Why Palestinians Were So Quick To Reject Netanyahu's Speech

Imagine in private talks held in Oslo and other places you were promised an independent state but told by the other side that they can't actually use these words in the agreement. Imagine if you were told that the five year transitional period that began in 1994 was meant as a period to convince the Israeli public to accept this eventuality. Imagine if the person promising you a sovereign state is assassinated by his own people and you have to start talks all over with a right wing leader who has no interest in talking to you.

Imagine if in the past fifteen years you have been allowed all the trappings of a state. Since 1996 you have been allowed to field an Olympic team that actually participated in the Atlanta games and all games since. That you have an elected parliament and an elected president. That you have a functioning government, a functioning police, a nascent army. Imagine that your parliament debates and votes on laws which the president signs and the police enforce.

Imagine that you have an independent legal system with judges making rulings and smartly dressed policemen execute these decisions and place the criminals in jails that your security forces control.

Imagine traffic being regulated by policemen and policewomen who are smartly dressed with navy blue uniforms that have your tiny national flag on their arms. Imagine that they give you tickets which you have to pay or face administrative punishment.

Imagine if for the last fifteen years you have your own national radio and television station. Whenever your president wants to travel he is escorted with siren sounding convoy and well dressed and lightly armed security men who whisper in their hands and who jump out of their jeeps even before it comes to a complete stop.

Imagine that your president is welcomed with red carpet and 21 gun salutes in most countries of the world. Whenever world leaders come to meet your president they are also welcomed with red carpet and like when your president travels they are also given a chance to review the national guard. Imagine that your national anthem is played alongside all the world's national anthems.

Imagine that your president and his government hold bilateral talks with all these governments, and talk of all types of policies. They sit on tables across from each other with small flags representing your state and the other sides states. And when the talks are over, the two leaders step onto a hall adorned with much larger flags and give press conferences sometimes having to put earphones in their ears to understand the various foreign languages being used.

Imagine if your children go to schools in which all the textbooks are reviewed and issued with the approval of the ministry of education. Imagine if the high school matriculation examinations tawjihi are recognized the world over. Imagine that a separatist group in Gaza that tried to create an alternative tawhjihi was quickly rebuffed and had to come back and deal with your ministry of education because the world would only recognize your certificates.

Imagine your country's finances are regulated by an internationally recognized monetary fund. While you don't have your own currency (why add a national debt to your problems) your Monetary Fund deals with all local and international banks and financial institutions. Your country's national budget is published online as a sign of its transparency. Of course their web site has a national .ps code.

Imagine if your government can award a telecommunications license for a wireless and land line company. Imagine if this company is allowed by the International telecommunications Institute an international dialing code 970.

All these trappings of a state as part of an internationally recognized agreement signed in the White House lawn in 1993.

Imagine if all world leaders have been promising you publicly an independent viable state with territorial contiguity.

Imagine if the leaders of the free world including US presidents Bush and Obama publicly says that your independent state is in their own national interest.

Imagine then the leader of the government that signed that and all consequent agreements suddenly stands in front of the television cameras fifteen years later and offers a non-sovereign state that will come after a ton of conditions and international guarantees that the state will be forever demilitarized.

If you have all these elements and promises of an independent state but were missing full sovereignty it is hard to see why the latest offer is anything to get excited about.

Comments

[mikep]

The attempts to portray the Palestinians as the victims here is getting rather old. The global community rejected that view/claim a long time ago. The Palestinians are still a very long way from convincing the rest of the world that they've given up violence and are prepared to live in peace with their neighbors, and recognize the UN and international law. They need to show the world that they are ready to accept guidance from more advanced nations. They're obviously not ready to manage a full-fledged state. Not even close. They need to learn to walk before they can run. A small state with limited autonomy over local matters would be a good first step. After they have shown that they've changed and matured, then over time their state can grow. But for the moment they need others to manage their security and finances, and to supervise their relations with other countries. They're simply not able to do that on their own. In time, maybe. But they have a long way to go. The best course for them is step by step, beginning at the beginning by formally recognizing Israel. That's the essential first step. Nothing can be done until that is an accomplished fact. That would indicate to the world that they recognize the UN and are beginning to grasp the concept of international law.

[Theou]

mikep, I think you got your nations mixed up when one reverses your use of Palestine and Israel a true picture begins to emerge. Certainly, it is Israel that needs to adhere to international law and abide by UN resolutions, rather than the Palestinians.

[BubbaC33]

Israel is not in violation of international law. The West Bank and the Golan are held legally and ethically, i-law allows for holding land taken in the course of a defensive war. The 67 Six Day War was defensive for Israel, Egypt fired the first shots when it illegally closed the Straits of Tiran.

[DarkSlope]

Wow, you have a really distorted view of who the global community is. The global community, excluding Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians actually view the Palestinians as the victim. Usually, one would attribute the label of "victim" to the party with less power who is suffering at the hands of a more powerful oppressor. Israel has been kicking the Palestinians asses for decades now, and 98% of the world population views it as such.

[arle]

How come Israel doesn't have to renounce violence? It's a rogue nuclear state that's staged military attacks on occupied territory, Lebanon, Syria and Sudan -- and that's just in the last year or so! They're a rogue nuclear armed power that we know has proliferated the technology to others. During Operation Cast Lead, Israel killed over 1,300 people, injured at least 5,000 and among those who died in the initial onslaughts were at least three hundred children. Compare that to the much hyped rocket attacks. Thousands upon thousands of "indiscriminate" attacks since 2001... and in that time only 18 Israelis have died.

You could argue that Israel is being retaliatory... only you can't. The statistical data doesn't back that up.

"Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

[BubbaC33]

When the IDF moved into Gaza it was in response to Hamas firing rockets into Israel. Civilians were killed an injured because Hamas, a group of cowards, hid amoing the innocents in Gaza and drew fire from the IDF.
I know, you'll respond by comparing how many Palestinians were killed or injured to the number of Israeli citizens killed or injured by the Hamas rockets. It doesn't work that way. It is not the fault of the IDF that in addition to being cowards Hamas is incapable of using the weapons on hand.
Statistics have nothing to do with Israeli responses to aggression by terrorists from Gaza or Lebanon. What matters is terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel atack us and folks like you demand that Israel refrain from a response. And you are wrong to make such a foolish demand.

[Raptarrin]

I believe that Netanyahu's offer may be nothing more than a clever PR move. To those not knowledgable, it appears like he is trying to make some headway toward the peace process. But anyone who has done some research can see why his offer is odious to the Palestinian people and will be rejected outright. Hopefully the Obama Admin sees through the charade and does not pressure the Palestinian people to accept something so ridiculous.

[Macready]

great blog . . . the only way to get israel to the bargaining table is cut the funding and UN sanctions otherwise more lies and propaganda . . . and more suffering and death for the Palestinian people

[myopinion2]

Cite for prior post:

ttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184852687&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[DarkSlope]

Your link is not working.

[arle]

Yeah because it's not as if J-Post isn't the Fox News of Israel. Seriously people, check out the op eds on that site some time and make your own decision about it.

[myopinion2]

Here is the article (not an op ed):

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert has contradicted recent statements by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the effect that while in office, Olmert had agreed in principle to the right of Palestinian refugees to resettle in Israel, saying that he had only offered the Palestinians to take in a "very, very limited number" of returnees, while rejecting the principle of a comprehensive "right of return."

Abbas told the Washington Post several weeks ago that Olmert had accepted the principle of a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees and offered to resettle thousands in Israel.

Abbas, who gave the interview before a meeting with US President Barack Obama, also said that Olmert had proposed a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank, and had shown him its contours on a map.

In the Newsweek interview, Olmert contradicted the figures given by Abbas, saying that although he had indeed traced the contours of a future Palestinian state on a map, he had only offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the territories, along with a 5.8% land swap and a "safe-passage corridor" between the West Bank and Gaza that would have made up the remaining 0.5-0.7%.

Olmert said that his final offer to the Palestinians included a proposal that Jerusalem's holy sites would come under a consortium of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Saudis and Jordanians, with no side claiming exclusive sovereignty.

[myopinion2]

Both Abbas and Olmert have confirmed that Israel offered over 93% of the West Bank plus a 5% land swap compensation, and the PA turned it down. Netanyahu poses a new obstacle, but the PA could already have had an independent state. So why is everyone blaming only Israel and making demands only on Israel.

[DarkSlope]

Because they never agreed on the right of return issue, and part of Israel's stance was that the new Palestinian state would not be allowed to have a military, and Israel's military should have unfettered access to patrol the new Palestine. Those were the major sticking points.

[myopinion2]

True. But if the Palestinians are going to hold out to flood Israel with millions of palestians, then there never will be peace. regardless of who you think is right or wrong on that issue (and I suspect we disagree with each other), Israel will not and cannot agree on that claim. Thus, if the Palestinians can't give up that claim, all efforts at peace are in vain. Too bad.

[CarlyHope]

Trouble is, BOTH countries took in approximately 70,000 refugees. So if one side demands the right of return, how would countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt accommodate a Jewish Right of Return.

Rather, it would make sense for all victims of displacement, Jewish and Palestinian, should have access to community trusts set up to address poverty in their communities. That would be a great way to help refugees on both sides get out of poverty, and into prosperity. Plus its something both sides may actually agree to.

[arle]

This is like somebody stealing your car, and offering to give you everything back but the keys -- that's Israeli's "generous offer?"

[BubbaC33]

What a terribly inaccurate analogy.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Because Israel has no rilght to take even 7% of Palestinian land.

[TryToBeFlexible]

Yeah, Bibi's statement didn't sound like a sovereign state to me. Sounded like a continued occupation. Time to pull the plug on foreign aid to Israel, until they get their act together.

[BillZBubb]

Netanyahu did what his ilk always do: find a way to scuttle any chance that Israel will have to give back lands it occupies illegally. The Israeli right wing wants the land more than they want peace. Too bad a majority of Israeli's continue to agree with them.