For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution ~By NAFTALI BENNETT - Op Ed - The New York Times November 5, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/o...wo-state-is-no-solution.html?ref=opinion&_r=1 JERUSALEM Recent events in the Middle East are a reminder of how the old models of peace between Israel and the Palestinians are no longer relevant. The time has come to rethink the two-state solution. This past summer, Hamas and its allies fired over 4,500 rockets and mortars at Israel, demonstrating once again what happens when we evacuate territory to the so-called 1967 lines and hand it over to our adversaries. Peace is not obtained. Rather, we are met by war and bloodshed. The rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and other extreme elements in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, make the risks just as clear. Israel cannot afford to gamble with its security. There are no second chances in the volatile Middle East. That is why, for its security, Israel cannot withdraw from more territory and cannot allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. If we were to pull out of the West Bank, the entire country would become a target for terrorists who would be able to set up rocket launchers adjacent to the Old City of Jerusalem and on the hills above the runways of Ben-Gurion International Airport and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Take the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians demand that Israel withdraw from this narrow piece of land, which borders Jordan. But if we do so in todays climate, we potentially open the door for the Islamic State and other extremists to flood into the new Palestinian state. We cannot take that risk. How do I know? Because it happened. Not once, not twice, but three times. In the mid-1990s, we pulled out of Palestinian cities as part of the Oslo agreement. In 2000, the second intifada erupted and over 1,000 Israelis were killed in attacks carried out by terrorists, many of whom came from the very cities we had evacuated. When we pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, we saw a significant strengthening of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia. During the second Lebanon war six years later, Hezbollah fired more than 4,300 rockets at our cities. And in 2005, we withdrew from the Gaza Strip and handed it over to the Palestinian Authority. We were told that Gaza would turn into the Singapore of the Middle East and that peace would grow out of the greenhouses the Jewish residents had left behind. Instead, those greenhouses were used to cover up terrorists tunnels dug across the border into Israeli towns and villages. Gaza quickly turned into a fortress of terror. But this does not mean all hope is lost. There is still much we can do to improve ties with our Arab neighbors, to generate peace and to cultivate economic prosperity for all people who live in this land. The secret is bottom-up peace. After more than two decades of working on a single solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the establishment of a Palestinian state it is time to realize that coexistence and peaceful relations will not be obtained through artificial processes imposed on us from above. Instead, I propose a four-step plan. First, we would work to upgrade the Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank, in the areas largely under Palestinian control (known as Areas A and B, according to the Oslo Accords). Ideally, this will be done in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians will have political independence, hold their own elections, select their own leadership, run their own schools, maintain their own social services and issue their own building permits. They should govern themselves and run their day-to-day lives. Israel should not interfere. Much of this already exists, but we can do better. This Palestinian entity will be short of a state. It will not control its own borders and will not be allowed to have a military. Gaza already functions like a state, but the Hamas government in control there is bent on Israels destruction. As long as Gaza remains on this path, it cannot be a party to any agreement. The second step will see the massive upgrade of roads and infrastructure, as well as the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints throughout the West Bank. The objective will be to ensure freedom of movement for all residents Palestinian and Israeli and to improve their quality of life. No peace, though, can last without economic viability. So the third step will be to build economic bridges of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In my former career as a high-tech entrepreneur, I saw how diverse people from different backgrounds could learn to work together in pursuit of economic prosperity. Already, there are 15 industrial zones in the West Bank where Israelis work alongside about 15,000 Palestinians. These zones pump about $300 million a year into the Palestinian economy. Imagine what another 15 industrial zones could do. Lastly, I propose applying Israeli law in Area C, which is the part of the West Bank controlled by Israel under the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians who live there would be offered full Israeli citizenship. We can start with the known settlement blocs that everyone agrees will remain part of Israel even under a final status agreement. By applying Israeli law and asserting national sovereignty in those blocs, while upgrading Palestinian autonomy in Areas A and B, we will reduce the scope of territory in dispute, making it easier to reach a long-term agreement in the future. I am aware that the world will not immediately accept this proposal. It seems to go against everything Israel, the Palestinians and the international community have worked toward over the last 20 years. But I will work to make this plan government policy because there is a new reality in the Middle East, which has brought an end to the viability of the Oslo peace process. The regional upheaval and disintegration of nation states oblige us to act responsibly. We must work toward realistic goals that are capable of providing real security and economic prosperity. ================== Naftali Bennett is Israels minister of the economy and the leader of the Jewish Home Party. ________________________________________ IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
As long as settler are cleared out of the west bank and there are no Israeli roads I dont really have a problem with this. Palestine can agree to cooperative security with Israel without its own army, they can include Jordan in negotiations too. As long as settlers are gone, everything is on the table.
I assume you are joking. You believe no one will argue with Israel annexing 62-4% of the West Bank which they have spent the last years blowing up the houses of Palestinians and making them leave. You believe they just will let go of East Jerusalem. You believe everyone will agree to leaving Gaza to be mowed every few years until the people there are all dead or die of the conditions there which cannot sustain life. Well wow, you surprise me. Nah you have to have been joking creation.
LOL, most of these guys know Im right about all this stuff and can admit that the thing is to get rid of Israelis from the West Bank. Everybody knows it, even the right wing Americans..
You are aware that this plan is not to move any settlers. This plan is to rename 62-64% of the West Bank with it's settlers and settlements Israel.
why am I not surprised that the leader of the Jewish Home Party, has a "solution" that entails annexation of the WB, the forceable conversion of its residence to Israeli citizenship (loyalty) and the relegation of those who do not "convert" into permanent second class citizenship. And yet, there are those that actually think of this as a "solution". Impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys sometimes.
Yeah I know, its fun getting these guys on the forum to admit the evil of the Israelis and their essential greed for land.
Its pretty easy to tell, those who would agree with this plan or this type of plan, are evil - they dont need the land, but they want it anyway = evil - be it Americans, Israelis or anyone.
You wouldn't think that if you were on their side. In fact, you'd believe that you were carrying out God's will and were entirely holy. Funny how that works.
They remain a useful example though many others will do. The point remains. One cannot pretend evil does not exist by simply pointing to the heartfelt motives of the perpetrators of said acts. Now something I've been meaning to get to the bottom of with you - why is your focus in these discussions continually on the poor tactics weapons and leadership of the Arabs? Of what essential significance is it for you? And why is it of such great relevance in our discussions?
I do not believe that there is such an external motivation/manifestation called evil which can infect humans like a disease. That Islamist ******** suicide bomber believes himself to be wholly holy, not evil. God has been on both sides of nearly every major war in history. Evil is a label generally bestowed by the winners on the losers. The poor strategies, tactics, and leadership of the Arabs are absolutely salient to the discussion of how and why the clustermuck came to be and why it still continues. It has relevance, because you cannot separated the events along the road from the journey itself. The arabs continually blew opportunity after opportunity. They got outmaneuvered with embarrassing ease the Israelis time and again. But to many (particularly first order anti-Zionists) their behavior is to be either wholly ignored or completely justified but Israeli behavior can neither be ignored, nor justified or even attributed to basic human nature.
Who cares what Israel wants? It's a jerkwater country with a total population less than Orange County, CA. We have already given it waaay too much of out time and effort. And the land under the Palestinian state is NOT theirs.
Given that I like you do not believe in evil, it stands to reason that Israel's behaviour can be attributed to human nature and circumstances. I can remember reading that even in their presentations to the UN back in 47 was it, they said how the Jews were able to present their position clearly and well with every point addressed while the arabs were not so able. This of course can be put down to living in the European Culture and hence having knowledge of how to present things of law and so forth which the Arabs were not so able. It would be possible to argue every stage but let's just take it to where it is now and appreciate that things have gone wrong. One has to blame also the Christian Zionists. I was reading that at times Israel might have moved into a position which was more likely to result in peaceful solutions but Christian Zionists have their 'needs'. Regarding the settlements I understand that every one has donations from Christian Zionists. Christian Zionism and the Nationalist Religious which came about as a result of the 67 war was a pretty fatal mix. Israel moved in a direction which ought to have been stopped by the West particularly the US. Prior to Labour getting in in was it 97, they were saying in no uncertain terms that they were going to make sure that the US stopped letting Israel get away with not addressing Oslo....but of course they did not. Instead led by the UK, the EU moved onto the same page as the US. The UK decided that Hamas be equated with Al Qaeda and that no obligation be put on Israel to try and sort out difficulties even though we had people with great expertise to do this and one of them had already been sent in by the EU and was making good progress. Interesting every single person I hear of who has got talking to Hamas finds them open to a peaceful resolution.....was listening to a debate the other night where a new person involved in conflict resolution had been doing this. I would put down the reason Israel has moved in the direction she has as being her being too powerful militarily. No way could the Palestinians get anywhere in becoming any threat to Israel. This resulted in the need for Israel to make compromises being removed. As I have said the West could have put the pressure on Israel to make her make these compromises but they have not. Even with her announcement of the largest building in decades they are hardly moving. Israel has lost the support of many of the Christians she once had support of but obviously still has the Christian Zionists. She has really now lost the support of everyone except still probably the majority of Jews, largely because they refuse to accept what is going on, the extreme right wing and the CZ's.....and as it happens she just cries that it is because they are Jews when Jews themselves in increasing numbers are unable to support her any more. This article called The Child That's Splitting the Family describes how US Jews began thinking of Israel as their child which would bring them together but as she has moved further and further in a way most of them cannot support, she is now, if anything tearing them apart. A British Zionist Group Yachad organise trips for Jews and others to the West Bank so that they can understand what is happening. They give information on things like the Levy report which ruled that Israel was not occupying the West Bank and so had the right to settle there. Their interest is to get people to understand what the Palestinians are facing so that they will push and get a just solution of two states. They want that because they want Israel to remain a country which Jews can support. Hence to some extent they could be said to be being cruel to be kind. They want a two state solution and an Israel they can support. They believe it is getting difficult. I am guessing that the main reason most Israeli's have accepted the flow is propaganda - I could start talking about things but that would take far to long so the simplest way to put it is propaganda. I think we can though blame those who have had power for the intention not to go by treaties and so on. We can blame them for the desire for Greater Israel and the harm that does the Palestinians. Haaretz had an article on Netanyahu and this a few days ago. As I have it at hand, I will copy and paste it all so that everyone can see it. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.625724 During Cast Lead a psychologist came on our tv's here and said that Israel had some unresolved collective psychological problems and that certainly seems to be used to draw people to the opinion maker's point of view. Buddhism judges people on their intentions. You need to remember within that that non harming is the base.
Are you saying there are no evil policies or actions? Are you saying if their tactics were better the morality of their cause would be improved?
No, I am merely saying that evil does not exist as a physical or spiritual entity and is nothing more than a label for many kinds of sociopathic behavior. I am saying that if their strategy and subsequent tactics were better, the entire issue would have been resolved long ago. And, as I think about it, I will say yes, the morality of their cause would have been greatly served IF they had implemented a better strategy. I personally don't think much about a "morality" that ignores decades of refusal and rejection, ghettoizing and perpetuating refugees, intolerance, hatred, violence, victimization, stupidity, petty vengeance, massive corruption, and repeatedly getting crushed. Is the occupation immoral? Illegal for sure, immoral a matter of perspective. Are the settlements immoral? Illegal for sure, immoral a matter of perspective. Do the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance? An Absolute moral imperative. Do the Israelis have a right to combat that resistance? An absolute moral imperative. Do the Palestinians need to compromise on their intransigent demands? An absolute moral necessity. Do the Israelis need assurances for their legitimate security concerns? An absolute moral necessity.
This speech by Daniel Levy, (Director for Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, a former adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office and member of the Israeli team negotiating with the Palestinians and more) made almost two years ago, puts the situation well, though obviously the situation has become much worse in these two years. [video=youtube;y0DEInqwOCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DEInqwOCY[/video] I wrote a little from this But please try to watch the video. Around 15 mins and he is very easy to listen to.
But you admit evil behaviours exist? Do you admit they are planned often in advance? As in they might have been able to push the Jewish and British back onto their boats? Do you thus also say that if the zionist congress had not decided on Palestine this issue would also have been resolved long ago? Interesting. So if they had been given western training and equipment earlier and won against the zionist forces thereby expelling all invaders their causes moral basis would be greatly enhanced? Indeed. So on the other hand what do you think of a morality that concedes to whatever its enemy wishes? Do you consider Israelis rejectionism and frequent military victories equally reprehensible or about the same? Why is the is the occupation illegal? Is permanent occupation immoral? Why not immoral? Did they need the extra land among the Arabs on the west bank? Indeed. Why? What does security have to do with annexing land for settlement?
Of course. Sociopathic behavior in both individuals and the masses is a recurring theme in history. They certainly tried to push the jews into the sea, but failed rather spectacularly. And if America had decided not to enter the war in Europe, everyone would be speaking german. Irrelevant "what if" does not make an argument. The arab armies had western equipment. If they had won, there would be no "moral basis" to be enhanced, and the Jewish Nation of Israel would not exist, other than in the minds of some Zionists. It entirely depends on the desired end result. Seems to me that the Palestinians ENTIRE strategy has held the end goal of "liberation of all of historic Palestine". this is substantively different than "establishing an independent Palestinians state". By having this goal of liberation, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to be bold in forging an opportunity for peace and establishment of a national entity, since the price ALWAYS included abandonment of "liberation of all of historic Palestine". (surely you are familiar with the religious concept of the "ummah", which provides a religious basis for particular intransigence) I regard Israeli's rejectionism as equivalent. As to their frequent military victories, no I do not view them as reprehensible. I view them as brilliant (often lucky) military operations by a well trained, well equipped conscripted army against a half hearted enemy. One side fighting for their very survival, the other side fighting to avenge old perceived wrongs. Pretty damn easy differentiation in my book. the occupation is illegal because, of the Israeli government position wrt acquisition/annexation of land thru conquest as per the GV4. Permanent occupation is entirely immoral, but then again, if the conflict that resulted in the occupation in the first place, cannot be peacefully resolved (i.e. a peace treaty) then regardless of morality, it would be stupid of the conqueror to let the enemy get up off his knees to perhaps fight again. Are you not familiar with the lands of Judea and Samaria? Why can Muslims have religious motivation but not jews? that's what losers have to do. Annexing land for settlement isn't about security as we both know. Its about Eretz Yisroel expansionism, which I agree is entirely illegal. OTOH, unless Israel's legitimate security concerns, including a non-militarized Palestine, air space control, appropriate defensive coverage of possible attack vectors (an 8 mile wide country is kinda vulnerable) etc., then there will be no peace.
Would you prefer it if I described these policies as profoundly immoral and wicked sociopathic behaviours? Or is the term evil more efficient and appropriate? The other responses are fascinating and will be answered soon. When I get home from work.
