Israel Matzav

'Palestinians' threaten 'one-state solution'

A document produced by a group of prominent 'Palestinians' advocates seeking a 'one-state solution' in the event that - as expected - the unilateral drive for 'Palestinian statehood' does not produce a 'Palestinian state' (regardless of the vote in the UN General Assembly).

Among the participants in the group’s workshops over the past year in Jericho, Gaza and Istanbul were Omar Abdel Razek, the former finance minister in the Hamas government in the West Bank, and Nasser al-Shaer, that government’s education minister. Next to them sat senior Fatah officials including associates of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas − former Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath and senior adviser Mohammad Shtayyeh. Other signatories are Naser al-Kidwa, a former Palestinian observer at the United Nations, Fatah Deputy Secretary General and Communications Minister Sabri Saydam, and former economics minister and businessman Mazen Sinokrot.

Already in the preface, the authors stress that “strategic unity,” now greatly enhanced by the reconciliation process, is a key condition for putting together an effective strategy. The document’s starting point: Given the Israeli government’s intransigence, the option of settling the conflict via bilateral negotiations − the path pursued by the Palestinian leadership for 20 years − is no longer available.

Most of the document’s authors support the option of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital and a fair arrangement that will fulfill the right of return and the compensation of the Palestinian refugees. The document rejects the possibility of continuing the status quo, maintaining that the endless negotiations provide cover for expanding the settlements and consolidating the occupation. The authors also erase from the agenda the option of a Palestinian state with temporary borders and limited sovereignty, under effective Israeli control.

If the strategy of a diplomatic struggle for Palestinian independence − including sanctions, turning to the International Criminal Court and nonviolent resistance as in Egypt and Tunisia − does not change the situation, the group recommends switching to what the document calls Plan B: dismantling the Palestinian Authority and restoring responsibility for the West Bank’s inhabitants to Israel. The authors are not ignoring the price their public would pay for that, but wonder what honorable option would remain.

If it turns out that this option is unattainable, the authors recommend working toward a model of a binational state or democratic state without distinction between Israel and Palestinian citizens. Another possibility is a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian state.

Let's go down the list of options:

The only intransigence the Israeli government has had has been its desire to survive. Israel offered far too much under Ehud Barak, under Ehud Olmert, and even under Rabin and Netanyahu. Abu Mazen himself has admitted that he has not made a single concession since 1993, nor did Arafat:



No one in good conscience can blame the current situation on 'Israeli intransigence.' Except Haaretz of course. So the starting point of this document is wrong.

Then the authors claim they want "the option of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital and a fair arrangement that will fulfill the right of return and the compensation of the Palestinian refugees." That statement is a landmine. First, note that there's not even a mention of 'adjustments' in that statement (and in any event, such a mention would be empty because it would still presuppose Israel going back to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines unless the 'Palestinians' agree otherwise). And what the 'Palestinians' consider a 'fair arrangement' for the 'refugees' would mean flooding what is left of Israel with 'Palestinians' (really Arabs), which would leave two states: An Arab state and another Arab state with a few Jews. No Israeli - not even the revered (by Haaretz) Shimon Peres - could agree to that.

As a matter of law, the International Criminal Court ought not to take jurisdiction of any case involving Israel and the 'Palestinians.' First, because Israel is not a signatory to its treaty and therefore cannot be compelled to appear. Second, because 'Palestine' is not a state and therefore cannot be a signatory, regardless of the outcome at the General Assembly. They don't fulfill the Montevideo criteria, and they will not be a full member of the United Nations.

As to the laughable notion of the 'Palestinians' using 'non-violent resistance,' we already know what the 'Palestinians' consider 'non-violent.'

I suppose they can dismantle the 'Palestinian Authority,' but I question whether that would force Israel to take responsibility for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. The good news would be that dismantling the 'Palestinian Authority' would abrogate the Oslo Accords, and hopefully remove our 'right wing' government's inhibitions about building in Judea and Samaria (contrary to popular perception, the Oslo Accords place no restrictions on 'settlement construction').

Confederation with Jordan? You've got to be kidding.

Binational state? The 'Palestinians' would never agree because no 'refugees' would get to move here, because they'd be an underclass in our society, and because their real goal is destroying the Jewish state. A binational state would fulfill none of those goals.

Labels: binational state, one-state solution, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, two-state solution, unilateral declaration of statehood

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:47 AM