T. Belman. Tobin is right on, except for this,
“The French, President Obama and Netanyahu all ought to know that if the Palestinians were ever to accept peace on terms that end the conflict for all time, there is no Israeli leader that could successfully resist such a peace plan.”
The Palestinians must give up more than their fight to destroy Israel. They must accept Israel with defensible borders and they must accept that Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria beats their claim to the same lands. Without this, how would we know that the conflict is over.
With the Middle East peace process lying dead in the water for two years, what harm could come from an effort led by France to revive talks between Israel and the Palestinians? The answer is that, whenever one thinks things can’t get worse, the reality of this conflict is always there to remind us that yes, things can always get worse. Moreover, they almost always do when even the best-intended people try to pretend that another conference or paper or the right negotiator can solve a problem that has nothing to do with forums, resolutions or even skillful diplomacy.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault will arrive in Israel this weekend to try to lay the groundwork for a new peace initiative. But Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves no blame for rejecting the French formula. It’s not just that Paris’s plan smacks of international coercion that is both deeply unfair to Israel. Nor is the biggest problem here the fact that similar schemes with analogous formulas have already been tried and failed.
The real problem is that the French, like the Americans, the United Nations and the “Diplomatic Quartet” that have trod this path before, are focusing on form rather than confronting substance. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians will come the day the latter gives up their century-old war on Zionism and put to rest their opposition to a Jewish state.
If the goal is to get closer to that moment, the French plan is an absurd waste of time. Indeed, the fact that the Palestinians have welcomed the scheme illustrates what’s wrong with it. Having torpedoed the talks sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry two years ago and refusing every entreaty to return to the table since then, it’s hardly surprising that the Palestinians would like a plan that starts with an international conclave convened by the French to where neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be present.
That sort of diplomacy smacks of an international diktat where nations that are either neutral or hostile to Israel will seek to impose terms on it that compromise both its security and rights. Instead of a negotiation in which the two sides will be forced to recognize each other’s legitimacy, such a process is a one-sided attempt merely to orchestrate another Israeli territorial retreat in which it will be asked to trade land for the hope of peace. Moreover, is there any reason for Israel to trust nations that, like France, voted for a recent UNESCO resolution that didn’t even recognize historic Jewish ties to holy sites in Jerusalem such as the Western Wall or the Temple Mount?
But even if we lay aside the obvious unsuitability of any plan that is so skewed against the Israelis even before it begins, Netanyahu’s rejection makes sense because the premise of the negotiation is false. The French and the international community that appears to be supporting their initiative act as if the last 23 years of history hadn’t happened. Must we remind them that Israel has already placed on the table the same terms that peace process advocates always speak of being the solution that “everyone knows” will be the way to end the conflict? Is it really necessary to point out that the Palestinians said no to those terms — independence and a state that includes almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem — in 2000, 2001, and 2008? Must we point out that since the last of those offers that sent Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas fleeing from the negotiating table, he has refused to negotiate seriously even when Netanyahu offered in the Kerry talks to leave the West Bank?
Obviously, the answer is yes to all three questions.
But even if anyone thought Abbas would give a different answer to peace than he has previously provided, no one in Paris or in any of the other foreign capitals where this proposal is being discussed is anyone taking into account the fact that Abbas doesn’t speak for all of the Palestinians. Two million of them live in Gaza from which Israel withdrew every soldier, settler and settlement in 2005, and which is now ruled as an independent Palestinian state in all but name by Hamas terrorists. How can even a theoretical deal that grants sovereignty to the PA make any sense so long as Hamas is in place in Gaza and might well expand their rule to the West Bank once Israel does the international community’s bidding?
The answer is that it doesn’t. The only answer that would make sense would be for Abbas to accept Netanyahu’s oft-stated offer of a resumption of direct negotiations that he repeated this week while, again, accepting the idea of two states for two peoples. But that can’t happen so long as Abbas refuses to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its boundaries would be drawn. And he won’t do that because Palestinian public opinion is unalterably opposed to such a formulation. Until a sea change in their political culture permits him or a successor to end the century-long war on Zionism and the Jewish presence in any part of the country that is inextricably tied to Palestinian national identity.
