web analytics
February 28, 2015 / 9 Adar , 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Palestinian State’

Arab-Israelis: Would You Move to a Palestinian State?

Sunday, January 25th, 2015

Corey Gil-Shuster always has an interesting question to ask.

Recently he asked Israeli-Arabs (and one leftwing Jewish Israeli professor) if they would want to move to a Palestinian State if it were created, and then when many of them said no or required more clarification about the question, he asked if they would want to be citizens of a Palestinian state if it meant they didn’t have to move.

Not surprisingly, the rambling leftwing Israeli activist/professor said she would move to a Palestinian state. She was also one of the most determined to do so.

Almost every other Arab he asked said no – and even the ones that said yes in the beginning, by the end of their answer, they either strongly qualified their statements or simply changed their answer. Some added that Palestine will replace Israel, so they wouldn’t have to move at all.

JCPA Poll: Solid Majority of Israeli Jews Oppose Palestinian State

Sunday, October 19th, 2014

A Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) poll of Israeli Jews conducted between October 12-14, 2014 of 505 adult Israeli Jews showed that the majority oppose a Palestinian State when it is clearly defined for them what establishing a Palestinian state might entail, such as the division of Jerusalem or withdrawal from the Jordan Valley.

How do you identify yourself:

Right 60.2
Center 24.8
Left 13.5
1. In light of the spread of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, has this affected your stance regarding Israeli territorial concessions in the West Bank?

More ready for concessions 4.8%
Less ready for concessions 16.8%
No change 70.1%
Don’t know/no answer 8.3%
2. Do you support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines?

Support 18.2%
Oppose 74.3%
Don’t know/no answer 7.5%
3. Do you support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state if it means an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley?

Support 11.5%
Oppose 74.9%
Don’t know/no answer 13.7%
4. Would you agree to the replacement of the IDF with international forces in the Jordan Valley?

Agree 16.6%
Disagree 75.4%
Don’t know/no answer 7.9%
5. Do you support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state if it means the division of Jerusalem?

Support 16.2%
Oppose 76.2%
Don’t know/no answer 7.5%

British Parliament Backs Palestinian State in Vote

Tuesday, October 14th, 2014

The British House of Commons passed a symbolic resolution backing creation of a Palestinian state and of a two state partiton solution on Monday.

The exact wording of the resolution was:

“That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.”

While the vote initiated by the parliament’s opposition party won with 274 to 12, only half the members of the British Parliament actually voted.

It is not yet clear if this has any implications other than acknowledging that a “Palestinian state” does not exist, and that the UK is way behind the curve if they still support a “two state solution”.

If the resolution had actually recognized a Palestinian state, as some mistakenly believe, then that would mean a two-state solution has already been implemented.

The British government is not bound to do anything as a result of the vote.

The only question left is this, will UK lawmakers back Islamic State next?

PA Accuses Israel of ‘Blackmail,’ Threatens Return to UN

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014

The Palestinian Authority is accusing Israel of “blackmail” and instead says it is heading back to the United Nations to appeal for recognition as a sovereign nation if U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry can’t force Israel to release 30 terrorists.

The group comprises the final of four tranches to have been released last Friday from Israeli jails. Included were at least 20 Israeli Arab citizens, a controversial list opposed by nearly all of the ministers in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition government, especially in view of the fact that all of the major concessions since the talks began — as before — seem to have been made by Israel only.

Incensed PA officials rejected the alternate proposal advanced instead of the release last Friday by Israel’s government. Israel allegedly offered to released hundreds more terrorist prisoners if the PA continue final status negotiations beyond the April 29 deadline – but this time take the talks more seriously.

The response of Israel’s “peace partners” was not encouraging.

“Israel is practicing a policy of blackmail and linking its agreement to releasing the fourth tranche of prisoners with the Palestinians accepting an extension of the negotiations,” a PA official told news agencies in Ramallah.

“If Kerry doesn’t provide a clear answer on the release of the 30 prisoners [we] will initiate steps for acceptance to United Nations organizations,” Mustafa Barghouti, an independent PA parliament member, told news agencies Monday night.

The move would be a clear violation of all agreements the PA has made with Israel and the United States.

Since July 2013, Israel has freed 78 PA Arab terrorists and made numerous other concessions that endanger the security of its citizens in “good will gestures” to encourage the PA to remain at the negotiating table.

But the four-stage release of terrorists incarcerated in Israeli jails was conditioned upon the active participation in direct talks by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas — and the Arab leader has not made good on his end of the deal.

It’s an old pattern, this “let’s talk some more about it but I can’t sit down with you until you give me what I want” — a game as beloved, familiar and ingrained in the Middle East as that being played out with Washington by the Iranians in Tehran.

Youngsters and tourists quickly learn the drill in the storefront alleyways of Jerusalem’s Old City market. And it’s profitable and even fun, until it turns deadly.

Survival makes it essential to learn to tell when the game is deadly, and when you can’t, it is equally important to have enough sense to trust your friends to tell you when it is.

Haaretz Calls Idea of Jewish State ‘Obsession’

Sunday, January 19th, 2014

Gideon Levy is the angry leftist of Haaretz, meaning he’s pushing the envelope leftward in a newspaper that’s already kind of over the precipice. And Gideon Levy has an agenda which he pushes relentlessly, to vilify Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria and to usher in a Palestinian State, God forbid.

The Israeli left has had a relatively easy time vilifying settlements. In Israel’s leftist vernacular, the settlers have a similar status to that of American welfare mothers in Republican politics: it’s all their fault. Every morsel of food given to the settlers is stolen directly from the mouths of babes in Sderot. Every road paved, every electric line added to Judea and Samaria communities are booty from the poor neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv.

In Israel’s leftist culture those are axioms that no longer require proof, such as the fact that the settlers pay a higher per capita tax rate, and put in many more reserve duty days than Israelis in “Israel proper.” And so, the issue of “thinning out” the settlements, or deporting all of them, has been received with less resistance than one might imagine, and it’s still being pushed by the media, day in and day out.

The part of the anticipated peace deal that’s been less easy to market to Israelis, even if they live in Ramat Aviv, the Labor-enclave in affluent north Tel Aviv, is the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Gideon Levy on Sunday set out to mock this sentiment, calling it an obsession. He writes that Israel’s inane demand to be recognized as Jewish reminds him of a neighbor he had as a child, a Holocaust survivor, who was obsessed with making sure her front door was locked when she left the house.

Levy compares that lady’s obsession with Israel’s insistence on the Jewish identity thing, concluding that both are equally sick. Israel, he argues, is basing its entire political process on this obsessive need to be Jewish, be it the peace deal, the treatment of illegal African migrants, the drive to change the demographic imbalance in the Galilee region.

In a world in which there are no more ethnically pure countries, Levy argues, Israel stands out with its wish to maintain its Jewish supremacy. Even, he says, at the cost of remaining a democracy.

Does the notion of Israel remaining a Jewish State offend you? Probably not, seeing as you’re reading a strongly pro-Zionist website. Having been born and grown up in this Jewish State, I suppose asking this question would be like asking a fish if he’s troubled by living in water. It’s a fact of life.

But I can certainly understand and support the demand on the part of Israel’s peace negotiators (while not wishing them any success at all, God willing) that a new Palestinian State officially recognize and uphold the Jewish character of Israel.

So far, the best we got out of the Arabs on that count has been to recognize that Israel is a cancer in the body of the great Arab nation. The Arab view of history and geography, since the year 699, when Mohammed’s hordes began to fill up the vacuum left behind by the Roman Empire, has been that the world is comprised of two parts: the part conquered by Islam and the part yet to be conquered by Islam.

I don’t wish to go into whether this conquest is through warlike or peaceful means, the view is the same if you’re an Al Qaeda terrorist or a peaceful moderate, and I don’t begrudge them their point of view.

Leading Israeli Analysts Can’t Agree on PA Strategy

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013

 Although most of the analysts warned against the U.S. campaign to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank in 2014, they could not agree on an Israeli alternative. Some of the analysts urged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to formulate an interim solution to the West Bank while others said relations with the PA would continue to mark a conflict that must be managed.

“Netanyahu is going through the same syndrome as did Begin, Rabin, Sharon, and Olmert,” Shmuel Sandler, the deputy director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Affairs, said. “He wants to stake a place for himself in the chronicles of the Jewish state as a contributor to a peace process.”

The center conducted a recent roundtable discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian process, which the United States wants completed by early 2014. One of the analysts said the negotiations have been complicated by the insistence of President Barack Obama to link this with Iran’s nuclear program.

“Obama, with absolutely no reasonable basis, combines the Israeli-Palestinian issue with the American-Iranian file,” Mordechai Kedar, who also consults with Israel’s government and military, said. “This way Obama can show his face in public as someone who had at least one success in the Mideast, after his failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and more.”

Kedar, a specialist on the Arab world, warned Netanyahu against establishing a Palestinian state. Instead, Kedar, who dismissed the prospect of an agreement with the PA, said Israel should offer what he termed an “eight-state solution.”

“This involves the establishment of a council of Palestinian emirates or mini-states based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria [West Bank],” Kedar said. “This will give Arab leadership a firm local base with a traditional and homogeneous sociological foundation.”

The analysts also disagreed over Israel’s strategic position. Several of the analysts, including center director Efraim Inbar, said Israel, despite threats of Western sanctions, was becoming stronger economically and militarily.

But others said Netanyahu was driven by his fear of a crisis with Obama. They said time was working against Israel. “Israel’s legitimacy is a strategic asset,” Joshua Teitelbaum said. “It is getting harder and harder to convince even Israel’s supporters of the legitimacy of expanded Jewish settlement in areas that are still under negotiation for the establishment of a possible Palestinian state.”

Syria (Today) and ‘Palestine’ (Tomorrow) II

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013

As I noted last week, what is currently taking place in Syria closely resembles what we can ultimately expect in a future “Palestine.”

In principle, and contrary to his beleaguered country’s overriding legal rights and security interests, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to a Palestinian state back in June 2009. Yet Mr. Netanyahu, more or less prudently, conditioned this concessionary agreement on prior Palestinian “demilitarization.” More specifically, said the prime minister: “In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel.”

In fact and in law, this published expectation offers no effective obstacle to Palestinian statehood, or to any subsequent Palestinian war against Israel.

Neither Hamas, now subtly closing ranks with its once more powerful Muslim Brotherhood mentors in post-Morsi Egypt, nor Fatah, whose “security forces” were recently trained by American General Keith Dayton in nearby Jordan at very great American taxpayer expense, will ever negotiate for anything less than full sovereignty. Why should they? Supporters of Palestinian statehood can readily discover authoritative legal support for their stance in binding international treaties.

Easily misrepresented or abused, international law can generally be manipulated to serve virtually any preferred geo-political strategy, a jurisprudential twisting sometimes referred to as “lawfare.” For example, pro-Palestinian international lawyers, seeking to identify self-serving sources of legal confirmation, could conveniently cherry-pick pertinent provisions of the (1) Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the 1933 treaty on statehood, sometimes called the Montevideo Convention), and/or (2) the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Israel, as an existing sovereign state, has a basic or “peremptory” right to survive. From the standpoint of the government’s responsibility to assure citizen protection, a responsibility that goes back in modern political thought to the 16th century French philosopher, Jean Bodin, and also to the seventeenth-century English theorist, Thomas Hobbes, this right is also a fixed obligation. It was, therefore, entirely proper for Netanyahu to have originally opposed a Palestinian state in any form, an opposition, incidentally, once shared by Shimon Peres, himself the proudest Israeli champion of a “two-state solution.”

To wit, in his otherwise incoherent book, Tomorrow is Now (1978), Peres had said the following about Palestinian statehood:

The establishment of such a state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces into [Judea and Samaria]: This force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other military equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in [Judea, Samaria] and the Gaza Strip…. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence.

In writing about “time of war,” this former prime minister had neglected to mention that Israel is already locked in a permanent condition of war. The war, not “tomorrow” (whatever that was intended to signify) is now. Pertinent target “infrastructure installations” could include Dimona, and also a number of other presumably vulnerable Israel nuclear reactor facilities.

Any Israeli arguments for Palestinian demilitarization, however vehement and well intentioned, are certain to fail. International law would not even expect Palestinian compliance with any pre-state agreements concerning the right to use armed force. This is true even if these compacts were to include certain explicit U.S. guarantees. Moreover, per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, because authentic treaties can only be binding upon states, a non-treaty agreement between the Palestinians and Israel could prove to be of little or no real authority.

What if the government of a new Palestinian state were somehow willing to consider itself bound by the pre-state, non-treaty agreement? Even in these very improbable circumstances, the new Arab regime could have ample pretext to identify relevant grounds for lawful treaty termination.

A new Palestinian government could withdraw from the treaty-like agreement because of what it regarded as a “material breach,” a reputed violation by Israel that allegedly undermined the object or purpose of the agreement. Or it could point toward what Latinized international law calls Rebus sic stantibus. In English, this doctrine is known as a “fundamental change of circumstances.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/syria-today-and-palestine-tomorrow-ii/2013/09/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: