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

Analysis News

Lapid's platform: No compromise over Jerusalem, no settlement freeze

On the Palestinian issue, the new leader of the Israeli center holds positions that take several steps back from ideas held by Israeli negotiators in the previous decade.

Yair Lapid said in a recent interview that “Abu Mazen is a fraud” (photo: Yotam Ronen / activestills.org)

The surprising success of Yair Lapid in the Israeli elections has led many people to believe that a new window of opportunity could be open for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Lapid himself had said before the elections that he will demand a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Lapid did not, however, detail the policy principles which could reignite said negotiations. His party’s platform – available online in Hebrew here – states that no new settlements will be built during the negotiations, but that settlement growth will be allowed within the needs of the population (Article 2). However, the Israeli government has repeatedly agreed in the past –starting with the Oslo agreement – not to built new settlements but only strengthen existing ones. During that time, the settler population in the West Bank alone (not including the annexed territories in East Jerusalem or around it) has risen from 107,000 (in 1992) to 324,000 (2011). For this reason, the international community has demanded the cessation of all settlement activities.

Lapid’s platform for a final status agreement has several other articles which are worth noting: Article 6 states that there will be no territorial compromise in Jerusalem and that the entire city will remain under Israeli control. There is no mention of the holy Muslim sites or the fate of more than 250,000 Palestinians in the area annexed to Israel who currently do not have equal rights. This is a major step back from what Israeli negotiators offered in Camp David (2000), Taba (2001) and Annapolis (2007).

Article 9 could be interpreted as continuous Israeli military authority within the Palestinian state (it could also be understood as such an authority for the time of the negotiations alone). If it is the former, than the idea renders the entire notion of Palestinian sovereignty meaningless.

Unlike Olmert in Annapolis, who agreed to a symbolic right of return – under the notion of “an agreed upon solution to the refugee problem” – Lapid rejects any mention of return.

Here is Lapid’s diplomatic platform (my translation).

1. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will return to the negotiating table out of good will and the desire to reach a final agreement.

2. During the negotiations no new settlements will be built, but until a final agreement has been reached, the natural growth in the settlements will be taken into consideration.

3. The goal of the negotiations is to reach two nation-states with recognized international borders that have no demands from each other.

4. These borders will take into account Israel’s security considerations and the reality that has been created since 1967. Both sides will recognize that it is in their mutual interest to leave the settlement blocs in Israel’s hands. If necessary, there will be negotiations over land swaps.

5. The refugees will be settled within the future Palestinian state.

6. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and its unification is a national symbol of the first measure. Jerusalem will remain united under Israeli sovereignty because Jerusalem is not just a place or a city, but the center of the Jewish-Israeli ethos and the holy place for which Jews longed throughout all generations.

7. The complete halt of incitement against Israel in the Palestinian education system will be part of any future agreement.

8. Israel will not conduct negotiations with Hamas as long as it won’t change its charter and recognize Israel and the right of the Jewish people to exist on its land.

9. The war on terror will continue at all time, without any regards to the negotiations. Israel reserves the right to act for its security in the areas of the future Palestinian state to the extent it deems fit.

10. The world’s nations will provide guarantees for the fulfillment of the future agreement with clear sanctions in the case of violations.

Yair Lapid presented these positions in a speech he made at the settlement of Ariel during the campaign. I don’t find the act of speaking on the Palestinian issue in a settlement a problem, as some others did, but rather the opposite. Still, it should be noted that Lapid’s positions represent a major step back from those laid out by Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and even Tzipi Livni, who has been the most hardline. Lapid’s positions are closest to the Prime Minister Netanyahu’s interpretation of the two state-solution in his Bar Ilan speech, which rejected the 1967 borders and a territorial compromise in Jerusalem.

In one of his last interviews before the elections (given to TimeOut Tel Aviv, on January 17th), Lapid said the following on the Palestinian issue:

“I don’t believe a word they [the Palestinians] say.”

Q: Do you think Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] is a fraud?

“Yes I think he is a fraud, and I think this is the way we should negotiate with him… out of this mistrust I am saying: ‘let’s go to negotiations on two states for two people, but in a state of total mistrust.’ My goal is not to marry them but to divorce them.”

Ralated:
What Yair Lapid’s anti-Zoabi comments reveal about Israeli politics
Yair Lapid: The rise of the tofu man
Ten post-election, pre-coalition takeaways

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. The Trespasser

      The most pragmatic plan so far.

      Totally unrealistic of course.

      Reply to Comment
      • Jonny

        Could you point to any pragmatic element of the plan. I can’t see one.

        Reply to Comment
    2. aristeides

      “Israel reserves the right to act for its security in the areas of the future Palestinian state to the extent it deems fit.”

