Look who doesn't want two states for two peoples


By raycook
September 21, 2010
Share

The Israel bashers here and ubiquitously in the media and around the world keep telling us it is all Israel's fault, they don't want peace, the Palestinian Authority recognised Israel years ago, Israel this and Israel that.

But one of the PA's leading lights, prime minister (no less) Salam (means peace) Fayyad has stormed out of meeting with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon because Mr Peace Fayyad refused to sign up to a summary of the meeting which recognises the need for two staes for two peoples.

This was reported in yNet News here http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3958403,00.html

"I wanted that at the very least it will note two states for two peoples. I demanded to know what they meant. One Palestinian state and one bi-national state, or another Palestinian state?," he told Ynet.

"I made it clear that we were out of the picture if the summary didn’t say two states for two peoples."

So what did Ayalon do wrong? Didn't he just want to confirm what everyone, apart from Hamas and Hizbullah and Ahmadinejad are supposed to want? Isn't that the basis for a settlement?

How are the Israel-haters going to spin this one?

In other words there is absolutely no shift in the Palestinians position since they decided they were a nation separate from Jordanians.

And then Mr Peace Fayyad has the 'chutzpah' to ask that Isreael:

"...further ease Palestinian movement in the West Bank, to which Ayalon replied: "We shall not gamble away Israel's security and future. Everything depends on the security situation and a political solution based on consent."

Too bloody right.

How can you negotiate with this? It's a total farce and we all know who will be blamed, don't we.

Israel will be blamed for not committing national suicide.

First published at http://www.raymondcook.net/blog/index.php/2010/09/21/look-who-doesnt-wan...

COMMENTS

richmillett

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 08:41

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent comment!!! I always thought Fayyad was a moderate. Oh dear.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 08:58

Rate this:

0 points

There are no moderates.
The eradication of Israel is the Arabs end game.
When they fail through military means the stated aims in all the Charters, whether it is the PLO, the PA or Hamas, is that they will attempt to remove ISrael through negotiations - this is what is happenning now.
The sooner we all wise-up to it the better.


telegramsam

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 09:15

Rate this:

0 points

Like ayalon doesn't have an ulterior motive. He's the representative of a dodgy far right party in an extreme right wing government which is only playing games itself when it comes to talks His hands are far from clean.


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 10:46

Rate this:

0 points

One of the principal " Western values " is that a person has the right to citizenship of whichever state has sovereignty over the land on which he or she is born.

The vast bulk of the Arab populoation of the West Bank were born onto it.If there is to be a state of Palestine they will be citizens of that state. If you want Jordan to resume sovereignty over the area they will be citizens of Jordan as will the Jewish inhabitants of that area if they wished to have a right to live there. The US government mey permit me to live in the US But I have no right to do so.Only US citizens have that right.

If Israel is to have sovereignty over the land then everyone will be Israeli citizens.

Abbas's response to the absurd demand that he recognise Israel as " a jewish state " was spot on. i.e. " Israel will be what it will be and may call itself whatever it wants." This is so much more the case since we don;t know where Israel is and won't know until the end of negotiations. Show me Israel on the map. You can't and wont be able to do so until an agreement is reached.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:05

Rate this:

-1 points

"One of the principal " Western values " is that a person has the right to citizenship of whichever state has sovereignty over the land on which he or she is born."

"You people" are talking thru your back passage


Watchful Iris (not verified)

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:11

Rate this:

1 point

Why does Johathan keep making references to Stephenb's backside? Is there something going on we should know about?


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:11

Rate this:

0 points

jonathon do you not know how insulting we find being called " you people "


mattpryor

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 12:30

Rate this:

2 points

StephenB: The problem is that Israel needs to know what is in the heart of the negotiating partners.

All of the PLO's words, all of their actions, over the last three decades have expressly pointed towards a rejection of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and a desire to dismantle it and turn it into an Arab state with a Jewish minority living within it. This goes back to the 1930s and 40s, as I'm sure you know, and nothing changed with Arafat and nothing (seems to have) changed with Abbas.

By saying the words "We accept Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people" he would be reassuring Israel, the world and his own people that neither he, nor the political forces he represents, continue to seek this outcome - the destruction of Israel as a Jewish country - either in the next 10 years or the next 100 years.

That is the only position that will give Israel assurance that a two-state deal will be the end of the matter, and that PA / Fatah (and by extension the Arab league) will not continue to exert political or paramilitary pressure on Israel to cede yet more land as the circumstances arise. That will give Israel's leaders the confidence to take painful measures such as continuing the construction freeze beyond the green line (which is economically and politically very difficult).

Why can't he just say that he accepts Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people? It seems a reasonable gesture of good faith and intentions.

Perhaps Stephen you should be asking not "why should he?" but more "why won't he?"

This isn't a very difficult concept to grasp, and I'm surprised that someone of your apparent intellect refuses to even try to understand the Israeli point of view even if not agreeing to it.


richmillett

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 12:58

Rate this:

1 point

1. well said, Matt.

2. One of the principal " Western values " is that a person has the right to citizenship of whichever state has sovereignty over the land on which he or she is born.

This largely depends on whether those Palestinians wishing to return wish to blow the current citizens of Israel to kindgom come. On the basis that some do then the Palestinians have no right to return to Israel.

Also, more Jews were expelled from Arab countries than there were Palestinians who left British Mandate Palestine/Israel. What about them?

Anyway, when, please G-d, a Palstinian state is formed the Palestinian refugees can return there.


mattpryor

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 13:39

Rate this:

1 point

Also Stephen, not wishing to labour the point, but:

One of the principal " Western values " is that a person has the right to citizenship of whichever state has sovereignty over the land on which he or she is born.

This does seem reasonable. And yet, in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria the descendants of the exodus from the 1948 Arab-Israel war are still denied citizenship and basic rights in those countries even though they were born there, and their parents were very likely born there.

Double standards, no?


happygoldfish

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 14:38

Rate this:

1 point

stephenb:
One of the principal " Western values " is that a person has the right to citizenship of whichever state has sovereignty over the land on which he or she is born.

i'm sorry, but this is rubbish

citizenship (or nationality) by jus soli (law of the soil) only applies to the state having sovereignty of the land at the time of the birth

when sovereignty changes, citizenship (or nationality) follow rules which have to be declared at the time (in default of such rules, the inhabitants of the land may become stateless)

eg when a british colony gained independence, usually it was declared that the inhabitants would become nationals of the new state, with the except of a few who would become british nationals

when the united nations withdrew from palestine in 1948 (ok, i know britain withdrew, but it was a united nations mandate), the united nations general assembly declared that residents of the jewish part would become citizens of the jewish state, and residents of the arab part would become citizens of the arab state

that. of course, was why some arabs felt it was so important to leave the jewish part before "the recognition of independence", so as not to be stuck with "jewish" citizenship (which of course they could renounce in favour of "arab" citizenship, but presumably only if the arab state existed)

unfortunately, no arab state was declared (jordan occupied the land instead), so the people in the arab part became stateless (or technically retained their "palestinian citizenship", ie of a state which no longer existed )

see un general assembly resolution 181 (29/11/1947)

Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
1. Citizenship

Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.

Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State.

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law#Principles

Broadly speaking, nationality law is based either on jus soli or jus sanguinis, or on a combination of the two. Jus soli (Latin: the law of the soil) is the principle by which a child born within a country's territorial jurisdiction acquires that country's nationality. Jus sanguinis (Latin: the law of the blood) is the principle by which a child acquires the nationality of his or her parents.

Today, most if not all countries apply a mixture of these two principles: neither granting citizenship to everyone body within the country's jurisdiction, nor denying citizenship to the children born abroad.


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 15:56

Rate this:

0 points

happy.....none of that negates the point. If Israel formally assumes sovereignty over the land from " the river to the sea " it will inherit something like 2. 5 million Arabs on the west bank, plus of course the population of Gaza. Most of these people have been born on that land and will have to be offered citizenship as the world will not tolerate the creation of an apartheid state

If there is to be a Palestinian state Jews living on the land may be offered citizenship which they doubtless would refuse. In that case they may well be able to go on living there but obviously without the RIGHT to do so.They being none citizens.

Don't shoot me over this. I am a no borders kind of person. I think anyone should be able to live anywhere they want.

Address matt's points later


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 16:08

Rate this:

0 points

Also I didnt say my point about citizenship was enshrined in international law ( about which I know little ) but that western democracies generally grant citizenship to those born on their soil and to the children of citizens.

Is the real objection to this a lingering dream that the west bank arabs might in some way be written out of the story ? Forceibly transferred to Jordan perhaps ?


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 16:41

Rate this:

0 points

Matt ..why wont he say it.......It could be that he can't bring himself to utter such silly words but i dont think thats it.I think its more that his constituency is not ready to hear it.Similarly netanyahu is not able to go along with a settlement freeze.And what clearer example of bad faith is that ? Israel has been building on the territories for 40 years. What difference does desisting for even a year or even two except an ideological difference. Actually I dont think he is of bad faith on this issue but that he knows his constituency is, that is constituency is not ready for such an ideological u turn. Netanyahu is a very unpleasant character but he is not stupid.

Its laughable to say Israel cant trust the PLA negotiators. They can trust them a thousand per cent. They want what Israel wants. Fatah is both hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly weak. Fatah long ago gave up the drive the Israelis into the sea stuff. They are not motivated by by any kind of ideological pan Arabism ( though others are ). They are concerned about establishing themselves in power in their own back yard in creating a state in which they will be the elte , the political class. This state will be corrupt and nasty.

Both sides need a deal badly because they know this will be last chance. Failure will consign the PLA people to being forever nobodies. Failure will set us along the road to a one state solution, a nightmare for those Israelis who are obsessed with a political and cultural expression of zionism.

If I were a west bank arab I wouldnt touch a two state solution with a barge pole. If I were an Israeli vitally concerned about " the jewish character of the state " I would grab it with both hands


mattpryor

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 17:10

Rate this:

0 points

StephenB: I'll address your reply to my points in a mo, but in the meantime there are a few departures from reality in your latest posts which I'd like to correct:

happy.....none of that negates the point. If Israel formally assumes sovereignty over the land from " the river to the sea " it will inherit something like 2. 5 million Arabs on the west bank, plus of course the population of Gaza. Most of these people have been born on that land and will have to be offered citizenship as the world will not tolerate the creation of an apartheid state

You are talking about formal annexation of the west bank and Gaza. I think this is an extremely unlikely scenario certainly within our lifetimes, unless there is all out war between Israel and a major military power in the region which Israel wins. So this is very hypothetical and not something many people seem to want in Israel or elsewhere.

If there is to be a Palestinian state Jews living on the land may be offered citizenship which they doubtless would refuse. In that case they may well be able to go on living there but obviously without the RIGHT to do so.They being none citizens.

Given that it is forbidden under PA law to sell land to somebody of Jewish persuasion, under pain of death, it seems very unlikely that a Palestinian state would offer citizenship to Jews. But then again attitudes can change and people can change, so who knows.

Is the real objection to this a lingering dream that the west bank arabs might in some way be written out of the story ? Forceibly transferred to Jordan perhaps ?

I think you are (very unfairly) misrepresenting the opinions of the vast majority of Zionists in this sentence. I don't know if this is calculated (I certainly hope not) but you use the phrase earlier "river to the sea" as if this is the secret wish for supporters of Zionism to see the West Bank Arabs expelled. You know full well that this is the phrase used by the Arab sympathisers, not Jewish sympathisers. If you don't know that, you should.

Stephen: Israelis want PEACE. That's all they've always wanted. They want an end to hostilities. They want reconciliation, stability, good governance and cooperation. Israel, the Arab world and the world at large would benefit hugely from all of those things.

The reason they have reservations and concerns about these peace talks is that they don't believe that Israel's negotiating partners want any of those things, they believe that they want Israel gone - which is what history has taught them and what the Arabs keep saying if you care to look at what they say in Arabic, not just in English. We don't trust them, and they've never done anything to give us reason to trust them.

It is a grave injustice and misrepresentation of history to suggest that Israelis have on the whole ever wanted anything other than to share the land which they hold so dear. But NOT if it means national suicide.


mattpryor

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 17:37

Rate this:

0 points

Matt ..why wont he say it.......It could be that he can't bring himself to utter such silly words but i dont think thats it.I think its more that his constituency is not ready to hear it.Similarly netanyahu is not able to go along with a settlement freeze.And what clearer example of bad faith is that ? Israel has been building on the territories for 40 years. What difference does desisting for even a year or even two except an ideological difference. Actually I dont think he is of bad faith on this issue but that he knows his constituency is, that is constituency is not ready for such an ideological u turn. Netanyahu is a very unpleasant character but he is not stupid.

You might think they're "silly words" Stephen, but others think they're very important words. They are an acceptance of a non-Arab Jewish state and an end to the conflict that has lasted for so long and caused so much pain and suffering. You don't think that's an important thing for Israel's "peace partners" to say or demonstrate? You don't think they're words Israelis long to hear? Where is your empathy or sympathy?

You talk about "settlement freeze" as if it's a piece of paper, a decision that has no human consequences. They are living communities beyond the 1948 armistice lines Stephen with living human beings in them. They have an economy. They have children that need schooling. They have families that need homes. You think that the government of Israel should forbid them from building those things because of what? A vague agreement to carry on talking? For how long? Again you are talking about concepts that to you have little meaning beyond the words themselves but to Israelis living in those communities they mean something. That is NOT ideology.

Netanyahu is an unpleasant character? Why do you say such a thing? Based on what precisely?

Its laughable to say Israel cant trust the PLA negotiators. They can trust them a thousand per cent. They want what Israel wants. Fatah is both hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly weak. Fatah long ago gave up the drive the Israelis into the sea stuff. They are not motivated by by any kind of ideological pan Arabism ( though others are ). They are concerned about establishing themselves in power in their own back yard in creating a state in which they will be the elte , the political class. This state will be corrupt and nasty.

If you had knowledge about the history of the region you wouldn't consider it so laughable. Israelis have no reason to trust any Arab leadership after their bitter experiences, or have any reason to think things have magically changed. I don't consider their views "laughable", I respect them and make an effort to understand them. What fascinates me is, why can't you?

Both sides need a deal badly because they know this will be last chance. Failure will consign the PLA people to being forever nobodies. Failure will set us along the road to a one state solution, a nightmare for those Israelis who are obsessed with a political and cultural expression of zionism.
If I were a west bank arab I wouldnt touch a two state solution with a barge pole. If I were an Israeli vitally concerned about " the jewish character of the state " I would grab it with both hands

As I've said I think you'll find that the majority of Israelis will grasp a reasonable deal with both hands, but again NOT if it means another 100 years of war or national suicide. I don't know what the average Arab in the West Bank thinks about it, any more than you do.


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 17:42

Rate this:

-1 points

It is a grave injustice and misrepresentation of history to suggest that Israelis have on the whole ever wanted anything other than to share the land which they hold so dear. But NOT if it means national suicide.

then you need a two state solution Matt and quickly


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 18:45

Rate this:

-1 points

I don't know what the average Arab in the West Bank thinks about it, any more than you do.

Well I know a little I have spent quite a lot of time there.

The vast majority hope for their own state under a two state solution.( unwisely in my opinion ) Very few are remotely concerned with the elimination of the state of Israel. They mostly just want an end to the humiliations they suffer on a daily basis.

They do have some bottom lines though. They won't countenance any state that doesn't leave them with the vast bulk of the land occupied in 1967 and doesn't allow them East Jerusalem as their capital,and allows the presence of foreign troops on their territory.

Now Fatah will do any deal they can get away with.They just want to rule something and be an elite of something. The above is the least they can get away with. Any deal will have its dissidents.There will be an upsurge of Islamic terrorism and I suspect a re emergence of jewish terrorism.But before long the two states will get along admirably. But any deal less then the above will not be ratified and will, if it is imposed, attract the ferocious resistance of most of the populace, every regular joe on the block who is only interested in the advancement of his family and kids and dignity.

You can say this will never be. What did Ian Smith say ? Not in a thousand years ? Then I wish you joy of your one state solution.

In friendship......Stephen


amber

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 19:03

Rate this:

1 point

stephenb, this really won't do. You claim to speak for the "vast majority2 of palestinian Arabs. What gives you this authority? Have you conducted polls on the question you raise? How absurd. Merely having been to Judea and Samaria hardly qualifies one to speak foe the "vast majority2 of its population. but then again, such intellectual dishonesty usually accompanies such anti-Israel sentiments. you say there are "bottom lines". well, aren't Jews entitled to "bottom lines" as well? Why should the Jews give up their holy sites in Jerusalem/ When Jerusalem was illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948-67, when the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City wer eethnically cleansed and the ancient synagogues systematically obliterated, not one single Arab head of state, or religious authority, went to the old City. Not one. Now we're to believe that suddenly Jerusalem is extremely important to the Arabs. This, despite the fact that the Temple Mount is forbidden to Jews ( how's that for racism) and whilst the Palestinian Authority has engaged in a hate campaign to negte any Jewish connection to Jerusalem. I suppose the anisemitism taught in Palestinian schools, and regularly broadcast on Palestinian media, is of no consequence as well.

How ridiculous - and insulting.


stephenb

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 19:11

Rate this:

0 points

I havent claimed to have spoken for anyone. Far from speaking for the vast majority of Arab residents of the west bank I find myself in disagreement with them. I merely report the impressions I gained. Like I say if I were they I wouldnt touch a two state solution with a barge pole, not on any terms.


amber

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 21:45

Rate this:

0 points

Stephenb, you did in fact claim to know what the "vast majority" of Palestinian Arabs want, but let's leave that for now. You say you are against a two state solution - could you elucidate? Your talk of a re-emergence of "Jewish terrorism" is frankly absurd - I assume you refer to the actions of the Irgun a mere 62 years ago? Fatah has consistently refused several offers of statehood put to it, (Fayyad recently walked out of talks because Ayalon referred to "two states for two people" as opposed to just "two states" - whilst Abbas has said that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state - ever, under any circumstances. So your claim that it would "rule anything" bears little resemblance to reality.

Do you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?


stephenb

Thu, 09/23/2010 - 09:36

Rate this:

0 points

amber... what I know is largely an epistemological issue. However I am more then happy to revise the sense of what I said along the lines of ..." my overwhelming impression is..."

I never said I was against a two state solution I said I would be if I were a west bank Arab.

There is a big difference between a persons rhetoric and what they are ultimately willing to accept. Did not Netanyahu get elected largely on a no Palestinian state platform ?Hasn't he always denied that it will ever be ? He can't possibly be trusted in these negotiations then can he ?? "

" Do you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state ? "

My big problem with this question is that it is a silly question. You may or may not be familiar with the old joke...A professor encounters one of his students in the corridor and says " young lady yours was a damn fine answer to my last assignment question ." She says " Yes sir but it was a damn fine question "

Conversely ask a silly question...... Oh what the hell I will answer it anyway but understand in advance it will inevitably be a silly answer.

The existence of any state is a matter of fact not a matter of right, as is the nature of any state. If the final frontiers of Israel encompass most of Russia it will be a Slavic state won't it ? Unless and until the slavic population declines and the jewish and etnic ukrainian etc etc etc populations increase to the extent...

I have not the remotest concern about the existence of any state and still less concern about its etnic and cultural nature..Like any other state Israel will be what it will be and may call itself whatever it wishes.The nation state era is , historically , very recent and can't pass soon enough so far as I am concerned.

To be perfectly frank I am much more concerned that Ireland beat england at rugby at lansdowne road next spring.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 09/23/2010 - 21:26

Rate this:

0 points

"Abbas's response to the absurd demand that he recognise Israel as " a jewish state " was spot on."

Really? So why bother about Jewish settlers in a future Palestinian state, then? Won't they be also 'Palestinians'?
The reaction of Abbas is not "spot on" at all when he obviously rejects the presence of Jews in the country he wishes, while he won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Wanting a Judenrein country has one name: antisemitism. No surprise there, as most Muslim countries are widely antisemitic, but European countries should recognize it for what it is.
No doubt the Palestinians, including the most 'moderate' ones would be considered extreme right-wing racists in our countries. But they find useful idiots to support them.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.