The French, President Obama and Netanyahu all ought to know that if the Palestinians were ever to accept peace on terms that end the conflict for all time, there is no Israeli leader that could successfully resist such a peace plan. The majority of Israelis would give up settlements and even perhaps some of their capital for peace. Building in Jerusalem and the settlement blocs that Israel would keep in the event of peace is no obstacle to a deal. Yet instead of dealing with Palestinian intransigence, the French, like President Obama, focus on their antagonism with Netanyahu.
That is problematic not just because it achieves nothing to get the region closer to peace. It’s foolish because it only encourages the Palestinians to think they won’t have to make the concessions they need to make if they really want two states instead of merely eliminating Israel. Every failed peace effort has led to a new round of violence, and this one won’t be an exception. It’s time for diplomats to realize that, like doctors, their primary responsibility is to do no harm. Unfortunately, that’s a lesson that no one tempted by the glory of making the ultimate deal (attention: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) ought to forget.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Keli-A does not have red hair.
You and Yamit seem incapable of distinguishing between observation and approval.
Israel has 2+/- Million Arab in J&S along with 1.8 Million Arabs in Gaza under its direct or indirect control. These Arabs have no franchise in the government which controls their population registry, their coastline, their imports, their immigration, etc.
THIS MAY BE NECESSARY, GIVEN ARAB VIOLENCE, BUT IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC!
Seriously, be careful. Steroids have psychological effects. Roid Rage. No need to get enojado.
You may end up nastier, and more vicious, than Yamit. Tell your doctor to taper you off QUICKLY!
Steroids no son bueno.
Una cancion para las mujeres usando la prednisona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YttSI7P0HE0
Resent all you want … and stop lying.
I used the term A&B as it is what Israel agree to at Oslo. Don’t accuse me of what Israel designated. I wasn’t there at the negotiating table; and they did not consult me on the borders. I though Oslo was a bad idea.
in the end, whether Oslo was good or not is another matter. But you seem too dense to distinguish between observation and approval.
Just because I do not join your Rah Rah section doesn’t mean I root for the religion of the Pedophile murderous bandit cum prophet of Islam.
I am not condemning Israel for this situation; but whatever it is, it is not democratic.
You would prefer to have the Arabs reduced to a few dunams around Ramallah. When that day occurs, I will refer to it as Camp Yamit.
According to Jewish history that was never enforced. David purchased land from Araunah the Jebusite. 2 Sam Ch 24.
Do you consider yourself better than David?
What is amazing is how you consider others to be bigots. Projection! Hmmm 🙂
Well, they seem to be the smallest group in the area. Only about 1% in Israel and 4% in J&S. So, you are getting your wish.
I notice how you refuse to capitalize Christian. I capitalize Jews or Jewish, but then again, you project your bigotry on others,
Haven’t lied. Now you are lying.
They do not have a vote in the Knesset government which rules over their borders, their population registry, their immigration in and out, their airspace, their import and export, their movement.
Prisoners in jail can vote for a trustee, but it does not make jail a democracy,.
I am not condemning Israel for this contingency, but it ain’t a democracy.
As for Abbas, he is your pratboy. Not exactly democratic either.
Israel looks for collaborators. THE PA is corrupt and vicious, but better than the other pratboys Israel used to help.
HOW ISRAEL HELPED TO SPAWN HAMAS
@ CuriousAmerican:
Take a minute and learn about the logic of the Arabs that, having painted themselves in an ad hoc manner into a corner, will be deserving of their expulsion to Europe, Africa, America and other deserving locales:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63614849/
Keli-A Said:
When he needs cheap labor
honeybee Said:
He has when it seved his purposes
Keli-A Said:
C.A. does not consider Arabs to be Christians.
@ CuriousAmerican:
According to Jewish Law no gentiles/ pagans are allowed on the Land of Israel even for an hr.
Ger is considered a convert and a ger toshav a righteous gentile: In Rambam’s Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7 the following question is asked: “What is meant by a Ger Toshav (resident alien)? A Ger Toshav is a gentile who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other six universal laws commanded to Noach’s descendants. He does not circumcise himself nor immerse. We accept this commitment and he is considered one of the pious gentiles. Why is he called a resident? Because he is permitted to dwell among us in the land of Israel.”[4]
In Rambam’s Hilchot Melachim 8:10 we learn “Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the laws given Noah’s descendants. If one does not accept these laws, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these laws is called a resident alien (Ger Toshav). This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars.”[5]
In Rambam’s Hilchot Melachim 8:11 we learn that “anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these Seven Mitzvot and is precise in their observance is considered one of the Pious among the Gentiles (ChasideiUmot HaOlam). They will merit a share in the World to Come. This applies only when one accepts these mitzvot and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moshe, our teacher.