      In other words, no state, the status quo. He’ll fit right into the Yahoo govt.

      Reply to Comment
    3. William Burns

      Is there any precedent for a decolonizing power demanding the right to control how the decolonized power teaches its own national history?

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        The Americans in both Germany and Japan did enforce certain educational narratives prior to giving up most control. They still have troops in both places.

        Reply to Comment
    4. meron

      Noam, you don’t find that it is a problem that Lapid presented his plan Ariel because, as he clarified, “there exists no map in which Ariel isn’t a part of the State of Israel”?
      As for the rest, it is a very good article, as usual.

      Reply to Comment
      • Not for this reason. There is something positive to be said on speaking about ending the occupation to the settlers, and in anyway, it’s not that important.

        Reply to Comment
        • Noah

          This is such nonsense. Over a million Arab Israelis live peacefully and freely (freer than many/most Islamic states) in Israel, and everyone gets upset when there are 300k Jews in the West Bank?
          The double standard is atrocious.

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            How many Jews in Israel were forced out of their homes to make room for Arabs? How many Jewish towns in Israel were demolished to make room for Arab towns? How many Jews were displaced to make room for Arabs-only roads in Israel?

            Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        There may exist no official Israeli map, but in the rest of the world, there is no map in which Ariel is part of the state of Israel.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Then, the rest of the world will have to print new maps. It happens once every while.

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Or maybe maps that just say, “Palestine.”

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Maybe.

            Which is why the best strategy for Israel is to liquidate those who are working against the state.

            As Mao had said:

            There in no unresolvable problems, only unreasonable people.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Israel is particularly full of unreasonable people, called Zionists.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            What’s unreasonable in the right for self determination?

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Zionists love self-determination except when it comes to Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Zionists love self-determination except when it comes to Arabs

            That’s probably because Arabs appear to think that their right of self-determination must imperatively include the liberation of Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            So you think that those Palestinians who do not want to surrender to the Israeli state must be “liquidated?” Seems to me that we heard those same words in the 1930s regarding the Jews of Germany.

            In 1933 various newspapers headlined “Jews Declare War on Germany.” If you don’t believe me just Google the above.

            I would hate to think that this lead Hitler to decide to liquidate the Jews but it is certainly possible.

            The call for liqudidating any people should have been over long ago. But you, Mr. Trespasser fall into the ranks of those calling for genocide.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >So you think that those Palestinians who do not want to surrender to the Israeli state must be “liquidated?”

            Since the negotiation is not possible, the liquidation is next preferred solution.

            >I would hate to think that this lead Hitler to decide to liquidate the Jews but it is certainly possible.

            Quite irrelevant analogy. Jews were never given an option to have any kind of state, etc.

            >The call for liquidating any people should have been over long ago.

            On your planet maybe.

            >But you, Mr. Trespasser fall into the ranks of those calling for genocide.

            You just can’t end without throwing in a little stinky lie, huh?

            Activity against a state is an act of warfare, ergo those taking part of it are warriors – and they perceive themselves as such indeed.

            Extermination of warriors is not a genocide by any standard if a chance to give up was given.

            The only problem arises when minors are sent to battlefield, however an armed person is an armed person, age and sex are never regarded.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Palestinian

      The more we negotiate with thieves ,the more they steal .The journey of thieves ,from the owners of nothing to the rules of everything .

      Reply to Comment
      • palestinian

        rulers *

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          You – Arabs – had stolen entire Palestine from Jews – even stolen Spain, and now you are whining that Jews got some of their land back.

          Your complaints are pathetic.

          So much for proud camel-back rider.

          Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            So we stole our villages and cities (its funny how it sounds) from people in Poland and Russia? And Catwoman got engaged to Batman,cool

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            No, you – Arabs – forcefully occupied Jewish cities and villages and had stolen the holiest site on a totally fictional basis.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            What Arabs and what Jewish villages and cities ? Did you forget to take your pill again !

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            What Arabs?

            Arabian Arabs.

            From Arabia of course.

            In seventh century there were no other Arabs.

            What Jewish villages and cities?

            Just to name a few: Jerusalem, Hebron, Nazareth, Beith Lehem.

            Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            You do realize that those were Byzantine cities when the Arabs conquered them?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Byzantine cities populated by Byzantines.

            Right.

            Reply to Comment
          • William Burns

            Which is why some Jews, living under the anti-Semitic Byzantines, greeted the Arabs as liberators.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Which is why some Jews, living under the anti-Semitic Byzantines, greeted the Arabs as liberators.

            True.
            And some actually converted into Islam because they’ve thought that it is some kind of new, strict Judaic sect, which isn’t truth of course, but at the time Palestinian Jews did not have enough rabbis to teach them.

