Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

A study has concluded that it is in Israel's interest to accept the 8 year old Arab peace initiative.

In a nutshell, the Arab Peace Plan was agreed by Arab states and accepted by Palestinian factions too. It hasn't yet been accepted by Israel - and even the excuse that some Palestinians may not accept it does not make sense when reading through the conclusions of this study.

The Arab Peace initiative does address the thorny issue of refugees and the right of return - it says that a just and agreed solution should be achieved. It therefore does not call for all Palestinian refugees to have a right of return, but recognises that this can be negotiated and a solution that is just to all should be found.

On borders, it calls for Israel to honour UN resolutions and give up land captured in 1967 (i.e. set the border of Israel to that before the 1967 war and keep 78% of the country of Palestine, when in 1947 the UN initially only allocated 55% to Israel). The country of Palestine existed before 1948 - and is defined in detail in documents, such as the Hope Simpson report of 1930.

What is interesting, is that the study takes into account the Israel objections and intransigence to this Arab peace initiative, and yet still calls for Israel to go for the initiative - as it is in the interest of Israel.

It is, the study concludes, Israel's best diplomatic option:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/fe ... s-1.321185

Cheers,
Shafique

The researchers propose that we accept the initiative, which has been gathering dust for eight years, with the reservations that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, the Palestinian refugees be allowed to return only to the Palestinian state (or that only a small number be allowed to live in Israel ). Also, terror against Israel would be immediately halted, terrorist infrastructure would be dismantled, security arrangements would be made and the large settlement blocs would be preserved as part of a land swap.

Thats what Israel offered at Taba. It was refused.

The myth that Taba offer in 2001 represented a generous offer (and that the Palestinians walked away) was covered before here:
dubai-politics-talk/quite-simple-t39794.html#p349273

But the point to note is that the Arab Peace Plan came after Taba - and this is what the study is referring to. (And let's assume the Israelis did indeed offer this in Taba - doesn't this strengthen the study's conclusion - that it should take up the 8 year-old offer?)

Cheers,
Shafique

This kind of stuff needs to end though, before peace can be a viable option:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/islamic-jihad-leader-israel-must-be-wiped-out-of-existence-1.321874

"Israel will not bring peace to the region, it will only bring war and destruction and therefore, the slogan of all should be that Israel must be wiped out of existence,"

"There is only the choice of Jihad and nothing else ..."

I dont think the initiators and of the Arab peace plan protest against the slogan above...

By the way, the majority of Palestinians want a jew free Palestine (even if jews accept Pali citizenship):

http://www.awrad.org/pdfs/English%20tables%20part%201%20peace%20August%202010.pdf

Scare-mongering won't change the fact pointed out in the original article - that it is in Israel's interest to take up the offer of peace that was made eight years ago.

The opinion poll of 3000 Palestinians makes interesting reading, and the spin that they want a Jew-free Palestine is laughable - the question asked is whether the illegal colonists should remain in Palestine - the vast majority say they should pack up and leave Palestine. Why shouldn't Palestinians be allowed to decide which foreigners to let into their country?
In fact the survey states:
"Israel should withdraw to the 1967 border between Israel and Palestine" = is supported by 68.4% of Palestinians (as 'essential' to the peace process).



But this amply demonstrates the amount of spin that is required to try and divert attention away from the fact that the Israelis are now standing in the way of peace.

There will always be those who wish to focus on the nutters - and the extremists in Israel who say that it is ok to kill non-Jew children, or use them as human shields - or to ethnically cleanse Israel are no better than those who use rhetoric against Jews. (These are recent stories, also from Haaretz.)

It is notable that the same day Haaretz publishes the above linked story about Islamic Jihad rhetoric - it also publishes the story about Hamas stating that rockets should not be fired at Israel because of the truce it is respecting:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... l-1.321953

The fact that the Arab Peace plan exists and that Israel refuses to sign up is all the evidence that is required against the Israeli spin that only a few die-hard supporters continue to believe.


The Israeli right and her supporters seem to be afraid of the Peace initiatives. Fortunately they seem to be losing the PR battle quite miserably.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: The opinion poll of 3000 Palestinians makes interesting reading, and the spin that they want a Jew-free Palestine is laughable - the question asked is whether the illegal colonists should remain in Palestine - the vast majority say they should pack up and leave Palestine. Why shouldn't Palestinians be allowed to decide which foreigners to let into their country?

A little history: jews lived in Judea and Samaria for millennia. In 1948 every single jew living there was killed or ethnically cleansed by Arab armies. In 1967 jews started to life there again. Now, people want to them ethnically cleansed (at best) again.

Try and keep the scaremongering down FD.

The poll just said that the colonists in the occupied territories should leave - if they want to come back to a sovereign Palestine, then why shouldn't they be treated like any other foreigners?