Previously, Noach’s descendants were commanded to fulfill these mitzvot. However, if a person fulfills these mitzvot out of intellectual conviction, they are not considered a Ger Toshav, resident alien, nor of the Pious among the Gentiles. They are simply considered wise.”
In Rambam’s Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:8 we learn that “we accept resident aliens only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed. In the present era, even if a gentile makes a commitment to observe the entire Torah with the exception of one minor point, he is not accepted.”
In Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim 10:6 we learn “The laws concerning the sale of property and support of the poor, et cetera, mentioned in this chapter apply only when the Jews are exiled amongst the nations, or when they are attacking the Jews, but when we are attacking them it is forbidden to have them in our midst. Concerning temporary residence or moving from one rented house to another; we may not allow a gentile into our land unless he has accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, for it is written, „They shall not dwell in your land?, even for a single hour. If a gentile accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments then he is classed as a settling stranger. Settling strangers are accepted only at a time when the Jubilee is observed, but a righteous stranger, i.e. a convert, is accepted at all times.” A Jubilee year is every 50 years and cannot be called without a Sanhedrin, thus making it today Halacali impossible. No non Jews allowed in eretz Yisrael even for an hr,!!!!!!
– See more at: http://oneshul.org/ger-toshav/#sthash.7MlF9MLv.dpuf
http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/archive/chavero2/08chavero.htm
@ CuriousAmerican:
You do have a knack of pissing off so many disparate commenters on this site to a man and women who see you for what you are…… You are a lousy christian supporting those who are terrorizing brutalizing and even murdering other Arab christians. 🙂 Not that I care 😛
CuriousAmerican Said:
Yes, especially the christian ones. Conrad??? Haaaaaa
Do you ever give up on your lies and calumny against we Jews?
You know as well as most that the majority of Arbs in Y&S are under the democratic regime of the PA and can vote for the thieving terrorist leaders they want and do.
@ CuriousAmerican:
There are millions of people in the USA who can not vote (at least 10 -12 million). The USA is a democracy still. Like Israel not a perfect democracy but yet a democracy.
In the USA the GOP and Democrats make it almost impossible for a third party to get on the ballot in all the states thereby rigging the system. Yet it is still a democracy though a flawed democracy.
All of Israels citizens can vote, have free speech, right of assembly. This includes Arabs, Druze, Christians and other minorities.
@ curios or conrad- Israel is a democracy whether you agree or not. I have no problem with loyal Israel Arab citizens. Those that act as enemy aliens should be free to leave at any time.
Enemy aliens do not vote that is correct. If they do not like the situation they may leave. I just read the other day quite a large number have left recently and more would like to leave. This should be encouraged.
Gaza’s fall under the purvey of the Hamas democracy you in your Arab Hat dispute that but that is irrelevant.
Conrad what is your purpose, goal and/or motive in spouting Arab talking points to the readers and commentators at Israpundit? Are you trying to achieve something?
CuriousAmerican Said:
” You ain’t seen nothin yet” Sophie Tucker
CuriousAmerican Said:
Corectal !!!!! Oops, blame t on the steriods .
Doesn’t matter! The state is named after the River.
Cut down your steroids. You are more ornery than usual.
Just speaking truth to cheerleaders.
I like you, too.
No one doubts that Israel is democratic concerning Jews and a token number of Arabs.
But the vast majority of Arabs under Israel’s control have no vote in the Knesset which rules over them.
There are 1.6 Million Israeli-Arabs.
But
There are 2± Million Arabs in J&S,
There are 1.8 Million Gazans.
The greatest number of Arabs have no say in the Knesset government which controls their borders, imports, population registry, coastline, immigration, movement, etc.
So while Israel is a democracy for Jews, and the small number of Arabs who remained after 1948 – no doubting that – the world – RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY – looks at the roughly 4 Million disenfranchised Arabs, and questions the term “democracy.”
The British Empire was democratic for 50 million Britons. 400 Million Indians (at that time), and so many million Africans had no say in it.