            Which of these events at one hand grant Palestinian Arabs eternal and unrevocable rights to the entire Palestine, while at other hand deny Jews right to have a homeland?

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            Define Arabian Arabs.Are they like Super Arabs ?
            Who is an Arab ?
            These are names of Palestinian cities not Jewish villages.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Who is an Arab ?

            Oi vei. An Arab asking a Jew who is an Arab.

            Dude, if you don’t even know history of your own people there is nothing I can do to help you.

            >These are names of Palestinian cities not Jewish villages.

            ROFLMAOAAA

            I suppose Jesus Christ was Palestinian as well, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            “Dude” why dont you answer simple questions ?Is because you know where it is gonna lead us to ?

            Do you really care what we believe ?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >“Dude” why dont you answer simple questions?

            Why? Isn’t it annoying when someone is simply ignoring your questions?

            “The Kurds ?Well I can play your game ,ask you another question and refuse to answer yours unless your answer mine , isnt that what you did last time ?”

            >Do you really care what we believe ?

            Of course. As long as you believe that I don’t have a right to live in Israel – you are an enemy of mine, which means that I’ll have to kill you before you have a chance kill me, in a nutshell.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            “Before I answer you’ll have to tell me why Kurds until now have no own country and which states are not letting it to happen”

            When someone dives you into a corner , you change the subject.

            By your logic, the Palestinians had the right to kill the Jewish immigrants/thieves/terrorists.

            Reply to Comment
          • palestinian

            drives*

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            No, by my logic Palestinian Arabs have no right to claim sole ownership of the land of Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinian

            10% of the population in Lebanon are Armenian,the vast majority of them were born there yet they have never asked for an Armenian state in Lebanon.Maybe you can learn from them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            In the 7th century there were no other Arabs?

            Not a historian are you?

            Oddly enough, the first textual evidence of Arabs coincides with one of the first extra-biblical mentions of either of the ancient Hebrew (not Jewish, Judaism comes later )kingdoms.

            Moreover, the Edomites are thought to be Aramaicized Arabs, and the Nabateans were definitely Aramaicized Arabs. There were Arab tribes on the border between the Byzantines and the Sassanids, and those respective polities has been using and settling Arab tribes on their borders for centuries at the time.

            In fact, at the battle of Yarmouk that lost most of the Levant to the Muslims, there were Arabs fighting on the side of the Byzantines as well.

            But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your bigotry.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Not a historian are you?

            Obviously, not.

            But since you apparently are, I would be very interested to hear what modern history is saying about the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Specifically – what ethnicities populated cities like Jerusalem, Nazereth and Beth Lehem in 7th centuries, and what ethnicities comprised the invading army.

            Reply to Comment
          • Haven’t you two had this exact same slanging match on at least four other articles? You’ve got long past the point where you should have asked each other out for coffee.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            ROFLMAOAAA

            Thank you, Vicky :)

            I couldn’t stop laughing for nearly a minute.

            I’m surprised that someone is reading all of that. Nah, can’t be.

            I’d happily ask the Palestinian for a cup of coffee in one of Tel-Aviv’s fancy coffee shops, I’m only afraid that meeting people who are not quite as he had imagined could cause a severe cognitive dissonance and have an irreversible effect. He might even begin to like Israelis, Allahu A’lam.

            Should that happen, Israel would certainly be bashed for… hmm… here! using experimental psychedelic chemicals.

            Reply to Comment
          • Oh, I didn’t read all of it. I just saw your usernames alternating in a discussion thread three feet long and decided to make a thoughtful suggestion on behalf of everyone else who is obliged to share the comment box with the pair of you.

            Just under a year ago Palestinian mentioned that s/he had spent two months visiting a ‘mixed’ town. Maybe s/he met Jewish Israelis s/he liked then, or maybe not. But so long as you’re able to write things like ‘Laila is my enemy’, ‘The best strategy for Israel is to liquidate those who are working against the state’, and ‘An armed person is an armed person, age and sex are never regarded’, it’s unlikely that you would count amongst them. It would take something more than coffee to make that look likeable.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Just under a year ago Palestinian mentioned that s/he had spent two months visiting a ‘mixed’ town.
            Maybe s/he met Jewish Israelis s/he liked then, or maybe not.

            Mixed town? All major and a great many of smaller towns have mixed Arab/Jewish/Whatever population.

            Or wasn’t it in Israel?

            >But so long as you’re able to write things like …

            Which of these are not facts?

            Laila does not believe that I have a right to live here and would do anything she can to remove me – to dismiss it would mean disrespect.

            Strategy of liquidation is the only effective way to counter insurgency, next to retreat of course.

            And what’s not to be liked about armed people? I didn’t say “armed Arab”, did I?

            >It would take something more than coffee to make that look likeable.

            The Trespasser can’t be likeable, nor seeks to be liked. Really not the right avatar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            Ethnicities? That’s complex. You’re talking about a time period where most people were forming new identities.

            Jerusalem was mostly Christian. The Byzantines continued banning Jews from the area, and were especially harsh after Jews in the region helped the Sassanids sack Jerusalem a two decades before the Muslim conquest. Ethnically, they were mostly Greek or Syriac most likely, though I don’t know of any documents listing that specifically. Obviously most of them would have culturally been Hellenized or Aramaicized, but genetically could have been Hebrews.

            Ironically, it was the Muslims that allowed Jews back into the city for the first time in centuries.

            For the other two, I don’t know of any existing records, and frankly I’m not going to go into a difficult in depth search through Byzantine records for this comment. I DO know that Christians dominated the region after the Samaritan revolt about a century earlier, and it was unlikely Jews, which were out of favor for most of the period, because their collusion with the Sassanids, ever eclipsed the population.

            The invading armies at this point were primarily Arab peoples. Not just what you talk about as a modern Arab, but also people from South Arabia that were at that time distinct. It was a few decades before Islam really started to spread amongst non-Arabs, and for awhile there was a big debate about how non-Arab Muslims fit into the hierarchy (at this time most of the Arabs also lived in their own settlements distinct from the local populace as well).

            Hope that helps a bit.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Obviously most of them would have culturally been Hellenized or Aramaicized, but genetically could have been Hebrews.

            After all, nearly 600 years had passed since the destruction of the temple, region was multiple times devastated by wars and population probably included most mentioned ethnicities interbred to some extent.

            >Ironically, it was the Muslims that allowed Jews back into the city for the first time in centuries.

            A wonderful time it was.
            ” We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

            We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.”
            http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.asp

            >Hope that helps a bit.

            Every bit of useful information helps.

            What is lacking now is information of how many Jews actually were in Palestine circa 637 C.E.

            Is is said that in 1500′s there were about 5000 Jews in Palestine. Do you find this number correct?

            If we speak about population decrease of 0.5% per year (for the sake of experiment), how many Jews where there 1000 years before that?
            1500 5000
            1499 5025

            638 368227
            637 370068

            Excel formula used: B2=B1*1.005

            Is there any data on average population decrease rates in similar conditions?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            Yeah, interbreeding was fairly common. Though, to be fair, the Hebrews were Aramaicized even during the period of the Temple, it just sped up significantly both during the Captivity and afterwards under Persian rule (after the Persians adopted Aramaic as the official language for government in the Levant). But as far as self-identifying groups go, most of the urban areas were Hellenized and under Byzantine control.

            I sense sarcasm, but that was better treatment than any minority could expect in the ancient world. The Persians were very open minded religiously, but they were very much the exception. Heck, even the ancient Hebrews, especially in Judah were quite nasty to their own minorities. So I wouldn’t be too snarky. The preamble notes that was better than most non-Christians in Europe at the time, and certainly better than the Jews were under the Byzantines.

            Judging history by modern views of morality is a fools errand. They teach us not to do that.

            How many Jews? I have no idea. I’m not aware of any censuses from the period (Byzantine history isn’t my thing, and what I’ve dabbled in tended to be either earlier or later than this period. The Comneans are fascinating). Moreover, seeing as the Levant was in a constant state of war for decades before that, both with the Samaritan revolts (which sometimes included Jews) and the Persian wars, I doubt an accurate count was kept.

            I don’t know about the 1500s. Outside my period generally. From what I know the population was small and confined to urban areas, but I couldn’t give you numbers.

            I’m not a statistician, but I can tell you that is not an effective method whatsoever. You can’t average out population decrease. It depends on too many variables. The economy, peace/war, societal pressures, drought/famine, relative freedom or persecution, assimilation into other cultures, etc. I doubt you could come up with an accurate rate for just one area, let alone in general. It’s too big of a question.

            Archaeological evidence suggests the Jewish population was always fairly low, even when Judah was an independent state. It shrunk under the Assyrians and Persians. It rebounded under the Romans, even assuming 1/10th of the numbers Josephus reports (which are way too large) the population was large enough to absorb the loss of up to 100,000 people. The rural community maintained itself, though over the centuries there was significant attrition due to continued revolts and Roman and Byzantine cultural dominance. My guess, and it’s nothing but a guess, is you might have been talking about 50,000 Jews tops in the 7th century in the region we’re discussing. Mostly a spread out rural population, without much cohesion.

