Allowing Israeli settlers to remain in the West Bank may ease the burden of drawing a border, but it is not in the interests of Palestinians or Israelis...Why can't Israelis stay in the West Bank as citizens or residents in the new Palestinian state? Are Palestinians insisting on a Judenrein?
Good point. We can add "apartheid regime" terminology, too.
He continues that "the key question to ask here is whether the Palestinians would accept such a notion" and outlines the problems:
Palestinians, in short, have resoundingly objected to such a proposal. "If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at a dinner with Jewish leaders in 2010 hosted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. "We are not against the Jews. We are against the Israeli occupation."
And why are Palestinians so opposed to this idea?
...In their eyes -- and in the eyes of the vast majority of the international community -- they embody Israel's aggressive strategy to chip away at what is left of the 22 percent of their historical homeland that they claim for a state.
Politically, the continuation of settlement growth and expansion has signaled to them Israeli insincerity about a viable two state solution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Palestinians insist that as part of a final resolution of the conflict, all settlements and settlers will be removed from within the borders of the new state of Palestine. For them, it would be the minimal correction to an historic injustice.
..."Once we have peace and two states on the ground, we will have to work on the best of the special relationships between Palestinians and Israelis," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Jerusalem Post. "I hope the day will come when Israelis can live freely in the state of Palestine."
But there is another logic: come to terms with the Jews who have lived among you for 40 years and making prace with Israel will be a puiece of cake. We revenants would be the test. Yes, it's a challenge but think of the long-term ramifications which would be positive for all.
But
It is difficult to gauge the level of sincerity with which Palestinians endorse such an option.
and
...many Israeli officials object to it. Their first concern is the Israeli interest of clarifying that the two-state solution is a two nation-state solution: Israel fulfills the national aspirations of the Jewish people and Palestine fulfills the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Accordingly, mixture of populations should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary.
Wait, does that mean the Arabs of Israel get transferred/moved to "Palestine"?
Then again
...allowing settlers and settlements to stay intact in Palestine would undermine the basic Israeli rationale for amending the 1967 lines. If all settlers could stay where they are -- why change the 1967 lines to annex some of them at all? Thirdly, and not least important, is the issue of security..."How can I provide Israelis living in Palestine with security?" asked former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni during the Annapolis negotiations. "I cannot bear the responsibility of their life in case they are exposed to danger and then the army will have to interfere."
But there'll be peace, no?
There are additional issues:
Will the settlers be granted Palestinian citizenship or will they be only residents of Palestine? Will dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship be allowed by Palestine? by Israel? What will be their civil obligations to Palestine and to Israel? Will they be able to vote in either or both places? But the key impediment to its adoption is that, despite its allure in relieving the need to evacuate Israeli settlers, it is in the interests of neither Palestinians nor Israelis.
So, why can't people live together? Where's the coexistence? Where's the eventual peace?
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment