Rejection of Palestinian state an obstacle to peace?

The emerging consensus among observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that any resolution inevitably involves the Palestinians governing themselves under their own flag in their own country. The Bush administration has endorsed an independent Palestinian state and backed UN resolutions to this effect, something that just a few years ago would have seemed improbable even for an administration striving for "even-handedness" toward Yasser Arafat, much less one that is pro-Israel.

Even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, hardly famous for his conciliatory attitude toward the Palestinians, has concluded that at some point in the future, there will be a Palestinian state or at least that the creation of one must remain on the table in order for there to be any meaningful negotiations. The only problem is that his Likud Party overwhelmingly rejected even the idea of such a state at a recent convention. Even a more innocuous resolution intended to head off an explicit repudiation of a Palestinian state by simply stating that Likud would support its prime minister's peace and security measures was rejected by 59 per cent to 41 per cent.

This brought forth the usual angry press releases and editorial hand wringing about Israel's largest right-wing political party. Likud is always seen as opposing the "peace process" and thus opposing the achievement of lasting peace. And there are of course members of the party who will never be able to accept even the most reasonable concessions.

Palestinians are of course as entitled to political self-determination as any other people. The fact that they have never before governed themselves in a nation-state known as Palestine is no argument against a Palestinian state in the future. Not only is a Palestinian state nearly unavoidable; there should be no objection to it in principle.

But there remains the question of what a Palestinian state would mean today in practice. The main sponsor of the Likud resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, former (and perhaps future) Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has contended that the result would be "Arafatistan."

There is little evidence that increasing Palestinian self-government by creating the Palestinian Authority with Arafat in charge has contributed to peace given the unprecedented violence that has followed. Over 90 per cent of the Palestinians were effectively placed under Arafat's authority by the Oslo Accord, reducing the degree of Israeli "occupation." The Palestinian Authority had a security force that effectively acted as a standing army, a state media that broadcast anti-Jewish sentiment and a school system in which children read anti-Israel textbooks. This environment cultivated rather than dissipated Palestinian animus against Israel.

Why did the semi-independence of a majority of Palestinians fail to yield progress and why would a sovereign Palestinian state at this point be just as unlikely to have positive results? One reason is that Arafat's leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a group that engaged in terrorism and that opposed Israel's existence in its founding charter, was poor preparation for peacemaking and statesmanship. It is true that other leaders have overcome dubious pasts - Menachem Begin was head of the Irgun, which participated in armed resistance against the British in Palestine, Nelson Mandela led the African National Congress, both became heads of their respective countries. But as commentator Lawrence Auster pointed out in FrontPage Magazine, careful scrutiny shows that these past examples are not truly applicable.

Prior to becoming heads of governments, Mandela had 28 years of reflection in prison while Begin had served 30 years as a democratically elected member of the Knesset. As Auster wrote, "these men did not leap in a single bound from armed insurrection to Nobel prizes and presidencies, as happened with the unspeakable Arafat."

There is another even greater reason to doubt that a Palestinian state would today make peace with Israel. Many Palestinians seek not a political settlement but total victory, and total victory does not mean a Palestinian state that coexists with Israel but one that replaces Israel. According to a poll taken in February, 69 per cent of Palestinians said peace with the Israelis was not possible "under any circumstances" and 82 per cent did not think an attack on a Tel Aviv nightclub that left 21 dead was an act of terrorism. With this kind of public opinion, unreliable Palestinian leadership, popular support for such terrorist groups as Hamas and the loss of border security ceding such areas as the West Bank would entail, it is not difficult to see why Likud rejected the idea of a Palestinian state next door.

The conditions for a successful Palestinian state would have to be its ability to permanently recognize Israel's existence and the right of its 5.5 million Jewish citizens to physical survival. This would require that Palestinians come to believe, partly through Israeli intransigence, that there is more to be gained through negotiation than conflict. This would also require a responsible Palestinian leadership with peaceful intentions. There is no one who could presently lead a sustainable Palestinian state.

