Q&A with Aluf Benn on the Palestinian statehood bid
Haaretz Newspaper's editor-in-chief answers readers' questions live online.
Haaretz Editor-in-Chief Aluf Benn answered readers' questions about the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, on Wednesday, September 21. Thank you to the thousands of people who took part in this live event.
Benn has been covering Israel's wars and diplomacy since the Oslo Accords of 1993, through six successive prime ministers, the peace processes with Syria and the Palestinians, the intifada, the Mideast road map, Arab Spring and the current crisis.
 |
Haaretz Editor-in-Chief Aluf Benn answers readers' questions online, September 21, 2011. |
| Photo by: Haaretz |
His work has appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, and Newsweek, and he is a regular contributor to The Guardian.
Benn holds an MBA degree from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and a degree from Tel Aviv University.
*******************************************************************************************
Q: Do you think it may be dangerous for Israel if a Palestinian state is approved by the UN without a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue? What should Israel do to ensure that this issue is resolved without threatening the Jewish demographic majority in Israel? Is the PA like to abdicate to the return of the refugees to Israel with the creation of a Palestinian state?
Thanks
Michel Ehrlich, Brazil
A: That's the core of future negotiations. Even if the PA abdicates, would the Palestinians in Syria or Lebanon accept it, or launch a "PLO 2" struggle? The current resolution cannot "resolve" the refugee issue beyond some ambiguous diplomatic lingo.
Q: Hello Mr. Benn,
In your opinion after living in and studying the Middle East, if Israel is forced back to the 1947 or 1949 lines do you think this would bring an everlasting peace or just another "hudna" till the Arab countries feel the time would be ripe to attack a weakened Israel again?
Thank you
Arnie Yesovitch
A: It depends on the circumstances. The deal is gaining more western support for Israel in return for leaving the territories and forgoing the settlements. The political debate here revolves around the question, which is more important.
Q: Dear Mr. Benn,
I would like to ask you how important the EU27 vote is for the upcoming vote in the UN on Palestinian statehood?
1. Anders Persson, Lund University, Sweden.
A: The EU – the largest block of liberal democracies in the world – can legitimize or delegitimize UN resolutions.
Q: How does the current Palestinian effort compare to the 1988 Algiers Declaration (of Palestinian independence)? What was Israel’s reaction then, and can we expect a similar response?
Josh D. Cohen
S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace
A: At the time, there was no Palestinian Authority, and the first intifada was raging in the West Bank and Gaza. The current bid follows two decades of a futile peace process.
Q: Can you explain to me why such a big deal is being made out of the Palestinian bid for statehood? I believe the move will be purely symbolic and at most expose a well-known diplomatic landscape? What is really at stake for the various players, and what do they stand to gain?
Julian Kölbel, Germany
A: Reality is dictated on the ground here, not at the UN – so the big question is whether this is the prelude to a third intifada.
Q: What are the dangers of returning to 1967 borders?
Yossi
A: Rocket fire on Tel Aviv and the Ben Gurion airport, leading to economic devastation in Israel. And higher exposure to future land invasion.
Q: Dear Sir,
How have we come to the day when Israel conditions direct negotiations on the Palestinians dropping the request for UN to recognize it as a state? Isn’t the establishment of a Palestinian state in the clear interest of Israel? Don't the people of Israel feel ridiculed?
Ahmed Mashrawi
Member of Council, Tel Aviv-Jaffa
(A similar question was asked by Meny from France)
A: The zero-sum blame-game takes precedence here.
Q: Is it possible to say that this is the most difficult diplomatic/strategic situation facing Israel since the Oslo Accords?
Zach Gerber
A: Yes.
Q: Why don't we give up already the lands that are not under our control and that we have no ability whatsoever of visiting?
Shalom As
A: They were given up in Oslo (A areas.)
Q: Mr. Benn,
I assume the PA will lose in the UNSC and gain national observer status from the UNGA, increasing Israel's global isolation. What do you foresee as the likely response of the Netanyahu government?
Norman I. Gelman
A: There will be some retaliation – withholding PA tax revenues, for instance. The big question is whether Netanyahu will dare to annex parts of the West Bank (he might stop at "appointing a committee" or something similar.) The Israeli electoral calendar, and the Netanyahu-Lieberman fight over the right wing base, will determine the Israeli reaction.
Q: Sir, I am a Muslim and my sympathies are with the Palestinians - though I confess my sympathy is based on bias in favor of my co-religionists. Still, I cannot understand your [i.e. Jewish] insistence that Israel should be recognized as a 'Jewish' State when, at the same time, there is Jewish consternation that their neighboring Arab States may adopt Shariah law and become 'Islamic' ? What is the difference?
Aftab Ahmad Ali
A: You're making the wrong distinction. Israel has never intervened in the national definition of the neighboring countries, or their legal systems. It fears the rise of Islamist forces that are keen on its destruction, like Hezbollah in Lebanon. But it never criticized the Shariah law in Saudi Arabia.
Q: BBC News recently released a global opinion poll on the matter of the Palestinian bid to the UN. It showed more people supported the bid than opposed it in every country the survey was conducted in, including the United States. However, the survey seems not to have been conducted in Israel. We all know how the PM feels about it, but how does the Israeli public feel about the Palestinian move?
Brian Hedden
New York, USA
A: I have not seen any recent polling data, and I'd rather not speculate.
Q: The religious/nationalist bloc will make only tactical adjustments even in the face of forcing the U.S. into a deeply embarrassing veto. This is consistent with the bloc's short term policy of hanging tough and expanding the settlements. What is their long term policy? What is the final status that the religious/nationalist bloc sees for the Palestinians on the West Bank? If they hang tough indefinitely on settlement expansion, what do they see in the future for relations with Palestinians, the U.S., the EU, Egypt and Jordan? Does the religious/nationalist bloc have an end game in mind? If so, what is it?
Charles Rich
A: It depends of the bloc's components, which are not identical in their views and policies. The ideological right wing wants to bring 100-200,000 more Jews to the West Bank and end once and for all the ideas of partition. According to this view, the Palestinians, wider Arab world and the West will accept this – just as they have lived with the settlements for 44 years with little beyond lip-service criticism. They also see a post-Hashemite Jordan as the future Palestinian state, with the West Bank Palestinians as its citizens who live under Israeli control (or emigrating eastwards.) To them it's not short term policy, but a very long-term one.
Q: Hi Mr. Benn,
Why is the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN considered a unilateral action, while the construction of settlements in the West Bank is not? How could the US pretend to be an honest broker when they veto a Security Council resolution requesting Israel to stop building settlements, and now plan to veto the Palestinian statehood bid? If the situation were reversed, would Israelis feel that what they were being offered was fair? Will Israel really allow Palestinians to have a country or is this just all a waste of time and lives?
Thanks,
Gamal H. Mustafa
Puerto Rico
A: All very good questions. But political realities are determined by the balance of forces, and not by arguments alone. The Palestinians have the upper hand at the UN, and Israel in America and on the ground in the West Bank.
Q: Dear Aluf,
Is Netanyahu aware of the vast amount of political capital with the international friends being consumed through his intransigence? How should Jewish people outside Israel who committed to a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state respond to events this week? And is it possible for Abbas to win the UN vote and at the same time reassure Israel?
Thanks,
Neil Nerva, Vice Chair - Jewish Labour Movement – U.K.
A: He knows, but believes and hopes that over time Western public opinion will realize the futility of its support for the unimportant Palestinian issue and turn its attention to other regional problems – first and foremost to Islamization and extremism.
Abbas might try to reassure Israelis of his opposition to violence, but his ability to control the Palestinian youth and prevent a third intifadah is in question – especially if Israel and the US Congress withhold aid and tax revenues from the PA, and practically dissolve the PA police force, which cares for public order.
Q: How strong is Iran's influence today with Hamas and/or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad? Could Iran spark renewed clashes in Gaza a la 2008/09?
Thank you.
Sally Cummins
A: Hamas and Jihad can spark clashes or avoid them based on their own calculations; they don't take orders from Iran.
Q: Dear Mr. Benn,
I am a Jew and an Israeli. I follow everything and anything that has to do with Israel, with excitement and anguish. Today, I am confused. Is our prime minister catering to his religious coalition or to the state?
Kindly,
Charles Obadia
A: He doesn't seem to notice any difference between them.
Q: Mr. Aluf,
I'm independent Palestinian citizen. I don't support any political faction, but I truly know that the majority of my people from Fatah and even Hamas support peace with Israel based on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. The question is why do the majority of Israelis - left or right- oppose this fair solution? Do Israelis really think that we - Arab and Muslims - could cede Jerusalem? Don't you think that peace and only fair peace could ensure the safety of Israelis? Until when will Israel stay dependent on America? Will America stay the dominant power forever? Do you or your government know what will happen in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of the Muslim countries a year from now? Why do Israelis always choose war not peace? Why?
Abdlerahman Ahmed
A: You pose many good questions. Let's focus on the key one: The majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace. The scars from the second intifada's suicide bombings and the rocket attacks following the Gaza pullout dominate mainstream political thinking in Israel.
Q: Hello,
Would the new Palestinian 'state' include the Gaza Strip? The de facto ruler in Gaza is Hamas and I cannot see how Abbas could decide or implement anything in Gaza. Should Palestine be recognized as an independent state and include Gaza, would a continued barrage of rockets from Gaza into Israel not automatically mean war between the two states? Assuming Palestine is recognized as an independent state, what would be the status of the 300,000-500,000 Jews living on the West Bank - illegal settlers or citizens of Palestine? And are they likely to stay or will they seek refuge in Israel or elsewhere?
Thank you!
Pietro de Marchi
Bolzano, Italy
A: The presumed state will include Gaza, but only on paper, since Abbas' PA has no authority there. As for the settlers, in the past, whenever Israel withdrew from territory it took away its settlers. Abbas demands a similar treatment of the future Palestine; Netanyahu differs.
Q: Why does Haaretz take such a hard line on Netanyahu's request that Palestinians forego the physical right of return as a prelude to talks, but take Abbas’ insistence on a settlement freeze in Jerusalem as justified? Surely both sides should give something, or talk without pre-conditions?
Carla, UK
A: Netanyahu's demand from Abbas was not as you stated, but rather to recognize Israel as "the state of the Jewish people," which makes the Palestinian national narrative null and void. Since no leader would agree to forgo his nation's ethos, Netanyahu's demand appears to be a deliberate block to meaningful negotiations over the core issues.
Q: Given that the statehood bid will not affect any immediate change on the ground, what is the Palestinian Authority hoping to gain? Will Palestine's accession to the UN as a nonmember observer state strengthen their position in their negotiations with Israel?
What cost to the U.S. will there be once they veto the Palestinian bid? Can these costs be reduced if European states also vote no on the bid?
Kevin Hakakian
Los Angeles, CA
A: The recognition will further erode the legitimacy of Israel's occupation in the West Bank and strengthen the Palestinian position vis-à-vis Israel in international bodies and courts, allowing the new state to bring its case against the settlement to the International Criminal Court.
Q: Hi Aluf,
What is really behind Israel's fear regarding the United Nations recognizing the legitimacy of the State of Palestine? There seems to be near hysteria emanating from Israeli politicians.
Kind Regards,
Shaun Sheridan
Australia
A: The Netanyahu government believes that Israel should control parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, into the future for both ideological and security reasons. A UN resolution recognizing Palestine within the pre-1967 lines is therefore inimical to Israeli policy, as it turns all Israelis beyond the Green Line into trespassers.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
I am sorry that I could not ask my question which is: Since the UN charter bans belligerent behavior between neighbors, how can a new state take form while in a confrontational mode? Particularly, I refer to Hamas and their declared intention of destroying Israel
Israel (Netanyahu, Prosor) is constantly saying they'd sit with the Palestinians for negotiations "tomorrow morning" if they forgo the bid at UN. And exactly, what are they planning to negotiate if they haven't been willing to cede nothing? Is it a fraudulent tactic? because this would worsen the situation even more...! And an other question: Is there ANY chance this situation will bring the end of this lousy coalition and maybe bring a partnership with Livni?
Mr Benn says "The majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace". But this is a lame excuse because everyone knows that the UN and the USA will ensure Israel's security if Israel will allow the Palestinians to have a State. Supporters of Israel always find some unconvincing reason to block the Palestinian aspirations. We all know that most Israelis in their hearts want all the Palestinian land. Why can't we be honest about this - it is time to lay it on the table and overcome the irrational greed that is responsible for this delusion.
I've seen on the one hand that many countries consider the West Bank occupied land, I think based on UN Resolutions, whereas on the other hand the Government of Israel has a different point of view. Can you explain how those UN Resolutions can be interpreted differently?
Just imagine, when the vote for Palestinian statehood is before the General Assembly, Israel votes in favour. Turning a lose lose situation into the most massive shift in Israel/Palestine relations ever.
Haaretz is a wonderful newspaper - sincere thanks to Mr Benn for answering these questions. He has made this quagmire much clearer for me personally. I learn so much from Haaretz and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to read this newspaper on the internet.
the same way that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran are justified!
Israel has built settlements as far east as mere kilometers away from the Jordan border. Is Israel building these settlements to secure good land of strategic value (I'm thinking of water, fertile land, strategic value in war) - or are they building these settlements for religious reasons (God's chosen people, God's land etc)?
Settlers can not do these terrorist acts without weapons and IDF protections.They won't dare.Settlers make Israel look bad.
Dear Aluf, just a remark concerning your answer to Kevin from Los Angeles: "The recognition ... will [allow] the new state to bring its case against the settlements to the International Criminal Court." To the best of my knowledge, Israel withdrew its ratification of the treaty which made Israel a State Party of the International Criminal Court, while only individuals of member states can be accused before it. BTW: Turkey did not ratify the treaty either. I admit that I let myself disturb by some remarks which seemed to stem from Turkish officials recently in the newspaper. Best, Christoph
1)what was the PLO establish to liberate in 1964? 2)Why doesn't haaretz speak more forcefully about palestinians continued anti semitic anti israel incitement in their media and schools? 3)What will be israels recourse should a "peace" deal be signed and the palestinians continue to attack israel either via the west bank,sinai or gaza? Will israel be handcuffed from defending itself as it has been for the last long while? If israel signs a peace deal, and hamas keeps using arms length militants to fire rockets at israel from gaza, will israel be allowed in the eyes of the UN to respond to hamas and will the UN call for a libya style intervention against hamas?
They have always been and will always be trespassers. The law is the law. Why should there be an exception for israêli settlers ?
Plenty of countries around the world have longstanding border disputes. No one particularly pressures these countries to resolve them in a timely fashion. Shouldn't Israel recognize a Palestinian state in Gaza and the currently controlled PA territory in the WB and turn this whole mess into a mere border dispute?
Israel's assumption is that something like the present US support for Israel will continue indefinitely. Suppose that were not so? In the foreign policy apparatus, where despite figures like Ambassador Shapiro, Gentiles far outnumber Jews, many CIA, miiutary and State Deoartmehnt officers are indignant at the arrogance and brutality (as they see it) of the Israel lobby. At some poiht, a group of US politicians seeking a decided change will not hesitate to raise the issue of dual loyalty. Quite apart from the prominence of extremely cultivated figures like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson, the leaders of offical American Jewry are not conspicuous for subtlety or depth of historical thought. They suppose that their present influence will continue indefinitely. They may be wrong: what then?
