Don't fault Israel for Palestinians' intransigence

Duty Honor Country

Active member
Former Israeli U.N. Representative Abba Eban once said that when it comes to making peace with Israel, "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

With the passing of Yasser Arafat from the scene, yet another opportunity materializes for new Palestinian leaders, not compromised by terror and corruption, to negotiate a peace deal with Israel.

Likewise, Arafat's departure presents The Register-Guard with an opportunity to re-examine its editorial policy of blaming Israel for the current stalemate in the peace process.

While Israel, like other nations, makes its share of mistakes, criticism should be informed and fair, not one-sided, ignorant of the history of the peace process and insensitive to the real dangers that the Israeli people face.

In a series of seven editorials over the last 10 months, The Register-Guard has criticized Israel for the construction of the security fence (Jan. 21 and July 13), the occupation (April 5), the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Aug. 22 and Sept.15), the abandonment of peace negotiations with the Palestinians (April 3 and Aug. 28), and the planned unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (Sept.15).

After the death of Arafat, The Register-Guard did finally acknowledge, in a Nov. 11 editorial, his responsibility for the failure of the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate a two-state solution.

But The Register-Guard's editorial stance is noteworthy for failing to address a fundamental question: Is the Palestinians' real grievance with Israel about security fences or settlements? Or is the real problem that, 56 years after Israel declared its independence, the Palestinian mainstream still refuses to accept a Jewish Israel in the Middle East?

Israeli leaders from Yitzhak Rabin to Ariel Sharon have conditioned the Jewish people for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. Starting with the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israeli leaders have convinced the vast majority of its citizens that the way to achieve security was to trade land for peace. Give up the tangible for the intangible. The Palestinians get land, and eventually a state, if they recognize Israel's right to exist within secure borders and do not allow extremist Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to operate at will and attack Israel.

In negotiating the Oslo Peace Accords, Israeli leaders broke a significant taboo. They were willing to dash the dreams of the religious right of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel). Significant territorial compromises, including the dismantling of many of the settlements, would have to occur. The Jewish state would not encompass the entire West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem. These areas would be the home of a Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Sharon's current plan to withdraw the Israeli military and Jewish settlers from Gaza, which is supported overwhelming by the Israeli public, but nonetheless is an extremely painful and politically risky concession to make, demonstrates that Israel recognizes that the establishment of a Palestinian state is inevi- table.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership has been unwilling to similarly defy the dreams of its people of a "one-state solution" consisting of a Palestinian state following the destruction of Israel.

Yasser Arafat did not accept the moral legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian media and educational system under Arafat's leadership portrayed Israel as an illegitimate state.

As long as the Palestinian leadership views Israel as a transient entity, violence against Israel will continue to be deemed legitimate and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for moderate Palestinians to accept making compromises with Israel that are essential for peace. And as long as the violence against Israeli citizens is condoned by the Palestinian leadership, dialogue between the parties will not resume.

Arafat's successors have an opportunity to publicly reject the ideology of the terrorist organizations - an ideology that denies the legitimacy of Israel and encourages violence as a political tactic.

While The Register-Guard may be correct in stating that the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, hardships created by the security fence and inordinate Israeli control of internal Palestinian affairs are obstacles to peace, they are not insurmountable ones if placed in historical context.

Following the 1967 Six Day War, Israel temporarily occupied and built settlements in the Sinai - only to completely abandon them, relocate thousands of settlers and return sovereignty to Egypt as part of a peace agreement with Egypt signed in 1979.

The difference between the stalled peace process today and 1979 is that Israel had a partner for peace it could trust: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Sadat gained the trust of the Israeli public by appearing before the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 1977, calling for an end to the bloodshed and accepting Israel's right to exist. Yasser Arafat was never willing to make the transfor- mation from revolutionary to statesman.

Another glaring omission in The Register-Guard's editorials is that it was Arafat who rejected the offer, made by Israel and endorsed by President Clinton at the July 2000 Camp David summit, of a Palestinian state on 94 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem.

