Slouching towards Annapolis

Ron Thompson

If you'll pardon a personal note, something like the follwoing is what I'd like to see at Annapolis. It's amazing to me that this was apparently never the back-up position of the US in the awful charade of 'negotiations' with Arafat over the wasted years, Ron Thompson TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE - The Idea of a Palestinian State Why the Idea of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza is Morally Wrong, and a Permanent Practical Impediment to Long Term Peace in The Middle East by Ron Thompson, Fairfax, VA submitted to House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, February 14, 2007 Isn't the record clear? For 60 years and counting, the Arab States (with the partial and reluctant exceptions of Egypt and Jordan) have refused to make affirmative peace with Israel. In 1974, after four wars [1948, 1956, 1967, 1973] all lost and after each of which the Arab states refused to sit at the peace table with Israel, a feeling of nationalism, grounded in Anti-Semitism, among the Palestinians emerged and crystallized around the PLO, a terror organization, was irresponsibly anointed their representative by the Arab States meeting in Morocco. The Arab and Loslem World has been in clear violation of the United Nations' recognition of the legitimacy of the Israeli State since 1948. It is outrageous that this violation of the international community's will has been without penalty or even verbal censure all these years. It is additionally outrageous that, as a result of this non-condemnation, the view of moral equivalency between the positions of Israel and the Palestinians (and other Arab States), expressed in such language as "the cycle of violence", has been allowed to grow and acquire the aspect of normalcy. Why does anyone reasonably expect that a Palestinian State, up against the heart of Israel, would lead to peace? Why, in the face of decades of refusal to accept the presence of Israel, do so many fall into the view that "everybody knows what a final settlement will look like," when there are no logical grounds to expect that peaceful result? What does it take to accept the Arab world's NO? To consider that the Palestinians DO NOT WANT a State if the price of that State is a genuine and affirmative acceptance of Israel. Therefore, whatever legitimate grievances the Palestinian people and leadership once had , these grievances have, for many years and even decades, been morally and practically overborne by the wars and campaigns of religious hatred and intolerance, culminating finally in the lunatic violence of the suicide bombers, initiated by men who can't defeat Israel in normal warfare, and so have indoctrinated their children to kill themselves and as many Israeli children and other civilians as they can. Imagine a family or clan who had some legitimate rights to a choice piece of real estate. Imagine further that all the active members of that clan pursued their claim solely by means of serial murders, armed robbery, home invasions, and other such tactics. Looking at any respected body of National domestic law, how long would such claims survive the use of such tactics? A great deal of the responsibility for this dreary and terrible course of events rests on the United Nations, including Europe's timorous complicity in the 60 yr refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel, and to evidence that acceptance by establishing normal diplomatic relations with the Israeli State. As long as legitimacy is given to the idea of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza, there will be an endless incitement to Palestinian terror and Arab State irresponsibility. The idea that Israel deserves secure boundaries between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River has nothing to do with a "biblical" claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It rests solely on historical and geopolitical grounds - Grounds that have come to include the national self-interest, not only of the State of Israel, the United States, and the States of Europe, but also, in a curious way, of the Arab States as well - who have made it overwhelmingly clear that they are unwilling or unable to accept the existence of Israel as a matter of their own rational and long-term self interest. Take the idea of a Palestinian State in The West Bank and Gaza OFF THE TABLE.

John Edwards

Yes it is a farce. The only possible two state settlement would involve Israel withdrawing to its own borders in compliance with UN Resolution 242. The chances of thisare Nil. More likely would be a US/Israel attempt to exploit Palestinian divisions to impose an "interim" settlement effectively annexing parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel. Not even the current Fatah leadership could ever agree to that. The latest demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel as "a/the Jewish State" is almost certainly designed so that when the talks fail the Palestinians get the blame. It is of course, an impossible demand which could never be accepted without compromising the rights of Israel's non Jewish citizens and also the right to return of the 1948 refugees.

Lee Jakeman

When things go wrong, choreographers always seem to blame the dancers ...

djd

I'm really not at all so clear on why this negotiation shoulkd be so "painful." The Israelis need to make it clear to even the Ken Livingstons of the world that they are prepared to sacrifice everything for peace except security and the inherent Jewishness of the state. Nothing else really should matter. If the Arabs don't unequivocally accept, fine. What's been lost?

TDK

I'm impressed by John Edwards one sided description of recognition as an "impossible demand". Impossible for the Palestinians because of the "right of return". Strangely he finds no room to mention the impossibility of Israeli acceptance based upon the simple equation of demographics. I mean why can't the "returnees" live in the putative Palestinian State? Quid pro quo for the approximately equal numbers of Jews expelled from the Arab world, which he also inexplicably fails to mention. Apparently only some refugees deserve consideration!

field

I think you're making a polemical point here Melanie rather than offering a positive way forward. It ain't gonna happen. Why would Jordan drink from that poisoned chalice again? They haven't forgotten Black September. For better or worse the only alternative to an armed truce or an active war is a two state solution with the two states being Israel and Palestine. The right of return issue is not so difficult to handle with good will. The idea Palestinians settled in the USA are going to hot foot it back to Israel is ridiculous. The real problem is the absence of good will with the Palestinian people being so infected with genocidal ideology.

Elliott Vizel

"Condi's Folly..." Like so many US diplomats trying to write their place into history in the dying days of a presidency (eg. Clinton's Taba agreement), the Middle East is the petard they inevitably foist themselves upon. It's the diplomatic version of quicksand. It's almost too embarrassing to watch...

Stuart

John Edwards:- Res 242 does NOT state that Israel should return to 'it's borders'. You need to read it. Israel complied with Res 242 in negotiations with Egypt and Jordan, the former landlords of the areas occupied by the Palestinians. In a sense Egypt and Jordan dumped the Palestinians. Perhaps they should be made to take them back.

Joshua

Resolution 242 calls for, inter alia, "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". The British were largely responsible for this particular form of words. Harold Wilson, who was PM at the time, said the following about 242 (I quote from memory): "If we had meant all the territories, we'd have said all the territories. Because we didn't say all the territories, we didn't mean all the territories." Minister Nabil Shaath has declared that the PA will not accept "borders based on UN Resolution 242, which we believe is no longer suitable." (from Wikipedia).

Joshua

John Edwards writes: "It is of course, an impossible demand which could never be accepted without compromising the rights of Israel's non Jewish citizens and also the right to return of the 1948 refugees" Three points: firstly, there is no such "right"; secondly, such a course of action would result in, at very best, the destruction of the Jewish state, or, at worst, mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population; thirdly, this would result in not a two-state solution but a three state-solution in which there would be three Palestinian states, in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, and also what is now Israel.

Allan Sharp

When the 'moderate' arab states also wish to see Israel destroyed, shouldn't the word 'moderate' be qualified?

Stephen Rothbart

Two canards: There never was a Palestinian state or country until Arafat claimed to be the head of one, and Israel and the West made a big mistake granting him that deceit, which has come back to haunt them. The second is that Israel alone is blocking the right of Palestinians to trade. Has not Gaza a border with Egypt? Has not the West Bank borders with other Arab States, notably Jordan? How come the Palestinians can not get their goods through those countries? Presumably they do not try to send in suicide bombers and gunmen to kill their fellow Muslims? Oh - sorry, yes of course they do.

Blonfelfelch

This post demonstrates just how far to the right of the Israeli consensus Phillips is. Israel is not being dragged to Annapolis; it is the result of months of talks which Olmert has carried out with Abbas, with the approval of the Israeli public. A few years ago, Phillips was an enthusiastic supporter of Sharon-style unilateralism. Look how far she has travelled from that point. For now, suffice to say that her views are irrelevant to the people she claims to care about.

Stuart

So here is what the 'peace-seeking' Palestinians think of Israelis (sorry, Jews) http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/3762.htm Note the Der Sturmer characterisation of the Jew. Under The Roadmap they were suposed to have stopped this. Why haven't they?