Netanyahu declares West Bank is Israel ‘forever,’ as liberal Zionists cry out for ‘make-believe peace process’

US Politics
on 35 Comments

The never-ending deathbed vigil for the two-state solution has reached a new stage. Government officials in Washington and Jerusalem are now openly abandoning the idea of partition, while U.S. establishment figures, including many liberal Zionists, are bewailing the pronouncements.

Last night Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu attended an event celebrating the settlements deep in the West Bank. And he assured Israelis that Jews are never leaving the colonies in what was supposed to be a Palestinian state.  Ynet: 

“This is the inheritance of our forefathers, this is our country,” Netanyahu said at the ceremony. “We came back here to stay forever. There will be no more uprooting of settlements in the Land of Israel.”

A White House official pointedly declined to criticize Netanyahu for his statement, per the Jewish Insider.

That refusal follows the State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert saying last week that it would be “bias” for the State Department to commit the United States to two states. “We are not going to state what the outcome has to be. It has to be workable to both sides.”

The former peace processor and liberal Zionist Aaron David Miller expressed outrage; even a “make believe peace process” is better than this:

Absolutely can’t even have a make believe peace process without endorsing 2 states.

Former ambassador Daniel Shapiro, now working for an Israeli thinktank, explains what a make-believe peace process is– “conflict management.” I.e., maintain the occupation with as little violence as possible:

State Dept saying endorsing 2 states makes US biased is absurd. It’s okay to have a bias toward the only outcome that serves US interest.

Whether the near term effort is to conduct negot’s or conflict management, clarity that 2 states is the ultimate goal helps shape the field.

And getting serious Arab state buy-in w/such a vague approach will be difficult & may squander the oppt’y to get them to open up to Israel.

The liberal Zionist organization J Street is also appalled by the State Department statement. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the exec there, says that “for decades” there’s been “only one viable resolution — partition of the land into two states.”

 

The two-state solution isn’t about bias, it’s about finding a compromise to a nearly century-old, bloody conflict that meets the needs of both parties.

Calling the two-state solution “biased” and reneging on decades of established policy is irresponsible and sadly demonstrates that this administration has no serious policy on yet another critical policy issue.

(Cartoon: Carlos Latuff)

Ben-Ami says there’s a historic opportunity to get Arab nations in on a two-state deal, but Trump is abdicating responsibility, and allowing Israeli settlements to grow even more, which will cause Palestinians to turn to violence. J Street’s dream:

What [US envoy Jason Greenblatt is] hearing from Israel’s intelligence establishment, security experts and our allies regionally and globally is undoubtedly a near-universal consensus: The two-state solution is essential to any hope this administration has of securing Israel’s future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people, improving relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors and bringing the occupation of the Palestinian territory to an end.

 

The centrist Israel lobby organization the Israel Policy Forum is also worried about violence:

After months of consultations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Trump Administration’s continued refusal to publicly endorse the goal of a two-state solution is very troubling. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert’s explanation this week “to not really bias one side over the other,” is confounding.  At this juncture, refraining from endorsing a two-state solution only demonstrates American bias in favor of those who are opposed to the two-state goal and undermines the Administration’s efforts to promote peace and security in the region. 

The Israeli government isn’t buying. It continues to blame Palestinians for everything. Israeli ambassador Dani Dayan speaking to the Jewish Federations in Ohio:

“The most important person in is Minister of Education for Palestinian Authority” – to

The UN Secretary General visited with Netanyahu yesterday to urge a two-state solution, and Netanyahu promptly denounced the body:

The Netanyahu administration is plainly thrilled with Donald Trump’s vacillations on the matter. The Daily Beast headline captures the moment: “Jared Kushner’s Mideast Peace Push Is Going Nowhere. That’s Why Israelis Love It.”

“Past American administrations jumped into the peace process pool before checking if there’s any water in it; we jumped after them and cracked our heads,” Dani Dayan, Israel’s consul general in New York, told The Daily Beast. He commended Kushner’s go-slow approach, saying, “Perhaps he’ll realize there’s no water in this pool, and so there’s no reason to jump in.”

Publicly, after meeting with Kushner, Jerusalem and Ramallah officials made statements that were remarkably similar, using words diplomats have long employed to obscure content. Privately, however, several Israeli officials say they expect no progress. Further, they’re grateful the Trump administration, unlike previous ones, exerts no pressure on them to make major concessions.

In the National Interest, Daniel Levy states that the field has now been left to one staters– those seeking expulsion of Palestinians, and those seeking equal rights for Palestinians. And the world will be on the Palestinians’ side in the long term.

Cleaning out the cobwebs on the failed Oslo paradigm could prove to be a good thing, but Netanyahu does not have exclusivity on what may replace it. If the logical endgame of the Netanyahu paradigm is expulsion, then the logical alternative to partition will be equality. National liberation may be a hard sell in the twenty-first century. Equality over expulsion, not so much.

Israel has proven able to make some geostrategically deft moves, but there are factors hard-wired into this conflict for which Israel has no good answers. For as long as the Palestinians steadfastly remain on the land, Israel has a control and governance problem, made all the more challenging by the existence of a numerically overwhelming Arab and Muslim hinterland….

The damage Netanyahu has done to the partition paradigm is increasingly irreversible; the improvements he has made to Israel’s regional and international equities appear largely reversible. Indicted or not, the “victories” Netanyahu bequeaths to his successors will not taste sweet.

Levy says what I always say: Netanyahu couldn’t have solidified the occupation and destroyed the two-state solution without American Jewish organizations backing him up. He is justly cynical about those groups’ support for human rights for Palestinians:

In more traditional bastions of support for Israel, Netanyahu took a calculated gamble—would enough American Jewish support continue to stand with an increasingly illiberal and ethno-nationalist Israel, thereby facilitating the perpetuation of the lopsided U.S.-Israel relationship? Netanyahu bet yes, and he was right. Even the recent fallout with the nonorthodox (reform and conservative) streams of Judaism in the United States (the majority of American Jews) over prayer arrangements at Jerusalem’s Western Wall and over rights to conduct conversions seems unlikely to upend Netanyahu’s winning bet. The very fact that these supposedly most liberal of Jewish communal groups have gone to the mats on narrow parochial concerns while failing to speak out on the ongoing denial of the most basic of rights to the Palestinians can be notched up as another win for Netanyahu….

Finally, there continues to be talk about an “Outside-In” approach in which the increasing cooperation between the United States and Israel and Saudi Arabia results in pressure on the Palestinians to cut a deal for sovereignty on a few fragments of land. Khaled Batarfi in the Saudi Gazette says there is no “Outside-In” alternative. The Arab Peace Initiative has been on the table for 35 years, and Arab nations will not budge from it. The piece is a reminder of how central the Palestinian cause remains to Arabs throughout the region.

We have invested a huge political capital to get 22 Arab and 57 Muslim governments to agree on the Arab Peace Initiative (API). It is still on the table against calls to withdraw it. According to the initiative, tough questions, like refugee return and Jerusalem status were left to negotiations. So were the final borders, leaving space for land exchange. Normalization is already guaranteed once resolution is achieved. If Israel is serious about peace, it should accept API…

A Moroccan asked: But what if Israel refused? Would Saudi Arabia accept to join other Middle Eastern players and negotiate directly with her?

I relayed what King Faisal said to his consultants when they argued that Israel won’t accept peace on just terms and the superpowers of the world are supporting her, so we need to be flexible since we don’t have an option. His answer was, “We could always say no. No one can take that power from us. Future generations may have better options, but if we accept an unjust deal now, we deny them their choice.”

Today, Saudi Arabia, the Arab and Muslim leader, will still say no to any option not accepted by Arabs and Muslims. There is no way around the API no matter how much pressure Israel’s friends exert on us. For just, true and lasting peace with Israel, there is only Plan A.

Thanks to Terry Weber.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

35 Responses

  1. amigo
    August 29, 2017, 11:05 am

    Jon 66 , this represents my response to your assertion that Israel is reluctant to withdraw from Occupied Palestine until they get an agreement acceptable to them.

    Your victors have no intention of negotiating any agreement with anyone.

