The question of who supports a two state solution is irrelevant. What matters is who supports a TSS based on Arab terms i.e., based on ’67 lines and the answer is very few (8%). Now if you ask them if they support the Israeli terms i.e., we keep an undivided Jerusalem and all the settlement blocs and our security concerns are met, the answer is still not a majority (40%). Another 19% support annexing Area C. Ted Belman
Forty-six years after the Six Day War physically united Jerusalem under Jewish rule, 72 percent of Israeli Jews believe the city is functionally divided between Jews and Arabs, according to aJerusalem Post/Rafi Smith Inc. poll.
However, 74% say they reject the idea of a Palestinian capital in any portion of Jerusalem, with the implication being that they prefer a united Jerusalem. Only 15% say they would support a divided plan for the city, whereby Israel would relinquish sovereignty over some eastern portions of the city to allow for a Palestinian capital there.
Among those polled, 67% support a two-state solution, but only 8% want a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines as proposed by the Palestinians and the Arab League, according to the poll conducted by the Rafi Smith Research Company on Monday.
Of the 500 Israeli Jewish adults polled, 21% were religious or haredi, 29% were traditional and 50% were secular.
The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has been officially pushing for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines including a divided Jerusalem, in accordance with the Arab League plan, which allows for minor land swaps of equitable value.
The Israel government, in turn, wants a two-state solution, with a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, and the ability to retain all of the larger settlement blocs in Area C of the West Bank, including Ma’aleh Adumim, Ariel and the Gush Etzion bloc.
US Secretary of State John Kerry is looking to return to Israel for his fifth visit since March, in hopes of helping Israelis and Palestinians break the impasse.
But according to the Smith poll, Kerry is mostly speaking to the converted, as only 33% of Israelis reject the notion of a two-state solution.
The question facing the other 67% of those polled is what kind of final-status agreement should they stand behind. Only 8% of Israelis support a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 lines. Forty percent said they support a two-state solution in which Israel retained the major settlement blocs. Another 19% favored the Bayit Yehudi solution in which Israel annexes most if not all of Area C, so that it is able to retain all the settlements.
Significant differences were seen between secular and religious poll respondents on the question of a two-state solution.
A majority of the secular respondents, 83%, and only a minority of the religious respondents, 28%, said they supported a two-state solution. Similarly, 72% of religious respondents and 17% of secular respondents said they opposed a two-state solution.
The poll has a 4.5% margin of error.
Maariv : European threat toward Israel: “If you trip up the negotiations, we’ll back the Palestinians in the Hague.” The message, which the paper said was conveyed by “a number of diplomats from central countries in the EU” to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly said those states would back the Palestinians’ legal actions against Israel if Jerusalem was seen as the side that prevents the talks from restarting. Key among the actions viewed as Jerusalem’s fault is the building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Unnamed diplomatic sources told the paper the European countries would also increase their efforts to label products manufactured beyond the Green Line as such, as a way of pressuring Israel to change its policy and return to the negotiation table.
Netanyahu to Abbas, in English: ‘Give peace a chance’
Addressing Knesset session about Arab Peace Initiative, PM says Israel wants talks without preconditions, not ‘dictates’
Audio: Jewish Land Is More Important Than a Peace Treaty
The former international recognized borders of Israel are much bigger than today’s state. Howard Grief proves it in his ground breaking book.
Sweden is known for being a pluralistic and tolerant nation. Yet with the increasing Islamic immigration to that country, hatred and Antisemitism are growing. Just recently in the Swedish city of Malmo, ugly protests took place against Israel participating in the Eurovision Song Contest. Is there a future for Jews in Sweden, and if so, how can they reverse this anti-Israel trend? Saskia Pantell, Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation Board of Sweden, joins Tamar and talks about the growing Islamic influence in Sweden, and talks about a pro-Israel rally she helped organize in Stockholm, Sweden this last Sunday.
Tribute to Land of Israel Lover, Howard Grief:
(Howard Grief z”l, passed away this last week. May his memory be for a blessing.)
What are the real borders of Israel and how should we relate to land give-aways for ‘peace’?
Howard Grief, author of the book, “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” joined Tamar back in 2008, and explained the history of the international community’s agreements with the Jewish People, and why Israel should be larger than it is now.
Grief was the originator of the thesis that de jure sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel and Palestine was vested in the Jewish People as a result of the San Remo Resolution adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 24, 1920.
“The Land has been partitioned more than once and we’re not living in the complete lines of Israel, because we never asserted our rights to the entire land,” Grief stated. He explained that in 1967, instead of incorporating Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Sinai into Israel’s borders, Israeli governments traded them away, giving the Sinai to Egypt and parts of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza to a foreign entity – the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Hear this classic interview, that still applies today.
@ bernard ross:
“Transfer” has become a nasty word (other then in reference to Jews that is!) although once, not long ago common place and an effective and humane means of dealing with implacable conflicts.
The Gaza option, for all the reasons you state should be reserved for those post-annexation palys who misbehave and have therefore breached the terms of their legal residency in the state of Israel.
