All these opinions are in line with the position I took in The repercussions of a UN recognition of Palestine over two weeks ago. T. Belman
by Hillel Fendel, INN
Three well-known figures – Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, ex-Ambassador to Egypt Tzvi Maz’el, and Yesha Council Chairman Danny Dayan – answered this question for the weekly B’Sheva magazine, and Hevron Jewish Community David Wilder spoke up as well.
Their answers:
Ex-Ambassador to Egypt, Sweden and Romania Tzvi Maz’el:
We must deal with this on the diplomatic and informational levels… It appears that the Prime Minister is traveling to France and Great Britain to discuss this topic. In my opinion, he must make it clear to the Americans, Europeans, and others that convening the UN General Assembly [for this purpose] will strike a blow at all the agreements we have signed with the [PA], which determined that all problems and issues that arise between us and them… must be solved in direct talks between the sides. When a foreign body such as the UN decides on the establishment of a Palestinian state, it essentially voids the Oslo Agreements of their content. In such a case, Israel will have to act unilaterally to protect its interests, without coordinating with the PA as we do today…
In addition, all the negotiations between Israel and the PA are based on UN resolutions 242 and 338… and on which were based the Oslo Agreements. The moment that the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, it means that 242 and 338 and all agreements based on them are void. This must be stated, in legal and political terms, as clearly as possible.
In addition, the General Assembly can only recommend, but cannot make binding decisions…
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon:
Let us not scare ourselves with ungrounded theories. The Palestinian move for unilateral recognition is a threat with nothing behind it, and will not serve the Palestinians. A decision by the General Assembly will not change anything on the ground, and certainly not without Israeli cooperation…
We are working on many fronts to present the Israeli position, and many countries are realizing that this unilateral move is not relevant. The PA’s actions and intentions prove again that they are not interested in real peace with Israel– for if they were, they would come to the negotiating table and talk with us…
Those in our country who say that September will be very fateful for Israel, are often the same ones who systematically call on Israel to retreat from its position. Israel has dealt successfully in the past with even bigger challenges than this one, and has flowered and blossomed afterwards. We are in the midst of a ‘political intifada’ on the part of the PA, and we must continue to watch out for our security and interests…
At a time when we see many changes in regional regimes, it is important for the world’s democracies not to allow the establishment of another terrorist state in the Middle East.
Danny Dayan, Chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria:
The first and primary thing that the government of Israel must do, even without taking the Palestinians’ intentions into account, is to declare clearly our claim to ownership and sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria. While the Palestinians claim this area with lies and distortions, we must present the People of Israel’s unshakeable claim to its homeland and its intention to actualize this right. But if the Arabs talks about national rights and Israel demands only security, the game is lost from the beginning.
Of late, the government of Israel has been broadcasting signs of panic in light of the PA’s intentions. Expressions such as a ‘diplomatic tsunami’ that await us [as Defense Minister Ehud Barak said – ed.], simply increase our enemies’ motivation… causing self-fulfilling prophecies. This vicious cycle must be stopped immediately.
How? By making a 180-degree turn in policy: No more promises for concessions and gestures if they drop their unilateral approach, but rather a clear and direct threat that their unilateral steps will be met by some unilateral steps of our own. But not merely declaratory unilateral steps, like the one they are planning, but some very practical ones – such as our annexation, with all that that entails, of all or parts of Judea and Samaria… We have many tools at our disposal… and we must be less restrained in using them.”
David Wilder, Spokesman for the Hevron Jewish Community (written after the announcement of the Hamas-Fatah agreement):
…I believe the agreement is a reason to break out the wine, set up a band, and celebrate. [Because] this time [Shimon Peres] has hit the nail on the head [when he said on Thursday], ‘The agreement will prevent creation of a Palestinian state.’ …
[Netanyahu’s] Bar Ilan 2 speech, to be recited before a full house of Senators and Congressmen in Washington in a few weeks, [had been] just about finished, [including] concession after concession, abandonment of more land to our enemies, relinquishment of additional security precautions, a ‘Palestinian state’ in temporary borders, perhaps even with a taste of Jerusalem for dessert. It was all set. And now – what bombshell can he initiate? Not a one. At least, certainly not in the direction he planned…
The conflict between Hamas and Fatah [never had] anything to do with ideology. Both agree that the state of Israel is an insufferable thorn in the collective throats of the Arabs that must be plucked out of existence at the first opportunity. Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] certainly hasn’t changed his life’s philosophy, which he expressed while planning the 1974 Ma’alot massacre and funding the 1972 Olympic terror killings in Germany… Bibi already announced his acceptance of a Palestinian state. But what can he do now? Every rocket now shot into Israel, at Sderot, Ashkelon or Tel Aviv, has not one signature on it, but rather two: Ismail Haniyeh [Hamas] and Abu Mazen [Fatah]. Gilad Shalit is now a captive of Hamas-Fatah. Every attempted terror attack initiated from Gaza is rubber-stamped: Fatah-Hamas…
Just as G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so too, today, He is throwing dust into the eyes of our enemies, blinding them, dulling their senses, and leading them down a dead-end road – leading, not to Israel’s destruction, rather to their own obliteration. This does not mean, under any circumstances, that we will have an easy time of it. Far from it. Dead end roads aren’t necessarily short, and they can be quite bumpy. But the chances of another Arab state on our eastern border, created with Israel’s blessings, have hit the lowest level they’ve been at in years.
It won’t be easy, but we will prevent creation of a Palestinian state. G-d is watching over us. G-d is protecting us, even from ourselves. Thank G-d!
Objection! — Assumes facts not in evidence…….
“Occupied”?
By whom?
“Squatters”?
To whom do you refer?
Have you ever gotten round to reading over the Charter of League of Nations Mandate for Palestine?
It was in the nature of an international treaty,
hence, binding in law.
It might shed some light on your evident confusion as to who the “occupiers” and “squatters” are,
and who they aren’t.
An inability to understand the depths of change in the surrounding states is the first of the many issues of Occupied Palestine. Second, if these revolutions achieves Pan Arabism even in limited form, that’s even more trouble for the squatters. Sure, you may have superior weapons but even a rag tag bunch of people can inflict enough to make you think twice about new adventures to teach the ‘they understand only force’ Arabs a lesson. The only way out is to play up the Shia/Sunni divide and divide people into Iran/Saudi camps. The Saudis can be bought and they’d gladly do the work for the Zionists via the USA. I mean is there any other way to stop these events?
Prasad,
Virtually no conflicts are resolved with peace talks. Either they remain unresolved for centuries (like independence for the Balkan countries), or they are resolved through wars. What are often called “peace” talks, are simply “end of war” talks: They are essentially the terms of surrender of one side to another. India and Pakistan supposedly were separated under a “peaceful” agreement crafted under British rule; but their borders have only been “resolved” (i.e. set to the current stalemate position) by several wars — and only resolved, when Pakistan acknowledged defeat by India. Either Israel needs to acknowledge defeat at the hands of the Arabs, or the latter have to acknowledge defeat by Israel. When that happens, borders can be set — as they are between India and Pakistan. The world would like those borders to like along the Mediterranean, with Israelis living beneath the sea; but the world cannot dictate this matter: They have to fight for it, and indeed they will (and they will lose).
Both sides (Israel and Palestinian) countries should have peace talks then this issue will be solved otherwise this issue will continue for a long time and neighbouring countries will suffer along with these countries and also this conflict will be one of the reason for world war so we have to solve this problem immediately United Nations should negotiate with these countries.
That’s okay. We’ll just declare Israel’s TORAH borders as Biblically defined and grant the Palestinians a nice plot of Arabian land as an alternative so there can finally be peace in the LAND OF ISRAEL.
With their super-majority at the UN, the Arabs hope to impose a solution at the expense of Israel.
The West thanks to their corrupted mass media and govts infested-orientalists and anti-Semites are willing to abstain in case of a vote, just like they did for the initial Goldstone report.
Rice and S. Power acolytes will try to twist as much as possible the arm of the Israeli in exchanges for NOTHING.
They have no idea how to deal with Syria and Iran but hey know how to damage Israel.
The avowed long term goal of the Arabs is the elimination of Israel. There is ONLY one response that Israel can provide. Annexation. Only the West refuses to admit the fact.
Unfortunately, breaking of agreements seems to be not only a defining characteristic but possibly also the intentional design of the Obama Administration. When his aides sarcastically insulted the “specialness” of the US-British relationship as they made arrangements for a visit to Washington of then-PM Brown, all eyes should have opened in attention. Obama proceeded to bow to the Saudis, then betray them; sell arms to Mubarak, then conspire to overthrow him; bow even lower to the Japanese, then leave them and the S. Koreans high and dry when the N. Koreans attacked; promise to close the Guantanamo facility, then leave it open; promise to leave Iraq, yet we’re still there; promise to bring about a resolution of the Afghanistan conflict, only to get us more deply mired, with troop levels at historic highs; turned on the Libyans, with whom we were at peace; turned on Israel at every turn; armed, then abandoned, the President of Lebanon; threatened, then caved in to, the President of Iran; reversed the good relationship George W. Bush had built up with India; etc.
When Obama came into office, The Middle East was stable, with alliances (except for Turkey’s ambiguous position, and our ambiguous stand toward Israel) reasonably well established. Under Obama, the Saudis and Gulf States have been forced to chart their own course; Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen have been consigned to control by the mob, and Lybia has been split in two. The “American” victory in Iraq has turned out to be an Iranian victory instead, with civil war likely as soon as the last Americans leave. Under Obama’s watch, the world’s primary oil-exporting region has turned into a sea of uncertainty.
There is no sense of “agreement” anywhere in all this; just a widespread, deeply felt sense of betrayal.