Writing in the Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah dissects two recent polls that claim to measure Palestinian attitudes towards the peace process and possible solutions to the conflict following the war in Gaza. He looks at two polls – one by the organization One Voice, whose work has been criticized by Palestinians as advancing a pro-Israeli agenda, and another by the Oslo-based Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies. As can be expected the One Voice poll received much international media attention, while the Fafo didn’t.
The whole analysis is worth reading, but one piece that stands out is how far the US standing has fallen among Palestinians by pushing a bogus peace process that has only made conditions worse. Abunimah:
Palestinians still
overwhelmingly support a negotiated settlement, but the “peace process”
and its sponsors have lost all credibility. Just one percent thought
the US had a “great deal” of concern for the Palestinian cause, and 77
percent thought it had none at all. The “Quartet,” the self-appointed ad hoc
grouping of US, EU, UN and Russian representatives that monopolizes
peace efforts earns the trust of just 13 percent of Palestinians.Post-Gaza, Palestinians hold jaundiced views of all Western countries
and the Arab states aligned with them. Iran and Turkey, which took
strong public stands in solidarity with Palestinians, have seen support
surge.If the Fafo poll confirms that the Western-backed effort to destroy
Hamas, impose quisling leaders, and blockade and punish Palestinians
until they submit to Israel’s demands has failed, a useful conclusion
from the One Voice survey is that given a free choice, Israelis reject
all solutions requiring them to give up their monopoly on power and to
respect Palestinian rights and international law.
There is no doubt that the Palestinians want a settlement, but they do not wish to negotiate. They have their demands, and as long as those demands are met, regardless of the fact that they are unmeetable, they will sign. Israel has no intention of negotiating on that basis.
Israel has no intention of negotiating. Full Stop. Their attitude to Hamas says it all
I'm curious as to how deep rooted American Ignorance of the "Two-State Solution" is. When typical Americans, i.e. Americans that don't pay attention to foreign policy, i.e. 95% of them, hear "Two-State Solution", I am curious as to what they perceive, and if it really means what they think it does. It is a very clever name for propaganda and mealy-mouthed half-truthiness, "Two-State Solution", because the American layman with superficial knowledge of the conflict can easily perceive it as meaning "two states", i.e. Israel as one state, and West Bank+Gaza as the second state. I would be most curious to know if any studies about foreign policy perceptions regarding the two-state solution have been conducted, i.e. a simple unaided open-end would cover it, "How is the 'Two-State Solution' defined". I'm willing to bet a large number of Americans, especially younger Americans, would relay the answer I spoke about in the first sentence of this paragraph. My hypothesis is that Americans who don't pay attention to I/P or foreign policy in general will also perceive it as such. I admit, being the ignorant American goy that I am, that until I actually researched the subject, I too perceived the "two-state solution" the same way. Only after doing some reading, learning about the settlements, etc. did I learn that "Two-State Solution" really means ".2-State Solution", i.e. ~1.80 states for Irsael (along with all the resources, e.g. water), and about ~.2 disjointed states for the Palestinians.
What is in the way of a two-state solution? Fear. What creates fear? Violence. What reduces fear? Sincere appreciation for the other's humanity. Do you think that Israelis' fear of Palestinian agitation is rational or irrational? If its rational, then the way to remove it is to pursue non-violent and law-affirming approaches, that are simultaneously assertive and inviting to relationship. I think it is rational though I wish it weren't so. I hear so much violent intent at demonstrations, and on the web, that it is clear that there is something to be afraid of. If the US can do something to reduce the reason for the fear, and the fear itself, it will have done a great service to the world. I don't think the radical left provides that service to the world.
Did you spend all day coming up with that straw man? And I generally find your posts amusing because you always seem to to try and make a point, but then get so tangled up in the propaganda you end up making the opposite point due to proof by contradiction or some other fallacious absurdity. Keep up the hard work and the real antisemites out there won't ever have to lift a finger.
Witty, the one shekel budda. Quit embarrassing yourself, Witty.
The fact is that not only have the Palestinians been willing to make a fair peace with Israel but it is the Israelis who have always rejected peace with the Palestinians. Original sources show this clearly, e.g., the Israeli State Archives, the Central Zionist archives, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) archives, the Book of the Haganah (the precursor to the IDF), the archives of David Ben-Gurion (Israel's founding father and first prime minister), the former heads of the ISA (Shin Beit or Internal Security Agency), Israeli military analysts who had worked with Ariel Sharon and other leaders, etc.
Who goes to Temple 107 times a week? Me. Do I have a myelin deficiency? Not unlikely. Favorite dog breed? Welch Corgi NO MORE PROTESTS OR VIOLENCE! Richard Witty
Do you think gentiles' historical fear of Jews has been rational or irrational. Perhaps it has been rational. Should we require Jews to change their behavior when advancing their collective self-interest?
Richard, Israel seems to consider violence a birthright.
ed It's not anti-Semitic to claim that garbage Jews outnumber decent Jews by a billion to one. It IS anti-Semitic to claim that this sad fact is unique to Jews. It's true of Christians. It's true of Hindus. It's even true of atheists, who are the only people living in the 21st century but who are nevertheless subject to many of the same ancient prejudices and idiocies.
Perhaps, Citizen, you could substantiate this sweeping generalization with some cogently stated facts?
Shafiq, did you bother to look at either of the polls that Abuminah cited? In the Fafo poll, only 20% support a "Binational state with equal rights for all". 30% however, support a single Islamic state, with all that implies.
35% is not a majority. Just from reading the Electronic Intifada article, we know about the 35% who want an Islamic state, and about the 20% who want one state with equal rights for all. The article doesn't say what preference the other 45% have in that regard. So using those figures to imply that the majority of Palestinians want a single Islamic state is dishonest.
OK, and then I want you to substantiate what facts you have to oppose my POV. I am sure you won't as your job is just to steer people away from the slightest criticism of Israeli activity, even though it's purchased with the goy USA money, blood, swear, & tears of USA & their related UN SEC veto power there. The fact is that not only have the Palestinians been willing to make a fair peace with Israel but it is the Israelis who have always rejected peace with the Palestinians. The Zionist vision as expressed by Ben-Gurion and many others is to take over the entirety of historic Palestine. I imagine you yourself have experienced confusion over “negotiations” for peace between the two nations while noticing that Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank – the settlements and their infrastructure now represent close to 50% of the 22% of historic Palestine that remains momentarily in the hands of the Palestinian people. Ehud Barak, while allegedly offering a generous peace to the Palestinians built more settlements than the right-wing Netanyahu government built. But let me go back to the late 1940's. First, the Arab countries that invaded Palestine/Israel on May 15, 1948 only entered land that was designated by the United Nations’ partition plan for the Palestinians. They did not invade land designated for an Israeli state. In 1949 the Syrian government offered a comprehensive peace with Israel that included diplomatic relations and, most importantly, a permanent home for 300,000 of the 700,000+ Palestinian refugees. As you may know the Palestinian refugee problem is at the core of the Israel-Palestine dilemma. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion ignored all Syrian overtures, despite the prodding of UN Mediator (and future Nobel Peace Prize recipient) Ralph Bunche. Of course, we know from Ben-Gurion's own diaries that his intention was to start with a small Israel and expand it into a much larger Israel. In the late 50s into the late 60s including after the 1967 war, Egyptian leader Nasser attempted on many occasions to make peace with Israel. He employed the services of Yugoslavia's Marshal Tito, Quaker emissaries, and members of the British and Maltese governments, but was ignored by PM's Ben-Gurion and Sharett to Eshkol and Meir. The only response was Ben-Gurion's oft-repeated refrain that Nasser was the Hitler of the Middle East, a phrase that reverberated throughout Jewish society in Israel and the United States for many years, one that fostered enemy images of Arabs and fear of another holocaust. In 1971 Nasser's successor, Sadat also tried to make peace. Israel again refused. Their refusal led to the 1973 Yom Kippur war in which Israel over a three week period lost the equivalent of three times the United States total loss of soldiers in Vietnam over a ten year period. This was a traumatic event for Israel, which realized finally that peace with Egypt was a better solution than permanent conflict. So they made peace with Egypt as embodied in the Camp David accords. These accords also required that Israel come to terms with the Palestinians over a 5 year period. Obviously Israel ignored that section of the Accords. Subsequently, the truth is (and I found this hard to believe until I verified it over and over) Israel has never negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians. Israel has never even responded to the Saudi peace offer of full diplomatic relations with all Arab countries in exchange for the return to the Palestinians of the occupied territories, which, I repeat, represent 22% of historic Palestine. For years Hamas has said they would accept a treaty that formally gives Israel the 78% of historic Palestine that was taken from the Palestinian people. The demonization of the Palestinian and Arab worlds is necessary to insure that Israel appear to be a country yearning for peace but thwarted from achieving that peace because of the irrational thinking of Muslims and Arabs. That is all myth.
Well, let's see "Citizen". This will probably take several posts, but here goes: "…the Arab countries that invaded Palestine/Israel on May 15, 1948 only entered land that was designated by the United Nations’ partition plan for the Palestinians." This is, unfortunately, not borne out by facts on the ground. Egyptian forces cut across Palestine (essentially cutting the Jewish state in two) with a column that entered Palestine from the west. That's how the Egyptian Army got to Kibbutz Ramat Rahel on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Further, the immediate response of the Egyptian forces was to carry out an aerial bombardment of Tel Aviv on the day after Israel declared independence. Hardly consistent with your implied argument that they were only interested in preserving the Arab state. As for the north, the Syrian army immediately crossed into the territory of the Jewish state in what is called the Battle of the Kinarot Valley.
(Continued) "In 1949 the Syrian government offered a comprehensive peace with Israel that included diplomatic relations and, most importantly, a permanent home for 300,000 of the 700,000+ Palestinian refugees." Fanciful wordplay on your part. At Lausanne, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees (in addition to the 80,000 who had already been repatriated as part of the family reunification) with the provision that the Arab delegations speak directly with Israel, and that the peace agreement be comprehensive. Syria, on the other hand, was not willing to offer a "comprehensive peace" agreement, as you say (i.e. by any common definition of the term), nor were they willing to even sit in the same room as Israeli representatives. "In the late 50s into the late 60s including after the 1967 war, Egyptian leader Nasser attempted on many occasions to make peace with Israel." Oh certainly. All he wanted in return was, in the beginning, the entire Negev and, later, a large swath of it so that he could fully exert control over the Arab world that lay to the east of Egypt.
(Continued) "In 1971 Nasser's successor, Sadat also tried to make peace. Israel …refused." Here you have finally got it right. There is no denying this. "Israel has never even responded to the Saudi peace offer of full diplomatic relations with all Arab countries in exchange for the return to the Palestinians of the occupied territories…" Of course Israeli leaders have responded. Both Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert said, at the time that this was a positive move. Even Evet Lieberman recently said that he understood this to be a starting point for negotiations. The problem is – and you should probably read this over a couple of times to make sure that you understand – is that the Arab League presented this as an ultimatum.
(Continued) "For years Hamas has said they would accept a treaty that formally gives Israel the 78% of historic Palestine that was taken from the Palestinian people." I have to question your definition of the term "treaty". That's not at all what Hamas has been offering. In fact, they have explicitly said that they will never sign a peace treaty with the Zionists. What they have been offering is an extended "hudna", or ceasefire.
However, it does say in the tabulation reports issued on the FAFO site. Those in favor of a single, bi-national state with equal rights for all are 20%. 33% of the respondents indicated that they were in favor of a single, Islamic state. 35% indicated that they favored two states. (The remainder either favored three states – presumably Israel with a Fatah state on the West Bank and a Hamas state in Gaza – or simply didn't know.)
Albert Hourani, the late Director of St. Antony's College Middle East Centre at Oxford University, in his 1991 book A History of the Arab Peoples, wrote: "On 14 May the Jewish community declared its independence as the state of Israel, and this was immediately recognized by the United States and Russia; and Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese forces moved into the mainly Arab parts of the country. In a situation where there were no fixed frontiers or clear divisions of population, fighting took place between the new Israeli army and those of the Arab states, and in four campaigns interrupted by cease-fires Israel was able to occupy the greater part of the country." What is your source reference for your comments? I gave you a bunch, you make up misleading BS.
More off the top-of-the-head BS by JES49.
"Washington undermined the basic principle of the international consensus it had helped to shape: the exchange of land for peace called for in UN 242. From 1967 to 1971, official U.S. policy was that any modifications of the prewar borders would be insignificant and mutual. So matters stood until February 1971, when Egyptian President Sadat accepted UN mediator Gunnar Jarring's proposal for a full peace treaty with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory (there were no provisions for the other regions, or for Palestinian rights). Israel recognized Egypt's "readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel in an official document" as a "far-reaching development." In his memoirs, Rabin describes Sadat's move as a "famous…milestone" on the road to peace. Israel rejected Sadat's offer, stating that "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines." Washington had to decide whether to keep to its official stand and support Egypt, or to join Israel in rejecting the withdrawal principle of UN 242. In the internal debate, Kissinger prevailed, and Washington adopted his doctrine of "stalemate": no diplomacy, just force. Since that time, the U.S. has led the Rejection Front." http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19960206.htm
For 60 years. Hell, the USA has had an extended "hunda" with N Korea for how long now?
No, Citizen. You give one reference that doesn't really refute what I have said. Now, do you really expect us to believe that you have actually gone through the Israel State Archives, the IDF Archives, the Central Zionist Archives, the Book of the Hagana and David Ben Gurion's memoirs? You're pissing strawberries and whipped cream you think that.
I already said you were correct on this single point. Why are you bringing in Noam the Chump here?
No, Citizen, that was an armistice agreement negotiated, face to face, between the sides and continually monitored on the South Korean side. What Hamas has been "offering" is a non-negotiated "hudna" (not "hunda") whose terms they alone will dictate. Further, they insist that Israel withdraw first to the 1967 lines without any guarantees. A "hudna", BTW, is limited under shari'a law to not more than 10 years, not 60 years.
Well, I can tell that I'm playing with a light-weight here.
Arab American two-staters seem to go insane.
So there's 33% who want a single, Islamic state, and 67% who want something else. Clearly, a sizable majority don't want a single, Islamic state.