7 comments for ”Peace talks officially dead: time to move on to Plan B“

    
  1. The quote you bring from Netanyahu in 2002 about the Oslo Agreements being “null and void” was made at the height of Arafat’s suicide bomber war when cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had almost completely collapsed. It is merely a declarative statement without any operational significance. You know very well that Oslo does define the relationship on the ground between the PA and Israel which has improved considerably since then, regardless of the stalemate in the official “final status” negotiations. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a direct violation of the agreements which prohibit either side from changing the legal status of the territories unilaterally. Thus, should the PA do that, Israel would be free to do things like annex some settlements, or hold up transfer of payments to the PA or restrict the operation of their security forces, or change the allocation of water resources or any number of other things.

    In any event, I don’t believe that the PA will declare a state, since establishment of an “independent state” is not the ulimate goal of the Palestinians, it is merely a vehicle to advance their true aim, which is to have implementation of the Palestinian refugees “right of return” which would swamp Israel and turn Israel into another version of Lebanon. Proclamation of an independent state could lead to Westerners sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to say “see, now you have your state, that is the end of the Israel-Palestinian conflict”-leaving the refugee demand up in the air. This the Palestinians will avoid at all costs.

  2. 
  3. [...] התפרסם במקור באנגלית במגזין המקוון "972" 0 תגובות למאמר // תגיות: [...]

  4. 
  5. Well, we have been all over the some of these misperceptions in the past (“viable Palestinian state” is not an issue, it is THE issue, or more accurately, one of THE issues. A nonviable state would just implode or explode sooner or later), so that’s not very interesting.

    What’s new and interesting here is mentioning Kosovo. That’s a very bad way to appeal to the State Department. The US would very much like the “Kosovo precedent” to disappear, especially after what Russia did with it.

    And in this case, it cuts both ways – Kosovo doesn’t control its northern Serb-majority part, right? And lots of people want a “territory exchange” where Serbia gets the northern part, while Albanians get a few Albanian majority towns in southern Serbia – so if anything, it’s Lieberman who benefits here.

    Second, the PA would be a “fait accompli” only as long as Israel (and maybe Hamas too) allow it. That’s pretty weak for a “fait accompli”. If anything, this kind of thinking serves Israel better. Ergo, I have some doubts whether this move is actually good for the PA (maybe only if they know the US will veto it?) – but we’ll find out, won’t we?

  6. 
  7. The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

    The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that’s exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

    A. No peace with Israel
    B. No recognition of Israel
    C. No negotiations with Israel

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

    And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

    They had many chances.

    They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list.

    Oh well. That’s their choice. Game over for them. They won’t have a state here.

  8. 
  9. The would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

    The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that’s exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

    A. No peace with Israel
    B. No recognition of Israel
    C. No negotiations with Israel

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

    And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

    Olmert also offered them a state in peace here in OUR land- and they rejected it.

    They had many chances.

    They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list.

    Oh well. That’s their choice. Game over for them. They won’t have a state here.

  10. 
  11. since long, two neighbors have a fierce struggle. Its about two things. the neighbor on the left expanded his grounds by taking ground from his neighbor on the right. by doin’ so, he also came into reach of the fruits of the right neigbors apple tree. and he takes so many of them as he could. and did not stop doing so until now. one day the two neigbors fight, again. Shouted the neighbor from the left: You are a lousy and false hypocrite, for you just misuse these few taken apples and the few square meters of ground as an excuse so that you not have to come to peaceful terms with me…

  12. 
  13. [...] The NYTimes puts the Wild Card on the agenda Part V Right wingers get nervous about unilateralism Part VI Peace talks die, a call for Obama to think again about the Wild Card [...]



Leave a comment