Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

In the last 16 years, Israel has moved Right Left and the 'Palestinians' have become more rejectionist

Today was the 16th anniversary of the death of Yitzchak Rabin. While the observances today were much quieter than they have been in the past (another issue for another post), Evelyn Gordon used the occasion to refute the mantra that Israelis have moved to the Right since Rabin's death. Comparing Rabin's final Knesset speech (which the Left systematically ignores - it has never been included in the package of materials given to journalists to mark Rabin's death) to today's seeming Israeli consensus, Gordon argues convincingly that Israel has moved dramatically to the Left.
For instance, Rabin envisioned a final-status solution in which Israel lived alongside a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state.” Today, even the “right-wing” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly advocates a Palestinian state.

Rabin envisioned “united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev [two nearby settlements],” as “the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.” Since then, two Israeli prime ministers have offered to give the Palestinians East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and most of the Old City.

Rabin declared that Israel’s “security border … will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.” Since then, two Israeli premiers have offered to give the Palestinians almost all the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley; even the “right-wing” Netanyahu reportedly agreed to negotiate borders based on the 1967 lines.

Rabin listed Gaza’s Gush Katif as one of the settlement blocs Israel would retain. Since then, Israel has withdrawn from every inch of Gaza.

Rabin pledged “not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.” Since then, Israel
has uprooted 25 settlements (21 in Gaza and four in the West Bank) without a final-status agreement, while the “right-wing” Netanyahu instituted Israel’s first-ever moratorium on settlement construction (for 10 months), including “building for natural growth.”
Read the whole thing.

Rick Richman looks at the flip side of the equation and finds that the 'Palestinians' are more intransigent than ever.
What about the Palestinians? In the last 11 years — after they rejected the Clinton parameters that would have given them a state on 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem and a “right of return” to the new Palestinian state — they have not moved at all.

In a July 2000 poll taken by the Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research (PCPSR), large majorities opposed Israeli retention of even the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, or security arrangements prohibiting a Palestinian air force or heavy weapons systems. A total of 87 percent opposed adopting a school curriculum in the Palestinian state that would “recognize Israel and teach school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians.” Flash forward a decade: a December 2010 PCPSR poll showed a lopsided majority (58-40) opposed to what “everyone knows” is the solution: a Palestinian state on roughly the 1967 lines, with land swaps for the major Israeli settlement blocs, a shared Jerusalem, international compensation for Palestinian refugees, and a “right of return” to the new Palestinian state.
I suppose that there are those who will argue that President Obama's pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu was worthwhile. After all, it has yielded Netanyahu's acceptance of a 'Palestinian state,' Netanyahu's alleged agreement to negotiate based on the '1967 borders' and a 10-month 'settlement freeze.' One is left to wonder what similar pressure on the 'Palestinians' might have yielded.

Labels: , ,


At 6:34 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

Excellent summary! I've even put it on my Facebook status for my enormous number of lefty friends... and that is that if you read JFKennedy's and MLKing's speeches, they bear no resemblence to the current Democrat party verbiage. JFK spent his career going up against the cold war marxists. MLK wanted education, opportunity, character, merit... not confiscation and machete operations for all. We can add IRabin to this list. Their images are being misused by the hippy intimidators. I'd love to see a book about this from David Horowitz. Maybe a compilation of speeches from these quickly-made-historical figures, interspersed with essays, including from Carl I. Jerusalem, analyzing the Left's misrepresentation of these people. BTW, the intimidation factor of the Palestinians (and their godfathers - think Argentina bombing) keeps the pressure off of them.

At 8:37 PM, Blogger Eliana said...

Bibi's willingness to negotiate on the basis of the pre-67 cease fire lines is definitely "alleged."

The list of pre-conditions keeps getting longer (and it would get instantly longer if it looked like negotiations were getting too close to happening in reality) - so I think some word play was going on when it came to the business about the borders. Word play in a situation where there's no way negotiations were going to happen, in other words.

Something along the lines of 'we recognize that you want to negotiate on the basis of the pre-67 cease fire lines' (as I recall).

Abbas won't negotiate. He thinks he has more to gain by not being willing to negotiate, so he'll never negotiate again (probably). He sounds like a guy who wants to retire as his form of revenge against the west for not giving him everything he wants. He can't understand how he could fail to win 100% of his demands when going up against Jews.

Trying to deal with Abbas is like trying to have a rational conversation with someone in a straitjacket. He's irrational and angry.


Post a Comment

<< Home