    • Jon66
      August 29, 2017, 11:49 am

      Amigo,
      I don’t think Netty wants to negotiate. But Barack and Olmert both were interested in negotiating. I don’t know if there is a minimally acceptable position for both sides, but the current situation is bad for all.
      Do you think Hamas is interested in finding a workable peace treaty and permanent solution?

      • Annie Robbins
        August 29, 2017, 12:36 pm

        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-1967-borders-170501114309725.html

        “Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland is an agreeable form that has won a consensus among all the movement members,” Meshaal said.

        i’d call that interested. and it’s more “agreement” towards 2 states than you’ll get from netanyahu or trump. but why do you ask? diversion? hamas is not even part of the negotiating team.

        the only options afforded to palestinians by the powers that be is the option to surrender. and you want to talk about hamas.

        “There is no greater sign of defeat than a resistance whose goal is dialogue”. steve salaitia

      • Jon66
        August 29, 2017, 1:43 pm

        Annie,
        From the same article,”But it does not go as far as to fully recognise Israel and says Hamas does not relinquish its goal of “liberating all of Palestine”.
        Hamas represents roughly one third of Palestinians in Gaga/West Bank. Whether part of the team or not, no agreement can be enforced without them. Hamas has a schizoid approach.

      • echinococcus
        August 29, 2017, 11:51 pm

        “Barack and Olmert both were interested in negotiating.”

        Sure, they were interested in negotiating only while massacring and stealing. That’s why they only talked about negotiating while continuing the genocidal action. As Weiss clearly and succinctly expressed in his title. You Zio *&^%s really think everybody here is a retard, don’t you?

      • Talkback
        August 30, 2017, 4:45 am

        Jon66: “Hamas has a schizoid appr”

        Yup, like Zionists ‘accepting’ partition plan while declaring that they are going to redeem “Eretz Israel.”

      • Annie Robbins
        August 30, 2017, 1:52 pm

        jon, you through in your hamas divert and i answered you. we all know what “fully recognise Israel” means, and even abbas said they will not recognize israel ‘as a jewish state’*. it’s just a hurdle used by israel to ensure nothing will go anywhere for there is no justification for a colonizer to demand the conquered people to recognize the ethnic legitimacy of the conqueror. it’s a sadistic request.

        re “workable”, regardless of the statement not meeting your standards do you think it offers more workability than netanyahu’s statement. at least it represents a consensus of the movement to agree w/2 states and you flip it off as if it’s unworkable. it isn’t.

        *this additional demand was added on after arafat/palestinians recognized israel. then it was like .. ok, get on your knees and recognize more. and has israel recognized palestine? no. and you accuse hamas of having a “schizoid approach”, maybe go look in the mirror.

      • Jon66
        August 30, 2017, 4:32 pm

        Annie,
        I don’t think that is what Al Jazeera meant by fully recognize. I believe they meant that Hamas says it will accept a Palestinian state in the WB/Gaza/Jerusalem, but not recognize Israeli sovereignty of the other territory.
        Hamas does not recognize a two state solution.
        “The document also falls short of accepting the two-state solution that is assumed to be the end product of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).”

    • JWalters
      August 29, 2017, 7:27 pm

      The Zionists’ initial acceptance of the partition was always a sham. It was always just a foot in the door for taking more and more land. This was acknowledged by the early leaders. It was an “agreement” in bad faith. And subsequent claims of interest in negotiation have all been in the same bad faith.

      No sane person would trust Israel. Israelis have already demonstrated that they will betray the U.S. as readily as they have betrayed the Palestinians.

      • Misterioso
        August 30, 2017, 12:37 pm

        @JWalters

        A “sham” indeed.

        To wit:

        Following Britain’s commitment to end its mandate and passage of the Partition Plan, the Haganah immediately called upon all Jews in Palestine aged 17 to 25 to register for military service; the Yishuv reached an agreement for the future purchase of weapons from Skoda (a Czechoslovakian arms supplier) and Zionist terror shifted its sights from the British to the Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

        Also, and most significantly, on December 5, Ben-Gurion ordered “immediate action to expand Jewish settlement in three areas assigned to the Arab state: the South West (Negev), the South-East (Etzion bloc) and Western Galilee.” (Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Jewish Agency, 1947-48, no. 12; quoted by Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, p. 40). Thus, Ben-Gurion revealed that the Jewish Agency had no intention of abiding by the terms of the Partition Plan and was preparing for the conquest of Palestine.

        In his December 13 dispatch to London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner to Palestine blamed the Yishuv for what had become a deteriorating situation and loss of life: “The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasures at the UN decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed [by Palestinians] were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish resource to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life caused…. [T]here is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole and the Mufti in particular, were not in favour of serious outbreaks.” (MEC: Cunningham Papers, box 2, file 3; cited by Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, Faber and Faber, London. Boston, 1987, pp.35-36)

        As of December 1947, the Haganah, left alone by the British, had a well-trained and well-armed army. Total Jewish forces (including reserves, the home guard, the Irgun and Stern Gang) numbered between 60,000 and 70,000. They were armed with late model high calibre weapons much superior to those of Arab state soldiers whose governments were unable to purchase weapons because of a stringent arms embargo imposed by the Western Powers. (The same embargo theoretically applied to Jews, but they overcame it by smuggling weapons into Palestine.)

        Shortly after Britain’s announcement of the date it intended to withdraw from Palestine, i.e. 15 May 1948, Ben-Gurion directed the Irgunists, Sternists and Palmach to increase the ferocity of their strikes against the Palestinian Arabs. He ordered that “in each attack, a decisive blow should be struck, resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population.” (Ben-Gurion’s Diary-in Hebrew, vol. 1, 19 December 1947; cited by Palumbo, TPC, p. 40) The Zionists were implementing what they called Plans A, B and C or Tochnit May (Plan May), more commonly known as Plan Gimmel. Its objectives were to buy time for the mobilization of Jewish forces by seizing strategic points the British vacated and to terrorize the Palestinian population into submission. (Prof., Harvard, Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, p.lxxix)

        From December 1947, until the end of March 1948, tens of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee, primarily from the major cities of Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem (including its suburbs) as well as villages on the coast. Many moved back to their home towns or to all-Arab cities such as Nablus while others, with the financial means found refuge in neighbouring Arab countries.

      • JWalters
        August 30, 2017, 8:08 pm

        Misterioso, Thanks for those devastating details!

      • Nathan
        September 7, 2017, 9:38 am

        JWalters – You commented that “the Zionists’ initial acceptance of the [1947] partition…. was an ‘agreement’ in bad faith”. I would add that the Arab rejection of the Partition Plan was in absolute good faith. They really rejected it, and this fact is surely beyond debate. What I find tremendously interesting when reading anti-Israel websites is the fact that everyone says (and refrains from saying) the exact same things. “Everyone” comments that the Jewish acceptance of the Partition Plan was insincere, whereas there is absolute silence as to the wisdom and the legal meaning of the Arab sincere rejection. It should be mentioned that the Partition Plan was just a suggestion, a proposal that was meant to avoid a war through compromise. The rejection of the plan by the Arabs – whether justified or not, and whether wise or not – meant that the plan would not be implemented. It meant that matters would be settled by war. So, what difference does it make if the Jewish side accepted the Partition Plan, sincerely or insincerely?

        The Partition Plan has become part of the propaganda war, and in this case the Jewish side won a little battle by accepting partition. In Nov 2012, Mahmoud Abbas wrote an op-ed in the NYT in which he used the Partition Plan for his propaganda purposes. He “complained” that the Palestinians didn’t get their state as promised by the plan. Mr Abbas (insincerely) forgot to note that he totally (and sincerely) rejects the Partition Plan even today. He felt, however, that in the propaganda war it is advisable to leave the impression that you accept partition (but without saying that you actually do).

        In the above article it was claimed that “government officials in Washington and Jerusalem are now openly abandoning the idea of partition.” It might have been interesting to have added what is the position of Ramallah regarding partition as well. Anyway, here it is: The Palestinians have absolutely no intention of reaching an agreement with Israel in which the conflict would be resolved through partition. Such an agreement would be regarded to be surrender (i.e. the acceptance of Israel as final and permanent is still unthinkable in Palestinian society and among their supporters). Israel has the theoretical option of withdrawing unilaterally from the West Bank (as she did from Gaza), thus creating a de-facto partition. However, just as in the case of Gaza, the Palestinian side will claim that the occupation continues. The Palestinians apparently believe that the continuation of occupation in the long-run will lead to their ultimate victory over Israel.

        The title of the article (“Netanyahu declares West Bank is Israel ‘forever’…”) is incorrect. Netanyahu declared that no settlements will ever be removed.

      • RoHa
        September 7, 2017, 10:22 am

        “. The rejection of the plan by the Arabs – whether justified or not, and whether wise or not – meant that the plan would not be implemented. It meant that matters would be settled by war.”

        It meant that an unjust compromise would not be accepted. But war was not inevitable. The Zionists could have accepted the just idea of a single democratic state for all. Instead, they chose to create their Jewish state by force. They were the ones who were responding for the war.

      • Talkback
        September 7, 2017, 10:44 am

        Nathan: “I would add that the Arab rejection of the Partition Plan was in absolute good faith. They really rejected it, and this fact is surely beyond debate.”

        Of course. No people want the territorial integrity of their country violated, because of settler colonialism.”

        Nathan: “It should be mentioned that the Partition Plan was just a suggestion, a proposal that was meant to avoid a war through compromise. ”

        War by whom, Nathan? The Palestinians didn’t need to start a war to acquire territory for a state. They just wanted their state under mandate to be released into independence like any other state under Class-A-mandate. That’s also the reason why ir wasn’t them who started a terrorist campagne after the mandatory anounced in 1939 to release Palestine into independence within 10 years.

        Nathan: “It might have been interesting to have added what is the position of Ramallah regarding partition as well. Anyway, here it is: The Palestinians have absolutely no intention of reaching an agreement with Israel in which the conflict would be resolved through partition.”

        You are joking, right? Who recognized the other state? And who declared their state within 1967 borders? The PLO. Israel did nothing so far. Instead it illegaly annexed territories beyond partition borders, including Jerusalem.

        Nathan: “The rejection of the plan by the Arabs – whether justified or not, and whether wise or not – meant that the plan would not be implemented. It meant that matters would be settled by war.”

        Nope. It meant that the Zionists sseperatists and their terrorists gangs would settle the matter through war, because it was them who needed territory for a state. And that’s the reason why it was them who did not accept a truce proposed by the US two weeks before the declaration of Israel.

        ““Ten days before Britain’s exit from Palestine, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.””
        http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/us-policy-israel/palestine-1948?print

  2. Ossinev
    August 29, 2017, 12:12 pm

    He has prevaricated , obfuscated , claimed that his statements were taken out of context in the past , denied making statements etc etc but this appears to be a bridge burning moment. All that is needed to bury the farcical 2SS once and for all is for Abbas and his cabal to finally end their collabaration with the Colonists , dissolve the PA and call for a single state with equal rights for all inhabitants.

    No possibility of overt mass ethnic cleansing. No possibility of overt genocide. Only way forward for the Colonists in the interim would be overt Apartheid.

    Tick tick.

  3. eljay
    August 29, 2017, 1:13 pm

    The dream of Zionists has always been a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. And it looks as though the U.S. under Donald “I’m the most neutral person on I-P you’ll ever meet but no-one loves Jews more than I do, trust me” Trump has decided to step aside and let them have at it.

  4. yonah fredman
    August 29, 2017, 1:16 pm

    The Arab peace initiative has been on the table 15 years, not 35.

    • amigo
      August 29, 2017, 2:45 pm

      “The Arab peace initiative has been on the table 15 years, not 35.” YF

      Quite right Yonah and that is how long Israel has been rejecting it.

      • Nathan
        September 7, 2017, 10:43 am

        Amigo – Who cares if Israel accepts or rejects the Arab peace initiative? The initiative calls for the two sides to reach a “just and agreed solution” to the refugee issue. You would expect that a peace initiative would outline the solution to all the grievances of the conflict. The 1947 Partition Plan, for example, was a peace initiative; i.e it outlined a solution to all the aspects of conflict (as the conflict was understood by outsiders). However, to propose to the two conflicting sides to reach an agreement is not a peace initiative at all.

        The irony of the initiative is in the offer to “normalize relations” with Israel. What is the definition of “normal relations” in the Arab world? I would humbly suggest to the Arab league to re-phrase their offer to Israel by promising “abnormal relations” with her. Israel is already in a normal relationship with the Arab world. It would be nice to have a little bit of abnormalcy for a while.

      • amigo
        September 7, 2017, 12:22 pm

        Nathan –clearly ,you haven,t read the 47partition plan or the Arab Peace initiative .If you had ,you would not have made the idiotic statement you just did.

        Go away Nathan or as Mooser advised you to do—“shut up Nathan”.I think he meant you are embarrassing the Jewish people.

    • yonah fredman
      August 29, 2017, 3:21 pm

      There is good reason to be pessimistic about the chances for a negotiated peace. We really don’t need distortions like typos that go uncorrected (aka blatant shoddy journalistic falsehoods) nor distortions. Though olmert’s offers did not match Palestinian wishes, Abbas considered them serious. What was not serious was the brevity of the offer (accept it quickly or you will regret it), which reflected a deeper negative reality: the support that olmert needed from the israeli public was missing, not enough supported his efforts, and thus the offer was made on a napkin and tossed out quickly.

      One need not distort facts in order to be pessimistic. Yet distortion here is par for the course.

      • amigo
        August 29, 2017, 4:34 pm

        “Yet distortion here is par for the course” .YF

        Sure is Yonah –like accusing all non Jews of subsisting on White bread and mayonaise.

        ” Though olmert’s offers did not match Palestinian wishes, Abbas considered them serious.”YF

        I don,t think so.Olmert was on his way out the door and his proposals weren,t worth the paper napkin they were scribbled on. Who knows what was written there—Olmert,s Lawyer,s number, perhaps and defence tactics for his upcoming trial.

        Besides , nuttyahoo and made it clear that he would not honour any commitments made by Olmert or any other former Israeli leader and Abbas knew that.

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 5:57 pm

        “the support that olmert needed from the israeli public was missing, not enough supported his efforts, and thus the offer was made on a napkin and tossed out quickly.”

        Can you blame him? He must have known what happened to Rabin. The Israeli public will defend itself when threatened with peace!

  5. Misterioso
    August 30, 2017, 10:59 am

    It cannot be over emphasized that the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, Syria’s Golan Heights and Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms are belligerently, illegally and brutally occupied by Israel in gross violation of international law, e.g., the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute, which are binding on all UN member states.

    In 1988, the PLO recognized Israel as a sovereign state within the borders of the 1947 recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan, Res. 181 (which, for the record, violated the terms of the British Class A Mandate for Palestine and the Atlantic Charter, was never adopted by the UNSC and was grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants.)

    By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandate Palestine.

    The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law and its previous commitments. Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

    Along with all Arab states and the PLO, Hezbollah and Iran have also accepted the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative. (In its revised Charter ,April, 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.)

    Regrettably, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon summarily dismissed the Arab League’s peace overture, as did Israel in 2008 and thereafter.

    For the record, other peace initiatives that Israeli governments have rebuffed include: U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers’ The Rogers Plan (1969); The Scranton Mission on behalf of President Nixon (1970); Egyptian President Sadat’s land for peace and mutual recognition proposal (1971); U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s call for a Geneva international conference (1977); Saudi Arabian King Fahd’s peace offer (1981); U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s Reagan Plan (1982); U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz’s Schultz Plan (1988); U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s Baker Plan (1989); and the previously noted 1993 Oslo accords signed by Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that unravelled following the latter’s assassination and subsequent return to power of the Likud party from 1996-1999 under Benjamin Netanyahu; continuation of the Taba II negotiations (2001); the unofficial Geneva Peace Initiative of November/December 2003; and the 2014 Kerry Initiative.

    As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

    The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

    Unfortunately, Israel’s response to every peace overture from the Palestinians and Arab states, has been an escalation of illegal settlement construction in occupied Palestinian and other Arab lands.

