Trending Topics:

Kushner’s plan establishes ‘existential conflict’ in which 2/3 support armed struggle — Palestinian poll

Media Analysis
on 32 Comments

Anyone who smugly thinks the Palestinian people will just quietly accept the Netanyahu/Trump annexation plan should have been chilled to read a paragraph buried in a New York Times article the other day. The report, on Mahmoud Abbas’s appearance to denounce the plan at the United Nations, noted that a just-released poll of Palestinians found that:

Nearly two-thirds favored waging an armed struggle against the Israeli occupation.

The detailed poll, which was just conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in both the West Bank and Gaza, included other findings that demolish the idea that the annexation plan will win acceptance.

*Some 94 percent of Palestinians opposed the plan; only a laughable 4 percent supported it.

*Only 7 percent think the plan makes peace more likely; a good 82 percent think the plan returns the conflict to its original nature, as “existential conflict.”

And here’s the most decisive finding:

*64% of Palestinians support armed struggle or intifada as a response to the peace plan and 77% support ending security coordination with Israel. 61% expect that a return to armed struggle or intifada will result.

As Michael Koplow at the Israel Policy Forum points out, the poll dispels:

the fiction that Palestinians care only about quality of life and improving their daily routines, and are willing to sacrifice larger political aims or core principles if they can gain some utilitarian benefit. This has been the central bet of the Trump Middle East peace team, one that has been reiterated numerous times since the plan’s rollout by Jared Kushner in particular through interviews where he talks about the rapidly disappearing opportunity that Palestinians are missing to improve their lives.

The arrogant supporters of the annexation plan, who include its supposed author, Kushner, and the New York Times editorial board, who instructed Palestinians that the Netanyahu/Trump scheme “may not be a just outcome, but it perhaps becoming the realistic one,” should also be required to read the memoir of Zohra Drif, the legendary Algerian woman freedom fighter, who is now 85 years old. Her compelling story, which appeared in an excellent English translation two years ago, is a reminder that a people under occupation will never submit.

The French colonized Algeria starting in 1830, seizing the best farmland and introducing French colonists. Zohra Drif (her first name is “Sarah” in Arabic) was raised in a relatively privileged Muslim Algerian family; she went on to be only one of 4 “natives” out of 2000 at her high school in Algiers, the capital. After years of trying to win a path to independence by peaceful means, the Algerian liberation movement launched an armed struggle in 1954. This was a full 124 years after France’s colonization began — and it took another 8 years, and 1 million deaths, before the Algerians won.

Drif’s memoir eloquently describes how Algerians like her family maintained their commitment to a free Algeria, over more than a century of occupation and dispossession. Despite her privileged upbringing, she contacted the National Liberation Front, which asked her to place a bomb in a Milk Bar in the colonial zone. The classic film “The Battle of Algiers” includes a mesmerizing segment recreating this episode.

She recalls that thanks to her French education, she could recite by heart Article 35 of the 1793 Declaration of the Rights of Man:

When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.

Palestine is not Algeria. But the occupation is similar enough that we can be absolutely certain that today in Ramallah, or Hebron, or Jenin, young Zohra Drifs are observing Israeli soldiers and colonists with anger, and are eager to help liberate their country.

Akiva Eldar is one of Israel’s most distinguished journalists. Let us repeat what he warned just the other day:

One day the occupation will end. That will happen in 10 years from now, or 50, or 100, and after who knows how many more dead, how many more widows and orphans. The choice was and still is between dividing the country into two states and bringing about reconciliation between two peoples — or having a conflicted binational state in which two nations shed each other’s blood.

James North

James North is a Mondoweiss Editor-at-Large, and has reported from Africa, Latin America, and Asia for four decades. He lives in New York City.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. JanetB on February 13, 2020, 6:59 pm

    Maybe the Israelis should ask the Irish about wining their freedom after 900 years of occupation.

  2. Misterioso on February 13, 2020, 7:24 pm

    Ah, such a touching photo of key members of the Zionist Mafia.

    Truly disgusting. The good news is that they and their ilk are headed for history’s cliff.

  3. CHUCKMAN on February 14, 2020, 12:07 am

    An interesting and timely reminder.

    Algeria of course was considered so “absorbed” that it became a legal part of France and was divided into three new départements.

  4. brent on February 14, 2020, 12:21 am

    Abbas will likely be unable to articulate a Palestinian plan/ vision/ counter-proposal as requested by the State Dept. Maybe he didn’t listen, didn’t hear, or get advised of the request. That will reinforce the criticism Abbas is not serious bout seeking an agreement and will show he’s not up to his task. Where are elections, where is Marwan Barghouti when they are so needed?

  5. RoHa on February 14, 2020, 2:25 am
  6. dgfincham on February 14, 2020, 10:36 am

    The document produced by Kushner is not a peace plan. In his first paragraph he describes it as “a set of ideas and recommendations to assist the parties in reaching a resolution to the conflict. But only the Israelis and Palestinians themselves can make the decision to forge a lasting peace together. ” He goes on to say that “Any workable peace agreement must address the Palestinians’ legitimate desire for self-determination.” This is a huge step forward. No Israeli or US politician has ever said such a thing. At the beginning of the Oslo process the Palestinians recognised the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. But the Israelis did not recognise the right of the State of Palestine to exist in peace and security, or that there was a Palestinian State (it had been created 5 years earlier) or that the Palestinian people have a right to exist in peace and security. That was the reason the Oslo process was doomed to fail from the start.

    • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 1:34 pm

      ” He (Kushner) goes on to say that “Any workable peace agreement must address the Palestinians’ legitimate desire for self-determination.””

      And he sure does ‘address’ those legitimate desires. He wants to make them impossible.

    • eljay on February 14, 2020, 6:31 pm

      || dgfincham: The document produced by Kushner is not a peace plan. In his first paragraph he describes it as “a set of ideas and recommendations to assist the parties in reaching a resolution to the conflict. But only the Israelis and Palestinians themselves can make the decision to forge a lasting peace together. ” … ||

      I agree that a “set of ideas and recommendations” produced by the bought-and-paid-for chief of police and heavily favouring the rapist is most definitely not a “peace plan”.

      It’s nothing less than a massive insult to the battered and abused women chained in the basement.

      But, sure, the rapist and his victims themselves can make the decision to forge a lasting peace together…as long as neither party expects justice, accountability, morality or human rights to have anything to do with it.

      • brent on February 14, 2020, 11:36 pm

        eljay,

        Sorry I wasn’t able to figure out what Palestinians had to negotiate with.

        Your sense of humiliation and insult come through. I’m hoping to better understand your take on dignity, how to get there.

        Is theft or rape are more accurate?

        Something you may have insight into. I recall trying to understand why Arafat seemed to have a contempt of sorts for “public relations”. I wondered if he thought it was unnecessary, undesirable, or perhaps even wrong. Seemed he figured an honorable man spoke forthrightly and truthfully and to hell with being polite, respectful, or “proper”. That PR wasn’t dignified. I also wondered about any cultural component. Could it be, men were in charge and were not to be questioned or spoken to as an equal. Was there a way a leader was expected to proceed?

        I’m especially interested in your insights on how these factors play in working out a secular state….. which is seeming like the likely outcome. Do you agree it was the PLO’s first option?

      • eljay on February 15, 2020, 10:24 am

        || brent: eljay,

        Sorry I wasn’t able to figure out what Palestinians had to negotiate with. … ||

        No worries, brent. Surely the Palestinians can still “outsmart” Trump and deliver justice, accountability and equality to I-P by following your advice to:
        – restate things he has said;
        – ask for clarifications; and
        – not say ‘no’.

        || … Your sense of humiliation and insult come through. I’m hoping to better understand your take on dignity, how to get there. … ||

        I don’t know – and I’ve never claimed to know – how justice, accountability and equality are to be achieved, but I’m of the opinion that they must be the end result.

        || … Is theft or rape are more accurate? … ||

        How you want to characterize it is entirely up to you.

        || … Something you may have insight into. I recall trying to understand why Arafat seemed to have a contempt of sorts for “public relations”. I wondered if he thought it was unnecessary, undesirable, or perhaps even wrong. Seemed he figured an honorable man spoke forthrightly and truthfully and to hell with being polite, respectful, or “proper”. That PR wasn’t dignified. I also wondered about any cultural component. Could it be, men were in charge and were not to be questioned or spoken to as an equal. Was there a way a leader was expected to proceed?

        I’m especially interested in your insights on how these factors play in working out a secular state….. which is seeming like the likely outcome. Do you agree it was the PLO’s first option? ||

        I’m having a hard time deciphering the exact question. Are you asking me if I think the PLO should have played the “public relations” game? I suppose it depends on what is meant here by “public relations”. If it’s:
        – clearly, honestly and eloquently spelling out one’s position on an issue, yes;
        – deliberately misrepresenting or distracting from one’s position on an issue, no.

      • eljay on February 15, 2020, 10:42 pm

        || brent: reply to eljay- ||

        Hey, brent.

        || … The way I understand “public relations”, it is a way of persuading the general public, to support a position. That’s accomplished by communicating first that values are shared, “we look at the world in a similar way”, then move from there. Here’s why I hope the resistance will move beyond violence. Success is about public perceptions and there are perceptions standing in the way. It is not because armed resistance is wrong or immoral but because it won’t work out in this case. I recall in the 80’s ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN all had Jewish executive producers who believed Israel was being victimized The suicide bombings later consolidated that perception. Israel was excused to do what it wanted when it wanted. Including taking land for self-defense. “Security” became the beginning and the end.

        Years ago Arafat hired a PR firm. I saw that as a good sign and was in contact with the firm…. sharing ideas. The last time I called, the guy said, “He won’t listen to a word I say.” I’ve always wanted to understand that. Whether he didn’t like the idea or if he was not open-minded or not a listener. Perhaps there was a cultural imperative involved. Any insight on this? … ||

        I have no idea what words were being told to and ignored by Arafat. But IMO you’ve already explained the problem (in a way which might be labelled anti-Semitic): “in the 80’s ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN all had Jewish executive producers who believed Israel was being victimized The suicide bombings later consolidated that perception.”

        Anything and everything the Palestinans do – from suicide bombing to demanding justice, accountability and equality to doing nothing but existing – is portrayed as an assault on Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism in as much as possible of geographic Palestine.

        || … The Palestinians (PLO) called in 1965 for a secular state with equality. … ||

        Fantastic! So…what happened? Did Israel accept?

        || … Public perceptions sway positions taken by politicians, including Trump. So “outsmarting” amounts to pitting them against public consensus. … ||

        I don’t see any indication that public perception (sufficiently) opposes Trump’s backing of Israel. And I don’t see how the Palestinians…
        – restating things he has said;
        – asking for clarifications; and
        – not saying ‘no’,
        …to Trump is going to change that.

    • Elizabeth Block on February 15, 2020, 3:04 pm

      Palestinians do want to improve their quality of life. But they know perfectly well that (a) the money Jared Kushner is promising would only go to a few people, and (b) as long as the occupation continues, Israel can destroy any improvement to their quality of life in an instant.

      I would like to think that if Palestinians restricted themselves to nonviolent protest they would get somewhere. But they wouldn’t. It’s been tried. Israel responds to nonviolence with violence – sometimes even more violence than what it uses against violence. And it’s only violence that gets any attention at all from the outside world.

  7. mondonut on February 14, 2020, 5:25 pm

    Two-thirds support violence and terrorism in response to the mere suggestion of a plan they do not like?

    Great, let’s give them the vote in Israeli elections! What could go wrong?

    • Talkback on February 14, 2020, 6:16 pm

      mondonut: “Two-thirds support violence and terrorism in response to the mere suggestion of a plan they do not like? ”

      Can’t you read? Two thirds support armed struggle against Israel’s occupation. Which happens to be exactly what United Nations members support in genral and is not “terrorism” at all:

      “Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;”
      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C867EE1DBF29A6E5852568C6006B2F0C

      jon s: “Great, let’s give them the vote in Israeli elections! What could go wrong?”

      You realize that this would mean the end of occupation and that there would be no need for armed struggle AGAINST occupation, do you? Please, think before you write.

      • mondonut on February 14, 2020, 8:01 pm

        @Talkback Can’t you read? Two thirds support armed struggle against Israel’s occupation.

        When has Palestinian armed struggle not expressed itself in violence and terrorism? Violence and Terrorism is the very essence Palestinian armed struggle. And no, the UN does not support a right of unlawful combatants in actions against civilian populations.

        You realize that this would mean the end of occupation and that there would be no need for armed struggle AGAINST occupation, do you? Please, think before you write.

        Are you really so dense as to not recognize sarcasm or are you being deliberately obtuse?

      • Talkback on February 15, 2020, 4:34 am

        mondonut: “When has Palestinian armed struggle not expressed itself in violence and terrorism?”

        ROFL. Armed struggle is obviously violent. But it’s not terrorism every time they attack or defend against the occupation force, their military infrastructure or unlawful combatants. That includes firing rockets at Israeli military bases which Israel frames as “fired at Israel”.

        mondonut: “And no, the UN does not support a right of unlawful combatants in actions against civilian populations.”

        I wouldn’t call Israeli soldiers unlawful combatants per se, but definetly the weapons carrying settler scum who attack Palestinians or their livelyhood.

        mondonut: “Are you really so dense as to not recognize sarcasm or are you being deliberately obtuse?”

        I’m aware of how dishonest, dense and involuntarely obtuse you are.

      • mondonut on February 15, 2020, 1:43 pm

        @Talkback But it’s not terrorism every time they attack or defend…

        I am fully aware that most of your comments rest on historical revisionism, but to state that the Palestinian “resistance” consists of legal combatants against the Israeli military is a flat out lie. And for the record, each of those unguided and poorly aimed missiles launched in the general direction of Israel constitutes a war crime.

      • Mooser on February 15, 2020, 7:43 pm

        “I am fully aware that most of your comments rest on historical revisionism,”

        Oooooh “historical revisionism” mondonut, you are such a putz. Not just ‘historical revisions’ but wholesale “revisionism”! A crime against the Zionist dialectic!

      • Talkback on February 15, 2020, 9:10 pm

        monodnut: “I am fully aware that most of your comments rest on historical revisionism, …”

        Which one, compuslive liar?

        “… but to state that the Palestinian “resistance” consists of legal combatants against the Israeli military is a flat out lie.”

        Every occupied person has the right to resist occupation and to attack the occupying forces by any means. There is no illegal resistance against occupying forces. (Especially not, if the occupation itself was illegaly prolonged). That includes Jews and anybody else under Nazi occupation.I dare you to call resisting Jews under Nazi occupation “illegal combatants” or “terrorist” like Hitler did. Go ahead.

        “Recognizing the imperative need to put an early end to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation,

        1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the United Nations;

        2. Renews its call to all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples subject to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation and to offer them moral, material and other forms of assistance in their struggle to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence;

        3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C867EE1DBF29A6E5852568C6006B2F0C

      • mondonut on February 16, 2020, 1:33 am

        @Talkback There is no illegal resistance against occupying forces .I dare you to call resisting Jews under Nazi occupation “illegal combatants” or “terrorist” like Hitler did. Go ahead.

        Why don’t you you go ahead and double dog dare me? The concept of legal combatants became customary with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, so your dare make no sense. But thanks for providing another example of your endless inventions, “(Especially not, if the occupation itself was illegaly prolonged)” – do you just make this stuff up as you go? What the hell is illegally prolonged?

        And again for the record, “all peoples” does not mean “every person”. The protections that international law seeks to provide to civilians requires that civilians and combatants be separate and distinct.

      • Talkback on February 16, 2020, 12:42 pm

        mondonut: “Why don’t you you go ahead and double dog dare me? The concept of legal combatants became customary with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, so your dare make no sense.”

        So according to you Jews who resisted the Nazi occupation would be considered “illegal combatants” according to your interpreration of international humanitarian law.

        mondonut: But thanks for providing another example of your endless inventions, “(Especially not, if the occupation itself was illegaly prolonged)” – do you just make this stuff up as you go? What the hell is illegally prolonged?”

        First of all, Your accusion of “historical revisionsm” was nothing else, but one of your “endless inventions”. Secondly the terms “illegal” or “unlawful” combatants are not defined in any international agreement. So that’s just another one of your “endless inventions”. Thirdly, it is another one of your “endless inventions” that I made the term “illegaly prolonged occupation” up. You can read it right here, allthough I doubt that this would be the first time you’d actually understand international law:
        https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/israels_unlawfully_prolonged_occupation_7294

        mondonut: “And again for the record, “all peoples” does not mean “every person. The protections that international law seeks to provide to civilians requires that civilians and combatants be separate and distinct.”

        More of your “endless inventions”. You do this all the time. While trying to prove one of your ridiculous claims you throw in another claim which in itself is correct, but is not able at all to prove your first claim. It is correct that international law seeks to protect civilians. The distinction between civilians and combatants is inherent, because the latter do take part in hostilities, while the former don’t. But it is absolutely idiotic in any case to conclude that therefore not every person under occupation has the right to resist occupation. What you are talking about is that the protection of combatants under the III. Geneva Conventions demands requirements from the combatant. Again, you are just wildly throwing in half-truths and quarter-informations and confuse everything. That, and your endless “inventions” and lies.

  8. gamal on February 15, 2020, 3:07 pm

    “Imperialism and Liberation in the Middle East”

    Written by Pål Steigan, translated by Terje Maloy

    “Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be developed.

    And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the «Silk Road» (aka Belt and Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police under Washington’s control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.”

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/02/14/imperialism-and-liberation-in-the-middle-east/

    • Talkback on February 16, 2020, 12:54 pm

      brent: “It is not because armed resistance is wrong or immoral but because it won’t work out in this case.”

      It allready has.Just read “The Only Language They Understand” by Nathan Thrall. But unfortunately since then the Palestians punish themselves for armed resistance. It’t time for Abbas to end all security arrangements with the occupier and make them pay for the occupation. (The forces, not civilians.). Non violence is tactically and strategically inferior against belligerent occupiers and state terrorism. The Palestinian’s major mistake was that they attacked civilians as Israel does on a daily base.

      • brent on February 16, 2020, 6:24 pm

        “It already has (worked).” How so in your view or in Thrall’s? Examples?

        I know Israel has made elevated “security”. I always judged that a clever deception to keep insecurity coming. A key to usurpation.

        While we may disagree, I see perceptions in America as Palestine’s base obstacle.

        Perhaps you have insights into why the power of PR isn’t taken into account?

      • Talkback on February 17, 2020, 3:06 pm

        Brent: “Examples?”

        Some examples in short:

        First Intifada:
        – Jordan’s Disengagement. King Hussein: “It was the intifada that really caused our decision on disengagement.” => Palestine’s declaration of independence
        – Israeli negotiators in Oslo repeatedly asked the Palestinians to stop the intifada. => Oslo accords

        Second Intifada:
        – US supporting a Security Council Resolution that supports Palestinian Statehood, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.
        – Martin Indyk, “Sharon offered a freeze on all settlement activity for six months if Arafat would make a serious attempt to stop the intifada violence.”
        – Roadmap to Middle East Peace, a plan announced by the United States, together with the EU, UN, and Russia, in April 2003. It called for an end to the intifada, a withdrawal of Israeli forces from areas occupied since the violence began, a freeze of settlement activity, the dismantlement of all settlement outposts created since Sharon took office, and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

        “Knife Intifada”
        -army took steps to ease restrictions on Palestinian daily life and proposed pulling Israeli forces out from some areas
        – Israeli public opinion polls showed a newfound willingness to divide the city, with an unprecedented two-thirds in favor of relinquishing control of neighborhoods in the Palestinian-majority east

        Palestinian violence changes Israeli public and also its politicians. I really urge you to read that book, if you are interested.

        Brent: “Perhaps you have insights into why the power of PR isn’t taken into account?”

        What? How do you think Palestine became a Non-member observer state in the UN? But I have to admit that their PA could be a lot better. When I hear Abbas at the UN I always ask myself: Why doesn’t he bring up this or that? Why doesn’t he speak about the Palestinian’s right to resist occupation, when other countries talk about nonviolence, but not about the inherent and explicit violence of Israeö’s occupation? Why doesn’t he talk about Israel’s violence and its incitement, including Israeli maps and school books, etc.Why doesn’t he talk about Israel injuring and killing Palestinian civilians while all that Israel does is counting rockets who rarely do damage. Why doesn’t he remind the UN that there’s no difference in international law between dliberately targeting civilians and taking into account that they are going to be killed, because of indiscriminate fire. Etc. But don’t forget that BDS has had some success, too. Not in the material sense, but in shifting the debate.

  9. brent on February 15, 2020, 8:57 pm

    reply to eljay-

    The way I understand “public relations”, it is a way of persuading the general public, to support a position. That’s accomplished by communicating first that values are shared, “we look at the world in a similar way”, then move from there. Here’s why I hope the resistance will move beyond violence. Success is about public perceptions and there are perceptions standing in the way. It is not because armed resistance is wrong or immoral but because it won’t work out in this case. I recall in the 80’s ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN all had Jewish executive producers who believed Israel was being victimized The suicide bombings later consolidated that perception. Israel was excused to do what it wanted when it wanted. Including taking land for self-defense. “Security” became the beginning and the end.

    Years ago Arafat hired a PR firm. I saw that as a good sign and was in contact with the firm…. sharing ideas. The last time I called, the guy said, “He won’t listen to a word I say.” I’ve always wanted to understand that. Whether he didn’t like the idea or if he was not open-minded or not a listener. Perhaps there was a cultural imperative involved. Any insight on this?

    The Palestinians (PLO) called in 1965 for a secular state with equality. Seemed that was acknowledging getting to justice and accountability would follow equality. Sheik Yassein called for a Hudna, a long term stand down “during which matters could sort themselves out”. I don’t think justice can ever be more than symbolic and demanding it precludes it. This is relevant as the independent state seems no longer plausible, while equality in a secular state is.

    Public perceptions sway positions taken by politicians, including Trump. So “outsmarting” amounts to pitting them against public consensus. And, holding them accountable for things they say. An example today is compelling Bloomberg to abide or renounce “stop and frisk”. Politicians are swayed by pointing out things they have previously said, done or promised.

    Too bad Mondoweiss doesn’t allow for replying back.

  10. Nathan on February 16, 2020, 6:38 pm

    We learn in this article that according to a just-released poll of Palestinians “nearly two-thirds favored waging an armed struggle against the Israeli occupation”. It would be helpful if there would be a clear definition of the term “Israeli occupation”. Is the entire country “the Israeli occupation”? Is the territory captured in 1967 (the West Bank and Gaza) “the Israeli occupation”?

    Whenever I have a conversation with a Palestinian and the issue of occupation is mentioned, I always ask straight to the point: “Could you please define in clear geographic terms the area which is occupied and the area that isn’t occupied?” In my humble experience, the answer is that the entire country is occupied! Obviously, if one does not ask this very simple question, the assumption is that we’re talking about the West Bank and Gaza. This is also true in the case of the survey being reported here: The readership probably assumes that the occupation in question is the territory captured on the 1967 war.