@ bernard ross:
White House foreign policy shake-up: Donilon out, Rice in
Samantha Power to take over as US ambassador to the United Nations
reply 7 to yidvocate in moderation
Yidvocate Said:
why not give them the choice of gaza also. Gaza is actually a defacto pal state that no one mentions as such. It can be a convenient depository of pals on former “palestine” mandate land and it needs no agreement from the hostile state for israel to unilaterally transfer pals there, starting with the pLO, fatah, etc. Israel already has expertise gained from transferring jews from there. part of it was once called Phillistia, the home of the “palestinians, This would help the faux pals bond with their former faux ancestors. Free one way junkets to “palestine” for west bank pals seeking their “roots” 🙂
yamit82 Said:
interestingly, all of your questions are practical as opposed to political. The only solution I see to this problem is the education of the israeli electorate through private NGO PR because the GOI is not on board. Specific alternate solutions need to be devised which answer to the practical questions, are convincingly workable and can be convincing for long-term security.
Israel can actually have a 2 state solution and transfer by designating gaza as the only boundaries of the pal state on the basis that between gaza and jordan the former pal arabs have obtained more than their fair share of land of the former mandate. This fair share principle must be educated to the Israeli public. The second is to declare the west bank pals to be deemed by israel to be stateless, Gazan or Jordanian citizenship with temporary residence in Israel subject to strict observance of Israeli law. Next a policy of immediate forced transfer to gaza(palestine) for all undesirable resident pals who have engaged in sabotage, terror or crime(US expels undesirable aliens and withdraws citizenship). Local autonomies for the arabs can be maintained on a temporary basis for operational purposes only with any problems immediately deported. Israelis would have to be given specific plan details to convince them of workability and must be convinced that under the plan it is best for both arabs and jews and that it is ultimately humanitarian in that the arabs get their fair share and the jews get their fair share and that the presence of the arabs cannot be an excuse for the jews to be swindled out of their fair share of the former mandate. Some arabs could remain on a proportionate ratio similar to the percentage of population of jews in jordan, gaza, saudi, etc.
So the good news is that Bibi will not be pushed into doing anything stupid like giving the PA close to anything they would agree to.
So Kerry will start using his frequent flyer miles on China or Japan.
Okay maybe Abbas does not turn the keyes of Ramallah back to the IDF? Or will we take it back after they start a 3rd Intifada. At that point we have an urgent need to have in place a new plan. Bennetts’ plan of annexing Area C and finding creative solutions to Area A/B without giving up any land rights but managing these areas is best of non perfect ideas.
This plan needs to be marketed. Then we can see what a survey would look like.
@ yamit82:
Or better yet:
“Do you support the proposition that the Arabs present in the Palestinian territory at the time of the British Mandate, who where given 80% of the land promised for the homeland of the Jewish people and now in addition have all of Gaza, have enough of our land and that no more will be given such that Israel should immediately annex all of Judea and Samaria and declare that those Arabs there will be considered residents of Israel but citizens of the “Palestinian” majority state of Jordan”
I would hope that a vast majority of Israelis would answer in the affirmative.
yamit82 Said:
Yamit, my guess is that if all the caveats and exceptions that you’ve listed where actually included in polls about the so-called TSS, Israeli Jewish public support would be close to zero. What the polls talk about is a hypothetical ideal of peace that will never happen. Every one wants such a peace – including you and me! So what? It has no real world application and in the Middle East context, when Yamit82 and NormanF say “yes” to peace, our answers are utterly meaningless. We also favor apple pie and our national flags. The business of selling hope in the Middle East has a long history. Between the Arabs and the Jews, that talk of hope turns out to be a mirage in the desert. In truth, real peace is impossible.
Problem with such polls is that no alternatives are listed competing with 2 state solution.
What if I framed question: that included the following:
Would you support a 2 state solution of any kind with the foreknowledge that– The Arabs can build a modern Army and make treaties with other countries like Iran or Russia?
Where terrorists can fire rockets and missiles at Ben Gurion airport or threaten commercial air flights landing or taking off?
Losing the water rights to West Bank water resources and or they in turn polluting ours inside the green line, which is probable.
Do residents of Tel Aviv and the whole of the Sharon plain wish to live under the threat of a terrorist state a few miles from their homes?
Do you believe the current and future Pali leadership will honor and abide by all agreements?
Do you favor a 2 state solution that will cause all property values based on sudden increased demand by those forced to leave the territories to rise from 200-400% and Will bankgrupt the Israeli economy, cause high inflation and negative growth for at least 20 Years as what happened in Yamit in 1982?
Even if adding a few KM to the 9 mile waist of the pre 67 borders it will still constitute the Auschwitz borders of pre 67? Would you still wish to live in Netanya or Hedera?
Do you still favor A 2 state solution that will set back Israel’s economy requiring massive and strict austerity while increasing demand for more military expenditures and manpower well over what is required today? (New borders will require more not less military expenditures and the middle class and poor will have to bear the brunt of the cost.)
2 State solution will drive many to emigrate ( Brain drain of the young) and curtail immigration and foreign investments.
Will not stop Iran’s drive for Nukes nor their threats against us.
In the past when Israel was attacked either from the North of from the East (Iraq) many Israelis fled to the West Bank for safety. Where will they go next time?
What happens when Hamas Takes over the West Bank and or millions of Pali refugees most under educated all hating Israel and many belonging to various terror groups in Lebanon and Syria move to Palestine? Do we want them settling along our new borders?
Most would reply but what choice do we have? No answers will be forthcoming to such a question by our establishment. Fatalism thus prevails.
Muhammad complains to Ahmad: “On my flight to New York there must have been an
Jew in the bathroom the entire time”.
Ahmad asks: “How do you know?”
Muhammad: Because There was a sign on the door that said, “Occupied.”