    • Nathan
      August 30, 2017, 9:48 pm

      Misterioso – Having read many of your posts in the past, I naturally assumed that you object to the very founding of the State of Israel and to its continuing existence. Therefore, it is quite surprising ro read your survey of Arab peace proposals and willingness to recognize Israel. Do you accept the 1988 PLO recognition of Israel in borders of the 1947 Partition Plan? Do you accept the 1993 Oslo Accords that recognize Israel within the 1967 borders? Are you an enthusiast of the 2002 Arab Summit Peace Initiative? I would be very surprised to find out that you support a recognition of Israel and the acceptance of its existence as final and permanent. So, the question is why are you so critical of Israel’s rejection of all these peace overtures? It would make more sense to me that you’d be critical of the Arab willingness to make peace with Israel. Correct me if my understanding of your anti-Zionism is mistaken (and that you, for example, accept as legitimate the 1947 proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state). If, however, my understanding of your world view is correct – why on earth don’t we hear your objection to Palestinian willingness to make peace with what you regard to be an illegitimate political entity?

  6. Vera Gottlieb
    August 30, 2017, 11:14 am

    Mal rayo los parta. Schlag soll sie treffen. Lightening should strike them.

  7. James Canning
    August 30, 2017, 1:15 pm

    Does Netanyahu anticipate expelling huge numbers of non-Jews from the occupied West Bank, at some point?

    • MHughes976
      August 30, 2017, 3:26 pm

      Transferring, hopefully with compensation that would be publicised as generous, rather than the crude ‘expelling’ – the logic of Zionism, like the logic of sole rightful possession in other forms, is that people who have no right to be there ought to leave, even if the fact that they are there is not entirely their fault and deserves some humanitarian assistance. Nor do they all have to go – a grateful minority would be deeply welcome and would be well looked after. Tender mercies. But so far the enormous expense of this programme – a more coercive programme would cost even more – has put it beyond reach. But the logic of the situation is always there.

    • Eva Smagacz
      August 30, 2017, 5:35 pm

      Of course, it is the natural progression.26/29

  8. amigo
    August 30, 2017, 2:19 pm

    This story has still not made the NYT.

    I thought the NYT is the paper of record and is almost always first to get a scoop.

  9. Ossinev
    August 31, 2017, 9:50 am

    The Yahoo is going through a mental crisis at the moment. Being a psychotic narcissist who is desperate to cling on to power at any cost this is understandable. He he scrambling frantically to keep up with with the younger ultra right freaks , is under investigation for corruption and can`t quite figure out his strategy in handling the mad Donald. Noteworthy that he is now mouthing off about the “fake news” being aimed at him – almost a desperate signal to the blonde bouffant that he understands and sympathises and thank you for your support please please please.

    Meanwhile how to keep up with those aforesaid younger generation Zioloons who are openly floating the Fascist boat.
    See: https://www.timesofisrael.com/justice-minister-pans-high-court-for-degrading-israels-jewish-character/

    Yes Shaked and her Auntie Tzipi are openly campaigning for the abandonment of democracy in the only etc yawn you know the rest.

    I fear that by way of distraction he may well resort to the tried and tested shock and awe tactic and engineer a further mowing of the Gazan lawn.

    • eljay
      August 31, 2017, 10:25 am

      || Ossinev: … Meanwhile how to keep up with those aforesaid younger generation Zioloons who are openly floating the Fascist boat.
      See: https://www.timesofisrael.com/justice-minister-pans-high-court-for-degrading-israels-jewish-character/ … ||

      … Speaking at a Tel Aviv conference of the Israel Bar Association, Shaked said that the High Court decision “did not see the preservation of a Jewish majority [in Israel] as a value worth being weighed.”
      . . .
      She told the audience Tuesday that “Zionism will not continue to bend its neck to a system of individual rights.” …

      Zionism is supremacism. Zionists are hateful and immoral hypocrites who believe that evil is virtue as long as Jews are the ones doing it.

  10. RobertHenryEller
    September 1, 2017, 2:05 pm

    Netanyahu: Fake Jew. Israel: Fake Jewish State.

  11. Maghlawatan
    September 2, 2017, 12:56 pm

    Israel is a Ponzi scheme.

Leave a Reply