Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can the United Nations create a Palestinian state?

On November 15, 1988, Yasser Arafat proudly read a declaration by his Palestinian Liberation Organization unilaterally proclaiming "the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem." Shortly afterward the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to support the declaration; within months 93 governments had recognized the state of Palestine.

That state, of course, never came into existence. The PLO declaration, the United Nations vote, even the recognition by scores of countries, proved meaningless. Yet Arafat's successor as PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, appears to be giving serious consideration to repeating the maneuver.

During a visit to Bethlehem Monday, Abbas was asked about a rash of reports that the PLO might take its case for statehood to the United Nations rather than continue negotiations with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu. By his own account, Abbas was dragged into those talks by the Obama administration in August. After only two rounds of meetings he has broken them off, citing Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month moratorium on new construction in Jewish settlements.



Abbas responded by saying that Israel has been taking unilateral measures in the West Bank for decades -- and so has no right to oppose the next Palestinian step, "which is to resort to the United Nations."

Abbas is right about Israeli unilateralism: Since the settlement moratorium expired a month ago, construction has begun on more than 500 new homes, according to a count by the Associated Press. It's also true that the United Nations General Assembly, which has a long history of hostility to Israel, would likely respond favorably to virtually anything asked of it by the Palestinians. Netanyahu once noted caustically that if the Arab states wished it, the UN "could declare that the earth is flat."

The question, of course, is whether a Palestinian decision to substitute appeals to international bodies for negotiations with Israel will accomplish anything more than it did two decades ago. True, many states might recognize the new state (again). The International Court of Justice in the Hague might declare Israeli settlements on its territory illegal -- after all, it already declared Israel's West Bank barrier unlawful. New international resolutions would cause anxiety in Israel, where many people worry about what they see as a strengthening campaign to "delegitimize" the Jewish state.

Yet the Israeli "wall" is still standing, six years after the Hague's decree. No country has taken steps to enforce the UN's 1988 vote on Palestinian statehood -- and none would be likely to in this case. In short, it's hard to imagine how a state could be created without Israel's agreement. Sanctions? Those are unlikely to win the support of either the United States or the European Union.

Palestinian and Arab leaders appear to be hoping that after the U.S. midterm elections the Obama administration will crack down on Netanyahu. It can't be a coincidence that the Arab League's deadline for renewing the settlement moratorium is Nov. 8. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week dismissed the idea that unilateral action or appeals to the United Nations could lead to Palestinian statehood. "There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion and, ultimately, for an agreement that leads to a just and lasting peace," she said.

Seeking a UN declaration of statehood would have one big advantage for Abbas: It could give him an excuse to avoid further talks with Netanyahu indefinitely. The Palestinian leader has made it clear ever since the Israeli prime minister took office in early 2009 that he does not want to negotiate with him. That could be because Abbas doesn't believe that Netanyahu will ever offer acceptable terms for Palestinian statehood. Or, it could be that the aging Palestinian leader is unwilling to consider any realistic terms for peace, since those would involve major -- and dangerous -- compromises. An imaginary state, like that declared by Arafat, is a lot easier to found.

By Jackson Diehl  | October 26, 2010; 11:15 AM ET
Categories:  Diehl  | Tags:  Jackson Diehl  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The improbable President Palin scenario
Next: Stewart, Colbert: Isn't there a better way to restore sanity?

Comments

If you were for example, negotiating the division of a pizza with valid claims to it by two parties, with one person bound and gagged, and the other was eating as much of the pizza as he could hold, just how would such conditions be other than a fraud and a theft?

All you Zionist posters just don't get it; namely, you won.

The two state solution is past its expiry date. Not feasible any more.

So, its now the one state solution, or the aphorism taken up by others:

Zionism is racism and unending war.

And that will in time be doom for Israel, but you craved it, howled for it, and now you are going to get it.

And well deserved it will be. Enjoy!

Posted by: tarquinis1 | October 26, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

If the Un has no right to create nations and state recognition means nothing....then Israel is nothing but the result of Jewish warlords supported by United States Military Industrial imperial ambitions! If the UN does not provide a useful framework for planetary governance, then it is a useless fiction of the Allied victors of WWII!

