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. They do not believe that they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe’s crimes against them.
The Land and the People
In the nineteenth century, following a trend that began earlier in Europe, people around the world began to identify themselves as nations and to demand national rights, foremost the right to self-rule in a state of their own (self-determination and sovereignty). Jews and Palestinians both began to develop a national consciousness, and mobilized to achieve national goals. Because Jews were spread across the world (in diaspora), their national movement, Zionism, entailed the identification of a place where Jews could come together through the process of immigration and settlement. Palestine seemed the logical and optimal place, since this was the site of Jewish origin. The Zionist movement began in 1882 with the first wave of European Jewish immigration to Palestine.
At that time, the land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, this area did not constitute a single political unit. The northern districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Beirut. The district of Jerusalem was under the direct authority of the Ottoman capital of Istanbul because of the international significance of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (Bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. The great majority of the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) lived in several hundred rural villages. Jaffa and Nablus were the largest and economically most important Arab towns.
Until the beginning of the twentieth century, most Jews living in Palestine were concentrated in four cities with religious significance: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad and Tiberias. Most of them observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in -- or supportive of -- the Zionist movement which began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants. Most of the Jews who immigrated from Europe lived a more secular lifestyle and were committed to the goals of creating a Jewish nation and building a modern, independent Jewish state. By the outbreak of World War I (1914), the population of Jews in Palestine had risen to about 60,000, about 33,000 of whom were recent settlers. The Arab population in 1914 was 683,000.
RARELY has Israel looked lonelier. On November 29th only the United States, Canada and the Czech Republic among serious countries backed its arguments at the United Nations’ General Assembly against giving the Palestinians an enhanced status at the UN. Now Binyamin Netanyahu’s government has declared its determination to build thousands of new Jewish houses on the West Bank, where the Palestinians hope to turn their virtual state into a real one (see article). It also says it will withhold tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority (PA), which runs parts of the West Bank under Israeli eyes, to punish the Palestinians for their cheek at the UN.
This time, even the Americans objected. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, chastised Mr Netanyahu for his response. The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, who used to be President Barack Obama’s chief of staff and is a firm supporter of Israel, called it a betrayal of America’s friendship.
In this section
Goodbye Europe
Hacked to pieces
A breakdown of trust
Barriers to peace
Life after Mario?
Reprints
Related topics
United Nations
Benjamin Netanyahu
Barack Obama
Politics
World politics
It is not hard to see why. The decision to withhold the taxes is probably just a temporary punishment. But it will hardly help the more moderate Palestinians of Fatah, which runs the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas, in favour of Hamas, its Gaza-based rival, which is still loth to accept Israel’s existence.
The new settlements are far more serious. The houses Israel keeps on erecting on Palestinian territory are the main reason why so much of the world has lost sympathy for Israel’s cause. The Palestinians have had to watch the Israelis gobbling up the land on which their state is meant to be based. Worse, the latest planned settlement, in a zone known as E-1, threatens to box Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, which they hope to make their capital, into a sealed-off enclave, impeding connections to the rest of the fledgling state of Palestine and bisecting the northern and southern halves. Travel from Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem, to Ramallah, the Palestinians’ administrative headquarters, would be a nightmare.
Mr Netanyahu may try to justify his defiance over the settlements by pointing to the Palestinians’ unilateralism at the UN and the rockets from Gaza, though Israel has more than replied to them. He may also have an eye on the coming Israeli election. But for those, including this newspaper, who still hope for a two-state solution, the new houses are an impassable obstacle. Palestinian leaders cite them as further evidence that Israel has no interest in ceding territory, even for peace. True to that picture, although Mr Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution in 2009, his Likud party hasn’t: some of its candidates still want a Greater Israel extending to the Jordan river.
For Mr Obama, stuck in budget negotiations in Washington, this could not come at a worse time. But he should speak out loudly. Mr Obama’s envoys, just like the Europeans, have always stressed that building settlements in the E-1 corridor is unacceptable. Israel still gets billions of dollars from America, and might well rely on its help to attack Iran next year. Yet Mr Netanyahu would not have announced the settlements unless he thought he could get away with it. Israel has enough friends in Congress to protect his back. And thumbing his nose at Mr Obama has cost him nothing with Israeli voters.
Speak now, Mr Obama, loudly
A braver Mr Obama would this time tell Israel some home truths. Yes, many changes are necessary on the Palestinian side: Hamas needs to recognise Israel’s existence, for instance, and settle its differences with Fatah. But carving up a prospective Palestine and building a Greater Israel is destroying the prospects for peace. That is not just because it enrages the dispossessed Palestinians and their newly democratic Arab neighbours. It is also because of demographic trends within Israel. The Arab population is growing faster than the Jewish one. Under a single-state solution, Jews would become a minority. Unless they are prepared for Arabs to dominate the country politically, they will have to deprive them of the vote. The road Mr Netanyahu is pushing his country down is an ugly one—and Israel’s true friends should tell it so.

