When you say, ???Bibi has always stood for the proposition that the Palestinians will settle only for the destruction of the Zionist state,??? you seem to imply that this is his personal delusion rather than a reflection of the Palestinians??? own words and policies. Hamas, whom Obama wants to bring into a Palestinian unity government, is explicitly and unwaveringly committed to the destruction of Israel. Their willingness to consider a hudna ??? a temporary truce ??? does not change this, but rather reinforces that their intention is to never accept a Jewish state in the region. Fatah leaders such as ???moderate??? Mohammed Dahlan declare proudly that they have never recognized Israel and admit that the PLO did so only for tactical reasons. Abbas, the so-called moderate, has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and, emboldened by his friend in the White House, has taken a hard line on the ???right of return,??? which would mean the demographic destruction of the Zionist state. Furthermore, Abbas, who has a history of Holocaust denial, refuses even to acknowledge that the Temple Mount has any significance to Jewish history and contends that the Western Wall is nothing more than a wall around the mosque up top. Even if one is not religious, the fact that he is willing to deny archeological and historical reality in an attempt to eliminate any Jewish claims to Jerusalem does not bode well for Palestinian intentions, even among the ???moderates,??? regarding the existence of a Zionist state. The evidence supports Bibi???s interpretation that the Palestinians have no intention to recognize a Jewish state, and you have provided no evidence to refute it.
A Friend in Need
Barack gets tough on Bibi.
Published Jun 13, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 22, 2009
Member Comments
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/13/2009 4:42:16 PM
-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/14/2009 6:09:41 AM
Fatah has explicitly backed the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative that grants recognition of Israel by all Arab and islamic countries in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders. Even Hamas has signaled that they would be willing to accept this peace offer. It's not Arabs who want all of Israel. It's Israel who wants (and is slowly getting already) all Palestine.
It's high time to start dismantling settlements.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/15/2009 12:44:10 AM
Hamas is dedicated ideologically by charter to destroy the ???Zionist entity.??? They say they would be willing to consider a hudna, which is a temporary cease fire, but not permanent recognition of Israel. In the meantime they continue to arm. When they talk about ending the occupation, they mean all of Israel. Fatah has many factions, and some distinguish themselves from the Palestinian Authority, which they believe gives them the freedom to reject recognition of Israel and continue terrorist attacks. Even Abbas predicates his acceptance of the Arab League Peace Initiative and recognition of Israel on Israel being required to admit millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees into its borders and on the denial of any significant Jewish historical or religious relationship to Jerusalem. This renders their ???recognition??? of Israel as meaningless.
The root cause of this conflict is not settlements or the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; if that were the case, there would have been peace and a Palestinian state before 1967. The root cause is the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland. Even the so-called moderate Palestinians have not shown any willingness to budge on that one.-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/15/2009 1:54:46 AM
No, farmdad, the reason is indeed occupation. The reason is that a country that calls itself democratic keeps over 3 million people under military occupation for 42 years already, in the most humiliating conditions. The reason is that this occupying power slowly but steadily settles the occupied people's land with their own civilian settlers, in contravention of all International Laws, expels the native people from their ancestral homes and constantly introduces new restrictions to the lives of these people.
Arab countries have made a very clear offer to Israel: peace and recognition in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied lands. Now it's up to Israel to have peace or to have land. They can't have both.
The only other option is to end the occupation by granting all Palestinians in the OT Israeli citizenship, thus ending the current apartheid regime and establishing one true democratic country. The South African Solution.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/15/2009 5:48:50 AM
What was the root cause of the conflict between 1948 and 1967 when there was no Israeli occupation of the West Bank or Gaza?
-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/15/2009 6:34:01 AM
Back then Egypt and Jordan hadn't accepted their defeat from 1948. Now both countries have signed peace deals with Israel and are its main regional partners, thanks to US monetary aid. Syria is on the way to do the same as soon as they get the Golan back. The only true external "existential" threat left is Hizbollah, a rag-tag guerrilla that can annoy, even hurt, but not possibly destroy Israel. All other Arab players have already come to terms with Israel or are in the way to do so. Only the occupation and continued mistreatment of the Palestinians is standing in the way. But Israel would rather keep the whole West Bank and fulfill its delusional religious dreams than live in peace with its neighbors.
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/16/2009 5:58:22 AM
You completely ignore the fact that the only Israel that the Palestinians are willing to recognize is one in which millions of Palestinian refugees have been allowed to enter as citizens. Recognition of Israel under such demands is a sham. In essence, the Palestinians are demanding two Palestinian states: one on the West Bank and Gaza, and the other in what is now Israel.
The rag-tag Hizbollah that you describe is more powerful than the Lebanese army. They have thousands of rockets ready to launch at Israeli cities. They are sponsored by Iran who is on the threshold of developing a nuclear weapons capability and is openly hostile to Israel. Hamas continues to smuggle increasingly longer range rockets into Gaza. (Funny how the Gazans are allegedly denied food and critical supplies by the Israeli blockade yet have no difficulty bringing in weapons through their tunnels). If Hamas is part of a Palestinian unity government, there is nothing to stop them from importing rockets into the West Bank. What happens when their 10 year hudna is over (they really are on record as refusing to recognize Israel beyond a temporary cease-fire), assuming they even respect it? They certainly will not end their aggression toward Israel if the millions of refugees are not allowed in. You may think that rockets fired at Jewish children, and potentially at major cities and an airport is a trivial nuisance, but probably not if they were fired at your children, your cities, or your airport. Even if Hamas does not pose an existential threat to Israel, no country should forced to accept having its citizens live under the constant threat of missile fire.