Your argument IS relevant to the refugees (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) who were displaced in 1948 - but their status is what the Arab peace plan says needs to be negotiated.

The illegal colonies and colonials living there are not the same as refugees. Perhaps the Palestinians should offer those who wish to stay Palestinian citizenship - but then it becomes an immigration issue for the sovereign state.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Your argument IS relevant to the refugees (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) who were displaced in 1948

Not many are alive today.

shafique wrote:The illegal colonies and colonials living there are not the same as refugees.

Look at Gush Etzion p.e.:

Etzion Bloc) refers to a group of Jewish villages established from the mid-1920s south of Jerusalem on the northern part of Mount Hebron in the southern West Bank, and destroyed during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War: Kfar Etzion, Massu'ot Yitzhak, Ein Tzurim and Revadim [1].
]The kibbutz fell within a day, and the Arab forces massacred the entire population of Kfar Etzion, soldiers and civilians alike, the total number of killed during the final assault, following massacre and suicide was between 75 to 250. Only three men and one woman survived.
As a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel controlled the area of the former Etzion Bloc. A loose organisation of Bnei Akiva activists, who later coalesced into Gush Emunim, led by Hanan Porat, whose parents had been evacuated, petitioned Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to allow the reestablishment of Kfar Etzion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion
The children of the parents who were evacuated in 1948 and returned to their parents land are not refugees. The parents were though.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Your argument IS relevant to the refugees (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) who were displaced in 1948

Not many are alive today.

I agree.

By the same token, the survey you quoted said that the colonies in Palestinian land occupied in 1967 should be vacated by those who weren't living in land in their lifetimes. The colonists from Europe and elsewhere are foreigners - and the notion that 2000 years ago Jews lived in the area is very weak (especially if you want to deny the descendants of 1948 refugees from returning to their lands).

I totally agree that those Jewish inhabitants of Palestine should indeed be allowed to stay - and quid-pro-quo the Arab inhabitants of villages now in Israel should either be allowed to return or be compensated.

I disagree with the Israeli right that say that Arab majority areas should be transferred to Palestine and Jewish majority areas should be transferred to Israel - that is because so much of the land has been stolen since 1967. The Jewish villages as of 1967 (indeed those established in the 1920s) are a small subset of the current 60% of the West Bank land that is controlled by Israel.

Cheers,
Shafique

A 'moderate' Palestinian official:

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

In other words a future Palestine has to be judenrein.

^Indiansummer - your post has nothing to do with the Arab peace plan, or am I missing something?

Flying Dutchman wrote:A 'moderate' Palestinian official:
...

In other words a future Palestine has to be judenrein.

Another quote that is unreferenced and is a typical reaction of those who are afraid of the Palestinians' 'Peace offensive'. I would not be surprised if this is a Memri special - or a case where an official is talking about illegal colonials and it has been translated as 'everyone who is Jewish'.

You can almost hear the barrels being scraped in desperation. You had similar scare stories in colonies before they became independent.

Yasser Arafat had a Rabbi as a minister of Jewish affairs, and the Palestinians have been explicit that Palestinian citizens who are Jewish will be welcome. The emphasis being on Palestinian citizens vs foreigners.

But, be that as it may - this thread is about the Peace Initiative and how a study shows that it is in Israel's interest to stop standing in the way of Peace and give up the occupation.

Cheers,
Shafique

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat

Thats how a future Palestinian state will look like: a racist apartheid state accepting only Arab citizens.

Let's say you're right - are you arguing that the Palestinians should therefore continue to live under occupation and be subject to Israel's apartheid rules in perpetuity?

The elephant in the room is that despite the scare stories, the survey in the OP still state that it is in Israel's interests to accept the Peace Plan and end the occupation.

I'll certainly join you in condemning any racist apartheid rules if the Palestinians choose to copy Israel's policies or go further.

Cheers,
Shafique

The real elephant is that as per the first sentence of above post, having jews as citizens equals occupation and apartheid.

The first sentence in my post was a question:

shafique wrote:Let's say you're right - are you arguing that the Palestinians should therefore continue to live under occupation and be subject to Israel's apartheid rules in perpetuity?

Simple question really - should Israel continue to occupy land that it captured in 1967, and continue to impose discriminatory restrictions on the occupied because of your manufactured fear of a possible apartheid when the Palestinians (of all religions) are free from the occupation?

As I said, I would join you in condemning a Palestinian government that chose to follow the practices of the current occupier - but until that happens, I'd rather focus on the actual discrimination that is documented in other threads and the main theme of this thread - which is Israel's reluctance to give up the occupation, and the study which showed it would be in Israel's interest to do the right thing.

Elephants deserve their own thread.

Cheers,
Shafique