My IPS analysis on the Lieberman bombshell
Posted by Helena Cobban
April 3, 2009 2:07 PM EST | Link
Filed in Palestine 2009 , Writing and publishing
On a related note, we have this from the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Information center:
- Dr. Salah Al-Bardaweel, the spokesman of Hamas's parliamentary bloc in the PLC, reacted to the statements of the new Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, who publicly disavowed the Annapolis understandings, saying, "We [in Hamas] weren’t surprised by Lieberman's statements; however, we consider that such thing should push Fatah faction to review all the feeble agreements it had signed with the Israeli occupation government without bringing any good to the Palestinian people".
Hamas and the democratically elected PA government have opposed the Annapolis conference from the first moment, and considered it as a "waste of time", and a stab in the back of the Palestinian resistance, he underscored.
"Today, the moment of truth came, and thus, we need a serious and national stand [from Fatah faction] by halting all forms of security coordination with the Israeli occupation, and to reject all security agreements that tore the unity of our Palestinian people", Bardaweel emphasized.
On Wednesday, Lieberman underlined that his government won't be bound by the obligations of the Annapolis conference because it wasn’t ratified by any Israeli cabinet.
http://www.fafo.no/ais/middeast/opt/opinionpolls/poll2009.html
An FAFO poll says majority of Palestinians oppose, only a third support, a two-state solution.
Menachem Klein is correct that there is a de-facto, though unacceptable to most, one-state arrangement right now.
It is time to begin discussing what type of egalitarian one-state solution we should support.
مجيء حكومة يمينية ومتطرفة في إسرائيل لايغير في الواقع شيئاً لأن يمينهم كيسارهم كوسطهم
وقال الرئيس الأسد والأساس في أي حديث عن موضوع السلام هو أن لا نربط بين توجهاتنا العامة تجاه السلام وبين التغيرات داخل إسرائيل فتوجهاتنا تعكس حقوقنا ومصالحنا الثابتة ويجب ألا تتبدل مع التبدلات في إسرائيل وإلا فإن الإسرائيليين سيفرضون علينا ظروفهم الدائمة التغير.. بدلاً من أن نفرض عليهم ثبات موقفنا تجاه قضايانا وحقوقنا إذ ان ما يتغير في إسرائيل هو المظهر فقط أما المضمون فهو نفسه دائماً لذلك ينشغل البعض بتغير مظهرهم ويغفل عن ثبات حقيقتهم التي هي ضد السلام ومعنى ذلك ألا نجعل من السلام رهينة التبدلات في إسرائيل فمجيء حكومة يمينية ومتطرفة لا يغير في الواقع شيئاً لأن يمينهم كيسارهم كوسطهم جميعهم يتنافسون على أراضي العرب وأرواحهم ودمائهم وجميعهم يعكس حقيقة أن المجتمع الإسرائيلي غير مهيأ للسلام وهو لم يكن مهيأ من قبل ولكن حالته تسوء يوماً بعد يوم وعلينا توقع مجيء حكومات أكثر رفضاً للسلام مع مرور الوقت.. يتم اختيارها من قبل مجتمع يزداد تطرفاً وميلاً للعدوان.
On the peace in light of an Israeli right extremist government, President al-Assad said "for us, all governments are rightists because the former government launched wars on Lebanon and Gaza and launched aggression on Syria, all in Israel are similar…. So, as Arabs, we have to put decisive bases regardless of the other side."President al-Assad in a speech to Qatari al-Sharq newspaper
An FAFO poll says majority of Palestinians oppose, only a third support, a two-state solution.
Actually 35%, a plurality among the options presented (two of which were variations on "one state" which might more reflect the mindset of the pollsters.)
Only 20% hope for "a one state solution with equal rights for all," making your "egalitarian one-state solution" even less likely.
vadim,
Did you work according to polls of the other side and by supporting and justifying the denial of two state solution or you really think of peaceful solutions for 60 years of war?
what else in your view will be the solution for this case between Israelis and Arab on the same land then?
Could you Please stated freely and clearly here to us.