You should really listen to what the Palestinian leaders actually say and give them credit for meaning what they say, rather than relying on Carteresque talking points.-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/16/2009 11:06:33 PM
Farmdad, the Saudi initiative only calls for a "just solution" to the refugee problem, not for their return. This means that the actual terms of this solution will have to be agreed upon in the negotiation process, and that there can be different acceptable formulas, like a partial return (just for those actually born in Israel or who have direct relatives living there, for example), efforts to settle the rest of them in Palestine, Syria or Jordan (forget about Lebanon) and economic compensations. Rejecting the Saudi initiative on the grounds you mention is just making excuses to avoid an honest start point for the negotiations. Israel does just so because they want to start those talks with heavy preconditions favoring their side: we keep most of the settlements and East Jerusalem, the refugee return is not even discussed, Palestine can't control its airspace, borders or sea... This is all disingenuous and unacceptable. Negotiations will have to start from the conditions established by the different UN resolutions and International Law principles (as the Saudi proposal suggests), and work their way from there on.
About Hizbollah being more powerful than the Lebanese army... not really that difficult. You know they call them "the army of musicians"? Justifying one of the most powerful armies of the world and the billions of military aid the US sends every year on the threat posed by Hizbollah and Hamas to the existence of Israel is the most absurd argument ever heard. It still amazes me that American politicians can sell this pup to their taxpayers.
And about Hamas, they will have to be part of the new Palestinian unity government in the peace process. Get used to it. It's the only solution to this mess, and the International Community should push for it, instead of placing obstacles. The hudna will do until there is a final agreement. Once the peace deal is reached, the hudna will have to be substituted by full-fledged peace. Refusing to deal with them clinging to wording and semantics is again making excuses to avoid sitting and talk.-
Posted By: spomerantz @ 06/16/2009 11:17:11 PM
Israel specifically did NOT reject the Saudi proposal. They have said it was a positive proposal and could be a basis for negotiation. There was no followup from the Arab states because they consider all the articles in there as a precondition...
-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/17/2009 5:22:58 AM
"A just solution to the refugee problem", even as a precondition, is a very open term that leaves plenty of space for negotiation. I don't see any problem to accept it.
About the return to the 1967 borders, the Saudi proposal only repeats what UN resolutions and International Law already says. Israel doesn't have any other argument for keeping the settlements apart from being in the strongest position and their sheer existence (the infamous "realities on the ground"). I really don't think the Palestinians will agree to forsake their rights over East Jerusalem and the lands surrounding it, taking into account their historical, sentimental, strategical and economic importance. If Israel wants to keep part of the settled territories, they will have to offer something very tempting in exchange. This is only up to the Palestinians to concede.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/17/2009 1:04:49 PM
UN Resolution 242 was drafted intentionally to allow for a negotiated border. It calls for a ???withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories,??? not from ???the territories,??? resulting in ???secure and recognized boundaries.??? The legislative intent of this deliberate choice of wording is well documented. It does not require Israel to return to the 1949 Armistice line which was never a permanent border in the first place. The return to the exact 1967 green line is an Arab demand, not an entitlement supported by international law. It should not be a precondition as required by the Arab League plan in its current form.
I am glad that you see ???a just solution to the refugee problem??? as leaving plenty of space for negotiation. Israel has no problem with this broad interpretation as a precondition in the Arab League plan and in fact has already engaged in negotiations with offers of remedies that would not result in the de facto demographic destruction of Israel. The problem is that Palestinians appear to be non-negotiable on this subject. Hamas and even Fatah have made clear that they will accept no less than the resettlement of large numbers of Palestinians into Israel. I would like to share your optimism that they will ultimately be flexible and reasonable on this demand, but so far they have given no indication that they will be. This includes so-called moderates such as Abbas and Erekat.
It is likely that the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will come under Palestinian sovereignty in a final status agreement. The more difficult issue will be regarding sovereignty of the Old City, the Temple Mount in particular. The Palestinians have never had sovereignty there; it was formerly Jordan and now it is Israel. While under Israeli sovereignty, Muslims, under protection of Israeli law, have maintained administrative autonomy over their holy sites and unfettered access to them. While under Arab sovereignty, Jews had no access, let alone administrative autonomy, and Jewish holy sites were desecrated. Now, you might say, ???That was then, this is now.??? Unfortunately, the Palestinians, including Abbas the Holocaust-denier, continue their campaign to deny that the Temple Mount has any historical or religious significance to Judaism (i.e., they assert that the Temples of Solomon and Herod never existed there). Additionally, the Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent the desecration of Jewish holy sites in Nablus and Hebron when Israel turned over autonomy of those areas to them in recent years. It doesn???t inspire much confidence in the Palestinians having control over Jewish holy sites when they claim that they don???t even exist.
The Palestinians require acceptance of some of their demands as preconditions to negotiation. Even though Netanyahu spelled out demands that the Palestinians find unacceptable, he does not present acceptance of those demands as preconditions to negotiation. So who is being intransig-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/18/2009 8:05:26 AM
Yes, farmdad, I'm familiar with Resolution 242 and Israel's peculiar interpretation of it. They always tend to ignore the part where it states the "inadmissibility of acquiring territory by means of war". Besides, the intentionally vague wording of this ruling where it doesn't call for Israel's withdrawal from "all", not even "the" occupied territories, was due to, apart of enormous diplomatic pressure by Israel and its influential supporters, to the necessity, as you pointed, to establish secure borders for both sides from a defensive point of view. As Lord Caradon, drafter of the resolution put it: "The sensible way to decide permanent ???secure and recognized??? boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle." This means that Israel would in no way be allowed to unilaterally define the new border nor incorporate any part of the territory it sees fit. This is also consistent with International Law, which explicitly forbids occupying powers to settle the occupied territory with their own civilians.
In light of all this, not only Arab neighborhoods will have to come under Palestinian sovereignty, as you say, but also most of "Greater Jerusalem" beyond the Green Line, since all the Jewish settlements are illegal. Israel would only get to retain the areas that are deemed indispensable for the defense of the country, and only when this doesn't compromise the viability of the Palestinian state.
Of course all this is how it SHOULD be, not how it actually will be. At the end of the day we will see if it's Justice or strength what prevails. I'm not very optimistic.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/18/2009 2:06:01 PM
Israel???s interpretation of 242 is not peculiar. It is consistent with the drafters??? intent and stated purpose.
In Lord Caradon???s own words: "And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "
The passage that you claim is ignored does not change the fact that the 1967 borders are not sacrosanct under the resolution. As Caradon stated: " . . . the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands."
Michael Stewart, Great Britain???s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 1969, stated: "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967 said: "Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."
Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council stated just before 242 was adopted: "Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description ... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is . . . "
Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, in 1970: "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
The point is, Israel???s interpretation is not peculiar and the Arab League Peace proposal clause that requires a return to the 1967 border as a requirement for Arab recognition of Isra-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/19/2009 5:58:33 AM
Israel's interpretation of the resolution 242 is peculiar because they use it as a carte blanche to take as much land from the occupied territories as they please, plus settling it with its own civilians, something you can't deny is against the Fourth Geneva Convention and International Law (not that Israel never cared much about that). As I explained to you, even if the 1967 borders were not meant to be definitive, this doesn't mean in any way that Israel would be allowed to redefine them unilaterally by faits accomplis. Lord Caradon suggested an impartial commission to define these new "secure and recognizable" boundaries. Other ways to establish them could be by consensus of both sides, or letting an international body like the ICJ to decide. But instead, by pretending that by withdrawing from any part of the territories occupied in 1967 they are complying with the UN orders, Israel is just making a cruel joke of International Law and Justice with their "peculiar" interpretation of 242.
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/22/2009 4:56:16 AM
If you want to use international law as a frame of reference, Israel has more entitlement to the West Bank than the Palestinians. Israel is not occupying Palestinian territory because a sovereign Palestinian state never existed there.
In 1922, after the land went from Ottoman to British control, the League of Nations recognized the ???historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine??? and called upon the British Mandatory authority to ???secure establishment of the Jewish National Home??? in the area of Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River. The portion east of the river became Transjordan under Arab rule. After the League expired in 1946, Article 80 of the UN Charter affirmed the terms of existing international instruments, and therefore Jewish rights according to the League Mandate were not abridged. In November, 1947, the UN General Assembly non-binding Resolution 181 (the partition plan) would have granted a second Arab state in an area west of the Jordan River that included the West Bank, but the Arabs rejected it. In 1948, as part of an Arab initiated war, Jordan invaded and illegally occupied the West Bank, in defiance of the UN Security Council, and expelled the Jewish population from East Jerusalem. In 1950, Jordan???s annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was rejected by the majority of the international community, including the other Arab states. Jordan insisted that the 1949 Armistice Line not serve as a recognized border. In 1967, Israel captured the territory, not as a result of aggression but as a result of a defensive war.
According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations which attached to the 4th Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, a territory is defined as being occupied when the territory of a hostile state is placed under the authority of a hostile army. Since the unilateral annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem by Jordan was never recognized by international law, and Palestinian sovereignty never existed there either, those stateless territories cannot be legally classified as occupied, according to the Hague Regulations. Since the Israeli capture of the West Bank and Jerusalem did not constitute the occupation of territory possessed be a previous sovereign state, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply.
In other words, from 1922 to 1967, there was no international agreement or instrument that abrogated the League of Nation granted rights for a Jewish homeland in the territories that included the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. In the interest of peace, however, Israel has been willing renounce claims to 97% of the disputed West Bank territories in exchange for security and recognition as a Jewish homeland (i.e., not required to accept the influx of millions of descendents of Arabs who became refugees as a result of the Arab initiated 1948 war).-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/26/2009 10:18:39 AM
Still here? hehe, this article is already getting stale, but anyway...
Farmdad, that no independent state existed in the Palestinian territories before 1967 doesn't entitle Israel to occupy it either. Don't twist International Law. I think the long list of UN resolutions and ICJ rulings make this point quite clear. Even if the OT don't belong to any recognized nation, it is clear that THEY DON'T BELONG TO ISRAEL. So in any case, Israel has to vacate the premises and let the Palestinians organize as they please. Resolution 242 makes a clear point stating the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by means of war. Note that it does not mention aggressive, defensive or otherwise. Just "war", in general. So Israel is not allowed to keep anything beyond the Green Line. I won't even bother to enter the debate about if Israel's 1967 "preemptive" strike was defensive or not. It's beyond the point. This is not the Middle Ages. You are not entitled to the spoils of war anymore. Of course, Israel can always offer Israeli nationality to the Palestinians and keep everything. It would be the most democratic exit for their apartheid-like situation. But what they can't do is chew the meat and spit the bones. They need to swallow it all.
And apart from that, it's not true that Israel pretends to "renounce claims to 97% of the occupied (not disputed) WB territories". When calculating their famous 97% they fail to remind us that it doesn't include the vast settlements around East Jerusalem, which they consider as a separate entity ("Greater Jerusalem"), but that anyway comprise over 10% of the WB's surface. What Israel is actually offering is less than 85% of Palestine, and they pretend to keep vital enclaves on strategic hilltops, on the most fertile land, above Palestine's main water source (the Mountain Aquifer), surrounding and strangling Palestinian cities, and cutting them off one another and from Jerusalem.
Settlements are the main obstacle to peace. They just have to go.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/26/2009 12:24:00 PM
So let me get this straight. The land does not belong to any sovereign state, but Jews are not allowed to live there while Palestinian Arabs can. Talk about ethnic cleansing. Not even Leiberman believes that Israel, which is a sovereign state, should be devoid of Muslims. Once again you distort the meaning of 242. Please refer back to Lord Caradon???s statements about taking the resolution as a whole and his and other drafters??? specific comments that the resolution not only permits but expects that Israel will keep land beyond the Green Line.
So Israel can keep the entire West Bank if they offer Israeli nationality to the Palestinians living there? That is certainly one solution if the parties were to agree to it, which, of course, neither would. Another solution would be to dismantle all the outposts; negotiate secure and recognized boundaries as called for by Resolution 242, which would likely include Israel keeping the settlements close to the Green Line while giving other land currently in Israel to the Palestinians; and then either dismantling other settlements as per an agreement or allowing the Jews to continue living there under Palestinian sovereignty. Jerusalem is indeed a separate case, as the parties themselves seem to realize, which will be addressed through even more difficult negotiations. No settlement will happen, of course, if the Palestinians are non-negotiable on their demand for the de facto destruction of Israel through the insistence that millions of Palestinians who never lived there be allowed to ???return.???-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/26/2009 11:48:26 PM
It's not about religion, farmdad. The settlers don't have to leave because they are Jewish. Nobody is talking about expelling ethnic minorities. Look at the Samaritans: they live and will keep living in their holy Mount Gerizim in the West Bank. The Israeli settlers have to leave because they set up camp in someone else's yard. The West Bank never belonged to Israel, so Israel never had the legal (nor moral) authority to allow (and encourage) its civilians to go to live beyond its borders. Israel always tries to make it look like it's all about religion, but it's all about International Law, pure and simple. Occupying powers are not allowed to settle their own civilians in the occupied territory. 4th Geneva Convention. Article 49.
Secondly, Israel was never expected to keep land beyond the Green Line. Who said that? The Green Line was expected to be modified, but not necessarily by allowing Israel go beyond it. The idea was to establish new, more secure and recognizable borders for BOTH SIDES, and not for one at the expense of the other, and they were supposed to be established by a neutral commission or by mutual agreement, not unilaterally and by means of faits accomplis. Finally, the modification of the Green Line was supposed to be made based on security concerns, not on the demographical necessities, religious obsessions and resource hunger of the occupying side.
The One State Solution (aka South African Solution) is favored by many Palestinians, believe me. It would allow them to stop living in humiliating conditions and become citizens of a first world democratic country, where their demographical weight would allow them to have a strong say in its government and politics. Eventually they would be the ones to call the shots. The two state solution would place them in a new country with daunting economic, politic and security uncertainties, ruled by a notoriously corrupt political class. This is just a better option than occupation, but not really the best they can dream of. It is, of course, the Israelis who don't want to hear about this option, since it would mean the end of their political control over the country they have created, the end of the precious "jewishness" of Israel, and thus the end of the zionist dream. Just like the Afrikaaners didn't want to hear about giving the blacks equal rights, Israel doesn't even want to think about giving Palestinians Israeli citizenship and equal rights. It's understandable, but it was also understandable from the Afrikaaners point of view. However, ending apartheid was (and still is) the right thing to do.
The Arab nations have made a very pragmatic offer to Israel. They should take it while it still is on the table, before the West gets tired of supporting an apartheid regime and administers them the South African medicine.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/29/2009 5:12:06 AM
The West Bank never belonged to the Palestinians. You are just presuming that it is theirs. Please identify for me the international agreement that awarded the Palestinians sovereign ownership of the West Bank. It does not exist.
Arabs and Jews have both lived in the West Bank. The last sovereign nations there were Jewish. In the first half of the 20th century, Jews living there were massacred and expelled from their homes. International agreements at San Remo and the League of Nations determined that the West Bank would be part of a Jewish national homeland, and those rights were extended by the UN Charter. Jews were willing to cede some of their rights in exchange for peaceful coexistence, but the Arabs rejected it. Jordan took control of the territory in a war of aggression. Israel took control of the territory as a result of a defensive war (you???re not going to argue seriously that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war, with all those hostile Arab troops massed on its border, ready to attack with their stated intention to drive the Jews into the sea).
Once again, the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to the settlements. Article 2 of the General Provisions of the Convention states clearly that the Convention applies to ???cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.??? The Palestinians are not a High Contracting Party to the Convention. According to Article 4, the West Bank Palestinians are not protected by the treaty because they are not nationals of a state which is bound by the Convention. Article 49 states, ???The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian populations into the territory it occupies.??? While Israeli governments have supported the development of settlements, Jews moving to the West Bank have done so on their own initiative, not as a result of deportation or government transfer. Article 49 was drafted in the wake of WWII during which the Nazis did deport and transfer its citizens to territories it occupied. The explicit purpose of the Convention is to protect civilians during and following times of war, not to protect land or adjudicate land disputes. Ironically, it is the Israeli citizens, not the West Bank Palestinians, who are protected by the sentence in Article 49 quoted above.-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/30/2009 11:25:40 AM
Farmdad, the West Bank belongs to the peoples who inhabit it, as long as they don't do so illegally, as in the case of the Israeli settlements. The inalienable right of self-determination of the peoples, internationally recognized, guarantees this regardless of the fact of the preexistence of a sovereign state of their own. Presuming that the land they inhabited for generations doesn't belong to them, but to the newly-arrived Israeli settlers, is not only at odds with International Law, but with common sense.
Jews in the WB accounted before partition for less than 2% (around 10.000 of a total population of over 700.000). To justify a claim over the WB based on such paltry Jewish presence and negate the right of 98% of its people is plainly ridiculous. If those expelled in 1948 want to return to their rightful properties and live in peace under Palestinian authority, by all means, but Israel will have to do the same with the 800.000 they expelled in the same period. I don't think you want to continue down this road.
And then you go again with another of the peculiar interpretations of International Law by Israel. If you find jurist outside Israel supporting this interpretation of the 4th GC, he must surely be in a mental asylum. On 15 July 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem.In 2001, at a one-day conference of High Contracting Parties, 114 countries adopted a three-page declaration re-affirming that the terms of the Convention applied to the Palestinian territories. Israel's position has not been accepted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, nor has it been endorsed by the other High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 1 of the Convention states that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances". This position was previously asserted in the UN???s Security Council resolution 446, and reiterated in resolutions 452, 465, 471 and 607.
But what is most absurd of all is to maintain that ???Jews moving to the West Bank have done so on their own initiative???, when it???s notorious that the Israeli government has offered active support and voiced encouragement for the settlement of the West Bank, built all kind of infrastructures for their comfort (the infamous Jew-only roads), and financed their land grab with soft loans that settlements don???t even have to pay back if they stay a certain amount of time. This is not individual initiative, this is a state-driven policy with the clear aim to expand its territory at the expense of the Palestinians, thus in full contravention of the Geneva Convention.-
Posted By: farmdad @ 07/05/2009 1:19:31 PM
Froy, if you are still there. I???m not saying that Jews should claim the entire West Bank. But you seem to be saying that Jews should not be allowed to live there at all. The settlements were built on land that was neither privately owned nor under any recognized Palestinian sovereignty. No Palestinian entitlement to the entire land has ever existed (again, please identify the international agreement that asserts otherwise), yet you have somehow divined that it is their birthright to have every square inch of the stateless, untitled land that actual international agreements designated for a Jewish homeland. Even though the Arabs rejected every partition compromise that has ever been proposed, attacked Israel on several occasions, and launched a campaign of vicious terrorism, Israel is willing to concede 97% of the West Bank. And as soon as Palestinians demonstrate they are no longer inclined to shoot rockets or blow up pizza parlors, many of the security measures that the Palestinians have brought upon themselves can be eased.
Isn???t it remarkable that in the 60 years since the Fourth Geneva Convention, the High Contracting Parties have convened only to condemn Israel? I guess the atrocities against people in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, and Tibet have been too trivial to warrant their attention when compared to Jewish construction projects. In 1999, the meeting lasted for an entire 17 minutes. No wonder no one bothered to read Article 2; there was barely any time. The December 5, 2001 affair was a great follow-up to the UN so-called Conference against Racism in Durban three months earlier. The December meeting was particularly obscene, occurring within days of Palestinian suicide attacks in Haifa and Jerusalem which killed more than two dozen Israeli citizens, with barely a peep about it from the high-minded humanitarians in attendance. I especially liked how Jewish NGO???s were banned from the parallel conference on December 4, a harbinger of the absurdity to follow. At least the U.S. and Australia had the good sense to join Israel in boycotting the kangaroo court on December 5 whose outcome was predetermined by the Arab bloc that instigated the meeting. As for the moral authority of the UN since the 1970???s? What can you say about an organization in which Sudan is considered the authority on Human Rights? The real atrocity is how formerly respected humanitarian institutions have been hijacked for transparently biased political purposes.
-
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/29/2009 5:25:15 AM
Froy, you have added weight to my argument that the core of the conflict is not the settlements, but the rejection of the right for a Jewish state to exist on land that was once part of British Mandatory Palestine. You are correct that Palestinians would prefer a one state solution in which their demographic dominance would end the precious Jewishness of Israel that you mock. That is why they have been unyielding on a physical right of return. What they are unable to accomplish by war and terrorism, they are attempting to accomplish by this demand. They do not disguise this aim. Both Fatah and Hamas leaders have long been promising in Arabic that any peace settlement would be a way-station to eventual liberation of the land all the way to the Mediterranean.
Often when I engage in dialogues such as ours, it does not take long before rhetoric about ending the illegal occupation gives way to the underlying sentiment that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. You have the right to feel that way, but you cannot expect Israel to agree to this as a starting and end point of negotiations. You may or may not be willing to live with the continued existence of a Jewish state as a distant second choice, but neither Hamas nor Fatah has shown any intention to do so. Arab League recognition of Israel is meaningless if the right of return results in Israel becoming the third of three Palestinian states in former Mandatory Palestine. If a physical right of return is not granted, Israel sure as hell better have secure and defensible borders, which would not be the 1967 lines, because many Palestinians are not prepared to give up that fight, even if all the settlements are dismantled and a Palestinian state is founded on the West Bank and Gaza. If Palestinians universally accepted the right of Israel to exist in peace as a Jewish state and did not have the history of violence against Israel that they have, then maybe the 1967 lines would be feasible, but that is not the world in which we live.
I assume that you are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the analogy of Israel to South Africa does not hold for the Arabs who are currently citizens of Israel. Even Jimmy Carter agrees that apartheid does not exist within Israel and that the status of Arab Israelis is not remotely similar to the status of black Africans under Afrikaner rule. Israel will not annex the West Bank to avoid the scenario that you describe. They are probably willing to maintain the status quo until the Palestinians work out their divisions and are able to present an empowered leadership that genuinely wants peace with a Jewish state. Also, if you think that the conflict is not about religion, you have not been keeping up with the constant bilge of anti-Semitic references that are propagated daily in the official Palestinian and Arab media and educational systems.-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 07/01/2009 12:45:25 AM
Of course, farmdad, the analogy of Israel and Apartheid South Africa must encompass all the territories controlled by Israel. As I pointed out earlier, the real problem here is occupation, which is allowing the existence of a new kind of apartheid. Even visiting South African politicians to the West Bank have attested this resemblance, only remarking that the situation of Palestinians is much worse. I also take for granted that Israel will not annex the West Bank and Gaza willingly. Afrikaners also rejected this at the beginning, adducing excuses shockingly similar to the ones posed by Israel (the blacks will turn the country in a dictatorship, they will ruin the economy, they will kick us out, they will kill us all???), all of which turned out to be wrong and false. To achieve the end of the Bantustans and true democracy it was necessary enormous international pressure. In the case of Israel, a similar path should be followed: diplomatic isolation, sanctions, etc. Unfortunately, the blind diplomatic and economic support of the US for Israel renders this solution highly unlikely. Palestinians and Arab nations have realized this, and for that reason they have adopted the pragmatic position evidenced by the Arab Peace Offer. Palestinians have already explicitly accepted to live alongside Israel in a separate state, provided that it???s viable, so it???s not valid that Israel keeps dragging its feet arguing that they just want to destroy Israel. Nobody is buying that anymore. The one-state option would indeed be the most just and democratic solution, just like it was in South Africa, but Palestinians and Arab nations have proved to be pragmatic enough to accept this new partition. Israel has run out of excuses.
From your comments I can just infer that you just prefer the status quo to continue indefinitely (until Israel decides that the Palestinians ???genuinely want peace???, that???s a good one), while at the same time keep with their continuous land grab. But that???s just not an option. Occupation must end.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/18/2009 2:11:05 PM
The point is, Israel???s interpretation is not peculiar and the Arab League Peace proposal clause that requires a return to the 1967 border as a requirement for Arab recognition of Israel is a non-starter.
-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/19/2009 9:38:31 AM
The point is that Israel pretends that the world accepts that the vast settlements constructed on illegally expropriated land in the WB and around East Jerusalem (effectively cutting it from the rest of Palestine) will inevitably become part of Israel. THAT is a non starter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/15/2009 12:10:21 PM
Where does HAMAS indicate this?
Be specific,as I can find no such guarantee eminating from HAMAS.[even as recently as Saturday of last week]. Bear in mind that these are also ''controventions to International Laws'' as you profer.
The use of civilians as shields
The use of civilian buildings in order to launch offensive operations
The use of rocket batteries in order to deliberately seek civilian targets
The use of suicide bombers
Civilians as ''legitimate military targets''
All of these actions are violations of the laws you profer, and yet the Palestinians under the guise of HAMAS and AL AQSAS engage in all of the above. -
Posted By: diangirlsgetaway @ 06/14/2009 3:16:51 PM
-
Posted By: farmdad @ 06/15/2009 5:46:54 AM
What was the root cause of the conflict between 1948 and 1967 when there was no Israeli occupation of the West Bank or Gaza?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Ethan30 @ 06/26/2009 10:27:35 PM
How can the Israelis be any more "serious" about peace? They just displaced thousands of Jews from their homes, just to jump start a peace process, and all they got in return was rockets and more hate (as it was interpreted as a sign of weakness in the Middle Eastern social codes).
The Gazans seem very keen on propagating racists views and violence to the Jew of the world. Read the constitution of the Hamas, if you know arabic- they do not talk about Israelis or only the Jews that live in the Middle East.
The Hamas talks about all the Jews in the world and created a race theory of their own, in which Muslims should bring an Islamic revolution to the world
So how does being "respectful" and diplomatic to fanatic regimes like Iran and Syria, but meddling with Israeli security is going to bring progress?
Unless "progress" for you is to advance the cause of "killing all the Jews in the Middle East" and strengthening those fanatic regimes that want a world Islamic revolution is the kind of change we can believe in?
-
Posted By: Ethan30 @ 06/26/2009 9:31:12 AM
Carter insisted that there would be no compromise on the egyptian side while Israel will return 100% of the territories that the Egyptians demanded.
That set a record that later complicates matters, since all the rest of the Arab countries demanded the same 100% of the land- which means- no compromise on their part and also- no more Israel.
Obamas "toughness" when it comes to the only democracy in the region, while he shows support and "respect" for the fanatic dictatorship of Iran, is another signal that Obama is weak and respect those who claim to hate America while alienating friends.
Lately he has also been groveling before Syria (completely controlled by Iran these days).
A great message of support and strengthening of these fanatic regimes.
-
Posted By: HollywoodHalston @ 06/22/2009 11:26:07 PM
International law is not a frame of reference for freedom. Freedom is not nor was ever created by laws, kings, or constitutions. Freedom is a human right PROTECTED by laws. The right to self determination has governed the American spirit since its founding. To alienate a people from freedom and then to base that finding on obscure international law is appalling. In-alienable rights do not begin and end at the shores of America. Freedom is a human right and cannot be ignored indefinably.
-
Posted By: rhetoricaldoc @ 06/21/2009 10:13:29 AM
Let???s get this straight: Obama will not even make a firm statement of support for the dissenters in Iran because he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iran???s internal affairs, but he can tell Israel what land it can continue to own and how it is to behave toward the terrorist who want to steal the land. Your reporting is typical of slobbering love affair with the Messiah, Obama!
-
Posted By: RANDJA1957 @ 06/20/2009 11:35:08 PM
AND WHAT HAS THE CAMP DAVID ACCORD DONE TO HELP MIDDLE EAST PEACE.... THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE THERE TILL ISLAM RECOGNIZES ISRAEL AND THE THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST.... YOU CAN THROUGH ALL THE BULL INTO THE MIX YOU WANT BUT UNTIL THAT DAY THERE WILL BE NO PEACE.... BARRACK HUSSIEN OBAMA IS A CHARLATAN AND DECEIVER... MAYBE EVEN A MUSLIM IN DISQUISE ......
-
Posted By: Agenda @ 06/18/2009 7:06:56 AM
Sorry to disappoint or not the president Obama , but the only withdraw the Palestinians will agree upon is up to the Mediterranean see
-
Posted By: Agenda @ 06/18/2009 7:06:29 AM
Sorry to disappoint or not the president Obama , but the only withdraw the Palestinians will agree upon is up to the Mediterranean see
-
Posted By: valwayne @ 06/16/2009 3:44:02 PM
Amazing! Obama is following a policiy of engagement/appeasement with every bad regime in the world, but not Israel. He has to give Israel the back of his hand for peace to succeed. So if I understand correctly when Iran has a nuclear arsenal and Israel has surrendered to most if not all Arab demands, and allowed Hamas to have its own state, then peace will be at hand? For some reason I believe Tel Aviv is likely to be a smoking radioactive ruin as that scenario plays out, but I'm probably just a pessimist. Since Obama is taking the route of letting Iran have nukes, and trying to force Israel to concede on all major points, and supporting a Palestinian state which will clearly be controlled by Hamas, I guess we'll get to see how the scenario plays out?
-
Posted By: Sharon Kahn @ 06/17/2009 11:13:49 PM
You put it very succinctly indeed.
The fact is, the biggest opponents to a two-state solution have always been the Palestinian leadership, along with the rest of the Arab world.
-
-
Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 06/17/2009 5:29:39 AM
The US will never let Israel down. Whatever that has been said by Obama on putting pressure on Israel is just rethoric. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion. Israel is already there and a very strong ally to the US. Why should the US be betraying its only ally in the region? The US can never have full trust in the Arabs. Any changes in the present status quo will just jeopardise the US years of investments and efforts.
-
Posted By: Agenda @ 06/17/2009 4:20:46 AM
What has not been acquired by force will not be acquired in another way.
It is obvious that the Palestinians shall never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
It is an anathema in their deep firm belief.
By letting 20 % of Palestinians live within the borders of the Israeli state and try any possible way to increase this population while being uncompromising in regard of the evacuation of the Israeli living in Judea Samaria ,It would need some years so that legally and democratically we attend the creation of Palestinian Arab in all the territories going from the Mediterranean up to Jordan who is "a priori" already Palestinian.
This would lead to the real aspiration of the Palestinians to see disappear the Jewish state and its population.
Due to that the position of the Israeli is much more comprehensible.
On the foundation to recognize Israel as "Jewish" state shall insinuate a physical separation by the redrawing of borders including territories with strong Palestinian density population within the Palestinian state in exchange of territories with strong Jewish density population in Judea Samaria within the Israeli state . No return of refuges in these new bordersas it will be no return of the millions of Jewish refuges from the Arab countries with indemnity of property confiscated etc ???
As this hypothesis seems more and more utopian and unthinkable in the eyes of the Palestinians it should lead to second thoughts about them claiming to be favorable to live in peace and good neighborhood.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 06/17/2009 12:18:05 AM
"Secretary of State James Baker withheld loan guarantees and said that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir should call him when he got interested in peace" -
We can assume that Shamir never called back (it was Rabin who started those ill-advised negotiations with Arafat), and what, did USA cut help to Israel?
Bibi also said Obama go to hell (in very polite form, of course) and should keep this way.
Wih such "friends" as Obama and Carter - who needs enemies?
-
Posted By: spomerantz @ 06/16/2009 11:04:43 PM
I understand your tough love argument about Israel and Obama. My only issue with it is your emphasis on an evenhanded approach meaning pressure on Israel. You do mention leaning on the Arabs (once) but this is clearly not the emphasis of your article. Yes, the US should use "tough love" but Bibi's notion that "the Palestinians will settle only for the destruction of the Zionist state" is an entirely supportable notion. You certainly know that the Israeli populace would give up the West Bank and Gaza (already done) if they thought they would get real peace. Barak and even Olmert offered almost 100% of the West Bank and a divided Jerusalem and it was a no go. The Arab World and the Palestinians were just as anti-Israel before 67, before any settlements. I am sure you know all the arguments. When is the US going to get tough with the Palestinians and say to them, "stop educating your kids in hatred, stop reflexively rejecting Israeli peace offers... etc" The stupidist thing Arafat could have ever done, and now Abbas was not take the Israeli offers. (and no, they can't talk about cantons...ask Dennis Ross..it wasn't true) They could have then kept pushing for more if they wanted.. It just shows that they just aren't able to negotiate a peace. The US needs to help them. The reason Obama can't get tough with them is that there is no there there. Abbas probably can't say yes to peace because his populace is in such disarray..and has been taught that Israel is satan.. etc etc..
So Obama can push Israel to give up land...and more land...but it is rational to expect that Israelis would fear what happened in Gaza. They'll give up those settlements (except for the ones that Carter even now said he expects them to keep)... you can bet on it. The US has a much harder challenge... getting an Arab world to give up the notion of getting rid of Israel.
The following sermon by a local rabbi says it better than I can. I strongly urge you to read this.
http://www.bethtfiloh.com/ftpimages/230/download/061309.pdf
-
Posted By: kurtmudgeon @ 06/16/2009 10:09:00 AM
IWhy in the world would you cite Obama's words?
They are just words. How many exampled do you
need before you get it? If you ever get it.
Kurt Mudgeon
-
Posted By: JoanR @ 06/16/2009 9:29:07 AM
Well, the Palestinians, beginning with their NAZI approved Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini refused to accept a Jewish State alongside a Palestinian one in 1948 and this week the President for Life of Egypt says that no Arab Government will accept Israel as a Jewish State in 2009.Sounds to me like the Israelis are definitely the ones that Obama should be pressuring for peace.Very insightful article here. It would be a perfect match for his hapless economic program
-
Posted By: gommy goomy @ 06/16/2009 9:00:28 AM
Who ARE theseAmerican Jews? I'll tell you. They're LIBERALS. Their RELIGION, is LIBERALISM. Their Messiah, is OBAMA. And, right now, their Messiah needs ISRAEL to BEND OVER. You see, to these Jews, Israel is the problem. The fact that the Palestinians follow every 'Peace Agreement' with ROCKETS and HOMICIDE ATTACKS, well....that doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't BEND OVER, one more time. I think that Jacob Weisberg, should pack his family, grab his crushed velvet portraits of Obama, in a loin cloth, and standing over a slain Lion, with Michelle kneeling by his side, and put down some roots in the place he thinks, should listen to HIM. Maybe Sderot. Maybe Tel Aviv. And when the ROCKETS start falling where you LIVE, on a daily basis, you can ADVISE the Israelis to give up some more land. You know...for PEACE. And what did he say, Obama said? That he's already "Walked the walk"? In what way, is Jacob Weisberg a JEW? He sure doesn't SOUND like one. He sounds like one of those JEWS FOR JESUS Jr., to me. Israel, you are SO SCREWED.
-
Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 06/14/2009 7:49:45 PM
As an ordinary American citizen who visited, Israel, Egypt, and the Sinai in 2000, it is my opinion that former President Jimmy Carter made a mistake when he caused Israel to have to relenquish the Sinai to the Egyptians. That sacrafice by Israel didn't bring about peace in the middle east. Why should Israel have to keep giving into the demands of the Arabs? It seems to me that Israel has a right to that land more than the Arabs and Palestinians. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, and what is left of Israel now is a very small piece of land to squabble over. If Israel has to give up more land it might suffocate their existence there. A trip over there will definitely show you who has worked the hardest to improve the land and quality of life there.
-
Posted By: froy1100 @ 06/14/2009 10:12:36 PM
Beign a democracy doesn't entitle you to steal from your undemocratic neighbors, specially if you keep the inhabitants of the conquered lands under a very undemocratic military occupation.
Israel doesn't have to give up anything, just give back what they stole. Go back to the 1967 borders, and everything will be fine.
-
-
Posted By: nonZionistJew @ 06/14/2009 6:23:48 PM
Oh good luck. The Dems in Congress are already braying about not pressuring Israel. The Congress will continue to get in the way, Netanyahu's vision of a Palestinian state is a complete non-starter, and Israeli Jews and Palestinian Christian and Muslims are already in one state called Israel. We are months from the Palestinians demanding equality rather than freedom. Olmert warned about this; no one listened.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss