Some thoughts on an accord
In a Letter entitled "The terms for an accord" published in the Jerusalem Post this Friday, former (disgraced) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert comments on the current direct talks underway between PM Netanyahu and Pres Abbas. He starts by dismissing the issue of the settlement freeze as a non-issue, raised by US Pres Obama and then stuck to by Pres. Abbas, that had never been an issue before in 18 years of negotiations, including those carried out between him and Pres. Abbas for 2 years.
He then defines five issues that are of importance and must be agreed to by both sides, namely borders, status of Jerusalem, status of the "Holy Basin", i.e. the area of international religious concern, the refugee problem and Israel's security needs. He suggests that the Arab suburbs (villages) around Jerusalem should be transferred to a Palestinian State, thus effectively dividing Jerusalem. He also proposes that the "Holy Basin" be placed under international control. Notably these are the concessions that Olmert offered Abbas at the end of his stint as PM, but they were rejected by Abbas. However, these concessions are not binding on the current Netanyahu Government or any subsequent Israeli administrations.
I disagree vehemently with his proposals, transferring the Arab villages around Jerusalem to a Palestinian State is simply asking for future trouble. It's bad enough that Sderot and now Ashkelon are being rocketed from Gaza, from which Israel withdrew, and Haifa and the north were rocketed from Lebanon, from which Israel withdrew. To have the heart of Jewish Jerusalem sitting before them on a platter would be more than any red-blooded Palestinian terrorist could resist. There is rioting currently going on in the village of Silwan in which a Palestinian Arab and a Jew were killed because the Jerusalem Mayor proposed to build a park and historic center there. There was also rioting on the Temple Mount, with Palestinians throwing rocks down on the Jewish worshippers at the Wall, and at other Arab villages. This rioting has been contained, but it represents the continued fury of Palestinian Arabs against the Israeli State in any form. If they had the topological advantage they could bombard the Knesset with one mortar and bring the city and State to a standstill. It would be suicidal madness to give them the suburbs, just because they speak Arabic there.
In 1967, the Jews realized a millenial dream of unifying Jerusalem under Jewish control. The UN proposal for international control of Jerusalem was rejected in 1948, and has never been seriously discussed since then. Let it not now be resurrected by Israel, as if Israel were a weak entity pleading for international intervention. Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and must remain so, without foreign interference. Anyway, who is going to define the "Holy Basin", a name I have never heard of before. Does it include the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, etc? No, getting into such an issue would be stupid.
Certainly borders can be tackled, given minor adjustments of ca. 5% of the West Bank to accommodate the major Jewish towns, with some equivalent transfers of Israeli territory. Regarding the refugee issue, Olmert is on record as saying that he would have agreed to accept 20,000 refugees and US Pres. Bush had agreed to accept 100,000 into the USA (this has subsequently been denied by Elliott Abrams). This issue can be resolved, if only the actual refugees still alive from 1948 are included, not their descendents, children and grandchildren born elsewhere, and they can be accomodated within the future Palestinian State.
Netanyahu has emphasized that Israel's security is paramount, and this would be protected by ensuring a demilitarized Palestinian State. The PA would have an armed militia to protect law and order, as it currently does with Israel's consent, otherwise it will descend once again into the thugocracy it has been for most of its existence.
Such Letters as that of Olmert are worthwhile, because they allow ideas to be exchanged in Israel's open democracy. But, in principle they are quite useless, because they have no actual validity, as anyone can come up with his or her "ideal solution" to the problem. It can in fact only be "resolved" in intense and intricate negotiations between the two sides. At present such a negotiation is going on over the temporary settlement building freeze, which is due to end today, and whether or not a compromise can be reached to prevent the talks from failing. The left in Israel want Netanyahu to continue the freeze, while the right want it to end. Netanyahu cannot continue the freeze in its present form without endangering the stability of his coalition government. It is clear that Pres Abbas does not care if the Israeli Government falls, in fact he probably wants it to happen, so why equally should Netanyahu care about the consequences in the PA if the freeze continues. If Abbas leaves the talks, or resigns, or whatever, that is an internal Palestinian matter. To conduct negotiations on the basis of trying to "help" the enemy is ludicrous.
I feel the same about the settlement freeze. Israel should continue to do what is in its interests, since it has a perfectly legitimate claim to the land. Just because the BBC incorrectly calls the West Bank "Palestinian Land" does not make it such, it has never been under Palestinian sovereignty, and "saving" it for the Palestinians as the left in Israel and most of the world want is prejudging the issue. It is far better for Israel to continue to build and thus put pressure on the Palestinians to come to terms, than to stop building and thereby remove the enticement for the Palestinians to make peace.