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestines And Israel

Palestinian Partition

Source(google.com.pk)
Palestinian Partition Biography

The first partition of Palestine took place in 1922, when the British government excluded Transjordan from the area to which the provisions of the *Balfour Declaration would apply. The Zionist Executive reluctantly acquiesced in this decision. The *Revisionist movement, established in 1925, hotly opposed the separation of Transjordan; its basic slogan was "a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan." The idea of partitioning western Palestine between Jews and Arabs was first broached officially in 1937 by the Palestine Royal Commission (see *Palestine, Inquiry Commissions, Peel Commission) as a method of enabling each nation to exercise sovereignty and achieve its principal national aims in part of the country while maintaining a British foothold centered in Jerusalem. The proposal was at first approved by the British government and accepted in principle, after a vigorous controversy, by the majority of the yishuv and the Zionist movement. The British withdrew their support, however, after the Palestine Partition Commission (the Woodhead Commission, see below) had failed to produce a "practicable" partition plan, and instead adopted in 1939 the *White Paper policy, which would ultimately have created an independent Palestinian state with a permanent Arab majority.
The abortive Morrison-Grady scheme of 1946 (see below), which would have left more than two-fifths of the country in British hands and given neither Arabs nor Jews more than limited autonomy, was rejected by both sides, and it was not until Britain put the problem before the United Nations that a new partition plan was evolved. This was done by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP, see below), which recommended the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state joined in an economic union, with Jerusalem and its environs as a separate international enclave. This proposal was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, while the British refused to play any part in implementing it.
The partition of western Palestine was not merely a theoretical proposal, but one of the possibilities inherent in the situation created by two generations of Zionist settlement before and during the British *Mandate. Jewish land purchases, mainly by the *Jewish National Fund, and the establishment of Jewish towns and villages had created areas of contiguous Jewish settlement, with a self-reliant and economically viable community that was prepared and able to defend itself and institutions of self-government based upon the voluntary allegiance of the Jewish population. Without such a yishuv, fortified by the moral, political, and financial support of Jews around the world, no decision by any external body could have been implemented. Ultimately, the partition of western Palestine was the result of two forces: the capacity of the yishuv to hold its own by force against the attacks of Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states on the one hand, and the inability of the yishuv to gain control of the whole of western Palestine, on the other. The following are the details of the partition plans presented by the various commissions and committees.
Palestine Royal Commission
(See *Palestine, Inquiry Commissions). This commission, often referred to as the Peel Commission, published its report on July 7, 1937. It came to the conclusion that partition was the best solution for both sides. Although this proposal meant neither Jews nor Arabs would get all they wanted, the commission believed that it offered many advantages to both sides. The Arabs would obtain national independence and finally be delivered from fear of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. By converting the Jewish National Home into a Jewish state, the Jews would not only be free of the fear of Arab rule, but they "will attain the primary objective of Zionism – a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a 'minority life.' A new sense of confidence and security would replace the existing feeling of fear and suspicion and both Jews and Arabs would obtain the inestimable boon of peace." (See Map: Peel Partition Plan).
The commission therefore proposed that Palestine be divided into
(1) a Jewish state, comprising the whole of Galilee and the Jezreel Valley, most of the Beth-Shean Valley, and the Coastal Plain from Ras el-Nakura (Rosh ha-Nikrah) on the Lebanese border to Be'er Tuviyyah in the south;
(2) an Arab state comprising Transjordan, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, and the Negev;
(3) a British zone under permanent Mandate, consisting of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and their environs, a corridor to the coast at Jaffa, and Nazareth. British treaties of alliance with the Jewish and the Arab state would guarantee the protection of minorities, facilities for British forces, etc., and the Jewish state would pay a subvention to the Arab state. (For details of proposed boundaries, see *Israel, Land of: Geographical Survey.)
The 20th Zionist Congress (Zurich, Aug. 3–17, 1937) declared that the Peel Commission's scheme was "unacceptable," but empowered the Executive to negotiate with the British government on "precise terms" for the establishment of "a Jewish state," provided that any scheme that might emerge would be submitted for approval to a newly elected Congress.
Palestine Partition Commission
In 1938 the British government appointed the Palestine Partition Commission (generally known as the Woodhead Commission, after its chairman Sir John Woodhead) "to recommend boundaries for the proposed Arab and Jewish areas and the British enclaves that would (a) afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment… of self-supporting Arab and Jewish states; (b) necessitate the inclusion of the fewest possible Arabs and Arab enterprises in the Jewish area and vice versa; and (c) enable the British government to carry out its 'Mandatory responsibilities.'" The commission, whose report was published in October 1938, found that the Peel Commission's scheme (Plan A) was impracticable. One member favored Plan B, which would have excluded Galilee and a small area in the south from the Jewish state as proposed in Plan A; two others preferred Plan C, which provided for small Jewish and Arab states, with Galilee, a Jerusalem enclave, and the Negev under British mandate; and a fourth rejected all three plans. The commission, therefore, was unable to recommend boundaries that would meet its terms of reference, and the British government came to the conclusion that partition was impracticable.