One day there will likely be two countries in the Middle East, one predominantly Arab the other predominantly Jewish, living in peace side by side. But that day has not yet arrived and pretending that it has prematurely will not hasten its arrival.

The idea behind the Oslo accords was land for peace.
I see the palestinians living on the land.
I see no peace.

If the palestinians are unable or unwilling to live up to their end of the bargain, then maybe it is time to end the agreement.

I suggest the following.
Present an ultimatum to the palestinians.
If, by the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo accords, an end to terrorist acts against Israel have not ended, and a stable peace provided by the Palestinian Authority, the Oslo agreement will be Null and Void.
Immeadiately thereafter, all parties recognized as palestinians will be deported from Israel, by force if necessary.
Those parties offering resistance of any kind will be "terminated", without negotiation.
The West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights will become an official part of the nation of Israel, and no further talks or negotiations will be held concerning a palestinian presence in Israel.

It is time to end this nonsense once and for all.
It is time for the palestinians to make a choice.
Live in peace, or die in war.

Steve Plaut writes the current Israeli policy of DIDO (Dash In, Dash Out) is a failure. There is NO alternative to R&D for decades, shorthand for Reoccupation and Denazification. Israel will have to keep the territories under near permanent lock-down to avert mass murders of Jews and also to purge the Arabs of a generation of Nazified mentality thanks to Oslo and the PLO. A corollary of this doctrine holds in contrast to the accepted conventional wisdom accepted by the Bush Administration, the Israeli Extreme Left, and the Eurotrash, that for the forseeable future, there is NO non-military solution to terrorism. Sure, its unpleasant to contemplate reality like this, but continuing to deny it as it is means more Jewish babies sacrificed to the Oslo Pagan goddess. The sooner Israel sheds its Oslo delusions and accepts what needs to be done, the better the prospects of attaining real peace will be in the next generation in the Middle East.

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

A lot happened between the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the creation in 1946 of Trans-Jordan, (comprising 2/3 of the original territory of palestine) and Eratz-Israel. ( all territory between the Jordan River and the Sea.)
This was the 1946 British Mandate.

Since the Arab nations refused the U.N. declaration of 1947, and instead attacked Israel, that U.N. mandate is basically null and void. It was never ratified.
Likewise the Armistice of 1948 was never honored.
An armistice is a truce, a cease-fire.
An agreement was reached which would grant Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, to Jordan, and Egypt, respectively.
Jordan also took, by force, Judea and Samarea, which were not in the armistice agreement.

No Effort was made by either Jordan or Egypt to create a Palestinian State, nor did any arabs actually demand one.
Those arab refugees that fled Israel during the 1947 war were placed in refugee camps, and incited toward hatred for Israel.
This incitement toward hatred of Israel and the Jews has continued since 1947 without abatement.
Likewise, the armistice was basically ignored by the arabs, which simply changed tactics and began guerrilla attacks against Israel.
The terrorism continues to this day.

Remember, even then, Arabs that remained in Israel were granted citizenship. ( approx. 350,000 of them )
As to the guarantee of Jewish rights in other countries, history shows that Jews suffered worldwide during this part of world history.

Additionally, while the British government's policy concerning the creation of a jewish state was favourable, this was not the case among those british administrators and diplomats actually living and working in the middle east.
The great majority of british in the middle east were pro-arab, and extremely anti-jewish.

Thus it was that pro-arab british majistrates actually Created the post of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Additionally, they further appointed as Grand Mufti a rabidly anti-jewish activist that was never even nominated by the Islamic community..
That Grand Mufti, Yasser Arafats' uncle, became a good friend of Adolf Hitler, and when it was suggested that german and european jews be exiled to palestine, that same Grand Mufti objected, suggesting a "final solution".
Simply Kill The Jews.

I'm not asking anyone to kill all the arabs.
Just kick them out of Israel if they can't learn to get along.
And just kill the ones that can't get along and refuse to go.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School Balfour Declaration 1917

The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
Balfour Declaration 1917