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | October 26, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The only two times that peace treaties have been successfully completed with Israel (in 1977 and 1994) have been when the leaders of the Arab nations participating in the treaties have been able to step beyond the vile prejudices and destructive tendencies of their own populations to execute a treaty for the greater good. The Palenstians have yet to produce such a leader, who has the courage and the willpower to seek genuine peace. Unilateral moves on their part will go nowhere until they grow up.

Posted by: Illini | October 26, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

So Israelis will continue to turn into sociopaths bent on greed and murder. The model of this being Hebron where nets are necessary to protect Palestinians from Jews throwing excrement at them, including small children. What a tragedy that Israel has come to this - the pariah of all pariah nations because they know better. Yet they repeat their own history over and over again. No decent person will want to live in Israel and those that do will be raising children steeped in monstrous practices justified by lies.

Posted by: jj1123 | October 26, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

U.N. created a palestinian state but it was rejected they want all of palestine. That didn't work out to well!

Posted by: artg | October 26, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

well, Kosovo has proclaimed their independence from Serbia (post Yugoslavia) and Kosovo has been recognized by about 75 nations, while another 75 are strongly opposed to Kosovo declaration of independence. and in the former Soviet Union sphere, we have so-called independent states formed from Georgia (South Ossetia and another smaller region); Armenia or Azerbaijan; and Moldova (Trans-Dniester region). In Georigia, only Russia and one or two other nations (Venezuela, Nicaragua) have diplomatically recognized the independence proclamations of the breakaway parts. On Cyprus, the Turkish northern part has delcared itself independent, but is only recognized as such by Turkey. In France and Spain, the Basque region separatists want their own nation, as does a large portion of folks living on French owned Corsica. An independence movement bubbles away in Scotland, and to a lesser degree, in Wales. In Russia proper, anti-Russian Chechen forces could proclaim an independent nation. In mainland China, a massive public relations effort could announce the independence of Tibet, Taiwan (Formosa) and Muslim western areas all at the same time. In the US, nothing might prevent a declaration of independence by Hawaii, Alaska, Texas or upper Wisconsin. The World Court of Justice in the Hague, ruling on a petition brought by Serbia that challenged Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, said that there was nothing in international law that prevented Kosovo from declaring itself sovereign and independent, or that made such a declaration illegal under world law. So why not Palestein? At the same time, perhaps the Christian enclaves in Lebanon could also proclaim their independence from the Hamas stranglehold over once free Lebanon. As Russia strongly argued in defense of Serbia, once Kosovo proclaimed its independence, and was recognized by the US and most EU members, the cat was out of the bag.

Posted by: RoguesPalace | October 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Zionism is racism and unending war.

Posted by: tarquinis1

==============

Here's a multiple choice question

What do all these attacks have in common:

