Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Good news - Israel publicly trashes Kerry's peace mission

In remarks to Haaretz today, ‘senior Israeli official’ shows Netanyahu to be the rejectionist, making it easier for Abbas to take ‘unilateral’ steps soon.  

Well, that was quick. No sooner does John Kerry wind up his first trip to Israel-Palestine to restart the peace process than the Netanyahu government publicly trashes his plans. Haaretz diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid reported today that a “senior Israeli official” said Kerry asked Netanyahu to free prisoners, transfer weapons to the Palestinian Authority and give up control of certain parts of the West Bank for the sake of Palestinian economic projects. Netanyahu, however, won’t consider any of these “confidence-building measures” until after peace talks get underway, said the official.

The Catch-22 here is that Netanyahu’s conditions for starting negotiations ensure that they won’t start. Kerry, reasonably enough, wanted Israel and the Palestinians to try to solve their long list of disputes in stages, and to start with borders and security arrangements. That would require Netanyahu to delineate for the first time where he thinks the borders of a Palestinian state should lie, something PA President Mahmoud Abbas, reasonably enough, is asking for. Netanyahu, though, doesn’t want to give the Palestinians anything, certainly not a state, so he’s insisting that the peace talks address all the most contentious issues at once. Haaretz:

Israel demands that if negotiations are to be resumed they will need to address, in parallel, all core issues of the final settlement – including the issue of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state , and a solution to the refugee problem. “If the discussion commences with talks about borders and security, Israel will only give, and will get almost nothing in return,” the senior official said. “When we get to the issues where the Palestinians will need to give something up – like the right of return – we won’t have any bargaining chips left.”

This is the argument of someone who has no intention of reaching an agreement, who only wants to structure the negotiations so the other guy says “no” before he does and thereby gets the blame for the talks’ failure. The truth is that in any good-faith negotiation, the more issues on which you reach agreement, the more incentive you have to compromise on the ones that remain. If the Palestinians got an acceptable deal from Israel on the borders of its state, they would have that much more motivation to give ground later on refugees, which is indeed necessary if they and Israel are ultimately to sign a peace treaty. Netanyahu, however, knows that if he divulges the borders he has in mind for this so-called Palestinian state, as well as the security arrangements he would demand of it, neither Abbas nor Kerry nor anyone else outside of Israel and the Republican Party would take him seriously as a partner for peace negotiations, and he would be blamed for torpedoing them at the start. Better, from Bibi’s point of view, to kick off the talks with demands that Abbas can’t fairly be expected to meet – like renouncing the right of return and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. That way he gets the blame.

These are the mechanics of Israel’s rejectionist strategy, as spelled out by a typically blinkered senior Israeli official in today’s Haaretz. It seems, then, that the speech Obama gave in Jerusalem three weeks ago didn’t really change the world.

The ball is now in Kerry’s court. I don’t see him going to war with Netanyahu – the Obama administration clearly doesn’t have the guts for that – nor do I think he’ll try too hard to pressure Abbas to agree to Netanyahu’s terms – Abbas is not going to commit suicide.  Kerry will probably try to get the two sides to meet somewhere in the middle, which I don’t believe will happen because they’re on two different planets politically – the Palestinians want independence and Israel doesn’t want to give it to them – so this current U.S. attempt at Middle East peacemaking will fade to nothing like so many before it.

But by blowing off Kerry’s mission so brazenly, Israel, presumably, has pissed off the Americans – not enough, unfortunately, for them to sanction this country, but maybe, just maybe, enough for them to let Israel suffer the consequences of its policies. Today’s statement of Israeli rejectionism is good news, a possible small step in the right direction: it makes it easier for Abbas to follow through on his promise to take the occupation to the International Criminal Court and proceed with other “unilateral” steps unless Kerry’s efforts deliver meaningful results within three months, which ain’t gonna happen. As long as the right wing is in power here, nobody’s going to sweet talk Israel into giving up the occupation; this can only be done by uncompromising, adversarial means that magnify Israel’s crime against the Palestinians before the world, that threaten Israel with pariahhood – and only the Palestinians can do that, because nobody else cares enough. Hopefully, then, the senior Israel official quoted in Haaretz today brought the occupation one step closer to The Hague.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Giora Me'ir

      Kerry’s on a fool’s errand. His eagerness and enthusiasm runs into a brick wall. Netanayahu and company see no reason to budge. He’s in no danger of losing power. Obama treated him with kid gloves on his trip. And he knows from Obama’s first term, that Obama has no stomach for pressuring Israel.

