Comments on: Are Palestinians walking into a trap at the UN?

By: ARTH

ARTH — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:16:42 +0000

Yes, they are walking into a trap. Without any sort of mechanism to implement this recognition, they are trapping themselves, on their own initiative, into the paradigm for a “Bantustan”-like territory.

By: directrob

directrob — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:17:12 +0000

Ben,
I understand recent history was scary still all risks considered would you rather live in a dictatorship? Or do you just think a Jewish state is safer than a democratic secular state? Cannot every state derail?

By: Ari

Ari — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:27:25 +0000

You’re missing the whole point. The Palestinians are not declaring Areas A and B of the West Bank (the parts where they have civil control) to be their state. They’re declaring all of the territory outside the Green Line as their state. That means that 500,000 Israeli citizens (most living in post-1967 areas of Jerusalem, or just outside the city) will be illegally living in another country. The entire Old City of Jerusalem–including Jewish and Christian holy sites–will also be legally Palestine.

Far from accepting a Bantustan, Abbas is unilaterally claiming a state with maximalist boundaries. He’s doing this because he knows that he and future generations of Palestinian leaders will unable and/or unwilling to make the genuine territorial (post-’67 land swaps) and ideological (’48 refugees) compromises necessary for genuine peace.

By: Ben Israel

Ben Israel — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:24:16 +0000

Directrob-
Pre-1933 Germany was a secular state with equal rights for all. Interwar Poland was a state that guaranteed equal rights for all. The USSR was a state that guaranteed equal rights for all. Egypt, Iraq and Syria before 1948 had constitutions that guaranteed rights for all citizens. Yet in all these countries, things didn’t work out so well for the Jews, as I am sure you know. So we are not as trusting of other people’s motives as you seem to be.

By: directrob

directrob — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:59:32 +0000

Sylvia,
I firmly believe that the Israeli conflict can be solved by the creation of one secular state that protects the rights of all (including religious rights). I do not know what is vicious about an Israel where everyone has equal rights. It is way better than the current situation.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:01:15 +0000

In apartheid South Africa, a black worker who for something or another needed to go to the Gldstone family home, would have gone to the back door (blacks were prohibited from going to the front door), would have waited for someone to open the door, and would have asked, staring at the ground: “Is the Master home?”.
.
I was reminded of this yesterday precisely as I was reading the drivel about ‘apartheid Israel”. While at my computer, a Palestinian working on a construction site in my street, wanting some ice, pushed my front door wide open, entered the house and standing in the living room, shouted: “Mishehu babayt?” (“Anyone home”?).
I garantee you that this couldn’t happen even in equal and democratic America today.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:47:10 +0000

Directrob
I know there are a lot of good points in Palestinian Basic Law. But that’s not the point is it?
The point is that you knowingly and viciously push the notion of the “secular state” of Palestine, even though you know it is not the case. Even though you know full well
that the Palestinian Basic Law has already established that the future Palestinian State will be an Islamic State goveerned by Sharia.
It doesn’t matter how many times you’re corrected, you’ll still push the “secular state” lie.
Because you take people here for total idiots, I expect you’ll do it again.

By: rfjk

rfjk — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:26:16 +0000

Beyond bantustans and a sort of reformed apartheid, I don’t recall Afrikaners proposing anything similar to ‘two states for two peoples.’

And as far as apartheid is concerned, Gaza and the W. Bank have long been carved into bantustans with Hamas and Fatah suckered into being its goalies and enforcers.

Back in June of 2009 in an attempt to pacify US pressure Netanyahu reversed himself and finally agreed to a two state solution. It of course was a ploy because he conditioned it with a counter demand that Palestinians accept Israel as a “Jewish State.” What he didn’t envision were Palestinians like Salam Fayyad who would take him at his word and vigorously start building & reforming Palestinian institutions and civil society.

I believe a trap was sprung on Israel. And its architecture was created and tripped by Netanyahu’s big mouth. Fatah’s leadership and some moderates in Hamas exploited the opportunity and have successfully managed a strategy to breakout of the snares & entraps of Zionists, that have reduced Palestinians to helots under the Israeli boot.

An interesting result is the virtual impotence of US influence with allies and the global community regarding nixing the Palestinian initiative. I’m not convinced the US is so demonstrably weak and powerless to act, incapable of using its considerable leverage on this issue and believe the US is playing a double game, whereas its anti-Palestinain public posture is more affectation than real.

By: RichardNYC

RichardNYC — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:06:07 +0000

Any moral comparison to SA is overshadowed by the striking demographic differences: SA whites were 10% of the population and geographically dispersed, while millions of blacks lived outside the Bantustans. Bantustans simply weren’t where blacks lived. But the West Bank is where Palestinians live, so why would they get more territory than that? There’s no proposed “transfer” of millions of Palestinians on the table, so the comparison to SA doesn’t make sense.

By: delia ruhe

delia ruhe — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:58:18 +0000

If Bibi can turn it into a trap, then it’s a trap. So is NOT going to the UN.