Powered by WebAds

Saturday, October 04, 2008

'Palestinians': No land exchanges, no interim deals, and nothing without 'Jerusalem' and the 'refugees'

In an opinion piece on the 'Palestinian' Ma'an web site that probably reflects official 'Palestinian' policy, PLC member Mustapha Barghouti rejects any deal without Jerusalem or the 'refugees,' any 'interim' deals and any land exchanges. In other words, Barghouti (who is a cousin of Marwan the Murdering Moron Barghouti) rejects all of the 'compromises' that the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government has deluded itself into believing make a deal that is acceptable to Israel possible.
In finally talking seriously about a Peace Agreement, Israel may be changing its rhetoric, but not its tactics. Instead of opposing a Palestinian state, it is willing to accept a state; albeit one that does not have sovereignty over its land.

The most recent suggestions for the borders for a Palestinian state show that Israel is willing to remove 3,000 settlers from small outposts on Palestinian land. This will leave 450,000 settlers on the largest settlements that spread over the hills in the central and northern West Bank.

Despite recent reports that Olmert is now willing to divide Jerusalem, everything Olmert and Barak have said so far suggests that they want to transform Jerusalem beyond recognition. The Jerusalem we all know is not the one they have in mind. The Jerusalem of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Mount of Olives, Salwan, Al-Issawia, and other parts of the old town, are about to look very much like the neighborhoods that have sprouted all around it: Izariya, Abu Dies and perhaps Beit Hanina.

Every time Palestinian negotiators give an inch, Israel takes a mile; the Oslo Accords are but a case in point.

It is fine to negotiate, but not when negotiations undermine the very basis of international resolutions and norms. UN resolutions - backed by rulings from the International Court of Justice - state that all the land Israel grabbed since the morning of 5 June 1967 are occupied territories. This goes for the old city of Jerusalem and its surroundings, the West Bank, Gaza, the Latrun villages, the Golan, and even the Shebaa Farms.

Egypt insisted on taking back every inch of Sinai, just as Syria is holding out for every inch of the Golan. The Palestinians cannot accept less.

We must insist on Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied land, instead of being talked into a risky land exchange. It is bad enough that Israel took in 1948 half of the land the 1947 UN partition plan gave to the Palestinians. We don't need to make things worse.
There are a lot of lies in what Barghouti says and there is much that can and should be said in response. But right now, that's not the point. The point is that all of the hopes and dreams of Olmert and Livni and their supporters that there is a 'Palestinian' body politic on the other side of the table that is willing to make compromises are just that - hopes and dreams, smoke and mirrors. There is no 'Palestinian' body politic that is willing to compromise. It doesn't exist. And it is unlikely that it ever will.


At 1:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Notice that they cannot accept "less" than what the Egyptians "got" or the Syrians demanded.

Before any peace initiatives are undertaken, someone needs to set their expectations appropriately. Until their expectations are set appropriately, no negotiation can or should take place.

It is up to them, be reasonable or get what you really deserve. Nothing.

At 2:16 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

Please answer an important question that arose on a liberal blog-dovbear-.
Which came first?
Sharon's calling for a Pali state
or, Bush calling for it.
I've looked in google unsuccessfully, but I recall it began with Sharon( whether or not he was bluffing or not).
I sometimes wonder if he was playing a master chess game and thinking 10 steps ahead. Unfortunately when he stroked out , Olmert took over without any knowledge of Sharon's end game.
Shana Tova

At 2:18 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

i may be wrong, but I think Bush was following Sharon's lead on the subject , and then (unfortunately) Olmerdes.

At 4:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said...


I have been voicing a very similar opinion for a while. In my view, Sharon was setting out to prove that the 'Palis' weren't interested in peace, by giving them what they claimed they wanted, and then getting out of their natural self destructive way. Once he had made a case clearly and unambiguously to the world that this was the reality of the situation, alternative solutions would be the only solutions sought for the "problem".

He couldn't do this in Likud due to pressure from competitors, and he couldn't do it in Labor due to the same reasons. He created a disposable party for the purpose. Lots of clueless people followed him over. Oblivious to his intent. I can't imagine any other reason than a difficult stratagem being executed for a life-long hard-core security-first person of his stature and ability. He had to do this to create the demonstration for the world that the 'palis' themselves make peace impossible.

Unfortunately, as you noted, he stroked out, and his second in command, without the slightest clue of what was happening, took over. I believe Sharon took Olmert as number two, for precisely the reason that he was clueless.

I know lots of people disagree with me. I think Carl is very much in disagreement.

However, seeing the cunning and daring that Sharon has executed his entire life, I find this an easier and more logical situation to accept than him suddenly switching to being a dove. The latter makes no sense at all, unless it is part of a game he was running.

At 12:06 AM, Blogger Carl in Jerusalem said...


Yes, I disagree. You give Sharon too much credit. His end game was real simple: Keep himself and his sons out of jail. It's been documented.

At 12:07 AM, Blogger Carl in Jerusalem said...


Sharon called for it first.

You need to spend less time on lefty blogs. I will try to write more to keep you busier :-)


Post a Comment

<< Home