To what extent do you estimate that the PA's success (or lack thereof) will speed/slow the rate of negotiations between Israel and the PA? Will UN status affect the final borders, etc that are agreed upon? Does the primary obstacle in negotiations exist with the international community or with the two parties? What would need to change in Israeli and/or PA society/politics/economy for a peace agreement to happen soon? To what extent is Hamas a player in the negotiations? Could a peace agreement exist against their will, and if so, how would that work? Thank you for your time!
do you miss Yaser Arafat ? and why ?
Given that Barak, Peres and Natayahu have spoken of peace more than anyone in israel but the content of what they have offered in real life is so tiny. Do you really think that these are men of peace? And will any Palestine leader trust any process they are involved in?
I don't care too much for Palestinians, and if given the choice to assimilate with them or to seperate from them, i would certainly choose the later, but what i can't get through my thick scull is that: "You don't want them to live with you, but won't let them live without you?" Its bad enough that millions of them were forced out of their homes to live in squaller throughout the world, being treated like animals, and in some cases worse, to make way for Greater Israel but to deny them the right to statehood is truly a deep low in humanity. The Arab world is going through a sudden change, and the arab countries Israel once could count on have new islamist regimes that need controversy like this to fuel their fundamentalism. Is this truly the message Israel wants to send these new regimes?
Given that Israel (not just the Extreme Right) are building settlements that make a viable state impossible, while being opposed to a one-state solution, what is their goal? The only way out with this strategy seems to me only forced transfer or genocide. Or am I missing something?
Sir, my sympathies are with the Palestinians' demand for UN recognition - though I confess my sympathy is based on bias in favour of my co-religionists. I cannot understand your [i.e. Jewish] insistence that Israel should be recognized as a 'Jewish' State when, at the same time, there is Jewish consternation that their neighbouring Arab States may adopt the Shariah and become 'Islamic' ? What is the difference ?
Q: why israel don't accept the un resolution 181 which mean recognise a palestinian state so palestinians stop there step to the UN and start negotiation ?
After 53 years of going nowhere, it is time to at least accept the fact that Palestinians deserve a state of there own (just as Israel received in 1948). Isn't that the basis for a two-state solution? The status quo is not working. The only winner is Israel in that more settlements are built and then expanded on Palestinian lands. The time for change has long past and we need another Rabin to move forward.
Question: After the US veto in the security council, what are the options left to the Palestinians?
To most people the question of Israeli settlements in the midst of the proposed Palestinian state seems unsolvable. Not only the Settlements themselves but the infrastructure around them - secure roads, IDF p rotection etc, all seem to be totally at odds with their situation within the Palestinian state. How would you imagine that Israel might be able to solve this problem to the satisfaction of the Palestinians in any negotiations?
First step to peace: 'Quiet everyone! Stop blaming. Just be quiet. Now, who is in?' Second step: Both sides apologize and recognize that violence just isn't the way. Third step (with a hopeful smile): We can make it better for us and new generations. For both people. Still in our lives and stop being and acting like victims. Both sides! Now, 'Who is in!???' Hopeful Israeli PS. I have more ideas.
The Quartet's Tony Blair keeps talking about a deal to "address the Palestinian's aspirations for statehood", which seems to me to be totally at odds with the Palestinians viewpoint that they ARE already a state, and are simply applying for membership of this Country Club For States. What is your take on this matter? ARE they already a state (albeit one under military occupation) or are they - and the 140+ countries that support them - wrong simply because Israel and the USA say that they are not a state, merely a "disputed territory"?
Mr Benn, Has Israel or the United States explained to the international community (and to Palestinians) exactly what will be different about the next round of talks that would make them more likely to succeed than the same talks that have been going on for almost 20 years? Regards, Ibrahim
I would love to see a source showing proof that there is no consensus that we want Israel to be considered a Jewish state. The fact is Israel is offically a Jewish state based on the grounds that upon its declaration in 1948 it was known as a "home for the Jewish people". If the Palestinians want to be accepted as a people then they must accept Israel as Jewish.
No Jew will be allowed into Palestine. Doesn't Israel suddenly appear to be the good guy?
which divided British Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
As a Jew, I really don't care if the Palestinians agree to this. We don't need anyone else to put that stamp on Israel. It is a Jewish state and we have the capability through legislation to promote that aspect. Frankly, I would go further and drop Arabic as an official language, and alter the Arab school curriculum to reflect a more Israeli character by reducing lessons taught in Arabic in favour of teaching in Hebrew. There are other things we can do. I think the point of having Palestinians accept that Israel is a Jewish state would directly affect the entire reason for the Arabs being hostile to Israel in the first place. In 1948, the UN mandated the creation of two states one Jewish and one Arab. Today the PA is using that declaration to make its case. If it uses one part it must accept the other. To be honest everyone knows that Palestinians harbour a desire to occupy all of what is Israel today. That is the reason why they will never say those words.
How can the Palestinians ask for a state when the man who supposedly represents them can't even enter Gaza which is supposed to be part of that state? Has anyone asked Abbas if he will go to war to conquer Gaza if a state was declared? If the answer is no, then Gaza would have to be independent of the rest of Palestine. This whole thing is a total farce and what is even more said is that the entire world knows it and let's the Palestinians make fools out of themselves. Very sad.
Will the bill of rights and the constitution include everyone? Including Palestinians and African migrants....!
Not likely ever. The ruling class prefers not to have to answer to the people.
Perhaps after Great Britain establishes a Constitution.
Since the Gazans and the West Bank people cant agree on the simplest quetsions do you really expect any statements by any so called Palestinian to be lived up to? The Gazan freaks and Abbas agree that they will never recognize a Jewish state while the Gazans alone state that they will NEVER RECOGNIZE Israel regardless. What does that spell for the Jews in Israel?
Preparing for elections even Hamas came with constructive proposals in 2005. Pals did agree in the prisoners agreement in 2007 and there was a unity goverment ready to negotiate with Israel. All this was ignored by the international community, pressuring Abbas into violently suppressing Hamas, so the unity government ended. It is hypocritical to blame Pals for disunity, because that was precisely what the West wanted and enforced
...is it possible, that the palestinians "repeat" their UN bid for example in 24 months again, go again with a statehood-bid to the UN security council ? e.g. in case still no result was achieved on a "negotiated statehood" with israel...
Sir, Could you please explain out of what legal right established by international law Israël pretends to control the accession of a foreign country to the status of a member of the United Nations and even take sanctions against this new member. Best regards..
How unrealistic the so called "one state" option is, and how it wouldn't bring peace at all to both peoples.
Do you see any cracks between the White House and the Jewish Lobby? Is it likely that when a new president takes over in the US (in one year or five years) he will maintain his distance from the Jewish Lobby?
By poll results, it is apparent that domestic and international public opinion play minor roles in shaping WH foreign policy decisions. So are we talking about the influence of zionist lobbies trying to "help" israel, or is there another variable at work? --- is the US interested in keeping the region in perpetual tension and instability?
I'm sorry to tell that the average American citizen, supported by numbeous polls, is quite pro-Israel. The mood in the U.S., especially since 9/11 is very anti-Arab, anti-Muslim. Perhaps it's not fair, but American popular opinion is very much on the side of Israel. You give AIPAC much more credit than it really has.
and what you say has no factual source whatsoever. How about Abbas violating the oslo accords? http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-194472761.html I guess you overlooked that one, and its just one example of many.
No israel, No Palestine. One Man, One Vote, Equality for all inhabitants. Equal Pay for Equal Work, Equal Water Rights. No Apartheid, No Segregation...A Very True Secular Democracy. Let us call it:”State of Holy land”.
Try living here for a year and interact with the Palestinians as we do, and then we shall see if you feel the same way. Until then, how can you speak about a situation about which you know nothing about in a country that is 3000 miles away from you?
If the ICC found Israel in violation of war crimes because of its action in WB and Gaza, what would Israel's reaction be?