The primary obstacle for Arafat was giving up the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel rather than limiting the right of return to the Palestinian state only. This was tantamount to calling for Israel's demographic destruction as a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership then opted for a strategy of terror and murder, forcing Israel to focus on security.

In his recent book, "The Missing Peace," Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy under the first President Bush and President Clinton, explains, "Part of the Israel ethos is a readiness to make serious, far-reaching concessions when it is clear they have a real partner. This Israeli ethos reflects the deep-seated desire for peace in Israel."

Ambassador Ross attributes the historic Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1993 to Israel's trust of the late King Hussein of Jordan.

A Palestinian leader who truly wants to live in peace with Israel, and is prepared publicly, and in Arabic, to accept Israel's moral legitimacy as a state, will find Israel willing to make significant concessions about settlements, the security fence and a host of other issues.

But, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently observed, before peace can be initiated, the Palestinians must find new, legitimate leadership. That opportunity has arrived.

Chances are a Palestinian state would exist today if the Palestinian leadership had made different decisions at Camp David. As David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Report writes, "With an Anwar Sadat or a King Hussein, rather than an Arafat, across the negotiating table, (Israel) would be living side by side with Palestine."

Israel must do more to lessen the grip of the occupation and more than ever before, encourage new Palestinian leaders who are willing to prepare its people to make compromises. The road map will awaken from its current slumber when Arafat's successors, like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein before them, renounce the use of violence as a political tool and accept Israel's right to exist in peace as a sovereign Jewish state within secure and recognized borders. And The Register-Guard should awaken to the more complex situation in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced and sensitive view of Israel's, as well as the Palestinians', predi- cament.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/21/b1.ed.col.helphand.1121.html
 
I have not forgotten that a large number of American soldiers gave their lives to rescue Britain from the same fate as continental Europe, during the 2nd World War. It was however the same America which provided the Jewish terrorists with large numbers of weapons, with which they were able to drive the British Mandate troops out of Palestine. Terrorists are not born, they are created by false policies and here Britain and the USA are not without blame.
 
Englander2 said:
It was however the same America which provided the Jewish terrorists with large numbers of weapons, with which they were able to drive the British Mandate troops out of Palestine. Terrorists are not born, they are created by false policies....

True, true. I mean just look at bin Laden!
 
illegal jewish only settlements

Looks like Barack Obama has figured out that one of the main obstacles to mideast peace are the illegal Jewish settlements.The West Bank and Gaza Ghetto are Occupied Territories according to international law,The Geneva Convention,countless UN resolutions Israel has continuously ignored.
It is important to note that these Illegal settlements are exclusively Jewish,built on stolen private land,and are connected by roads that are also exclusive.The IDF supports the whole ROTTEN system and is let loose on the Non Jewish captive Palestinian populace corralled in Israel designed walled reservations.The Aim is to make the lives of these Non Jews so insufferable as to drive them off their lands and bring in Jewish Israelis.
Now if you build an Apartheid society not too many would argue it's not wrong,but the Israeli model is Funded buy things like tax free Israel Bonds and other slippery financial instruments with origins MOSTLY in these United States.
Furthermore,Israel receives over $10 million a day in US DOLLARS that we know of.Unique in the annals of US foreign aid:US "CASH" is deposited in the Israeli treasury at the beginning of each year,and the US taxpayer pays the interest on that Borrowed money.Israel invests in turn that New money and collects interest.How sweet 'Tis.
According to the Christian Science Monitor,the cost of Israel to the American TAXpayer has been over $1.3 TRILLION since 1973
 
What was completely ignored here is the fact that the Palestinians have no reason to make peace with the Israelis.

We all forget,... this land belongs to the Palestinians, the Israelis are no more than ungrateful occupiers.

This has all been gone through before.

Someone is doing a very poor job of distorting the truth in this article.

Should the citizens of the US need to apologise for returning illegal immigrants to their country of origin???
 
Re:

Israel is seizing territory it has every intention of conceding (eventually) in negotiations so they can start from a position of power.
It is a very old brand of brinkmanship that has thrived around the world since time immemorial, and in the Middle East in particular, where it has been raised to a fine, dangerous art pathologically adhered to by the entire region.
 
I thought the land was seized (by Israel) in return for a attack on them, during a holiday, way back when and it's only the plo demanding it be returned. :?: As long as bombs are flying, nobody will listen. maybe if one starts behaving civilly, negotiations can start. :thumb: and if I am wrong, please accept my apologies. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Its a strip of sand that should never had borderlines drawn on it, thank you England and France... there is no answer that will bring peace to the Middle East. At some point they will destroy themselves because they refuse to compromise with each other and let the blood dry and the wounds heal.
 
What was completely ignored here is the fact that the Palestinians have no reason to make peace with the Israelis.

We all forget,... this land belongs to the Palestinians, the Israelis are no more than ungrateful occupiers.

This has all been gone through before.

Someone is doing a very poor job of distorting the truth in this article.

Should the citizens of the US need to apologise for returning illegal immigrants to their country of origin???

The article presents a constructive view. The above quote is the great lie. Palestine does not belong solely to those who claim it from Israel.

The Israeli claim to Israel is by FAR stronger than that of , for instance, USA or Australia on their continents. Not that I object to those claims, just pointing to them as a comparison.

The principle lies in support of peace and not in support of belligerency.
 
The principle lies in support of peace and not in support of belligerency.
At last! at last you see the problem, now for the answer.

The European Jews have tree choices,
(1) They must either go back where they came from, or
(2) turn over control of Israel to the Palestinians, or
(3) they must resort to the "final solution",

because that is the only way that they will ever get peace.

Both you and I know that there are some on the Palestinian side who will gladly risk annihilation of their own people just to see the Israelis beaten. It may take 5 years, it may take 15, then again it might just happen tomorrow. A rogue state will give the terrorists a true WMD or they will manufacture one of their own, and it will be "All Over Red Rover". So many WMDs need so little to manufacture,... it's only a matter of time.

You think that the Palestinians are just going to roll over? It's only going to escalate and lacking regular forces and weaponry the Palestinans have no viable alternative. It doesn't take much brain power to see this, just put yourself in the Palestinian position for two minutes, just two minutes, and the logic of it all will become crystal clear.

Arrogance is not a viable option, Genocide is not much better.
 
Last edited:
The article presents a constructive view. The above quote is the great lie. Palestine does not belong solely to those who claim it from Israel.

The Israeli claim to Israel is by FAR stronger than that of , for instance, USA or Australia on their continents. Not that I object to those claims, just pointing to them as a comparison.

The principle lies in support of peace and not in support of belligerency.


It is only a constructive argument if you believe the "Israeli" claim to the land they have taken, if however you have lived in an area for 1500+ years and one day some disaffected Europeans came sailing up to you to claim it was now their land but you can live on the bits they don't want until such times as they want that as well I am not so sure you would share the viewpoint.

As I have said before while I cant understand Palestinian methods I can understand their argument.
 
Yeah it's just more complicated now because most modern day Israelis have been born in Israel (as far as I know) and it's the only country they really know and there is no other Jewish state to take them.
 
It is only a constructive argument if you believe the "Israeli" claim to the land they have taken, if however you have lived in an area for 1500+ years and one day some disaffected Europeans came sailing up to you to claim it was now their land but you can live on the bits they don't want until such times as they want that as well I am not so sure you would share the viewpoint.

As I have said before while I cant understand Palestinian methods I can understand their argument.


Yes Monty, but I did not say that the Palestinians have no case.

I simply put forward my own case for Israel's legitimate claim to their homeland; the common misconception is that it is based upon only biblical grounds.
In fact it is a very strong factual historical one, covering thousands of years, and especially strong over the last 2000 years. Whatever the arguments which have to be faced, they have every right to be there, and acceptance of that point would go well along the way to achieving a peaceful and prosperous outcome for all.

I would be happy to make my case if required.
 
@ Monty and DelBoy: You two contributors are the showcase on why things are so f... up down there, and what with rational solutions...

Rattler
 
Yes Monty, but I did not say that the Palestinians have no case.

I simply put forward my own case for Israel's legitimate claim to their homeland; the common misconception is that it is based upon only biblical grounds.
In fact it is a very strong factual historical one, covering thousands of years, and especially strong over the last 2000 years. Whatever the arguments which have to be faced, they have every right to be there, and acceptance of that point would go well along the way to achieving a peaceful and prosperous outcome for all.

I would be happy to make my case if required.

By all means make your case but understand that the minute you cross over into the fantasy of biblical legitimacy I will pretty much disregard the case on the spot.

I have no doubt that there are some that have legitimate claim to some areas because there was coexistence in the area for the last 2000-ish years but the vast majority are nothing more than European refugees that have no claim to anything outside a quarter acre somewhere in Europe.
 
Last edited:
By all means make your case but the understand that the minute you cross over into the fantasy of biblical legitimacy I will pretty much disregard the case on the spot.

I have no doubt that there are some that have legitimate claim to some areas because there was coexistence in the area for the last 2000-ish years but the vast majority are nothing more than European refugees that have no claim to anything outside a quarter acre somewhere in Europe.
It's all been said before Monty, but regardless of the obvious truth of the matter, religious and racial zealotry will over rule logic for some. THAT"S why the situation is as it is, at the moment.

Logic cannot defeat personal prejudices. Your time would be better spent trying to explain to a three year old that there is no Santa Claus.
 
Last edited:
Logic cannot defeat personal prejudices. Your time would be better spent trying to explaining to a three year old that there is no Santa Claus.


Trust me I have that down to a fine art...

chr005.jpg
 
All of which disregards chronological factual history covering 1000s of years; proof of establishment over all of that time and actual DNA proof of the existence of that. That is the Israeli case.


Whereas the other side of the argument consists of the claims of Arabs, exactly as all the other incumbants of Arabia ,who have massed in the area mostly in the 20th century, attracted by the success of the Jewish develop and economic success, and have no such proven history of early establishment. Perhaps a chronological of their case from 4000 years ago would be interesting to see. I have not yet seen one.

There are at least 2 sides to every argument.
 
Last edited:
See this is what happens when you buy lock stock and barrel into one side of an argument while ignoring everything else.

Here is my "guess" but I would be prepared to put money on it, 4000 years ago Jews in the area were just a religious sub-sect of who ever was ruling the land at the time (most likely Canaanites), Palestinians (which is what they choose to call themselves now) are just an ethinic sub-set of who ever was ruling the at the time (most likely Canaanites).

Neither of the "local" groups have any more claim to the land than the other and this is why they lived in relative harmony for the last 3800 years (timeline not to scale just rough) now starting roughly a couple of hundred years ago Europeans started moving to the area but not enough to really cause friction until after WW1 when the British in their infinite desire to meddle decided to play both side off against the other.

Now this caused some friction but after WW2 while the Allies were playing at revenge and getting over the guilt of the holocaust (which interestingly enough was German thing not an Allied one) a ton of Europeans with no claim to anything but a ruined 1/4 acre somewhere in Europe decided to jump a boat and pretend they had a god given right to what was then called Palestine.

So I am prepared to bet that where this argument is stuck is your theory that all Jews= Middle Eastern where mine is that only Middle Eastern Jews are Middle Eastern and the rest since 1945 are pretty much invaders.
 
Last edited:
MontyB I have already posted the particular section of Ariella Opperman's (A noted Jewish geneticist) DNA research showing that you are most likely correct, with almost all persons of the Jewish persuasion showing that they share common ancestry with the the Bedouins and present day Palestinians.
"The most-frequent haplotypes in all three Jewish groups (the CMH [haplotype 159 in the Appendix]) segregated on a Eu 10 background, together with the three modal haplotypes in Palestinians and Bedouin (haplotypes 144, 151, and 166).
The Zionist's are somewhat less than pleased about this, but the evidence is reputed to have less than 2.4 -34 chance of error.

So much for "chronological and factual" history, eh?

This information was published in last June's issue of "The Jewish Genealogist", the quarterly magazine of the Australian Jewish Genealogical Society.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top