By Ted Belman
In response to the alleged Arab League softening, Netanyahu said:
-
“The root of the conflict isn’t territorial. It began way before 1967. The Palestinians’ failure to accept the state of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is the root of the conflict. If we reach a peace agreement, I want to know that the conflict won’t continue – that the Palestinians won’t come later with more demands.”
Thus he is embracing “land for peace”. He is saying that he would rather have an end of conflict agreement and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state than Judea and Samaria or east Jerusalem.
You will recall that when Pres Obama was here he said “The Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I wondered at the time why he would make such a gratuitous remark out of the blue. But now that Netanyahu has said virtually the same thing, one wonders if some kind of deal was cut.
I think he is making a big mistake in taking this posture. Let us say he did the reverse and claimed 20% of Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem. Thus land would be front and center in negotiations. Of course our security needs must be satisfied and and we would stand by our rejection of the Right of return. And we could still demand recognition.
Thus negotiations would commence with both sides stating their territorial demands. That’s as it should be. It goes without saying that an end of conflict agreement would be part of the deal.
As for the “right of return”, our posture could be that any token return that we might agree to would have to be accompanied by recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Instead, by saying that recognition is at the root of the conflict, he is in effect saying our territorial claims will not be a deal breaker but they should be. Would you rather get to keep all of Jerusalem and all the settlement blocs of get recognized by the PA as a Jewish state?
Of what possible value does such recognition afford. It wouldn’t stop the world from opposing it nor would it stop the left in Israel and the Israeli Arabs from opposing it. Abbas is right, it is a matter of Israel’s internal politics only.
What Netanyahu has done is to get Israelis to focus on recognition, rather than on retention of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. In so doing he is distracting us from what really matters. And that is his purpose.
Speaking of censorship – A7 censored me again. Sigh…. I submitted the following comment two days ago on this very same column by Ted on Arutz Sheva and it was censored. They have been posting other comments all day, but not mine. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13247 Quote: Statehood won’t solve problem, will make it worse. – Time to address the US assumption that statehood itself is the key to solving all problems. The fact is that all Muslim states are oppressive, backward, and dysfunctional – and quite often extremely violent. Some, like Jordan, are just waiting to explode. – So the question is, Why is the US so determined to create another one of these entities with institutionalized violation of human rights. Why not say, Show me one Muslim country that the Palestinians can use as a model, then let’s talk.
The conflict started 13 centuries ago!
@ Ted Belman: I Agree, absolutely. Land for peace will never work because the Arabs want it all.
Ted, I agree with you that having control of land is more important than any written or verbal recognition by any Arab of a Jewish State. Bibi’s point though is that how can we make peace with them when they can not even recognize our Jewish democratic State existence. They say they will not do this for 1000 years and more per Seeb Erekat.
In Bibi’s foreign affairs management it is much easier to focus on this then talking about what he is willing or not willing to concede. I personally am not willing to go further than Bennett’s plan of Annexing Area C. Area A/B will need creative solutions and experiments.
I do not like Bibi talking about a two state solution. He got roped into this by Obama term 1 and has put conditions on the PA State that they would never agree to. He and Ya’alon are more into managing the conflict. I do believe at the right time he will annex minimally the settlement blocks and E1. Next after this the the rest of Area C. He first is working to get the help of Obama on Iran which he views as the first priority.
@ CuriousAmerican:
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD all that remains is the illusion. The Palestinians never when offered accepted the premise to divide the land. The problem to solve this conflict will not make both sides happy and I am sure you will not be happy, as no good solution to make all happy in resolving this zero sum conflict is possible.
Your solution is very simplistic. I do not oppose it, as a partial solution, but are you aware that the PA has a death sentence waiting for any Arab that sells land to a Jew? Do you think this might slow down the emigration of Palestinians to South America?
Your description of Bennett’s plan is simply not correct. Real simply Annex Area C which holds 60% of the West Bank and all the Jewish Towns and Cities. This is the basic part. He says his plan is incomplete. It is by far the most plausible plan that Israeli’s will agree to in the near future. Currently the Israeli population will not annex all of Judah and Samaria. Maybe in the future or maybe in stages. First came Jerusalem.
Next came the Golan Heights. Side note I was living, on Kibutz Afik the Golan Heights, when Labor was in power. Shimon Peres had a discussion with some of us and implied was willing to turn the Golan over for real peace. Two years later we annexed the Golan Heights. No one in Israel who is not working at Haaretz would ever consider a stupid peace of paper in exchange for the Golan Heights.
I would try and implement buying out Arabs first in Area C and East Jerusalem. I would have a relocation department to help them and family move quickly before they killed. Try and help them find jobs. Moving across oceans when doing it voluntarily is tricky ( I know I have done it 4 times) but when you or your family could get killed is 1000 times more complicated.
Ted Belman Said:
We don’t really disagree. And no peace is worth giving up Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. The Arabs can only offer words on a piece of paper, which can become worthless overnight with a change of Arab regime. Land for peace has no applicability in the Middle East and there’s no instance in which historically it ever brought about lasting peace.
I agree with you Ted. Who cares if the “palestinians” or the rest of the arab world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. I would rather keep a united Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, your a man of a few words. But those few words say quite a lot.
@ CuriousAmerican:
We are not keeping them that way, they are. They signed an agreement (Oslo)in which they accepted that they had to negotiate a deal to end the “occupation”. Don’t blame us, blame them.
We are the owners (possessors ) of the land. If they want to buy part of it they have to pay our price for it..
I have no problem if you annex, but you cannot keep these people under martial law.
You wither have enfranchise them … or pay them to leave.
This is the issue.
Whatever you want to do with the land … you cannot keep these people under martial law without expecting violence.
No one likes second class citizenship. Martial law – NOTICE, I did not say occupation – is not sustainable.
@ NormanF:I don’t disagree with what you are saying at all. My point is that even if the Arabs accept our existence, we will still have a territorial conflict and that alone can prevent a deal. I don’t think peace with the Palestinians is worth giving up Jerusalem and any of the settlement blocs. They have little to offer us.
Ted,
Its NEVER been about territory! No much how much or how little land Israel offers the Arabs, it will never be enough for them.
They will NEVER accept the existence of a Jewish State no matter whether the borders are drawn. Netanyahu’s point is the exact opposite of the one made in Western diplomatic circles – and among some Israelis on the Left – that territorial concessions on the part of Israel can terminate the conflict.
If the “land for peace” paradigm worked, there should have been peace decades ago. There won’t be peace because the Arabs are not interested at all in a so-called “two state solution.” They are interested in destroying Israel.
That is why peace with the Arabs for the future is in truth impossible.
@ Max:
Max, I have been saying exactly that here for some time. Yes that’s exactly what they want Israel, not peace.
Bibi, not one inch.
No more discussions, spend more time building communities and securing all of the Holy Land.
Jerusalem cannot be a divided city. It is and should always be the capital of the sovereign Jewish Nation of Israel.
It is what it is.
Like that worked with Gaza or with Lebanon (sarcasm). They don’t want peace, they want pieces – all the pieces of Israel.
Give them bullets for peace – that’s the only way to get peace – annihilate Hamas and Hezbollah. BTW if Syrian rebels win with or without America’s help and irrespective of AIQ/JAN or whatever other hardline Islamists might get some kind of power in Syria etc – that is the end of Hezbollah – no pipeline to Iran- no friends ever with the Sunnis – the weapon supply finished and Israel can finish them off.
Pick the moment and strike when the Hezbollah becomes weakest and before any other politics or alliances can save them.
Oh yeah , I forgot about backstabbing treacherous girly Israeli politicians like Bibi and Olmert and all the jerks who gave up Gaza and left Lebanon too early – twice – Yeah being practical and winning wars is something that doesn’t work in Israel since Entebbe. Whoever owns the Israeli media poisoned the Israeli populations with putzism.
Nevermind.
@CuriousAmerican,
Land for piece is just bullsh…. and Bibi knows it !
He must get along obama while preparing the move againt iran.
Israel cannot be overtly proactive on all fronts
Be patient …………….
There is only one core issue.
Will Israel give the Palestinians an open border with Jordan?
If not, it does not matter how much land the PA gets, the PA will not be independent.
Israel would be foolish to give the PA an open border; but if it does not, the two state solution is dead. If it does, Israel will be hit hard.
All of this is sheep deep and distraction.
Will the Palestinians ever be given an open border? That is the core question.
Bennett wants to keep the Palestinians under military rule. NOT acceptable, except to Yamit. But keeping people under Martial law will only provoke violence.
Caroline Glick wants to enfranchise and annex Judea and Samaria. Acceptable, but maybe not wise. Not sure. Right now, the demographic is on Israel’s side; but demographics can change. Enfranchised Arabs, under Israeli health care, would explode in numbers.
Yamit wants to drive every Arab, and foreigner, even practicing Christian out of Israel. Just as nutty as some imams. Destroy all the churches he says. How this is better than the Muslim brotherhood, I do not know? I am sure he has a Talmudic response.
Finally, there is my solution – oddly enough, also independently promoted by Dr. Martin Sherman and MK Feiglin, as well. We came to this independent of each other.
Pay them to leave. I suggest South America.