            But I guarantee it was not in the 350,000 range. That would be more likely to be the total population of the region than anything else.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Epstein

      One more grubby Israeli Fascist. What else is new. The only difference is he doesn’t need a comb over hair do. The only honest fascist is Bennett. It was a Palestinian Ghetto as it was always designed to be. The Holocaust was just a propaganda tool, something to whine on about as Zionists conducted a creeping annexation of all West Bank.
      Peace is not something Israel can handle. That’s why Hamas suits the Zionists perfectly. If things get too quiet then provoke until the Palestinians react, then the F-15s can swoop in and “liquidate” more Palestinian children.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >It was a Palestinian Ghetto as it was always designed to be. The Holocaust was just a propaganda tool, something to whine on about as Zionists conducted a creeping annexation of all West Bank.

        Palestinian Arabs denied equal rights to Jews in 1920′s, when Jews comprised mere 10% of population, which means that you implications are false – unless, of course, you want to claim that WWII and Holocaust were planned and carried out by Zionists to eventually acquire Palestine.

        Reply to Comment
      • palestinian

        As one Israeli from the south said “Keep the south traumatized and weak, keep the cameras on the smoke coming from our fields, and you can easily fend off any criticism”

        Reply to Comment
    7. Jan

      Lapid is as bad as Netanyahu, maybe worse.

      There seems to be little reason for the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel. The Palestinians have nothing to give. They have already given most of the land to the Jews who came from abroad to take it.

      If there is any justice at all the Palestinian state should encompass ALL of the West Bank. Otherwise there should be one state for ALL with equal rights for ALL.

      The Palestinians are not going to leave their lands again unless the Israelis institute a wholesale ethnic cleansing which will rightfully infuriate the world.

      Tresspasser should know that the Palestinians who were violently dispossessed from their homes and land in 1948 and 1967, also long for their land, the land they lived on for generations long before the first European Jew set foot on the land.

      It could be said that it is you who are a Tresspasser on their land.

      I hope that you know that at the time the Zionist project was announced in the late 1880s many leading Jews, and less leading Jews, denounced the project.

      Perhaps when the thought of a state for the Jews had been announced the founders would have said that what they wanted was a secular democratic state for everyone, Jews and Arabs together. At the time the Arabs of Palestine were the most secular of all the Arab countries and there was a large Christian population.

      But no, the Jews wanted it all for themselves and the problems continue to this day.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >the land they lived on for generations long before the first European Jew set foot on the land.

        Tell me please, for how long should an ethnicity live on the land to became native to the land?

        Reply to Comment
        • Jan

          Tresspasser – I, my parents and grandparents were born in America. We consider ourselves to be native to our country. My grandparents who came from Europe and my parents, all Jews, never considered that Israel was our native land nor do all the Jews that I know. We consider and considered America, not Israel, to be our native land. My parents and grandparents have passed on leaving their children and grandchildren. None of us see Israel as our native land. One does not have to go back 2000 years to be considered a “native.” Were that so there would be few people in the world who could call themselves “native.”

          I consider that the Arab population of Palestine is native to the land just as are those Jews who were born in Palestine and did not come from Europe or America.

          Finally Trespasser – since it is obvious that you believe that ALL the land belongs to the Jews what do you plan to do to the Palestinians who refuse to give up their land or to leave? Kill them all? Put them in concentration camps? Ethnically cleanse them? Emulate apartheid South Africa?

          Name one. I

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Jan,

            >We consider and considered America, not Israel, to be our native land.

            I think that you would have a disagreement with Meron and Palestinian on that question. By their standards you can’t be native to America.

            >None of us see Israel as our native land.

            But who gave you the right to see USA as your native land? Your home is most certainly built on territory stolen from some native tribe.

            Did you ever tried to conjure the spirit of previous owner to ask a permission?

            >Were that so there would be few people in the world who could call themselves “native.”

            Exactly.

            Than by what standard Israelis who are for example 2nd-3rd generation in the country are not considered native?

            >I consider that the Arab population of Palestine is native to the land just as are those Jews who were born in Palestine and did not come from Europe or America.

            And what about children of those who came from Europe, America or Iraq? Not native as well? Grandchildren?

            Strangely, you are not objecting Arab immigration to Palestine, which took place from 1890′s to 1940′s. All Arabs are automatically considered native Palestinians?

            >Finally Trespasser – since it is obvious that you believe that ALL the land belongs to the Jews

            Can’t remember myself claiming anything similar.

            Got any proof? You really should, if you know what is good for you.

            >what do you plan to do to the Palestinians who refuse to give up their land or to leave?

            I’m not aware of any plans to transfer large numbers of Palestinian Arabs, so I haven’t really planned anything.

            You seem to have much better sources.

            >Kill them all? Put them in concentration camps? Ethnically cleanse them? Emulate apartheid South Africa?

            Dunno really, apparently my mind is not sick enough just yet.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            “I think that you would have a disagreement with Meron and Palestinian on that question. By their standards you can’t be native to America.”:
            You think wrong, as often happens. As I wrote you plenty of times, even people whose origins are from other continents can have ALL the right to live on this land if they respect the other, if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot.
            .
            “Strangely, you are not objecting Arab immigration to Palestine, which took place from 1890′s to 1940′s. All Arabs are automatically considered native Palestinians?”: I explained you these 1000 times.
            .
            “Finally Trespasser – since it is obvious that you believe that ALL the land belongs to the Jews
            Can’t remember myself claiming anything similar.”:
            you claim this every single day, not least supporting the settlements.

            Reply to Comment
        • Epstein

          Tresspasser:” Tell me please, for how long should an ethnicity live on the land to became native to the land?”

          Are you trying to be Ironic? I assume you are talking about European Jews who moved to Palestine.
          However that question is NEVER posed to Palestinians who have lived there for centuries. I wonder why?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Epstein,

            I’ve asked one simple question. Are capable of answering it directly?

            I’ll simplify.
            Question: “For how long should an ethnicity live on the land to became native to the land?”

            Answer:
            1) 1 generation
            2) 3 generations
            3) 5 generations
            4) 10 generations
            5) 50 generations
            6) Other ____________

            Please select most appropriate value or fill in own opinion.

            Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Lapid is as bad as Netanyahu, maybe worse.

        For you any alive Jew is a bad Jew.

        What is worse than one alive Jew?
        Two alive Jews!

        Reply to Comment
    8. meron

      Noam, I understood what you meant. But if in that very same occasion Lapid clarified that he presented it in Ariel because “there exists no map in which Ariel isn’t a part of the State of Israel” this cannot be considered a secondary aspect, especially in the context of your important article.
      .
      “There is something very positive to be said on speaking about ending the occupation to the settlers”
      I fully agree, but only if in that occasion he would indeed have spoken about ending the occupation. That was not the case, unfortunately. If you (Lapid) speak with the settlers presenting that 10 points it means that you simply want to reassure and to support the claims of the settlers.

      Reply to Comment
      • perhaps you are right. anyway, it’s not the most important thing, I think, so I gave him the credit. maybe he doesn’t deserve it.

        Reply to Comment
    9. rose

      Trespasser, victminhood is always your best (and only) argument

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Best or only?

        It’s truly amazing, how you manage to tell more than three lies in one short sentence.

        Reply to Comment
    10. laila

      1. Israel and Palestine will return to the negotiating table out of good will and the desire to reach a final agreement.
      2. During the negotiations no new Palestinian community will be built, but until a final agreement has been reached, the natural growth of Palestinian communities will be taken into consideration both in the Occupied Territories and in the current state of Israel.
      3. The goal of the negotiations is to reach two viable and sovereign nation-states with recognized international borders that have no demands from each other.
      4. These borders will take into account Palestine’s security considerations and the demographic reality that was in place before 1948. Both sides will recognize that it is in their mutual interest to leave Palestinian lands in Palestinians’ hands.
      5. The refugees will return to their homes and lands as stated by UN resolutions 194 (1948) and 237 (1967).
      6. Jerusalem is the capital of two people and two states. Its openness to those who want to visit or to return will be a global symbol of the new peace and prosperity of the region. Jerusalem will remain open and accessible to all human beings because Jerusalem is not just a place or a city, but the center of the coexistence ethos, the holy place for three religions and the motherland that Palestinians have now longed for through 3 generations.
      7. The complete halt of incitement against Palestinians in the Israeli education system will be part of any future agreement.
      8. Palestine will not conduct negotiations with Habayit Hayehudi or similar parties as long as they won’t change its charters and recognize Palestine and the right of the Palestinian people to exist on their lands.
      9. The resistance to the occupation will continue at all times, without any regards to the negotiations. Palestinians reserves the right to act for their security in the areas of the Israeli state to the extent they deem fit.
      10. The world’s nations will provide guarantees for the fulfillment of the future agreement with clear sanctions in the case of violations.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >The resistance to the occupation will continue at all times, without any regards to the negotiations.

        Resistance = no negotiations.

        Is there really someone who honestly believe that one can talk and fight at the same time?

        >The world’s nations will provide guarantees …

        World’s nations can’t guarantee anything. Don’t believe me? Ask Syrians.

        Reply to Comment
        • laila

          Happy you grasped the points.
          Now you might want to raise them with Lapid.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            You see, the problem is that you – Palestinian Arabs are not setting conditions anymore.

            You’ve managed to fail each and every effort of international community to give you a state (1922, 1948, 2000, 2002), which means that your issue is gonna be resolved as it seems appropriate by those in power – opinion of those unable to negotiate and compromise is of no interest.