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Palestinian Partition

Israeli Palestinians

Source(google.com.pk)
Israeli Palestinians Biography

Arguing that a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on a resolution of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict within Israel as much as it does on resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, this timely book explores the causes and consequences of the growing conflict between Israel's Jewish majority and its Palestinian-Arab minority. It warns that if Jewish-Arab relations in Israel continue to deteriorate, this will pose a serious threat to the stability of Israel, to the quality of Israeli democracy, and to the potential for peace in the Middle East. The book examines the views and attitudes of both the Palestinian minority and the Jewish majority, as well as the Israeli state's historic approach to its Arab citizens. Drawing upon the experience of other states with national minorities, the authors put forward specific proposals for safeguarding and enhancing the rights of the Palestinian minority while maintaining the country's Jewish identity.A U.S.-funded study released Monday said both Israeli and Palestinian schoolbooks largely present one-sided narratives of the conflict between the two peoples and tend to ignore the existence of the other side, but rarely resort to demonization.
The research by Israeli, Palestinian and American researchers, billed as setting a new standard for textbook analysis, tackled a particularly fraught issue — longstanding Israeli claims that the Palestinians teach incitement and hatred of Israel in their schools.
The study, funded by the U.S. State Department, appeared to undermine these allegations, though it was unlikely to resolve the debate.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argues that the conflict with the Palestinians is not over land, but over Israel's acceptance in the region, and that peace is not possible until the alleged incitement stops.
Palestinians say Netanyahu is hiding behind such claims to divert attention from settlement building on occupied lands and from what they believe is his unwillingness to reach a peace deal on internationally backed terms.
The new study said the school books of both sides are typical for societies in conflict — though books used in Israeli state schools include significantly more information about Palestinians and more self-critical texts. Books used in Israel's ultra-Orthodox religious schools, attended by more than a quarter of Jewish students, and in Palestinian schools contain little information about the other side, the study said.
"On both sides, the chief problem is the crime of omission. It's the absence of a clear, outright recognition of existence and the other side's right to exist," said Gershon Baskin, an Israeli member of the study's scientific advisory panel.
Israel's Education Ministry dismissed the study as biased but did not elaborate. The Palestinian Education Ministry said its books reflect the reality of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories but do not incite to hatred.
The study analyzed 74 Israeli and 94 Palestinian books, covering grades 1-12 and teaching social sciences, geography, literature, religion, Arabic and Hebrew. The Israeli books were from state-run secular and religious schools, as well as independent ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools. The vast majority of the Palestinian books were used in government schools, and only six in private Islamic schools.
Scholars said they developed a new method to ensure greater objectivity, as they reviewed nearly 16,000 pages from Israeli state school books, close to 3,500 pages from books in ultra-Orthodox schools and close to 10,000 pages from Palestinian books.
All Israeli and Palestinian researchers were fluent in both Hebrew and Arabic so they could analyze the books of both communities, study organizers said. Often, the same texts were reviewed by more than one person, and the data was entered remotely into a database at Yale University so researchers could not be influenced by how the study was progressing.
The study found that as part of the selective narratives presented, both the Israeli and Palestinian books tended to describe negative actions of the other against the own community, while portraying the own community in positive terms. Books often lacked information about the religion, culture, economy and daily life of the other side.
"It is clear that each side is emphasizing its own narrative of the conflict," said Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University, one of three lead scholars, along with Sami Adwan of Bethlehem University and Bruce Wexler, professor emeritus at Yale.
"There is really minimal dehumanization on both sides, but at the same time, there is really a line of ignoring the other side," he said.
The failure to recognize the other is particularly apparent in maps of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, where the Palestinians hope to establish their state alongside Israel.
The Palestinians want to form their state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in 1967. For now, they have limited autonomy in 38 percent of the West Bank, where more than 90 percent of the Palestinians live. Israel annexed east Jerusalem immediately after the 1967, a move not recognized by most of the world, and withdrew in 2005 from Gaza, now controlled by the militant Palestinian group Hamas.
Israel was only shown in three of 83 post-1967 maps in Palestinian books, the study said.
Of 330 post-1967 maps in Israeli books, 258 included the area between the Jordan River and the sea. Of those, 196 maps, or 76 percent, did not indicate any borders between Israel and the occupied lands. Of the 62 maps that included a demarcation, 33 showed which areas are under Palestinian self-rule, while 29 maps showed borders with color lines, but do not refer to a Palestinian presence.

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians

Israeli Palestinians