Answer in today's South Chris Morning Post to my earlier letter on Israel-Palestine.
On quick reading at least two errors which I assume are deliberate:
1. Madrid conference of 1999: Israel did accept, not decline.
2. United Nations Resolution 242: Israel did accept, not flout.
Bazarwala fails to note the second main requirement of Resolution 242: that all parties (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) had to recognize all the others. Had that happened then Israel would have returned the occupied lands (the first requirement). The deal was "land for peace". Not "land before peace". With the history of attacks on Israel, how could any reasonable person expect Israel to hand over land on the "promise" of peace?
As to Bazarwala's first question: "... wasn't Israel carved out of stolen land from indigenous Palestinians 70 years ago?". The short answer: No. Israel was crafted out of land owned by Jews (bought from expatriate Ottoman landlords, often at above-market prices), and only encompassed land that had majority Jewish demographics. There's a detailed history here. Sure, it's Jewish source, but read around the subject, and this is the conclusion. The trope of jews "stealing" Palestinian land is simply wrong.
Scan of Bazarwal's letter below the fold.
As to Bazarwala's first question: "... wasn't Israel carved out of stolen land from indigenous Palestinians 70 years ago?". The short answer: No. Israel was crafted out of land owned by Jews (bought from expatriate Ottoman landlords, often at above-market prices), and only encompassed land that had majority Jewish demographics. There's a detailed history here. Sure, it's Jewish source, but read around the subject, and this is the conclusion. The trope of jews "stealing" Palestinian land is simply wrong.
Scan of Bazarwal's letter below the fold.
