Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

In a survey conducted by Kul Al-Arab among 1,000 residents of Um Al-Fahm, 83 percent of respondents opposed the idea of transferring their city to Palestinian jurisdiction, while 11 percent supported the proposal and 6 percent did not express their position

The main obstacle to Israel's annexation of occupied Palestinian territory was the PLO. Having endorsed the two-state settlement in the mid-1970s, it could no longer be dismissed as simply a terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction. Indeed, pressures mounted on Israel to reach an agreement with the PLO's "compromising approach." Consequently in June 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, where Palestinian leaders were headquartered, to head off what Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv dubbed the PLO's "peace offensive."

"Um Al-Fahm Prefers Israel," by Joseph Algazy, Ha'aretz, August 1, 2000.

"During the [recent] Camp David summit and even during the preparations that made for it, the subject of territorial exchange between Israel and the Palestinian state was raised for the umpteenth time. According to the proposal, some of the Jewish settlements in the territories would remain under Israeli sovereignty, in return for the transfer of Israeli Arab communities in the Northern Triangle region, including the city of Um Al-Fahm, to Palestinian control. The advocates of this proposal have never bothered to consult with the individuals who would be immediately involved in such an exchange - namely, the [Arab] residents of those communities, who are Israeli citizens."

"Those advocates should realize that the [Arab] residents themselves are totally opposed to the idea. During the present round of Palestinian-Israeli talks, the head of the 'Abna Al-Balad' ('Sons of the Village') group, Raja Aghbariya, who lives in Um al Fahm, declared, in an interview published in the Nazareth weekly Kul Al-Arab, that he is 'prepared to give up the National Insurance allowance [he gets as an Israeli citizen] and Israeli democracy to be united with the land and people of Palestine.'"

"A few days later, the results of a survey conducted by Kul Al-Arab indicated a completely different view among the city's residents."

"In the survey conducted among 1,000 residents [of Um Al-Fahm], both male and female, from all of the town's clans and large families as well as all segments of the local political spectrum, 83 percent of respondents opposed the idea of transferring their city to Palestinian jurisdiction, while 11 percent supported the proposal and 6 percent did not express their position. Of those opposed to the idea, 54 percent explained that they were against becoming part of a Palestinian state because they wanted to continue living under a democratic regime and enjoying a good standard of living, which includes National Insurance allowances and pensions. Of these opponents, 18 percent stated that they were satisfied with their present situation, that they were born in Israel and that they were not interested in moving to any other state. Another 14 percent of this same group went so far as to say that they were not prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of the creation of a Palestinian state and to be its "sacrificial offering of atonement." Another 11 percent cited no reason for their opposition to the annexation of their city by the Palestinian state."

"In addition to the fact that their parents and grandparents in 1948 decided to remain on their lands, Um Al-Fahm residents themselves have, over the past few years, gained first-hand knowledge of the regime of terror, oppression and corruption that exists in the Palestinian Authority under Chairman Yasser Arafat. The residents of Um Al-Fahm have expressed not only their own views and feelings but also the views and feelings of Israel's Arab community in general as well as of many Palestinians who today live in the PA and who, irrespective of their political aspirations for the end of the Israeli occupation, are opposed to the way Arafat and his followers are managing affairs.

shafique wrote:Ask the same question to those living under apartheid restrictions in occupied territories - and especially the illegally annexed East Jerusalem and you'll find that the loon selective reasoning doesn't apply.

shafique wrote:You want me to show you that those living under occupation don't want to not live under occupation?

shafique wrote:Ask the same question to those living under apartheid restrictions in occupied territories - and especially the illegally annexed East Jerusalem and you'll find that the loon selective reasoning doesn't apply.

Although few would say so publicly, every one of the handful of East Jerusalem Arabs I spoke with in the last two weeks said that he would rather live under Israeli sovereignty than under Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority.

Asem is in no rush to have East Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state under PA President Abbas. When I ask him if he would prefer to live under Abbas in a state of Palestine, rather than under Israeli sovereignty, he gives me the opposite answer of what I expected.
“No, I would rather live under Israelis than under Abbas.
At least here I can say what I want. In Syria, if you say what you want, you can go missing forever. In Jordan too. And under Abbas, too.

