If the United Nations recognizes a Palestinian state in September, there will be those who will try to compare this event with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, when five Arab nations invaded the nascent Jewish State. It will be remarked that things have been turned upside down in 63 years. Israel and her supporters will be vilified and ostracized for standing in the way of Palestinian aspirations.
In fact, the truth is such a development would reflect the reality that not much has changed in all that time.
Just as in 1948, when the Arab world refused to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state based on the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, so today that remains the core of the problem. It is the reason the Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate with Israel and has turned instead to a movement for a unilateral Palestinian state.
There is a seamless path through the years of the predominance of this theme even when statements were made to the contrary. In 1948 it took the form of rejection of a two-state solution and war against the Jewish state. For years after that there was the Arab boycott of Israel. After the 1967 war there were the three Nos -- to recognition, to negotiations, to peace -- at Khartoum. The Palestine Liberation Organization maintained its charter into the 1990s which called for Israel's destruction. And then when the Palestinians seemed finally moving toward accepting the legitimacy of the Jewish state, new versions of the core hostility emerged, versions which sometimes masked the old intentions but underneath lay the same expressions.
Sometimes it was manifested in support of or equivocation about terrorism directed at Israel.
Other times it surfaced in the teaching and preaching of hate toward the Jewish state in Palestinian schools, mosques and media. And a new element entered the equation when the Islamic extremist group Hamas, with its own charter laced with anti-Semitism and rejection of Israel, won elections and seized Gaza.
Most significantly, despite the softer rhetoric by some Palestinian leaders, the core of Palestinian denial of Israel's legitimacy continued even when negotiations were taking place. Not only was there an unwillingness to accept the words that Israel was a Jewish state (language that was in the UN partition plan in 1947), but Palestinian refusal to give up the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees signaled to Israelis that the war against the State of Israel was not over. The "right of return" was understood to mean that Israel would be swamped with descendants of the original refugees, bringing about the demise of the very concept of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
It is in this historical context that the drive for a unilateral Palestinian state must be seen. At the heart of the compelling need for negotiations has always been Israel's search to get the Palestinians to accept Israel's legitimacy. That is what then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's insistence at Camp David in 2000 that any final agreement requires an end to the conflict and an end to all demands was all about. Once and for all accept the Jewish state.
And the story right up to the present time suggests that the Palestinians, even as they work toward the establishment of a state of their own, see everything through the prism of Israel's illegitimacy. It appears in their refusal to negotiate with Israel over the past two years. Their stated reason is that Israel continues to build settlements. In fact, past negotiations in which Israel offered great concessions took place even while settlements were being built. Even more significantly, if the goal were to bring about the end of settlement building and even the dismantling of settlements, negotiations would be the first order of business. The unwillingness of Palestinians to sit at the table with the Israelis in the final analysis hearkens back to the core issue.
This becomes even more evident with two other trends: the push from Palestinians of the delegitimization campaign against Israel and the drive for international recognition of a Palestinian state.
While both efforts are framed as a reaction to Israeli intransigence -- the continuation of the "occupation," the building of settlements -- what they really have in common is the same old phenomenon: not having to accept Israel's legitimacy. The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel sometimes are framed as focusing on Israel's occupation, but underlying so much of it is an attempt to tag Israel with the "apartheid" label not merely for its treatment of the Palestinians but for its very existence as a Jewish state.
Listen to Omar Barghouti, considered the founder of the BDS movement:
"Some people say BDS is not fair and not effective - Israel is a democracy. On almost every level, Israel is only a democracy for one ethnic group. The Palestinian-led BDS movement is calling Israel an apartheid state, and the main refutation of this is that Israel allows Palestinians to vote."
It is 1948 all over again.
And so we come to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. The obvious question regarding such a development is why would the Palestinians seek such a result when they could have gotten so much more through the offers made at Camp David and Annapolis, which they turned down. The answer is obvious: there they would have had to accept Israel's legitimacy in exchange for their own state. Now they apparently get their own legitimacy while still waging the war against Israel. Indeed, if in fact the UN votes to support a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, the war to delegitimize Israel will take off beyond anything in the past.
That the world seems on the verge of buying into this latest model of a long sought after sinister goal is a tragedy. Why it has and what to do about will be the subjects of future commentary.
While the Palestinians have indeed have had many brutal periods in their history, I have reason to doubt the establishment of the State of Palestine will be anywhere as violent and barbaric as the creation of the State of Israel.
He's sort of like Israel's 'Glen Beck' ; his reality is not no the same as for the rest of us.
Aren't your arms getting tired from building that strawman?
It's spelled "Glenn Beck" btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Your usual method is to distort somebody's argument (human shields comes to mind) and then argue against that invented position. I've decided to play the game with you, since you've decided to agree that Israelis are thieves.
(Get it?)
In interview with L'Express magazine, French President Sarkozy says if 'peace process is still dead in September, France will face up to its responsibilities on the central question of recognition of a Palestinian state.' (Haaretz)
That said, the Palestinians are not innocent victims. The need to communicate, at least through back channels, that they do not seek the purported ROR and will agreee to limited land swap. In other words, the Olmert Abbas negotiation needs to be completed.
You know. Liberals.
Poll: Palestinians retained highest support of Osama bin Laden since 2003
02.05.11
Among six predominantly Muslim countries recently surveyed, Muslims in the Palestinian territories voiced the most support for the assassinated al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, a poll released on Monday showed.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-palestinians-retained-highest-support-of-osama-bin-laden-since-2003-1.359453
(Do they have non-refundable tickets or something?)
Benny Morris has a terrific article:
Palestinian strategy is rather simple: Because of the demographic threat (an Arab majority in a Jewish state) and because of international pressure for self-determination for the Palestinians and an end to Israel's military occupation, Israelis will eventually accept, however reluctantly, a Palestinian state encompassing the Palestinian-majority territories of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Israel will eventually unilaterally withdraw (as it has already done from the Gaza Strip). So why offer or give the Israelis recognition and peace in exchange?
Rather, once this mini-state is achieved, unfettered by any international obligations like a peace treaty—and having promised nothing in exchange for their statehood—the Palestinians will be free to continue their struggle against Israel, its complete demise being their ultimate target. Inevitably, the armed struggle—call it guerrilla warfare, call it terrorism—will then be resumed. And, alongside it, so will the political warfare—the delegitimization of the Jewish state and, most centrally, the demand for the refugees of 1948/1967 to be allowed to return to their homes and lands. The refugee issue plays well with public opinion in the West, which somehow fails to notice that such a return will mean that Israel proper will become an Arab-majority territory, i.e., no more Jewish state. In democracies, what publics accept or support eventually becomes what leaders advocate.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/palestinians-dupe-west-5212
I honestly do not know if this perspective reflects runaway paranoia or the most duplicituous spin yet seen on planet Earth, or perhaps both.
But I do know that it is frightening that people could even pronounce such utter nonsense, especially when Israel has a good faith peace partner in the PA.
Historic Palestine included not only Israel and the WB but also all of modern Jordan. It is Israel including the disputed territories that is only 22% of Palestine. If Israel were to pullout entirely from the WB and Gaza it would wind up with 18%. As far as Israel is concerned it is the Zionists who have made the real sacrifice by giving up 82% of the Land. By accepting the UN partition they were prepared to agree to only about 12% before the Arab states attacked and tried to destroy the budding state of Israel.
Going to the United Nations and the requesting for recognition of the Palestinian state on the 67 borders, not a unilateral move, but multilateral, because we are not making our own declaration but seeking recognition by European states, Latin America and the rest of the world. This is not a step to delegitimize Israel, but to pursue the rights of Palestinians, especially in light of the Israeli rejection to implement its obligations and to implement of international resolutions. The Israel government has made no response to proposals made by the Palestinian side in many months of talks through the US mediator George Mitchell.
On the other hand, the Palestinian side has not rejected any peace initiatives, but on the contrary, went towards the negotiations. It was Israel's settlement policy prevented any serious peace negotiations. How can Israel expect to be a serious partner for peace while taking more and more Palestinian land, making agreement harder and harder?
Mr Hoffman is wrong to claim that Palestinians do not accept Israel's legitimacy. He must know that the PLO recognized the Israel’s right to exist in 1993, in the Declaration of Principles (DOP) on interim self-government arrangements and the exchange of letters of recognition between the PLO and the Government of the State of Israel. His failure to acknowledge the historic significance of that declaration can only be intended to mislead readers.
Let's see a link supporting the claim that the PA made proposals to Mitchell that the Israelis did not respond to.
Thank you very much!!
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
But now, I can't help but be overwhelmed by the logic of Jewish settlers whose logic is laid out here:
"“The process of national revival of the Jewish people is irreversible and has its internal logic. We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Country of Israel will not return under Jewish control. This might sound too hard, but such is the logic of history. The war on the Holy Land has been already fought for four thousand years and the end cannot be seen. A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel. The state will find at last its geostrategic completeness. We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land. This may seem utopia to many now - but an even greater utopia seemed a hundred years ago the revival of the Jewish state...If you want it, this will not not be a fairy tale" --Rabbi Avrom Shmulevic of the Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland") Movement."
But check out the shrinking map of Palestine over the years, and you will understand how G-d's will has worked its way in the land of milk and honey, aka Israel:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/01/15/map-of-greater-israel-published-by-radic
Well, there you have it: all those biblical Jews returning to their homeland after 2,000 years. They based themselves on the holy texts written 3,000 or more years ago, because we all know that G-d spoke only through the Jewish prophets.
And whether we are Jewish, Christian or Muslim, there is no word like G-d's word and G-d's word has never been improved upon in these past 3200 years!
Now the only problem is all the backward Islamists. Can you believe it? They harken all the way back to the Middle Ages!
-:)
First of all, the map conflates Arabs (and Arab control such as by Egypt or Jordan) with Palestinians when the rest of the time we are told Palestinians are distinct from Egyptians and Jordanians.
Secondly, the maps conveniently leave off the nearly 80% of the "original" Palestine which was partitioned off to become Jordan. Then again, if they showed this, then they'd have a little trouble sectioning off what Jordan and Egypt controlled from 1948-1967 from "real" Palestinian land (i.e. Israel).
Now if you wanted to be accurate and show how much land actually was controlled and run by Palestinians over the years, it would look like this:
Prior to 1918: 0%
1946 (Jordan made independent): well, still 0%, as the Kingdom is run by Hashemites
1948-1967: Yup. Still 0%, as Gaza is occupied by Egypt and EJ and WB occupied by Jordan
1967-present: Grows from 0% to all the green areas on that final map, for the first time in history actually controlled by Palestinians.
Gee, I'm glad we straightened that out.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows that the West Bank that was occupied by IDF forces in 1967 does not belong one inch under international law to Israel. The WB on the other hand was fully recognized by all states having relations with Jordan as an integral part of Jordan, also under international law as part of Jordan. Jordan's residual rights even when not in physical control of the WB after 1967 still existed under international law, and Jordan's right to cede that area to the Palestinian Authority therefore is the only legitimate act regarding this region taken by any state since 1967.