He then defines five issues that are of importance and must be agreed to by both sides, namely borders, status of Jerusalem, status of the "Holy Basin", i.e. the area of international religious concern, the refugee problem and Israel's security needs. He suggests that the Arab suburbs (villages) around Jerusalem should be transferred to a Palestinian State, thus effectively dividing Jerusalem. He also proposes that the "Holy Basin" be placed under international control. Notably these are the concessions that Olmert offered Abbas at the end of his stint as PM, but they were rejected by Abbas. However, these concessions are not binding on the current Netanyahu Government or any subsequent Israeli administrations.
I disagree vehemently with his proposals, transferring the Arab villages around Jerusalem to a Palestinian State is simply asking for future trouble. It's bad enough that Sderot and now Ashkelon are being rocketed from Gaza, from which Israel withdrew, and Haifa and the north were rocketed from Lebanon, from which Israel withdrew. To have the heart of Jewish Jerusalem sitting before them on a platter would be more than any red-blooded Palestinian terrorist could resist. There is rioting currently going on in the village of Silwan in which a Palestinian Arab and a Jew were killed because the Jerusalem Mayor proposed to build a park and historic center there. There was also rioting on the Temple Mount, with Palestinians throwing rocks down on the Jewish worshippers at the Wall, and at other Arab villages. This rioting has been contained, but it represents the continued fury of Palestinian Arabs against the Israeli State in any form. If they had the topological advantage they could bombard the Knesset with one mortar and bring the city and State to a standstill. It would be suicidal madness to give them the suburbs, just because they speak Arabic there.
In 1967, the Jews realized a millenial dream of unifying Jerusalem under Jewish control. The UN proposal for international control of Jerusalem was rejected in 1948, and has never been seriously discussed since then. Let it not now be resurrected by Israel, as if Israel were a weak entity pleading for international intervention. Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and must remain so, without foreign interference. Anyway, who is going to define the "Holy Basin", a name I have never heard of before. Does it include the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, etc? No, getting into such an issue would be stupid.
Certainly borders can be tackled, given minor adjustments of ca. 5% of the West Bank to accommodate the major Jewish towns, with some equivalent transfers of Israeli territory. Regarding the refugee issue, Olmert is on record as saying that he would have agreed to accept 20,000 refugees and US Pres. Bush had agreed to accept 100,000 into the USA (this has subsequently been denied by Elliott Abrams). This issue can be resolved, if only the actual refugees still alive from 1948 are included, not their descendents, children and grandchildren born elsewhere, and they can be accomodated within the future Palestinian State.
Netanyahu has emphasized that Israel's security is paramount, and this would be protected by ensuring a demilitarized Palestinian State. The PA would have an armed militia to protect law and order, as it currently does with Israel's consent, otherwise it will descend once again into the thugocracy it has been for most of its existence.
Such Letters as that of Olmert are worthwhile, because they allow ideas to be exchanged in Israel's open democracy. But, in principle they are quite useless, because they have no actual validity, as anyone can come up with his or her "ideal solution" to the problem. It can in fact only be "resolved" in intense and intricate negotiations between the two sides. At present such a negotiation is going on over the temporary settlement building freeze, which is due to end today, and whether or not a compromise can be reached to prevent the talks from failing. The left in Israel want Netanyahu to continue the freeze, while the right want it to end. Netanyahu cannot continue the freeze in its present form without endangering the stability of his coalition government. It is clear that Pres Abbas does not care if the Israeli Government falls, in fact he probably wants it to happen, so why equally should Netanyahu care about the consequences in the PA if the freeze continues. If Abbas leaves the talks, or resigns, or whatever, that is an internal Palestinian matter. To conduct negotiations on the basis of trying to "help" the enemy is ludicrous.
I feel the same about the settlement freeze. Israel should continue to do what is in its interests, since it has a perfectly legitimate claim to the land. Just because the BBC incorrectly calls the West Bank "Palestinian Land" does not make it such, it has never been under Palestinian sovereignty, and "saving" it for the Palestinians as the left in Israel and most of the world want is prejudging the issue. It is far better for Israel to continue to build and thus put pressure on the Palestinians to come to terms, than to stop building and thereby remove the enticement for the Palestinians to make peace.
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home