Such arrangements are not historically stable. I am not a naysayer for pointing out the obvious. The present situation is not stable, and repeating the term “democracy” will not do any good, apart from dealing with the core problem.
I know many here would like to expel – some prefer the antiseptic term: transfer – the 4 Million Arabs. But whatever is done, the term democratic is narrowly applicable until the 4 Million are dealt with.
Apparently, you would like the 1.6 Million Israeli Arabs to leave also.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Estupido , how did the river become red. From the run off of the Colorado red earth.
Sorry @ Vinnie, I was replying to the bigoted and patronizing ethos of the curious American above.
WRONG!
The state was named after the River. I am well — all too well — familiar with Colorado. Been there many times.
The Colorado River runs red in some areas. Hence the name. While it does mean reddish, the state was named after the River.
My explanation is correct.
@ CuriousAmerican:
It’s not “their” [the Palestinian Arab’s] borders, CA. That is Israel’s land. Which Israel obtained in the course of a defensive war.
You have attempted to rebut my claim as to the absurdity of a state named after a river conferring unique national identity – however weakly – but you have not answered my larger argument, instead insisting that Israel somehow “owes” the Palestinian Arabs in J&S something. Israel owes them nothing. If anyone owes them anything, it is the Arab world that has shamelessly used them as cannon fodder in the service of their annihilationist agenda towards Israel. And what they owe them is Jordan. That is the clear solution. Israel’s mistake is that they should have maintained this position all along, and should not have allowed themselves to be dissuaded from this by Oslo and the peace treaty with the Hashemite monarchy, which is a genuine fossil of European colonialism if ever there was.
Palestinian rejectionism of the sort we have seen for the past twenty-plus years since Oslo, combined with the instability of the Jordanian regime, has given Israel the opportunity to revisit this eminently sensible solution. I believe they are slowly moving in this direction. I hope this progress continues.
@ JoeBillScott:
Whose “patronizing soft bigotry”? All I’m saying is that Jordan is Palestine, and that should be their “homeland”. Israel should keep J&S, Gaza should confederate with Egypt, and any Palestinian Arab living in either place who doesn’t like those apples and whose life will not seem complete unless they are “masters in their own home” can move to Jordan As Palestine. That’s it. Whatever is bigoted – soft, hard, or any consistency in between – about that?
Keli-A Said:
Please keli-A please give a d-mn.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Chulo mio, I though you spoke Spanish. Colorado mean reddish or colorful. The river is named after the state. If you had ever traveled in Colorado, especially Western Colorado on the way to Aspen from Texas, you would see how reddish the earth. I suggest you Goggle Morrison Sandstone.
Remember the European to Colorado were the Spanish Conquistadores. They named the area , they did not know the Colorado river existed.
Keli-A Said:
Physically impossible !!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Me Amor, you are mixing oranges with grapefruit. Slightly different situation ,but in reality the same thing.
CuriousAmerican Said:
CA, me passion, may I suggest you “My Life Among the Indian” Schultz , and learn what the proud Blackfoot tribe accepted in order to survive. No Nation or people have “clean hands”.
Israel is a democracy all its citizens have full civil rights including the vote. The enemy aliens in Judah/Samaria are not citizens.
If fact some enemy aliens are Arab Knesset members who should be stripped of their Knesset seats as they working to destroy the State of Israel.
@ winta
@ Goldi:
@ Keli-A
@ Vinnie
@ CuriousAmerican
We’re not talking about apples or oranges. In both real cases we’re talking about human beings with with free will and moral agency. Your patronizing soft bigotry is actually just another element of the problem and will only hinder its solution.
The Democrat slave plantations of the 1800s produced cotton, tobacco and other agrarian commodities. The modern Democrat plantations produce Democrat votes and additionally, or in lieu of those votes, threats of physical harm to Democrats’ opponents via extra-electoral processes -e.g., street violence, cop assassination, “no-go” zones, political correctness.
This very same approach has been precisely translated into practice in the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria and accelerated by the PA after the Oslo Accords 25 years ago. There are very few “differences of kind” between the Democrat grievance mongering technique and the PA’s 24/7 grievance and hate education efforts. The inner-cities are a single party constituency and so are the PA voters.
The fact that the PA representatives don’t officially sit in Israel’s Knesset is a distinction without a difference. The Arab block of Islamists and leftists in the Knesset are their voice.
The etiology of any two dysfunctional subcultures like the two discussed here, is never completely the same. But these situations are far from completely different.
Bringing industry back to America is definitely desirable, but in a global labor market not very practical. Why not instead allow the ideas of private enterprise and the true concept of the American Dream reach the indentured Democrat supporters living on the inner-city plantations? All you have to offer them is some shitty factory jobs?
Likewise, the Arabs currently occupying areas of Israel should be incentivised to get off their reservations and explore opportunities elsewhere physically and intellectually rather than just be fodder for the continued EU, UN and Iranian war against Israel.
@ Vinnie:
Yeah maybe but I really don’t care either way 🙂
CuriousAmerican Said:
They have no borders other that what we have given them and what was given freely by us can be taken back. They can go F*&ck themselves if they are not content or leave we are not holding them here. But I resent the fact that you declare that area A and B are theirs by some right and not due to our largess towards them due to a stupid politically weak if not insane act by our then illegal government.
Bringing industry back to America. However, since the 60’s most blacks have the vote, and freedom of movement. So you are mixing apples and oranges.
Most Arabs between the Jordan and the sea do not have a vote in the Knesset which rules over their borders and do not have freedom of movement.
Completely different situation.
@ CuriousAmerican:
The “Palestinian” Arab issue can be brought into clearer focus by comparing it to a similar phenomenon that has been taking place in the United States over the last 50 years. The grievance mongering industry, which has reconstituted the Democrat Party’s slave plantations initially in the inner-cities and now in their surrounding suburban zones, is the very same strategy that was employed to further embitter and harness the power of the needlessly dispossessed Arabs of Judea.
How would you restore the black American family values and dignity that were destroyed by this Democrat power accrual strategy in the United States? When you solve that problem you will have gone a long way toward solving Israel’s Arab problem.
Then what is there to negotiate! Just admit it.
At least, you are honest.
@ Keli-A:
WWIII will make the “Palestinians” a true non-issue as opposed to a merely fabricated issue.
Negotiations on a fair and just basis can only take place after the world community RECOGNIZES ISRAEL’S BORDERS FROM THE JORDAN TO THE MEDITERRANEAN.
Either that, or NO NEGOTIATIONS!!!
PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!
Israel owes the Arabs (now called Palestinians) nothing as they are enemy aliens determined to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.
The conflict is not solvable by completely peaceful means because the Palestinians refuse to accept a Jewish State of Israel no matter its size or its borders.
@ Keli-A:
I don’t think he even really cares about climate change. I think what he does in this regard is mostly superficial b.s. designed to placate the sensibilities of his base.
@ CuriousAmerican:
The only valid example you give is that of Uruguay. No sane person would claim that any U.S. state named after a river confers upon their inhabitants a unique national identity that merits self-determination in the form of an independent, sovereign national entity.
The point is that when one looks at what really does constitute a nationality, as this relates to warranting self-determination, neither the Palestinian Arabs nor the so-called Jordanians come close to meeting even the most rudimentary requirements (i.e., unique language, common unique point of geographic origin [most Palestinian and Jordanian Arabs are descendants of immigrants from other parts of the Arab world], and shared culture, folkways, and accepted historical experience). Between the two, as weak as it is, I would say that even the Palestinian Arab claim is stronger than the Jordanian claim. Palestinian Arabs and Jordanian Arabs are Arabs. They are racially, culturally, and linguistically all but indistinguishable from Egyptian Arabs, Syrian Arabs, Iraqi Arabs, or Lebanese Arabs. There is a greater distinction between myself as a born-and-raised NW Ohioan and say, a born-and-raised Californian, than there is between a Palestinian Arab – or a Jordanian Arab – and any of the other Arab national political segments I list above.
Sadly, once said about Jews.
As a political football after 1948. They were not treated badly before 1948.
The last is a lie. The Arab Christians did not join the Arab revolt at the same rate at the Muslim. Christians were only 2% of the Arab revolt, though 10% of the population at that time.
But there are Uruguayans named after the Rio Uruguay.
Mississipians! Missourians! Coloradans!
All named after Rivers.
🙂
Vinnie Said:
forgot climate change and golf
@ CuriousAmerican:
What you say makes sense on the face of it, CA, but you leave out the most obvious solution: Jordan = Palestine. Or, as it is sometimes called, “The Jordanian Option”.
As I’m sure you are well aware, present-day Jordan was part of the original Mandate of Palestine presided over by the British. And, pursuant to initial Arab objections to Britain’s originally stated intention to turn over the whole of Mandatory Palestine to the Jews, the Mandate was divided by the Jordan River, with the area west of the same to be reserved for an ultimate Jewish state, and the area east – at least four times larger – an Arab state. This was first called “Transjordan” – or, literally, “Across the Jordan”, as in, “the land across the Jordan River”, and later shortened simply to Jordan.
I bring up this history to highlight the utter absurdity of the claim that there is any genuine, distinct nationality worthy of consideration as such as “Jordanian”. The land was named after a river. To assign any national ethnic identity that would purport to be worthy of self-determination in the form of a sovereign state on this basis is simply ridiculous. Are there “Vistulans”? “Volgans”? “Danubians”? The fact is that the Arabs who inhabited the lands east of the Jordan River in Mandatory Palestine, regardless of subsequent name changes, are Palestinian Arabs in any sense that this phrase has meaning, whether they self-identify as such or not. While some claim that the Palestinians are a “made up people” – and maybe they are – what is even more certain than that is the proposition that Jordanians are a made up people.
By every historical, legal, and moral standard, Jordan is the rightful homeland of the Palestinian Arabs, to the extent that they merit having such a homeland.
This, in fact, was the position of Israeli leaders until the Oslo Accords were signed, and subsequent to that, the peace treaty with Jordan. These two events allowed the Hashemite monarchy to push the onus for the solution of the Palestinian Arab “problem” squarely onto Israel’s shoulders. This needs to change.
The Jordanian monarchy is unstable and vulnerable. There are opposition groups waiting in the wings to take power, such as the Jordanian Opposition Coalition, led by Mudar Zahran, who is fully on board with the idea of “Jordan is Palestine”. Though it could not be done overnight, given the vulnerability of the Jordanian monarchy, it would not at all be unreasonable to expect that we could apply our substantial leverage to midwife Jordan into becoming the de sure, as well as the de facto, Palestinian national homeland. Surely, this would take less effort, and would make far more sense and have a far greater chance of ultimate success, than strong-arming Israel into agreeing to commit voluntary national suicide by accepting the terms of a Saudi-style “peace” [i.e., surrender] plan, the clear and single-minded intent of the so-called “world community” as “led” by the anti-Israel Manchurian Candidate pretending to be POTUS, Obama.
Under a Jordan-as-Palestine arrangement, Israel could apply her law to J&S. She could offer eventual citizenship to Palestinian Arabs living there, after a period where they would prove their loyalty to the Israeli state by abstaining from participation at any level in incitement or terrorist acts, and by swearing allegiance to the Jewish state of Israel. The ones who don’t like it, who don’t want to live under Jewish Israeli sovereignty, they can move right next door to their homeland. This too is eminently reasonable; as an American Jew, if I want to live in a Jewish homeland and live a completely Jewish life in every dimension. then I have to relocate across an ocean, 6,000 miles away. The Palestinian Arabs living in J&S – or Gaza, or anywhere else in the region outside of Jordan – would not have to go even as far as I would to relocate for a job opportunity in Kansas.
Now, all that said, I would also disagree with Ted Belman here in his criticism of the author of the article above. No Ted, while I would personally also agree with the conditions you laid out, I think Mr. Tobin is factually correct that a PA leader who formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, and who agreed to a final end of the conflict with his signature on a peace deal that formalized Palestinian recognition of the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, even if it meant an almost complete return by Israel to pre-’67 lines, would put any Israeli leader in the position of having to accept such an agreement. But as Mr. Tobin probably knows, and as I would certainly contend, there is no way any PA leader would make even that concession – or give up on Palestinian ROR to any part of Israel, a key point Mr. Tobin does leave out – which means that there is no chance of a settlement anyway.
No, this whole charade is not being carried out in order to move anyone genuinely closer to a peace agreement. It is being done precisely to provide a pretext for forcing Israel into rejecting their unacceptable terms, in order to feed the “narrative” of Israel as intransigent, rejectionist, and “not interested in peace”…so that to provide a further pretext to give a de facto “green light” for the PA to launch a massive Intifada, perhaps supported by a full-out offensive by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah from Lebanon. This in turn will force Israel into a very destructive counter-attack that will certainly result in very large civilian casualties, especially in south Lebanon. Israel’s adversaries in the field will be annihilated – though Israel will suffer substantial civilian losses as well – and this will be the pretext for the UNSC to pass unprecedented punitive measures against Israel, perhaps even the expulsion of Israel from the UN.
This war will be timed to break out, after the initial stage-managed diplomatic b.s., for right after the U.S. national elections in November. This way, Obama will be free to abandon Israel in the UN, and punish Israel to the fullest extent his powers as POTUS allow, with no political consequences for himself personally. No matter who wins the U.S. national election, his intent will be to damage the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship beyond repair. If Israel were expelled from the UN, this would be next to impossible to undo by even the most pro-Israel follow-on U.S. president. Also, this would suit the Gulf Arabs just fine; an Israel reduced to an international status comparable to that of Taiwan would no longer require the Arabs to recognize Israel in a fully sovereign, official context. It might even serve to satisfy, at least rhetorically, the Iranian aim of “wiping Israel from the map”.
There are only two things Obama has ever genuinely cared about during his presidency: gay rights and screwing over Israel. He has already accomplished much of what he intended in the case of the former, and he is preparing his coup de grace with respect to the latter as I write this, to be fully implemented at year’s end. That is what this French charade is all about; Obama is certainly behind this. And here is where Mr. Tobin is truly missing the big picture.
CuriousAmerican Said:
A- they are not human
B- they have acepted that same position in every Arab and Muslim country where they are residing. They are universilly hated by all Arabs and Muslims and have been treated as third class residents less than dogs…..
C- should we Jews in Israel treat them any better than they would and have treated us both as so called Palis and as Arab Muslims and Arab christians??? Arab chrisitans treated us worse than Muslim Arabs….. double hatred.
Anti-Semitism is their heredity. The French culture has been anti-Semitic for more than a century. It is just getting worse with the addition of arabs. France is going down the drain, along with most of the rest of the EU. I won’t cry.
Ted, I am at a loss, here.
If you are saying the Palestinians must accept Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria, that realistically means Israel will relinquish no part of Judea and Samaria at all. [I am not saying Israel should, but just observing what you have said.] What you are saying is that in order to get a state, the Palestinians must accept they will not be given a state. Logically inconsistent! Since you will not be giving them a state, does that mean you are going to enfranchise them per San Remo obligations to give them full civil rights? … which, YES, did include the vote. [Note: The Yishuv was furious that Arabs were given the vote. Read up on 1935 Mandate elections – which the Yishuv boycotted.] Chicago Tribune – Dec 23, 1935
If not … If you would not enfranchise the Arabs, but instead reduce the Palestinians solely to highly policed and militarily controlled areas B & A, then you are reducing them to nothing more than Muslim reservations with no franchise. I doubt they will accept this. Maybe they should accept such a diminished status; but I seriously doubt they will – Would you?!
In 1947 at the UN, the Palestinians offered the Yishuv a federated Palestine, where the Jews would have autonomy + plus a vote in a united Palestine. The Yishuv would not accept the offer. Understandably!
But, if the Yishuv would not accept an offer (with the vote), how could you expect the Arabs to accept an offer which is far more circumscribed and which has no vote?
I understand your position, and motives, but seriously, the Palestinians – as degraded at they are – are still human enough to reject what they will perceive as an “insulting” proposition.
So I cannot understand the purpose of your statement. It is legalese for saying Israel will surrender nothing. Why not just say it, plainly?
Or is it that the plain statement – which may be just and right – would immediately present the reader with the obvious question: Will the Palestinians be enfranchised?
And that consequence must be avoided at all costs.
This is the heart of the contest:
YOU WANT THE LAND, BUT NOT THE ARABS ON IT!
YOU WANT THEM TO MOVE, BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO!
YOU WANT OTHERS TO TAKE THEM IN, BUT NO ONE WANTS TO!
AND NEITHER DO MANY ON THIS BOARD OR ANYONE ELSE WANT TO PAY FOR THE COSTS!
YET, WHILE ISRAEL EXERCISES MARTIAL LAW OVER 2 MILLION DISENFRANCHISED PALESTINIANS – 4 MILLION IF YOU INCLUDE THE PATROLLING OF GAZA’S COAST, WE CONSTANTLY ARE TOLD ISRAEL IS THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDEAST!
I fear the problem will continue.
I think you know it.