Arab-Israeli Conflict: Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Arabs' Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel
by Fred Maroun
July 10, 2016​

  • We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians. Our worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947.

  • Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.

  • The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.

  • Jordan integrated some refugees, but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity.
This is part one of a two-part series. The second part will examine what we Arabs can do differently today.

-----


1688.jpg

In May 1948, Azzam Pasha (right), the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, "This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."


In the current state of the relationship between the Arab world and Israel, we see a patchwork of hostility, tense peace, limited cooperation, calm, and violence. We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians.

The Original Mistake

Our first mistake lasted centuries, and occurred well before Israel's declaration of independence in May 1948. It consisted of not recognizing Jews as equals.

As documented by a leading American scholar of Jewish history in the Muslim world, Mark R. Cohen, during that era, "Jews shared with other non-Muslims the status of dhimmis [non-Muslims who have to pay protection money and follow separate debasing laws to be tolerated in Muslim-controlled areas] ... New houses of worship were not to be built and old ones could not be repaired. They were to act humbly in the presence of Muslims. In their liturgical practice they had to honor the preeminence of Islam. They were further required to differentiate themselves from Muslims by their clothing and by eschewing symbols of honor. Other restrictions excluded them from positions of authority in Muslim government".

On March 1, 1944, while the Nazis were massacring six million Jews, and well before Israel declared independence, Haj Amin al-Husseini, then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, declared on Radio Berlin, "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

If we had not made this mistake, we might have benefited in two ways.

Jews would likely have remained in the Muslim Middle East in greater numbers, and they would have advanced the Middle Eastern civilization rather than the civilizations of the places to which they fled, most notably Europe and later the United States.

Secondly, if Jews felt secure and accepted in the Middle East among Arabs, they may not have felt the need to create an independent state, which would have saved us from our subsequent mistakes.

The Worst Mistake

Our second and worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947. UN resolution 181 provided the legal basis for a Jewish state and an Arab state sharing what used to be British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.

As reported by the BBC, that resolution provided for:

"A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) with a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs; An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem), with 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants; An international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem, where the population was 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs."​

Although the land allocated to the Jewish state was slightly larger than the land allocated to the Arab state, much of the Jewish part was total desert, the Negev and Arava, with the fertile land allocated to the Arabs. The plan was also to the Arabs' advantage for two other reasons:

  • The Jewish state had only a bare majority of Jews, which would have given the Arabs almost as much influence as the Jews in running the Jewish state, but the Arab state was almost purely Arab, providing no political advantage to Jews within it.
  • Each proposed state consisted of three more-or-less disconnected pieces, resulting in strong geographic interdependence between the two states. If the two states were on friendly terms, they would likely have worked in many ways as a single federation. In that federation, Arabs would have had a strong majority.
Instead of accepting that gift of a plan when we still could, we Arabs decided that we could not accept a Jewish state, period. In May 1948, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, "This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." We initiated a war intended to eradicate the new state in its infancy, but we lost, and the result of our mistake was a much stronger Jewish state:

  • The Jewish majority of the Jewish state grew dramatically due to the exchange of populations that occurred, with many Arabs fleeing the war in Israel and many Jews fleeing a hostile Arab world to join the new state.
  • The Jews acquired additional land during the war we launched, resulting in armistice lines (today called the green lines or pre-1967 lines), which gave Israel a portion of the land previously allocated to the Arab state. The Jewish state also acquired much better contiguity, while the Arab portions became divided into two parts (Gaza and the West Bank) separated by almost 50 kilometers.
Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.

More Wars and More Mistakes

After the War of Independence (the name that the Jews give to the war of 1947/1948), Israel was for all practical purposes confined to the land within the green lines. Israel had no authority or claim over Gaza and the West Bank. We Arabs had two options if we had chosen to make peace with Israel at that time:

  • We could have incorporated Gaza into Egypt, and the West Bank into Jordan, providing the Palestinians with citizenship in one of two relatively strong Arab countries, both numerically and geographically stronger than Israel.
  • We could have created a new state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Instead, we chose to continue the hostilities with Israel. In the spring of 1967, we formed a coalition to attack Israel. On May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated, "The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." On May 27, 1967, Egypt's President Abdul Nasser declared, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel". In June, it took Israel only six days to defeat us and humiliate us in front of the world. In that war, we lost much more land, including Gaza and the West Bank.

