Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to endorse a “two-state solution” in a much-heralded speech this weekend, but he may stall on American demands to freeze Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Feeling the squeeze between the US Administration, which wants a moratorium on settlement growth and a commitment to a Palestinian state, and his national-religious coalition, which favours neither, the Israeli Prime Minister appears likely to try to steer a middle course.
Israeli newspapers were full of speculation about what Mr Netanyahu ”” who has so far refused openly to back a Palestinian state alongside Israel ”” might offer to deflect pressure from Washington. Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, urged him this week to recognise a Palestinian state, but members of Mr Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party have cautioned him against the move.
Now all Obama’s got to do is to convince the “Palestinians” to accept a 2-state solution. Hamas is still a big one-state bunch, a state quite [i]judenrein[/i].
Nobody is talking to Hamas right now. I don’t think that is wise, because I think that talking to both the settlers and Hamas is how the plan will have to move forward.
“If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them” – Ismail Haniyeh Feb 2006
“Yes, we accept an independent state in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War. This attitude is not new and it is declared in the government’s platform” Ghazi Hamad
Granted, there are plenty of statements made that have been hostile and less conciliatory. But to assert that there has been no attempt for peace on the Palestinian side is empirically untrue.
However, I don’t recall where an Israeli plan for peace has been proposed, along the lines of the Abdullah plan.
And the Hamas Charter, what does that say?
No kidding, Jeffersonian, or “verbotenjuden”; something like that…
:-/
Once again John W stands athwart the facts and yells “Stop!”
http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/maps/peace_david2.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/peaceplans.htm
If Israel were denied American Foreign Aid, American weaponry, American security umbrella and American protection in the UN Security Council, they would be more inclined to treat Palestinians humanely and seek peace with their neighbors. Unfortunately, they count on all this and they always get it no matter what they do. Why is this? Is it because they lobby our President and Legislators? I don’t understand. Cheney and Bush are gone.
Israel has the only democratically elected government in the Middle East – since Pres. Truman recognized Israel’s right to exist, they have been one of our staunchest allies. If Israel were denied all that you list, little searchers, you can be sure that the surrounding countries would try their best to annihilate her (more so than they do now). And what do Cheney and Bush have to do with anything? Are you thinking of the “neocons”? Israel was our ally long before Bush and Cheney.
Whoops – I should have added above “Israel has the only democratically elected government in the Middle East, except for Iraq“
One should point out that even holding to the 1948 borders, Israel was repeatedly and viciously attacked by their peaceful Muslim neighbors. why does anyone think that pulling back to those borders would advance any sort of peace as long as the only solution put forth by those neighbors is the annihilation of the State of Israel?
It should also be noted that Israel has accepted almost every peace plan put forth by US presidents through Geo. W. Bush, with the result that their Muslim neighbors have taken advantage of those conditions to once again attack Israel from ‘newly granted’ vantage points.
Why should Israel agree to these more draconian terms by the Obama? And what is preventing any of the surrounding countries from giving the Palestinians a home-state of their own on their own? This is like asking the New Jersey to give NYC residents a portion of that state for a new state of Manhattan.
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
Since the cat seems to have appropriated our friend’s tongue, here’s what Hamas’ charter says about Israel and the “two-state” solution:
[blockquote]The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.[/blockquote]
Sounds to me like that Saudi peace plan is DOA, but perhaps it’s that I’m not an expert on the nuances of Arabic. Let’s put this next passage into the wilkinator and see what gets spit out the other end:
[blockquote]There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game.[/blockquote]
This seems immune to triangulation to me.
The majority of Jews in the USA voted for President Obama. They wanted change and now they shall have it. Of course, they will be safe (for now) in their comfortable life in the USA. Statmann
Of course you have to assume that the “two state” solution isn’t simply a tactic aimed at the final elimination of Israel. But not to worry, if Israel were to loose a war, I am sure our liberal firends have a plan to put Israel back together again.
[blockquote]Of course you have to assume that the “two state†solution isn’t simply a tactic aimed at the final elimination of Israel. [/blockquote]
Of course it is. The most revealing part of JW’s Haniyeh quote is the appeal to giving Palestinians back all of their “rights,” the core of which isn’t spoken: The “right of return.” This so-called right means the eventual demographic overwhelming of Israel by Muslims, achieving the destruction of the Jewish state by other means.
Heh – the charter. It’s what everyone pulls out when thinking stops. It’s more of a historical document than a guide to real policy. Besides, there isn’t much incentive to change the document when Israel doesn’t really want a two-state solution itself. It’s quite useful internally, especially when Israel has no intention on honoring its own promises to the US.
Brother Michael mentions something about Israel “loosing” a war. Does he mean starting one? Possible. Losing? Unlikely. I doubt the Arab nations could handle the onslaught of a sophisticated Israeli military. It’s a fantasy of some sort. A convenient one. Israel can play the victim while being an aggressor.
Jefferson, I suppose I could quote the KKK in its relations to black people and suppose that is what the majority of Americans believe, and then complain that because members of the KKK haven’t changed their mind race relations will never improve. I could also question if there could possibly be any improvement as long as there are any members of the KKK in the US.
What everyone seems to forget is that the alternative is a one state solution. A one state solution with apartheid, with the guaranteed result of an Arab majority. Perhaps Israel will begin its own form of ethnic cleansing in the territories.
Lots of countries have done it before. No reason to presume Israel would be no different.
Personally, I think a one state solution in a secular Israel, Jews and Muslims, Arabs and Israelis, living alongside each other in peace, would be better. Alas, religion is, perhaps, poisoning everything.