- the Catholics in the Philippines (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- the Christians in Indonesia (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- Australian tourists in Bali (blown up twice)
- the Buddhists in Thailand (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- the Hindus & Sikhs in India (hundreds of years battling the Islamic Jihad)
- the Jews in Mumbai (slaughtered)
- the Zoroastrians & Baha’i in Iran (virtually exterminated)
- Islamic converts to Christianity in Afghanistan (death fatwa)
- ancient Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (blown up)
- the Chaldean Christians in Iraq (routine persecution, slaughter & church burnings)
- the Jews in Yemen (nearly exterminated)
- S. Korean & German tourists in Yemen (blown up)
- the Coptic Christians in Egypt (routine persecution, slaughter & church attacks)
- the Christians & animists in Sudan (genocide)
- the Christians in Kenya (constant Jihadist threat from Obama’s homies)
- the Christians in Nigeria (routine Jihadist attacks)
- U.S. embassies in Tanzania & Kenya (blown up)
- School children in Beslan Russia (savagely slaughtered and terrorized by Jihadists)
- the athiests in Europe (the prime target)
- the native French in Paris (torched car terrorism)
- Jews in Paris (read the grisly story of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish shop clerk who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in 2006)
- the native Swedes in Malmo (Islamic rape brigades)
- the native Dutch in Amsterdam (routinely terrorized)
- Dutch politicians (Geert Wilders & Ayyan Hirsi Ali death fatwa)
- Dutch cinematographers (Theo vanGogh savagely murdered by an Islamist in broad daylight)
- Dutch cartoonists (Kurt Westergaard death fatwa)
- Dutch newspaper editors (Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor death fatwa)
- Train commuters in Spain (blown up)
- Tube commuters in London (blown up)
- Airports in Scotland (blown up)
- Twin Tower office workers in N.Y. (blown up twice)
- Defense workers in the Pentagon (blown up by airliner jihadists)
- Army/Navy military recruiters in Little Rock (gunned down by an Islamist)
- Soldiers in Ft. Hood Texas (gunned down by an Islamist)
- Pedestrians at the U. of N. Carolina (run down with an SUV by Islamist)
- Journalists like Daniel Pearl (savagely decapitated by Islamists)
- Nick Berg, Kim Sung-il, Piotr Stanczyk, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, Paul Johnson (savagely decapitated by Islamists)
- Infidel Delta Airlines passengers (underwear bomber)
- Times Square pedestrians (SUV bomber)
- Soccer fans in Uganda (Blown up while watching the world cup)
- philanthropic Christian medical doctors in Afghanistan (savagely slaughtered by Islamists simply because they were Christians)

A) Zionism

or

B) Islam

Posted by: johnnyboston | October 26, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Diehl,

You never, never, ever, NEVER, explain why Israel must keep building these settlements, despite them being illegal, immoral, and a prima facie barrier to peaceful negotations. And, if nothing else, despite that every single US president has objected to these settlements starting with LBJ 40 years ago. (Israel is some friend, huh.) You prefer to ignore the whole settlement issue, with your obvious life mission to always make the Palestinians the bad guys. This makes you by definition a Likud apologist and propagandist. This too is obvious because you quote Netanyhu as if he is some sage neutral observer rather than the instigator of continued injustice against Palestinians.

Well, you and Likud about to get your "answered prayers": instead of two states there is rapidly becoming only one solution, and that is for ONE STATE for all of Palestine. The rest of the US and the world is not pretending anymore that Likud is interested in peace, but you of course will shrilly go down with your myopia decrying what has happened.

Posted by: arpy58 | October 26, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The only ones who can create a Palestinian Arab state are the Palestinian Arabs.

They can only do this through realistic negotiation with Israel.

They will do this when they are truly ready to admit that they need an independent homeland, that homeland is not Israel, they will not get a better deal by pushing negotiations into the future, and radical Islamic elements will not tear them apart for admitting that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.

All else is fooling around in the continued service of delegitimizing Israel, because Arabs still resent its successful presence smack up against the Ummah.

Posted by: captn_ahab | October 26, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse


The UN should undo the huge mistake it made when the UN adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which divided Palestine into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. A one state solution is the final solution.

Posted by: Thoughtful-Ted | October 26, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The U.N indeed can draw borders and create States out of nothing. It created Israel, Palestine (1988), Bosnia (recently), Laos, South and North Korea, and one could also say the probable new Afghanistan and future Kurdistan. It will also create the new Palestinian State after the PLO will recognize Israel as an adjacent State (with a recognized majority Jewish population and with a civil government status but without a stated state-religion) by the PLO.

U.N. troops (blue helmets) like in Kuwait and Korea can indeed ensure determined borders and relative peace if they have the U.N.'s Security Council's (not the General Assembly) complete backing. I see no Israeli Army opposing a large and forceful U.N. blue helmeted force. Settlers will be relocated by Israel (out of pride) before the U.N. can get at them. This will happen in the West Bank and the Golan with hidden Israeli support as a way to say to the internal and external ultra-orthodox parties and the internal extreme right Likud: "Who me?"
"What can we do?" "It is time for peace!"
Maybe a little Machiavellian gamesmanship is called for to break the impasse.
.

