Egypt and Jordan never desired to flood Israel with pseudo-refugees.

jeffdunetz on November 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Exactly. Israel was negotiating entirely separate issues with Egypt and Jordan.

The Oslo process is a different matter. There was no such thing as the Oslo process before 1991. (Nor will there be after Abbas’s unilateral initiative over the past year, and yesterday’s UN vote, which effectively abrogated it.)

The issue of Abbas recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is tied to the Palestinian Arab strategy for bringing Arab immigrants to Israel as part of a two-state deal. This is usually phrased as demanding the “right of return,” although the vast majority of “Palestinians” living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc., were born in those nations, and had no part in leaving what is now the territory of Israel when Jordan attacked in 1948 or when the Arab coalition attacked in 1967. Jordan and the other nations have declined to make the “refugees” citizens, which after so many decades is evidence of a political goal far other than achieving peace. The evil situation of so-called “Palestinian refugees” is nothing but a policy on the part of Arab nations of sequestering these people, mostly the children of those who left in ’48 or ’67, against a future day when they will immigrate to a modern Israel and West Bank.

Israel will not make any agreement that leaves the door cracked to such a strategy. She has no intention of letting her Jewish population be overwhelmed by Arab immigrants from the surrounding states. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where governments change hands peacefully and civil order makes the people safe. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship peacefully there, and freedom of speech and thought are respected. Israelis don’t want to lose that, and “Israel” would be meaningless if they did. As long as Abbas makes the so-called “right of return” an issue for a two-state solution, Israel will very properly require the PA, including Fatah, to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state, and has a sovereign right to be.

I realize, lexhamfox, that you don’t agree with this. But others may benefit from knowing what’s behind the shorthand in these arguments.

As the arab league handed the “battle” over to the palestinians in the 1980s, flooding Israel with “refugees” became one of their strategies and maintaining the Jewish Character of the state came to the forefront.

Resolution 242 was for the stoppage of war between Israel->and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. At that time they were supposed to return land back to those countries–nothing to do with the Palestinian Arabs. Israel didn’t have to defend its Jewishness then.

BTW 242 didn’t require Israel to go back to the 1949 armistice lines (commonly called the 1967 lines), yet yesterday’s agreement breaks that also.

J.E. Dyer on November 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I do understand that Israel was founded as a Jewish state and I understand the partition plan for a Jewish and an Arab state and I said as much in my earlier comment. Recognition in international relations, statecraft, diplomacy, ..etc does not entail adding on such things and since, as you have pointed out, it was implicit in its founding …why then does Israel demand this from the Palestinians and why only recently?

It is not true that Israel never made a point of being the Jewish state prior to 2007.

I did not make that point. My point was that it was never a condition in negotiations with the Palestinians or with Israel’s enemies who have since made peace and recognized Israel.

If you are aware of any instance where an Israeli government made recognition of Israel as a Jewish state a core issue and precondition to negotiations with the Arab states or the Palestinians prior to Netanyahu then please share it but I can;t recall it being so. It certainly wasn’t a factor during the negotiations and mutual recognition pacts with Egypt or Jordan. It doesn’t appear in Resolution 242 which was carefully crafted and accepted by Israel as the basis for regional peace.

Israel never demanded that other nations recognize it as a Jewish state and there really isn’t a standing in international relations for such recognition.

Actually, UN Resolution 181, from November of 1947, referred 30 times to the creation of a Jewish State, as well as an Arab State.

Israel’s declaration of independence referred to the re-establishment of the Jewish State and an “independent Jewish State in Palestine.” The exact wording of the independence clause itself was as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met together in solemn assembly today, the day of the
termination of the British mandate for Palestine, by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations,

HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL.

It is not true that Israel never made a point of being the Jewish state prior to 2007. The reestablishment of Israel was the result of a century of Zionism that was all about reviving the Jewish state. That history was well known and understood in the late 1940s. One would have been thought a fool to suggest that Israel was not intended by the Israelis to be a Jewish state. The Israelis said explicitly that that’s what they were establishing, and the UN saw a valid path forward with both an Arab and a Jewish state on the territory of the old Palestine Mandate. Israel was prepared to act according to that plan, accepting and recognizing an Arab state as a neighbor, but the Arabs did not agree to it.

You’re entitled to your own opinions on this, but not to your own facts.

lexhamfox

Your history is wrong. Israel was established as a Jewish state and has always claimed to be one. Before 1967 as well as today. The strategy of destroying Israel from the inside was not conceptualized till the 1980s when the terrorist Arafat left tripoli for Judea and Samaria

jeffdunetz on November 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You haven’t challenged my history or pointed out any faults with what I stated earlier. Israel never demanded that other nations recognize it as a Jewish state and there really isn’t a standing in international relations for such recognition. It was introduced in 2007 as an added precondition to negotiations related to the Palestinian question. The critical part of Israel’s security and international standing is recognition by other nations of Israel as a sovereign nation. That was vital to the negotiations with Jordan and Egypt and it remains a problem in relations with other Arab states. I understand that it is a critical concept within Zionism and they are welcome to claim whatever they like. It’s Israel’s business what kind of state it is and its up to Israelis to decide not Palestinians, Americans, or Chinese.

I don’t understand why you are directing comments about Fatah’s 2010 Charter towards me. I have never mentioned the Charter and think it is irrelevant to the matter of mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian state. Since you brought it up, however, I would point out that while you got the preamble correct your other citations don’t jive with the most authoritative translation found here. I think this is a pretty fair summary of the changes and it is at odds with yours.

Fatah is not the PA anymore than the Likud is Israel. Fatah and Likud have obvious similarities and you are right to call Arafat a terrorist just as Begin and Shamir were terrorists but I think paramilitary is the more diplomatic term for leaders like that. The official Likud platform rejects a Palestinian state entirely and Bibi has never come out in favor of a two state solution to the Palestinian question. The Likud platform argues for aggressive settlement of occupied land and Fatah’s charter argues for resistance to the occupation.

The problem is that “moderates” don’t speak publicly much at all because they don’t feel worthy enough to speak out because they far too often don’t view themselves as being adequately devout enough to speak as muslims. Therefore, they far too often allow more devout muslims speak for islam.

This is different from other religions in which the most devout aren’t seen as harboring radically violent views. In other religions the most devout speak out against those that would propose violence in the name of their religion.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

A large part of this perception is the media’s tendencies in general – they aren’t going to go report on a forest that didn’t become engulfed in a wild fire.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

You’re dead wrong about this.

You are probably only trying to claim this because you think it’s true. It’s not. Obviously, you don’t know many muslims.

The voices are out there, I wish they got more coverage too.

Actually, they get a disproportionate amount of coverage. Big coverage for their tiny numbers.

Again, the moderates don’t attempt to speak for islam.

Some people absolutely do want to see Israel have all of what is currently called Palestinian territories. Some go even further to suggest that these Palestinians should be segregated against, believing they should not have voting rights if they are annexed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Why on earth would you even attempt to compare a fringe position with a popular position (which has been, and might still be, the official position)??

It absolutely does cut both ways that people who have such ties to the land should not be disenfranchised from their own land.

“They” weren’t going to be disenfranchised of the SHARED lands (more than any of the other groups that were going to be forced to share it) until they decided that they wanted it all. That decision has now caused some necessary problems (for security, etc. reasons).

That’s what happens to a group that “want it all.” This is why my Austria-Hungry reference is spot on.

This may turn out to be the end of palestine after all….not that it should have gone on this long anyway….

The Internal Charter of Abbas’ Fatah Party written in 2010 did not remove Fatah’s rejection of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state (or any other kind of state) nor did it remove its support of terrorism against Israel. It speaks of

“sacrific[ing] our souls, blood, time and effort. All these are the weapons of the revolutionaries … our tragedy continued throughout all those long years. You must know that our enemy is strong and the battle is ferocious and long. You must know that determination, patience, secrecy, confidentiality, adherence to the principles and goals of the revolution, keep us from stumbling and shorten the path to liberation. Go forward to revolution. Long live Palestine, free and Arab!”

The Charter speaks of the “enemy” and does not mention accepting Israel as a Jewish state or even as a state. Also, it does not mention any rescission of the Fatah Constitution, which calls for

“Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine” (Article 22) and insists that “Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated” (Article 19).

Your history is wrong. Israel was established as a Jewish state and has always claimed to be one. Before 1967 as well as today. The strategy of destroying Israel from the inside was not conceptualized till the 1980s when the terrorist Arafat left tripoli for Judea and Samaria

But it’s all good, we can live in peace with these animals.
SWalker on November 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Crates, leashes and electronic fences help.