      The one fly in the ointment is the Palestinian success on the international diplomatic stage. But as long as Obama is prepared to veto UN resolutions, and to discourage the Palestinians from utilizing this course, it’s a minor annoyance.

      The only thing that will get him to move is the credible threat of loss of U.S. financial, military or diplomatic support. And that is about as likely to happen as the current Israeli government voluntarily evacuating Ariel.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Danny

      Nothing good can come out American intentions, regardless if they are in good faith or not. The U.S. has deep economic, political and social problems at home, so one should not have too high expectations from this crumbling empire.

      The Palestinians should continue on their present course of upgrading their diplomatic status at the U.N. with the long-term goal of eventually taking Israel to the ICC.

      With the occupation inching towards its sixth decade (!), one may assume the compensation and reparations Israel will owe the Palestinians is in the tens of billions, if not more. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Israel has become so leery of ending the occupation.

      Reply to Comment
      • rsgengland

        Do not forget the compensation that will need to be negotiated for the million plus Jews ETHNICALLY CLEANSED from the Arab/Muslim lands in the Middle East/North Africa, in the wave of Antisemitism that swept the area after 1948.
        Most of those Jews were not Zionists, or they would have been able to dispose of their property and possessions, and leave for Israel in an orderly way.
        As it was, the refugees arrived in Israel mostly penniless, after having been dispossessed of their property, assets and thousands of years of community and culture.

        Reply to Comment
        • Danny

          What I’m referring to is compensation for 46 years of brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, during which Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians, injured tens of thousands, incarcerated hundreds of thousands and destroyed homes and businesses of millions.

          In my humble estimation, the compensation Israel owes to the Palestinians may run up to $100 billion! Perhaps this is one reason why Israel is so reluctant to reach a final settlement with them?

          Reply to Comment
    3. XYZ

      I will repeat the comment I made on Noam’s thread praying for international action against Israel:
      ———————————–
      I don’t believe an international pressure campaign is ever going to happen. Most people in the world don’t care about the Arab-Israeli conflict, viewing it as one of the numerous unsolvable international conflicts. Unlike some people here at 972 and other “progressive” sites, most people don’t spend their time and energy worrying about the Palestinians, the settlements, etc.
      It must be remembered that the “occupation” is legal in international terms based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which say that Israel’s presence in the territories is legal pending the achivement of peace agreements. The Palestinians have refused to make a peace agreement with Israel.
      Nowhere does 242 say that Israel is obligated to accept the terms the Palestinians demand, it just calls for negotiations and a compromise agreement, keeping in mind that it doesn’t call for a complete withdrawal to the pre-67 lines.
      There is one thing the Palestinians could do, but won’t, and that is to make a public declaration (in front of the Knesset, if possible) that they are prepared to sign a COMPROMISE peace agreement with Israel , giving up the “right of return” in exchange for a complete withdrawal to the pre-67 lines. No Israeli gov’t, even that of the Likud, would be able to refuse, just like Begin had to capitulate and give up every inch of the Sinai. We all know that would be the inevitable outcome of such a Palestinian offer. However, they can not do this, because the “right of return” of the refugees is FAR MORE important than “ending the occupation” becuase it is the very core of the Palestinian struggle against Israel, not the territorial issue and “the occupation” which are secondary.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Kolumn9

      What incentive does a Palestinian leader have to compromise on refugees once he has an agreement on hand to receive a state with boundaries he likes? On the other hand If he compromises on refugees he might get shot or thrown out of office. What is the value of ‘peace’ for the Palestinians once they have already achieved a state within boundaries they find acceptable?

      Abbas can do whatever he wants. Whatever you and others may think Abbas can achieve at the ICC or international forums is ludicrous. The ICC may or may not take the case, will take years to rule, and has exactly zero enforcement power. I heard the same nonsense about a world-shattering symbolic event before last November and as far as I can tell the world is yet whole. Not only that but all that such political steps do is to force Abbas and the Palestinians down the road to a two state outcome which reduces overall pressure on Israel to make any real compromises on the ground in order to get to the same outcome. All roads for the Palestinians lead back to negotiations.