Posted by: myonecent | October 26, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The short answer to your question, Mr. Diehl, is another question asked 63 years ago:

"Can the United Nations create a Jewish state?"

Yes, very much so.

Posted by: JamesK1 | October 26, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Can the United Nations create a Palestinian state"?

Not if east Jerusalem is part of the deal. Nor should it be. But everyone knows the true target of the Islamist is Jerusalem and the extermination of the Jews and the so called "Palestinians" are just being used as useful idiots towards that goal.

Posted by: Straightline | October 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." - George Wallace

Sorry, Israel. Been there, done that.

Posted by: k3nnyb0y | October 26, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

President Obama could create a Palestinian state by offering US recognition, on condition that the Palestinians hold new elections and that the newly-elected government pledge that it will abide by the obligations all states have (including not making or allowing attacks on other states). Something similar happened with Kosovo. Recognition by other states and UN membership would follow. Israel would acquiesce: after all, if an elected Palestinian government pledged to live in peace with its neighbors, what more could Israel reasonably want?

Posted by: johnkilcullen | October 26, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Jackson Diehl is brought to you by AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby.

Posted by: areyousaying | October 26, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The real question is whether the UN, EU, the US, or any one can stop the Isracism practiced at an ever increasing against the Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Israel proper. The question is whether Israel will be allowed to create and be given support to maintain an Apartheid country. Israel is now passing passing Isracist laws aimed at denying citizenship to Palestinians and setting them up for expulsionand ethnic cleansing. Really? Well the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories which have already been annex by Israel - East Jerusalem and the Golan - are not Israeli citizens and if they leave Jerusalem to go abroad to study or visit relatives in the Occupied West Bank they are subject to loose their 'residency status'. The New 'Loyalty Oath' laws being passed in the Knesset are being passed so that Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank will never have citizenship or the human rights of Israeli Jews. The cabinet minister Attias who is in the present government said last summer and you can look up the quote (or I will supplie it if challenged) gave a speech in which he stated that no Jew should have to live next to and Arab - the context was the growing Palestinian population in Northern Israel. If any member of a US president's cabinet ever said a Christian should never have to leave next to a Jew would he still be in the cabinet - No Israel is not a democracy in the way the citizens of the US believe a democracy should be - why doesn't WAPO report on Israeli settler terror violence against the Palestinian farmers during the current olive harvest?

Posted by: LeeChase1 | October 26, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The UN already declared an Arab Palestinian state (the 1st). It was rejected by the Arabs, they instead attacked Israel. We are dealing with the effect of their failed wars against the Jews.

Abbas is not interested in making a deal since he will have to have to accept the fact that these negotiations are the final terms of the Palestinian's surrender. They started a war and they lost a war. They are unwilling to deal with it and move on.

Posted by: Mendel | October 26, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Silly Arabs.

How to stop settlements ?

How to create a viable recognized and functioning Pal State besides the one they already have in Jordan (once called East Palistine) ?

The answer is simple - negotiate a peace treaty !! recognize the Jewish State of Israel ! its really quite simple !!

Posted by: pvilso24 | October 26, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"Can the United Nations create a Palestinian state?"

Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas will not allow it unless it means the destruction of Israel. Israel will not allow it unless they get the land they want in the West Bank with security. The UN is a political morass which should only be employed when it is clear the majority are interested in the same outcome, such as peace keeping forces both sides agree to, humanitarian aide to war and natural disaster victims, etc. The UN should only become involved IF Israel and the PA can agree on a framework and requests UN involvement.

The UN is no government, it is only a means of taking actions agreed to by the majority or by the parties. The UN should however make proposals on what it is willing to do in any agreement, or steps to an agreement, by Israel and the PA. Show its readiness to deploy peacekeepers, ensure compliance, etc. But we are not near that stage and will not likely be near that stage for a long time.

It should be clear to anyone who knows war and peace that two sides only form agreements after they have shed blood and are tired and willing to compromise. The Israelis and Egyptians had their war followed by their peace. But other countries have not, or not enough. It is sad but I only see a major conflict, like Iran/Israel and all the proxies of both battling it out, as a requirement for all sides to work to come up with an agreement to end the suffering. Its too bad humanity cannot foresee the pain in advance and work to avoid it, but history shows humans to be short sighted in such matters. And religious idealism doesn't help either.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 26, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, Jackson Diehl hits the mark. The Palestinian Authority are not interested in peace talks. They are not interested in peace.

Their strategy (and that of the Arab world) is to use political processes such as the UN as part of an endless war to dismantle a small Jewish state.

President Obama played into their hands through his naive one-sided pressure on Israel.

Posted by: dorn | October 27, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The homes to which Jackson Diehl referred are almost all in the existing Jewish neighborhoods of Ramot and Pisgat Zeev. The US previously gave Israel that these areas will be part of Israel.

So why the fuss?

Posted by: dorn | October 27, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Would it make a difference if there were no Jewish homes (aka settlements) in areas the Jews lived in until Arab mobs expelled them in the 1920's?

Would it make a difference if Israel's PM was the Dalai Llama?

Would it make a difference if Israel was just Tel Aviv?

Of course not. The bottom line is that the Arab world cannot accept a permanent Jewish state, no matter how small. It is an affront to their pride, that Jews, who were dhimmis in the Arab world (third class citizens) for 14 centuries, can now exist as equals.

Posted by: dorn | October 27, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Israeli concessions cannot bring peace when the Arab world wants to continue the conflict.

As a first reciprocal step, the PA must accept the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The consequence is that Palestinian refugees will be resettled in the West Bank, and not pre-1967 Israel, as Mahmoud Abbas demands.

Abbas' demand is all the more outrageous, as wars started by the Arab world led to BOTH sets of refugees.

Israel uplifted all the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The Arab world (with vast land resources) never did the same for a similar number of Arab refugees. This is an act of unparalleled cynicism.

When India and Pakistan separated in 1947/8, there were about 14 million refugees. Neither side demands resettlement in the other country. Why can't the same be done with about 1/8th the number of Jewish and Arab refugees (and their descendants) in the Middle East?

Posted by: dorn | October 27, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

The reason why Israel insists on continuing to build in the West Bank settlements is that the legal status of this area is and has legitimately been in dispute since 1948.

When the UN divided the area, which now constitutes Gaza, Israel and the West Bank, into two States, one Arab and the other Jewish, the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected this compromise. Arab armies from the surrounding countries immediately invaded the Jewish State in an attempt to drive the Jews into the sea. The Jewish State survived but the area designated for the Palestinian State was taken over by Jordan and Egypt. The Arab States still refused to accept the existence of the State of Israel and would only recognize the de facto borders of Israel as armistice lines.

In 1967, the Arab States once again tried to wipe Israel off the map. In this defensive war Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai desert and a small area of Syria, known as the Golan Heights. Israel offered to return all of these occupied areas in return for peace. This offer was refused for many years.

In 1979, Egypt finally made peace with Israel and received back all of its occupied territory, i.e. the Sinai desert. In about 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. This area is now completely independent. However,Israel's reward has been continuing rocket attacks aimed at Israel's civilian population from the area from which it withdrew.

Israel has claimed a historical right to the West Bank but has declared its willingness to negotiate a compromise with the PLO. In fact, previous Israeli governments have offered the Palestinians in excess of 95% of the West Bank for a Palestinian State. Such offers have always been rejected without an alternative being proposed by the Palestinians in return. Recently, even given a historic opportunity to make peace during a ten month settlement freeze, the Palestinians refused to negotiate for nine of those ten months.

Since the Palestinians never accepted the 1967 lines as borders, only armistice lines, Israel has every right to consider land beyond the armistice lines as land in dispute. Until a peace agreement is signed, Israel has the right to build settlements on such disputed land.

Such buildings do not constitute a hinderance to peace. If a peace treaty were to be signed, Israel could destroy the settlements it has built and withdraw to the negotiated International border. When Israel withdrew from the Sinai desert and from the Gaza Strip, its settlements were destroyed showing how far Israel is prepared to go for peace.


Posted by: aewinston | October 27, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

As usual it is the pro-Palestinians who project their own crimes on Israel.

Racism: Little tolerance for non-Islamic religions; outright murder of those of other faiths--Gaza.
Protection and funding of all faiths--Israel

Economics: Boycotts and destruction of Israeli products--Gaza
Large imports from and encouragement of Palestinian products--Israel

Terrorism: Murder of anyone who disagrees, targeting women and children--Gaza
Self defense after being attacked, with many steps to protect enemy civilians--Israel

I could go on, but it would be pointless. The pro-Palestinian propagandists will simply pick isolated, rare, and often denounced exceptions rather than confronting the general reality of the above.

Posted by: Sternlight | October 27, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

A recent exchange program sponsored by the Judah Pearl Foundation with the (Los Angeles) Jewish Journal had a distinguished Pakistani and Egyptian reporter on rotation with the Los Angeles Jewish Journal. In a conversation reported by the editor, Rob Eshman, the Pakistani said jokingly of the Egyptian; "I'm a Shi'ite (Moslem) and you're a Jew. Since he's a Sunni (Moslem), he wants to kill us both."

Posted by: Sternlight | October 27, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

To: aewinston on October 27, 2010_1

We all know well the sequential history of events in Middle Eat. Yes, we can accept the retention of the West Bank by Israel as justifiable ( in view of refusal by surrounding Arab countries and Palestinians to recognize and accept their military defeat and conduct subsequent final negotiations to settle military conflict) Still, this does not mean that Israel has the right to annex these territories, move its people there, and show them as State of Israel territories (even on tourist maps.) Even the Soviet Union ( not a paragon of legalities in international affairs), defeating Germany in WWII and occupying it for almost 50 years, did not dare to move there its population and show it as own territory.

The West Bank is disputed territory only in a sense, that peace treaty has not been negotiated and signed. But for the whole world it is the Palestinian territory.

Posted by: sun_light | October 28, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

To: aewinston on October 27, 2010_2

The dynamics of Israel presence in the West Bank and the USA presidents on that:
President Jimmy Carter, April 12, 1980
“Our position on the settlements is very clear: We do not think they are legal, and they are obviously on impediment to peace.”
Total settlement population: 61,500

President Ronald Reagan, Sept. 1, 1982
“The immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for security of Israel.”
Total settlement population (1983): 106,595

President George H.W. Bush, March 3, 1990
“My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is.”
Total settlement population 227,500

President Bill Clinton, Jan 7, 2001
“The Israeli people also must understand that… the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the nheart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”
Total settlement population: 387,859

President George W. Bush, April 4, 2002
“Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
Total settlement population: 414,119

President Barack Obama, May 18, 2009
“Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.”
Total settlement population (2008): 479,500

Posted by: sun_light | October 28, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

To: aewinston on October 27, 2010_3

Obviously, Israel uses Palestinian stand as a pretext to expand exponentially unto West Bank. The extrapolation of this process leads to creation of one Jewish/Palestinian state. Being a democratic state, Israel will eventually grant Palestinians freedoms sufficient for them to convert it into Palestinian/Jewish state and resulting in Israel ceasing to be the Jewish state. The history of the last decades: Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc – all disintegrated.


The notion, that Israel would be able to dismantle these settlements after successful negotiations with Palestinians (if that happens???) – is a preposterous idea: Israel will be devastated by such a massive relocation of its citizens into Israel proper, politically (by unavoidable clash with opposing settlers) and economically (by sudden obligation to compensate settlers for lost housing and business.)

As of continuous mentioning that Israel offered 95% West Bank territory in exchange for peace and recognition – let’s be realistic: if you look at the West Bank territory and lump all settlements – they will make about these 5 percent of territory. The question is not the total geometric value of the settlements' area, but their almost uniform spread over the West Bank. By holding these 5 % of territory, with Palestinians accepting such a deal, would place Israel in midst of the Palestinian state permanently. Sure, that would be the best security outcome for Israel, but no surprise - Palestinians rejected a such arrangement.

Posted by: sun_light | October 28, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company