Netanyahu promises "peace negations"?

by David L Wed Apr 08, 2009 16:39

Nicely spotted. Since the charter of Likud is opposed to any Palestinian state, I wonder what there is to negotiate about in the first place. These negations of the 'peace' process present European govts with a conundrum. On one hand they all support the two state solution. On the other hand neither the elected representatives of Israel or Palestine do. It seems that two-statism is dead.

At least Hamas have promised a generation long truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, followed by negotiations. All Israel offers is this generation long war.

by Vincent Wed Apr 08, 2009 21:37

David,

I dont think it presents a fair picture of the situation to say that the leaders on both Palestinian and Israeli conflict reject a two-state solution. Hamas have made it clear that while they ideologically reject Israels claim to any Palestinian land they realistically accept that Israel exists now and are therefore perepared to accept a Palestinian state in the pre 67 lands with Jerusalem as the capital beside Israel. That is an acceptance of the two state solution.
Abbas is a poster boy for the two state solution and if the truth be known would probably settle for any old Bantustine in the occupied territories tomorrow just to say that he achieved something.

Netanyahu utterly rejects the two state solution and refuses to recgonise the right of Palestine to exist or for the Palestinian people to have a right to sovereingty or proper democracy.

Surely we dont need to make it any easier for the usual suspects to claim that their is parity in this situation.

Israel is the only real impediment to the two state solution.

by Hubris Thu Apr 09, 2009 00:24

The 2 state solution is dead, and Israel knows it. That is why they changed their tune, roughly 18/24 mths ago and started talking about it as if it were something they had desired all along.

It is not possible to have a 2 state solution because the geographical area left to the Palestinians is not viable as a state, and the zionists know this very well. So they talk of a 2 state solution because they already know it is impossible and they are trying to do anything to avoid talking about the only viable solution left.

Anyone calling for the 2 state solution now is a damn fool and no friend of the Palestinians.

A One state solution is the only viable option. A land for all the people, not just some of them. The realisation of that by the will kill the Zionist project stone dead in the water - and the Zionists know it, which is why they changed their tune 18/24 mths ago. A last desperate attempt to save what remains of their chance of maintaining Israel as a racist state

On Jan 2nd of this year everything changed - I know because I saw it change - the world got sick of the Zio-lies. The atmosphere in Cybersphere changed dramatically - all of a sudden people were not afraid that they would be called 'Anti-Semite' for criticising Israel actions. All of a sudden things kept hidden for years were being talked about. Israel is a walking Zombie corpse - Gaza proved it - which is why they need a new War. They believe it will rejuvenate the tired old veins of that clapped out War Junkie formerly known as 'A light unto nations' [sic]

Supporters of Israel are now reduced to implying that critics are under the influence of seeekrit subconcious anti-semitism, I kid you not.

Read ALL of this if you don't believe me: http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/chris-of-c...onds/

How pathetic is that?

Bye Bye Israel - so not nice to have knwon you.

by David L Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:45

Good point Vincent in pulling me up on my comment. Like you say, Hamas effectively does accept (if not support) a two state solution. Your wider point about the danger in positing a false parity between Israel and Palestine is also well made, and I'm annoyed with myself I did it.

On one-state vs two-state, what we have now is effectively a one-state 'solution', and I agree with 'hubris' that the best thing is to work towards a just and equal one-state. However I disagree that supporters of two-states are the enemy of Palestinians, especially since most Palestinians would support two states. Granted, I think two-states is not going to happen (and maybe no harm there), which is why more Palestinians have become one-staters. But it is possible to be principled and pro-Palestinian and still support (the increasing mirage of) two-states.

by Hubris Thu Apr 09, 2009 13:40

The Growing Belief in a One-State Solution

http://www.counterpunch.com/hijab04082009.html

Olmert's Nightmare

By NADIA HIJAB

Ehud Olmert's nightmare is at hand. Not only does the former Israeli prime minister now really have to fight those corruption charges. He also faces the realization of his fears that the Palestinians might give up on a two-state solution in favor of a struggle for equal rights that would mean, as he put it, the "end of the Jewish state."

Yo, Ehud, that struggle is a growing movement, and it isn't a threat to Jews -- on the contrary, Jews are very much a part of it.

Just last weekend in Boston, American and/or Israeli Jews accounted for nearly a third of the 29 speakers at a conference organized by TARI (Trans Arab Research Institute) with the William Joiner Center at the University of Massachusetts.

This is the second major public conference on how to achieve a single democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis. The first was held in London in November, and a third is slated for Toronto in June. . . . .

by Vincent Thu Apr 09, 2009 14:29

Well said, David. I, personally, totally disagree with Hubris' assertion that anyone calling for the 2 state solution now is a damn fool and no friend of the Palestinians. Whilst Hubris highlights good points which are valid and widely accepted such hyperbole as to call two-state proponents enemies of Palestinians is not constructive and will certainly play into the hands of the Zionist mob.

The reference point for realising Palestinian rights is the two state solution as proscribed in International Law with a joint capital in Jerusalem under international tutelage and a full and unconditional recognition of the right of return for the Palestinian refugees. These points are non-negotiabale and are inalienable rights of the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians through democratic plebicite can relinquish any of these principles. It is not for anyone else to decide on these issues. These are the reference points to which Palestinian national aspirations are anchored , to tear up this anchor is to set a very fragile boat afloat on a very stormy sea with no harbour in sight and two captains trying to sail in two different directions.

The two-state reference point under International Law is critical, non-negotiable and inalienable.

by Hubris Thu Apr 09, 2009 16:07

Vincent

Ok I admit that sentence you took offence to was a tad Hyperbolic, nonetheless the Zionists are terrified of a 1 state solution - that would mean the end of their imposed racist solution. Hence their desire to now appear reasonable on the matter of a 2 state solution.

Irrespective of your thoughts on the matter, and irrespective of what the UN (that bastion of pure unadulterated uselessness) says, there appears to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of the 1 state solution.

Interestingly enough the younger generation of people that identify themselves as 'Jewish' in the US appear to be on their way to accepting the need to acknwoledge the inherently racist nature of the Zionist project (Israel).

I'm not sure if you have ever read any of the words of the early Zionists such a Zev Jabotinsky. If you ever did you might have noticed that the Zionist project desires a state between the Mediterrainian and the Euphrates. This obviously would entail the break-up/dissolution of modern-day Iraq and also Syria and Jordan. Equally obviously this will involve killing a lot of people, Jewish and Non-Jewish (though probably a lot more Non-Jewish than Jewish) in order to achieve that desired State.

Interestingly enough the dissolution of modern-day Iraq is one of the stated aims of that document known as A Clean Break (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm) available on the website of the organisation known as Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. That document was signed by a number of people many of whom appear to self-identify as Jewish. This indicates to me that the document should be seen as the articulation of the Zionist plan for the future of the Middle East.

This is the main reason that the state of Israel has so far refused to accept/delineate it's boundaries, in my opinion. To see it otherwise appears to be to be decidely foolish.

Also Israel cannot survive in it's current form without constant conflict with it's neighbours. This is due to it's constant need to aquire news sources of water, without which it's industries cannot continue to operate. You may have noticed, if you have ever shopped in Tescos, that Israel exports a lot of agricultural produce. Many of these agricultural export, such as Herbs and Potatoes (imagine - Middle Eastern potatoes exported to Ireland, fer F sake!) are very water hungry when they are being grown.n This explains the need for constant expansion of the so-called 'Settlements' (colonies) in the West Bank in order to control all local sources of water.

At present Israel has a deal with Turkey to supply water via a pipeline. This water will most likely be extracted upstream from rivers that flow through Israel's neighbours, Lebanon and Syria. This will be a further source of conflict between these 3 countries in the future, when Lebanese and Syrian experience water shortage due to the extraction upstream of water by the Turkish Gov't, for Israeli requirements.

Eretz Jizrael (Greater Israel) as envisaged by the Zionist founders of the State of Israel

by Vincent Thu Apr 09, 2009 20:43

I am not disputing the fact that your stated opinion has broad support and also is strongly supported by facts on the ground.Unfortunately it is only the facts on the ground that are driving the logic that is causing the groundswell of opinion in favour of the one-state solution when in truth the one state solution has always been the better ideological option. Utopia, whereby the people voluntarily share the land as equal citizens under a democratically elected government. But this is a fantasy that Palestinians can ill afford at this point in time. Waving the One state solution in the faces of the Israelis as a threat is a very dangerous tactic that can have only one result in the short term - more death and suffering for the Palestinians.
Israelis will never accept such a thing without firstly violently lashing out against it. That's the government first, the army second and the settlers third. The PA will be crushed , Gaza will be sealed shut tighter than an airlock and nothing will stand in the way of the pogroms that will rage throughout the West Bank.Who knows perhaps after two, five, ten, twenty years of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing the International community will intervene against Israel and set up some insane quasi-quasi-statelet under International/ PA control where people are able to enter and leave village compounds through safe corridors to Jordan. But Palestinians Statehood will be a more distant dream than it is even now. And because the Palestinians will have relinquished their rights under international law to a two state solution, they will now have no reference point to fall back on.
If the Utopian one state solution can be achieved at all it is only through the establishment of an autonomous or independent Palestinian entity on as much land as can possibly be wrested from Israel now without ever relinquishing inalienable Palestinian rights to full sovereignty on the 1967 lands and Jerusalem. Eventually a federal republic of some description will evolve and eventually Palestinians will gain full Human Rights throughout the entire land. Eventually.

by Vincent Fri Apr 10, 2009 13:41

Ilan Pappe and Uri Avnery are two great men who have devoted many years of their lives to understanding and expressing the needs for a just solution to this conflict. Here is a debate between the two men on the issue of the Two State Versus One state solution. Both men arguing with passion and logic and with more knowledge and first hand experience than I could certainly bring to the debate. Uri Avnery argues for the Two state solution with undeniable logic. He says of the One state solution : " There can be no doubt that the One State Idea gives its holders a moral satisfaction. Somebody told me: OK, perhaps it is not realistic but it is moral. This is where I want to stand. I respect this, but I say: this is a luxury we can't afford. When we deal with the fate of so many people, a moral position which is not realistic is immoral. It is important to repeat this: a moral stance which is not realistic in immoral. Because the final result of such a stance is to perpetuate the existing situation "

Ilan Pappe agrues passionatley for the One state solution and says this of the two state solution : " If the principle of Justice be the basis for those who support the partition of this country, there is no formula more cynical than the Two States Solution, as it is now presented in the Peace Camp. 80 percent of the country to the occupier, and twenty percent to the occupied. That is, 20 percent in the best and utopian case. More likely, no more than 10 percent, a dispersed and surrounded ten percent, to the occupied. "

Anybody who has not read this debate but wants to understand this issue must read it now. It is crucial reading on this subject.

http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe110607.htm

by Sean Og Sun Apr 12, 2009 00:02

A lovely map - where did it come from -what date and who published it ?

Eretz means " land " in ancient and modern Hebrew - not Greater
and Yisroel = Israel

The Land of Israel or Eretz Israel in historical terms meant the land occupied
by the 12 tribes of Israel roughly equal to the West of the Jordan area
plus some parts east of the Jordan = present day Golan and Northern part of kingdom of Jordan
[ Bashan and Gilead ]

by Danny Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:17

Unfortunately too many important debates on the issue of Palestinian Independence in their homeland get dragged into the nonsense world of Biblical Mythology. I imagine that if the Irish had resorted to the myths and legends of Cu Chullainn and Queen Maebh in order to sort out their political differences with the Brits then we would be extinct. However the Bible seems to be the political rule book by which the Palestinians are to be dealt blow after blow.

by thesystemworks Sun Apr 12, 2009 21:38 whowillrunthefroghospital at gmail dot com

When Netanyahu said 'peace concessions cause wars', this is not Orwellian doublespeak. It is fact. For example, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 in accordance with all UN demands. Israel has no territorial claims in Lebanon. Yet Hezbollah launched an attack in 2006, to weaken the country - which they believe they can do as a result of concessions Israel made without any security guarantees from the other side. Gaza had its chance after 2005, yet the Hamas junta still believe they can destroy Israel, especially after Israel can foolishly give land away for nothng in return. Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu's coalition partner was 100% right when he said the 'Land for Peace' approach is a failed concept - Israel should only trade land for land, and peace for peace.

by Sean Og Sun Apr 12, 2009 22:35

I do not think any modern political Israeli or Zionist leader in the past 150 years

ever proposed a modern Jewish State on the lines suggested by the map shown .

The Hebrew text indicates Eretz Yisroel spreading to Iraq which seems to be a fallacy

as I pointed out earlier .-even the most maximalist Zionists only referred to

the League of Nations British Mandate promise of a Jewish National Home

on both sides of the Jordan [Israel West Bank and present day Jordan ]

" Trans Jordan being "awarded " to the Hashemite youngset son Abduallah

in 1921 to keep him quiet and stop further revolts in Syria , Iraq etc .

by Zoey Mon Apr 13, 2009 05:19

BALFDOUR DECLARATION

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

You see ? As always the most imporatant part of the Bafour declaration has been ommitted :

" it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine "

These rights have been utterly crushed for at least 60 years.

As if Balfour had the "Right" to make such a promise in the first place.

http://www.answers.com/topic/balfour-declaration-1918

by thesystemworka Mon Apr 13, 2009 18:56

Also, hubris, your map makes no sense. Eretz Israel refers to the Land of Israel, not 'Greater Israel' - and the Zionist movement never envisaged a Jewish State that would stretch into Iraq. From what nutty source did you get this rubbish?

by Ron Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:42

I can tell you that this map was taken from Carta Atlas for the Biblical Era, and the title is "Masa'ei (=journeys) borders - The tribes colonization borders" - as described in Masa'ei chapter in the Bible, since originally the Hebrew Bible is devided differently than the Christian one.
The text underneath is phrases from Numbers 34.
"...this shall be the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof...'This is the land wherein ye shall receive inheritance by lot...to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half-tribe...the two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sun-rising".
The whole text is here.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0434.htm
The map shows were they sat, on the left part of the it.
That's it.
Sorry guys, but it is equivalent to getting a map of the Roman empire, with the title "The Roman Empire under Trajan in 117 AD" and saying "I've found this map in the internet, but I don't read Italian, so I decide that this is what Italians today want".