After the war of 1967 (which Jews call the Six-Day War), Israel offered us land for peace, thereby offering us a chance to recover from the mistake of the Six-Day War. We responded with the Khartoum Resolutions, stating, "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel".

Not having learned from 1967, we formed yet another coalition in October 1973 and tried again to destroy Israel. We achieved some gains, but then the tide turned and we lost again. After this third humiliating defeat, our coalition against Israel broke up, and Egypt and Jordan even decided to make peace with Israel.

The rest of us remained stubbornly opposed to Israel's very existence, even Syria which, like Egypt and Jordan, had lost land to Israel during the Six-Day War. Today Israel still holds that territory, and there is no real prospect for that land ever going back to Syria; Israel's Prime Minister recently declared that, "Israel will never leave the Golan Heights".

The Tragedy of the Palestinians

The most reprehensible and the most tragic of our mistakes is the way that we Arabs have treated Palestinians since Israel's declaration of independence.

The Jews of Israel welcomed Jewish refugeesfrom Arab and other Muslim lands into the Israeli fold, regardless of the cost or the difficulty in integrating people with very different backgrounds. Israel eagerly integrated refugees from far-away lands, including Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Brazil, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia. By doing so, they demonstrated the powerful bond that binds Jews to each other. At the same time, we had the opportunity similarly to show the bond that binds Arabs together, but instead of welcoming Arab refugees from the 1947/48 war, we confined them to camps with severe restrictions on their daily lives.

In Lebanon, as reported by Amnesty International, "Palestinians continue to suffer discrimination and marginalization in the labor market which contribute to high levels of unemployment, low wages and poor working conditions. While the Lebanese authorities recently lifted a ban on 50 of the 70 jobs restricted to them, Palestinians continue to face obstacles in actually finding employment in them. The lack of adequate employment prospects leads a high drop-out rate for Palestinian schoolchildren who also have limited access to public secondary education. The resultant poverty is exacerbated by restrictions placed on their access to social services".

Yet, Lebanon and Syria could not integrate refugees that previously lived a few kilometers away from the country's borders and who shared with the country's people almost identical cultures, languages, and religions. Jordan integrated some refugees but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity. Shamefully to us, seven decades after the Palestinian refugees fled Israel, their descendants are still considered refugees.

The worst part of the way we have treated Palestinian refugees is that even within the West Bank and Gaza, there remains to this day a distinction between Palestinian refugees and native Palestinians. In those lands, according to the year 2010 numbers provided by Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet at McGill University, 37% of Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza live in camps! Gaza has eight Palestinian refugee camps, and the West bank has nineteen. The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are. Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas claims a state on those lands, but we can hardly expect him to be taken seriously when he leaves the Palestinian refugees under his authority in camps and cannot even integrate them with other Palestinians. The ridiculousness of the situation is rivaled only by its callousness.

Where We Are Now

Because of our own mistakes, our relationship with Israel today is a failure. The only strength in our economies is oil, a perishable resource and, with fracking, diminishing in value. We have not done nearly enough to prepare for the future when we will need inventiveness and productivity. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, "Although Arab governments have long recognized the need to shift away from an excessive dependence on hydrocarbons, they have had little success in doing so. ... Even the United Arab Emirates' economy, one of the most diversified in the Gulf, is highly dependent on oil exports".

Business Insider rated Israel in 2015 as the world's third most innovative country. Countries from all over the world take advantage of Israel's creativity, including countries as remote and as advanced as Japan. Yet we snub Israel, an innovation powerhouse that happens to be at our borders.

We also fail to take advantage of Israel's military genius to help us fight new and devastating enemies such as ISIS.

Worst of all, one of our own people, the Palestinians, are dispersed -- divided, disillusioned, and utterly incapable of reviving the national project that we kidnapped from under their feet in 1948 and that we have since disfigured beyond recognition.

To say that we must change our approach towards Israel is an understatement. There are fundamental changes that we ourselves must make, and we must find the courage and moral fortitude to make them.

The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8388/arabs-israel-historic-mistakes

The bullets at the start of the OP are bang on. They're what I've been preaching in here all along.
 
Why should the Israelis be allowed to continue occupying the way they do? Its basically modern imperialism. Give the Palestinians their state or don't and just annex the territories into Israel. They could also negotiate something in between like a permanent settlement for autonomy like in Aceh Indonesia or like what the Kurds have been agitating for.

But they don't, they continue their project of colonialism and apartheid.

Do you think this hasn't been attempted (many times over in fact)?
 
They have already given up on that crusade, though their demands tell me they still don't fully understand their position.







Notice how after all these years, the Arabs League isn't even sincere enough to offer a formal apology, much less reparation, for all the pointless wars they waged in a futile attempt to wipe Israel from the map, and now they're dangle their "normal relations" offer as if it's some kind of sought-after prize.

Why should Israel give up all the territories they gained after kicking the Arabs' ass and get virtually nothing in return besides their recognition, something that, quite frankly, Israel no longer give a shit about?

In order to negotiate, you gotta have something that the other side actually want or need. Quite frankly, I don't think the Arabs quite understand that they've brought absolutely nothing to the table.

Israeli position is not as strong as you think it requires continous US support to be held up.

Any political wind of change could easily turn the tide against the Israelis and be left with their pants down due to the mess they have created with these settlements.

Sure muslims are way behind technologically, but Muslims are 1.6 billion people, they do have a lot of leverage.
 
They have already given up on that crusade, though their demands tell me they still don't fully understand their position.







Notice how after all these years, the Arabs League isn't even sincere enough to offer a formal apology, much less reparation, for all the pointless wars they waged in a futile attempt to wipe Israel from the map, and now they're dangle their "normal relations" offer as if it's some kind of sought-after prize.

Why should Israel give up all the territories they gained after kicking the Arabs' ass and get virtually nothing in return besides their recognition, something that, quite frankly, Israel no longer give a shit about?

In order to negotiate, you gotta have something that the other side actually want or need. Quite frankly, I don't think the Arabs quite understand that they've brought absolutely nothing to the table.

Bingo.

I'm impressed with this thread and your opinions. Bravo.
 
Why should the Israelis be allowed to continue occupying the way they do? Its basically modern imperialism. Give the Palestinians their state or don't and just annex the territories into Israel. They could also negotiate something in between like a permanent settlement for autonomy like in Aceh Indonesia or like what the Kurds have been agitating for.

But they don't, they continue their project of colonialism and apartheid.


I say give the Palestinians their state the moment the Arabs recognize Israel as a state.

Then, the moment one of the fanatical political/spiritual entities that start lobbing their shit into Israel, Israel can finally take the kid gloves off and " Occupy " the rest of the region...along with any of the Arab neighbors that decide to jump in.
But, let's be honest here, the most oppressive States the " Palestinians " ever had to deal with happen to be their theological brothers and sisters that happen to surround them. The same ones that have been using them as pawns for the past 100 or so years.
 
Do you think this hasn't been attempted (many times over in fact)?
Where did I say it hasn't? I simply said that the status quo isn't something that should be tolerated. In fact the continued settlements will make any future attempts at peace even more difficult.
 
Why should the Israelis be allowed to continue occupying the way they do? Its basically modern imperialism. Give the Palestinians their state or don't and just annex the territories into Israel. They could also negotiate something in between like a permanent settlement for autonomy like in Aceh Indonesia or like what the Kurds have been agitating for.

But they don't, they continue their project of colonialism and apartheid.

The entire Arabs-Israelis episode is modern-day imperialism.

I completely agree with the Two-State system from the very beginning. The Israelis agreed to it. The Arabs rejected it and chose war instead.

The Arabs initiated the conquest, the Palestinians cheered on the Arabs' invasion, the Israelis won, and now they're struggling with the consequences. Not just the Palestinian territories were lost, but the Arabs lost strategic land like the Golan Heights as well.

That is the fundamental cost of starting wars and get your ass beat.

The U.N sat on their hand and watch the fighting while doing nothing, and then whine about the end result.

The table has now flipped, and going back to the original partition plan makes no sense to the Israelis, when those who attacked them and lost are now making demand for a do-over. The Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while offering NOTHING of intrinsic value in return. That is not how you begin a negotiation in earnest.

During the Camp David Summit back in 2000, my opinion was that the Palestinians should forget about the Arabs League snakes and strike a Two-State deal with the Israelis as soon as possible and keep whatever land they still have, because if this bad joke continue to drags on, they're just going to lose more and more every single day.

16 years later, that opinion hasn't change.
 
Last edited:
What do you guys think about the Arabs League's insistent that everybody should go back to the original U.N partition plan of 1947, the same plan that they literally waged multiple wars to reject and subsequently lost?

Personally, I think it's rather strange that the E.U and U.N keep insisting that Israel should dismantle the settlements and return the land they "illegally occupy" after twarting the Arabs' multiple attemps for "Jews extermination". Wouldn't those gained territories fall under the Rights of Conquest?

I imagine the rhetorics today would be very, very different had Israel lost against the Arabs invasions.

I think those are fair questions and I also think it's a decent article. I would want to do a lot of fact checking on it because it's certainly one sided / although I certainly subscribe to the view that Arab governemts screwed the pooch here.

However it's missing a central question for Israel and the OTs. What are they going to do with them?

Keep them? Yes or no?

If they keep them, will they allow the inhabitants there to vote like other Arab citizens of Israel? Yes or no?

The answers to these questions have important ramifications for whether Israel will stay Jewish and/or stay a true democracy. Continued occupation without resolution will play into the Arab propaganda.

This thread won't be any fun without kippy :)
 
The entire Arabs-Israelis episode is modern-day imperialism.

The Arabs initiated the conquest, the Palestinians cheered on the Arabs' invasion, the Israelis won, and now they're struggling with the consequences. Not just the Palestinian territories were lost, but the Arabs lost strategic land like the Golan Heights as well.

The U.N sat on their hand and watch it happen while doing nothing, and then whine about the end result.

I completely agree with the Two-State system from the very beginning. The Israelis agreed to it. The Arabs rejected it and chose war instead.

The table has now flipped, and going back to the original partition plan makes no sense to the Israelis, when those who attacked them and lost are now making demand for a do-over. The Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while offering NOTHING of intrinsic value in return. That is not how you begin a negotiation in earnest.

During the Camp David Summit back in 2000, my opinion was that the Palestinians should forget about the Arabs League snakes and strike a Two-State deal with the Israelis as soon as possible and keep whatever land they still have, because otherwise they're just going to lose more and more every single day.

16 years later, that opinion hasn't change.
So basically they should be allowed to continue to take land because the Palestinians can't offer anything in return? How can they though, they have nothing at this point besides the remaining land, which is slowly being taken via illegal settlements.

Besides, from what I've seen most partition plans nowadays are about going back to the 1967 borders, not 1947.
 
thanks to hard earned American tax dollars.

That is not true, at least historically. America was not supporting Israel when it was founded or in the six day war. It was not until Egypt started get cozy with Russia, and Americans where cheering the David vs Goliath of the 6 day war, that Nixon decided the USA needed Israel as an ally. Of course the USA has thrown a lot of support their way since them, and they have often given the USA a middle finger at the same time, but that's a diff story.
 
That is not true, at least historically. America was not supporting Israel when it was founded or in the six day war. It was not until Egypt started get cozy with Russia, and Americans where cheering the David vs Goliath of the 6 day war, that Nixon decided the USA needed Israel as an ally. Of course the USA has thrown a lot of support their way since them, and they have often given the USA a middle finger at the same time, but that's a diff story.


no doubt, I was referring to this part of the quoted text

"Arab states should fully give up any notion of Israel going away. It's just not going to happen."
 
That is not true, at least historically. America was not supporting Israel when it was founded or in the six day war. It was not until Egypt started get cozy with Russia, and Americans where cheering the David vs Goliath of the 6 day war, that Nixon decided the USA needed Israel as an ally. Of course the USA has thrown a lot of support their way since them, and they have often given the USA a middle finger at the same time, but that's a diff story.
The British were probably more a key to Israeli success in thsoe cases than the US. Israelis actually stole hardware from the British when the territory was still the mandate of Palestine. But more important many Israelis joined the UK's war effort against the Nazis and returned with modern, high level training and experience in war that formed the basis of the training for the future Israeli. I believe the only Arabs to get comparable training and some experience was the Syrian Legion trained by the French to subdue unruly tribes in that mandate.
 
I've always wondered if you guys would be saying the same thing if the US provided military or monetary or both to neighboring Muslim states and the palestinians.

If only huh!?

I think the US should either send 100x the amount of money and military help to Israel compared to all it's neighbors combined or not send any help or money to anyone in that region. My preferred option would be the latter.
 
Just to catch up on the thread, what Israel does with the OTs is a question that has to be answered without falling back to pointing out Arab failures in foreign policy.

Sure they have nothing to offer. It's also beside the point. Their propaganda is BS. The question remains, what is Israel going to do with this abortion in the OTs?

Ideally there should be unilateral action from Israel that mimics the general condense on what a peace plan looks like including carve outs and land swaps. The problem is Israeli voters will never go for it, why would they?
 
The British were probably more a key to Israeli success in thsoe cases than the US. Israelis actually stole hardware from the British when the territory was still the mandate of Palestine. But more important many Israelis joined the UK's war effort against the Nazis and returned with modern, high level training and experience in war that formed the basis of the training for the future Israeli. I believe the only Arabs to get comparable training and some experience was the Syrian Legion trained by the French to subdue unruly tribes in that mandate.

Yup and important from a political perspective (Balforth doctrine and all that). It's just this perspective that Israel would not exist without the USA is a bit of myth these days.
 
The entire Arabs-Israelis episode is modern-day imperialism.

I completely agree with the Two-State system from the very beginning. The Israelis agreed to it. The Arabs rejected it and chose war instead.

The Arabs initiated the conquest, the Palestinians cheered on the Arabs' invasion, the Israelis won, and now they're struggling with the consequences. Not just the Palestinian territories were lost, but the Arabs lost strategic land like the Golan Heights as well.

That is the fundamental cost of starting wars and get your ass beat.

The U.N sat on their hand and watch the fighting while doing nothing, and then whine about the end result.

The table has now flipped, and going back to the original partition plan makes no sense to the Israelis, when those who attacked them and lost are now making demand for a do-over. The Arabs want Israel to make all the concessions, while offering NOTHING of intrinsic value in return. That is not how you begin a negotiation in earnest.

During the Camp David Summit back in 2000, my opinion was that the Palestinians should forget about the Arabs League snakes and strike a Two-State deal with the Israelis as soon as possible and keep whatever land they still have, because if this bad joke continue to drags on, they're just going to lose more and more every single day.

16 years later, that opinion hasn't change.

Bingo. Again. My opinion almost exactly.
 
So basically they should be allowed to continue to take land because the Palestinians can't offer anything in return? How can they though, they have nothing at this point besides the remaining land, which is slowly being taken via illegal settlements.

The Palestinians will continue to lose their land as this bad joke kept dragging on, fundamentaly because the people they voted to be their representative (as well as their neighboring "Arabs brothers" who sees them no more than pawns) kept throwing away every chance to strike a Two-State deal, while insisting on the legendary "pre-1967 borders" that they expressedly and repeatedly rejected for decades and is no longer on the table.

Besides, from what I've seen most partition plans nowadays are about going back to the 1967 borders, not 1947.

"Pre-1967 borders" is an euphemism for ALL the captured territories beyond the 1949 Green Line , before the war-mongering Arabs got besmirched and lost them to little Israel in the Six Days War, circa 1967. This include East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. The U.N consider the Israeli occupation of these captured territories (and all settlements built there after the war) to be illegal.

(The Sinai Peninsula was under Israeli control after the war as well, but they returned it to Egypt in good faith a few years later as part of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979. Egypt ofcourse was admonished by the Arabs League for having the far sight to strike a deal with Israel, but look at who's laughing now.)



The Arabs League's current slogan of "Let's go back to the pre-1967 borders" is a cop-out way to say "We want ALL our former territories back, after we angrily rejecting the U.N's Two-State partition plan and waging (and lost) multiple wars in a futile effort to exterminate your people and still refuses to apologize for it".

Furthermore, in any discussions about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, it's important to address the security issue and the fact that there are currently two competing Palestinian governments after the bloody Battle of Gaza.

israel_map200-87713e92eb62f87952667cc4a5d4dccf52899250-s300-c85.jpg


The Gaza Strip is currently controlled by Hamas, heavily-armed fanatic Islamic militants who still call for the destruction of Israel and rejects any Two-State peace talks conducted by the Fatah-led Palestine Authority who controls the West Bank.


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas faults Arab refusal of 1947 U.N. Palestine plan
By Dan Williams | JERUSALEM
Oct 28, 2011

r


(Reuters) - Arabs made a "mistake" by rejecting a 1947 U.N. proposal that would have created a Palestinian state alongside the nascent Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview aired on Friday.

Palestinian leaders have always insisted that General Assembly Resolution 181, which paved the way for Jewish statehood in parts of then British-ruled Palestine, must be resisted by Arabs who went to war over it.

Decades of regional fighting have hinged on challenges to Israel's existence and expansion. By describing historical fault on the Arab side, Abbas appeared to be offering Israel an olive branch while promoting his own bid to sidestep stalled peace talks by winning U.N. recognition for a sovereign Palestine.

"At that time, 1947, there was Resolution 181, the partition plan, Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished. Why?" he told Israel's top-rated Channel Two television, speaking in English.

When the interviewer suggested the reason was Jewish leaders' acceptance of the plan and its rejection by the Arabs, Abbas said: "I know, I know. It was our mistake. It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake (for) 64 years?"

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has blamed the Palestinians for the diplomatic deadlock, citing what he described as a refusal by Abbas to recognise the roots of the conflict and encourage his people to accept the Jewish state.

Netanyahu's office declined immediate comment on Abbas's remarks, which Channel Two broadcast over the Jewish Sabbath.

Abbas, whose U.N. manoeuvring is opposed by Israel and the United States, says the problem is the Netanyahu government's continued settlement of the West Bank, where, along with the Gaza Strip, Palestinians now seek a state. Israel occupied those territories in the 1967 war and withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

U.N. solemnisation of their independence would help Palestinians pursue negotiations with Israel, which in turn could produce an "extra agreement that we put an end to the conflict," Abbas told Channel Two.


His language raised the hackles of his Islamist Hamas rivals, who control Gaza and with whom Abbas is trying to consolidate an Egyptian-brokered power-sharing accord.

Hamas opposes permanent coexistence with the Jewish state and has drawn core support from Palestinians dispossessed in the 1947-1948 war, when Israel overran Arab forces to take territory beyond that allotted it by Resolution 181.

"No one is authorised to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and no one is authorised to wipe out any of the historical rights of our people," said Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

"There is no need for Abu Mazen (Abbas) to beg the Occupation," Barhoum said, using a Hamas term for Israel.

Alluding to political turmoil which, in U.S.-aligned countries such as Egypt and Jordan, has emboldened popular hostility to Israel, Barhoum said Abbas "should arm himself with the emerging Arab support."

Asked on Channel Two how he could bring Hamas to agree to peacemaking, Abbas, himself a refugee from a town now in northern Israel, said: "Leave it to us, and we will solve it."

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKTRE79R66U20111028
Hamas targets Israeli-Palestinian talks by killing four Israelis
By Joshua Mitnick

0831-wires-hamas.jpg

Hamas supporters celebrate the shooting attack in the West Bank, in Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, on Aug. 31.

As Middle Eastern leaders gathered in Washington to inaugurate a new round of Israeli-Palestinian talks, Hamas gunmen killed four Israeli settlers in their car outside the West Bank city of Hebron.

The attack appeared to be an attempt to spark violence that could undermine the peace negotiations and was a stark reminder that the Islamist Hamas movement remains an important force in Palestinian politics, no matter how much either the Israelis or the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas wish they would go away.

The attack came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas had departed the region for the US talks.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah are also participating in the summit, which begins Wednesday night with a dinner hosted by President Obama.

Hamas takes responsibility

The shooting took place near the entrance of the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba, which neighbors Hebron. According to the Haaretz news outlet, those killed – four adults, including a pregnant woman – were from Kiryat Arba and the nearby settlement of Beit Haggai.

Hebron, a longtime flashpoint because it's home to a shrine holy to Jews and Muslims, is known as a relatively poor and conservative city where militant Hamas cells are believed to operate.

The Islamist Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, has repeatedly condemned the US-backed Palestinian Authority for agreeing to talks – calling instead to renew an armed uprising against Israel. Hamas claimed responsibility and heralded Tuesday's shooting, the first fatal attack on an Israeli in the West Bank since a police officer was killed in June.

Attack on the peace talks

State Department Spokesman PJ Crowleyspeculated the attack was aimed at the peace talks, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Militants have timed attacks to coincide with peace summits in the past such as a terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv in February 2005, three weeks after a summit of Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Israeli hard-liners said the attack was evidence that a peace deal is unrealistic and called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to boycott the summit. Education Minister Gideon Saar, a Netanyahu backer, said to abandon talks would be tantamount to rewarding the attacks, according to Haaretz.

Palestinian Authority media director Ghassan Khatib says Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is planning to issue a condemnation Tuesday night.

"I hope that the three parties involved make sure that they don't play into the hands of the attackers," he says. "The attack and its timing aims at sabotaging the peace process so the response should be to redouble efforts."

http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Middle...li-Palestinian-talks-by-killing-four-Israelis
 
Last edited:
no doubt, I was referring to this part of the quoted text

"Arab states should fully give up any notion of Israel going away. It's just not going to happen."

Fair enough. I am of the opinion that Israel could still go it without those dollars. It would be difficult, but I think the political cover the west provides is actually more valuable, as well as the huge divisions in the ME states on the ground.
 
US abstains as UN demands end to Israeli settlements
By Stephen Collinson, David Wright and Elise Labott, CNN
December 24, 2016​

The United States on Friday allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in alliance with President-elect Donald Trump.

The Security Council approved the resolution with 14 votes, with the US abstaining. There was applause in the chamber following the vote, which represented perhaps the final bitter chapter in the years of antagonism between President Barack Obama's administration and Netanyahu's government.

In an intense flurry of diplomacy that unfolded in the two days before the vote, a senior Israeli official had accused the United States of abandoning the Jewish state with its refusal to block the resolution with a veto.

Trump had also inserted himself in the diplomatic drama, in defiance of the convention that the United States has only one president at a time, by calling on the Obama administration to wield its Security Council veto.

Israel's UN ambassador, Danny Danon, reacted angrily to the vote and issued a sharp parting shot at the Obama administration's role.

"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution. I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel," he said.

In a statement, Netanyahu's office accused the Obama administration of "colluding" with the UN and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as Israel-friendly members of Congress, "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution."

The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, raised her hand to abstain in the chamber when the resolution was put to a vote.

Power argued after the vote that opposing settlement expansion was consistent with the bipartisan consensus accepted by every single US president of both parties since Ronald Reagan, in comments that could be seen as a criticism of Trump's position.

"This resolution reflects trends that will permanent destroy the two state solution if they continue on their current course," Power said in a speech before the chamber.

"Our vote today does not in any way diminish the United States' steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel," Power said.

The Palestinians were delighted by their rare diplomatic coup.

"This is a victory for the people and for the cause, and it opens doors wide for the demand of sanctions on settlements," said Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian leader.

"This is a bias towards justice and international law."

But Trump -- who has vowed to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has nominated an ambassador in David Friedman who is supportive of settlers -- pledged that the Palestinians would no longer have a platform at the UN when he is inaugurated next month.
"As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," Trump wrote on Twitter.

The United States and most other nations consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as an obstacle to the hopes of a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Obama administration, which mounted two failed efforts to broker Middle East peace, became increasingly angry about continued Israeli settlement expansion over its eight years in the White House. The Palestinians accuse Israel of trying to establish facts on the ground by building on land they view as part of their future state.

"Today, the United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every US administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians," Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement, adding that the US does not "agree with every aspect" of the resolution.

He added: "We cannot in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace."

'Secretly cooked up'

Hours before the UN Security Council vote, the Israelis made clear their intense disappointment with the US over the resolution, which calls on Israel to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."

"President Obama and Secretary Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the UN," a senior Israeli official told CNN.

"The US administration secretly cooked up with the Palestinians an extreme anti-Israeli resolution behind Israel's back which would be a tailwind for terror and boycotts and effectively make the Western Wall occupied Palestinian territory," a senior Israeli official said.

Before the vote, a Palestinian official said, "We have nothing to say about this. No President has troubled Palestinians in the UN more than President Obama."

The New York Times reported this week that Obama's advisers did not disclose a position on how the US would vote and were holding out until the vote to see how the matter developed. Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security advisor, told reporters Friday that he wasn't sure if Obama and Trump had spoken about this issue and added he was not aware of any particular conversation.

Rhodes said Obama made the decision this morning, adding that "there's one president at a time."

US and Palestinian officials denied the Israeli accusation of colluding on the UN vote. The resolution was originally put forward by Egypt but it was withdrawn under pressure from the Israelis. Four countries, New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal, brought it up again for a vote on Friday.

A senior Obama administration official said, "To be clear: from the start, this was an Egyptian resolution. The Egyptians authored it, circulated it, and submitted it for a vote on Wednesday evening before asking for a delay and subsequently removing their sponsorship.

"Contrary to some claims, the administration was not involved in formulating the resolution nor have we promoted it."

A senior Palestinian official told CNN they were not informed how the US would handle the Security Council vote when a delegation was in town earlier this month to urge the administration to support it. The Palestinian official said they did not know how the US would vote and called the Israeli allegation "totally untrue."

Two senior US officials involved in this process vehemently also denied the Israel accusation and also said that the US itself didn't really know how it was going to vote until Thursday morning. The official said Kerry himself was surprised that the Egyptians put the resolution forward so quickly. He was left scrambling to finish his speech and then left scrambling again when the Egyptians delayed the vote on Thursday.

"A veto means support of settlement activities," Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said after the resolution was pulled, according to the Times. "A veto means abandoning the two-state solution and peace efforts."

The UN resolution -- which calls on Israel calls on Israel to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" -- was delayed by Egypt after Israeli pressure.

Raises tensions

The resolution exacerbated divisions between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump administration.

The Obama administration had been weighing whether to support the UN measure or abstain from voting, which would have been a break from the US's traditional practice of shielding Israel at the UN and other international organizations.

The Obama administration has grown increasingly frustrated by Israeli settlement construction and it has repeatedly warned it could foreclose the possibility of a two-state solution with the Palestinian people. The admission of an internal debate about the UN resolution illustrated how unhappy the administration is with the Israeli government.

Israel -- concerned by the outgoing administration's ambivalence -- reached out to Trump for support. An Israeli official told CNN that his country approached the Trump team after it felt that it had failed to persuade the Obama administration to veto the planned vote.

The official said that Israel "implored the White House not to go ahead and told them that if they did, we would have no choice but to reach out to President-elect Trump."

Trump subsequently put out a statement opposing the resolution.

"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations," Trump said. "This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis."

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi also spoke with Trump by phone about the UN Security Council vote, according to a diplomatic source familiar with the call and an aide Trump. The call was first reported by Reuters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/israel-official-rips-obama-un-settlements/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top