            No refugees would be returned ever.

            Best case scenario (for Palestinians) – One Jewish State Solution, being citizens of most advanced state in the region has it’s benefits.

            Worst case scenario – two inviable quasi-states ruled by illiterate barbarians – as all other Arab states.

            The choice is yours.

            Reply to Comment
          • laila

            “opinion of those unable to negotiate and compromise is of no interest.

            No refugees would be returned ever.”

            I don’t think you meant it but you are making another good point here.

            Anyhow, in my experience people in power are usually the ones unable to negotiate and compromise. And yet nobody stays in power forever.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Anyhow, in my experience people in power are usually the ones unable to negotiate and compromise.

            That’s the difference between Eastern and Western political systems.

            In East to the top gets the most treacherous, bloodthirsty and dangerous, while in West – one who can negotiate and compromise the best.

            >And yet nobody stays in power forever.

            You see, the democratic process not only brings people to power, it also strips them of power.

            I realize, however, that it’s just not the case in Arab countries so you are not used to the concept.

            Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Bravo Laila! I could not agree with you more.

        Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        At the end of your ten point plan Israel ceases to exist. Pass.

        Reply to Comment
    11. berl

      Laila you are great. Trespasser you are a little human being.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Nah.

        I’m realistic, you are delusional and Laila is an enemy of mine.

        Would make a nice title for a paperback, or a spaghetti western.

        Reply to Comment
    12. Point 3 of Lapid’s platform, above, continues the fantasy of separation leading to mutual nonexistence. But any attempt at a viable Palestinian State would have to rely on Israeli links to build its “independent” economy. It is now impossible to unlink the Bank and Israel, and I think the nonviolent movement there understands this, or some therein do. The future is not mutual riddance, but codependent existence. Settler encroachment leads there; so too does any post Oslo Two States.

      In this light point 7, on Palestinian education, is meaningful. So too removing incitement in Israeli media and allowing talk of the Nakba.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Once the Palestinians are independent it is up to them to build their own economy. The occupying state isn’t obligated to the newly unoccupied once the occupation ends. If the Palestinians wish access to the Israeli market as part of a strategy of economic development they would have to enter into agreements as a sovereign state which would be beneficial to both sides.

        On point 7. Israel has a free media. You should be familiar with how that works in terms of a government trying to control content. As for the ‘nakba’… Being so far removed and lacking all knowledge of the local conditions you wouldn’t know this, but there is no restrictions on talking about it in Israeli media and there are Arab MKs that do so on a regular basis.

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “once the occupation ends”: when it will happen we will discuss about it.
          Israeli researcher Nurit Peled-Elhanan who found that Israeli school books never depict Palestinians as normal people but rather as terrorists and certainly less civilized than Israelis. This, she says, lets the students believe that when they enter the IDF it is no problem killing or even harrassing an Arab (Israeli school books never use the name Palestinian.)

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >and certainly less civilized than Israelis [or other Westerners]

            That one is a bit hard to disprove, isn’t it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Since we are discussing the terms of the occupation ending we should be discussing it now since some people like Greg seems to believe that Israel is obligated to provide the Palestinians with a first world standard of living as a condition for the occupation ending.

            Israeli school books have no incitement. They mostly ignore the Arabs entirely. Nurit Peled-Elhanan and people like her claim anything short of the worship of the Arabs is incitement and dehumanization.

            Reply to Comment
          • Thanks for telling me what I think, K9. The settlements have both induced some social economy with prior residents, and IDF restrictions are so draconian as to have hobbled real development. If you want a neighboring soverign State you will have to help it. If, hysterically, you think this aid up to “first world” standards, I cannot do anything about that.

            But all of this is vacuous. The settlements have expanded to such an extent that the PA will be a collection of bantus, and there is no evidence that the IDF will retreat from the Jordanian border.

            As to the Nakba, yes, I am aware of the extent of the law. I am also aware that the Nakba law is dedicated not to peril, but forcing a single acceptable narrative. All destructions must be told. It is a hard place to be, but there you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Again, the idea that a sovereign state requires a certain level of economic development underlies your argument. It doesn’t. There were sovereign state in the Middle Ages where much of the population survived or didn’t on agriculture. There is no relation between ‘sovereignty’ and ‘economic development’. If the Palestinians can’t manage their own economy after independence that is their problem. If they want access to the Israeli market and infrastructure, then they are going to have to enter into an agreement as a sovereign state.

            The restrictions on trade in the West Bank are minimal. During the second intifada there were checkpoints all over the place. Now the vast majority of these are gone. The economic problems in the PA derive from political decisions made by their leaders to build a centralized ‘state’ financed by foreign aid.

            As to the ‘nakba’. There is no single narrative in Israeli media. There are no gatekeepers that would prevent other narratives from showing up. Israeli television news programs are dominated by leftists and leftists and Arab MKs are common guests. You have no idea what you are talking about probably because you can’t speak the language or watch Israeli television. Yet you pretend to speak from authority.

            Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          At times I wish that Israel would become as bad as ignorant depicts her for a week or so.

          Just to give an idea.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Dude, the very fact that “oppressed” and “persecuted” Palestinian Arab was able to film and produce whole movie means that Israel is far from being such a monster, as some depict her.

            Neither you, nor your Palestinian friends never been to a country with real oppressive regime.

            I sincerely hope that one day you’ll get to be interrogated on suspicion of terrorism by Turks or Egyptians. Russians would do nicely as well.

            If you remain healthy enough you could even write a book.

            p.s. Haven’t you noticed that I don’t give a flying f**k what “people generally claim”?

            Any significant majority is wrong by definition.

            As a PhD you should’ve heard about the Pareto principle, from which follows that 20% of people possess 80% of knowledge, while 80% of people possess 20% of knowledge.

            Very easy to prove. Think of a question which is related to anything which is beyond the 20%-margin of basic needs.

            For example, names of Mars satellites would do nicely. Or name of inventor of microscope. Or even explanation of what is voltage.

            Ask out any group of people who are not astronomers, microbiologists or electricians and you’ll find that 80% of those asked wouldn’t be able to answer these questions.

            You, for example, theoretically might know #1, PhD and all, but surely not #2 & #3.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rauna

            Do they chase people out of their house to make rooms for new comers in Turkey,Egypt or Russia?

            Reply to Comment
    13. meron

      “..you are delusional and Laila is an enemy of mine.”
      You are an enemy of yourselves Trespasser, that’s why you are so full of hatred, ergo an unsatisfied human being.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Hatred towards idiots and liars, yes.

        Since when it’s bad?

        Reply to Comment
        • Dany

          SO that must make you one of these self-hating jews, everyone is talking about.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Is there a hope that sometime you write something which is not plain silly?

            “SO that must make you one of these self-hating jews, everyone is talking about.”

            You see, one can’t realize that one is an idiot and a liar and at the same time remain such – only competent are able to realize the boundaries of their incompetency, while stupid and ignorant think that they are right simply because they can’t realize that they actually could be wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Dany

            It is so funny and laughable to see that the only thing you are capable of in 972s comment section is insults, name calling, lying and history forging.
            Life must be hard as a 12 year old, trying to talk to adults. Get a toy.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >…that the only thing you are capable of in 972s comment section is insults, name calling, lying and history forging.

            1 – I haven’t insulted anyone in last two posts in this thread.

            I understand that you are offended by my dislike towards mentioned categories, however there is nothing I can do to help you.

            2 – As a matter of fact I also refute lies; defend rights of Jewish settlers xD; study – English, history, sociology and psychology; make people show their true opinions and intentions; and last, but not least, engage in humanitarian activity ;) (the blink is relevant only to those it is relevant to)

            Said above is a sufficient proof that your claims that my activity on this discussion board is of purely destructive nature is nothing more than a blatant lie and a toked of disrespect towards moderators.

            3 – However I’d like to ask you – there there anything useful you’ve ever posted besides the torrent of usual fallacies and misconceptions?

            >Life must be hard as a 12 year old, trying to talk to adults. Get a toy.

            You are beginning your post complaining about insults just to finish it with an insult. A bit of inconsistent behavior, I have to note.

            Reply to Comment
    14. Epstein

      Tresspasser: You said “Tell me please, for how long should an ethnicity live on the land to became native to the land?”

      Are you trying to be Ironic? I assume you are talking about European Jews who moved to Palestine.
      However that question is NEVER posed to Palestinians who have lived there for centuries. I wonder why?

      Reply to Comment
    15. Cliff

      @Tresspasser,

      Palestinian Arabs are and have been the indigenous population.

      Jewish nationalists and terrorists like you got rid of them to make a Jewish majority in Historic Palestine.

      The ancient Jewish whatever is irrelevant. There was no exile, but rather abandonment for 2000/3000/whatever amount of time.

      European and Russian Jews have no claim to any part of Israel/Palestine.

      You are an insane, ass-backwards Jewish colonist.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        You are more than welcome to come here and become a glorious martyr for the Palestinian cause.

        Reply to Comment
    16. Devin

      The Trespasser: you and your criminal mind made bad name for Jews. I hope one day you learn to defends Jews in correct way not with hate and not with lying . You and your criminal mind should be kept in hospital for healing.

      Reply to Comment
    17. 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