Saturday, 13 June 2015

It's the Palestinians who don't want a 2 state solution

From "the commenter" on 3 June, commenting on Obama's recent "reckless and ignorant intervention against Israel...", the following:
.... If the two sides can talk about keeping the situation under a degree of control, and avoiding bloodshed, then all well and good. But until there is a fundamental shift in popular and elite attitudes among the Palestinians this will not result in the much vaunted two-state solution.
We've known this at least since 1947, when the Jewish/Israeli side accepted the two-state partition plan agreed upon by the United Nations, while the Arab/Palestinian side rejected it. [*]
We've known this since the infamous "Three Nos", issued in the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967: "no peace with Israel; no recognition of Israel; no negotiations with [Israel]".
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s held out the prospect of possible Palestinian compliance, but were then fatally undermined by the words and actions of Yasser Arafat.
Under Bill Clinton's auspices in 2000 and 2001, the Israeli side again offered a two-state solution only for it to be flatly rejected. In 2007, Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas more or less the same deal, only for it to be turned down.
The Palestinian side makes rejection of the very existence of Israel a fact of daily life in its (Arab-language) pronouncements, its glorification of terrorism, and its media and education policies.
Opinion polls, such as those conducted by the Israel Project, consistently show that the Palestinian people would only accept a two-state solution as a stepping stone towards a one-state solution involving the destruction of the State of Israel.
The fact that these realities are never reported in the mainstream Western media does not, of course, mean that they aren't available to anyone who wants to know about them, especially if your job title says you are president of the United States....
From an earlier article in the Middle East Quarterly by Efraim Karsh:
The Palestinian leadership's serial rejection of the numerous opportunities for statehood since the Peel Commission report of 1937 casts a serious doubt on its interest in the creation of an independent state. Instead of engaging in the daunting tasks of nation-building and state creation, all Palestinian leaders without any exception—from the Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin Husseini, who led the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the late 1940s; to Yasser Arafat, who dominated Palestinian politics from the mid-1960s to his death in November 2004; to Mahmoud Abbas—have preferred to immerse their hapless constituents in disastrous conflicts that culminated in their collective undoing and continued statelessness. At the same time, of course, these leaders have lined their pockets from the proceeds of this ongoing tragedy.
It can be shown that the main sources of this self-destructive conduct are pan-Arab delusions, Islamist ideals, and the vast financial and political gains attending the perpetuation of Palestinian misery.
I also had at one time, but can't track it down, an article listing fully 23 (iirc) times that the Palestinians have had the chance to accept a two-state solution, but have rejected all of them.

There's also UN Resolution 262, which states, in Operative Paragraph One:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Israel accepted (i).  But the Palestinians have never accepted (ii).  So Israel has not carried out (i).  Why should it?
Again, this is rarely mentioned by the growing legions who would put Israel, and Israel alone, in the frame.
And lately we have the extraordinary case of Hamas firing rockets at Israel, and demanding that Israel not retaliate.  Shame on you Zionists for defending your citizens!
[*] An objection here would be that of course the Arab/Palestine side rejected it (the UN Partition proposal) as it annexed "Palestinian" land.  But the demographic studies done at the time by the United Nations and others showed that in the lands that are now Israel, including the West Bank, the majority of the population was Jewish. If we accept the current philosophy of self-determination, do we imagine that the population of what is now Israel would have voted other than for a Jewish state?
[I've put "Palestinian" in quotes, for they were not known by that term then; they were (and remain) Arabs].  
The reason for the rejection of the UN partition proposal of 1947 was that the surrounding Arab countries were convinced they could quickly overrun the new Israel.  They've been proved wrong on that, just as they've been wrong on pretty much everything ever since.  Despite that, they continue to draw the admiration and support of pretty much all of the Left in the west, not to mention that of all the surrounding Arab states.  
Had the Arab/Palestlinans accepted the original partition, just imagine how much more wealthy, healthy and safer the region would be today.