Are Israeli-Palestinian Peace Prospects DOA?
By Steven Osborne | Sunday, June 12th, 2011 | International, PolicyIs the Israeli-Palestinian peace process dead?
That is the conclusion that conservative columnist Clifford May has come to in a recent article on the National Review website. While much of the world is focused on the “Arab Spring” and the incidents on the border between Israel and Syria, the Palestinians are engaged in an aggressive bid for unilateral recognition from the United Nations. Because, the current Palestinian government consists of Hamas and Fatah, both of which refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the result of creating a Palestinian state in the current world climate would likely result in war; not peace.
In an attempt to build momentum for unilateral recognition, the Palestinians and their allies heavily courted nations in South and Latin America. They were likely encouraged by the anti-Semitism demonstrated by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, as well as the unfettered activities that Hezbollah has been allowed to engage in within some of these South American nations. However, the Israelis have responded by sending Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to Latin America on a diplomatic mission which appears to have been somewhat successful.
Interestingly, when asked about a threat by the Palestinian Authority to demand that the UN set future boundaries to the 1947 partition plan, Ayalon responded that while Israel did not take this threat seriously, if the Palestinians made such a move then Israel would respond by demanding lines drawn in 1922 which would put all of the West Bank within Israel. As long as the Palestinian government insists on the absurd notion that Jews are “occupiers” of Judea and Samaria, any Palestinian state created alongside Israel will increase the likelihood that war will break out. Yasser Arafat, the now deceased jihadist, who used to lead the Palestinians, once articulated a strategy for eliminating Israel which involved Palestine attaining a certain amount of territory west of the Jordan River, which would serve as a sort of foothold to eventually conquer the Jewish state. With intentions such as these underlying both Hamas and Fatah, it is not sensible to assume that peace can be achieved.
In addition, if an independent Palestinian state were established at this time it is highly unlikely that they would be self sustaining. As is usually the case, the United States will most likely be asked to increase foreign aid. This is something that we can ill afford to do.
Creating a Palestinian state could spark a humanitarian crisis and would almost certainly launch a war-like entity bent on destroying its neighbor. Because of this; unilateral recognition of the Palestinians as a state, could cause any peace attempts to be dead on arrival.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
9 Responses to "Are Israeli-Palestinian Peace Prospects DOA?"
Whether or not the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, any attempt at peace is DOA. I think the UN should show its committment to peace in Israel/Palestine by moving to Jerusalem.
Please understand that my point of view is not as one sided as it might appear to be in the following:
Palestinians are forced to seek a state from the United Nations out of desperation. With no progress on a peace deal, they are forced to sit back and watch the land that is supposed to comprise their new nation being slowly gobbled up by Israeli settlements.
The status quo is unsustainable. The Israeli settlements have been allowed to expand before, during and after every failed peace initiative. (That last sentence might not be 100% true, but I will claim 99% as the accuracy level.)
Israeli hardliners should not receive the reward of being allowed to continue to expand the settlements upon failure of peace initiatives. By dangling this carrot in front of them, we are motivating them to do everything within their power to ensure failure.
Settlement expansion should stop, and once this happens, I could understand why it might be necessary for the occupation to continue since a peace agreement does not appear visible on the horizon. However, if the settlement expansion were to stop, then a peace agreement does not appear anywhere near as impossible as it does presently.
Little David,
I am not going to suggest that you are one sided, however, consider the perspective of an Israeli settler.
Perhaps the settler’s parents or grandparents made aliyah to Israel; perhaps they did themselves. They are setting down roots in Judea or Samaria, which history, the early 20th century mandates, and Israel’s victory over the Jordanians and Egyptians in the mid-20th century all confirm their right to settle.
Yet they are being asked to pack up and leave, what, for some of them, has been their life-long home…because a beaureucrat at the UN tells them to.
No, the Jewish settlements are not the problem. I do not hear about Jewish settlers blowing themselves up in Palestinian neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, Arabs do live in Israel and have the full rights accorded to Jewish Israeli citizens.
The land in Judea and Samaria that the Palestinians want as a state is Israel’s to give. If the Palestinians will not lay down their arms and live in peace, then perhaps Israel should just take all of Judea and Samaria and let Jordan and Egypt give land for a Palestinian state. That would seem to be the better solution at this juncture.
Steven,
I guess then what we are supposed to do is pack the more then 4 million Palestinians into boxcars and ship them off to Egypt and Jordan then? Is that the better solution you proffer at this juncture?
No, not at all.
The solution would be for the Palestinians to live side by side with the Jewish settlers in peace. Potentially, they could apply for, though not demand, citizenship in Israel. Even if not given citizenship they could be citizens of Jordan or Egypt and simply live in Israel under a visa system, similar to what some immigrants do here in the US.
Many Palestinians have tried to move to neighboring Arab states and have been denied entry. The powers at be within the Islamist movement simply could not allow the situation to dissipate, they couldn’t exploit the Arabs in “Palestine” if those Arabs did not live there.
I have not been hearing the Jews en masse calling for a mass deportation of Palestinians.
Question: Should peaceful settlers be forcefully removed from the settlements?
Little David,
Rest assured, your post is as “one sided as it might appear”.
Steven,
Allowing Palestinians already living in the West Bank citizenship (as well as possibly those who desired the same from amongst those refugees living elsewhere) would be a demographic problem for Israel. I think the population of Palestinians in the West Bank can be conservatively estimated as being more then 4 million (some estimates are much higher). The Palestinians have a much higher birth rate then do Jewish Israeli citizens and eventually the status of Israel being a Jewish majority nation would be threatened due to the demographics.
As for no one calling for deportations of Palestinians? Who is currently serving as Israel’s Foreign Minister and what has he very publicly called for? I have heard claims that during his youth, Foreign Minister Lieberman was a member of the Kach Party. It is a sign of just how hard line Netanyahu’s governing coalition is that he had to appoint Lieberman to the Foreign Minister position in order to get Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party into the coalition.
Little David,
I believe that I said Jews “en masse.”
You are correct that it might raise demographic issues, this would especially be true if the Palestinians were to “demand” citizenship in Israel. This tactic has been used by Islamists before, essentially mass migrate a population of people into a neighboring non-Muslim area until that area becomes Muslim by default. Israel will not allow that to happen, nor should they be expected to. The bottom line still remains, that many of the average Palestinian refugees would rather become citizens of Jordan or Egypt than to have a separate nation or live free under a Jewish state.
Sadly, many other Palestinians are bent on pushing their Jewish neighbors into the sea, and would never tolerate a Jewish state. If someone immigrated to the United States and actively tried to undermine the security of our nation, we would either incarcerate them or deport them. Israel should not be expected to do anything less.
You have still not answered my question; should the Israeli settlers be forcefully removed from their homes?
I will not deny that many Palestinians really are motivated to try and drive the Jews into the sea and reclaim all of which they consider to be Palestine. Israel would be correct to object to the formation of a nation from occupied territories intent on Israel’s destruction.
However I also object to Israeli hardliners to attempt to prevent the eventual formation of a nation willing to live in peace from the occupied territories. It is my belief that it is the intent of those who push settlement expansion.
I also hold the position that Israel annexing the the West Bank into Ersatz Israel while not allowing those already living there (and what about the refugees?) citizenship would be wrong. Perhaps if that is the majority Israeli position then Jimmy Carter was not that wrong in describing Israel as an Apartheid state?
It is not the occupation that is wrong. What is wrong is Israel violating UN Resolution 242 (which Israel accepted) and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 (which Israel is a signatory to).
Leave your response