Pro: Palestinian ploy would push Israel to the edge of destruction
WASHINGTON, D.C. — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Should the U.S. veto any U.N. resolution to recognize a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders?
The Palestinian push for U.N. recognition of statehood comes amid signs that Palestinians are discarding the notion of living in peace with Israel, which will require the United States to veto any proposal that reaches the Security Council in order to protect its key Middle East ally.
Arguing for U.N. recognition, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wrote in a May 17 New York Times op-ed, “The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter.”
Really? Abbas refuses to negotiate the thorny issues of borders and security guarantees with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That makes their resolution impossible and violates the mandate of every major agreement between Israel and the Palestinians at least since the early 1990s, each of which called for negotiations to resolve remaining issues between the parties.
Moreover, Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state—the raison d’etre of its founding—or tamp down expectations among Palestinians that they will achieve a full “right of return” of Palestinian refugees, to which Israel will never agree because it would make Jews a minority in their own state.
Nor has Abbas reined in the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades of his own Fatah Party, which claimed responsibility for the grisly March 11 slaughter of a family in the settlement of Itamar, including a 3-month-old baby.
To be sure, Abbas’ government has worked with Israel to improve significantly security in Israel and the West Bank, while PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has spearheaded efforts to build the thriving West Bank economy that has grown dramatically in recent years, expanded opportunity, and raised living standards.
But the PA controls only the West Bank. The Palestinian territory of Gaza is run by the terrorist group Hamas, which remains dedicated to Israel’s destruction and recently stepped up attacks on its sworn enemy.
So far this year, Hamas and its terrorist allies have launched more than 130 mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza into major population centers in Israel, including the cities of Beersheva and Ashdod. Hamas also has expanded its attacks on Israeli soldiers who patrol the border with Gaza.
In early May, Israel’s navy stopped a cargo ship that was headed to Egypt, with more than 50 tons of Iranian weapons that would be smuggled into Gaza—2,500 mortar shells, 67,000 AK-47 rounds, two radar systems, and six Nasr-1 anti-ship cruise missiles, the latter of which would have greatly increased the risk to Israeli ships.
Making matters worse, Fatah’s recent power-sharing agreement with Hamas gives the latter a partner role in governing a future Palestine, boosting the chances that such a state could become a haven for terrorism while further constraining any Palestinian efforts to pursue negotiations with Israel.
“Our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it,” Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas leader, said as the agreement was announced. “It will be impossible for an interim government to take part in the peace process.” U.N. ratification of a statehood declaration would give Palestinians a global go-ahead to carve out a state along Israel’s 1967 borders—even though all sides know a viable solution would require border adjustments that allow Israel to incorporate major West Bank settlements and compensate the Palestinians with other land.
U.N. ratification also would leave Israel isolated, paving the way for international criticism every time Jerusalem took legitimate steps to defend itself and its people, especially those who reside outside the 1967 borders.
President Obama seems to understand the problem. In his May 19 address on the region, he called any U.N. ratification a “symbolic action” and said the Fatah-Hamas pact “raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”
Lawrence J. Haas is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the American Foreign Policy Council. Readers may write to him at AFPC, 509 C St. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; website: www.afpc.org.
Aug 9, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Imagine in the current time if France would want to create its own state in Michigan and separate it from the U.S. French are a minority in Michigan so democratic vote on the separation would not work because they would be outvoted by the rest of the Americans living in Michigan. So imagine if they had a historic opportunity when the U.S. is at its weakest and militarily occupy a part of Michigan and impose a regime where only French can vote and all the others who lived there cannot. Furthermore, the occupiers rename the occupied part of Michigan as the “French State” where not only that Americans are not welcome, but they are systematically expelled over time creating huge refugee camps in nearby states of Indiana and Ohio. Imagine then that at that point in history the artificial organization called the United Nations is full of French supporters and somehow that makes the occupation “legal” and Americans who fight for their homes in the occupied part of Michigan are labeled as terrorists. The occupation is a part of a careful log-term plan (i.e. Zionism) of acquiring land by French, so literally days after the occupation is implemented (what a coordinated plan!) the occupiers import millions of other French from all over the world to increase their population in Michigan from around 100,000 to over 5 Million in a short period. Then Americans resist and fight to regain the occupied part of Michigan, but Russia steps in, sends weapons, cash, and everything else the occupiers need to sustain the occupation.
What do you think all of us Americans would feel? We would hate French first, and then all of their supporters (Russia in this analogy) that make the occupation of our land possible. Still questioning yourself why people in the Middle East and other parts of the world do not like us? Because our Zionist controlled government, not the people, supported the very exact scenario as described above against our will and with our tax money making us accomplices in this unspeakable crime. The scenario that would outrage all of us Americans and make us fight against it if it happened in Michigan or anywhere else in the U.S.
This comment is not intended to make derogatory remarks about France and Russia. It is merely used as an example of how Americans would be outraged and fight back in the same situation as the forced establishment of the Zionist regime and its occupation of Palestine.
Urge your state representatives and senators to immediately stop any remaining support for the Zionist regime. Much of the support already stopped because of the increasing pressure on this issue, but we Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime and start actively opposing it.
Aug 9, 2011 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.
Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.
Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.
Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.
In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud.
Aug 9, 2011 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
If it is ever reached, the current and any other artificial “peace agreement” will be illegitimate before it is ever signed because (1) all people living in Palestine regardless of religion, race, origin, etc. (hereinafter “All People of Palestine”) were never given a choice on how they want their land to be governed, and (2) all contracts signed under duress are null and void.
The biggest problem in Palestine is that the Zionist regime never offered a choice to All People of Palestine on how they want to govern their land because the Zionist regime cannot exist as a democratic entity. If there was ever any democratic process in Palestine, Zionists would have been outvoted and the Zionist regime would have never existed. That is why the Zionist regime is the occupier because it does not offer choice (i.e. democracy), but instead imposes its regime (i.e. occupies). Imagine if Russians would simply occupy a town in the U.S. where they are in significant numbers and attempt to create a Russian state there without giving the rest of the Americans living there a choice. Imagine then if they would try to institute a “peace agreement” that would attempt to legitimize their occupation. The “peace agreement” would logically and legally be illegitimate because the Americans were not given a choice.
Under all countries’ laws, any contract is null and void if it is signed under duress. The current Palestine “peace agreement” process reminds me of The Godfather movie where the mafia boss (i.e. the Zionist regime) made a guy “an offer he could not refuse” by placing a gun (i.e. Zionist conventional and nuclear arsenal) to his head and making him sign the contract. Like the mafia boss’ offer, any “peace agreement” other than the choice for All People of Palestine is a crime, and the contract is legally null and void.
The bottom line is that All People of Palestine never wanted to divide their land into artificial two states the way the occupation and this “peace agreement” attempt to divide it. From the beginning of the Zionist regime to its unavoidable end, All People of Palestine and the region never wanted the Zionist regime and they do not want it even more after all the atrocities the Zionist regime committed. I just cannot believe how the Zionist regime can be so ignorant to think that this or any other “peace agreement” that does not allow people to choose how they want to be governed will last and ensure its people’s survival. The Zionist regime fails to realize that no matter if it succeeds in muscling this “peace agreement” by unspeakable historic coercion tens of millions of moral people around the world will oppose it until it is corrected, and until justice and free choice prevail. Also, ever increasing number of Jewish people are realizing that Zionism is becoming a destructive force for them and are leading the global resistance to it.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.