It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But don’t call Islam violent or they will kill you.

Islam approaches it’s 20,000 terror attack since 9/11

But it’s all good, we can live in peace with these animals.

It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

Jabberwock on November 29, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But don’t call Islam violent or they will kill you.

Violent Islamic Acts: No Apologies But the Toll Keeps Mounting

Dr. Norman Berdichevsky / Canada Free Press

For those who would like a scorecard from 1948 to the present of violent Arab/Islamic heinous acts of barbarism for which the entire world (including innocent Muslims) are still waiting for an apology…

1.Massive violence between Muslims and Hindus in India on an unprecedented scale following partition (at Muslim insistence) in 1947 and three India-Pakistan wars, terrorism in Kashmir and India resulting in several million killed and at least fifteen million people displaced. As a result, Hindu minority in Pakistan has practically disappeared while Muslim minority has dramatically increased and thrived.

2.Pakistan-Bangladesh conflict, 1971 (following civil war and secession). This war saw the highest number of casualties in any of the India-Pakistan conflicts. It is believed that from one to three million Bangladeshis were killed as a result of this war. Very little media coverage.

3. The eight-year-long war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988 making it longest conventional war of the 20th century resulting in almost a million killed. Tens of thousands of children employed by both sides as cannon fodder to set off landmines.

4.The First Gulf War; Invasion of Kuwait (Aug. 1990-Feb.1991), Operation Desert Storm, the Second Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

5. Ongoing Yemeni and Somali Civil Wars. Thousands killed. No media coverage.

6. Inter-sectarian Muslim violence between Shias and Sunnis in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Several hundred thousand killed.

7. Jordan’s crackdown on “Black September,” 1970. PLO crushed by Jordanian Legion under command of King Hussein (at least 25,000 killed).

8. Syria’s suppression of the Muslim Brothers and opponents of the Assad regime; destruction of the city of Hama (at least 25,000 killed) to wipe out Muslim Brotherhood. Media barred from entering the city. Uprising in Hama by Muslim Brotherhood crushed by Assad regime in Syria Feb. 1982.

9. Current Syrian Civil War. It is quite probable that the son, current Syrian tyrant Baashar al-Assad has already broken his father’s record, at least 20,000 now killed.

10. Al-Qaeda and Taliban violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims are both perpetrators and largely victims for such crimes as sending girls to school, wearing make-up and listening to Western music).

11. Inter-Palestinian factionalism in Gaza; hundreds killed (Hamas activists threw at least 170 members of Fatha off roofs from high buildings).

12. Decade-long mass violence between Muslim religious extremists (Salafist movement) and Algerian government beginning in 1991 estimated to have cost between 150,000 and 200,000 lives. Practically no media coverage.

13. Sixteen-year-long civil war in Lebanon. The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in an estimated 130,000 to 250,000 civilian fatalities. Another one million people (one-third of the population) were wounded, half of whom were left with lifetime disabilities.

14. Iraqi, Iranian, and Turkish suppression of Kurdish autonomy; approximately 180,000 Kurds killed, mostly civilians in Iraq, by Saddam Hussein’s forces via poison gas attacks.

15. Muslim terror against civilians in Chechnya, and additional hundreds killed in Moscow and other Russian cities including children at primary school. Russia’s two biggest terrorist attacks both came from Muslim groups. The Chechniyan separatist “Special Purpose Islamic Regiment” took an estimated 850 people hostage in Moscow in October 2002 at a theater. At least 129 hostages died during the rescue, all but one killed by the chemicals used to subdue the attackers.

16. In the September 2004, 1,200 schoolchildren and adults were taken hostage at a secondary school in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, which was overrun by an Islamic terror group. About 500 people, including 186 children, died in the attempt to free the hostages.

17. Muslim secessionist activity and terrorism in the Philippines (with almost monthly reports by American media that do not mention the words “Muslim” or “jihad”).

18. Darfur in the Sudan; genocidal attacks against non-Muslim Black Sudanese. On July 13, 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, charges that included three counts of genocide, five crimes against humanity, and two of murder. The ICC’s prosecutors have claimed that al-Bashir “masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part” three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. Finally, the Southern Sudan seceded from the Muslim dominated north creating a new state in February, 2011 following a plebiscite approved by 99.6% of the population.

19. Muslim grievances and violence in Thailand; dozens killed.

20. Terrorist activity by local Muslims against the Han Chinese majority in Western China. Several hundred fatalities.

The voices are out there, I wish they got more coverage too.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Islam has a messaging problem then ?
Yeah, that’s the ticket !
It is hard to see beyond all the violence.
s/

That seems really…reeeally delusional.
You mean kinda like a big commune with camp fires and talking drums and junk? The people who are good at talking care of the camels take care of the camels and the ones who are good at making hummus make hummus and the ones who are good at beating the women beat the women..and all the men get to screw the 9 year old girls?? Cool.

Mimzey on November 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I would love to see peace on earth. I wish there wasn’t hatred and violence. I don’t consider it delusional to see it be an ideal where there is peace. But as I stated in the very next sentence, “I don’t think that is realistic right now,” where there is simply one state where everyone with generational ties to the land can just get along.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Some people absolutely do want to see Israel have all of what is currently called Palestinian territories. Some go even further to suggest that these Palestinians should be segregated against, believing they should not have voting rights if they are annexed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

It absolutely does cut both ways that people who have such ties to the land should not be disenfranchised from their own land.

The problem is that “moderates” don’t speak publicly much at all because they don’t feel worthy enough to speak out because they far too often don’t view themselves as being adequately devout enough to speak as muslims. Therefore, they far too often allow more devout muslims speak for islam.

This is different from other religions in which the most devout aren’t seen as harboring radically violent views. In other religions the most devout speak out against those that would propose violence in the name of their religion.

blink on November 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

A large part of this perception is the media’s tendencies in general – they aren’t going to go report on a forest that didn’t become engulfed in a wild fire. Likewise, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack it was much more likely to hear about the attack itself than those who protested it as not representing Libya or Islam: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/

The voices are out there, I wish they got more coverage too.

radicals do not speak for everyone

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The problem is that “moderates” don’t speak publicly much at all because they don’t feel worthy enough to speak out because they far too often don’t view themselves as being adequately devout enough to speak as muslims. Therefore, they far too often allow more devout muslims speak for islam.

This is different from other religions in which the most devout aren’t seen as harboring radically violent views. In other religions the most devout speak out against those that would propose violence in the name of their religion.

Maybe an ideal is they all get together in one big, peaceful country that is equally respectful of both groups.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

That seems really…reeeally delusional.
You mean kinda like a big commune with camp fires and talking drums and junk? The people who are good at talking care of the camels take care of the camels and the ones who are good at making hummus make hummus and the ones who are good at beating the women beat the women..and all the men get to screw the 9 year old girls?? Cool.

I’m not denying there is radical Islam at all. But I don’t think he “may sound extreme” – he is openly arguing that all 1.8 billion Muslims should be killed. This is extreme. That is what I’m taking issue with by arguing that radicals do not speak for everyone, the same as he does not speak for every supporter of Israel when he advocates for what amounts to genocide.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Wake UP.

SWalker is but one private citizen.
In Islam, over 1,000,000 followers will cheer on a fatwa to KILL you should you even say something negative about the religion.
Nearly as many would follow thru on it if they could.
And you missed my point. If the “Leaders” are extreme, so is the country they lead. ALL OF IT.

But what does any of that matter, when you can be “on the right side of history?”

By which they mean, of course, the side of history that seems to have the upper hand at the moment.

You are right certainly, not everyone living in the area would regard themselves as “Palestinians” in the way it is understood now.

Rangeley on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Exactly, that would be like claiming that all Americans should be called Polish-Americans simply because people with Polish backgrounds were a subset of the people in the 13 colonies at the time independence was procured from Britain.

You are right. But it cuts both ways

Actually, it doesn’t cut both ways.

– should Israelis, some of whom have generational ties to the land, be able to claim all of the geographical area of “Palestine” even though they were just one subset?

“Israelis” didn’t attempt to do this. “Israelis” attempted to respect the borders drawn in the 1940′s.

Do you know who rejected the borders? Do you know who was encouraged to reject the borders based on a promise that all the land would be theirs if they did? You get one guess.

Maybe an ideal is they all get together in one big, peaceful country that is equally respectful of both groups.

Do you know who would reject your ideal? You get one guess.

The past really can’t be revisited or revised though; the question should be where to go from here.

Here’s an idea. Let’s encourage and support the one that is determined to destroy the entire existence of the other. /sarc