    It would be a nice service to the public if the Palestinian public would be asked to define the occupation. In such a case, it would be clear to the outside public what is the issue at hand. Is the two-thirds support for an armed struggle meant “to end the existence of Israel”, or is it meant “to liberate the West Bank?”

    Also when asking the Palestinian public about the two-state solution, it should be clarified if the two-state solution is the end of conflict or not. Some Palestinians will tell you that they support a two-state solution. However, if you mention that the two-state solution means that the conflict is over (i.e. no further grievances), then suddenly you’ll find out that they oppose such a solution. They agree to a two-state solution only as the next stage of an ongoing conflict.

    It’s clear that the Palestinian public rejects the Trump proposal, and there’s no need for a survey to find out this obvious fact. The question is: Does the Palestinian public support any proposal for peace with Israel? I personally doubt it, but it would be a breath of fresh air to read a survey in which the answers given by Palestinians are clearly understood by the outside public.

    • oldgeezer on February 16, 2020, 9:51 pm

      Yawn. Tripe.

      maybe Israel could come clean on how much territory that is sovereign territory of other nations they intend to try to conquer and claim as their own.

      palestinians have only fought to reclaim what is theirs. Zionists have been fighting to steal someone elses even if they hold a sincere belief it should be theirs.

      If I had to sign a treaty with any nation in the world. Including North Korea then Israel would be at the bottom of the list. It never lives up to it’s word with the exception of where the US forces it to as in the case of Egypt and Jordan.

    • oldgeezer on February 16, 2020, 9:53 pm

      Oh and yes if I have to live under the racist, barbaric, savage Israeli boot I’d favour armed struggle if need be to escape from it. So would you and you know it.

    • Talkback on February 17, 2020, 8:30 am

      As for the leadership of the Palestinians, the case is clear and was recently reaffirmed in the UN Security Council. A viable two state solution based on the 67 lines and international regulations with East Jerusalem as its capital.

      But it would be helpful if there would be a clear definition of the term “Israel” or “Eretz Israel” and its borders. Is the territory within 67 lines “land of Israel” or all of historic Palestine?

      Whenever I have a conversation with a Zionist Jew and the issue of “land of Israel” is mentioned, I always ask straight to the point: “Could you please define in clear geographic terms the area which is the Israel and the area that isn’t?” In my humble experience, the answer is that the entire country is Israel! Obviously, if one does not ask this very simple question, the assumption is that we’re talking about Israel within 67 lines. The readership probably assumes that the land in question is the territory capture before the 1967 war.

      It would be a nice service to the public if the Israeli goverment and its public would be asked to define the borders of Israel such a case, it would be clear to the outside public what is the issue at hand. Is the support for Israel’s declaration which refers to the “the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel” meant “to end the existence of Palestine”, or is it meant to only hold unto the area that was aquired through war and expulsion, but isn’t considered to be occupied under international law, including Jerusalem?

      Also when asking the Israeli goverment and public about the two-state solution, it should be clarified if the two-state solution is the end of conflict or not. Some Israeli will tell you that they support a two-state solution. However, if you mention that the two-state solution means that the conflict is over (i.e. no further annexations and settlements), then suddenly you’ll find out that they oppose such a solution. They agree to a two-state solution only as the next Apartheid stage of their illegaly prolonged occupation.

      It’s clear that the Israeli goverment and public acceots the Trump proposal, and there’s no need for a survey to find out this obvious fact. The question is: Does the Israeli goverment and public support any proposal for peace with Palestine? I personally doubt it, but it would be a breath of fresh air to read a survey in which the answers given by Israeli leaders are clearly understood by the outside public.

    • JanetB on February 21, 2020, 9:32 am

      Quite frankly I find it whole hypocritical for Israeli supports to complain about Palestinians wanting all of the land that they where ethnically cleanse from. After all Israeli in both dead and word have been taking over Palestine land for the 72 years.

Leave a Reply