Five questions: 1) Palestinians living in Gaza and West Bank live in which country? 2) If India invaded Gaza, will it have invaded Israel? 3) If a child is born in Jerusalem, in which country that child is born? Before answering, please remember that territory annexed by another country that is not recognized by UN does not belong to that country. Otherwise child born of Afghan parents in Iraq can be considered American as US occupies Iraq not authorized by UN. 4) Were Palestinians dropped from sky in West Bank and Gaza after Israel was created or were they there before Israel was created? 5) If according to Jewish history, 2000 years ago Jews were in what is now known as Gaza and West Bank and hence it belong Israel then 600 years ago all of US belonged to Native Americans then will Israel support returning entire USA back to Native Americans. Please answer to the point.
This is all oddly reminicent of the wild west in the US in the mid 1800's. The natives were beaten down and disregarded as humans, crazed religious communities were set up and the rule of law was flimsy to non-existant. Well done israel, you are as backward as they come and regressing further by the day. You have about 100 years before you need to think about giving ethnic minorities any rights, on your current timeline.
then what do you refer to the 5 Arab countriesEgypt,Syria,Lebanon,Jordon, and Iraq which keep the Palestinian refugees in camps since 1947. No rights to vote. No way to get citizenship. Please answer Tony.
Israel is as foward as they come. Gays aren't hanged as they are in Gaza and Iran and arabs hold seats in the knesset and israeli-arabs live anywhere they want in Israel. Didn't Abbas just say that the West bank must be "Jew free"? Who is backward again?
well, i am palestinian refugee and all what i want is to return with my family to my village,it's just 20km from the refugees camp where i live.
you could comment on the statement announced a few days ago that Palestine would not allow Jews to reside there. Take your time Tony.
if you mean by international law you are referring to the united nations, any decent and honest person wouldnt listen to them as they are known as the most corrupt organization. Israel has received more condemnations more then any other country combined, that includes iran russia north korea china ect. how could someone take them seriously?
is it not better one man one vote, let israel accepts palestinians both in the occupied territories and those driven away would like to come back and get settled in Israel as citizens of israel ?
One state is excellent, really the best solution......provided Pals have fully equal rights
What are the tools that the Palestinians will have if they get a state. I'm thinking access to the ICJ ,the ICC and the fourth Geneva Convention. Is there any 'Mischief' they can make in other forums? E.g. FIFA, Eurovision, ICRC.
Everyone says that there are many problems with the Palestinians going to the UN for a state but no one tell us what the problems are. I get they will lose money but a state is worth more that cash. I really can't see a serious downside to going to the UN.
Right is to radical..aligned with US agenda. Left is to radical ....center is less bipolar
When was the PLO established and what do you propose that the palestinians can agree to where you have guarantees that they recognize israel as a jewish state and FOREVER give up the idea of trying to destroy israel?
Palestinians never asked israel to recognize their future State as "ISLAMIC" State.
Your refusal to see the equavalance of one state for one ethnic group and another state for another ethnic group is an indication of how heavy your blinders are. Go ahead now, and do your little dance about how Jews are not an ethnic group or whatever cockamamie rationalization you're going to come out with so that you can avoid concluding that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You completely ignored the question. The disengagement in Gaza gave us an idea of what happens when you give the Palestinians their freedom. Immediately thereafter an intifada was launched, thousand of rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza targeting civilians. By them recognizing Israel as a Jewish state they would be showing that they are relinquishing the attempt at annihilating them.
From the Palestinian Draft Constitution of 2003. "Article (2) ... The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. ... Article (5) Arabic is the official language and Islam is the official religion in Palestine." Recognition of the Arab state of Palestine as both Arabic and Islamic is built into the definition of nationhood. The problem is that for Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, it must forego the claim of right of return.
It's more than about religion. Jews are a people, much like Palestinians are.
The Palestinians just declare that any future state of Palestine will be ethnically cleansed of any and all Jews and that any Palestinian found selling land to a Jew is threatened with capital punishment.