There are only a limited number of options for the future of Israel as things now stand. N (not Noah) says that the Palestinians can't be trusted to carry out any agreement, so that eliminates an agreed two state solution. That leaves 3 choices. 1. A democratic regime in de facto Israel - that will end the Jewish state. 2. An continuation of the apartheid regime in de facto Israel - that will end the democratic state. 3. Ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from de facto Israel - ? Can anyone come up with any other ideas? Can you vote for your favorite option?
It is most amusing for N. (not Noah, despite the fact that Joshua seems to know him as Noah, and not Nancy either) to claim that the Palestinians can't be trusted to carry out any agreement given Israel's very well documented history of ignoring its own agreements from its agreement to abide by the UN Charter, to its agreement to the Geneva Conventions to its agreement to UNSC 242, to nearly every ceasefire it has agreed to. The Palestinians have, in fact, a far better record of carrying out their agreements than Israel has of carrying out its agreements.
But since when have facts and reality ever meant anything to the likes of N (not Noah, despite the fact that Joshua seems to know him as Noah, and not Nancy either).
Salah,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I prefer only what majorities of both countries can live with through negotation and compromise, which at the moment seems to be two states.
Given the way the question was phrased, I don't think Arnold's FAFO poll shows a clear preference among Palestinians for one or two states. Whereas those hoping for an "egalitarian one-state solution" such as Arnold describes are a clear minority according to this and most every other poll.
Very few Palestinians and Israelis seem to want this outcome (a single state) no matter how fair it appears to Arnold, whoever designed that poll, and the many people on this board who think less of Palestinian and Israeli opinion than their own.
N (not Noah) says that the Palestinians can't be trusted to carry out any agreement....since when have facts and reality ever meant anything to the likes of N
N. hasn't commented here so why are you baiting him? Quit wasting Helena's bandwidth with this inane bickering.
Jack - and others:
1. A democratic regime in de facto Israel - that will end the Jewish state.
2. An continuation of the apartheid regime in de facto Israel - that will end the democratic state.
3. Ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from de facto Israel - ?
Number 3 is the most likely outcome.
Sure, Jack. I can think of a fourth option. It's one that was discussed during Helena's visit here and, had she understood Hebrew, perhaps she would have reported on it.
This option calls for an independent Palestinian state (or states) in confederation with neighboring Arab states. For example, an independent West Bank in confederation with Jordan, particularly for common economic, defense and trade issues. Perhaps when all sides can trust each other, the federation could be expanded to include Israel.
As it stands, a single-binational state is simply a hollow threat that's being used to gain leverage in negotiations.
N., JES,
Should Hamas accept the road map, it would result in the end of the "Palestinian violence".
Excuse me? Where is it stated, in the document, that Israel should end the violence? From the very beginning, the obligations upon the two parties are biased.
On the other hand, Israel signed the roadmap but has not acted abindingly. It should have freeze the settlement expansion. It has exactly done the contrary. Maybe, because of security reasons?
No more Israbluff, we were told.
Personally, Shirin (not Sherry), I would like to see you present some of those "facts".
vadim,
Thank you for your thoughts,
But we still see a lot of troubles made by Israelis from time to time not bring both sides together.
In saying that I don't accusing Israelis alone, both side share this, but as Israeli is the major and a stronger partner in all this case they should be more concerned and responsible when it comes to peace and solving the conflicts here.
Despite Israeli have suffered for 60 years of wars, which most of them done by her against her neighbors but the suffering of a complete Palestinian’s nation and other Arab countries surrounding Israeli is big and huge in matter of resources and humans sadly can’t be recovered.
In today world with all the surrounding environments Israeli looking more distasting themselves from peace with her neighbors, one example is King Abdullah peace offer in 2002 which is refused by Israelis before they looked to it, you may say its not what Israelis looking for and had some points or issues fare to be accepted, but let be real here the offer is first ever presented by Arab and agreed by Arab Leagues which is step forward, looks helpful to negotiate it and reach to main aground for agreement then the differences should be solved one by one.
Now new Israeli government with very official minister telling that his country have nothing to do with all peace talk with Arabs, here the questions rise which many Israelis and pro-Israelis talking about it that Hamas was appose to Oslo talks, here we got same by new Israeli, isn’t vadim?
Too old to call?