      Kerry will be back with a better plan as soon as the Palestinians get desperate enough.

      Reply to Comment
      • Actually, the right of return is a fictional nationalist issue of great divisive power. Without substanial, sellable agreements on land and security, the right of return blows up all proposals, for limiting the ficitional right is an alienation of part of the nation. You would need an operational agreement on the real issues before return can be made what only can be tenuously symbolic. Return is an abandonment of the exterior refugees–which has largely already happened. Gaza uses it as a foil against its own deprevation. Return nicely symbolizes the absurdity of the endless talks. Playing it as first card is a way of insuring nothing happens.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          It is a symbolic card which grants a permanent Palestinian conflict with Israel its legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinians and the Arab world. Without resolving this card and accepting Israel in its current form there can be no assurance that the conflict actually ends, which is what Israel wants from peace negotiations. The issue is so divisive precisely because it determines whether the conflict is over or not for the Palestinians. An agreement on territory, borders and all other practical issues without an agreement on such symbolic issues is meaningless within the context of actually achieving an end of conflict while for the Palestinians it means getting additional resources and power to continue the conflict with Israel. This is the reason why Hamas is making noises that it might accept some kind of agreement on borders with Israel, because it doesn’t actually signify an end to its legitimacy to continue the permanent war against Israel.

          Reply to Comment
    5. XYZ

      It seems all of you here at 972 are waiting for a deus ex-machina where some outsider will miraculously come along and force Israel to do what you want We recently had elections here in Israel, did it occur to you to go out and stand on street corners or go door-to-door and convince voters to vote the way you want, i.e. for MERETZ or HADASH? Have you ever asked yourselves why Israelis don’t vote the way you want?

      Reply to Comment
      • You are right, XYZ. Get ready for a binational State with subjugation. Tear downt the Wall! Let’s get history moving.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Here’s the difference, K9: If Netanyahu were to agree up front to 67 borders w/land swaps and Palestinian sovereignty over the land, air and territorial waters – e.g. the same right to build an army as any other state has – it’s very reasonable to think Abbas would compromise on refugees – he’s already done so in his statement to Channel 2 and, according to Palileaks, in his negotiations w/Olmert (where he agreed to 100,000 refugees over 10 yrs, which I, at least, consider no problem). But if Abbas were to agree up front to such a compromise on refugees, would Bibi then agree to 67 borders w/land swaps and full Palestinian sovereignty? I’ll let you answer that.

      Reply to Comment
      • XYZ

        If Abbas would announce that he was giving up the RoR in return for a 100% Israeli withdrawal to the pre-67 lines, there would be an outbreak of worldwide mass hysteria just like when Sadat told Cronkite he was willing to come to Israel. Netanyahu would have NO CHOICE but to accept it. The Americans would force a diktat on us.
        The problem is that there is no chance of this ever happening. The RoR is the very base of the “Palestinian Revolution”, more importantant than territorial mattser, because it is the RoR that will ultimately eradicate Israel, regardless of the borders. The RoR would eventually guarantee that the Palestinians would get all the territory in the end, whatever the interim “peace agreement” borders may be.

        Reply to Comment
        • Look at what I wrote, XYZ – Abbas effectively renounced the RoR on Channel 2 and Netanyahu predictably dismissed it and the U.S. and the rest of the world did nothing. I used to think that if the PA gave up terror, the world would force an end to occupation; the PA has not only given up terror but fought it alongside the IDF and Shin Bet for nine years, and in return Israel laughs at them and the world goes along with it.

          Reply to Comment
          • XYZ

            Like I stated in my comment on Dahlia’s thread about some HAMAS person making supposedly “moderate” statements in an interview…..there is NO SIGNIFICANCE whatsoever in “moderate” statements made in media interviews. Nasser and Arafat would also make moderate statements which were then retracted. There is a long history of this..these interviews are part of the psychological warfare they are conducting against us in order to make some people think that they are the “moderates” and we are the intransigent side. Any real change in policy would be announced formally in front of their own people. But, in any event, Abbas CAN NOT and WILL NOT give up RoR. I believe Arafat told Clinton he would be assassinated if he gave up that or other basic Palestinian demands. Even if he dined want to give it up, he has no authority to do so. What about HAMAS? “Progressives” always ignore them because it is convenient to in order to claim that supposedly “there is a partner”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Moderate-sounding statements that mean nothing, like Bibi’s Bar-Ilan speech? Abbas has proven with his actions for nine years that he’s ready to live in peace with Israel, while Bibi has proven with his actions that he’s an unchanged, unchangeable colonial tyrant. But about RoR – the Palestinians will never renounce it and no one should expect them – but going back to Camp David in 2000, they’ve shown their willingness to negotiate limits on the numbers of returnees. Israelis don’t want to recognize this because Israelis are a political basket case.

            Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Why do you think it is reasonable that Abbas will put his head on the chopping block once he has Israeli concessions on borders and statehood in hand? I see absolutely no reason to believe this assumption is warranted. What would he gain from such a step other than a bullseye on his forehead?

        Find me the document where Abbas agrees that 100,000 is the final number and there will be no demands for more after ten years. That document does not exist. Seriously, I keep seeing this nonsense in a bunch of places and I have looked for it in Palleaks and to the best of my knowledge it simply is not there. In other words, the Palestinians would achieve a state with a military sitting on top of hills that overlook Tel Aviv and would have in hand internal legitimization for terrorist groups to shoot rockets into Tel Aviv while arguing that the conflict isn’t finished because Israel refuses to be overrun by another x million refugees. How is this even remotely a reasonable outcome of negotiations for Israel?

        For Bibi and for all Israeli negotiators the important aspect of negotiations is to have an end of conflict on hand at the end of negotiations. If the Palestinians are not willing to make symbolic and ideological concessions in that direction than any and all compromises on territory or security arrangements are just assets to be used by a stronger Palestinian foe in continuing the conflict.

        Reply to Comment
        • I made a mistake – the PA agreed to 150,000, not 100,000. Akiva Eldar in Ha’aretz: “The Palestinians, Erekat wrote, agreed to the return of 15,000 refugees a year over 10 years. Thereafter, refugees would only be permitted to settle in Israel through an agreement between both sides. The document’s original Arabic version does not state how many refugees will be allowed to return to land that is now defined as Israel.”http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/palestinians-threaten-to-adopt-one-state-solution-1.266295

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Find me the actual document, not the quote from Eldar. I have seen many things in the press. If it is in Arabic I’ll translate it for you. Nowhere in the English is there a position short of refusing to accept any limitation on the future number of Arabs that would enter Israel. There is a demand for Israel to accept responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem, a demand to recognize the principle of the right of return and a vague statement about revisiting the issue in 10 years. In other words, the demand is for Israel to accept the principle of accepting an unlimited number of refugees, to implement the return of some amount and then to open it to pressure in the future to accept the rest in order to actually ‘resolve’ the issue. How is that not a recipe for a future resumption of conflict?

            Reply to Comment
          • Eldar quotes from what he says is a 21-page doc written by Erekat – I tend to believe he’s telling the truth, but I think I’ll ask him. Beyond that, at Camp David the Palestinians were negotiating with the Israelis a mechanism for a minimum number of returning refugees that Israel could agree to – that’s what Khalil Shikaki, who was on that panel, told me. This doesn’t add up to your reading that the Palestinians have never budged from their demand for an open-ended RoR. But like I said, I’m going to ask Eldar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Which part of this contradicts my position?

            From the document
            ==============
            On the other hand, the Palestinian side stated the following:
            Solutions for the refugees? properties would be discussed.
            The right to return is safeguarded by the international law and UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
            The return of 15,000 refugees to Israel on an annual basis for a period of ten renewable years.
            Return to the State of Palestine shall be subject to the Palestinian law only.
            An international compensation fund shall be incorporated, whereby all refugees would be compensated regardless of their choice. The right is to return, not to either return or receive compensation.

            =====

            There is a demand for the recognition of the principle of the right of return and a rejection of any limitation on the choice of individual Palestinians. There is a demand for the entry of an unlimited number of refugees with an immediate demand for the absorption of 15,000 per year over 10 years. There is an implicit demand that the issue be revisited in 10 years and that there is no end of conflict.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Richard Witty

      I think your most important point is of the Israeli electorate, that the electorate selects its leadership, and that leadership has only limited latitude as to the extent that it can differ from its constituency.