Time to pay up

Soon it will be clear whether Netanyahu's maneuver was an empty one, designed to buy time and ease international criticism of Israel, or whether he is ready for a compromise that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.
Haaretz Editorial

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pleased: The U.S. administration and the Arab League accepted his position and pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to renew direct talks with Israel "with no preconditions." Next week Netanyahu and Abbas will be guests in Washington, where they will relaunch the foundered negotiations over the final agreement and the implementation of a two-state solution.

Netanyahu got what he wanted, but now his promises are coming due. Soon it will be clear to all whether his maneuver was an empty one, designed to buy time and ease international criticism of Israeli actions in the territories, or whether he is ready for a compromise that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. By expressing doubt at yesterday's cabinet meeting about whether there was a "genuine partner on the Palestinian side," Netanyahu showed that he is preparing an escape route from being blamed for the failure of the talks before they have even begun.

The Middle East Quartet announced that the negotiations could be completed within a year. But Netanyahu's first test will come much sooner - next month when the construction freeze in West Bank settlements ends.

The right is pressuring the prime minister to renew settlement expansion in full force, and Netanyahu is maintaining ambiguity; soon he will be forced to dispel the ambiguity and make a decision.

The choice is clear: The construction freeze must remain in place for the duration of the negotiations.

New building across the Green Line would constitute a provocation and cause the talks to fail. The flimsy excuse under which previous Israeli government expanded the settlements while conducting peace talks with the Palestinians is misleading. The truth is that these actions undermined Israel's credibility and spurred the Palestinians to reject Israel's proposals.

Netanyahu's rationale for the freeze - that it served Israel's interests by demonstrating its desire for peace - is still valid, perhaps even more so.

If the suspension of construction was necessary to get the talks started, it clearly must continue while they are underway. If Netanyahu wants his peace declarations to be believed, they must also be seen in his actions on the ground.

shafique wrote:You seem to be asking for evidence that those living under Israeli occupation want to be free of the occupation! And yet you provide only an outdated survey and a report of a handful of Arabs a journalist interviewed!

shafique wrote:Ask the same question to those living under apartheid restrictions in occupied territories - and especially the illegally annexed East Jerusalem and you'll find that the loon selective reasoning doesn't apply.

shafique wrote:It appears that you are amongst those that fear the 'peace offensive' - otherwise, why not join those wishing for peace?

every one of the handful of East Jerusalem Arabs I spoke with in the last two weeks..

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

shafique wrote:Anyway, this thread is actually about the Peace Process which is resuming

As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

shafique wrote:Just because you found one 10 year old survey and a 'handful' of second-hand testimonies does not mean that the world is ignoring the poor East Jerusalem residents living under the illegal annexation!

shafique wrote:You're transparently trying to align yourself with the Israelis who want to keep East Jerusalem in Israel!

shafique wrote:The fact you can't bring yourself to comment/admit or even acknowledge what B'tselem highlights about East Jerusalem speaks volumes.!

shafique wrote:Let me repeat what I quoted:

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

shafique wrote:Still with the smoke and mirrors? Why do you refuse acknowledge that Israel has broken the law?

shafique wrote:BTW - what other criminals/crimes do you support?

At least have the courage of your views and admit that you don't agree with International law.

shafique wrote:No one here is saying that the rights of the East Jerusalem residents should be ignored - in fact, the facts on the ground show that the vast majority of East Jersualem residents who were not Jewish refused to take up Israeli citizenship when it was offered.

shafique wrote:It's a shame you just can't come out and acknowledge that you support Israel keeping hold of East Jerusalem despite these crimes.

shafique wrote:At least have the courage of your views and admit that you don't agree with International law.

shafique wrote:Let me repeat what I quoted:

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

shafique wrote:So, you don't have the courage of your convictions.

shafique wrote:You brought up East Jerusalem

shafique wrote:Let me repeat what I quoted:

Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.