      Your last point about Israeli pariahhood is not going to occur, as you note in your comments about Israel pissing off the US to the extent of irritation, but never to the point of renunciation or condemnation.

      The only path forward is electoral, to make the better argument first.

      Hearts and minds.

      And, the relevant political argument to make is that the majority of Palestinians are willing to reconcile, and that peace is possible.

      To the extent that it becomes impossible, then rather than an #and# construction of live #and# let live, you/we participate in the construction of the argument of live #or# let live.

      There is criticism of the Kerry effort that there was no effort to continue the Obama theme popularly of “walk in their shoes”, then followed by political efforts. (A Haaretz editorial today.)

      But, EVERYONE demanded “do something” of Obama and Kerry. Do, don’t talk.

      Maybe talking, organizing, is the first work of the day.

      Popular consciousness is NOT constructed by Jeremiads, but almost entirely by the presentation of options.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Hannah

      “If the Palestinians got an acceptable deal from Israel on the borders of its state, they would have that much more motivation to give ground later…”

      Seriously??? Like Israel hasn’t tried that 5 times already?

      Larry Derfner, you used to write for the Jpost. Where were you in 2000, when Israel’s PM Ehud Barak offered Arafat 98 percent of the West Bank – and the “peace partner” responded by triggering the “Second Intifada”? Or maybe you aren’t old enough to remember….

      Reply to Comment
      • Hannah, Barak didn’t offer Arafat 98%, more like 93% – would you accept a deal in which Israel got to keep 93% (or 98%) of “Israel proper”? Moreover, it was the 93% of Israel’s choosing – after all, why should the Palestinians have any say in where their country is? Furthermore, it contained very, very little of E. Jerusalem for a capital. Finally, the Palestinians were not to be allowed to build a military, of course, nor have control of their borders and airspace. In sum, Barak never offered the Palestinians a state – it’s a lie Israelis like to believe.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Barak offered Arafat 93% and a capital in East Jerusalem. He offered them a state with a limited military capacity, something hardly unusual (see the limitations on the Japanese military after WW2 or the limitations on the German military after WW1). There is even an article on countries with no militaries in wikipedia that you can look up, so the presence or absence of a military is not actually an indication of whether an entity is a state or not.

          A state of Palestine would arise at peace next to the state of Israel. Whether the state consists of 93% or 98% or 100% doesn’t change whether a state was offered or not.

          On what objective basis was a state not offered?

          Reply to Comment
          • No Palestinian military worth the name, no control of airspace, Israeli radar stations on Palestinian territory, Israeli soldiers inside Palestine along the border w/Jordan, no right to sign treaties w/foreign countries, main E. Jlem neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty, 93% of the W. Bank instead of 100% – if you want to call that a state, you can. Your examples of the limitations placed on post WWII Germany and Japan as a precedent for Palestine are interesting – they committed a few acts of aggression that Palestine hasn’t, and those limitations were terms of surrender (thanks for the tip about Wikipedia!), which we’re supposedly not demanding of the Palestinians.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            There are still British bases on Cyprus and never did that country lose a war to the British or had to surrender. There are American bases in Cuba and that country last I checked didn’t carry out any acts of aggression against the US. The British are still in Gibraltar and the French are still in Djibouti. And all these are yet states and the link I pointed you to has others that have no militaries and yet are states. Some states are entirely surrounded by other states and have no access to the ocean which leaves their import/export and borders crossings effectively under the control of their neighbors.

            There is no objective definition you can use that would classify what Israel proposed to the Palestinians to not be a state. And so it would have been a state with a capital in East Jerusalem and its citizens free and at peace with Israel and with access to the Israeli infrastructure and with that probably the highest standard of living in the Arab world (outside of the gulf). They would have had control over the territory and their laws would apply and they can choose their own government and they would have been able to enter treaties with foreign states and had their own flags, symbols, diplomats, etc, etc, etc….

            Reply to Comment
          • I’m talking about a “state” according to the rule, not the exception, of what constitutes a state – what people, certainly Israelis, think of as statehood – sovereign independence on your own land. Israel never offered it to the Palestinians.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Exceptions in definitions are a part of the definition. All these countries I mentioned are sovereign states. Israel offered the Palestinians exactly that – a sovereign state like others that exist in the world. The Palestinians want more, but you are no longer even trying to use logical arguments to make your case. You have gone to ‘what people think’ rather than what actually is or isn’t true.

            Reply to Comment
          • No, I’m using words as they’re commonly understood, not like a lawyer who’s looking for a loophole.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            No, you are arguing like a politician that already lost his legal case and tries to appeal to the common man for understanding.

            Sovereignty and statehood are terms used in an international legal setting. The expression ‘the way they are commonly understood’ in reference to them is about as meaningless as anything could be. The way who understands these terms? A vegetable seller? A plumber?

            I am done with this discussion. You know you lost.

            Reply to Comment
    9. Your position was that there is no document where the Palestinians refer to a number of refugees. The word “renewably” is not something Israel would or should agree to, but to say that that word makes the reference to 15,000/10 yrs meaningless is, I think, going way too far. Re the Palestinians reiteration that they have the RoR – even while Israel won’t and shouldn’t agree, neither should anyone expect the Palestinians to abandon it – it’s one of those things the two sides will have to agree to disagree on. About declaring end of conflict – the Palestinians don’t say they wouldn’t. I think a fair reading of this section, especially in conjunction with the previous Palestinian negotiations on RoR at Camp David, is that it’s “encouraging.” Ehud Olmert, who was the guy sitting with Abbas, certainly thinks it is.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Larry, I never said the Palestinians didn’t have a position on a demand for the immediate repatriation of a number of Palestinian refugees. I said there is no document in which they agree to limit the end result within the context of the end of conflict. Both you and the links you provide state that they have immediate demands on the matter with an abject refusal to indicate any withdrawal of a demand for unlimited right of return. In other words, the links support my position.

        I agree that a situation where the Palestinians agree to discuss the practicalities of the implementation of such a right to be encouraging but actually resolving the conflict demands a final position on the matter rather than trying to push the issues in conflict 10 years down the line while demanding that Israel accept in principle a Palestinian position that is contrary to resolving it 10 years down the line according to the Israeli interpretation of the matter (that is, after 10 years there is no more repatriation). Such an Israeli position (of refusing to renew the agreement) would be perceived rightly as being contrary to the principles accepted by Israel within the context of such negotiations (that is that Palestinian refugees have an unlimited right of return) and would allow Palestinian groups to renew the conflict in the future. An end of conflict is not a situation where the Palestinians will come 10 years down the line and declare that Israel has backtracked on its agreement to recognize in principle the right of return for all Palestinians and to declare that a conflict against Israel is legitimate.

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard Lightbown

          Won’t come to anything anyway. As long as Bibi demands recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition there will be no negotiations and the status quo will continue quite happily. Ain’t that so Dotan?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >As long as Bibi demands recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition

            This is not Bibi’s demand, silly.

            Until all Arabs and all Muslims recognize that Israel is Jewish state and Jewish homeland – there is no chance for peace.

            Reply to Comment
    10. For what it is worth (again), the RoR is a fictionalized symbolic nationalism, fictional because there is no present intergrative nationalism–and for that fiction quite important. The only way to difuse its importance is to actualize agreement on other issues. 100,000 returns (which strikes me as a lot) is symbolic national intergration on the issue, but not material intergration. Palestinians have to decide the RoR has been satisfied and, practically, that means giving up some nationalism. You do that with some success in hand, when the fights “at home” can be controlled. You don’t force the issue from day one. Given the importance of world Jewish nationalism to Bibi et al., I think they know exactly what they are doing by so forcing the issue.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        RoR is a right. A right so basic that is part of customary law.

        So the bottom line is give an Israeli one bag and 30 minutes and throw him out (leaving everything behind, including money). On average for how much money would he be prepared to stay out?

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >RoR is a right. A right so basic that is part of customary law.

          There is no law which would imply that refugees must be returned into the territory they’ve resided in 50-100 years ago.

          Reply to Comment
    11. XYZ

      Larry-
      Germany and Japan have significant restrictions on their sovereignity. Japan is not allowed to have an army according to the constitution forced on them by MacArthur and the Americans (they call their armed force a “self-defense force” instead) and they have major American bases on their soil.
      Germany also has a significant number of foreign NATO foces on their soil as well. Although it was officially to defend Germany and Western Europe from the Warsaw Pact forces, it was also quietly acknowledged that an addition reason they were there was to keep an eye on the Germans themselves.
      In any event, both Germany and Japan are very successful countries in spite of the restrictions.
      What about the EU itsself…the countries there are also restricting their sovereignity. In spite of this, Avrum Burg says the EU is the fulfillment of the Messianic dream of the Biblical Prophets . Why can’t the Palestinians work within a similar framework?

      Reply to Comment
      • Let Israel accept those same restrictions and it will be perfectly fair to apply them to Palestine. You see, I have this anti-Semitic idea that Palestinians and Israeli Jews are entitled to the same rights.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >You see, I have this anti-Semitic idea that Palestinians and Israeli Jews are entitled to the same rights.

          Pity that nor Palestinian neither any other Arabs seem to have the same idea.

          Reply to Comment
        • XYZ

          Aren’t Japanese entitled to the same rights as Americans? Or Germans? Why should the Palestinians, and the Arab side in general, have “equal rightst to Israel after decades of aggression against Israel? Parallel situation to that of the old Axis powers, as I see it. For that matter, why don’t Puerto Ricans have the same rights as Americans? They have no representation in Congress nor can they vote for President, even though the US controls their island. What about residents of Washington DC who have no repreesentation in Congress to this day and only got the vote for President in 1960?

          What I see here is a condition of idealization of the Palestinians and other “Third world people” in which the “progressive” attributes to them qualities of sainthood and victimhood and thus end up taking their side in all arguments, regardless of the merits.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ken Kelso

          Larry Derfner, you seem to be silent on the racist genocidal Abbas media against Israel.
          Palestinian Fascism doesn’t seem to bother you.
          Here are you so called peace partners.
          http://www.palwatch.org

          Reply to Comment
    12. Ken Kelso

      Regarding Jerusalem, Israel will surrender it the day after Muslims cede Mecca. Same thing.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Ken Kelso

      For 4 years Abbas has refused to negotiate with Netanyahu cause Abbas is a rejectionist.
      It figures Derfner is now supporting Holocaust Denier and Munich financier Abbas.
      You know Abbas wrote a book called
      The Other Side: the Secret Relations between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement.

      In that book, Abbas declared that the gas chambers were never used to murder Jews and dismissed as a “fantastic lie” that six million Jews had died in the Holocaust; at most, he wrote, “890,000″ Jews were killed by the Germans. And they were killed, Abbas wrote, in part as a result of Zionist provocation orchestrated by Ben-Gurion from 1942. Or, as he put it: “The Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government’s hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination.” All of this was designed somehow to facilitate the victory of Zionism.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Ken Kelso

      Larry, the real problem is global Arab/Moslem insistence to spread hate, violence, wars, terrorism, lies, false accusations against Jews and reducing Jews to subhumans or second class citizens – slaves or servants – without any human rights.

      You know Larry right now in the 22 Arab countries there are less then 9000 Jews. Jews are barred from practically all the Arab countries. Fatah has a death penalty to any Arab that sells land to Jews.
      When you have Palestinian leaders teaching their people, If there are 10 Jews and you kill 6 of them, how many Jews are Left?
      When you have these same wicked leaders telling their people that Jews are the sons of Pigs and Apes.
      When you have Palestinian Mufti’s teaching in Mosques that the highest goal for a Muslim is to kill the Jews and then you understand why 84% of the Palestinians supported the Mercaz Harav yeshiva massacre in 08 in Jerusalem.

      2nd, you need to learn some history.
      The Arabs are invaders from Saudi Arabia.
      Tell me Mr Genius, how do the Arabs have 22 countries when all the Arabs come from 1 country” Saudi Arabia?
      How did the Arabs get all of North Africa from the Berbers?
      Look at the blacks in Sudan, Mauritania and Somalia.
      How the heck did those people become Arab?
      Its called Mohammad and his Jihad armies in the 7th century invaded and took the entire Mideast and North Africa and forced everyone they defeated to be Islamic and Arab.

      Why isn’t America and Europe recognizing a Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan or Syrian Kurdistan?
      Why isn’t America recognizing a state for the Berbers in North Africa? Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia were all Berber land before the Arab invaders took the land from them in the 7th century.

      Even though their was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians.
      After all, the Palestinians are Arabs from the surrounding states, thats why before 1964, Palestinians were called Greater Syrians. 3 Times from 2000 to 2008, Israel offered the Pals a state, something no Arab or Islamic country ever did.

      The Palestinians refused to end the conflict as long as it meant that they would have to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign, permanent country and neighbor. Only when the Palestinians extremist/rejectionist/supremacist attitude changes will peace really be possible.

      The Arabs continually initiate the violence. The Israelis have not fired the first shots.
      Do the Palestinians expect not to be fired back on? Its ok for them to blow up school kids on buses, shopping malls, disco’s, pizzeria’s and Passover seders.
      Someone please explain to me how the Israelis could possibly live next to such a violent people. I personally don’t see how it can be done at this point. All I see is the Palestinians provoking war and using any method they can to get all of Israel.
      It seems that after 5 decades of terror and murder against Israel.

      The Palestinians might have realized that this campaign of terrorism and rejectionism has failed.
      By the way, how many Muslims have been killed by Muslims this week in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen? How many have been killed by Jews? Numbers please.
      Palestinians should get one thing into their heads: the world does not revolve around them. They share the blame for their situation, because they always wanted everything and never wanted to compromise. First and foremost that NOBODY, and least Israel owes them anything.

      Right now the Pals dont want to compromise and think Obama and anti Zionists like Larry Derfner will deliver Israel on a silver platter.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Ken Kelso

      Hamas and the PLO derive their legitimacy by killing Israeli secretaries and high schoolers.

      Virtually all of the Palestinians killed during these past 12 years were suicide bombers, terrorists killed in gun battles, dissidents lynched by fellow Arabs for their beliefs, women and children used as human shields or foils by their “brave fighters” – and yes, dozens of people who were caught in the line of fire. Few recall that when Israel began using aircraft to destroy terrorist facilities (following the massacre of Jewish shoppers at a Netanya mall) the Jews actually publicized the targets in advance, in order to minimize Arab civilian casualties.

      Every morning, at least one Palestinian wakes up with a smile and the thought, “I’m going to murder some Jews today.” They strap on explosive belts and guns, and search out any soft target they can find – a city bus, a baby, a student, a jogger. Israelis do not wake up in the morning and set out to murder Arabs. In rare instances when a Jew actually injures or kills a Palestinian, he is arrested and prosecuted. Contrast this with the Arab hero who shoots a Jewish baby. This “martyr of the Terrorstinians” will be eulogized by Hamas and Fatah, his family made rich and his picture proudly displayed throughout the Arab world.

      The Palestinians have raised an entire generation to believe that the highest aspiration in life is to kill Jews. The Palestinians are engaged in an unremitting campaign of targeted murder of women and children. When the Palestinians massacre Israeli school children on buses, and babies in baby carriages, they celebrate. They have raised an entire generation to believe that the the highest cultural and religious value is the massacre of Jews. Through the Arabs hate, an entire generation has lost the capacity.

      Do these Palestinians ever think of something else other then murdering Jews in Jerusalem so the Arabs can ethnic cleanse Jews there.

      http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/5-arabs-indicted-for-temple-mount-shooting-plot/2013/04/18/

      5 Arabs Indicted for Temple Mount Shooting Plot

      The gang was supported by the Hamas military wing, the Izz a-Din al-Qassam Brigade, and Fatah’s military arm, The Al-Aqsa martyrs Brigade.
      Yori Yanover
      April 18th, 2013

      Reply to Comment
    16. Does it Matter

      Can Anyone tell me, maybe I am missing somehting here? Say PA goes to ICC and Israel was found guilty…Do you really think that will do anything significant or make Israel give back what it stole? As long as US is in ISrael side…Palestinians can go ICC …nothing will happen, ICC is as useless as UN is

      Reply to Comment
    17. RLStevenson

      Yes, why would the Israelis want to give anything of what they have taken, when they are intent on only taking more?

      Reply to Comment
    18. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel